10 Letters of Support - Holding Sheriff Norton to His Constitutional Duty
The following is a sample of the potentially hundreds of letters and phone calls received by the Elbert Country Sheriffs Department on Zachary Moore’s behalf on or around January 15th demanding he not execute the eviction order and uphold his oath to the natural law and the constitution of the United States.
Dear Sheriff,
I am writing to formally address a grave concern regarding the recent actions taken by you, which I believe to be in direct violation of constitutional rights. As a citizen of the United States, I hold the U.S. Constitution in the highest regard, and I trust that as the elected sheriff, you are duty-bound to uphold and protect these rights.
Specifically, I am concerned about the unconstitutional nature of the action that resulted in removing Mr. Moore from hishome. The Constitution provides strong protections against unlawful eviction or displacement, and I believe this action was a violation of the following rights:
Fourth Amendment: The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, including the unlawful seizure of property. The removal from home, without due legal process or just cause, constitutes an infringement of this protection.
Fifth Amendment: The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Removal from my home without a court order, legal proceeding, or proper notice is a clear violation of this due process right.
Fourteenth Amendment: The Fourteenth Amendment provides equal protection under the law and further guarantees that no state shall deprive any person of property without due process. If the actions taken by your office did not follow proper legal procedures, this would be a violation of both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
It is my understanding that the Constitution ensures that a person’s home is their private sanctuary, and no person or government official can forcibly remove someone from their residence without following the law, including obtaining a lawful court order. Unless there are specific legal grounds (such as a court-issued eviction order or other legal process), the action of removing anyone from their home is unconstitutional.
I respectfully request that you immediately review this matter, and I ask that any actions taken by your office that violate constitutional rights be rectified. Mr. Zachary Moore should be entitled to remain in his home until due process is properly followed, and I trust you will uphold the law in this matter.
Please provide a detailed response outlining the legal justification for the actions taken and the steps you will take to remedy this situation. I would appreciate a prompt and thorough response to ensure that this matter is resolved in a manner consistent with the protections guaranteed by the Constitution.
Thank you for your attention to this serious issue. I trust that as the sheriff, you will take the necessary steps to ensure that the rights of all citizens are upheld.
I am writing as a concerned citizen and a proud supporter of the United States Constitution to express my objection to the decision against Mr. Zachary Moore. As public servants sworn to protect and defend the Constitution, it is your duty to uphold the rights of the people—not to enforce unjust court orders that violate those rights.
We, The People, overrule the Elbert County District Court’s decision against Mr. Moore because all debts are forgiven. The financial system that perpetuates fraudulent and unrepayable debts is unconstitutional, unjust, and immoral. Any action taken by your department to deprive Mr. Moore of his life, liberty, or property under these circumstances will be regarded as treason against your oath of office and the Constitution of the United States.
The world is watching. Your actions will not go unnoticed. We demand that you honor your sworn duty to protect Mr. Moore’s rights and refuse to enforce any unconstitutional orders against him. This is your opportunity to stand with the people you serve and uphold the principles of justice, truth, and freedom.
As the saying goes: What is spoken in the valley will be shouted from the mountains.
We are lending our voices to this cause and holding you accountable.
Sincerely,
Michael Breault
Chairman
URME United Ministries
I am writing as a concerned citizen and a proud supporter of the United States Constitution to express my objection to the decision against Mr. Zachary Moore. As public servants sworn to protect and defend the Constitution, it is your duty to uphold the rights of the people—not to enforce unjust court orders that violate those rights.
We, The People, overrule the Elbert County District Court’s decision against Mr. Moore because all debts are forgiven. The financial system that perpetuates fraudulent and unrepayable debts is unconstitutional, unjust, and immoral. Any action taken by your department to deprive Mr. Moore of his life, liberty, or property under these circumstances will be regarded as treason against your oath of office and the Constitution of the United States.
The world is watching. Your actions will not go unnoticed. We demand that you honor your sworn duty to protect Mr. Moore’s rights and refuse to enforce any unconstitutional orders against him. This is your opportunity to stand with the people you serve and uphold the principles of justice, truth, and freedom.
As the saying goes: What is spoken in the valley will be shouted from the mountains.
We are lending our voices to this cause and holding you accountable.
Sincerely,
Tami Zakrie
Dear Sheriff Norton and the Elbert County Sheriff’s Department,
As a concerned citizen and staunch defender of constitutional principles, I write to express my profound objection to your department’s recent actions, particularly those against Mr. Zachary Moore. These actions, which include the use of military-grade equipment, coercive force, threat, intimidation and unjust property seizure—including a primary principal residence and consumer household goods—not only violate the foundational principles of justice but also breach federal and state laws, the international legal standards codified in the Lieber Code (General Orders No. 100), and critical constitutional protections under the Takings Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the Fourth Amendment.
