I understand what you are saying, I think.
But if a prosecutor or plaintiff uses the law to achieve an intentional result, are you arguing they have failed to morally use the tool of law to effect a change or outcome?
I'm saying that if a prosecutor has a personal agenda, then using the law to achieve the outcome that he/she desires is not only morally wrong but also a danger to our civil liberties. The executive branch has a duty to uphold and enforce the law. Justice should be sought without regard to a personal agenda. If the law has been broken, someone should be prosecuted, tried, and sentenced or acquitted.
Now, as to your question regarding a plaintiff ... I will asssume for discussion's sake that you meant a civilian plaintiff and not the government. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Should a plaintiff search the law to find one that specifically fits his or her personal agenda? Yes and no. If a plaintiff is suing to be malicious, then no. If a plaintiff is suing because he/she genuinely believes he/she has a demonstrable injury, then yes. A plaintiff has the duty to prove his/her case. Stipulating which law has been violated is the only way to do so.
Excellent follow up question. I wasn't clear in my original post. This is a good discussion point.
Does Orly Taitz have an agenda? Clearly, she does. Do her plaintiffs believe they have truly incurred damages or injury? I believe they do.
I believe Obama is ineligible to hold the office of POTUS. I also cannot stand the man. He's a liar and a thug. If I filed suit, would it be malicious? If I'm being honest, probably so because I would love nothing more than see his sorry butt tossed out of office and prosecuted for fraud. That's why I want a U.S. Attorney to file suit and the SCOTUS to make a ruling on the legitimate question of first impression.