Pennsylvania Supreme Court,,, AND Qui Tam Proceedings

[Codee]

Now I never really researched to its end the idea that the supreme court of hte United States was the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania... but htis case is wierd.

Does anybody actually know of its validity in original format... I can only find it on the net.

Anyway it goes into prosecution by private parties and that the attorney general must allow his name to be used in the action.

U.S. Supreme Court
RESPUBLICA V.GRIFFITHS, 2 U.S. 112 (1790)
2 U.S. 112 (Dall.)

Respublica v. Griffiths

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

June Term, 1790

Leave having been granted; on the motion of Serjeant, to file an information against the defendant, one of the Justices of the Peace for Chester County, it became a question, whether the information should be drawn, filed and prosecuted by the Attorney General, or by the party at whose instance it was awarded.

The Attorney General (Bradford) objected, that it is not the duty of the Attorney General to draw and file this information. It must, indeed, be in the name of the commonwealth, and the prosecutor may make use of the name of the officer, who prosecutes for the State: But there is in England a known and established distinction, between informations filed by the Attorney General, and those filed by him at the relation of a private person, in the name of the master of the crown office. The former are always filed ex officio; and the Court will not, upon motion of the Attorney General, give him leave to file an information against any person. 3 Burr. 1812. They cannot be quashed on motion of the prosecutor. Dougl. 227. nor is the prosecutor liable for costs. But informations, at the relation of private persons, are in a great measure private suits. They are moved for and conducted, not by the officers of the Crown, but by counsel employed by the prosecutor. The rosecutor is, in many cases, liable to costs. 3 Burr. 1270. 1305. The Court will not grant it where the prosecutor appears unworthy. Burr. 548. 869. And on a motion for an information for a libel, oath must be made of the falsity of the charges contained in the libel, a circumstance quite immaterial, where the prosecution is wholly on the part of the public. The prosecutor, therefore, ought to be at the expence and employ his own counsel, in this proceeding, in which he is really interested. If it be the duty of the Attorney General to file this information, it is his duty to prosecute it also.

No informations (except the qui tam) have hitherto been filed in Pennsylvania; and it is of consequence to settle this point. No fees are provided for the duty, in the bill of fees, and the Attorney General ought not, on this occasion, to be considered as the mere drawer of an information, for which he is not to be paid, and with the future prosecution of which he has nothing to do.

Page 2 U.S. 112, 113


By the Court: The objection is reasonable and just. But, pro forma, the Attorney General must allow his name to be used by the prosecutor.

A demonstration that police power (executive) is originally vested in the people themselves and have never surendered it.

PS... Case provided for by article written by attornies.


I also wonder if this supreme court of Penn. could have been an article three court... I sure do like the way they swing.

[Codee]

U.S. Supreme Court
QUALIFICATION OF COUNSELLORS AND ATTORNEYS, 2 U.S. 400 (1791)
2 U.S. 400 (Dall.)

QUALIFICATION of Counsellors and Attorneys

February Term, 1791

The court being met at Philadelphia, the seat of the Federal government, it was

Ordered, That the counsellors and attornies, admitted to practice in this court, shall take either an oath, or, in proper cases, an affirmation, of the tenor prescribed by the rule of this court on that subject, made in February term, 1790. *



After qualifying a number of counsellors and attornies, the court adjourned. sine die.

Footnotes
[Footnote *] See ant. p. 399.[ Qualification of Counsellors and Attorneys

Footnote 2 U.S. 400 (1791) ]

Wierd huh... no case, no controvercy, no parties, no action, no proceedings.

Just opinion.

[Notorial dissent]

Early Supreme Court Rules.

New territory, hadn't been done before, so it would seem logical that they would take that approach to setting up rules.

Not sure how they do it today, but I have seem similar from District courts where they will issue new rules as an order of the court.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

Early Supreme Court Rules.

New territory, hadn't been done before, so it would seem logical that they would take that approach to setting up rules.

Not sure how they do it today, but I have seem similar from District courts where they will issue new rules as an order of the court.

Seventh Amendment Right to common law remedy including ALL REMEDIES in federal court. Meaning a federal common law crime could be prosecuted with a common law remedy for the prosecution.

Qui Tam is definitely a part of american modern day law.

[Notorial dissent]

Non sequitur, this is just dealing with internal house keeping matters. The only way a Federal court would deal with something common law would be for it to come up from a state court on appeal. Federal practice is almost strictly statute law.

[mrg]

oxymoron: statute law.