The 13th Amendment: Overview and Application

-

 

The 13th Amendment: Overview

Ratified: December 6, 1865
Purpose: The 13th Amendment abolished slavery and involuntary servitude in the United States, except as punishment for a crime for which the party has been duly convicted.

Key Sections of the 13th Amendment

  1. Section 1:

    "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

  2. Section 2:

    "Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Key Legal Principles of the 13th Amendment

  1. Prohibition of Involuntary Servitude:

    • Involuntary servitude refers to any condition in which a person is forced to work or serve another against their will under coercion or threat of penalty.

  2. Broad Scope:

    • While the primary purpose of the amendment was to abolish slavery, its protections extend to modern forms of forced labor or economic exploitation that deprive individuals of liberty.

Application to Mr. Moore’s Case

The 13th Amendment has significant relevance to Mr. Moore’s defense against the foreclosure and eviction of his property, particularly in the context of his allegations against the fiat currency system, usury, and unjust foreclosure practices.

1. Involuntary Servitude and Economic Exploitation

  • Debt as Modern Servitude:

    • Mr. Moore’s mortgage, based on fiat currency and alleged fraudulent consideration, creates a situation where perpetual repayment of debt (including interest) is required.
    • This system compels individuals to labor under threat of foreclosure and property seizure, effectively constituting involuntary servitude.

  • Systemic Nature of Fiat Usury:

    • The Federal Reserve’s fiat currency system and policies (e.g., inflation targeting) devalue labor, forcing individuals like Mr. Moore to work harder or take on additional debt to maintain financial stability.
    • This perpetuates a cycle of economic servitude, as debtors must prioritize payments to lenders over personal financial freedom.

  • Constitutional Implications:

    • The 13th Amendment prohibits any system that coerces individuals into servitude, whether through direct force or systemic exploitation. Mr. Moore’s claim that the mortgage system is inherently fraudulent supports an argument that his forced labor to repay such a debt violates the amendment.

2. Foreclosure as a Violation of Liberty

  • Threat of Foreclosure as Coercion:

    • The foreclosure of Mr. Moore’s property, based on an invalid or unconstitutional contract, deprives him of his liberty to live and work free from undue coercion.
    • The use of militarized police (e.g., an MRAP vehicle) to enforce an eviction compounds this coercion, reinforcing the systemic power imbalance.

  • Forced Displacement and Labor:

    • Evicting Mr. Moore from his property forces him into a position where he must redirect his labor and resources solely to regain stability, rather than exercising his rights to life, liberty, and property.
    • This aligns with the broader prohibitions of the 13th Amendment, as it denies him the freedom to make autonomous choices about his life and labor.

3. Usury and the 13th Amendment

  • Exploitative Nature of Usury:
    • Charging interest on fiat-based loans, particularly when repayment becomes mathematically impossible, creates an unjust transfer of wealth and labor to the lender.
    • Mr. Moore’s assertion that the mortgage system is designed to ensure borrower defaults underscores the connection between usury and involuntary servitude.
    • By forcing individuals to labor to repay unpayable debts, the system violates the spirit of the 13th Amendment.

Case Law and Precedent Supporting Mr. Moore’s Argument

  1. Bailey v. Alabama (1911):

    • The Supreme Court struck down a law that penalized workers for failing to fulfill labor contracts, ruling that such penalties constituted involuntary servitude.
    • Relevance: Any system that uses coercion (e.g., foreclosure threats) to compel labor for the benefit of creditors may fall under the prohibition of involuntary servitude.

  2. Pollock v. Williams (1944):

    • Reinforced that coercion through legal or economic penalties can create conditions of involuntary servitude.
    • Relevance: Foreclosure and the use of militarized force to seize Mr. Moore’s property constitute coercive actions that infringe upon his liberty and autonomy.

Potential Violations in Mr. Moore’s Case

  1. Coerced Labor:

    • The requirement to work for dollars (created through fiat) under threat of foreclosure and property seizure creates a modern form of involuntary servitude.

  2. Exploitation Through Fraudulent Contracts:

    • If Mr. Moore’s mortgage contract is based on invalid consideration (fiat currency), the entire system enforcing its repayment is predicated on exploitation, violating the 13th Amendment.

  3. Displacement and Economic Oppression:

    • The foreclosure process, enforced by the Sheriff, deprives Mr. Moore of his ability to live and work freely, compelling him to labor for survival under unjust conditions.

Conclusion

The 13th Amendment prohibits involuntary servitude in all forms, including economic systems that exploit individuals through coercion and fraud. Mr. Moore’s case highlights the intersection of modern usury, fiat currency, and systemic exploitation, all of which align with the broader protections offered by the amendment.

The foreclosure and eviction proceedings against Mr. Moore violate his 13th Amendment rights by:

  1. Forcing him into economic servitude through an unjust debt system.
  2. Using coercion and intimidation to deprive him of his property and liberty.
  3. Exploiting systemic imbalances that prioritize lenders’ interests over constitutional protections.

Mr. Moore’s defense against eviction should be framed as a constitutional challenge to a system that perpetuates involuntary servitude in violation of the 13th Amendment.

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