Was it fair to affirm 18-U.S.C-1519-charge

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 2. Was it fair to affirm 18 U.S.C. 1519 charge where the integrity of juridical process was harmed by the prosecutor who: a. Submitted doctored indictment to change its meaning. b. Falsified government expert Jack’s testimony as to issues of destruction. c. Fabricated government expert Larson’s testimony as to issues of destruction. d. Actively concealed his possession of multiple copies of allegedly destroyed files. e. Proceeded with full knowledge that the evidence lacked criminal intent. { f. Misrepresented government’s notice of charges to affirm on new untried unindicted theory. g. Remaining evidence was insufficient to convict on all counts, all in violation of the Fifth and Sixth amendments. 3. Does emptying a computer recycle bin after the IRS obtained copies of the computer constitute a under 18 U.S.C. 1519? 4. Do materiality or knowledge of federal investigation need to be shown in 18 U.S.C. 1519 prosecution? 5. When the IRS held that a birth of a child invalidated a state-issued legal separation judgment, thus rendering tax-payer’s tax return fraudulent, were taxpayer’s reproductive and the Fifth Amendment rights violated? 6. Does the IRS have jurisdiction to judge validity of a divorce/legal separation for a purpose of criminal conviction? 7. Do Article IV Section 1 and Substantive Due process preclude IRS and district court jurisdiction to judge or convict on theory of “sham legal separation” when: a. Substantive due process right to marriage and divorce precludes federal government from examining validity of legal separation. b. Art. IV Sec. 4 of U.S. Constitution jurisdictionally precludes federal review of state legal separation judgment. i c. Indictment was defective as lacking specificity in notice of “false legal separation” accusation. d. Prosecutor concealed and actively misstated facts and law. 8. Does trial introduction of compelled uncounseled statement under the premise that “the Fifth Amendment does not protect one from making a false statement” violate the Fifth and Sixth Amendments? 9. Was conviction on element of criminal intent unreliable and fundamentally unfair, in violation of fifth and sixth amendments, when prosecutor: a. Introduced illegally obtained statements by fabricating admissibility law. b. Implied guilt from Alena’s silence, in violation of self-incrimination clause. c. Substituted intent element with intent from uncharged crimes d. Materially misstated knowledge element in closing e. Provided jury instructions that relieved government from its burden of proof of intent (on count 1 — 6). f. Conclusory indictment failed to provide fair notice and opportunity to prepare defense. ii