YesToHellWith

This is April 2 and part two of this video series. Welcome to yestohellwith.com. The prosecution often builds its case not upon proof of a guilty mind, but upon emotion.

They know that many jurors file tax returns. They know many jurors struggle to pay their bills. They know some jurors pay child support. They know some jurors may resent anyone who appears not to comply.

So the prosecution quietly appeals to those emotions.

“Why doesn’t he pay his fair share?” “Why should he be different from everyone else?” “If I have to file, why doesn’t he?” “He must be hiding money.” “He must be selfish.” “He must be lying.”

And if there is an issue like child support, unpaid debts, or financial problems, those facts may be used to suggest that the man is irresponsible, evasive, or dishonest.

But none of that proves mens rea.

A man may owe child support and still sincerely believe that no federal tax duty applies to him. A man may have financial struggles and still honestly believe what he believes. A man may be disliked by the jury and still be innocent of willfully violating a known legal duty.

The danger is that the jury begins to punish the man not because the government proved the guilty mind, but because the jurors emotionally identify with compliance.

The jurors may think:

“I file. Why doesn’t he?” “I obey. Why doesn’t he?” “I pay. Why shouldn’t he?”

But that is not the legal question.

The question is not whether the jurors comply. The question is not whether the jurors think he should comply. The question is not whether the jurors dislike him.

The question is whether the government proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this particular man intentionally violated a legal duty that he knew applied to him.

That requires proof of a clear, coherent, deliberate mental state. Not emotion. Not resentment. Not envy. Not the assumption that because most people comply, every man who does not comply must therefore be guilty.

The jury may realize:

This man did not hide. He did not evade. He did not act recklessly.

He studied. He questioned. He sought answers. He tried to understand.

And a man who sincerely seeks the truth is not the same as a man who knowingly breaks the law.

The danger becomes even greater if the court prevents the jurors from fully understanding just how difficult—perhaps nearly impossible—it is to prove mens rea.

Because if the jury never learns the difference between actus reus and mens rea… if the jury never understands that the government must prove what was actually in the man’s mind… if the jury is never allowed to see the years of study, the letters, the questions, the doubts, and the sincere belief…

then the jury may convict, not because the law was proven, but because fear was created.

And that fear serves a larger purpose.

The system wants a warning. A lesson. A poster child.

A man placed before the public so that every other American will think:

“I had better comply.” “I had better not ask questions.” “I had better not study too deeply.” “I had better not challenge what I have been told.”

That is how an April fear campaign works. Not by proving the guilty mind. But by creating the appearance of guilt and then using that appearance to frighten everyone else into silence and compliance.

The message becomes:

“Look what happened to him. Do not be next.”

But fear is not proof. And an example made for the sake of compliance is not justice.

True justice requires the jury to understand the law completely. True justice requires the jury to understand that actus reus is not enough. True justice requires the jury to understand that without proof of mens rea—without proof of the intentional violation of a known legal duty—there is no crime.

That is why the Liberty Dialogues matter.

Because Liberty Dialogues forces the government to answer the questions they do not want to answer:

What is the precise legal duty? What authority created it? What status causes it to apply? What facts prove that this man knew it applied to him personally?

Not presumed. Not implied. Proved.

Because the government cannot simply say:

“He failed to file, therefore he is guilty.”

No.

They must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he intentionally violated a known legal duty.

They must prove the mens rea, not merely the actus reus.

And if they cannot prove what was in his mind…

then all they have left is presumption.

The system depends on that presumption.

Do not let them have it.

Document your study. Preserve your letters. Preserve your questions. Preserve your good-faith beliefs.

Because one day, the difference between freedom and prison may come down to whether you can prove what you truly believed.

We must become more discerning.

We must listen carefully to the words they use. We must examine their meanings. We must ask what is really being said—and what is being hidden.

Because words like “willfulness,” “known legal duty,” “intentional violation,” “compliance,” and even “justice” can be twisted, stretched, and used to create the appearance of guilt where no guilty mind exists.

