Fact-Based Overview of Complaint Against the Sheriff and Alliant Credit Union

-

Subject: Fact-Based Overview of Complaint Against the Sheriff and Alliant Credit Union

Background Information:

  1. Parties Involved:

    • Complainant: Zachary Travis Moore, residing at 371 Buckskin Court, Parker, Colorado.

    Bank and Legal Representatives:

    • Alliant Credit Union: Lender in the mortgage agreement initiated in December 2021.

    • Messner Reeves Law Firm: Representing Alliant Credit Union.

    • Deanne R. Stodden: Attorney at Messner Reeves.

    • Lina Kylie: Elite Home Partners, Keller Williams (buyer at auction).

    Elbert County Officials:

    • Sheriff’s Office:

      • Tim Norton: Sheriff of Elbert County.

    • Public Trustee:

      • Sheryl (Sherry) L. Hewlett: Elbert County Treasurer and Public Trustee.

    Court Officials:

    • Theresa Slade: Representative of the Elbert County District Court.

    Government Agencies (Notified of Alleged RICO Violations):

    • Colorado Attorney General: Phil Weiser.

    • Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

    • Public Trustee of Colorado: Gregory Gavin.

Complaint Overview:

  1. Fraudulent Mortgage Contract:

    • In December 2021, I entered into a mortgage contract with Alliant Credit Union for a property valued at over $800,000.

    • The contract was based on fiat currency, which is money created without tangible backing (e.g., gold or silver), rendering the contract inherently fraudulent.

    • The loan’s terms relied on the Federal Reserve system, which systematically inflates currency values, creating perpetual debt cycles.

    • I believe the contract may be fraudulent and have formally requested proof of valid consideration from Alliant Credit Union to establish my obligation to pay. Despite submitting an affidavit to the court system requesting this proof, the institution has failed to provide any evidence of valid consideration.

    • Since Alliant Credit Union is alleging a breach of contract, the burden of proof lies with them to demonstrate the validity of the contract. Merely appealing to the terms of non-payment under a promissory note is insufficient evidence to validate their acquisition of said note. Allowing such practices threatens rational consent and enables corporate overreach akin to a form of slavery prohibited by the 13th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

    • I submitted formal complaints and requests for proof of consideration to Alliant Credit Union on 6/3/2024, 8/8/2024, 8/27/2024, and 12/3/2024, each met with obfuscation and non-compliance.

      The Challenge of Legal Theory and Natural Rights:

      • The core challenge of this legal theory lies in establishing the nature and dignity of man and his natural rights as a being of free will. Such rights are foundational to the concepts of justice and fairness in law.

      • Historical parallels can be drawn to the antebellum era, when it was technically legal, according to statute and precedent, to treat slaves as undeserving of natural rights. Despite the legality, such practices were unlawful and immoral, violating the innate dignity of human beings.

      • Similarly, today’s statutes and precedents often allow banks and governments to declare something of value simply because it benefits them, justifying their need to bind the conscience of men and women. This raises significant questions about whether such practices violate natural law and the principles of free will and consent.


  2. Potential Racketeering Activity:

    • I believe the actions of Alliant Credit Union and associated entities represent a form of racketeering, punishable under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.

    • On December 10, 2024, I submitted requests for RICO violations to the Colorado Attorney General, the FBI, the lender, and the Public Trustee of Colorado. To date, I have received no response from any of these parties.

    • While my primary intention is not to sue the Federal Reserve, I seek to protect my rights to life, liberty, and property. Should the Federal Reserve be implicated in this racketeering, I believe pursuing damages for the fraud they and their global network of central banks have committed would be just. This would include the redistribution of assets acquired by fraud, such as the world’s gold reserves and real estate holdings.

  3. Foreclosure and Eviction Proceedings:

    • Alliant Credit Union initiated foreclosure proceedings, and the Elbert County District Court authorized an eviction order.

    • On November 25, 2024, prior to the auction, the Elbert County Sheriff’s Department, led by Tim Norton, and Sheryl (Sherry) L. Hewlett, Elbert County Treasurer/Public Trustee, were notified in writing of the fraud associated with this foreclosure.

    • Sheryl Hewlett responded to the notification by stating that she was "just doing her job," disregarding the evidence of fraud.

    • The Sheriff’s Office, acting under this order, served an eviction notice scheduled for enforcement at midnight on January 19, 2025.

Concerns with the Sheriff’s Actions:

  1. Use of Military Equipment:

    • On January 11, 2025, the Sheriff’s Office arrived at my property with an armored military MRAP vehicle to deliver the eviction notice.

    • An officer stationed on top of the MRAP pointed a deadly weapon at me, an act of unwarranted aggression and a direct threat to my safety.

  2. Violation of Rights:

    • The Sheriff’s actions constitute harassment, intimidation, and overreach. Trespassing was committed by entering my property without consent, and the officer’s action of pointing a weapon escalated the situation to a life-threatening violation of my rights.

