My Intro :)

Hi All!

I am happy to have arrived here after revisiting the research I started many years ago. I thought I would introduce myself in the hopes that this forum will see more of me upcoming. I personally don't have a whole lot to share which will edify others however my experiences and direct interactions at the least (in my younger years) has caused ME to question who I am, who "they" are, and how to interact with those surrounding me.

My interactions and questioning began at 16 years of age (give or take a few days, don't recall when I was born, wasn't there in cognizance). I will save the story for another time but will mention that I am now approximately 42 years of age and still am baffled by much of our world/society/environment.

My position on 12 USC 411, I don't have one as of yet. I came across it some years ago and put it out of my mind at the time. I revisited it recently due to a dispute with a client of mine (I am a contractor/consultant) and came across this forum.

I will concur there is something to 12 USC 411 but I have not yet come to the conclusion that it is what I think it is. I like to take things like this and code apart word for word, analyze and understand EVERY SINGLE word before I come to a conclusion for my own. I have done so in the last few weeks with 12 USC 411 and I can't debunk it. I have always believed that the words in USC mean EXACTLY what they say...albeit not in a common mans language.

There is something about the word "redeemed" in 12 USC 411 that I am pretty certain on my understanding of etymology. I figure that if I/we look at the individual words one by one and understand the history of the code, the application of the words/terms of the time of alterations to the code, it would make it clear to me and others of what the true meaning is.

I welcome any discussion and dissection of the words of 12 USC 411 (and other non-26 code) in the goal of educating myself more (I am selfish) and others, I suppose. :)

Thanks for listening!

Attachment 882

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrianJ

I will concur there is something to 12 USC 411 but I have not yet come to the conclusion that it is what I think it is. I like to take things like this and code apart word for word, analyze and understand EVERY SINGLE word before I come to a conclusion for my own. I have done so in the last few weeks with 12 USC 411 and I can't debunk it. I have always believed that the words in USC mean EXACTLY what they say...albeit not in a common mans language.

---

Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.


REDEE'MED, pp. Ransomed; delivered from bondage, distress, penalty, liability, or from the possession of another, by paying an equivalent.


Looks like the judge in MILAM found "although entitled to redeem the note". That means that 12USC411 is an entitlement upon the Taxpayer. A choice - endorse the note in naked endorsement and become a constructive trustee [de son tort trustee] - or redeem the note and let the trustee, on the face of the note, remain with the obligation and surety.

I have no trust in the United States. Why would I seek to receive the liability and obligation of the notes?

Shalom,
MJ

I now recall reading that case, thanks for the reminder of it.

I put some simple thought into the word(s) redeem, redeemer, redeemed, redeemable and what they mean in the "common" people meaning. Every instance or reference to any of those words whether in the Bible or USC or public/private law or anywhere that I see those words used it would make perfect sense (to me at least) to the opposite (or previous tense rather) without the prefix of "re-".

I discussed with my wife the other day what the word "deem" means, researched it's use in the past, it's use in dictionaries and other and it appears to me to be synonymous with making a declaration, at least an opinion or a statement of fact. She is a smart one and speaks several languages. My understanding then is if notes (or anything else) has been "deemed" to have a particular characteristic or property that is a proclamation, opinion or statement of one particular party in reference to the thing/object...not an order or command.

To (re-)deem something it would seem to me that it would be another party making a proclamation, opinion or statement regarding that thing/object. it seems to me it does not matter whether any other party recognizes or acknowledges such statement/proclamation/opinion...the fact of it being deemed as such appears to me to be the "act". Very similar to what the term "deed" means, as in where deed originated with respect to land transfers. From my understanding it is the deed (act) of transferring a handful of dirt from one party to another.

The research of historical use of words/language intrigues both me and my wife as we feel much of what we deal with daily is based on language and words from the past whether we know it or not.

Thanks for listening to my rant :)

Great ranting! Welcome to StSC!!

While navigating a particularly easy stretch of road I got into an imaginary conversation with a Christian pastor from the church next door. I am sure with no one actually there to disagree the conversation went a lot smoother than this explanation here, but as I recall it centered around Judas redeeming Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. Judas redeemed Jesus into the Herodian Priesthood though, not into any legitimate ecclesia, except (Romans 13) of course in the violence of the Roman Occupation.

This convolution of the system of balances ordained by the God of Abraham should be viewed in light of a presumption that Jesus knew he would be killed in one form or another as the only prophecy remaining unfilled was Zechariah's Worthless Shepherd Prophecy. Therefore Jesus understood full well the risks of:

1) Going into the Temple and overturning the moneychangers' franchise violently.
2) Prophecying openly against Israel by killing that Fig Tree on the King's Road during the public part of His coronation ceremony.

Upon the second precept comes The Nazarene Gospel Restored's rendition of the Last Supper where Judas and Jesus were very close friends, so much so that the new King showed Judas favor "The Sop" based in a trust that Judas being the treasurer of the mystery school was to go purchase a sword and slay Jesus at the Supper. Jesus trusted Judas to understand that now He had adaquately angered the Herodian Guard on the Temple Mount that it was time for Zachariah's Prophecy to come down.

My point is that Judas was attempting to Redeem Jesus by going to the Herodian Guard (the accountants were called Catholics (in Aramaic) I recall) in hopes they would capture Jesus and Jesus would renounce his coronation and title as King (Order of Archelaus) and be spared. The Betrayal was actually a Redemption. Jesus, upon determination and knowledge that He was the Messiah of God accepted death in the flesh even though it was not per the letter according to the final prophecy of the Hebrew writings. He did not do any arguing to defend Himself like Judas had hoped.

People redeem themselves all the time by signature bond. They are just doing it to the Fed instead of God.


A false balance is an abomination to the LORD but a just weight is His delight. Proverbs 11:1.


They (the people) shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...