From another angle:

When it is a case of he said, she said, and we are speaking about groups, or factions bound as groups by a common, collective, narrative, ideology, belief, oath, fealty, contract, agreement, etc., then who is boss?

What is the factual answer in any case where there is a need, a demand, a desire, a common agreement, for a peaceful remedy to the existing conflict that may turn violent?

A reasonable answer is offered in the following:

"It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue."

That answer does not originate (the author) from a modern Internet Troll. That answer is not offered by an anti-government conspiracy theorist. That is not an opinion handed down from on high by a justice of the Supreme Court, or is it?

U.S. Supreme Court
RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236, 1788, 1 U.S. 236 (Dall.)
Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia
February Sessions, 1788
M'Kean, Chief Justice.

That is the source of the answer to the "he says, she says" question.

Even if someone today is going to claim otherwise, someone trolling the Internet, or someone on the Modern Day "Supreme Court," the individual making the claim is in conflict with the following (the claim does not agree with the following):

Amendment VII
"In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

What then is the lawful, legal, procedure for any victim of the crimes perpetrated by an existing criminal occupying the position of Justice of the Supreme Court, in a case where said criminal is guilty, on record no less, of any one of the infringements of rights (natural or otherwise) reserved for individual people under the common laws of free people?

Remember the following unanimous agreement made during the actual founding of America, on the official record during the founding in 1774:

14th of October, 1774

"On the same day, Congress unanimously resolved, “that the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage according to the course of that law.” They further resolved, “that they were entitled to the benefit of such of the English statutes as existed at the time of their colonization, and which they have, by experience, respectively found to be applicable to their several and local circumstances.” They also resolved, that their ancestors, at the time of their immigration, were “entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities, of free and natural-born subjects within the realms of England.”

Again, what is the procedure in place to bring an alleged criminal in office to a common law court, so that proceedings proceed according to the common law, as suggested in the Statute known as The Bill of Rights?

Someone doing their homework has offered bread crumbs:

Page 42
The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots
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 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."