YesToHellWith

It is April 17th. Welcome to YesToHellWith.com.

Today we discuss strategy.

The biggest mistake people make is that they discover a problem and immediately rush to confrontation.

Do not do that.

The Liberty Dialogues teaches that you must first build the file.

Step one: obtain the oath. Step two: obtain the bond. Step three: compare the dates. Step four: create a timeline. Step five: preserve every letter, envelope, and response.

Then ask:

Did the official act before the oath? Did the official act before the bond? Did the official fail to renew the bond? Did the official sign documents before lawfully qualifying?

Now you are no longer speculating.

You have evidence.

Create a simple folder.

Put inside it: - Records request - Proof of mailing - Oath - Bond - Timeline - Statute - Notes

This is how you defeat presumption.

Because when the other side relies upon title and appearance, and you rely upon records and dates, you become very difficult to dismiss.

It is April 16th. Welcome to YesToHellWith.com.

Today we come to the heart of the issue.

The home distilling case is not really about alcohol.

It is about whether the government may treat private human activity as though it exists only by permission.

A man distills spirits at home. He no longer has to buy them. He becomes wealthier because he keeps what he otherwise would have spent.

That is a form of accession to wealth.

The same thing occurs when a man:

· grows his own food,

· repairs his own roof,

· builds his own furniture,

· works from home,

· or earns money by his own labor.

He is wealthier because he has produced value for himself.

But the government has often treated these private acts as though they fall within its authority simply because they may affect taxes or the market.

The classic example is Wickard v. Filburn.

In that case, a farmer grew wheat for his own use. He did not sell it. He did not enter the market. He simply wanted to feed himself.

The government argued that because he grew his own wheat, he did not have to buy wheat elsewhere. Therefore, his private decision affected the market.

And the Supreme Court agreed.

Think about that.

A man was regulated not because he entered commerce, but because he avoided commerce.

The government effectively said:

“Because you do not buy, we may regulate what you make.”

That reasoning is one of the most dangerous expansions of federal power in American history.

Because once government may regulate you for not participating in the market, there is no private sphere left.

You may no longer grow, build, work, create, or survive on your own terms.

The home distilling case begins to challenge that logic.

The Fifth Circuit recognized that private self-sufficiency is not a crime simply because it reduces taxable commerce.

That means the principle is much larger than alcohol.

A man’s labor is no different.

A man works because he must survive. He earns because he must survive. He feeds his family because he must survive.

These are not privileges granted by government. They are natural activities.

Government may have limited authority to tax certain activities under certain circumstances. But that does not mean government may treat survival itself as though it belongs to the state.

For years, many people have said, “The Constitution does not prohibit taxing survival.”

But perhaps that misses the point.

The Constitution may not forbid every tax connected to survival. But it absolutely forbids transforming the power to tax into a power to dominate the private acts by which a person survives.

The Fifth Circuit saw that.

It recognized that government cannot take a narrow authority and expand it until nothing private remains.

Which means the deeper truth is beginning to emerge:

The people do not exist to serve the system. The system exists to protect the freedom of the people.

It is April 16th. Welcome to YesToHellWith.com.

What happens if you discover that the official never took the oath—or never posted the bond?

First, remain calm.

The Liberty Dialogues is not about theatrics. It is about evidence.

Do not rush into court shouting that the official has no authority.

Instead, create the record.

Write a letter. Attach the request. Attach the response. State the facts.

For example:

“On March 1, I requested a certified copy of the oath of office for Judge Smith. On March 15, the clerk responded that no oath could be located. Therefore, I respectfully request clarification as to whether Judge Smith lawfully qualified for office before acting in this matter.”

Notice the language.

You are not making wild accusations. You are placing the burden back where it belongs.

The burden should not be on the citizen to presume authority. The burden should be on the official to prove it.

In the Liberty Dialogues, a defect in authority affects everything that follows:

Authority. Jurisdiction. Status. Standing. Obligation. Enforcement.

If the authority is defective, then everything built upon it may also be defective.

That does not mean you automatically win. But it means you now have a lawful and documented basis to challenge the presumption.

And that is powerful.

It's April 15th. Welcome to Yes, two Hell with.com. A few announcements. And then the drawing of the winner of the complete five volume set of the Liberty Dialogues.

