5 U.S.C. §500(d)
TITLE 5
> PART I
> CHAPTER
5 >
SUBCHAPTER
I > Sec. 500.
Sec. 500. -
Administrative practice; general provisions
(d) This section does not -
(1) grant or deny
to an individual who is not qualified as provided by subsection
(b) or (c) of this section the right to appear for or represent
a person before an agency or in an agency proceeding;
(2) authorize or
limit the discipline, including disbarment, of individuals who appear
in a representative capacity before an agency;
(3) authorize an
individual who is a former employee of an agency to represent a
person before an agency when the representation is prohibited by
statute or regulation; or
(4) prevent an
agency from requiring a power of attorney as a condition to the
settlement of a controversy involving the payment of money.
Black's Law Dictionary,
Sixth Edition, page 500
"Due process.
[. . .] An orderly proceeding wherein a person with notice,
actual or constructive, and has an opportunity to be
heard and to enforce and protect his rights before a court
having the power to hear and determine the case.
Kazubowski v. Kazubowski, 45 Ill.2d 405, 259 N.E.2d 282,
290. Phrase means that no person shall be deprived
of life, liberty, property or of any right granted him by
statute, unless matter involved first shall have been adjudicated
against him upon trial conducted according to established
rules regulating judicial proceedings, and it forbids
condemnation without a hearing. Pettit v. Penn,
LaApp., 180 So.2d 66, 69."
[Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth
Edition, page 500]
'It is a rule as old as the
law, and never more to be respected than now, that no one shall
be personally bound until he has had his day in court; by which
is meant until he has been duly cited to appear, and has been afforded
an opportunity to be heard. Judgment without such citation and opportunity
wants all the attributes of a judicial determination; it is judicial
usurpation and oppression, and never can be upheld where justice
is justly administered.'
[Old Wayne Mut. Life Assn v. McDonough,
204 U.S. 8 (1907)]
We have never doubted, therefore,
that the Confrontation Clause guarantees the defendant a face-to-face
meeting with witnesses appearing before the trier of fact. See
Kentucky v. Stincer,
482 U.S. 730, 748 , 749-750 (1987) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting).
For example, in Kirby v. United States,
174 U.S. 47, 55 (1899), which concerned the admissibility of
prior convictions of codefendants to prove an element of the offense
[487 U.S. 1012, 1017] of receiving stolen Government
property, we described the operation of the Clause as follows: "[A]
fact which can be primarily established only by witnesses cannot
be proved against an accused . . . except by witnesses who confront
him at the trial, upon whom he can look while being tried, whom
he is entitled to cross-examine, and whose testimony he may impeach
in every mode authorized by the established rules governing the
trial or conduct of criminal cases." Similarly, in Dowdell v.
United States,
221 U.S. 325, 330 (1911), we described a provision of the Philippine
Bill of Rights as substantially the same as the Sixth Amendment,
and proceeded to interpret it as intended "to secure the accused
the right to be tried, so far as facts provable by witnesses are
concerned, by only such witnesses as meet him face to face at the
trial, who give their testimony in his presence, and give to the
accused an opportunity of cross-examination." More recently,
we have described the "literal right to `confront' the witness at
the time of trial" as forming "the core of the values furthered
by the Confrontation Clause." California v. Green, supra, at
157. Last Term, the plurality opinion in Pennsylvania v. Ritchie,
480 U.S. 39, 51 (1987), stated that "[t]he Confrontation Clause
provides two types of protections for a criminal defendant: the
right physically to face those who testify against him, and the
right to conduct cross-examination."
[Coy
v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 (1988)]
"The Court
has consistently held that some kind of hearing is required at some
time before a person is finally deprived of his property [418 U.S.
539, 558] interests. "
[Wolff
v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539; 94 S.Ct. 2963; 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974)]
5 U.S.C. §556
TITLE 5
> PART I
> CHAPTER
5 >
SUBCHAPTER
II > Sec. 556.
Sec. 556. -
Hearings; presiding employees; powers and duties; burden of proof; evidence;
record as basis of decision
26 U.S.C. §7521
TITLE 26
> Subtitle
F >
CHAPTER 77 > Sec. 7521.
Sec. 7521.
- Procedures involving taxpayer interviews
Internal
Revenue Manual (IRM) section 4.10.3.2.5: Requests to Tape Record Interviews