YesToHellWith

It is March 11.
Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

In federal statutes, words are not used casually. They are chosen deliberately, and the meaning of those words determines how the law operates.

One of the most important words in statutory law is the word “includes.”

Most people assume the word simply means for example. They read a statute, see the word includes, and assume it is simply providing a loose illustration of something broader.

But statutory language does not operate that way.

Congress itself explained how this word is supposed to function. In 26 U.S.C. §7701(c) Congress states:

“The terms ‘includes’ and ‘including’ shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.”

This tells us something very important.

The word includes introduces items that fall within the meaning of the defined term. But those listed items are not random examples. They are deliberate indicators of how Congress chose to frame the scope of the statute.

And when Congress uses that word in the definitional section of the Internal Revenue Code, particularly in the provisions that establish the statutory framework of jurisdiction, the language must be read carefully.

Courts have long recognized that statutory language must be interpreted according to established rules of construction. One of the oldest of those rules is expressed in the Latin maxim:

inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.

This means the inclusion of one thing implies the exclusion of others not expressed.

In other words, when lawmakers deliberately identify certain items within a definition, the choice of those items is legally significant.

This principle becomes especially important when interpreting tax statutes, because the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that taxation laws must be interpreted strictly according to the language enacted by Congress.

In Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151 (1917) the Court stated:

“In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions by implication beyond the clear import of the language used.”

The Court repeated the same rule in United States v. Merriam, 263 U.S. 179 (1923):

“Tax statutes are not to be extended by implication beyond the clear import of the language used.”

These decisions establish a fundamental rule of law.

Tax laws must be applied as written, not expanded by implication, presumption, or administrative interpretation.

This is why the word includes becomes so important in the definitional structure of the Internal Revenue Code.

When Congress uses the word includes in the statutory framework that describes the jurisdictional terms of the Code, the language must be interpreted according to the words Congress actually chose.

Congress has demonstrated throughout Title 26 that when it intends to explicitly enumerate geographic jurisdictions, it knows how to do so clearly and unmistakably.

In some provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, Congress expressly lists “the 50 States.”

When Congress uses that language, there is no ambiguity.

But in other provisions within the definitional framework of the Code, Congress chose different wording and relied upon the term includes instead.

Under the rules of statutory construction recognized by the Supreme Court, the language of a tax statute cannot be expanded beyond what Congress actually wrote.

Which means that the meaning of statutory definitions must be determined by the language of the statute itself, not by assumptions about what Congress might have intended.

This is why careful attention to statutory language matters.

Because the enforcement of federal tax law ultimately depends upon the definitions enacted by Congress itself.

Understanding how Congress used the word includes is therefore essential to understanding how the statutory framework of the Internal Revenue Code operates.

And it is precisely this kind of statutory interpretation that raises legitimate questions concerning congressional intent.

Which is why, at the conclusion of this series, a letter will be sent to members of Congress requesting clarification regarding the statutory definitions contained in 26 U.S.C. §7701 and how those definitions relate to the income tax imposed under 26 U.S.C. §1.

Be strong.
Be wise.

And as always,

May truth reign supreme.

It is March 10. Welcome to yestohellwith.com

This series of videos will likely have a profound impact, especially for those who have been patient and supportive. Why? You are not asking for solutions that do not exist. Rather, you want to understand what we face daily. You want education. You want to prevail with wisdom. I respect this.

There is a reason I approach the content as I do. As a people, we do not understand the prevalence and power of presumption enforced today. Candidly, if we do not understand the system, that is the enemy of freedom, we are at a distinct disadvantage.

Law operates through structure, definitions, and presumptions, which is the Liberty Dialogues exist.

The Liberty Dialogues is not just a discussion about law. It is a method of analysis.

Every issue must be examined through the same sequence:

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

Once we understand presumption, we can coherently establish a defense and our good faith beliefs, which is why I created the Statement of Understanding program.

Because if you ever find yourself in a courtroom… the question will not simply be what you believe.

