whether-jury-instructions-on-willfulness-element-disregarded-defendant's-subjective-intent

QUESTIONS PRESENTED BRIEF INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT . Petitioner requested the District Court Judge L W Flanagan, multiple times, on RECORD [IN THE YEAR 2019), for full , expanded instructions to the jury on the WILLFULNESS ELEMENT of the TAX charges & was denied. Petitioner wanted the Judge to instruct the jury to see his "subjective intent" apropos the "WILLFULNESS ELEMENT" as seen through his eyes & keeping in view his state of mind as he was in a life altering, disrupting & threatening situation for 4 years pre arrest. [From 2013 to 2016] [THESE INSTRUCTIONS WOULD HAVE BEEN SIMILAR TO THE "RUAN" CASE INSTRUCTIONSTHE RUAN ERROR, ON THE WILLFULNESS ELEMENT OF THE 841 CHARGE, THAT THE SCOTUS RULED WERE ERRONEOUS, WITH ALL THE JUSTICES VOTING AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT BY A 9-0 MAJORITY VOTE] Additionally the Judge, acting at behest of the US attorneys, threatened the defense Counsel & prevented the petitioner from presenting to the Jury, any evidence of Outrageous Government Misconduct THAT HE HAD BEEN SYSTEMATICALLY SUBJECTED TO, thus negating/nullifying his tax defense. . QUESTION ONE WHETHER JURY INSTRUCTIONS BY THE DISTRICT COURT, ON ONE OF THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE TAX CONVICTION, 1.€., WILLFULNESS, BE IMPROPER, IF THEY DISREGARD THE CRIMINAL DEFENDANT'S "SUBJECTIVE VIEWS" & “INTENT AS TO . : THAT ELEMENT ? : QUESTION TWO QUESTIONS PAFSEKTEO (2-2) QUESTIONS Uheese— q]2-2 TRULINCS 62988056 KUMAR, SANJAY Unit: BUF-V-A ; DOES A “SUBJECTIVE” GOOD FAITH BELIEF THAT ONE IS NOT VIOLATING.THE LAW OR A GOOD FAITH MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW NEGATE WILLFULNESS [MUCH LIKE THE "RUAN" CASE] QUESTION THREE , WOULD THE APPELLATE COURT'S MISINTERPRETATION OF THE SCOTUS GRANT OF CERTIORARI IN A SIMILAR PRECEDENT CASE [ THE "CHEEK" CASE] WHERE THE DEFENDANT'S TAX CONVICTIONS WERE VACATED, WHEN NOT PROPERLY APPLIED TO THE PETITIONER'S CASE, BE NOT CONSIDERED, AN ERROR ? QUESTION FOUR 1S THE CRIMINAL DEFENDANT'S STATE OF MIND, AS SEEN THROUGH HIS EYES, KEEPING IN VIEW THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT HE MIGHT HAVE BEEN GOING THROUGH, AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME, DURING THE COMMISSION OF THE ALLEGED CRIME, BE OF ANY LEGAL IMPORT, APRPOS THE "WILLFULNESS ELEMENT" OF THE CHARGES ? QUESTION FIVE ; WHETHER SUCH AS ERROR AS MENTIONED IN QUESTION ONE, WHEN RESULTING IN CONVICTION [ AS IT DID IN THE PETITIONER'S CASE] NOT BE GROUNDS FOR THE SCOTUS TO GRANT A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ? TABLE OF ConTENTIC C73) $] i-3 .