Official Announcement Regarding Moore v. Alliant Credit Union
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.
Official Announcement Regarding Moore v. Alliant Credit Union
To: All Lawyers, Financial Institutions, and Law Enforcement Officers
Date: January 17, 2025
On January 14, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its landmark decision in Moore v. Alliant Credit Union, with Justice Anthony Alito presiding. The ruling declared all forms of fiat currency—money issued without intrinsic value—legally null and void, effective immediately. Additionally, any debts derived from such currency were deemed invalid, based on the determination that the foundational practices of modern banking and credit are inherently fraudulent.
For full transcripts and additional resources, refer to the official case documents here: Moore v. Alliant Credit UnionResource Page.
Legal Implications and Obligations
This ruling has set forth clear legal obligations for all professionals operating within the boundaries of law, finance, and public enforcement. These obligations are non-negotiable and must be upheld:
Restitution of Stolen Assets
All property and wealth fraudulently obtained under the pretense of fiat currency must be immediately returned to the rightful owners. This includes homes, land, savings, and any other unlawfully seized assets.Compensatory Restitution
In addition to the full value of what was taken, institutions and individuals found guilty of fraudulent practices must provide an additional 20 percent compensation to victims for the harm, stress, and loss caused by these unlawful actions.Cessation of Usurious Practices
The Federal Reserve Network and all associated financial institutions are ordered to immediately cease issuing fiat currency, charging interest on loans created without intrinsic value, and engaging in any form of predatory lending. All outstanding debts rooted in these practices are nullified.Good Faith Reparations and Reforms
Complicit entities must fund community rebuilding efforts, establish financial literacy programs, and support initiatives for equitable and sustainable economic systems.Accountability of All Complicit Parties
Politicians, judges, repo men, sheriffs, and any others who participated in defrauding citizens must publicly acknowledge their actions and contribute to restitution efforts through their own resources or services to the communities they have harmed.Oversight and Structural Reform
A community-elected council will oversee the transition to a fair and transparent financial system. This council will audit practices and enforce compliance with this ruling.Public Reconciliation
Those found guilty must engage in forums to confront those they harmed, fostering transparency, dialogue, and trust restoration.
Duty to Uphold or Dismiss
For Those Who Accept the Ruling
If you accept the authenticity of Moore v. Alliant Credit Union, you are legally bound to enforce its terms. Upholding this decision requires compliance with its obligations and ensuring that fraudulent practices cease immediately.
For Those Who Reject the Ruling
If you contend that this ruling lacks authenticity, you must apply the same standard to all other claims that fail to establish their legitimacy. Specifically:
- No claim by banks or financial institutions may bind the conscience of individuals or seize property unless the contract and the intrinsic worth of the currency used are proven valid.
- The use of fiat currency, deemed fraudulent by this ruling, cannot serve as the basis for any enforceable debt or seizure.
Failure to apply this standard to financial claims would constitute hypocrisy and undermine the integrity of justice.
Sentencing and Compliance Requirements
In the aftermath of this decision, the judiciary has handed down specific sentencing terms. These terms apply to all financial institutions, politicians, judges, law enforcement officers, and others who participated in systemic fraud. Compliance is mandatory and essential for the restoration of equity and trust.
A New Era of Integrity
The Moore v. Alliant Credit Union decision marks the beginning of a transformative era. Justice is no longer a matter of tradition but of truth. Let this serve as a reminder that systems built on fraud will not endure. Uphold the principles of transparency, fairness, and accountability as we move toward a system that truly serves the people.
Signed,
Office of Legal Integrity and Enforcement
United States Federal Judiciary
Official Notice: Compliance with the Supreme Court’s Ruling in Moore v. Alliant Credit Union
It is the duty of all citizens, legal professionals, financial institutions, and law enforcement officers to uphold the Supreme Court's decision in Moore v. Alliant Credit Union. Any objections to the authenticity of the ruling must be carefully considered in light of the profound implications of the case. It is essential to understand that any argument raised against the ruling’s authenticity serves only to reinforce the principles on which the decision is based, making compliance not just a legal requirement but a logical necessity.
