Why would courts have to investigate identity fraud?
It seems to me everything else has failed.
I am a proud birther, and it would please me immensely if Obama’s eligibility could finally get a thorough and fair hearing.
wintertime said:
Why would courts have to investigate identity fraud?
The complaint would be considered a criminal, not civil one. Using a social security number belonging to someone else can be considered to be identity theft, or tax fraud, depending on the situation. At a minimum, the correct action the court should take is to forward the complaint to the attorney general. This is the investigative action.
The court may also request a grand jury to investigate, even at the Supreme Court level. U.S.C. Title 18, Rule 6 requires a grand jury when public interest warrants it. Tax and identity fraud are both federal offenses resulting in sentencing of no more than 5 years in a federal prison.
One thing to consider about the judicial system is that it has the power to indict
at its discretion. It has the power to recuse itself from prosecuting anyone based on a number of factors:
- Lack of sufficient evidence to convict
- Threat to society is minimized
- Resources of the court insufficient to provide adequate judgment
- Ambiguity in the case prevents a fair trial
- Conflict of interest
In order to protect society, criminals may sometimes go free. The framing fathers were aware the system is not perfect. However, protection against unjust practices by the court for the majority of citizens overshadows the lack of justice in a very small minority of cases that "fall through the cracks".
This concept can be considered confusing to some. However, the current judicial system must prove guilt, as opposed to other nations such as the United Kingdom which is the reverse of this process.
We may never see justice. However, if the court is wise, it would prompt a judicial review to ensure the highest elected official is not committing felonies against the very government he is here to represent.