We must look beyond the prestige of government. Beyond the robes. Beyond the titles. Beyond the seal on the wall.

Because authority is not proven by appearance. Authority is not proven by repetition. Authority is not proven merely because the government says so.

Whenever the system attempts to impose its will presumptively upon an innocent and unaware American people, it is our duty to stop, to think, to question, and to require proof.

That is our duty to ourselves. That is our duty to our families. That is our duty to future generations.

We must not surrender our minds. We must not surrender our judgment. We must not allow fear, prestige, or presumption to replace truth.

Because if we do not insist upon the meaning of words, then others will use those words against us.

And if we do not insist upon proof, then presumption will rule in place of justice.

Stand firm. Question deeply. Require clarity. Demand proof. Preserve the record.

And as always…

may truth reign supreme.

It is April 2nd. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

Today I want to talk about one phrase.

“Intentional violation of a known legal duty.”

Those are the words the federal government uses in criminal tax cases. They call it willfulness.

But stop and think about what those words actually mean.

An intentional violation. Of a known legal duty.

That does not mean a man failed to file.

That does not mean a man changed his mind.

That does not mean a man studied the law and reached a different conclusion.

No.

The government must prove something far more serious.

It must prove that a man knew, with certainty, that the law imposed a duty upon him personally…

…and then deliberately chose to violate that duty anyway.

In the law there are two parts to a crime.

The first is called actus reus. That means the act itself. In this case, the actus reus is simply the failure to file.

But the act alone is not enough.

There is a second requirement. Mens rea.

Mens rea means the guilty mind. The deliberate, conscious, intentional decision to violate a duty that the man knows applies to him.

Without mens rea, there is no crime.

So even if the government points to the actus reus—the failure to file—that proves nothing by itself.

The government must still prove the mens rea. It must prove what was in the man’s mind.

Ask yourself:

How can they possibly know that?

How can any prosecutor, any judge, any jury climb inside a man’s mind and heart and prove what he truly believed?

They cannot.

So what do they do instead?

They substitute presumption for proof.

They point to circumstances.

“He filed before.” “He received notices.” “He signed papers.” “He stopped filing.”

And then they say:

“Therefore, he must have known.”

But that is not proof.

That is assumption.

A man may have filed for years because he never questioned it. Because he was afraid. Because he trusted others. Because he had never studied the law.

Then one day he studies.

He reads. He researches. He writes letters. He asks questions. He struggles to understand.

And after years of study, he sincerely concludes that no legal duty applies to him.

Now ask yourself:

Would a sane man risk four years in prison if he truly knew he was violating the law?

Of course not.

It makes no sense.

The government wants you to believe that a man studies the law for years, risks everything, destroys his life, jeopardizes his freedom—and all the while secretly knows he is guilty.

No.

That is absurd.

If a man sincerely believes no duty applies, then there is no “known legal duty.”

And if there is no known legal duty…

there can be no intentional violation.

That means there is no mens rea. And without mens rea, the actus reus alone is not enough.

The Supreme Court itself admitted this in Cheek v. United States.

The Court said that if a man sincerely misunderstands the law—even if the government thinks he is wrong—then he may lack the willfulness required for conviction.

Why?

Because criminal guilt requires more than an act.

It requires a guilty mind.

The act is simple: failure to file.

That is the actus reus.

But the mind is everything.

That is the mens rea.

Did he know? Did he believe? Did he intentionally violate a duty he understood applied to him?

That is the real question.

And that is exactly why the government fights so hard to keep the jury from seeing a man’s letters, notes, research, questions, statutes, and good-faith beliefs.

Because once the jury sees the record…

the presumption begins to collapse.

That is why the government often depends upon an unsuspecting, naive, compliant jury. A jury that has never studied these words. A jury that hears “he failed to file” and immediately assumes “therefore he intended to violate the law.”

