Right To Counsel

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Does a defendant have a Constitutional Right to Effective Counsel from beginning to end, while in their Direct Appeal? And if that defendant has not waived their right to Counsel in their Direct Appeal, then whether a defendant has a right to be notified if the Appellate Court receives a request from Counsel to withdraw, so that the defendant may object? 2. Does the unilateral broad interpretation of 26 U.S.C. 7201 allow the Appellate Courts to exceed the authority granted to the IRS by Congress, by allowing the IRS to assess a tax, without issuing a Notice of Deficiency in “7201” criminal cases, and does that Broad interpretation . cause a judicially created exemption for the government to prove a tax deficiency? And, For the purposes of 26 USC 7201, If the IRS’s practice for non-filers, is to consider them having filed a return owing $0 in taxes, with a $0 deficiency, can the gov still assess a tax deficiency from some other source, in contradiction to the IRS’s $0 deficiency, without the IRS actually issuing a Notice of Deficiency to assess a tax above $0? 3. Does the requirement by the Appellate Court, that a Defendant challenge an Ineffective Assistance claim and/or Prosecutorial Misconduct claim in collateral review, where collateral review is the first place a Defendant can present a challenge to their conviction, making the initial-review collateral proceeding a defendants “one and only appeal” as to those claims, justify an exception to the Constitutional rule that there is no right to counsel in collateral proceedings? And, does the defendant have a Right to Counsel in that initial-review collateral proceeding? 4. When the Government amends the 18 USC 1343 Wire Fraud Statute, to use a “Fraud By . Omission” alone standard; are acts to conceal, and/or duty to speak, required elements under this amended use, and is the government required to allege those amended elements in the indictment, and at trial? And since the use of §1343 has been altered from the Statute and model instruction requirements, should there be a Jury Instruction for the amended “By Omission” alone standard? 5. Is the Eighth Circuit imposing an improper and more stringent Certificate of Appealability (COA) standard that contravenes this Court’s precedent? I .