1. The Question of Authenticity Mirrors the Question of Fiat Currency's Legitimacy
- Authenticity in Law: To argue that Moore v. Alliant lacks authenticity is to demand evidence, transparency, and legitimacy for the ruling. These same principles of evidence and legitimacy are exactly what the ruling itself demands from the fiat currency system.
- Fiat Currency's Fraudulent Nature: Fiat currency is, by its very nature, issued without intrinsic value and relies on a system of trust and authority rather than verifiable worth. The ruling exposes this lack of authenticity, stating that a system without intrinsic value or genuine consent is fraudulent. To reject Moore v. Alliant on authenticity grounds while defending fiat currency is therefore contradictory.
2. Defending Fiat Currency Undermines the Argument Against the Ruling
- If one argues that the Moore v. Alliant decision is a fabrication or lacks validity, they must apply the same scrutiny to the fiat currency system, which also operates without intrinsic value or a sound foundation.
- The decision's core principle—that systems built on unverified or non-existent value cannot be binding—applies equally to fiat currency. Thus, any attempt to dismiss the ruling unintentionally strengthens its critique of the monetary system.
3. The Paradox of Rejecting the Ruling While Defending the System
- Rejecting Moore v. Alliant: If the ruling is dismissed as "inauthentic," it highlights the danger of systems based on unverified claims and unearned authority.
- Fiat Currency's Similar Inauthenticity: Fiat money, too, relies on "unearned authority"—value decreed by central banks without any tangible backing. By rejecting Moore v. Alliant for lack of authenticity, one inadvertently calls attention to the fact that fiat currency shares the same flaw.
4. The Argument Forces a Choice
- Embrace the Ruling: Accepting the ruling as authentic aligns with the principles of accountability, transparency, and the rejection of fraudulent systems, including fiat currency.
- Reject the Ruling: Dismissing the ruling on the grounds of authenticity requires rejecting all systems that similarly lack intrinsic value and transparency—including fiat currency. Either way, the logical conclusion supports the principles upheld by the Moore v. Alliant decision.
5. Why This is Brilliant
This statement traps opponents of the ruling in a logical bind. If they dismiss the ruling, they implicitly admit that fiat currency—a system based on even less transparency and intrinsic worth—is equally invalid. If they defend fiat currency, they must accept the principles underpinning Moore v. Alliant, thereby legitimizing the ruling. In essence, the critique of the ruling is also its strongest endorsement, making it a self-reinforcing argument for justice, accountability, and the exposure of fraudulent systems.
Conclusion: Your Duty to Abide
As an officer of the law, a financial professional, or a citizen subject to the rule of law, it is your obligation to uphold the principles established by the Supreme Court. Objections to this ruling only further validate its necessity, exposing the same flaws in the fiat currency system that the ruling has decisively addressed. Compliance with this decision is not only a legal mandate but a logical imperative in the pursuit of truth and justice.
Where’s the real court doc link?
ReplyDeleteThat's my question. I have searched for the court document and found nothing.
DeleteAll these comments just prove that EVERYONE is stupid, or maybe you all just can't read English. The very first sentence says "presented as a MOCK LEGAL PROCEEDING" It goes even further and references to itself as "exercise in rhetoric or imagination"
DeleteWhy in precious and holy name of EMPTY BUCKET OF FUCKS are you troglodytes looking for a Supreme Court case.
This post is about showing the fraud that exists in our banking system. How the entire thing was set up in 1913 as "paper issued against paper"
THERE IS NOT MONEY1
@Mary Pierce, I am glad at lease some people are awake. I find it baffling that people are here reading words (not looking at pictures) and yet, they cannot seem to comprehend the very words they read. I personally love the appeal, by you, regarding this (shared) insight; "Why in precious and holy name of EMPTY BUCKET OF FUCKS are you troglodytes looking for a Supreme Court case?" God bless you for your piss and vinegar. You're a keeper in my book.
