I believe most just glazed over the point of the thread and, more importantly, the supporting study and research material provided by Boris. I can tell because by the quick and assuming responses some gave which compared this approach erroneously with past "remedies".

Can anyone here verify, with first hand knowledge and testimony, that mere use of 'FRNs' creates an automatic and true liability for 'return of income' taxation?

usufruct
The right of enjoying a thing, the property of which is vested in another, and to draw from the same all the profit, utility and advantage which it may produce, provided it be without altering the substance of the thing.

usufructuary
One who has the right and enjoyment of an usufruct.
The duties of the usufructuary are,
1. To make an inventory of the things subject to the usufruct, in the presence of those having an interest in them.(The certificate of live birth / birth certificate)
2. To give security for their restitution; when the usufruct shall be at an end. (Promise to pay: contract under seal = state as usufruct)
3. To take good care of the things subject to the usufruct.
4. To pay all taxes, and claims which arise while the thing is in his possession, as a ground-rent.
5. To keep the thing in repair at his own expense.

Now, think again about the purpose of this thread "Usufruct surrender..."

Look at the above critically and decide for yourselves what position most are in conventionally and what position is proposed by Boris regarding surrender, a proper claim and acknowledging what is already true as per the extant United States military occupation.