Without general cites, is there evidence to support district attorneys and ADAs’ categorization as law enforcement agents?
Have we circled back to the beginning?
Have you ever had a feeling of deja vu?
Or let me ask you this. Have you ever had a feeling of deja vu?
Didn’t you just ask me that?
I don’t what you mean.
But by the way, have you ever had a feeling of deja vu?
They wouldn’t be secret if people did know about them! 
Heh. The U.S. Secret Service got its name because of the undercover operations it mounted against counterfeiters, IIRC.
In California…Constitution Article 3 section 3.5 also in Title 28 U.S.C. section 607.
An officer or employee of the Administrative Office shall not engage directly or indirectly in the practice of law in any court of the United States. An administrative agency, including an administrative agency created by the Constitution or an initiative statute, has no power:
These officials are nothing more than fraud upon the court at your expense.
In California…Constitution Article 3 section 3.5 also in Title 28 U.S.C. section 607.
An officer or employee of the Administrative Office shall not engage directly or indirectly in the practice of law in any court of the United States. An administrative agency, including an administrative agency created by the Constitution or an initiative statute, has no power:
These officials are nothing more than fraud upon the court at your expense.
You can say that again!
The colon there is a clue: the section goes on to enumerate the specific powers that they do not have.
(a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an appellate court has made a determination that such statute is unconstitutional;
(b) To declare a statute unconstitutional;
(c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by federal law or federal regulations.
The administrative agency’s specific positive powers will be enumerated in the laws that establish it. This is a general provision for all administrative agencies.
The Title 28 reference, which is the previous sentence in your post, only says that administrative office employees may not practice law as part of the scope of their office in the agency.
Your last sentence is your opinion, for what it is worth. Your interpretation of the two documents you cited does not encourage me to believe it is worth much.
Here’s Canada’s definition of a “peace officer” which is the term used, not “law enforcement”.
Peace Officers - Criminal Law Notebook(a,warden%2C%20deputy%20warden%2C%20instructor%2C
it seems to cover most government (federal and provincial) employees whose job involves enforcing actual behaviour. It does not appear to include crown prosecutors, or judges and other “officers of the court” because they would rely on police, bailiffs, etc. to actually do that work.
a police officer, police constable, bailiff, constable, or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace or for the service or execution of civil process
Seems more concerned with those who enforce the laws “…maintenance of the public peace…” to ensure immediate compliance - so including prison guards, fisheries enforcement officers, etc. . The one interesting exception is the pilot in command of an aircraft is included.
This definition is important because the law has a more strict penalty (IIRC) for interfering with, killing or assaulting a peace officer.