Say Goodbye to Property Taxes?

[KnowLaw]

Let's look at it this way.
Let's say we successfully negotiate with a seller to accept gold and silver coin.

The parties are free to draw up the contract to their mutual benefit.

The contract could say something to the effect that "$2000 in 40 $50 gold pieces and other valuable consideration tendered AT LAW for closure and settlement.

Remember contract makes the law. Contracts even supersede constitutions .

The contract expresses the intent of the buyer.
. . .
It has to do with common law vs equity if you will.

One is expressing intent to extinguish a debt at law rather than discharge in equity.

Quick question about the usage of "at law" in the above context of a contract for the sale of land.

What you've expressed here makes sense if your use of the terms is correct. I'm not sure, so that's why I'm asking.

I've been reading Lee Brobst's material, as well as doing a bit of web searching to confirm usage of certain terms. Perhaps in my desire to simplify the usage of the terms in my mind ("at law" as negative in terms of "the courts declare the law which is the will of the legislature in trust with the person;" "in law" as positive in terms of "the courts reveal your position in the Law which is not restrictive..."), I'm not taking the context of their usage into consideration in certain instances. Generally speaking, I'm wanting to be "in law" (de jure) in my dealings rather than "at law" which connotes dealing with fictions at law [according to statute]. Can you understand my dilemma here in mentally associating "in law" with a positive and "at law" with a negative in terms of how these two terms generally work with regard to the law (common law as opposed to statutory law or Roman civil law)?

Yes, the idea of "extinguishing the debt" [using lawful money] is the idea I wish to convey. So, "at law" is the correct terminology rather than "in law" in this instance?

Here are Lee's explanations of these terms in his piece USA The Republic, Is The House That No One Lives In:

85. To function "in law" means to function where the courts reveal your position in the Law which is not restrictive, because they are involved with promoting and expanding your unalienable rights by way of constitutional mandate.

86. To function at law and its equity means to function where the courts declare the law which is the will of the legislature in trust with the person. It is restrictive in nature, because there is no constitutional mandate due to the fact that it operates outside the Constitution.

So, is the reasoning here that equity in this case sides with "payment" which extinguishes debt as being higher than the legal obligation to "discharge" the debt (which fixes any controversy, except that in law that which is "discharged" is still not deemed to have been "paid for" with substance of value)? This is where I'm needing clarification with regard to which term is the more appropriate to use in this instance.