But those are not the same thing.

A compliant jury may never be told the difference between actus reus and mens rea. A compliant jury may never be told that the act alone proves nothing unless the government also proves the guilty mind. A compliant jury may never be shown the years of study, the letters, the questions, the statutes, the doubts, and the sincere effort to understand.

Instead, the jury is given a superficial argument:

“He filed before, therefore he knew.” “He stopped filing, therefore he intended to violate the law.”

And an unsuspecting jury may accept that shallow argument because no one has explained to them that the law requires far more.

It is April 1st. Welcome to yestohellwith.com. If you are new to this platform, please know there are a number of free reports for you on a number of topics related to taxes, jurisdiction, a letter to President Trump, and more. You need only register for free and those reports will be sent to you. On another note, I received a message from a Follower named Tomas in Namibia yesterday. He was excited to share that he had a case dismissed by using the Liberty Dialogues. Just imagine that. He is an inspiration and we should learn from his example. I will be interviewing him soon. Now, for your consideration. April Fools Day. Who are the fools? Are you? we have the opportunity to identify the fools—the real fools.

For years, Congress presumed that we, the American people, were the fools. They presumed that we would comply with every statute, every regulation, and every demand simply because they issued them. They presumed that issuance alone created obligation.

But here is the truth. When members of United States Congress enter office, they know just as little as the American people. They do not arrive with no civics education, for this is not taught in our schools generally. They do not arrive with clarity of jurisdiction, or a defined understanding of authority. And while in office, they learn the system—which they eventually serve. Not the Constitution. Not the people. The system.

In doing so, they become functionaries, processing information, repeating language, and issuing responses they do not fully understand. They are Buffoons, beholden to the very system they operate—fools, one and all. So when some of us send letters, questions, and doubts, these fools send our inquiries through a machine—a machine that categorizes, filters, redirects, and insulates them from accountability. What comes back is not an answer, but a template: a boilerplate response carefully designed to acknowledge us without ever answering us.

I saw it firsthand. My own congressman, Frank Wolf, did exactly that. I asked a question. He did not give me a legislative determination. No—it was procedural. He sent my letter to the Internal Revenue Service, which then gave him a canned answer that was completely unresponsive.

Frank Wolf passed the question to the very agency whose conduct and assumptions I was questioning. He played me for the fool.

And that is when it became clear. Frank Wolf was the fool. He never intended to answer my question. He sought to dismiss me without holding himself accountable as a lawmaker. Senators Mark Warner, Jim Webb, John Warner, and George Allen did the same thing. Fools all. So here is the lesson. I had a good faith belief, and these fools used the system to avoid giving me a legislative answer. But with solid Good Faith Beliefs, everything changes.

You are no longer guessing. You are defining the terms, identifying the authority, establishing the jurisdiction, and stating your position—in good faith and on the record.

More importantly, you craft your questions to Congress in such a way that they cannot pass the buck and cannot evade the issue by referring it to an administrative agency.

Congress is the legislative branch. If a member of Congress receives a question regarding the meaning, intent, scope, or application of a law passed by Congress, then that member has a duty to answer legislatively. To send the question to the IRS, the Department of Justice, or some other agency is not an answer. It is evasion.

That is precisely why the Statement of Understanding and Good Faith Belief program exists. It creates a structured record. It identifies the exact issue, the exact definition, the exact authority, and the exact question. It expressly requires a legislative response and places Congress on notice that referral to an agency is not responsive.

If they still pass the letter to an agency, then the record is clear. The problem is no longer that the citizen failed to ask the question. The problem is that Congress failed to answer it.

And that failure is more than avoidance. It is evasive. It shows a lack of accountability to the office they hold. It shows that they are unwilling to discharge their legislative duty and solemn moral obligation to the people they represent.

Now the burden shifts. They must answer, or their silence and evasion will stand on the record.

So who are the fools on April 1st?

Not the American who asks.

