Property Taxes and 31 USC 3124

[allodial]

"A double edged sword in that the county assessor might also be aware of the FRNs being value-less and therefore you construed that you didn't really pay for your condo with lawful money--thus you see the price to pay might be for them to act as if you did."

I don't think this could be a presumption that the assessor could hold. He was not a party to any previous contract. You are in possession, and for anything resembling a replevin (naming specific property is a replevin not attachment), the plaintiff only succeeds in the strength of his title, not the weakness of the one in possession. Also anyone can declare to have paid the previous owner in lawful money and let the opposing party make the claim that you didn't. The previous owner, being dumb as the general public, will agree with you if called upon to do so.

Perhaps, but if you are telling him that you paid with scrip, its not a presumption since the assessor's knowledge would come from a confession. Furthermore, it would seem more viable to say you can't be taxed because you were paid with scrip rather than saying you can't be taxed because you PAID with scrip. Also, keep in mind that an 'unsecured debt' is one that is secured by EVERYTHING a person owns.