YesToHellWith

It is March 19. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

Now we are able to connect the two halves of this discussion.

On one side, the Supreme Court says criminal tax liability depends on willfulness — the intentional violation of a known legal duty. On the other side, we have spent days examining definitions in 26 U.S.C. §7701, the function of includes, the meaning of trade or business, and the role of classes of persons and jurisdiction in the Internal Revenue Code.

These are not separate conversations.

They are the same conversation.

Because how can a duty be honestly known if the operative terms of the statute have never been seriously examined?

How can someone truly know a legal duty without asking:

What did Congress mean by United States?
What did Congress mean by State?
What does includes do under §7701(c)?
Why does trade or business expressly include the performance of the functions of a public office?
What significance do the classes of persons in the Code carry?
Why does the nonresident alien provision reveal a structure of class, activity, jurisdiction, and consequence?

Those questions are not evasive. They are necessary.

And the Supreme Court has long held that tax statutes may not be enlarged by implication beyond the clear import of the language used. In Gould v. Gould, the Court said tax statutes are not to be extended by implication beyond the clear import of the language used. In United States v. Merriam, the Court repeated that if the words are doubtful, the doubt must be resolved against the government and in favor of the taxpayer.

That means careful attention to definitions is not frivolous. It is part of honest tax analysis.

In the Liberty Dialogues context, the point is this:

A good-faith belief is not formed by ignoring the statute.
A good-faith belief is formed by confronting the statute.
Reading it.
Comparing its terms.
Tracing its structure.
Asking what Congress actually said.
And refusing to let presumption replace proof.

That is what definitions are for.
And that is why definitions and jurisdiction are part of the legal substance of good faith.

And as always…

May truth reign supreme.

It’s March 19, Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

Let me explain something very simple.

If I am not subject to the Internal Revenue Code—

then I do not adopt the language of that code.

I don’t call myself a “non-resident alien.”

I don’t accept classifications that do not apply to me.

Words matter.

Definitions matter.

And the moment you adopt their terminology—

you may be stepping into their purview.

Now this is where people get into trouble.

They run toward strategies—

revocation of election… discharging…

all kinds of so-called remedies—

without understanding what they’re doing.

And that’s dangerous.

Because the real question is not:

“Does this work?”

The real question is:

Do you understand what you’re doing… and why?

Take this example.

Some people will take 26 U.S.C. 7701

and argue that the definition of “State” is limited to exclude the 50 States.

But then—

they turn around and take something like 6013(g)

and expand it beyond what it actually says within the code

to justify a strategy.

So ask yourself:

Can you limit one definition…

and expand another…

just to get the result you want?

No.

That’s not law.

That’s preference and presumption.

So instead of chasing ideas…

instead of trusting what sounds good…

Test it.

Understand it.

Be consistent.

Because if you don’t—

you’re stepping into something you do not control.

I don’t trust strategies.

I trust structure.

I trust definitions.

I trust consistency.

And if you want to protect yourself—

stop guessing.

Start understanding.

I have been involved with this effort for almost three decades.

I trust two sources and they provide excellent content, content that should be verified as well. One source has a link that describes the dangers of the ROE and some of the parties behind its use.

Caveat Emptor.

And as always—

may truth reign supreme.

It is March 18. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

One of the most important Supreme Court decisions in all of tax law is Cheek v. United States.

And the reason it matters is because the Court drew a line that every serious person must understand.

The Court held that a genuine good-faith understanding of what the tax law requires can negate willfulness — even if that understanding is objectively unreasonable. But the Court also held that a person’s belief that the tax laws are invalid or unconstitutional is different. That kind of disagreement does not negate willfulness in the same way.

That distinction is huge.

An understanding says:

“I believe the law says this because of X, Y, and Z. Or, I am sincerely determined that the law does not apply because of this reason, which is based upon the statutes and definitions.”

A protest says:

“I know the law applies, but I reject it.”

Those are not the same thing.

The Liberty Dialogues is directed toward the first category, not the second.

The purpose of the LDs is not to teach emotional defiance. It is not to encourage reckless noncompliance. It is not to promote shallow anti-government slogans.

It is to teach disciplined inquiry.

What did Congress define?
What jurisdiction did Congress describe?
What classes of persons appear in the title?
What is the relationship between status and obligation?
Where is liability actually imposed?
And what parts of the structure are being presumed rather than proved?