Under Article 2 of the Lieber Code, actions deemed necessary to achieve lawful objectives must not involve cruelty, cause unnecessary suffering, or disregard the principles of humanity. The deployment of militarized equipment and the use of intimidation tactics against citizens in peaceful settings cannot be justified by any reasonable standard of law enforcement necessity. These actions constitute an overreach of authority that erodes public trust and a blatant breach of the peace.
Article 31 mandates humane treatment of all individuals, including protection from violence, insults, or coercive tactics. Using force to unjustly seize property or intimidate citizens violates this principle, as well as the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which protect against unreasonable searches and seizures and guarantee due process. Additionally, the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the taking of private property, including primary residences and consumer goods, for public use without just compensation. Any property seizure by your department must be in strict compliance with these constitutional guarantees.
Article 38 prohibits inhumane and unlawful actions, emphasizing that even in wartime, certain behaviors are unacceptable. While not a military conflict, the use of military-grade equipment and tactics against civilians mirrors such prohibited conduct, representing a violation of both ethical and legal standards.
Moreover, these actions violate federal laws, including:
42 U.S.C. §1983: Prohibiting the deprivation of rights under color of law.
18 U.S.C. §241: Criminalizing conspiracy to oppress, threaten, or intimidate individuals in the free exercise of their constitutional rights.
18 U.S.C. §242: Addressing the deprivation of rights under color of law, particularly when committed by officials acting outside their authority for a foreign principal or corporate interest.
12 U.S.C. §411: Addressing the proper issuance and use of Federal Reserve Notes and associated obligations, relevant to the financial underpinnings of property seizures.
31 U.S.C. §3124: Governing the management and accountability of federal funds, which can apply to financial interests tied to unjust property seizures.
State laws in Colorado similarly prohibit abusive practices by public officials:
C.R.S. §18-5-209: Criminalizing theft by extortion, particularly when carried out under the guise of legal authority.
C.R.S. §29-20-104: Establishing guidelines for lawful enforcement actions by municipal authorities, ensuring they do not exceed their lawful mandates.
Furthermore, the Due Process Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment ensures that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Any enforcement actions carried out without proper notice, a valid judicial order, or adherence to established legal procedures are inherently void under the principle of void judgments. Courts have held that judgments issued by individuals or entities without jurisdiction or proper authority are nullities and cannot be enforced.
We, The People, overrule the Elbert County District Court’s decision against Mr. Moore on the grounds that all debts are forgiven as obligations of the UNITED STATES, as established by the 73rd Congress, 1st Session, Volume 77, Part 1, 48 Stat. 112, 40 Stat. 411 §7(e), Proclamations 2039 and 2040, and codified in 12 U.S.C. §411, 13 U.S.C. §3123, 18 U.S.C. §8, 31 U.S.C. §1501, 31 CFR 357, and the Uniform Commercial Code. These statutes provide clear protections against the misuse of financial instruments and unjust property seizures and 11 USC 109 clearly states who is a debtor and UCC 9-307(h) states the location of the debtor.
It is inexcusable to use threats, force, or coercion to deny citizens their natural rights handed to the by a just Almighty Creator God under the guise of law enforcement, absent proper oaths of office, independent bonds, loyalty affidavits, anti-bribery statements, or notarial certificates. Without express delegation of authority or compliance with 26 U.S.C. §7603 (governing summons and procedures for legal notices), such actions are inherently void and legally indefensible.
Additionally, these actions constitute taxable events, including transfers, terminations, distributions, and direct skips, requiring reporting to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, IRS, and Social Security Administration, Maritime Commission. Failing to report these events violates 26 USC 2036, 26 USC 2603, 2602, 2002, 2001, 2032A (e)(11) and 26 U.S.C. §7201-7217 and related provisions,delegation of authority, and letter of appt. from the Treasury of Puerto Rico, placing your department in a position of willful non-compliance. Accountability is not optional, and ignorance of these obligations is no defense, it is the duty of the people to report loss, harm, damage and undue burden to the principle.
Judges presiding over such cases often have financial interests that compromise their impartiality, including investments in mortgage-backed securities. These conflicts of interest directly undermine public confidence in the judiciary and violate ethical standards, including those codified in 28 U.S.C. §455, which governs judicial disqualifications based on financial interests. No judge or public official should act in ways that unjustly enrich themselves or others at the expense of the people.