But those who entered office knowing no more than the people, and chose not to learn the truth—only to serve the system that hides it.

Visit statementofunderstanding.com and learn how to require Congress to answer legislatively, just as they should. TO avoid being foolish, visit statementofunderstanding.com and document your good faith beliefs.

This video is for April 1. Welcome to yestohellwith.com

You don’t need a loophole.

You don’t need a trick.
You don’t need a workaround.

You need clarity.

A clear, structured, good faith belief
about your position.

Because from that—

authority
jurisdiction
status
standing
obligation

…can finally be examined.

The law requires clarity and fairness.

It does not operate on blind assumption—
at least, it’s not supposed to.

Good faith is how you bring that clarity forward.

Not by arguing.
Not by reacting.

But by defining your position—
before anything is imposed upon you.

If you skip that step…
you’re not solving anything.

You’re simply moving within a system
you never questioned.

And that is where everything begins.

Today I want to speak to you about illusion.

The illusion that because someone has a title, he must know what he is doing.

Lawyer.
Judge.
Expert.
Guru.

Most people hear those words and immediately surrender their judgment.

Why?

A lawyer was once a child in school. Then he went to college. Then to law school. Then he passed an exam. And suddenly, we are expected to believe that he understands the law, that he can protect us, and that we should trust him.

But in my own life, I have learned something very different.

Lawyers do not know what we think they know.

Many of them ask for huge retainers. They waste time. They speak with confidence. But when you press them—when you ask them about authority, jurisdiction, definitions, standing, obligation—they often know very little.

The same is true of judges.

A judge is simply another human being who moved through the same system. High school. College. Law school. Politics. Appointment or election. Then a black robe.

But the robe does not make a man wise. The robe does not make him honest. And the robe does not mean that he understands the truth.

Most judges do not question the system. They apply it.

And then there are the gurus.

The gurus claim to have the answer. They sell solutions. They speak with certainty. But most of them only know what they want to believe. Men believe what they wish.

And so we find ourselves surrounded by people who claim authority but often do not deserve it.

Lawyers. Judges. Prosecutors. Gurus.

The problem is not merely that they may be wrong.

The deeper problem is that we have been trained to trust them.

We have been trained to give credibility to the title instead of examining the process.

But the Liberty Dialogues teaches the opposite.

Do not trust the title.

Examine the process.

Because if you understand the process, then you no longer need to rely upon the personalities.

You begin to see where the lawyer fails.

You begin to see where the prosecutor skips over jurisdiction.

You begin to see where the judge assumes status without proof.

You begin to see where the guru gives you a conclusion without showing you the structure underneath it.

That is why the Liberty Dialogues exists:

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

This order is not merely a theory. It is a method by which you can strip away the illusion and see what is really happening.

Because once you understand the process, you stop being impressed by appearances.

The lawyer no longer intimidates you.

The judge no longer impresses you.

The guru no longer seduces you.

You realize that they are all operating within a system that most of them do not truly understand.

And that is where your power begins.

We recently spoke about the idea of tabula rasa—the clean slate.

What if you looked at the courts with a clean slate?

What if you looked at the tax system with a clean slate?

What if you looked at lawyers, judges, and gurus with a clean slate?

You would begin to see that much of what we have accepted is not knowledge. It is habit. It is conditioning. It is the assumption that someone else must know better than we do.

But that assumption is often false.

The Liberty Dialogues was created so that you no longer have to depend on them.

It was created so that you can understand the process for yourself.

So that when a lawyer tells you something, you can ask:

Where is the authority?

When a judge speaks, you can ask:

Where is the jurisdiction?

When a prosecutor makes a claim, you can ask:

What status is being presumed?

What obligation has actually been proven?

And where is the record?

That is the key.

The system survives through presumption. Through assumptions. Through the belief that because someone has a title, he must be right.

The Liberty Dialogues destroys that illusion.

Because once you understand the process, you can compel performance.

You can compel the lawyer to explain himself.

