I don't remember where I posted the below. But it was deleted from a self-moderated post. It seems like it might fit here.
The Nuremberg trials were based on the idea that Nazi officials were individually/personally guilty of the crimes they committed. They couldn't hide behind any "Government Official" position that they had held, or that they were under orders from some governmental leader who was above them in rank, and they were just carrying out orders.
The United States court system is built on a two-method idea that includes this Nuremberg-trials idea as its strongest point. What has happened is that judges and attorneys have hidden this part of the U.S. court system, from the people as much as they can.
In other words, the basic thing to do is to find people who have been harmed by some law or governmental operation, and support them in going after the man/woman (not the government official) who caused them to be harmed by doing wrong using his governmental office. And, attack him as a man/woman, and his bond.
Federal District Courts are courts without the rule of the judge (magistrate). Corpus Juris Secundum, vol 25, section 334, says that FDCs are courts where the magistrate (judge) is separate from the tribunal. The tribunal is the accuser, the accused, and the jury. The judge (magistrate) is simply a referee.
If Trump (or any government official) did you wrong, get together with others who have been injured like you have, hire investigators, and sue the man (Trump) in Federal District Court.
BTW, if you do it totally in common law, the attorneys can't speak in court. They can counsel you from behind the bar, but they can't speak as attorneys. They can only speak if they are actual witnesses.
It's between you, the man/woman you are accusing, and the jury.
Sorry if I am bothering you with this post.
