Say Goodbye to Property Taxes?

[KnowLaw]

Pay dirt !!

Source
According to law; by, for, or in the law, as in the professional title attorney at law. Within or arising from the traditions of the Common Law as opposed to Equity, the system of law that developed alongside the common law and emphasized fairness and justice rather than enforcement of technical rules.

AT LAW. This phrase is used to point out that a thing is to be done according to the course of the common law; it is distinguished from a proceeding in equity.
2. In many cases when there is no remedy at law, one will be afforded in equity. See 3 Bouv. Inst. n. 2411.

Thanks for your feedback, shikamaru. Very much appreciated.

The first definition seems to seal the deal. And that last case of the definition also seems to fit the instance in which I would like to use it. "In many cases when there is no remedy at law, one will be afforded in equity."

I suppose it all depends on whose law one is using. Fictions at law, of course, would prefer us to use their law; I, however, would prefer not to use their law. Choice of law and jurisdiction being the main source for many of the problems that suitors like us encounter these days. It just seems like there's no holding these fictional public actors accountable using their law. (Well, there is, if you can get them to go after their own.)

As I recall from Brobst's piece, he described "our law" (as it pertains to "payment" of debt as opposed to "discharge" of debt) as being rooted in the substance of the medium we use as "money," that is, gold and silver. When the corporate government abandoned the Gold Standard in 1933 and then again in 1971 when Nixon closed the government's gold window, it effectively left us without "our law" as our law (the common [sense] law) is based in substance.

I'm just not wanting to get my connotations mixed up between the way certain people use these terms in their treatises and essays and how it is recognize "in law." As we all know, definitions COUNT when we're using these terms in our legal documents.

I'll stick with "at law" for now (until I see evidence to the contrary). I was just interested to hear how you came about to be using this term and recommending its use to us. Thanks.

[shikamaru]

As I recall from Brobst's piece, he described "our law" (as it pertains to "payment" of debt as opposed to "discharge" of debt) as being rooted in the substance of the medium we use as "money," that is, gold and silver. When the corporate government abandoned the Gold Standard in 1933 and then again in 1971 when Nixon closed the government's gold window, it effectively left us without "our law" as our law (the common [sense] law) is based in substance.

The gold standard is a ruse.

The gold standard is a march toward pure fiat currency.
The gold standard is fiat money in disguise.

Rather than valuing gold in silver, gold is valued in paper or "bills of credit" as was issued by the colonies in early American history.

[David Merrill]

The gold standard is a ruse.

The gold standard is a march toward pure fiat currency.
The gold standard is fiat money in disguise.

Rather than valuing gold in silver, gold is valued in paper or "bills of credit" as was issued by the colonies in early American history.

Good point.

Fiat is only allowed in America by Abraham LINCOLN's ongoing extraordinary occasion. Note that this is also the origin of the April 15th "Tax Year":

[shikamaru]

Good point.

Fiat is only allowed in America by Abraham LINCOLN's ongoing extraordinary occasion. Note that this is also the origin of the April 15th "Tax Year":

I'm certain the suspension of the redemption of notes or bills of credit by government upon request of banks has occurred multiple times throughout American history.

I'll have to post the treatise that would have such information.

[shikamaru]

Here you go:

A History of Money and Banking in the United States by Murray N. Rothbard

[powder]

i know i am late to the party. why not issue your own funds on a new purchase and express your own deed? seems easier.

[shikamaru]

i know i am late to the party. why not issue your own funds on a new purchase and express your own deed? seems easier.

That's a pretty radical idea . Not sure how that would hold up in court.

I say use what exists, but I'm sure they wish it didn't .

[powder]

The major reason PERSONS go to court is to fight their mortgage. if I purchase a house with my own funds, in full. No mortgage. why would i want to sign up for the tax roll or other caveats (one way promises) ? I wouldnt do it.