YesToHellWith

This video is for April 13th. Welcome to Yes to Hell with.com. I overlooked a notice from my publisher last week. Not only are they offering a drawing for the entire physical copies of the Liberty Dialogues to someone in the United States, they are also offering PDFs of the entire Liberty Dialogue series to anybody.

In the entire world. So if you're listening to this message and you want the Liberty Dialogues, if you've heard about the Liberty Dialogues and the success that people are having with agencies or courts or governments, whether it be New Zealand, Australia, Africa, Canada, or the United States, this is the time to enter the drawing.

All you need to do is send an email to info at yes to hell with.com and in the subject line put Liberty Dialogues, PDFs in the content of the email indicates your name and email and your and your name will be entered into the drawing. This was to be originally drawn along with the physical copies on April 15th, but because of my error.

It'll be drawn on April 19th, which is a Sunday, so the winner will be known on the following day on Monday the 20th. So if you want the Liberty Dialogues, the complete five volume set as PDF files, enter your name into the drawing by sending an email and as always, may truth reign Supreme.

It is April 11th. Welcome to YesToHellWith.com.

In the last video, we discussed the oath. Today we discuss the bond.

Most people have never heard of a public official bond. And that is exactly why it matters.

A bond is not the same thing as an oath.

The oath is the promise. The bond is the insurance policy.

A public official bond is usually issued by a surety company. It is intended to protect the public from misconduct, dishonesty, negligence, or failure to perform official duties.

In other words, the bond exists because even the government knows that officials sometimes act improperly.

Many officials are required by state law to have a bond before entering office.

This often includes: - Sheriffs - County treasurers - Tax collectors - Clerks of court - Recorders - Constables - Public administrators - Sometimes judges and prosecutors

The Liberty Dialogues asks a very simple question:

If the official was required to have a bond, and no bond exists, then on what basis are we presuming the lawful exercise of authority?

Remember the LD order.

Before enforcement comes obligation. Before obligation comes standing. Before standing comes status. Before status comes jurisdiction. Before jurisdiction comes authority.

And the oath and bond go directly to authority.

Suppose a sheriff seizes property. Suppose a clerk refuses to file a document. Suppose a judge acts before taking the required oath.

The first reaction of most people is to argue about the result.

But the Liberty Dialogues teaches that you should instead investigate the foundation.

Did this person even have the lawful capacity to act?

The bond may answer that question.

The bond usually identifies: - The official - The office - The surety company - The bond number - The amount of coverage - The dates during which the bond was in effect

This is critical because if the official acted before the bond became effective—or after it expired—you may have discovered a major defect in authority.

The system depends upon presumption.

The Liberty Dialogues teaches you to replace presumption with documentation.

Do not merely say: “I think this official is not bonded.”

Get the record. Get the bond. Get the dates.

Then compare them to the conduct.

Because once again, the most dangerous thing to a presumptive system is a citizen with records.

It is April 10. Welcome to yestohellwith.com I am going to offer a contest. Here is the challenge. I am going to give you a quote from ChatGPT from Volumes 4 and 5 of the Liberty Dialogues. Whoever explains why and how this quote is an affront to freedom and Americans will receive a gift. Send me a DM or private message or an email to [email protected]. Use your intellect and knowledge. Think through this test. Please do not use AI to get your answer. Here is the quote: “The Constitution does not protect survival from taxation. It protects against specific forms of taxation (direct unapportioned taxes). The framers did not draft a survival exemption clause” If you were on the Liberty Dialogues call yesterday or listened to the conversation on a replay, you are not eligible.

First, two announcements: YTHW will draw a winner of the Liberty Dialogues Series on April 15. You must have the SOU for Package. Enter by sending an email with your name and email used to get the SOU for You package. 2) Volumes 4 and 5 are now available on jbj.com (bowers) at a 50% discount. Now for today’s video.

It is April 10th. Welcome to YesToHellWith.com.

