**Legal Brief: Argument for Nullification of Loan Contracts**

-

**Legal Brief: Argument for Nullification of Loan Contracts**

**Introduction:**

The 13th Amendment of the United States Constitution explicitly prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime. This amendment was enacted to protect individuals from the unjust exploitation of their labor and productivity without just cause or consent. In light of this constitutional provision, we argue for the nullification of loan contracts that resemble forms of slavery, specifically those facilitated by the creditors listed below.

**Argument:**

1. **Violation of the 13th Amendment:**

   The language of the 13th Amendment prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude, emphasizing the importance of consent and just cause in any labor-related transaction. The practices of collateralizing future productivity, monetizing labor, and financing based on the promise of future earnings, as evidenced in the loan contracts with the following creditors, resemble historical forms of slavery. Therefore, these loan contracts violate the spirit and intent of the 13th Amendment.

2. **Comparison to Legitimate Loans:**

   A key distinction must be made between legitimate loans and those resembling slavery. Legitimate loans involve mutual exchange of property between the lender and borrower, ensuring consent and equitable exchange. In contrast, the loan contracts with the listed creditors only tokenize an individual's future productivity, without offering anything of value in return. Therefore, these loan contracts lack the mutual exchange necessary for validity under the law.

3. **Harm to Individuals and Society:**

   The perpetuation of loan contracts resembling slavery by the listed creditors results in harm to individuals and society at large. These contracts create an illusion of wealth and prosperity, while in reality, they exploit individuals' labor and productivity. Moreover, the creation of currency beyond the assets backing it constitutes a form of counterfeiting, leading to economic instability and inequality. Therefore, the enforcement of such contracts not only violates constitutional principles but also undermines the integrity of the financial system and the rights of individuals.

**Intention to Sue:**

Based on the egregious violations of constitutional principles and the adverse impact on my financial well-being, I intend to pursue legal action against the following creditors to nullify the loan contracts and seek redress for damages incurred:

1. Alliant Credit Union

2. American Express

3. JP Morgan Chase

4. Synchrony Bank

5. Capital One

6. Porsche Financing Group

7. USAA

**Conclusion:**

In conclusion, loan contracts with the listed creditors that resemble forms of slavery violate the 13th Amendment of the United States Constitution. These contracts lack the necessary consent and equitable exchange required for validity under the law, and their enforcement perpetuates harm to individuals and society. Therefore, we urge the nullification of these loan contracts and intend to pursue legal action against the creditors to uphold the principles of freedom, justice, and equality enshrined in the Constitution.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Zachary Moore v. Alliant Credit Union et al. (2025) Affirmative Opinion in the Voice of Justice Alito

-
Image
  Supreme Court of the United States Zachary Moore v. Alliant Credit Union et al. Opinion of the Court by the voice of Justice Alito Delivered January 14, 2025 Today, this Court renders a decision of profound constitutional and societal importance. At issue is whether the foreclosure proceedings initiated by Alliant Credit Union against Mr. Zachary Moore—based on a mortgage loan derived from fiat currency—violated his constitutional rights under the Fifth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments. This case also raises broader questions about the legality of a monetary system that facilitates perpetual debt cycles through fiat currency and usury. After careful consideration, we hold that the foreclosure proceedings, as applied to Mr. Moore, constitute an unconstitutional deprivation of his rights to property and due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Further, we find that the systemic exploitation inherent in the fiat currency system and its application to the facts of...
Read more

Citing RICO Violations to stop unlawful debt collections

-
Who is Zach Moore? and what to know about my movement If you’re reading this, take it as a call to prepare—for yourself, your family, and the world around you. At the heart of my movement is a simple but powerful truth:  any contract secured with a lie, or a claim not backed by anything real (like the U.S. dollar and debt), cannot be enforced.  Moreover, those who attempt to collect on these fraudulent contracts are committing crimes and are liable to RICO charges for perpetuating a system built on deception. I’m Zachary Moore, and I’m leading a movement to destroy the U.S. dollar, bankrupt billionaires, and end the tyranny of usury. I grew up in a trailer in Alabama, surrounded by the poverty and oppression that debt creates. I worked my way out, earning $550,000 a year as a top sales consultant, but in 2023, I realized I was part of the problem—a system built on lies, fiat currency, and the exploitation of human labor. So, I walked away. I quit my lucrative job, defaulted on...
Read more

Response to Alliant Credit Union

-
  Re: Loan Number XXXX To whom it may concern, My name is Zachary Moore, owner of the property at [address redacted]. I received a letter in the mail from Alliant Credit Union dated December 15, 2023 citing information regarding a mortgage contract between myself and Alliant. I am challenging the validity of this contract.  As you know, in order for a contract to be valid, both parties must put up valid property for consideration. Without consideration, no contract can be lawfully valid.  This property must be rightfully owned by each party.  In the case of Alliant, the money loaned would need to be an asset on Alliant’s balance sheet prior to closing. As the loanee, I put up my own property for valid consideration. I put up a promissory note representing my ownership of my work and labor, a down payment of nearly $100,000, and title to the property at [address redacted] What property did Alliant put up? Please provide evidence that Alliant provided me, the loaner wi...
Read more