Quote Originally Posted by BLBereans View Post
You are welcome.

That is how I view it as well. The over-complication comes from anything more than forming an accurate record of the demand of lawful money.

If someone believes he/she can redeem something he/she did not issue in the first place, that is where complication may ensue. At the very least, it demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding who is authorized and or required to do what relating to 12USC411. This may prove to be the difference between being left alone and having to defend against false assumptions of liability to the point of interference of access to one's funds.

Glad that you see this as well.
So what Doug555 and you appear to be saying, is that the 'redeemed' verbiage is open to interpretation as to WHOM and WHEN the 'redemption' occurred. I believe the INTENT is key here. It would seem that INTENT carries much weight in law. 'Willingness', i.e. INTENT. It's obvious to most that the INTENT of the language behind 'Redeemed in Lawful Money' MEANS, that 'I currently and in the future demand lawful money for this instrument WHENEVER the system (the bank/Treasury) must do so'. Unfortunately, this 'technicality' could bite us all in the ass if 'they' pull a Pete Hendrickson-style assault on those who RILM. For example, Johnny Cash has 8 years running. Who's to say they would not bust his 'chops' at some point? Johnny Cash, are you SO certain this could never happen to you? I think this is part of or most of Doug555's point. ANY 'fallacy' in our attempts/INTENT to execute our Rights will be take advantage of by 'them' if possible. Would anyone disagree?

I think the INTENT here is a huge factor in OUR favor. But 'they' appear to be able to rig any 'sure thing' in their favor.