These books will be mailed to the winner's home. Now, if you live internationally, there's a drawing to be held on April 19th for the five volume series as a PDF file. To those who would like to have them. So I want to announce that there will be an inner circle call this Friday at 7:00 PM Eastern time.

Now, if that is not a good time for you and you want another time, please let me know and I'll schedule a second call or you can listen to the recording. So 7:00 PM Friday. And it will be a telephonic call, 7:00 PM Eastern Time. There have been some changes to the James Bowers johnson.com website. The full vault, the full there has there have some changes to the James Bowers Johnson website and the SOU for you package.

The full package now includes. The entire five volume series. So if you want the SOU for you package, you're getting the entire set as well as some of the reports and my three other books. This entire package is useful for understanding law and the order of the authority, jurisdiction status, standing obligation, and enforcement.

It also may serve as a body of evidence of your good faith belief. Especially if you participate in the Statement of Understanding program at statementofunderstanding.com. This is a powerful program to document your good faith beliefs. The statement of understanding program includes your statement as well as a series of letters to be sent out over some 30 plus days.

As a good faith belief to congressmen, senators, and agencies, it documents. As a means of security, what you believe in advance of any crisis. Now finally, let's draw two days winner. I have in my hand my dad's old hat, and I've had this probably for, I don't know, a good 15, 15 years, I'd say maybe 10 years.

And I'm gonna draw the winner of the entire Liberty Dialogue set and the winner is. Need a drum roll

and the winner is Sissy. Sissy, you will get the entire five volume series of the Liberty Dialogues sent to your home. Congratulations. And that's it. We've got another call tomorrow for. The Liberty Dialogues with its use with chat GBT or ai. I'll see you then and as always, may truth reign supreme.

It is April 15th. Welcome to YesToHellWith.com.

Today we discuss how to find the bond.

Most people never see these documents because they never ask for them.

The bond is often kept by: - County clerk - Risk management office - Treasurer - Human resources - Insurance office - State administrative office

Send a written request.

For example:

“Please provide a certified copy of any official bond, blanket bond, surety bond, insurance policy, rider, risk pool document, or other financial guarantee applicable to John Smith in his capacity as Sheriff of Page County.”

Notice that we ask broadly.

Why?

Because sometimes they will say: “There is no individual bond.”

But what they do not tell you is that the official may instead be covered under: - A blanket bond - A risk pool - A liability policy - A self-insurance arrangement

The Liberty Dialogues teaches you not to stop at the first answer.

Continue asking:

Who is the carrier? What is the policy number? What are the dates? What are the limits? Who is covered?

Because if the official acted outside the dates of coverage, or outside the scope of the bond, that matters.

Once again, we are not assuming. We are documenting.

And when you possess the oath, the bond, and the dates, you are no longer dependent upon presumption.

You have the record.

It is April 15th. Welcome to YesToHellWith.com.

Today we examine a case that may prove far more important than most people realize.

For 158 years, federal law made it a crime to distill alcohol in your own home.

If you made your own spirits in your garage, backyard, or home, you could face prison and a large fine.

Why?

The government said that because Congress had the power to tax alcohol, it also had the power to prohibit private distilling.

For 158 years, almost nobody questioned that assumption.

Then, on April 10, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down that ban.

The court held that the federal government may tax distilled spirits, but it may not therefore prohibit private distilling in the home.

That distinction is profound.

The power to tax is not the same as the power to control. The power to control is not the same as the power to prohibit.

The government argued that if people distill alcohol at home, they might avoid paying taxes.

The court responded that this logic has no limiting principle.

If Congress may ban home distilling because it is harder to tax, then Congress could also ban:

· growing food in your backyard,

· repairing your own home,

· working remotely,

· making products at home,

· tutoring,

· sewing,

· gardening,

· bartering,

· or any private activity that reduces the need to buy a taxed product.

The court saw the danger.

It recognized that Congress was attempting to use the power to tax as a disguise for a general police power.

But the Constitution never gave Congress a general police power.

This case reveals the exact pattern we discussed in Part 1.

Drift.

Congress had a limited power to tax alcohol. Over time, that became a supposed power to regulate private distilling. Then it became a power to prohibit private distilling. Then it became a power to imprison people for private distilling.

Encroachment.

