This will be a three part question? Just need clarification

1. The Officer issuing the summons is an executive branch

Question

Officer and cannot “prosecute” an alleged violation as a juridical officer of the court as well. Is this not a violation of the constitutional separation of powers?  
2. Why is the prosecutor statements and evidence being allowed as facts in the courts by their fellow bar member judges? Isn’t that a conflict of interest?  
A Prosecutor..An attorney for the plaintiff cannot admit evidence into the court. They are either a BAR attorney or a witness and statements of said BAR attorney in brief or in argument are not facts before the court - Trinsey v Pagliaro, US v Lovable, Gonzales v Buist 
3. How can the prosecutor put the STATE OF TENNESSEE on the stand? Can I call the State of Tennessee to the stand? 
To establish a crime has been committed there has to be evidence present the accused injured a victim and they be cross examined. Victimless crime is fraud 18 USC 1001 
 
The STATE OF TENNESSEE is a corporation domiciled in DC and only exist on paper…. DUNS & BRADSTREET, CAGE CODE report

Terrence H Thorgaard · Answer

1)  Actually, the clerk of court (an officer of the judicial branch) issues a summons at the request of a party to a case, or that party's attorney. 
2)  Attorneys request judges to admit evidence and thus consider it in making decisions. A judge and the attorneys practicing before such judge do not share financial interests in the matters being decided in a court. 
3) The State of Tennessee, or any other state, is a legal entity, not a real person.  So, it cannot be called to testify, although it's agents can.  The state is not "domiciled" in the U.S. capital.

James L. Arrasmith · Answer

I understand you're raising important questions about legal processes and constitutional principles. Let me address each point thoughtfully. 
 
Regarding separation of powers - while law enforcement officers are part of the executive branch, they aren't acting as judicial officers when issuing summons. Their role is to enforce laws and initiate proceedings, while the judicial branch determines guilt or innocence. This system maintains proper separation while allowing practical law enforcement functions. 
 
On your second point about prosecutors and evidence - prosecutors must still follow rules of evidence and procedure, and judges evaluate evidence based on legal standards, not merely professional courtesy. The Trinsey and related cases you cite address specific circumstances about attorney statements versus evidence, but don't prevent prosecutors from presenting properly authenticated evidence through appropriate channels. 
 
Your question about "THE STATE OF TENNESSEE" touches on some sovereign citizen legal theories, but courts have consistently held that states have legal standing to prosecute violations of state law. While states are indeed registered entities, this doesn't invalidate their constitutional authority to enforce laws. Regarding victimless crimes - courts have long recognized the state's authority to regulate conduct deemed harmful to society even without individual victims, though this remains an area of ongoing legal and philosophical debate. If you're facing specific charges, you may want to discuss your situation with legal counsel who can advise you on the particular circumstances of your case.

Q: This will be a three part question? Just need clarification 1. The Officer issuing the summons is an executive branch