    • The eviction process violates my rights to life, liberty, and property.

    • If they forcibly enter my home, they will commit further violations, including breaking and entering, assault, and destruction of property.

Systemic Issues Raised:

  1. Fraudulent Financial Practices:

    • The mortgage was secured through a system that uses fiat currency, created without tangible backing, making repayment mathematically impossible without defaults elsewhere.

    • The Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies ensure that debtors are perpetually disadvantaged, enriching lenders at the expense of borrowers.

  2. Corruption in Judicial and Law Enforcement Processes:

    • The court’s willingness to enforce foreclosure and eviction orders based on fraudulent contracts highlights systemic bias in favor of financial institutions.

    • The Sheriff’s compliance with these orders, despite their apparent illegitimacy, demonstrates a failure to protect individual rights.

Peaceful Non-Compliance Strategy:

  1. Communication:

    • I have notified the Sheriff’s Office, lender, and court of my intent to exercise peaceful non-compliance. I will not vacate my property voluntarily and will resist coercion under duress.

  2. Documentation:

    • While I have not installed cameras, I plan to record interactions using my phone to document any unlawful actions for legal proceedings.

Requested Legal Action:

  • Challenge the Legitimacy of the mortgage contract and foreclosure process.

  • Hold Alliant Credit Union Accountable for fraudulent practices.

  • Address Law Enforcement Overreach, including the Sheriff’s use of excessive force and military equipment.

  • Grant Title to My Property and ensure just compensation for damages resulting from the fraud.

  • Indefinitely Stay the Eviction until Alliant Credit Union can prove valid consideration.

Conclusion: This complaint outlines the systemic injustice and individual violations I am facing due to the fraudulent actions of Alliant Credit Union and the enforcement of their claims by the Elbert County Sheriff’s Office. I request immediate legal assistance to address these issues and ensure accountability for all parties involved.


Federal and Constitutional Protections:

  1. 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

    • Prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime. Allowing contracts to bind individuals without valid consideration could be argued as a form of involuntary servitude.

  2. 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

    • Guarantees due process and equal protection under the law. Foreclosure proceedings based on fraudulent or invalid contracts could constitute a violation of your due process rights.

Consumer Protection and Financial Laws:

  1. Truth in Lending Act (TILA) (15 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et seq.):

    • Requires lenders to disclose clear and accurate information about loan terms. Failure to provide such disclosure could void the contract.

  2. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) (15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq.):

    • Protects consumers from abusive practices by creditors. Misrepresentation of the validity of the debt could constitute a violation.

  3. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) (18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq.):

    • Prohibits acts performed as part of a criminal organization, including fraud and racketeering by financial institutions.

Court Rulings:

  1. Jerome Daly v. First National Bank of Montgomery (1969) (Minnesota Justice Court):

    • Known as the “Credit River Case.” The court found that the bank’s use of fiat currency to issue loans constituted fraud because no actual consideration was provided. Although not binding precedent, this case is a foundational argument for challenging the validity of contracts based on fiat money.

  2. Carpenter v. Longan (1872) (83 U.S. 271):

    • Established that a promissory note and the mortgage are inseparable. If the mortgage is found invalid, so is the promissory note.

  3. Glaski v. Bank of America, N.A. (2013) (California Court of Appeal):

    • Held that a borrower has standing to challenge a foreclosure if the lender cannot prove ownership or a valid assignment of the loan.

  4. Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp. (2016) (California Supreme Court):

    • Affirmed that borrowers could challenge the validity of loan transfers when contesting foreclosures.

  5. United States v. Throckmorton (1878) (98 U.S. 61):

    • Established that judgments obtained through fraud are void and subject to attack.

State-Specific Laws (Colorado):

  1. Colorado Revised Statutes § 38-38-101 et seq.:

    • Governs the foreclosure process, requiring strict adherence to procedures to ensure the rights of homeowners are protected.

  2. Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CCPA) (C.R.S. §§ 6-1-101 et seq.):

    • Prohibits deceptive trade practices, including misrepresentation of a product or service, which could apply to fraudulent mortgage agreements.

Application to Your Case:

  • Fraudulent Mortgage Contract: The burden of proof lies with Alliant Credit Union to show valid consideration under Carpenter v. Longan. If no consideration exists, the contract and subsequent foreclosure are invalid.
  • Threat to Life and Property: The officer pointing a weapon could violate your 14th Amendment rights and state trespass laws.
  • Racketeering: Failure to respond to RICO-related allegations could implicate Alliant and the Federal Reserve network under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq..
  • Consumer Protection: Alliant Credit Union’s refusal to provide proof of consideration may constitute deceptive practices under TILA and CCPA.

Comments

  1. AnonymousJanuary 16, 2025 at 5:21 PM

    I love it !!! This is our sovereignty that God entitled us too ! These are illegal practices that people are finally realizing.

    ReplyDelete

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