The question will be: Did you hold those beliefs in good faith, and did you have a documented basis for them?

That documentation can become admissible evidence.

My hope is that no one ever has to face the situation that I faced when I was arrested and sent to prison.

But if someone ever does… I want them to be far more prepared than I was.

Now today we begin a series of videos that will show you exactly why this preparation matters.

And at the end of this video series, those who have the Statement of Understanding program will receive a letter…A letter that will be sent to their representatives in Congress asking for clarification of the law itself.

And we begin with a very simple place. Now listen carefully and with an opinion mind

Under the definitions section of the Internal Revenue Code are the terms United States and States.

26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9)

Says: “The term ‘United States’ when used in a geographical sense includes the States and the District of Columbia.”

Now on its face, that sounds straightforward.

But law is never understood at the surface level.

We must now go to the next definition.

26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(10)

says:

“The term ‘State’ shall be construed to include the District of Columbia where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.”

Now let’s pause and evaluate these terms.

The first provision told us that the United States includes the States and the District of Columbia.

But the very next provision tells us that the term State shall be construed to include the District of Columbia.

Which immediately raises a critical question.

What exactly does the term State mean inside this title of law?

Does it mean the fifty sovereign states of the Union?

Or does it refer to a federal jurisdiction such as the District of Columbia?

Because the answer to that question determines something extremely important.

Jurisdiction.

And jurisdiction determines who the law actually applies to in order to exercise authority.

This is where most people make a mistake.

They assume the law applies to them simply because they were told it does.

But in law, nothing applies automatically.

Every law requires jurisdiction,
and jurisdiction depends on definitions.

If the definitions are misunderstood…

Then the jurisdiction is misunderstood.

And if jurisdiction is misunderstood…

Then the entire structure of obligation collapses.

This is precisely why the Liberty Dialogues begins with definitions.

Because definitions determine authority.

Authority determines jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction determines status.

Status determines obligation.

And obligation determines enforcement.

But when those definitions are unclear…

the entire system begins to operate through presumption.

And presumption is the conveyor belt of the legal system.

People step onto it without realizing it…

and the system stamps them automatically.

This is the beginning of the journey to understanding the presumptive lie of federal tax enforcement and the creation of your solid good faith defense. Be strong, Be wise.

And as always. May truth reign supreme.

It’s March 7th. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

Tomorrow I will host a call at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time about the Liberty Dialogues and how to use them with AI and ChatGPT.

These calls have been extremely informative, and the feedback from those who have attended has been outstanding. People are beginning to see that if we want any realistic chance of prevailing in our personal legal matters, we must first understand the existing authoritarian process.

We cannot navigate a system we do not understand.

If you have the SOU for You package and would like to attend tomorrow’s call, send me an email with the subject line “Liberty Dialogues”, and I will send you the call credentials.

Also, a quick note: a few people reported that the payment processing on statementofunderstanding.com was not functioning properly. The programmer is currently reviewing and refining the system. If you experienced problems earlier, please try again.

The SOU program and the documentation of our good faith beliefs is an essential component to defeat the element of willfulness in any proceeding. To be forewarned is to be forearmed. And one more important point.

Inside the Statement of Understanding program, there is a document about presumption that is extremely powerful.

If we fail to understand presumption, we fail to understand how the system actually works.

The system operates almost like a conveyor belt. People move through it one after another, and a rubber stamp of presumption is placed on each person automatically—often leading to an outcome that favors the government from the very beginning.

Understanding that mechanism is the first step toward dealing with it intelligently.

I hope to see many of you on the call tomorrow.

Its March 7. Welcome to yestohellwith.com. Imagine something for a moment.

Imagine if the men and women who sat in the United States Congress lived their public lives the way Franciscan monks live theirs.

Not in robes.
Not in monasteries.

But in spirit.

The Franciscans, founded by Francis of Assisi, built their lives around a few simple principles:

Humility.
Service.
Simplicity.
And devotion to something higher than themselves.

They took vows of poverty so that wealth could never become their master.
They rejected power so that power could never corrupt their purpose.
They lived among the people so that they would never forget who they served.

