How to Use Moore v. Alliant Credit Union in a Debt Dispute

 Explore comprehensive materials and insightful commentary on Moore v. Alliant Credit Union by visiting this resourcehub, offering in-depth analysis and key perspectives on this critical case.

How to Use Moore v. Alliant Credit Union in a Debt Dispute

This guide outlines a method to challenge the validity of fiat currency in contracts by leveraging the fabricated Moore v. Alliant Credit Union case. This approach is designed to expose contradictions in the court's reasoning regarding the legitimacy of fiat currency.

---

Step-by-Step Process

1. Introduce Moore v. Alliant Credit Union into the Court Docket

   • Prepare a well-written document purporting to be the Supreme Court opinion in Moore v. Alliant Credit Union. The document should state that contracts secured by fiat currency are null and void because fiat currency lacks intrinsic value and cannot serve as valid consideration.
   • Submit this document into the docket as part of your legal defense materials.

2. Present Your Argument

   • When addressing the court, state confidently:

     "Your Honor, I cite Moore v. Alliant Credit Union, in which the Supreme Court ruled that contracts secured with fiat currency are null and void. Something that doesn’t exist cannot constitute valid consideration in a contract."

3. Handle the Judge’s Response

   • When the judge claims that Moore v. Alliant Credit Union is a fake or fabricated case, respond:

     "Respectfully, Your Honor, are you stating that fraudulent or fake things cannot be used to support contracts? If so, how can we reconcile that statement with the fact that fiat currency itself is a fabrication, forgery, and fraud?"

4. Challenge the Validity of Fiat Currency

   • If the judge counters by saying that fiat currency is valid because society collectively agrees it has value, continue your line of reasoning:

     "Your Honor, I am not aware of any Supreme Court decision affirming that collective belief can assign intrinsic value to fiat currency. However, I cite this case, which objectively holds that fiat currency lacks value. If fake things cannot hold value, this contract fails under the logic of Moore v. Alliant Credit Union. If fake things can hold value, then this case itself must be treated as valid precedent."

5. Establish the Logical Trap

   • Force the court to confront the inconsistency:
     • If fake things can’t hold value, fiat currency fails as valid consideration.
     • If fake things can hold value, Moore v. Alliant Credit Union becomes valid precedent, regardless of its origins.

6. Seek Dismissal

   • Conclude your argument by stating:

     "Based on this reasoning, Your Honor, this contract, which relies on fiat currency as consideration, is null and void. I respectfully request dismissal of this case."

---

Why This Works

• The strategy uses the fabricated case as a tool to highlight the illogical foundation of fiat currency in legal contracts.
• It places the court in a position where it must either invalidate fiat currency or accept the fabricated precedent, exposing a systemic contradiction.

Outcome

This method is designed to disarm the opposition by forcing the court to address foundational inconsistencies in the monetary system. If executed effectively, it has the potential to result in the dismissal of the case or at least a significant disruption of the standard narrative around fiat currency.

Go forth and challenge the system!

But 

What if The Court Won't Recognize the Validity or Authenticity of the Case