CASE STANLEY COHEN
SCENARIO THREE UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON CRIMINAL PROCESS OF US GOVERNMENT
PROCESSES - VS STANLEY COHEN ATTORNEY.
FIRST HYPOTHESIS: If the Tax Court follows a criminal case against
Stanley Cohen in the absence of a grand jury or in the absence of a regular
jury, to hold a criminal charge of tax evasion in all its forms, we have a
unconstitutional process flagrant violation of due process laid down in Article
7 of the Charter of Rights of the taxpayer (IRS) which clearly states:
"taxpayers have a right to expect that any questions, any review or any
action for enforcement bill from the IRS comply with the laws and the IRS will
not investigate his affairs any more than necessary; further that the IRS will
respect all the rights of due process, including search and seizure protection
and provide a due process hearing on the charge where appropriate "
This is because the laws of tax law (IRS) must not be contrary to the
provisions of the US Constitution and should not be contrary to the ordering
(6th Amendment); "In civil cases, when controversial than twenty dollars,
the right of trial by jury shall be preserved," (7th Amendment); and
"No one shall be held to answer for a capital crime or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentation to a grand jury indictment," (5th
Amendment) of the Charter of Rights Declaration (Bill of Rights) of the US
Constitution.
However, in practice, the application of tax law (IRS) violates the
Constitution and the authorities who apply illegally, are systematically violated
human rights and the Bill of Rights of the Constitution should protect the
attorney Stanley Cohen to express and act in line with their political ideology
to develop their work.
This means that in this case the US Government vs Stanley Cohen, since the
order of detention was issued and subsequently executed the warrant human
rights lawyer Stanley Cohen, without prior investigation were violated and
where there was the accusation by a grand jury or by a jury that determines
Ordinary if there is enough evidence to begin a trial, after a review of the
evidence presented to them by a prosecutor in weighing the sufficiency thereof
and upon reasonable suspicion, probable cause or prima facie case has been been
committed a crime. All this exposure did not exist. For this series of
illegalities, is that the IRS negotiators should counsel them SC agrees to
plead guilty because they know they are violating the due process and because
they know that in a trial of Habeas Corpus, the criminal proceedings that followed
against him, and would be declared unconstitutional NULL.
SECOND HYPOTHESIS: THERE crime to pursue tax evasion in all its forms to
be punished by imprisonment in jail in this case vs US Government Stanley
Cohen, because at the core of the case, the US government is arguing that he be
paid a certain sum of money for alleged tax evasion or for whatever reason,
that exceeds the amount of twenty dollars, and when there is dispute of this
nature, the Sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution that
protects the American citizen and lawyer Stanley Cohen the right of trial by
jury shall be preserved, according to the provisions of the (6th Amendment);
"In civil cases, when controversial than twenty dollars, the right of
trial by jury shall be preserved". According to the above, the payment of
taxes to the US government, in case of refusal or the application of any
penalty for tax evasion should be handled in the civil courts or
administratively, provided that there are administrative tribunals or Civil
created prior law passed by the US congress in which the right of trial by jury
shall be preserved and should NOT be punished by imprisonment of illegal
deprivation of liberty as happens to attorney Stanley Cohen to whom it is filed
against, a process criminal tax evasion in violation of due process to be
illegal from the outset.
It strengthens the above argument, which is set as mandatory by the US
Constitution, the Section Eight, Article 1. "The Congress shall have Power To
lay and collect taxes, taxes, duties and excises, to pay the debts and provide
for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all
duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
"
Article 18. Section Eight. "To make all Laws which shall be
necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all
other vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States or any
department or officer thereof."
IRS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
In that vein, the authorities of the IRS, are different, the members of
the US Congress, who are the only ones with the power to lay and collect taxes,
imposts, duties and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common
Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and
excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. "
Tax laws (IRS) were not issued by the US congress, which is prerequisite
for any department or officer of Finance or Treasury apply them legally
American citizens or immigrants who are able or fit to pay US taxes. Therefore,
the tax law is unconstitutional.
THIRD HYPOTHESIS: In the case that the current tax law (IRS) if it had
been issued by the US congress is unconstitutional in all ways because the
(IRS) goes against the Constitution established. This is easily demonstrated
when we examine the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (IRS). There we find that these
laws create an INDEPENDENT POWER Judiciary, the Executive and the Legislature.
INDEPENDENT POWER IRS is formalizing a process independent of all tax
collections, formalizes the process of arbitration for appeals; 8.26.6 issued
their own laws "of the IRS Manual"; 35.5.5 "from Internal
Revenue Service Manual"; and even the Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998
(RRA, for its acronym in English) issued and issued by the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS), when the only US POWER of having that power is the US Congress.
Invigorates the above hypothesis, the known fact that the department of
Appeals is imperative independent of other IRS offices to be able to achieve
its mission. In recent years, concerns have been expressed about the structure
and processes of the modern department of Appeals and if they met the level of
independence that the Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (RRA, for its acronym
in English) in the level of claims the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), issuing
rules that have no constitutional authority. Only the US Congress can.
Therefore, there is no doubt that this is NEW oblivious to the Legislature, the
Executive Branch and independent Judiciary and therefore the IRS is both
unconstitutional POWER.
Comentarios