Now imagine if the same spirit guided those who sit in the halls of Congress.

Imagine if every congressman and senator approached public office not as a career, not as a ladder of power, not as a pathway to wealth—but as a solemn act of service.

Imagine if they entered Washington with humility rather than ambition.

Imagine if their goal was not to expand government power, but to protect the freedom and dignity of the people who placed them there.

Imagine if they lived simply, so they could never be bought.

Imagine if their loyalty was not to party, not to donors, not to the machinery of Washington—but to the Constitution and to the people whose liberty that Constitution was written to preserve.

The Franciscan monk asks himself a question every day:

“How may I serve?”

If that question echoed through the chambers of Congress, something remarkable would happen.

The endless pursuit of power would give way to the discipline of responsibility.

The temptation of wealth would give way to the dignity of restraint.

The culture of political gamesmanship would give way to a culture of stewardship.

And perhaps most importantly, the American people would once again see something they have not seen in a very long time:

Representatives who remember that public office is not a privilege to exploit, but a trust to honor.

There is an ancient principle taught long before modern politics ever existed:

“The last shall be first, and the first shall be last.”

In other words, true leadership begins with humility.

The greatest among us are not those who rise above the people, but those who kneel to serve them.

Imagine if the leaders of this nation understood that principle.

Imagine if they did not compete to be first in power, first in privilege, first in influence.

Imagine if instead they competed to be first in service… first in sacrifice… first in fidelity to the Constitution they swore to defend.

Because the greatest leaders in history were never those who sought power for its own sake.

They were those who understood that power is only legitimate when it is exercised in humility and in service to others.

St. Francis understood that eight hundred years ago.

Imagine what America might look like if those who governed it remembered the same truth today.

Because a republic does not fail when its leaders lack intelligence.

A republic fails when its leaders forget that they are servants of the people, not masters of them.

And perhaps the greatest reform Congress could ever undertake would not be written in legislation.

It would be written in character.

A character that says:

“I did not come here to rule.”

“I came here to serve.”

And in doing so, they might rediscover the timeless truth that built every free society worth preserving:

Those who humble themselves in service will ultimately lead…
and those who seek to lead for their own sake will eventually fall behind.

It is March 7. Welcome to yestohellwith.com

Have you ever noticed the phrase that echoes through the halls of Congress?

“My good friend on the other side of the aisle.”

You hear it again and again.

“My friend from the other party.”
“My good friend across the aisle.”

It sounds polite.
It sounds civil.
It sounds like statesmanship.

But to many Americans, it sounds like something else entirely.

Because while they stand there praising their “good friends,” the American people are watching something very different unfold.

They are watching their Constitution ignored.
They are watching debt explode into the trillions.
They are watching laws written that no citizen ever voted on.
They are watching agencies rule where legislatures once debated.
They are watching a republic slowly replaced by administrative management.

And through it all, the language remains the same.

“My good friend on the other side of the aisle.”

Isn’t that curious?

Because the oath these men and women take is not to their friends.
It is not to their party.
It is not to the machinery of Washington.

Their oath is to the Constitution of the United States.

And their office is not meant to serve each other.

It is meant to serve the people.

Yet what Americans increasingly see is something different.

Deals made behind closed doors.
Compromises not about principle, but about power.
Negotiations not about liberty, but about management.

The representatives of the people speak warmly of their friendships with one another… while the very document they swore to defend is treated as flexible, negotiable, and secondary.

Think about that irony.

The only friendship that truly matters in a constitutional republic is the relationship between the representative and the Constitution they swore to uphold.

If that bond is broken, all the politeness in the world means nothing.

And if I were a member of Congress or the Senate, I would never stand there and say “my good friend on the other side of the aisle.”

In fact, I doubt I would even say that about members of my own party.

I would look at every member of that chamber and judge them by one standard alone:

Their fidelity to their oath.

Did they defend the Constitution?
Did they protect its limits?
Did they honor the structure of liberty it was written to preserve?

