Opinion of Judge Hamilton Case Title: Moore v. Alliant Credit Union (1.27.2025)

 

Opinion of Judge Hamilton

Case Title: Moore v. Alliant Credit Union
Court: District Court of the United States
Date: January 27, 2025

---

Introduction

In this case, the plaintiff, Alliant Credit Union, seeks to enforce a debt denominated in Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) against the defendant, Mr. Moore, who is accused of defaulting on the loan. The defendant, represented by Mr. Daniels, challenges the validity of the debt on the grounds that FRNs do not meet the constitutional or statutory definition of lawful money. Furthermore, the defendant argues that the debt is fundamentally unenforceable because it is based on a monetary system that perpetuates fraud through fiat currency and usury. This opinion addresses whether FRNs constitute valid legal tender for the purposes of contractual obligations and whether a system reliant on usury is consistent with justice and equity.

---

Findings of Fact

1. The Nature of Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs):
   FRNs are fiat currency issued by the Federal Reserve. Historically, they were redeemable in gold or silver, creating a presumed link to constitutional money. However, this redeemability was revoked in 1933 domestically and in 1971 internationally. Today, FRNs lack intrinsic value and are not backed by tangible assets such as gold or silver.

2. Constitutional Requirements for Money:
   Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution mandates that "No State shall... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts." The Coinage Act of 1792 defined the dollar as 371.25 grains of pure silver, establishing a tangible, weight-based standard for lawful money.

3. Statutory Definitions of Legal Tender:
   Under 31 USC 5103, FRNs are designated as legal tender. However, their inclusion in the statute is parenthetical, and their lack of redeemability raises questions about their compliance with constitutional requirements.

4. Impact of Usury:
   Usury, the practice of lending money at interest, creates systemic harm by requiring the repayment of more money than exists within the monetary system. This mathematical structure ensures that some borrowers will inevitably default, leading to evictions, bankruptcies, and significant economic and social distress.

5. Human Cost:
   Testimony provided by Mr. Daniels highlighted the human toll of the current monetary system. Approximately 3,000 Americans are evicted daily due to debts denominated in FRNs, contributing to a homelessness crisis affecting over 500,000 people. These outcomes are indicative of systemic injustice inherent in the combination of fiat currency and usury.

---

Legal Analysis

1. Validity of Federal Reserve Notes as Lawful Money:
   The Constitution’s mandate for money to be tied to gold and silver remains unaltered. Congress’s authorization of FRNs under the Federal Reserve Act does not override constitutional requirements. FRNs lack the redeemability necessary to satisfy the definition of lawful money as established by the Constitution and the Coinage Act of 1792. Therefore, FRNs fail to provide valid consideration in contracts.

2. Enforceability of Contracts Denominated in FRNs:
   Contracts require valid consideration to be enforceable. Since FRNs do not meet the constitutional standard for money and are not backed by tangible assets, they cannot constitute valid consideration. Contracts based solely on FRNs are therefore void.

3. The Injustice of Usury:
   Lending money at interest in a system reliant on fiat currency weaponizes mathematics against borrowers. If money is created only as debt, with interest attached, repayment becomes impossible for all borrowers collectively. This ensures defaults, disproportionately affecting the most vulnerable. The systemic nature of this harm makes usury an inherently unjust practice.

4. Judicial Responsibility:
   Courts are the arbiters of justice and must ensure that the systems they enforce align with constitutional principles and equity. Upholding contracts based on fraudulent and unjust monetary practices implicates the judiciary in perpetuating harm.

---

Conclusion

This court finds that Federal Reserve Notes do not meet the constitutional or statutory definition of lawful money. As such, contracts denominated solely in FRNs lack valid consideration and are unenforceable. Furthermore, the systemic harm caused by usury underscores the need for a fundamental reevaluation of monetary and lending practices.

In light of these findings, the debt claimed by Alliant Credit Union against Mr. Moore is hereby nullified. This court further establishes the precedent that all contracts secured with Federal Reserve Notes, lacking lawful consideration, are void. The judiciary must not be complicit in enforcing a fraudulent and unjust system that perpetuates widespread harm.

It is so ordered.