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