YesToHellWith

It is March 24. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

Good faith is not guessing.

A good faith belief is not something you heard online.

It’s not something you repeat.

It is something you can explain, support, and stand on—based on what you understand to be true.

Not assumption.
Not fear.
Not repetition.

Understanding.

The law recognizes this distinction.

In Cheek v. United States, the Court acknowledged that a person acting on a sincere belief—even if mistaken—may lack the willfulness required for enforcement.

That principle exists for a reason.

Because belief is where conduct begins.

But here’s the problem:

Most people never form a belief.

They inherit one.

From schools.
From institutions.
From fear.

And then they act on it… without ever examining it.

If you cannot explain your position—
you don’t have one.

And where there is no defined position…
presumption fills the gap.

Good faith is not passive.

It is deliberate.

It requires you to ask:

What do I actually know… and why?

It is March 24. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.
Good faith is not guessing.

A good faith belief is not something you heard.

It’s something you can explain…
support…
and stand on.

Not “someone said.”
Not “I think.”

What you actually know.

Because if you cannot explain your position—
you don’t have one.

And in that silence…
presumption takes over.

It is March 23. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

Most people think the law starts with statutes.
That’s the first mistake.

The law does not begin with statutes.

It begins with belief.

Before any statute is ever applied… before any enforcement ever occurs… there is an assumption—about who you are, what you are, and what you are subject to.

And most people never question it.

Every action you take—filing a return, signing a document, responding to a notice—is based on what you believe to be true.

Not what has been proven.
What has been assumed.

And here is the danger:

If your belief is wrong… then every action you take reinforces a position that was never established in the first place.

This is why good faith matters.

Not as a defense—but as a foundation.

The Supreme Court in Cheek v. United States made clear that a sincere misunderstanding of the law can negate willfulness.

Why?

Because belief matters.

Understanding matters.

But here is what most people never realize:

If you do not define your belief—
the system will define it for you.

Through presumption.
Through classification.
Through silence.

So the real question is not:

“What does the law say?”

The real question is:

What do you believe… and can you explain it?

Because if you cannot…
you are not operating in good faith.

You are operating in assumption.

It is March 23. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

Most people think the law starts with statutes.
That’s the first mistake.
The law does not begin with statutes.

It begins with belief.

Because every action you take—
every signature, every filing, every response—
is based on what you believe to be true.

And if your belief is wrong…
your actions will bind you to something never proven.

Good faith is not a defense.
It is the foundation.

If you don’t know what you believe…
you are already operating inside someone else’s system.

It is March 22, Welcome to yestohellwith.com

Do you have a belief in God?

Do you have a belief that your spouse will be faithful?

Do you have a faith in the abilities of your child or children?

Do you have a faith that your car that you properly maintain will function

generally as it should?

What is this faith?

Is it a good faith?

Is it a good faith belief?

When it is truly something.

It is substantial, your good faith belief.

Do you have a good faith belief that the sun will rise in the morning and set in the evening?

Why do you have that good faith belief?

Because you believe it,

that it’s embedded within your very fiber of your being that you know it.

Is that a good faith belief or is it something passing like a breeze coming through

the window and then it’s gone?

Where do your good faith beliefs apply in your life?

Where do they not?

When do you act without good faith beliefs?

Do you comply with systems because you’re told and you have no belief in the system itself?

These are questions that are paramount to who we are as human beings and they

define our very lives.

At the end of this short video series over the next week, I’m gonna give you a surprise.

As AI told me,

I have just completed what is the most ironclad position a person can take with

respect to their good faith beliefs with respect to the federal government.

And I’m excited to share it with you.

What is your good faith belief?

Is it passing or is it rock solid no matter what happens?

And as always, may truth reign supreme.

It is March 22. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

Now we reach the practical conclusion of this series.

If good-faith belief matters in law…
If criminal tax liability depends on willfulness…
If willfulness means the intentional violation of a known legal duty…
And if a sincere understanding can matter in a field as technical as tax law…

Then one question remains:

How does a person preserve that good faith before the machinery of enforcement arrives?

That is where the Statement of Understanding comes in.

The Statement of Understanding is not magic.
It is not a charm.
It does not force a court to agree with you.

