| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1122 Posts |
 Posted - 02 Jun 2012 : 15:36:05
|
I like the idea that since Congress used a pronoun, They are people who demand lawful money.
They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...
Congress is talking about people being redeemed from elastic currency of the Fed.
Here is a recent example. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 02 Jun 2012 15:36:56 |
|
|
Bondservant
Forum Administrator
Belize
337 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jun 2012 : 15:53:24
|
Great to have you back posting again, David! Your "recent example" link above says it all 
He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living... - Mark 12:27 |
 |
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1122 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jun 2012 : 22:00:30
|
I like this example!
The NY tax authority spotted that he missed his City School Tax Credit for $125 but said nothing about $6.7K in withholdings on zero income!
 |
Edited by - David Merrill on 02 Jun 2012 22:02:27 |
|
|
|
Jay Scott
Advanced Member
uSA
162 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jun 2012 : 10:57:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
I like the idea that since Congress used a pronoun, They are people who demand lawful money.
They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...
Congress is talking about people being redeemed from elastic currency of the Fed.
Here is a recent example.
That's a novel perspective.
Although what is the purpose and basis for the claim "congress" is talking about people?
A quick search here:
http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.shtml
...brought up examples of the term "they" referring to things not people.
None-the-less I like view from here.
Jay Scott. |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1122 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jun 2012 : 19:16:51
|
Thank you for that link. I like mathematics!
Please show me how you filled in the fields to get your conclusion about things, not people?
My presumption is how Congress could and should (in my opinion) avoided the ambiguity of using a pronoun. Today I was speaking with a new suitor and she got it clearly because of spending two decades pondering with a Book of Revelation command to Come out of Her, My People.
It was always conflicted and dichotomized; never really making sense until she made the substitution. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 03 Jun 2012 19:17:11 |
|
|
|
Jay Scott
Advanced Member
uSA
162 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2012 : 08:40:29
|
I'm glad to share. I think sharing is growing for all willing.
At that link, I typed the word "they" (no quotes) into the "Search Word(s):" box and clicked the "Search" button.
Then randomly clicked a link and searched the subsequent page for the word "they" using the "find" function in the browser.
This time the first one I clicked on was labeled: 37 USC Sec. 476
And the first instance of "they" I found is:
"When orders directing a change of permanent station for the member concerned have not been issued, or when they have been issued but cannot be used as authority..." blah-dy blah blah. :)
"...orders...have not been issued, or when they have been issued..."
Appears to me "they" here refers to "orders." I have not had trouble find similar examples.
More to the point, does the actual intent of the writer negate the unique message you received? Maybe the Writer of the writer had a different intent just for you and me.
I'm puzzled about the "I like mathematics!" comment. The first thought is what does "US Code" have to do with mathematics? Are you talking about the boolean logic used in the search terms? I get a kick outta boolean logic too.
Jay Scott.
|
|
|
|
Jay Scott
Advanced Member
uSA
162 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2012 : 08:42:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
Today I was speaking with a new suitor and she got it clearly because of spending two decades pondering with a Book of Revelation command to Come out of Her, My People.
It was always conflicted and dichotomized; never really making sense until she made the substitution.
Smells like a new topic to me. :)
Jay Scott.
|
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1122 Posts |
|
|
Bondservant
Forum Administrator
Belize
337 Posts |
Posted - 20 Dec 2012 : 19:03:36
|
| David, can you bring any light to how the IR$ stole church funds from a church bankster account because they merely proclaimed to the bank that the church was now a Nominee for a donor? No judicial declaration, no judicial hearing, no nothing of record anywhere except that the IR$ told the bank the church was now a "nominee" for the (donor) taxpayer and they demanded (as well as received from the bank) every FRN penny in the church bank accounts (2 separate accounts in two different States). The "taxpayer" (donor) they claimed the church was now a nominee for was not a signatory on any of the accounts and has absolutely no legal or lawful tie to the church or church bank accounts. |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1122 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jan 2013 : 20:05:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bondservant
David, can you bring any light to how the IR$ stole church funds from a church bankster account because they merely proclaimed to the bank that the church was now a Nominee for a donor? No judicial declaration, no judicial hearing, no nothing of record anywhere except that the IR$ told the bank the church was now a "nominee" for the (donor) taxpayer and they demanded (as well as received from the bank) every FRN penny in the church bank accounts (2 separate accounts in two different States). The "taxpayer" (donor) they claimed the church was now a nominee for was not a signatory on any of the accounts and has absolutely no legal or lawful tie to the church or church bank accounts.
An administrative letter to the bank is probably how they did it.
If there was any legitimacy to the action then the donor was probably using the church as a trust. If the donor was a beneficiary and trustee in the name of the church, in order to conceal funds from the IRS then the church's name would be an alter ego/nominee. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Redeemed Lawful Money
