Say Goodbye to Property Taxes?

[KnowLaw]

At law vs. In law

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.

[shikamaru]

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.

Common law courts are typically referred to as courts at law.
I don't know why this is, but I suspect the term "at law" has partly to do with Norman French influence and phraseology.
It could even be a hold over from Law French.

I would use the 'at law' clause in any contract in which gold and/or silver coin is tendered in payment of debt.

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)?

That is very interesting. If you can find any treatises or reference books supporting this, please share. I've been looking and I haven't found anything substantive yet, but I haven't given up!

The term positive such as positive law definitely refers to will.
I've frequently stated on this and other boards that law is the will of the political power holder.

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:



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.

I respect Lee Brobst's materials a great deal.
I'll will consider and weigh all this data.
Thanks for the great info!

I got the idea of the 'at law' phraseology from William Thornton, I believe.

[shikamaru]

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.

[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.

[KnowLaw]

Common law courts are typically referred to as courts at law.
I don't know why this is, but I suspect the term "at law" has partly to do with Norman French influence and phraseology.
It could even be a hold over from Law French.

I would use the 'at law' clause in any contract in which gold and/or silver coin is tendered in payment of debt.

That's interesting.

The term positive such as positive law definitely refers to will.
I've frequently stated on this and other boards that law is the will of the political power holder.

Yes. I agree. Understanding this one concept will change a person's perspective of what we are attempting to accomplish.

I respect Lee Brobst's materials a great deal.

I got the idea of the 'at law' phraseology from William Thornton, I believe.

Ahh. That last answers my question regarding where you encountered this idea.

And yes, I too, have a new respect for Lee's material, after having read the aforementioned internet essay which has really helped me to view all this in a slightly different light. The way he laid everything out in that piece helped me to connect a lot of dots. I'll have more to say about this in a separate thread.

[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.

[stoneFree]

I suppose the main reason to sign is because you don't have $171,250 (average US home price) in funds. Via the Federal Reserve system, a bank can conjure (from thin air?) new currency from a well-qualified buyer's signature. If you've found a way to conjure up your own funds outside the FR system, do tell.

[shikamaru]

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.

That and answer for debt owed .....

[Treefarmer]

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.

Have you bought a house or land that way?
I'd like to know how that works.

When I bought some land, using cash lawful money to buy it, I was told I had to go register the WARRANTY DEED at the county courthouse.
The DEED REGISTRATION is what got me on the property tax roll.
I never had a bank loan, but the property assessor comes out every few years to see what I've built, and jacks up the assessment accordingly.