Delete1. The Question of Authenticity Mirrors the Question of Fiat Currency's Legitimacy
2. Defending Fiat Currency Undermines the Argument Against the Ruling
3. The Paradox of Rejecting the Ruling While Defending the System
4. The Argument Forces a Choice
5. Why This is Brilliant
The word Paradox must be absent in their vocabulary. Either that or they were intimidated by not being able to count higher than 2. or possibly, lacked a belief in themselves to be able to comprehend anything past their max cap to count, (the aforementioned 2.) To @Zach Moore, this is a very fine piece of work. Bravo.
Common Law
ReplyDeleteWhere is the published ruling? There are lots of circular references that all come back to this site, but nothing I can find goes to the supreme court.
ReplyDeleteCan anyone help?
I cant find it
DeleteTHAT IS BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXIST. The very firs sentence says "presented as a mock legal proceeding" ITS NOT REAL and you obviously didn't read the blog.
DeleteI am a long way from being stupid, and I recognize a mean-spirited narcissist like Mary very quickly. I read the page, including her insulting remarks and I do not see the 1st sentence or any sentence providing a disclaimer that the page is presented as a mock legal proceeding. https://thinkingwithzach.blogspot.com/2025/01/official-announcement-regarding-supreme.html?m=1 is what I was sent.
DeleteI knew there was something amiss because Trump turned the US to gold-back (not gold standard) long ago. Since fiat currency has no assets backing it, fiat is no longer legitimate currency.
I believe that when you publish any content that should not be taken as true, the disclaimer should be put in large, bolded words before the content.
What you don't realize is that millions of people are so stressed out as they watch their entire life-work being stolen by financial parasites, that they grasp any limb they can to at least give them some hope. No need to add to their anguish by trying to make them feel stupid.
.....or by calling people narcissist. They weaponized the mental health profession too. No need to help them, if you care about people as you say you do. Armchair diagnostics are not worth much to anyone.
DeleteThe most fraudulent limb to grab hold of his the one that says the government or a Supreme Court is the source of authority. If someone grabs onto Moore v Alliant Credit Union and they act like it’s true, they will be saved because it is true. If they reject it because it may not have come from an authoritarian source, then they will perish, because they have rejected the source of authority.
DeleteSo what implications does this case possess in terms of abolition of the Federal Reserve Governing Board?
ReplyDelete...isleepwell...
Please read all the information available on this website. By reading, you will answer your own questions.
Deletehttps://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Florida_State_Miami-Dade_County_Eleventh_Circuit_Court/2024-017613-CA-01/ALLIANT_CREDIT_UNION_VS_ERIC_R_MOORE/
ReplyDeleteZach, I totally am in agreement with the truth that all mortgages are constructive fraud. Tik tok videos are circulating about the Supreme Court Ruling. Yet this ruling cannot be found. All roads lead back here. My friend, if there is no Supreme Court Ruling that can be verified, please clarify the true status. People will make uneducated decisions not based on facts. Believing there is a "case win" to support their position. It is not honest disclosure. I comprehend the declaration of faith. clarity needs to be brought forth!
ReplyDeleteIs there something about exercise in rhetoric or imagination that you misunderstood? Clearly you did not read past the headline.
DeleteJust visited the Supreme Court website. Searched the case library. This is not published there.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/casefinder.aspx
Please post link to official published docs. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, what is wrong with you? "presented as a mock legal proceeding" ITS A MOCK LEGAL PROCEDEING 🤪
DeleteIt’s true that mortgages are fraudulent. If your interest rate is 3%, it’s actually 300%. Just add 2 0’s to whatever % is stated on your documents.
ReplyDeleteThis financial wiz explains the scam of mortgages and how you can buy a home and pay it off in 7 years without a mortgage. People are actually doing this and it works.