That is not protest. That is study.

And that is why the work on definitions and jurisdiction is vital. Because when a person seriously studies the Code and attempts to understand the meaning of the words Congress chose, he is not merely rebelling. He is trying to understand the law as written.

That is exactly the kind of inquiry that Cheek makes legally important.

The law recognizes the significance of a sincere understanding in a technical statutory field.

That is the lane in which this series moves.

And as always…

May truth reign supreme.

Let’s have a serious conversation.

Every day, I receive documents, videos, and so-called solutions. Patriot mythology. Guru advice. Quick fixes. And I test some of them.

People are searching, desperate, they are looking for relief.

They want something to work. They need it to be the answer. I’ve been there myself.

But wanting something to be true does not make it so. It does not make it real. And it certainly does not make it safe.

That’s why the Liberty Dialogues exists.

It’s not a theory. It’s a filter.

A step-by-step framework that allows you to take any claim, any document, any notice—and break it down into authority, jurisdiction, status, standing, obligation, and enforcement—so you can see immediately whether a given document or theory holds… or collapses.

Let me give you a real example.

People come to me talking about a “Revocation of Election.” I ask one question:

Why are you doing it? What is the ROE?

And the answer is always the same:

“Because it gets me out of the tax system.”

But does it?

So I took one of those documents—twelve pages—and ran just two paragraphs through the Liberty Dialogues. These paragraphs dealt with the tax code’s election provision under 6013. This code section deals with:

A nonresident alien individual who is married to a U.S. citizen or resident, and who has made an election under §6013(g) to be treated as a resident of the United States for income tax purposes.

and does not deal with:

· Single individuals

· U.S. citizens filing alone

· People who never made a §6013(g) election

· General taxpayers

· Any broad “revocation of election” theory

Now, The Liberty Dialogues found nine errors.

Nine.

That’s not a solution. That’s a liability in progress.

And the cost of getting this wrong is not theoretical.

It’s liens.
It’s penalties.
It’s years trying to fix something that never should have been done.

This is the difference:

Everyone else gives you supposed answers to what is not real, .

The Liberty Dialogues gives you a way to test whether those responses are even valid.

It moves you from reacting… to analyzing.
From believing… to verifying.
From hoping… to knowing.

And here’s the better approach:

And even more important, why not use the Liberty Dialogues to compel the IRS to respond to your queries rather than submit a document that is suspect? Instead of making claims—ask the question.

Go to the IRS and ask:

What election exists?
What classification applies?
And how does it apply to you?

That’s how you maintain control.
That’s how you build a record.
That’s how you operate in good faith.

Every American should develop and document their good faith beliefs. Now, I provide a letter in the GOOD FAITH section to students who are involved in the statementofunderstanding.com program.

If you want to see this in action, I’ll send you a letter from this file that that holds the IRS accountable to the issue of the ROE withut making claims under statutes that do not apply.

If you want this document,

Send the CODE WORDS: Liberty DIALOGUES and And I’ll send it to you.

Now, let me share an important conclusion;

if you want to stop guessing…
If you’re ready to stop relying on questionable opinions…

Get the Liberty Dialogues.

It’s $48. For this modest investment, you can avoid suspicious solutions that cost $500 that give you nothing and potentially cause a lot of problems.

The Liberty Dialogues is the most important filter you ever put between yourself and bad information.

It is March 17. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

If we want to understand why good-faith belief matters in tax law, we must appreciate one word:

willfulness.

The Supreme Court has made clear that in criminal tax cases, willfulness means the voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty. That formulation was reaffirmed in Cheek v. United States, drawing from earlier cases including United States v. Bishop and United States v. Murdock.

Now stop and think carefully.

A known legal duty.

Not an assumed duty.
Not a socially repeated duty.
Not a duty someone merely told you exists.

A known legal duty.

That matters because federal tax law does not operate honestly through slogans. It operates through definitions, terms of art, classifications, and jurisdictional structure. Before anyone can truly be said to know a duty, he must first understand what the statute actually means.

What is meant by United States in the title?
What is meant by State?
How does includes operate under 26 U.S.C. §7701(c)?
What class of person is being described?
What activity gives rise to liability?
What jurisdiction must exist before obligation can arise?

Those are not insignificant questions. Those are the very questions that must be worked through if a legal duty is to be known rather than merely presumed.

