in the course of his official activities.... An IRS agent unavoidably wields considerable power over the taxpayers and tax advisors with whom he comes in contact. His ability to coerce them, and their incentive to avoid alienating him, substantially heighten the risk of biasing the only witnesses who may be able to provide first-hand information to the investigator. Id. at 1287-88. Carton’s authority as an INS agent alone justifies a preference to interview him last on the ground that interviewing him earlier would be impracticable both as a matter of investigative technique and in light of the public interest in a fair and complete investigation. Moreover, there were specific allegations that Carton had already terrorized and intimidated the complainants. See Hudson, 130 F.3d at 1205 (<HOLDING>). It is immaterial whether Carton would in fact
holding that various law enforcement personnel and judges were victims of the crime of making false statements to a government agency for purposes of  3a12a where the defendant made false statements about the officials to the irs causing the irs to investigate the officials certainly had the effect of making these individuals the defendants victims holding that an attorney who made false representations to a court did not violate okla rpc 33 because that rule addresses professional misconduct as an advocate for making false statements to a tribunal not false statements by a lawyer as a witness holding that because the employee was suspected of making false statements and she was allegedly intimidating and threatening people and otherwise dividing the us attorneys office the investigator did not violate the privacy act when he interviewed others before interviewing hudson holding that defendant could be charged for making false statements to treasury officials under the tax evasion statute or the statute prohibiting false statements to government officials holding both that a defendants prior disciplinary history was properly precluded because it did not involve an element of deceit or falsification and that defendants earlier allegedly false statements could not be admitted because proving their falsehood would have required the introduction of extrinsic evidence showing the statements made to be false