As employees/public servants, it is your fiduciary duty to act within the confines of the law, uphold constitutional protections, and serve the interests of justice. I urge you to immediately cease any actions that unjustly infringe upon the rights of citizens, withdraw militarized equipment from civilian interactions, and ensure all enforcement actions comply with constitutional and statutory requirements, especially the Oaths required under 5 USC 3331 with employee affidavit and anti-bribery statement, 4 USC 101 oaths, State Constitution, Federal Constitution and Independent Bonds required by law with notarial certificate attached under 22 CFR 92.12 et. seq. and rule 2 opinion letter per 26 USC 6903, followed by 26 USC 6036 notice of qualification, with the FARA statements under 22 USC 611 Along with proper court orders including the raised seal with the jurisdiction and authority of judge and venue with the full legal name and judicial authority, and affidavit with the signature of clerk, not an administrative rubber stamp order.
This matter is one of public trust, and adherence to legal and humanitarian principles is paramount. The people demand accountability, transparency, and the immediate correction of these injustices. I trust you will take this correspondence seriously and fulfill your sworn duty to protect the rights of the citizens you serve. This is not just your patriotic duty, but a contract and trust agreement you signed with We the People and you have a contractual trustee agreement in your personal, individual, and business capacity, to make sure the rights are upheld in the interest of service and justice.
I thank you for your time in reading this and we Accept and Acknowledge your Oath of Office.
Sincerely,
VOID WHERE PROHIBITED BY LAW
without prejudice
By: Greg-Scott
Dear Sheriff Norton and the Elbert County Sheriff’s Department,
I write to you as a concerned state national and steadfast advocate for the protections enshrined in the United States Constitution. It is your sworn duty, as public servants, to uphold and defend the supreme law of the land and protect the unalienable rights of the people—not to enforce orders that contravene those rights and subvert the principles of due process and justice.
We, the sovereign people, reject the Elbert County District Court’s decision against Mr. Zachary Moore on constitutional grounds. Pursuant to Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution, no law or order repugnant to the supreme law shall hold authority. The financial system fostering fraudulent and perpetually unpayable debts is in direct violation of these principles and represents a breach of the public trust.
Any attempt by your department to infringe upon Mr. Moore’s life, liberty, or property under an order lacking constitutional legitimacy would constitute a violation of your oath of office and the supreme law of this land. Such actions would be deemed an affront to the rights of the people and could be construed as treasonous against the foundational principles you have vowed to uphold.
The eyes of the nation are upon you. Your actions will not escape scrutiny, and we insist you honor your duty to refuse enforcement of unconstitutional directives. In doing so, you will affirm your allegiance to justice, truth, and the foundational freedoms guaranteed to all.
As the wisdom of the ages reminds us: "What is spoken in the valley will be proclaimed from the mountaintops."
We are unified in this call for justice and will hold all parties accountable to their sacred obligations under the Constitution.
Sincerely,
david-ray:sturgeon, free man on the land
660-924-2672
I am so very glad to see people standing up for the constitution. If this so-called sheriff goes against that Constitution, he is committing treason. Treason is a hangable offense. The sheriff had better get his priorities straight. He works for the people not for the corporation. If the sheriff goes against the constitution, he shall be held accountable for treason. It is time we the people stand up for that which is right and correct. No more flimflamming against the people for these corporations. The corporations are done. These banks need to be flipped upside down dumped out and canceled.
ReplyDeleteI read Psalm 63 today and found comfort in it:
Delete1 Truly my soul finds rest in God;
my salvation comes from him.
2 Truly he is my rock and my salvation;
he is my fortress, I will never be shaken.
3 How long will you assault me?
Would all of you throw me down—
this leaning wall, this tottering fence?
4 Surely they intend to topple me
from my lofty place;
they take delight in lies.
With their mouths they bless,
but in their hearts they curse.[b]
5 Yes, my soul, find rest in God;
my hope comes from him.
6 Truly he is my rock and my salvation;
he is my fortress, I will not be shaken.
7 My salvation and my honor depend on God[c];
he is my mighty rock, my refuge.
8 Trust in him at all times, you people;
pour out your hearts to him,
for God is our refuge.
9 Surely the lowborn are but a breath,
the highborn are but a lie.
If weighed on a balance, they are nothing;
together they are only a breath.
10 Do not trust in extortion
or put vain hope in stolen goods;
though your riches increase,
do not set your heart on them.
11 One thing God has spoken,
two things I have heard:
“Power belongs to you, God,
12 and with you, Lord, is unfailing love”;
and, “You reward everyone
according to what they have done.”
To Whom This May Concern:
DeleteI write this letter as one who stands outside the jurisdiction of any corporate entity, including that of the United States, and in my rightful status as a State National, free and independent under the supreme law of the land. It is my solemn duty to remind you of the oaths you swore to uphold the Constitution for the united States of America and to act as peace officers serving the People, not enforcers of statutory or corporate mandates.
