Appendix V
                                
                 Memo on 6th and 16th Amendments








































                         Page V - 1 of 4

                                                The Federal Zone:


Reader's Notes:























































                         Page V - 2 of 4

                                                       Appendix V


MEMO

TO:       Federal Zone Readers

FROM:     Mitch Modeleski

DATE:     March 1, 1992

SUBJECT:  More on the 6th and 16th Amendments


I have  recently found  an unusually  clear and concise  quote on
the effect  of a  ratified 16th  Amendment among  some  Appellate
decisions I have been reviewing.  This quote will be incorporated
into chapter  5 of the second edition of The Federal Zone.  After
reading either  edition, you  will know the logic:  if a ratified
16th Amendment  had effect  X, then  a failed ratification proves
that X did not happen.  What is X?  Answer:


     The  constitutional  limitation  upon  direct  taxation  was
     modified by  the Sixteenth  Amendment insofar as taxation of
     income was  concerned, but  the amendment  was restricted to
     income,  leaving   in  effect  the  limitation  upon  direct
     taxation of principal.

               [Richardson vs United States, 294 F.2d 593 (1961)]
                                                                 
                                                                 
This ultra-clear  ruling dovetails  perfectly with  the  work  of
author Jeffrey  A. Dickstein but, unfortunately, this case is not
discussed in his book Judicial Tyranny (see the Bibliography).
                                                                 
                                                                 
My 6th  Amendment research  has  also  merged  perfectly  with  a
parallel thesis  of the  book, namely,  that the  IRC  should  be
declared null and void for vagueness.  It turns out that there is
a ton  of legal  precedent  on  the  "nature  and  cause  of  the
accusation".  Our fundamental right to ignore vague and arbitrary
laws is  deeply rooted  in our  fundamental right to due process.
Here's the tentative new paragraph for chapter 5:


     The "void  for vagueness"  doctrine is  deeply rooted in our
     right to  due process  (under the  Fifth Amendment)  and our
     right to  know the  nature and cause of an accusation (under
     the Sixth  Amendment).  The latter right goes far beyond the
     contents of  any criminal indictment.  The right to know the
     nature and  cause of  an accusation  starts with the statute
     which any defendant is accused of violating.  A statute must
     be sufficiently  specific and  unambiguous in all its terms,
     in order  to define  and give adequate notice of the kind of
     conduct which  it forbids.   If  it fails  to indicate  with
     reasonable  certainty  just  what  conduct  the  legislature


                         Page V - 3 of 4

                                                The Federal Zone:


     prohibits, a statute is necessarily void for uncertainty, or
     "void  for  vagueness"  as  it  is  usually  phrased.    Any
     prosecution which  is based  upon a  vague statute must fail
     together with  the statute itself.  A vague criminal statute
     is unconstitutional for violating the 6th Amendment.


With this  mountain of court precedent, we can now attack U.S. vs
Hicks as well as U.S. vs Bentson.  The 9th Circuit kept referring
to the importance of "explicit statutory requirements".

Well, are  those statutory  requirements explicit if they utilize
the key  word "income"  but don't  even define  it (because  they
can't without violating the Eisner prohibition)?

Are they  explicit if  they define  "State" in  such a  way as to
create  confusion   about  the   precise  limits   of   sovereign
jurisdiction?

Are they  explicit if  they qualify definitions by stating "where
not otherwise  manifestly incompatible  with the intent thereof",
but never define the intent thereof?

Can we  ever know  the real intent of Congress, when Title 26 was
never enacted into positive law?

How can  we know  which of  the 3 official definitions of "United
States" to apply to the terms "United States citizen" and "United
States resident"  when the  IRC doesn't  tell us,  precisely  and
unambiguously, which definition it is using?

How can  we ever  expect to quiet the debate about "includes" and
"including",  when   the  Treasury   Department's  own  decision,
published in  1927, frankly  admits that  these terms have a long
history of semantic confusion?


     "This word  has received considerable discussion in opinions
     of the courts.  It has been productive of much controversy."


Their own  published  Treasury  Decision  proves  that  Title  26
contains terms  that have a documented history of controversy and
confusion.












                         Page V - 4 of 4