You can compel the judge to follow the law.

You can compel the prosecutor to prove his assumptions.

And most importantly, you can create your own record.

A better record.

A stronger record.

A record built upon authority, jurisdiction, status, standing, obligation, and enforcement.

Their system runs on presumption.

Your defense must run on proof.

That is why we document.

That is why we create the Statement of Understanding.

That is why we preserve our letters, our questions, our statutes, our timelines, and our good-faith beliefs.

Because when your record is stronger than theirs, you begin to defeat their presumption.

Not all at once.

But incrementally.

Step by step.

Question by question.

Record by record.

Truth by truth.

And when we begin to apply the Liberty Dialogues in our own lives—when we train ourselves to think in the proper order and insist upon proof—something remarkable happens.

We change.

We become more informed.
More prepared.
More capable.

We begin to realize that we are often better equipped to defend what matters most to us than the lawyers, judges, and gurus who claim to possess superior knowledge.

Why?

Because they rely on titles.

But we rely on process.

Those who have used the Liberty Dialogues and applied the framework to their own lives are discovering this every day.

They are empowering themselves.

And not only themselves—they are empowering others.

In the States.
In Canada.
In Australia.
Across the world.

This is becoming a movement.

A movement of people who no longer surrender their minds to titles and robes.

A movement of people who now possess the real cloak of wisdom—not because they were handed a title, but because they learned the process.

The Liberty Dialogues teaches people how to prevail over a presumptive and often corrupt system.

Not by rage.

Not by blind belief.

But by understanding.

By record.

By structure.

By truth.

We must stop assuming that because someone has a title, he deserves our faith.

Instead, we must require proof.

We must compel performance.

We must demand credibility.

That is the future.

That is the movement.

And that is the true purpose of the Liberty Dialogues.

Be strong.

Be wise.

Look at everything anew.

And as always…

May truth reign supreme.

This video is for March 31. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

“Just comply and move on” is not a solution.

People are told:

Just comply.
Just file.
Just move on.

But compliance without understanding
does not resolve anything.

It reinforces assumption.

Every action taken without clarity
deepens the position you never examined.

The courts have long recognized that coercion and misunderstanding undermine valid obligation.

Without clarity—there is no meaningful consent.

Good faith interrupts that cycle.

It forces you to stop…
ask…
verify…

before you act.

Because once you act—
you’ve already taken a position.

Whether you meant to or not.

It is March 30. Welcome to YesToHellWith.com. There will be a Liberty Dialogues Video conference call tomorrow at 8 pm EST, 5 PST. If you have the SOU for You package, you are invited to attend. Please send an email to [email protected] with the words Liberty Dialogues in the subject line. Now, what if I told you that the greatest power you have is not to argue, not to protest, not to fight—but simply to ask the right questions? I recently spoke with a gentleman in Australia by the name of George. George runs Beyond Freedom and works with ordinary people—business owners, families, farmers, retirees—who are being pressured by government agencies, councils, police, and regulators. For years, those people were afraid. They felt trapped. They believed that when a letter arrived, when a fine appeared, when someone in a uniform came to the door, they had no choice but to comply. But George taught them something powerful. Stop arguing. Start asking questions. What authority are you relying upon? What law gives you jurisdiction? What lawful obligation do you claim I have? Can you prove it? And when people began asking those questions, everything changed. Claims were withdrawn. Fines disappeared. Police backed down. Unlawful entry stopped. Why? Because most people live under presumption. They presume that because someone has a badge, a title, a government logo, or a threatening letter, that authority automatically exists. But authority is not assumed. It must be proven. The Liberty Dialogues framework teaches five simple steps: Authority. Jurisdiction. Status. Standing. Obligation. And when you ask those questions calmly, professionally, and without fear, you put the burden back where it belongs—on the person making the claim. George told me that his students now stand firm. Not with anger. Not with violence. But with confidence. They know that when someone comes to their property, sends them a demand, or threatens enforcement, they have the right to ask: What gives you the authority? What gives you jurisdiction? What obligation do you claim I owe? And until those questions are answered, they do not need to surrender. That is the power of the Liberty Dialogues. Not because it teaches you to fight the system. But because it teaches you to think clearly, ask intelligently, and stop living under presumption. Because when you require proof, the entire dynamic changes. And perhaps, for the first time in your life, you realize that you are not powerless after all. I have a vision that millions and hundreds of millions and billions of people can and will use the Liberty Dialogues to assert their rightful sovereign power. Together we can defeat the prevailing presumption of all oppressive government. I acknowledge Georg AND HIS students. You are an inspiration. And as always, may truth reign supreme.