Today we begin one of the most important subjects in the Liberty Dialogues.

Most people believe that if a person has a badge, a robe, a title, a business card, or an office, then he automatically has authority. But in the Liberty Dialogues, we do not begin with assumptions. We begin with proof.

The first question is not: what did the official do?

The first question is: by what authority did he do it?

In the Liberty Dialogues, the order is always the same:

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

And all of that exists under the umbrella of presumption.

The system wants you to presume that a judge is a judge because he sits on the bench. That a sheriff is a sheriff because he wears a uniform. That a prosecutor is a prosecutor because his name appears on a document.

But that is not proof.

The law has long required many public officials to take an oath of office before they may lawfully exercise authority. Why? Because the oath is the promise. It is the act by which the official publicly declares that he will support and obey the Constitution and the laws.

Without the oath, there is a serious question:

Did the person ever lawfully qualify for the office at all?

The Liberty Dialogues teaches that authority must be proven before it may be presumed.

If an official has no oath, then the foundation of his claimed authority is weakened.

And there is a second issue.

Many officials are not only required to take an oath—they are required to obtain a bond.

The oath is the promise. The bond is the accountability.

The bond is the financial guarantee that if the official acts unlawfully, dishonestly, or outside his authority, there may be a source of recovery.

Think about this.

If a government official can seize your property, arrest you, fine you, tax you, or interfere with your life, should you not have the right to know:

Did he ever take the oath? Did he ever post the bond? Did he ever lawfully qualify?

The Liberty Dialogues does not teach blind defiance. It teaches disciplined inquiry.

Do not argue first. Do not make accusations first.

Instead, ask for the proof.

Where is the oath? Where is the bond? Where is the evidence of lawful authority?

That is where we begin.

And as always, may truth reign supreme.

It's April 10th. Welcome to Yes to Hell with.com. I usually write my video scripts before I produce them today. For this video in particular, I'm going to talk straight without a script extemporaneously, and I'm gonna speak from my heart.

I have been doing these videos for several months now, and I get comments and emails, messages from many people with questions, and these questions are sourced in ignorance and fear. They're emotional, they're reaction. They're not generally proactive. Some of them are. Most of them are matters of curiosity.

And I think the problem in America, especially because I've seen a different litmus test produced in other countries like Australia or New Zealand, for example, where America is so hardened by the process of presumption that it's automatic, that we reflexively are inclined to obey, we're less likely to challenge.

We live a generally comfortable life in this country. So to capitulate, to comply, to cooperate and graduate, to get along, to move along is the overarching mentality. Generally, because people don't want the conflict. They just simply wanna be left alone. They want their bag of chips with garlic tip and their basketball games and football, their weekend golf, whatever.

It doesn't matter. People don't want to be bothered. And I get that. But the point is this, I will not answer questions unless somebody is serious. And they're only serious when they actually have the liberty dialogues and they begin to use them. Now, here's the curiosity. A gentleman by the name of, I think Curtis Johnson, leveled an accusation at me the other day that I'm not answering key questions on.

On social media, and I think I responded, and you probably heard the video that I, I'm not here to answer questions. I'm here to find the select few who actually want to discipline their minds and hearts to pursue an understanding of how the process works so that more of us can prevail against the presumptive authority of the system because it is that difficult in this country to pierce through it.

Meanwhile, people are looking for solutions. They want me to give 'em solutions. Where are your solutions? All you do is talk. Well, those people don't listen. Many people who listen to my videos repeatedly because it's a repeated theme in context, they're learning about the Liberty Dialogues order of authority, jurisdiction status, standing obligation enforcement over with an overarching presumption of, with an overarching umbrella of presumption.

So here's the point. If you are serious about your life and you are serious about solutions, get the Liberty Dialogues. Most gurus are charging thousands of dollars for solutions that don't work, and they require you to learn a whole different language that you're expected to place into the system that operates in the language you do not understand.