That is where the Liberty Dialogues becomes indispensable.

Because the LD method does not begin with panic.
It does not begin with enforcement.
It begins with structure.

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

And if a person has sincerely worked through that sequence in an effort to determine what the law actually requires, that is not irrelevant. That goes directly to the issue of willfulness itself.

This is why good faith matters. Because in tax law, the government does not merely say, “You acted.” It must prove that the person intentionally violated a duty he actually knew the law imposed.

And as always…

May truth reign supreme.

It is March 16. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

Let’s discuss good faith beliefs.

American law has long recognized that guilt is not supposed to arise from the mere existence of an act alone. The law has long required something more — a blameworthy state of mind. There is a maxim which says: actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. This means: The act does not make a man guilty unless the mind is also guilty.

The Supreme Court affirmed that principle in Morissette v. United States, explaining that criminal liability traditionally requires a culpable mental state and does not ordinarily rest on the bare doing of an act alone.

That principle matters profoundly in tax law, because tax law is dense, technical, and full of defined terms. And when a body of law operates through definitions, classifications, and jurisdictional structure, the mind of the accused is relevant. What did he understand? What did he believe? What effort did he make to determine what the law actually required?

That is why the Liberty Dialogues exists.

Not as entertainment.
Not as rebellion.
Not as fantasy.

But as a method by which a person can work through authority, jurisdiction, status, standing, obligation, and enforcement and form a documented and sincere understanding of the law.

A good-faith belief is not a slogan.
It is not outrage.
It is not a position which says: “I don’t like the system.”

It is a reasoned belief formed through honest inquiry.

And that matters because the law itself has recognized that when a statute is technical and a person is sincerely trying to understand what it requires, that effort is legally significant.

In this series, we are no longer merely discussing definitions in the abstract or concretely. We are showing why those definitions, and the jurisdiction they imply, become part of the foundation of a genuine good-faith belief.

And as always…

May truth reign supreme.

It is March 14. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

I tend to approach life rather simply. I try to deal with what we know while recognizing that it is often what we do not know that causes us the greatest harm.

So the real question becomes this:
How do we arrive at a clear understanding of what we need to know right now in order to move forward?

To do that, we must ask questions that lead us to information — information that gives us a clear path forward.

And how we arrive at that path is especially vital in the legal realm.

The Liberty Dialogues provides a method and an approach that allows us to arrive at that destination.

And when that method is combined with AI or ChatGPT, something very powerful happens.

We can arrive at answers that are structured, logical, and grounded in a constitutional framework — answers that help us prevail rather than wander through confusion.

But there is a problem in the information world today.

There are many avenues where people seek legal understanding.

There are gurus who charge thousands of dollars an hour for their advice.

There are websites filled with supposed legal information.

But much of that information is not comprehensively grounded, and in many cases it is simply wrong.

So we have to be very deliberate.

Let me give you an example.

The other day I saw one of these so-called gurus post a legal question about the Fourteenth Amendment on social media.

He asked the question and then used AI to arrive at the answer.

Now the answer itself was not entirely wrong.

But it was not complete.

And because it was incomplete, it failed to consider the full legal ramifications of the issue and how it might affect someone using that information.

And this is not just about the Fourteenth Amendment.

This problem exists with any legal question.

We must understand what we do not know.

And that is precisely why the Liberty Dialogues is so vital.

You see, the Liberty Dialogues can completely eliminate the need for these self-proclaimed gurus.

No longer do we need to pay two thousand dollars or four thousand dollars for someone to give us advice that the Liberty Dialogues can help us obtain ourselves.

My intention is very simple.

I want people to obtain the Liberty Dialogues.

I want them to obtain the SOU for You package.

And then I want them to use AI properly within the Liberty Dialogues framework.

When we do that, something remarkable happens.

We no longer need the gurus.

And we begin to realize that many lawyers — who either do not understand the law or who would never tell us the truth about the law even if they did — become far less necessary in our lives.

When we remove that dependency, something powerful emerges.

We gain peace of mind.

Because now we can begin to map out our own strategies.

We can examine issues through the Liberty Dialogues order:

Authority.
Jurisdiction.
Status.
Standing.
Obligation.

And we can understand the power of presumption — the silent force that moves the legal system forward unless it is challenged intelligently.

Now, to demonstrate this point, I am going to send an email to everyone.

