Fun with Lawful Money

[Jaro]

The term real is contextually sensitive.

In civil law, real relates to any thing (whether movable or immovable), as distinguished from a person (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.)
How much would we like to wager the that the term real estate, has its roots in Roman Civil Law?

We must take caution when using common street understanding with legal terms of art ....

No it ain't, especially since I defined it "like in common law real". Are you saying that common law isn't real or that it doesn't deal with real things in the real world? FYI, Common law is foreign to today's corporate States and their statutes, which AREN'T in real world, since they deal ONLY with LEGAL FICTIONS, which are all DEAD, and exist ONLY on paper and in the minds of men.

There was tax in common law too. How do you think the King acquired his royal revenues (census regalia)?
Metals became coin of the realm first by practice, then by court ruling and precedence. Most of Europe was historically on a de facto silver standard for centuries. The gold standard was relatively recent in British and European history (16th century).
English Common Law was primarily monopoly law for the King and nobles.
Subjects hated Common Law. Some so much so that they left the realm (colonization).

Haha, you must be speaking about some OTHER common law. The one I'm talking about is defined here:

"COMMON LAW. That which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. See Law, common.
LAW, COMMON. The common law is that which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. It has never received the sanction of the legislature, by an express act, wbich is the criterion by which it is distinguished from the statute law. It has never been reduced to writing; by this expression, however, it is not meant that all those laws are at present merely oral, or communicated from former ages to the present solely by word of mouth, but that the evidence of our common law is contained in our books of Reports, and depends on the general practice and judicial adjudications of our courts.
2. The common law is derived from two sources, the common law of England, and the practice and decision of our own courts.
3. The phrase "common law" occurs in the seventh article of the amendments of the constitution of the United States. "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall not exceed twenty dollar says that article, "the right of trial by jury shall be preserved. The "common law" here mentioned is the common law of England, and not of any particular state. 1 Gallis. 20; 1 Bald. 558; 3 Wheat. 223; 3 Pet. R. 446; 1 Bald. R. 554. The term is used in contradistinction to equity, admiralty, and maritime law. 3 Pet. 446; 1 Bald. 554."

OBVIOUSLY then, Common law is law made by People/juries, who also have the power to NULLIFY a law they think unjust or wrong (if they made it, they can judge it). It's only after we slipped into corporate Democracy in 1933, that juries no longer have the power to judge the law, but only the facts. Surely you don't think that the Englishmen in old England TAXED THEMSELVES, do you? So obviously, if there were taxes back then, those were made by the acts of Parliament or the king, and applied only to his subjects, just like now statutes apply only to artificial persons like strawmen. Those were not common law.

I mean, even today we're starting to learn that if you got lawful money, YOU'RE NOT SUBJECT to king Obama's taxes, right? And what's lawful money? It's REAL money, like in common law real.
I mean, when we got lawful money, are we sovereigns or are we sovereigns? :-) Don't only subjects pay taxes?

BTW, Common Law in America was abolished in 1933, when the At Law and Equity jurisdiction were combined and replaced by rules of civil procedure. I mean what would you expect, when the people no longer have REAL money and so can't REALLY own anything, then they have no right to common law which deals with REAL world and REAL things, and not imaginary Matrix of the corporate State, or Law Merchant that deals only with security interest and not with actual ownership.

Oh, an who are the people with power to make (common) laws? Obviously they must be freemen/sovereigns, since only sovereigns have the authority to make (or judge) law. I don't think king's subjects would have such authority; if they did they wouldn't be subjects, would they?

I contend it is the registration of the land which subjects one to property tax and building codes.
Registration makes a thing a(n) (equitable) security.
That security is now marketable.
That thing becomes an asset for multiple interests rather than property held jus privati.
Since the house is now an equitable security in which profit can be derived, the gains are subject to tax.

What makes land subject to property taxes, is it's classification as residential, industrial, etc. Only when it's classified PRIVATE, it's not subject to those taxes. And in order to get it classified as private, you gotta pay off the secret liens against that land with gold, or pay for it with lawful money.