Private v. Public: The two types of Choice of Law in Civil Litigation

This article documents the two types of standing or choice of law you can have in any litigation, being PUBLIC or PRIVATE, and the implications of either choice.

NOTES:

1. Symbology for PUB and PRI above is described in:
   Writing Conventions on This Website, Section 1: Introduction, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/introduction/writing-conventions-on-this-website/#1._Introduction
2. You can’t pursue BOTH at the same time. This is because affected property can only have ONE owner, and that owner is either PUBLIC or PRIVATE.
3. Public offices or civil statutory statuses legislatively created and owned by Congress involve the exercise of “sovereign power”, but courts SUPERVISING that exercise are not exercising SOVEREIGN power if the property affected is property^PRI. See definition of “public office”:
   Authorities on “public office”, Family Guardian Fellowship
   https://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/PublicOffice.htm
4. If you are prevented by the judge from invoking PRIVATE standing, you are a victim of criminal identity theft as described in:
   Identity Theft Affidavit, Form #14.020
   https://sedm.org/Forms/14-PropProtection/Identity_Theft_Affidavit-f14039.pdf
5. Sovereign and Proprietary powers are described in:
   HOW TO: How to distinguish “sovereign power” from “proprietary power” in the context of taxation, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/how-to-how-to-distinguish-sovereign-power-from-proprietary-power-in-the-context-of-taxation/
6. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, NO STATUTES are required as standing for cases on the Private side:
   
   The design of the Fourteenth Amendment has proved significant also in maintaining the traditional separation of powers 524*524 between Congress and the Judiciary. The first eight Amendments to the Constitution set forth self-executing prohibitions on governmental action, and this Court has had primary authority to interpret those prohibitions. The Bingham draft, some thought, departed from that tradition by vesting in Congress primary power to interpret and elaborate on the meaning of the new Amendment through legislation. Under it, “Congress, and not the courts, was to judge whether or not any of the privileges or immunities were not secured to citizens in the several States.” Flack, supra, at 64. While this separation-of-powers aspect did not occasion the widespread resistance which was caused by the proposal’s threat to the federal balance, it nonetheless attracted the attention of various Members. See Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., at 1064 (statement of Rep. Hale) (noting that Bill of Rights, unlike the Bingham proposal, “provide[s] safeguards to be enforced by the courts, and not to be exercised by the Legislature”); id., at App. 133 (statement of Rep. Rogers) (prior to Bingham proposal it “was left entirely for the courts . . . to enforce the privileges and immunities of the citizens”). As enacted, the Fourteenth Amendment confers substantive rights against the States which, like the provisions of the Bill of Rights, are self-executing. Cf. South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S., at 325 (discussing Fifteenth Amendment). The power to interpret the Constitution in a case or controversy remains in the Judiciary.
   [City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 523-524 (1997);
   SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8746804851760570747]