Whether tax prosecutions can be authorized by the IRS Commissioner instead of the Department of Justice

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Whether tax prosecutions can be now be authorized by the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service for investigation by a grand jury and approved for prosecution instead of the ' Department of Justice as required by statute, creating a new and dangerous legal precedence, resulting in convictions and sentences including : orders for terms of imprisonment in this case, ; that are neither supported by statute or ; prevailing case law? ; .: 2. Whether the convictions in this case, which are based on perjured witness testimony, can stand when that perjured testimony is directly related to suppression of evidence by the Government in . violation of Maryland vs. Brady, and this court’s : ruling in Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), and : that would allow a criminal defendant to be convicted based on perjury that the prosecution fails to correct, / and in violation of the Petitioners constitutional rights to due process under the Fifth and , Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution? 3. Whether the District Court can develop its own . elements for tax evasion by mixing elements from . multiple circuits which changes the required statutory elements and does not mirror Fifth Circuit elements for tax evasion just for Petitioner’s case and bias Petitioners case by using different legal standards than other Petitioners in the Fifth Circuit violating i { Sed , sou: Petitioners’ rights to due Process under the Fifth pee ; “sand Fourteenth Amendments of'the Constitution, 5 oo: Cone and impacting tax evasion judicial proceedings eee ; : _:.:..for all circuits; and whether a conviction for Lo oe So Section 7206 (1) can stand when the government. : : aera omitted a required statutory element for Bb lb: a , conviction from indictment and trial by omitting. ~ . : : ' a “materiality” element, resulting in guilty jury © 2 ie ih PL, verdict; and that the Fifth Circuit omitted from : ; a __ its opinion since the government omitted it,and — ; : . -~ violating Petitioners’ Fifth and Fourteenth e : o Sh St Amendments of the Constitution and creatinga ae os oo: new and dangerous legal precedence ‘for Section ~~ : Be : “9206 (1) cases? ee os re