Our neighbor vandalized our car. We reported it to the police. We knew nothing more about it until we were asked to submit to the county attorney the bill to have the car’s window replaced. We received reimbursement from our neighbor. We had nothing to do with the charges being filed; the county did all of it because it was a crime. If the police hadn’t been involved we could have filed a civil lawsuit to recover the costs, but that would have been our action because it was not being tried as a crime.
Is that right?”
As far as I know, but I am not a lawyer nor am I well versed in law.
“If I’m understanding correctly, the only way a civilian can initiate a criminal case is if it’s a qui tam case.”
Dunno. At the moment “Qui Tam” appears to be the new “Quo Warranto”. I expect it to be about as successful.
Your biggest hurdle seems to be that you are wanting to go to court with suspicions and have the court root around looking for proof of your suspicions. That's not how it works.
“Whistle blower” cases go forward because the person in question has concrete proof. Not just accusation, innuendo, heresay, rumor or suspicion.
Concrete proof like a certificate number and “date filed” that are incompatible?
Concrete proof like a statutory admission that a BC was amended but a COLB that doesn’t show that amendment as required?
Concrete proof like a state department’s own admission that records required to be permanently retained no longer exist?
Concrete proof like an affidavit saying most of 125 million passport records were destroyed - even though there is no required paper trail in the retention schedule?
You mean that kind of concrete proof?
The fact of the matter is that the process allows “discovery” when valid evidence for wrongdoing exists. There is no such thing as absolute proof, but there is evidence that a situation warrants a closer look, and we have PLENTY of evidence of that.