In that email I will attach the exact question asked by the guru.

I will show you the answer that AI gave him.

And then I will show you the same question asked again, but this time framed within the Liberty Dialogues context using ChatGPT.

When you see the two answers side by side, you will immediately recognize the difference.

You will see the power of the Liberty Dialogues.

This is not just information.

This is an arsenal.

This is intellectual weaponry.

And frankly, it should exist in every home across the fruited plain.

Every American should have the Liberty Dialogues.

Even the gurus themselves — if they were honest with their clients and with themselves — should be using the Liberty Dialogues in their work.

But more importantly, when you have the Liberty Dialogues, you gain the ability to operate independently.

My goal is to replicate within you the same process that I use.

So that anyone who possesses the Liberty Dialogues can do independently what I do by myself.

That is extraordinarily powerful.

But there is one final piece to the puzzle.

Once you understand the Liberty Dialogues…
Once you understand the structure of authority, jurisdiction, status, standing, and obligation…

And once you begin using AI within that framework…

You must still establish something critically important.

You must establish your good-faith belief about the law.

Because ultimately, if you ever find yourself in a courtroom, what matters is not only what the law says — but what you believed the law said and why.

This is why StatementOfUnderstanding.com is so vital.

The Statement of Understanding allows you to document your reasoning, your research, and your conclusions in a clear and organized form.

It creates evidence of your good-faith belief.

And that evidence can become extremely important in a court of law.

When this final step is completed, something changes.

You sleep better at night.

You operate during the day with greater confidence.

And when the moment arrives where the presumptive authority of government confronts you…

You stand prepared.

Prepared with knowledge.

Prepared with documented good faith.

Prepared with the structure of the Liberty Dialogues.

And as always,

May truth reign supreme.

It is March 14. Welcome to yestohellwith.com. This is the second part to the final video about terms and definitions in the tax code. The Liberty Dialogues series teaches that law must be examined in its proper order.

Authority.
Jurisdiction.
Status.
Standing.
Obligation.

Most legal conflicts arise because people skip the first steps and begin arguing at the end of the chain.

But the system itself moves forward through something much more subtle.

It moves forward through presumption.

If authority is not questioned, it is presumed.

If jurisdiction is not examined, it is assumed.

If status is not clarified, it is assigned.

The Liberty Dialogues simply reverses that process.

Once those elements are examined in their proper order, the structure of the legal system becomes much clearer.

And once you understand that structure, you begin to see that many of the conflicts people experience with government authority are not questions of defiance.

They are questions of understanding how the law is actually written.

That is the purpose of the Liberty Dialogues.

Because when people understand the structure of law, they are finally able to engage the system intelligently, lawfully, and effectively.

But there is another reality that must be acknowledged.

Even though the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that tax statutes must be strictly construed and limited to the language and intent of Congress, the federal income tax laws themselves are written in a way that is extraordinarily complex and difficult for ordinary citizens to understand.

When statutes operate through layered definitions, cross-referenced provisions, and technical classifications, it becomes extremely difficult for the average person to determine with certainty how the law actually applies.

The Supreme Court itself recognized this reality in Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991).

In that decision, the Court acknowledged that the complexity of the tax laws means that a person’s good-faith belief about the meaning of the law is critically important when determining criminal liability.

In other words, when the law itself is not easily understood, the courts recognize that good-faith understanding matters.

That is why documenting one’s understanding of the law becomes so important.

This is precisely the purpose of StatementOfUnderstanding.com.

The Statement of Understanding process allows individuals to carefully study the law, examine the statutory definitions, review the constitutional limitations, and then document their good-faith understanding of how the law operates.

This is not an act of defiance.

It is an act of diligence.

Because when citizens take the time to study the law and document their understanding in good faith, they create a record that demonstrates honesty, transparency, and intellectual integrity.

And in a legal system where intent and good faith can determine the outcome of a case, that record can become extraordinarily important.

The Liberty Dialogues provides the framework.

The Statement of Understanding documents the good-faith conclusions that arise from that study.

Together they empower citizens to approach the law not with fear or confusion — but with knowledge, clarity, and confidence.

It is March 14. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

In the last several videos we examined several critical parts of federal tax law. We discussed the constitutional meaning of income. We examined the Supreme Court’s rule that tax statutes must be strictly construed. We reviewed the definitions contained in 26 U.S.C. §7701. And we discussed the statutory classes of individuals: citizen, resident, and nonresident.