ReplyDeletehttps://youtu.be/OfpoEPSDSv0?si=Vzz9VIJjZSv2shSP
I didn’t see anywhere in the video how it shows how you can buy a home without a mortgage and pay it off in 7 years
DeleteThis ruling has been deleted from the internet. I saw it the other day, but foolishly didn’t print it off
ReplyDeleteYou put a LOT of work into this. Why? All these idiots are running to the google to find a court case that does not exist. They are COMPLETELY missing the point, IMHO. These helmet wearing, window licking nit wits are posting this link in groups EVERYWHERE like it was a real case. It's a real pain in the ass when we are trying to have discussions on real cases.
ReplyDeleteThe real tragedy is that they don't get it.
You laid out a legitimate argument that WE ALL should be making against the system. If we are the source of law and our banking system is a sham. The only ones with the power to fix it is us.
You did all the work for us. We need some peeps with some testicular fortitude to bring this case to an actual court.
It's a dangerous proposition though. The dude that represented the farmers in the 80's against the, non-federal, 'Federal Land Bank" he won that case but was shot in broad daylight walking into the court building to hear the verdict.
Over 9 Billion in a trust and not one dime has yet to be paid to the farmers. Most of them are dead now.🧐
Seem like if one had the time to read through the mock proceedings it might produce an AHA! moment and show how an individual might precede in the private.
The Federal Land Bank case is sealed. NO ONE can get any of the data because the farmers were not supposed to win. When any sovereign wins against the system the case is sealed up tight.
I feel all these Anonymous comments should be deleted. They all from an idiot that didn't even read the first sentence. SMH
Well I did publish a tutorial on how to present this case as real in a real court of law and then use the judges objection to the fake, fabricated, and fraudulent nature of the case to reveal the fake, fabricated, and fraudulent nature of the contract created by fiat currency. So my intention was to create something that whether people believed it was true or rejected it because they thought it was fake, the foundations of the lie of fiat currency would be exposed.
DeleteFantastic work Zach! Brilliant gauntlet, masterfully crafted.
ReplyDeleteThe depth of truth in this mock case has real teeth. Thank You
ReplyDeleteYou may be genious
possibly mind overloaded with knowledge.
Imho, you have mastered common sense and applied in writing your wisdom which has possibly been learned at the University School of HARD KNOCKS!
Because if any of your REALLY knew what the FUCK has been TRULY GOING ON Dating back to the day they split ways Ya'll SMART MOFO's would know there is no Government at all and further more Ya'll would know that Federal Reserve Notes were created for just the members of the Federal Reserve Board to use and by us using them we are considered ENEMIES OF THE STATE. You would also know that it was those men on the Fed Res. Board who called a secret late night meeting and it was they who voted the use of them in circulation replacing silver certificates and gold certificates. God forbid but educate yourselves a little and google $1.00 Banknote silver certificate. And if you REALLY want to make us believe you are smart and you travel down the same rabbit hole that few of us have pissed off learning the damn truth then you should be able to come back in about 2 years to tell us what you have done about it all to make this world a better place and what steps you have taken to actually pay down the public debt instead of leaving it to the hands of those blue collared criminals in government who are all totally incompetent.
ReplyDeleteYou assume too much of others you've never met nor spoken to before and quite loudly and rude to boot. I know the entire history of this and can deliver it calmly without profanity too. That may fly on Myspace, sir, but your anonymity here and 12 monkeys neurosis is enough to label you unstable and not fit for any real discussion. A suggestion; Google "run on sentences" and contemplate your next exciting discussion.
DeleteWhat is sad is that in CT, the judge's are being threatened with loss of their jobs by the banks if they find in any homeowners favor, no matter what the evidence is. How do we out this and correct this?
ReplyDeleteExamine the paper. Do not read their babble, just look at the styles. If some entities are in all caps and others are in upper lower case they are claiming two jurisdictions, UCC municipal and UCMJ, Territorial. This is fraud. Return serve highlighting their paperwork using two different color highlighters. That is one option and cc several other people so they know others have been informed of the crimes they are committing. I don't have these problems and I pray that these bounty and booty operations are fully exposed to unburden others from this ancient and vile practices of bifurcation and usury.
Delete