It is March 30, Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

If it’s not written… it doesn’t exist.

You may understand something completely.

You may believe it sincerely.

But if it is not expressed—
it has no force.

The legal system operates on record.

Not intention.

Not assumption.

Record.

In United States v. Murdock, the Court addressed the role of intent and good faith in conduct.

But intent alone is not enough.

It must be demonstrated.

Good faith must be:

clear
structured
documented

Because the record determines what is recognized.

And if your position is not there—
only theirs is.

It is March 29. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

Silence is not neutral.

Most people believe that doing nothing
is a safe position.

It’s not.

Silence is interpreted.

Silence becomes agreement.
Silence allows presumption to stand.

The courts have recognized that lack of notice and clarity can violate due process.

In Lambert v. California, the Court held that a person cannot be punished for failing to act when they had no reasonable notice.

Why?

Because awareness matters.

Understanding matters.

But here’s the problem:

If you never state your position…
the record reflects acceptance.

Not because you agreed—
but because you never objected.

Good faith replaces silence with clarity.

It puts your position on the record.

Because what is not said…
is still used.

It is March 29th. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

Today is my daughter’s birthday. Her name is Emma. I have called he “Little Package” since she was a baby. Sadly, I have not had a real conversation with her in perhaps 8 or 10 years.

Why? She has a story.

Because stories are powerful.

Every person lives inside a story, stories we create. A story about ourselves. A story about others. A story about what happened, who was right, who was wrong, who is good, who is bad.

And after enough years, the story becomes more real than the truth.

My daughter knows what she has been told – the stories of others have shared with her. But does she know me?

The government creates stories. Society creates stories. Families create stories. We are told who the fool is, who the liar is, who the criminal is, who the bad father is. And when enough people repeat the same story, most accept it without ever asking the most important question:

Is it true? Or, what is truth?

We do this to each other every day.

Some label a man as a Tom Cat. Or a woman, selfish. We create a label, and then we mistake the take for reality.

But reality is not the story.

Reality is what exists beneath the story—before the judgment, before the prejudice, before the fear.

The government depends upon stories. It wants you to believe that authority is obligation. That accusation is guilt. That definitions are whatever they say they are. That if enough people repeat something, then it becomes true. Yes, the government uses definitions that are not clear. Rather, they are nuanced, obscured, deceptive, and weaponized.

The truth is not within such deceit. Truth does not come from repetition. Truth does not come from majority opinion. Truth does not come from labels.

Truth exists independent of the story. The Government’s story is not true. Emma’s story about herself is not true. Her story of her father is not true.

So today, on my daughter Emma’s birthday, I ask you to consider this:

Who in your life have you reduced to a story?

Who have you never truly seen because you have only seen the label?

And what story have others created about you? And most of all, what story have you created about yourself?

Perhaps the greatest freedom in life is to set the story aside—to become, for one moment, a blank slate—a table rasa – and to create the opportunity to meet another human being in the present, without the burden of what others have said.

Today I send love to my daughter. I invite you to send her love as well.

And perhaps, somewhere, she will feel it. Perhaps she will acquire the insight and wisdom to discard stories and to embrace what is - truth. May we all do this.

And as always, may truth reign supreme.