At first glance these topics may seem separate, but they are not. They are all pieces of a much larger structure within the concept known as The Liberty Dialogues.

The Liberty Dialogues is a framework for understanding how law actually operates in the United States.

Most people approach legal questions backwards. They begin by arguing about obligation. They ask: Do I owe this tax? Must I comply with this regulation? Does the government have authority over me?

But obligation is the last step in the legal structure, not the first.

The Liberty Dialogues teaches that law must be examined in a specific order.

First: Authority.
Where does the government derive the power it claims to exercise?

Second: Jurisdiction.
Where does that authority apply geographically or legally?

Third: Status.
What class of person does the statute actually address?

Fourth: Standing.
Is the individual even a party to the statute in question?

And only after those elements are established do we arrive at the final step:

Obligation.

Then there is the ever-present element of presumption. What presumptions does the system make if these questions are never asked?

Now let me ask a simple question.

If the income tax truly applied universally to every American in the fifty states, why did Congress not simply write the law in plain language?

Why does 26 U.S.C. §1 not say something like this:

“Every person living in the fifty states of the United States must pay a federal income tax on their earnings.”

That would be very easy for everyone to understand.

But Congress did not write the law that way.

Instead, Congress wrote the statute through defined terms, statutory classes, and jurisdictional definitions.

Why?

Because federal statutes are written to operate upon specific legal classes of persons, and those classes become liable only when the conditions described in the statute are met.

For example, a nonresident alien individual becomes subject to the income tax when that individual is engaged in a trade or business within the United States, as described in 26 U.S.C. §871(b). In that circumstance, the statute treats the income connected with that trade or business as taxable under the rate structure found in 26 U.S.C. §1.

Likewise, citizens of the United States and resident aliens are treated as persons whose income is subject to taxation under the Internal Revenue Code because the statute defines them as individuals operating within the jurisdictional scope of the United States as used in the code.

In other words, the statute does not simply impose liability on everyone.

Instead, it operates through legal classifications that determine when jurisdiction and liability arise.

This is precisely why Congress did not simply say “everyone in the fifty states.”

Instead, Congress constructed the statute around legal definitions that determine jurisdiction and status.

In the next video, I will explain why this is critical for our defense. And as always, may truth reign supreme.

It is March 12. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

In the Internal Revenue Code, Congress often explains how the statute operates by defining key terms. One of those definitions appears in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26).

There Congress states:

“The term trade or business includes the performance of the functions of a public office.”

That language deserves careful attention.

When Congress writes statutory definitions, the words chosen are not random. Definitions reveal how Congress structured the operation of the law itself.

In this case, Congress specifically identifies the performance of the functions of a public office within the definition of trade or business.

That drafting choice becomes clearer when we look at the historical origins of the federal income tax.

During the Civil War, Congress enacted the Revenue Act of 1862, which established the first federal income tax system. In the debates recorded in the Congressional Globe, Congress described the taxable class as including:

“all salaries of officers, or payments to persons in the civil, military, naval, or other employments or service of the United States.”

In other words, the early federal income tax system identified taxation in connection with persons serving within the government itself.

Now compare that historical structure with the modern statutory definition.

Today, the Internal Revenue Code identifies the performance of the functions of a public office within the definition of trade or business.

This reflects the same drafting method Congress has long used: identifying specific classes of persons and activities that bring individuals within the operation of a statute.

And when interpreting tax statutes, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the scope of those laws must be determined by the language Congress enacted.

In Gould v. Gould, the Court stated that taxation statutes must not be extended beyond the clear import of the language used.

And in United States v. Merriam, the Court reaffirmed that tax laws cannot be expanded by implication or presumption.

Which means that when Congress defines a term such as trade or business, the meaning of that definition must be determined by the words Congress actually chose.

Understanding these definitions is essential, because statutory definitions reveal how Congress structured the tax system itself.

In the next discussion, we will examine another important part of that structure — the statutory classes of persons described in the Internal Revenue Code and how those classifications relate to the operation of the tax statutes. But rest assured, if you are sensing that the class of persons liable for the tax today and in 1862 were those in the employ of the federal government, your intuition is not wrong. Then and now, the Federal government’s jurisdiction was and is Washington DC and those within its domain.

And as always…

May truth reign supreme.