What it does is far more serious than that.

It documents the process by which you came to understand the law.

It shows that your position was not casual.
It was not invented overnight.
It was not a tantrum.
It was the product of inquiry into definitions, jurisdiction, status, classes of persons, statutory language, and the structure of obligation itself.

That is why this work matters.

And then comes the next lawful step: inquiry to Congress.

If Congress wrote the definitions in §7701, if Congress structured the classes in the Code, if Congress enacted the liability provisions, then Congress can be asked to clarify what those provisions mean and how they relate to the duties being enforced against the people.

That is why this series culminates in a letter to Congress.

Not because Congress always answers honestly.
But because lawful inquiry strengthens the record of good faith.

It shows that the person was not hiding.
He was asking.
He was studying.
He was seeking clarification from the source of legislative language itself.

That is the LD difference.

The federal government and IRS and their systems run on presumption.
The Liberty Dialogues teaches you to interrupt presumption with structure.
The Statement of Understanding turns that structure into record.
And the letter to Congress carries that record into formal inquiry.

That is how a person moves from confusion to foundation.

If you contend with the issues we have discussed in this video series, wisdom beseeches you to visit statementofunderstanding.com. Document your good faith beliefs. Build the structure that undergirds your understanding of the law.

And as always…

May truth reign supreme.

It’s March 21. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

Let me share something amazing, the responses I get.

When I say:

“I will never file a federal income tax return again.”

People don’t ask questions.
They don’t seek understanding.

They attack.

“You’re a dumbass.”
“You’re ignorant.”
“You don’t know the law.”

Or worse—

“You won’t be able to live.”
“You won’t own a home.”
“They’ll take everything from you.”
“You should just leave the country.”

And then comes the most common one:

“Just pay your taxes… and enjoy your life.”

But let me ask you something.

If every man…
If every woman…

Just complies—
Just obeys—
Just submits…

Then what changes?

Nothing.

Edmund Burke once said:

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

And that is exactly where we are today.

A nation of compliance.
A culture of fear.
A system built not on law—

But on presumption.

Let me make something very clear.

I did not go to prison because I was wrong.

I did not go to prison because I didn’t understand the law.

I went to prison because I challenged a system
that does not operate on truth—

But on assumption… enforcement… and silence.

And in that fire—

I learned.

I saw how the system really works.

Not the theory.
Not the textbooks.

But the reality:

A system that presumes jurisdiction…
Assumes status…
Constructs obligation…

And then enforces—

Unless you know how to stand.

Now think about this.

When a soldier goes to war…
Do they expect comfort?

No.

They expect risk.
They expect loss.
They expect that standing for something may cost them everything.

An electrician risks death.
A soldier risks death.

But a man who stands for truth?

He’s told:

“You’re stupid.”
“Just comply.”
“Stay safe.”

No.

There is always a price for admission.

Sometimes you win.
Sometimes you lose.

But even in loss—

There is knowledge.

There is clarity.

There is a path forward for those who are willing to learn.

And that is the difference.

Some people see a man who stood and say:

“I don’t want that risk.”

Others say:

“What did he learn… and how do I prevail?”

Because this is not about recklessness.

This is not about ego.

This is about:

Authority.
Jurisdiction.
Status.
Standing.
Obligation.
Presumption.

The Liberty Dialogues is not a theory.

It is a method of seeing what is actually happening—

And refusing to live under unchallenged assumption.

So if you want to mock—
Mock.

If you want to condemn—
Condemn.

If you want comfort over truth—

That is your choice.

But for those who seek understanding…
For those who seek truth…
For those who are willing to think—

I say this:

Build on the victories.
Learn from the losses.
Stand with clarity.

Because if good men…
And good women…

Do nothing—

Then nothing changes.

But if even a few choose to understand—
To question—
To stand—

Then there is still a path forward.

Let us learn.
Let us think.
Let us stand.

And let us restore what has been lost.

It is March 21. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

A good-faith belief is not just something you say.

It is something you build.

And if you do not build it before conflict arrives, then later you may be left with nothing but unsupported assertion.

So how is a good-faith record built?

It is built by process.