The bottom line is, is that if you want solutions in your life, don't seek it from outside people. You're not getting solutions from me because I'm empowering you to use the Liberty Dialogues at a very modest price point right now of $48 to get the answers that you should have that the gurus don't know to give you.

So think about this for a second. There are people on Yes to hell with who are employing the Liberty dialogues to resolve complex legal and court cases. Not that the solution will be to their liking, but they're doing it on their own without a lawyer saving tens of thousands of dollars, saving a lot of time and aggravation, and going in and pro per representing themselves prevailing to whatever degree of success they have in a system that they would've never dared to enter in the first place.

And they're not asking me the question. But I'm helping them understand how to use the Liberty Dialogues construct because AI recognizes the Liberty Dialogues framework as a fundamental constitutional, truth based application of law. That is powerful. Now, if you're looking for short videos and you don't bother to listen to these long videos, you're not invited.

Because you don't have what it takes to help solve the problems that you have. You're looking for a quick fix and you certainly can't help other people fix what's ailing America. So to those select view who listen, who listen to these videos, I encourage you to get the Liberty Dialogues because I'm now beginning to do an outreach program with those who use the Liberty Dialogues and come to the calls.

I'm having them invite friends and family of people who want to learn because they trust the very people who are using the application right now. Now, if they don't have anybody because they want proof, that's great. We don't wanna spend time with people that want proof because this requires work and discipline and it requires one to be honest with him or herself.

So I wanted to take the time and explain that. Now finally, there is a conference call tomorrow for those with the SOU for You program at 11:00 AM Eastern time. I invite you to attend and as always, may truth ring supreme.

It is April 8. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

The future of justice in America depends upon ordinary people quietly demanding accountability.

Not with anger. Not with hatred. Not with chaos.

But with knowledge. With courage. With respect.

Too many Americans assume that if a judge says something, it must be correct.

But judges are human. They make mistakes. They become impatient. Sometimes they become part of the very system they are supposed to restrain.

That is why the judicial canons exist.

The canons are a reminder that judges serve justice—not themselves, not the government, and not convenience.

The American people do not need to attack judges. They simply need to know the rules and quietly insist that the rules be followed.

If enough people do that, the system changes.

Because a judge who knows that the people understand the canons, understand the record, and understand the duty of impartiality is far less likely to abandon those duties.

The Liberty Dialogues is not about hostility toward the courts.

It is about restoring the proper order.

Authority. Jurisdiction. Status. Standing. Obligation.

And in every case, a judge must remain a neutral and honorable referee of that process.

That is not too much to ask. It is the very foundation of justice.

And as always, may truth reign supreme.

It is April 8th. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

The greatest mistake most people make is that they never place their position into the record.

They think the truth is enough. They think that because they know what they believe, the court, the IRS, or the government must know it too.

They do not.

The record controls.

If the record only contains the government’s allegations, then the government’s position becomes the only story.

That is why you must create your own record.

You do that by documenting your good faith beliefs.

You write:

What you believe. Why you believe it. What laws, cases, or definitions caused you to believe it. What questions remain unanswered.

You ask for clarification. You ask for proof. You place your understanding into the record before there is a crisis.

Because later, if someone says: You knew. You intended. You acted willfully.

You can say: No. Here is what I believed. Here is why I believed it. Here is the record.

That is powerful.

Because good faith defeats presumption.

That is why the Statement of Understanding and Good Faith Belief documents matter.

They transform confusion into clarity. They transform fear into preparation. They transform silence into a record.

If you have not yet documented your position, go to statementofunderstanding.com.

Because if you do not place your beliefs into the record, the system will continue placing its assumptions there instead.

And as always, may truth reign supreme.

It is April 7. Welcome to yestohellwith.com

A few announcements and then an important message.

