Deconstructing Lies: Why will someone desire to be confused about the difference between a Civil and a Criminal Case?

The answers are many, but to begin the conversation I will offer a few answers laid out on the table.

I want to be confused about the difference between Civil and a Criminal Case, because I want someone who is not confused to have power over me, to place me in the wrong place, at the wrong time, so that they can take advantage of my confusion.

I want to be confused about the difference between a Civil and a Criminal Case, because I don’t want to have to deal with information that suggests that I constitute a vital part in a voluntary mutual defense association such as a federation of independent republics, I prefer that all the work, every bit of work, to be done to maintain peace, harmony, liberty, freedom, life, secure property, secure homes, and the pursuit of happiness – all good things – I prefer to be defended by anyone, or everyone, except me. I am special, and I have a special interest.

Anyone joining the conversation can add their reasons.

I prefer to know the difference.

I’ve found competitive explanations for a demarcation line separating a Civil Case that belongs in the category of Civil Cases and all those Civil Cases do not belong – for these reasons – in a Criminal Case Category, because a Civil Case is not a Criminal Case, and a Criminal Case is not a Civil Case, so it would be wrong to confuse a Criminal Case with a Civil Case. It would be wrong to commingle, enjoin, or confuse a Criminal Case and a Civil Case into ONE SUMMARY JUSTICE JURISDICTION.

See what you think:

The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots
Page 40
Private Prosecutors
"For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men. Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions - the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim. Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state - but for their own vindication. The very term "prosecutor" meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation's founding. When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name - even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action.
Private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication. Crime victims held the keys to a potential defendant's fate and often negotiated the settlement of criminal cases. After a case was initiated in the name of the people, however, private prosecutors were prohibited from withdrawing the action pursuant to private agreement with the defendant. Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court and "not to make bargains to allow [defendants] to escape conviction, if they...repair the injury."

Page 42
Law Enforcement as a Universal Duty
"Law enforcement in the Founders' time was a duty of every citizen. Citizens were expected to be armed and equipped to chase suspects on foot, on horse, or with wagon whenever summoned. And when called upon to enforce the laws of the state, citizens were to respond "not faintly and with lagging steps, but honestly and bravely and with whatever implements and facilities [were] convenient and at hand. Any person could act in the capacity of a constable without being one, and when summoned by a law enforcement officer, a private person became a temporary member of the police department. The law also presumed that any person acting in his public capacity as an officer was rightfully appointed."

The Discussion on this Topic started a long time ago.

But people are told not to question the order to shut up and pay the extortion fee, so we the people refuse to discuss this.

Obey, be a good little Nazi.

Biden Team Should Be Nervous About What's Happening in the Courts - Jordan Sekulow on Newsmax - YouTube