Then Solicitor General Elena Kagan filed amicus
support of private prosecution.
-------- Original Message --------
In emails earlier this week I said I remembered
reading about Kagan, when Solicitor General, presented an Amicus
brief in favor of a Private Prosecutor.
I believe that the revival of the Private
Prosecutor is a necessary adjunct to the Citizens Recovery of Our
American Republic by means of the Grand Jury restoring
accountability of public servants, elected, appointed, and
employed, of any of the other three branches of our Governments,
at local, state, or federal levels, to do their duty to the
Citizens, and duty to God and Country.
Therefore this US
USSC case with the question of Private Prosecutor within the past
three years could be instructive.
I often read ScotUS blog, so that may be where
I first saw it. Here is a link...
Kagan did not appear very well prepared for her
presentation before the supreme Court, but who cares, she was
slated for joining the justices by Obama from before that
Would be interested in anyone's assessment of
Kagan's Amicus brief on this private prosecutor case, in case you
want to post it to any online groups for comment:
A reference page with lots of links is at:
Holding: The Court held that it
should not have heard the case in the first place, thereby declining
to decide whether a private party can bring an action for
Judgment: Dismissed as Improvidently Granted in a per curiam
opinion on May 24, 2010. Chief Justice Roberts dissented, joined
by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Sotomayor.
In GW, James
Chief Justice Roberts
then pressed Long on the details of his position, asking what Brady obligations Watson
would have as a private prosecutor. (Under Brady v. Maryland(1963), prosecutors
are required to provide defendants with any exculpatory evidence
in their possession.) Justices Sotomayor and Kennedy joined in
this line of questioning.
as amicus curiae on
behalf of Watson, Solicitor General Elena Kagan staked out a
somewhat different position. General Kagan conceded that
Robertson was "right that in this criminal contempt action,
Ms. Watson . . . was and must have been exercising sovereign
power." She elaborated that, as the government understood
it, Watson "was exercising sovereign power on behalf of the
Article I court, the D.C. court power whose initial source,
original source, is Congress."
Justice Scalia suggested that only the
government has the power to incarcerate people; "courts" do
not. General Kagan accepted that "the court is surely part of
the government, and in the end this is power of the United
States." She went on to suggest that when a U.S. Attorney's
Office signs a plea agreement, it binds only that office"”a
position that Chief Justice Roberts described as "absolutely
Justice Scalia then asked whether, in
order to agree with the government, he had "to accept this
argument that the prosecutor here is an agent just of the
court, just of the D.C. court, not an agent of the
executive?" General Kagan asked, "Who would you like the
person to be an agent of, Justice Scalia?" Chief Justice
Roberts indicated that "[u]sually we have questions the
other way." Justice Scalia doubted whether courts had
"ever asserted that they themselves [as opposed to the
executive or the government as a whole] have the power to
prosecute." General Kagan suggested, however, that Young was
such a case.
Justice Roberts asked whether a Section 1983 action or a Bivens action
could be brought against a private prosecutor who had abused
her office. General Kagan replied that she had not
thought about the question, but that a private prosecutor
certainly had Brady obligations.