We will have a Liberty Dialogues conference call on Thursday at 8 pm EST and Saturday at 11 am EST. These calls are very powerful and essential for knowing how to confront governing authority. If you want to attend, you must have the SOU for You package. You can find the link at yestohellwith.com.

The drawing for the physical copies fo the entire 5 volume series of the Liberty Dialogues series is now underway. If you have the SOU for You package, send an email to [email protected] . Place April 15 drawing into the subject and include youe name and email.

3) Some of you have begun the process of creating your Statement of Understanding and sending your Good faith beliefs to national agencies and representatives

Now for an important message:

I received an email recently and the person accused me of pushing religion and that I would have more success if I did not do so.

First of all. I do not push or promote religion.

Second, I am not interested in growing this platform merely for the sake of numbers. The Liberty Dialogues are not designed for the masses, nor are they intended to appeal to everyone. They are meant for a discerning and select few—people willing to think carefully, question assumptions, and examine authority rather than simply accept it.

For that reason, I am not concerned with changing the message to gain broader approval or to make it more comfortable. Those who are interested in truth, logic, and genuine inquiry will either find value in the Liberty Dialogues or they will not.

At most, I have occasionally referred to the general history and traditions of the United States, which necessarily includes references to the language, beliefs, and culture that influenced many Americans throughout history. Discussing that history is not the same thing as promoting a religion.

The Liberty Dialogues are centered on authority, jurisdiction, status, standing, obligation, and enforcement. They are a framework for analysis, not a faith movement.

I would challenge anyone to identify a single instance in which I have attempted to proselytize, urge anyone to adopt a particular religion, or suggest that participation depends upon religious belief. No such example exists.

People of every background—religious, nonreligious, or somewhere in between—can apply the Liberty Dialogues equally. The ideas stand or fall on logic, structure, and evidence, not on whether someone shares any particular belief system.

At the same time, it is historically impossible to discuss the development of freedom in America without acknowledging the influence of Judeo-Christian ideas upon the country’s founding principles. Concepts such as inherent rights, equality before the law, limits upon government, and the belief that rights come from something higher than the state did not arise in a vacuum.

That does not mean everyone must share the same faith. But anyone who lives in America should at least be willing to reconcile with the historical reality that these ideas played a foundational role in the American understanding of liberty.

One of the tragedies of modern America is that many churches have lacked the courage to defend even the rapidly fading freedom that still remains. Too often, institutions that should speak clearly about truth, conscience, and the limits of power have remained silent while authority expands.

A free people must believe that truth exists above government and beyond the preferences of those in power. If society rejects any higher source of truth or moral authority, then the state itself tends to become the final authority. And when government becomes the sole author of truth, freedom becomes increasingly fragile.

To ignore the role that faith played in the formation of a free people is not neutrality. It risks promoting the idea that there is no higher overseer of truth, no greater originator of rights, and no authority above the state itself. History repeatedly shows that when people cease to believe in anything above government, they eventually become more willing to submit to government.

My point is not to convert anyone to a religion. It is to recognize that the American idea of liberty has long rested upon the belief that man possesses rights that government did not create and therefore cannot rightfully destroy.

This video is for April 7, Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

Many Americans have been taught that respect for a judge means silence.

It does not.

Respect means civility. Respect means self-control. Respect means speaking carefully.

But respect does not require surrender.

You may respectfully disagree. You may respectfully object. You may respectfully ask questions.

A courtroom is not supposed to be a place where one side speaks and the other side obeys.

It is supposed to be a place where truth is tested.

The judicial canons require judges to remain patient, dignified, and courteous to everyone appearing before them.

That means you.

You do not lose your rights when you walk into a courtroom.

And you do not become less important than the judge.

The judge has a role. You have a role.

The judge’s role is to fairly hear the matter. Your role is to respectfully insist upon that fairness.

The most powerful words in a courtroom may simply be:

“Your Honor, respectfully, I ask that the court follow its own rules.”

That is not rebellion. That is citizenship.

And as always, may truth reign supreme.