The actions taken against the man known as Zachary-Moore are deeply troubling and appear to be in direct violation of natural law, common law, and the supreme law of the land as codified in the Constitution. Your office, as trustees of the People’s safety and liberty, bears the responsibility to discern lawful orders from those issued under color of law.
The Constitution is clear in its protections:
No man or woman may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, as declared in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Article VI establishes the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, making any conflicting statutes, regulations, or judicial orders null and void.
Actions that oppress the People or deprive them of their unalienable rights without due cause are acts of treason, as defined in Article III, Section 3.
As a peace officer, you are not bound to enforce every directive issued by courts or corporate entities. Your duty is to uphold the rights of living men and women and to ensure that no harm, loss, or fraud befalls them under your watch. Enforcing orders that result from unconstitutional financial schemes or breaches of due process places you at risk of becoming an accessory to treason against the People you swore to serve.
I demand, as one of the People, that you immediately assess whether the orders being enforced upon Zachary-Moore are lawful and just. Any failure to do so would constitute a betrayal of your sacred oath and a violation of the trust placed in your office.
The People are watching. History will remember those who stand for justice and those who betray it. I implore you to act in alignment with your oath and in service of truth and honor.
With respect,
David-Ray:Sturgeon
A living man on the land
Thank you David! We shall overcome together
DeleteHere is a draft letter explaining why your house cannot be sold, incorporating the concepts of consideration and the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC):
Delete[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[City, State, ZIP Code]
[Email Address]
[Phone Number]
[Date]
[Recipient's Name or "To Whom It May Concern"]
[Bank Name] or [Attorney's Name]
[Bank Address]
[City, State, ZIP Code]
Subject: Legal Basis Under UCC and Consideration Prohibiting the Sale of My House
Dear [Recipient's Name or "To Whom It May Concern"],
I am writing to formally assert my position that my house cannot lawfully be sold, referencing legal principles of consideration and provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The proposed sale would violate fundamental contractual and statutory rights that protect borrowers in financial transactions.
1. Consideration as the Basis of Contractual Obligations
In financial transactions, consideration is the value exchanged between parties to form a valid contract. Under UCC § 3-303, consideration must exist for a negotiable instrument (such as actual funds from _____ bank) to be enforceable. In this context:
As the borrower, I provided consideration by executing a promissory note, thereby creating a binding promise to repay the loan.
The lender (originally [Bank Name] and later [Current Holder]) was obligated to provide reciprocal consideration, such as actual funds, or a tangible financial benefit.
If the lender or subsequent parties failed to provide lawful consideration,(personal Funds from the bank) or transferred the note without proper documentation or authority, the agreement is invalid, and any actions based on the agreement, including the sale of my house, cannot proceed.
2. UCC Protections Against Unauthorized Transfers
The UCC governs negotiable instruments and outlines the rights and obligations of parties involved. Specifically:
UCC § 3-305 provides a borrower the right to assert real defenses, including the lack of consideration or fraud, against any party attempting to enforce a negotiable instrument.
UCC § 3-306 prohibits a transferee of a negotiable instrument from claiming enforcement rights if they acquired the instrument under conditions of fraud, illegality, or breach of fiduciary duty.
I have reason to believe that the note associated with my property contains irregularities, including “[NO PROOF OF ACTUAL FUNDS FROM _____BANK ]" and a blank indorsement that was not disclosed to me at the time of transfer"]. This raises significant concerns about the enforceability of the agreement and the legal authority to sell my house.
3. The Lack of Equity or Ownership Interest by the Bank
Under UCC principles and established case law, a bank cannot enforce a security interest or sell property unless it holds a valid ownership interest in the note and has provided lawful consideration. If no actual funds or equity were extended by the bank but instead the note was monetized or sold, then the bank or its assignees lack the legal standing to enforce the note or sell my property.
4. My Demand for Compliance and Retention of Ownership
I demand that the bank or any involved parties cease and desist from attempting to sell my house based on an invalid or improperly executed agreement. I reserve my rights under the UCC and applicable laws to retain ownership of my property and pursue legal remedies against any unauthorized actions.
Conclusion
The proposed sale of my house violates the principles of consideration and protections established under the UCC. As no lawful consideration has been demonstrated, and given the irregularities surrounding the negotiable instrument, the sale of my property is legally impermissible.
I expect an immediate acknowledgment of this letter and confirmation that no further actions to sell my property will occur. Should you fail to comply, I will pursue all available legal remedies to protect my rights.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your prompt response.
Sincerely,
This is it. How it all works. https://x.com/nesaragesara0/status/1879861551509000397?s=46
DeleteIf they do evict you, what then?
ReplyDeleteAn Appeal to Heaven
DeleteAnd if there is no room at the Inn?
ReplyDelete