14th Amendment and It’s Application

-

 

The 14th Amendment: Overview

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified on July 9, 1868, is one of the most significant constitutional amendments. It establishes key principles of citizenship, due process, and equal protection under the law.

Key Provisions of the 14th Amendment

  1. Citizenship Clause

    “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

    • Establishes national citizenship and ensures that no state can deny citizenship rights.

  2. Due Process Clause

    “...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

    • Prohibits state and local governments from depriving individuals of fundamental rights without fair legal procedures.

  3. Equal Protection Clause

    “...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    • Mandates that states treat all individuals equally under the law.

Relevance to Zachary Moore’s Defense of His Property

The 14th Amendment plays a critical role in protecting Mr. Moore's constitutional rights in his legal dispute regarding the foreclosure and eviction from his property. Here’s how it applies:

1. Protection Against Unjust Deprivation of Property (Due Process Clause)

  • Requirement for Fair Procedures
    The Due Process Clause guarantees that no state may deprive Mr. Moore of his property without a lawful and fair legal process.

    • If the mortgage contract is based on invalid or fraudulent consideration (e.g., fiat currency without tangible value), any foreclosure or eviction proceeding violates due process.
    • Actions by the Elbert County Court and Sheriff enforcing an unconstitutional or unlawful foreclosure could therefore be deemed invalid.

  • Challenge to Foreclosure Legitimacy
    Mr. Moore has a right to challenge the foreclosure based on the argument that the promissory note lacks valid consideration. Under Carpenter v. Longan (1872), if the note is invalid, the mortgage—and any actions enforcing it—are also invalid.

2. Equal Protection Under the Law

  • Prohibition of Arbitrary or Discriminatory Actions
    The Equal Protection Clause requires that Mr. Moore be treated the same as any other individual under similar circumstances.
    • Any bias or favoritism shown to financial institutions at the expense of Mr. Moore’s rights violates this clause.
    • The enforcement of a foreclosure based on an invalid contract disproportionately benefits powerful financial institutions while depriving an individual of property, potentially reflecting systemic inequality.

3. Right to Life, Liberty, and Property

  • Fundamental Rights
    The 14th Amendment’s reference to "life, liberty, or property" enshrines the protection of these fundamental rights.
    • Mr. Moore’s home is his property, and it cannot be seized without a valid and lawful justification.
    • The Sheriff’s use of an MRAP vehicle and alleged intimidation tactics further infringe upon Mr. Moore’s liberty, compounding the violation of his rights.

4. State Accountability

  • State Actors Must Follow the Constitution
    The Elbert County Sheriff’s Office and District Court are bound by the 14th Amendment to uphold Mr. Moore’s constitutional rights.
    • If these state actors enforce an order that deprives Mr. Moore of property without valid legal justification, they violate their obligations under the Constitution.

Case Law Supporting the Application of the 14th Amendment

  1. Fuentes v. Shevin (1972)

    • The Supreme Court ruled that individuals are entitled to notice and a fair hearing before being deprived of property, even temporarily.
    • Application: Any action to evict Mr. Moore must be preceded by a fair and constitutional process.

  2. Goldberg v. Kelly (1970)

    • The Court held that due process requires a hearing before the government can terminate certain entitlements.
    • Application: Mr. Moore must have an opportunity to challenge the validity of the mortgage and foreclosure in a meaningful way.

  3. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. (1950)

    • Established that due process requires adequate notice and a fair opportunity to be heard.
    • Application: If Mr. Moore was not adequately informed or given an opportunity to defend against foreclosure on valid grounds, his due process rights were violated.

  4. Shelley v. Kraemer (1948)

    • The Court held that state enforcement of private agreements (e.g., racially restrictive covenants) that violate constitutional rights is unconstitutional.
    • Application: State enforcement of an unconstitutional or fraudulent foreclosure would violate Mr. Moore’s rights.

Conclusion

Under the 14th Amendment, Mr. Moore’s rights to due process, equal protection, and protection from arbitrary deprivation of property are clear and unequivocal. Any attempt by the Elbert County Court or Sheriff to enforce a foreclosure without validating the legitimacy of the mortgage would violate these rights.

The 14th Amendment ensures that Mr. Moore’s constitutional protections supersede any state actions or court orders that are inconsistent with fairness, equity, or the law. This forms a cornerstone of his defense in protecting his property from unjust seizure.

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