The federal government moved beyond actual commerce and entered the private home.

Entrenchment.

The ban existed for 158 years. Agencies enforced it. People assumed it must be lawful.

But the court reminded us of something important:

Time does not create authority.

A law may be old and still be unconstitutional.

A government practice may be long-standing and still be wrong.

What makes this case so powerful is that it forces us to ask a much larger question:

If the government cannot ban private distilling simply because it may be taxed, then what other activities has government treated as privileges when they are really rights?

What about labor? What about earnings? What about a man working to survive?

That is where we go next.

It is April 14th. Welcome to YesToHellWith.com.

Today, we begin a four-part series about something far bigger than taxes, alcohol, regulations, or the courts. We are going to discuss the restoration of first principles.

For generations, Americans have been taught to think backwards.

We have been taught that government comes first and freedom comes second. We have been taught that if the government says something loudly enough, long enough, or with enough agencies and penalties behind it, then it must be true. We have been taught that the burden is on us to prove why we are free.

But that was never the American system.

The original understanding was exactly the opposite.

The people come first. Freedom comes first. Government comes second. And government possesses only those powers that were specifically delegated.

That means every government action must answer one question before anything else:

By what authority?

That is the first principle.

Before there can be jurisdiction, obligation, enforcement, taxes, penalties, regulations, or prison, there must first be authority.

Not presumed authority.

Not authority because some agency says so.

Not authority because “that is the way it has always been done.”

Actual authority.

The Constitution created a government of limited and enumerated powers. Congress was given certain powers. The states retained others. The people retained everything else.

But over time, something happened.

Government began with small powers and slowly expanded them.

The power to tax became the power to regulate. The power to regulate became the power to prohibit. The power to prohibit became the power to punish.

And after enough time passed, Americans forgot that there was ever a limit.

This is what I call drift.

Drift occurs when a limited power slowly moves beyond its original purpose.

Then comes encroachment.

Encroachment is when that expanded power moves into private life: your home, your labor, your earnings, your property, your choices.

Finally comes entrenchment.

Entrenchment occurs when the new claim of power has existed so long that people assume it must be lawful simply because it exists.

The law may be old. The bureaucracy may be large. The penalties may be severe. But none of those things create authority.

For years, Americans have lived under a dangerous inversion:

That freedom exists only where government has not yet spoken.

But the truth is exactly the opposite.

Freedom exists unless government can prove authority.

That is the restoration of first principles.

In this series, we are going to examine how this loss of perspective happened, how it has affected taxes, private conduct, and daily life, and why recent court decisions may finally signal that some judges are beginning to see the problem.

Because once you understand the true order, you can never look at the system the same way again.

The people are not subjects. The people are not presumptively obligated. The people do not exist by permission.

Government must justify itself.

And that is where freedom begins.

It is April 13th. Welcome to YesToHellWith.com.

One of the most common questions is this:

Which officials are actually required to have an oath or a bond?

The answer depends upon the state, the office, and the statute.

The Liberty Dialogues does not begin with rumors. It begins with law.

Most state constitutions require every public officer to take an oath before assuming office.

This often includes: - Judges - Sheriffs - Police officers - Prosecutors - Clerks - Tax assessors - County commissioners - School board members - Secretaries of state - Governors

Many states also require a bond for officials who handle money, records, property, or enforcement.

This often includes: - Sheriffs - Tax collectors - County treasurers - Clerks of court - Recorders - Trustees - Executors - Public administrators

The way to find out is simple.

Search your state statutes.

For example:

“Virginia sheriff oath statute.” “Texas county clerk bond requirement.” “Florida judge oath office.” “New Jersey municipal court judge bond.”

Then obtain the exact statute.

Do not rely on what someone online says. Do not rely on a guru. Do not rely on a social media post.

Read the statute yourself.

In the Liberty Dialogues, proof matters.

You may discover that the law says the official must: - Take the oath within a certain number of days - File it with a specific office - Obtain a bond in a specific amount - Renew the bond periodically

Now ask yourself:

What if the official never complied?

The system expects you never to ask.

But the Liberty Dialogues teaches that every official who claims authority over you must be prepared to prove the source and legitimacy of that authority.

If they cannot, the presumption weakens.

And when the presumption weakens, the burden begins to shift back where it belongs.