criminal-law federal-courts
Filing a Federal Criminal (not Civil) Complaint
<p>I want to file a Federal criminal (not civil) complaint in California under...</p>

<p>Conspiracy against rights - <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241</a> </p>

<p>Frauds and swindles - <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1341" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1341</a>  </p>

<p>I see that the Complainant files the form at <a href="https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/ao091.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/ao091.pdf</a></p>

<p>but it requires it judge to swear to it. Do I make an appointment with a Federal Judge?</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>I want to file a Federal criminal (not civil) complaint</p>
</blockquote>

<p>You can't.  Only the US government can do that.</p>

<p><a href="https://www.uscourts.gov/faqs-filing-case" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.uscourts.gov/faqs-filing-case</a></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Individuals do not file criminal charges in U.S. district courts. A criminal proceeding is initiated by the government, usually through the U.S. attorney's office in coordination with a law enforcement agency. Allegations of criminal behavior should be brought to local police, the FBI, or other appropriate law enforcement agency. </p>
</blockquote>

<p>There is an analysis of the relevant law in the case of <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/09-1503/09-1503-2011-03-14.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Smith v. Krieger</em>, No. 09-1503 (10th Cir. 2010)</a>.  </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>In his second
  claim, [Smith] sought to prosecute crimes allegedly committed by the defendant judges
  against the United States. Mr. Smith claimed he had “inherent authority” to raise
  his first claim under “the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the United States
  Constitution.” Id. at 51, ¶ 255. With respect to his second claim, he contended
  he was “authorized to prosecute crimes committed against the United States by
  virtue of his inherent authority as co-sovereign, pursuant to powers reserved
   under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and crimes committed against his person
  and/or property in particular.” [p.13-14]</p>
  
  <p>[...]</p>
  
  <p>Mr. Smith’s second claim fares no better than his first. Congress has by
  statute conferred the power to prosecute crimes in the name of the United States
  on the United States Attorney General and his delegates. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 516,
  519. The long-standing view of the Supreme Court is that such power is
  exclusive. See, e.g., United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693 (1974) (“the
  Executive Branch has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide
  whether to prosecute a case”) (emphasis added); id. at 694 (“Under the authority
  of Art. II, [§] 2, Congress has vested in the Attorney General the power to
  conduct the criminal litigation of the United States Government. 28 U.S.C.
  [§] 516.”); The Confiscation Cases, 74 U.S. 454, 457 (1868) (“Public
  prosecutions, until they come before the court to which they are returnable, are
  within the exclusive direction of the district attorney . . . .”) (emphasis added).
  Therefore, as the district court concluded, Mr. Smith has no right to initiate a
  criminal prosecution in the name of the United States under the Ninth or Tenth
  Amendments, or otherwise. [p.19]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Smith was fined $3000 for bringing this frivolous and "abusive" case (which included several other claims besides this one.)</p>

<p>Also of note is the 1973 US Supreme Court case <a href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/410/614.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Linda R. S. v. Richard D.</em></a>.  Here, Linda R. S. took a slightly different route: in effect, she sought a court order requiring her local district attorney to prosecute Richard D. for a state crime.  (Or rather, she sought to enjoin the district attorney from declining to prosecute him.)  The Supreme Court ruled:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The Court's prior decisions consistently hold that a citizen lacks standing to contest the policies of the prosecuting authority when he himself is neither prosecuted nor threatened with prosecution. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 42 (1971); Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U.S. 31, 33 (1962); Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 501 (1961). Although these cases arose in a somewhat different context, they demonstrate that, in American jurisprudence at least, a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another. </p>
</blockquote>
