"Speaking for myself I am very annoying to skeptics because I stick to redeeming lawful money in the specific §16 of the Fed Act and Title 12 USC §411, in the context of the 'saving to suitors' clause of 1789. "

1. You will note that I do not bring up any discussion of Social Security status or Resident Alien non-taxpayer issues in my letter to IRS; there I stick to redeeming lawful money under 12USC411. What I want to establish with this filing is that I am not a state bank, do not participate in the Federal credit scam, and do not use debt obligations at all, for any reason. Since most of my banking transactions are direct deposits such that I never get a check to endorse/redeem, I chose to prove my refusal of FRN's in a blanket fashion, thus the need for the letter to the IRS. If using Federal Reserve private money/credit is the step that creates the irrecusable obligation to file a return, I want to establish that I don't take that step. I am trying to establish that I am not 'in contract' with the Federal Reserve. Is this a position fraught with risk? I had assumed from other's successful use of 411 redemption that this is settled law/policy of the IRS. Also, 12USC411 is Federal law; where does 'saving to suitors' come into play in exercising the remedy provided there? Can't a 'US Citizen' redeem FRN's? In your conversation with Michael Joseph (see ps) you imply anyone can/should do it...

2. "You plead my point quite valid. When you have something to gain, then get on it with the law."

The IRS has been bleeding my substance for 40 years, and is presently doing the same to my son. If there is a valid way to escape the irrecusable obligation, I want to find it and demonstrate that it is accepted by the IRS. I realize that the IRS is not pleased with taxpayers figuring out how they have been scammed, and learning how to escape the banker's debt trap, so they may push back some, but my return is not frivolous. It is based on a reasonable interpretation of 411. The fact that I would not owe any tax with or without redemption makes it even less frivolous (ie, no attempt to evade), thus providing me with an opportunity to look into the mind of the beast with little at stake. e.g. I have a $450 capital gain paid after I noticed my banks to redeem; if it were reported, I would be required to file a Schedule B form, but I do not file a Sch B. If I like the IRS response to this filing, I will have documented evidence to convince my son to risk using this approach where more tax obligation is at stake.

3. "If you are attempting to redeem lawful money on your SSI checks as typical paychecks, I have reason to believe that they are not regular paychecks like most paychecks where you toil for compensation." Look at the article:

I had asked you previously about the link between SS and the income tax. I fail to see how they are related. (and the article you linked to does not discuss this issue at all). Further I fail to see how the source of income to me alters in any way the remedy of redeeming FRN's. The SS program involves paying into it at 6% of wages for 40 quarters (or did when I was paying in), and results in a calculated 'benefit' payment at retirement age. The payments are assumed to be in FRN's, but what I do with them is no concern of SSAdmin, or is it?

4. I don't buy into you being "Jay"

Thanks for that vote of confidence; I missed the implication when JC posted it, not knowing Jay. The pretend/apparent anonymous status of internet communication creates the possibility of many nefarious miscommunications, intentional, treacherous, or otherwise. I am not Jay, don't believe in deception as a positive policy, and have no intention of trying to 'make redemption fail' so I can slur it. I will be happy to have you contact the idiot at Bank of America if you think I made up the story of their 'resistance.'

5. you have no real need to be taking the risk.

I remain unclear on the risk involved here. Obviously the IRS is stepping up their bullying tactics to discourage taxpayers from using returns as fishing expeditions to unravel the basis for the tax 'duty' (see Irwin Schiff case). Since the redemption remedy is created in the Federal law, I doubt the IRS would risk a fraudulent mis-statement about the effect of the law. As JC noted, they don't want to go there... and SSAdmin's own rules show that benefits, once established, are not affected even by expatriation. So if there is some other link between SS and income tax, I am unaware of it, and would appreciate you pointing it out to me.

Thanks for your comments, and best regards,
Freed
ps your conversation with Michael Joseph posted on the Casey Research site was good, and thorough.