meeting or communication between the judge and the foreman of a deliberating jury is pregnant with possibilities of error.” United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 460, 98 S.Ct. 2864, 57 L.Ed.2d 854 (1978). As the United States Supreme Court has opined: In a criminal case, any private communication, contact, or tampering directly or indirectly, with a juror during a trial about the matter pending before the jury is, for obvious reasons, deemed presumptively prejudicial, if not made in pursuance of known rules of the court and the instructions and directions of the court made during the trial, with full knowledge of the parties. The presumption is not conclusive, but the burden rests heavily upon the Government to establish, after notice to and , 1172 (7th Cir.1983)(<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Heater, 63 F.3d
holding that we will not reverse in the absence of prejudice holding that taxes are not private property that can be physically taken by the government holding that while private communications between jurors and others are presumptively prejudicialthere can be no prejudice  in the absence of any such communication holding that in the absence of demonstrated prejudice remand is unnecessary holding regarding sixth amendment prejudice if there is no reasonable possibility that the appellate court would have ruled in his favor there can be no strickland prejudice