Oral Argument Before the Supreme Court of the United States (Against Mr. Moore’s Petition)

-


 

Oral Argument Before the Supreme Court of the United States

Counterarguments to the Case Against Usury, Fiat Currency, and Systemic Unjust Enrichment

Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court:

May it please the Court, I rise today to respectfully argue against the claims brought forward by Mr. Moore regarding the constitutionality and moral legitimacy of usury, fiat currency, and systemic enrichment within the modern financial system.

The petitioner’s position is founded upon principles that, while appealing in their moral simplicity, fail to account for the economic complexity, constitutional grounding, and societal utility of the systems they critique. I will address these points systematically.

I. Usury and the Nature of Interest

The petitioner contends that interest-bearing loans are inherently unjust and mathematically impossible to repay in a closed monetary system. This premise misunderstands both the purpose and mechanics of interest within a modern, dynamic economy.

  • Interest as Incentive and Risk Compensation: Interest serves as the price of capital. It compensates lenders for the opportunity cost of their resources and the risks they incur in lending. Without interest, the capital required to fuel businesses, infrastructure, and personal endeavors would stagnate, to the detriment of economic progress.

  • Dynamic Money Supply: Contrary to the petitioner’s characterization, modern economies are not closed systems. Central banks, including the Federal Reserve, oversee and expand the money supply to meet the demands of a growing economy. Borrowers repay loans not solely from the initial principal but from the wealth generated by economic productivity—a process in which interest plays a vital role as a driver of innovation and resource allocation.

II. Fiat Currency and Its Legitimacy

The petitioner’s assertion that fiat currency lacks intrinsic value overlooks its essential role as a societal contract.

  • Trust as the Basis of Value: The value of fiat currency arises from collective trust in the government’s authority to regulate its use and the economy’s stability. This principle is no different from historical currencies based on precious metals, which themselves derive value not from their material properties but from societal agreement.

  • Flexibility and Economic Stability: Fiat currency, unencumbered by the finite supply of precious metals, allows policymakers to implement monetary strategies that stabilize economies during crises. The gold standard, though historically significant, restricted economic flexibility and exacerbated downturns like the Great Depression.

The Constitution’s delegation of monetary authority to Congress, exercised through the creation of the Federal Reserve, reflects an enduring commitment to economic adaptability.

III. Taxation and Inflation: Necessary Tools of Economic Governance

The petitioner portrays taxation and inflation as forms of systemic coercion. However, these mechanisms are indispensable tools for modern governance.

  • Taxation and Public Goods: Taxes fund infrastructure, public safety, and essential services. They create demand for the national currency, which anchors its value and promotes economic stability.

  • Inflation as a Stabilizing Force: The petitioner views inflation solely as an erosion of value, ignoring its economic necessity. Moderate inflation incentivizes consumption and investment, while preventing the destructive cycle of deflation, where falling prices suppress growth and exacerbate unemployment.

IV. The Constitutionality of the Federal Reserve System

The petitioner argues that the Federal Reserve operates outside the bounds of constitutional authority. This argument misinterprets both the history and scope of congressional powers.

  • Delegation of Powers: Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution empowers Congress to "coin money" and "regulate the value thereof." By establishing the Federal Reserve through legislation, Congress has exercised this authority appropriately, as affirmed in Julliard v. Greenman (1884).

  • Judicial Precedent: This Court has long recognized the legitimacy of central banking and fiat currency systems as constitutional mechanisms to stabilize the nation’s economy.

V. The Equity of Foreclosure Processes

The petitioner’s case rests heavily on the notion that foreclosure is an unjust enrichment of lenders. Yet, foreclosure laws ensure mutual accountability between borrowers and lenders.

  • Contractual Integrity: Borrowers voluntarily agree to repay loans under specific terms. When they fail to meet these terms, lenders have a legal right to recover their losses through foreclosure—a process governed by extensive procedural safeguards.

  • Systemic Importance: A predictable and enforceable foreclosure process ensures the stability of lending markets. Without it, lenders would be unwilling to provide capital, hampering economic activity and individual opportunity.

VI. Philosophical and Practical Critiques

Finally, the petitioner’s argument rests on philosophical assumptions that do not align with economic reality or constitutional jurisprudence.

  • Intrinsic Value: The notion that only gold and silver have intrinsic value is flawed. All value—whether of currency, goods, or services—is ultimately a social construct.

  • Economic Complexity: The petitioner’s critique oversimplifies the interplay between credit, productivity, and monetary policy. Modern economies thrive on interdependent systems that cannot be reduced to static moral judgments about usury or fiat currency.

Conclusion

Honorable Justices, the petitioner’s arguments, while compelling in their moral framing, fail to account for the legal precedent, economic necessity, and constitutional foundation of the systems they challenge.

This Court must uphold the principles that have guided our economic and legal framework for over a century: that interest drives innovation, fiat currency ensures stability, and contractual integrity underpins economic trust. To rule otherwise risks destabilizing the economy and undermining the very Constitution the petitioner seeks to defend.

Thank you.

Comments

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