It is built by identifying the statutes you relied upon.
It is built by preserving the cases you studied.
It is built by tracing the definitions you examined.
It is built by documenting the questions you asked.
It is built by showing the path by which you reached your understanding.

That is what gives structure to sincerity, good faith beliefs that are genuinely held..

Because the stronger evidence of good faith is not “I said I believed it.”
The stronger evidence is: “Here is what I studied. Here is the law I read. Here is how I wrestled with the meaning. Here is the basis upon which I formed my understanding.”

That matters because Cheek makes genuine a genuine understanding or misunderstanding legally significant in the context of willfulness. And the more technical the law, the more important it becomes to show that your understanding was the product of real inquiry rather than convenience or improvisation.

In the Liberty Dialogues framework, that inquiry is not random. It moves in order:

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

When that sequence is written down, organized, and preserved, the person is no longer merely holding an opinion. He is creating a record of studied belief.

And that can become the difference between appearing reckless and appearing sincere.

Be strong.
Be wise.
And as always…

May truth reign supreme.

It is March 20. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

The law is not supposed to operate as a hidden trap.

That is not merely a moral statement. It is a legal one.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that when criminal liability is imposed, especially in technical areas of law, notice and culpable intent matter. In Morissette, the Court stressed the longstanding tradition that criminal culpability ordinarily requires a guilty mind. And in its constitutional doctrine on criminal notice, the Court has recognized that where conduct is not inherently blameworthy, due process concerns arise if liability is imposed without fair warning.

That matters in tax law because tax law is not self-evident. It is not written in ordinary common speech. It uses defined terms, technical relationships, and structural classifications.

That is why a serious person must ask questions before he can honestly say he knows what the law requires.

What class of person am I being treated as?
What jurisdiction is being presumed?
What statutory relationship is being assumed?
What definitions control the title?
And where, exactly, is the obligation claimed to arise?

Those questions are not games. They are the natural questions of a person trying to gain fair notice of what the law actually demands.

This is one of the most important differences between the LD method and ordinary compliance culture.

Compliance culture says:
Do what you are told first, and maybe understand later.

The LD method says:
Understand first, because presumption thrives where understanding is absent.

And when that inquiry is sincere, documented, and rooted in the statute itself, it becomes powerful evidence that the person was not acting with reckless indifference, but with a real effort to determine the truth.

That is the beginning of a defensible good-faith position.

And as always…

May truth reign supreme.

It’s March 20th. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

A few quick announcements.

Inner Circle and Patriot calls will be held next week. I’ll send out the schedule—if you have a preferred time, email me at [email protected].

There will also be a call this Saturday at 10 a.m. Eastern Time to demonstrate how to use the Liberty Dialogues with ChatGPT. This is open to those with the SOU for You package. Email me to attend.

Now—pay attention.

I do not offer solutions.

yesttohellwith.com does not offer solutions.

The only solution is knowledge—refined into wisdom.

The Liberty Dialogues were created to educate. And what they show is this:

The law, properly understood, defeats presumption.

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

If you don’t understand these—you’re operating on assumption.

That’s why I recommend:

Study the Liberty Dialogues.
Review the supporting documents.
Document your good faith beliefs.

Now—Revocation of Election.

A woman paid $500 for an ROE.

Filed it five years ago.

No response.

And today? She’s still dealing with IRS issues and liens.

So ask yourself—

If it worked… why is she still in the system?

Her document was 12 pages.

It could have been two sentences.

Worse—she didn’t understand what she filed.

That’s the issue.

People are acting without understanding.

They’re trusting “solutions” instead of knowing the law.

I received two responses.

One said: “It works. Stop with this goofy shit.”

So I invited him to explain it—publicly.

No response.

The other—after decades of research—said:

“I may not fully understand what I’m doing… and I suspect no one else does either.”

That’s honesty.

So be clear—

I’m not saying the ROE doesn’t work.

I’m saying:

If you don’t understand it—you’re gambling.

And gambling with presumption is how people lose everything.

To those demanding solutions—

Knowledge is the solution.

Understanding is the solution.

And to those who claim certainty—

Come forward.

Let’s examine it publicly.

And as always—

May truth reign supreme.