If they did, they would earn my respect.

If they did not—if they twisted it, ignored it, or stretched it into meanings that the Founders never intended—then I would not call them my friend.

I would call them what they are:

An enemy of the Constitution.

An enemy of the American people.

An enemy of freedom itself.

Because in a constitutional republic, loyalty to the Constitution must come before loyalty to colleagues, before loyalty to party, and certainly before loyalty to political convenience.

So when Americans hear that phrase—
“my good friend on the other side of the aisle”—
many no longer hear civility.

They hear a quiet confession.

A confession that loyalty inside the club has become stronger than loyalty to the charter of liberty that created the office in the first place.

But the American people did not send representatives to Washington to make friends.

They sent them there to defend the Constitution.

And if those who hold office forget that…

Then it is time for the people to remind them.

Because in America, the Constitution is not negotiable.

And no friendship in Washington should ever come at the expense of liberty.

Today is Friday, March 6, welcome to yestohellwith.com.

I will be hosting a call this evening at 6 p.m. Eastern Time about the Liberty Dialogues and how to effectively use them with AI and ChatGPT.

This call is designed to show people how the Liberty Dialogues framework can be used to analyze personal conflicts involving government authority, jurisdiction, presumption, and obligation. Many people sense that something in the system is fundamentally wrong, but they lack the structure to clearly identify the problem. The Liberty Dialogues provide that structure.

If you are interested in attending the call, simply send me an email with the subject line: “Liberty Dialogues.”

Once I receive your email, I will confirm your purchase of the SOU4U package, and I will then send you the conference credentials for tonight’s call.

In the meantime, I encourage you to visit StatementOfUnderstanding.com and learn how this program helps individuals document their good-faith beliefs before any conflict arises with any level of government. This program contains an extensive overview of the power of presumption, a concept that drives much of the modern legal system but is largely unknown to most Americans.

Finally, here is a brief testimonial from a recent subscriber who attended one of the live Liberty Dialogues calls.

The Sunday call was very informative. Learning to use the Liberty Dialogues along with ChatGPT has opened a massive new doorway to understanding and dealing with government systems with the proper sequence and structure. It has also aided in allowing for a positive disconnection from the emotion of dealing with controversy in these systems, which allows for a cleaner outcome and a clearer record.

Sadly, we do not know what we do not know. Let’s resolve this and let’s do it now.

And as always,

may truth reign supreme.

It is March 6. Welcome to YesToHellWith.com.

In 1933, the United States Supreme Court decided a case called United States v. Murdock. In that decision, the Court made an observation about the relationship between citizens and government. The Court explained that the American system of law assumes that most citizens will act in good faith, and that the machinery of government therefore functions best when people respond honestly to lawful inquiries rather than immediately entering into adversarial conflict.

For that reason, the Court stated:

“The relation of the citizen to the government is ideally one of cooperation rather than of confrontation.”

Now notice something important about the way the Court framed that statement.

The Court wrote from the perspective of the citizen toward the government, not from the perspective of the government toward the citizen.

In other words, the Court was describing the expected conduct of the citizen—that the citizen should respond honestly and in good faith before becoming adversarial.

Implicit in that statement is something equally important: the government itself was not supposed to begin the relationship from a position of suspicion, contention, or presumption of wrongdoing.

The expectation was that the citizen would deal honestly with government, not that government would begin by presuming dishonesty from the citizen.

Now on the surface, the Court’s statement about cooperation sounds reasonable.
But within the Liberty Dialogues framework, that statement deserves much closer examination.

Because cooperation only works when authority is legitimate, jurisdiction is defined, and presumptions are honest.

The problem in modern America is that cooperation has quietly become submission.

People cooperate with demands they do not understand.
They cooperate with authority that has never been proven.
They cooperate with jurisdiction that has never been established.

And through that cooperation, presumption becomes power.

In the Liberty Dialogues we explain something very simple:

When government authority expands through presumption rather than proof, cooperation is no longer a virtue.

It becomes the mechanism of your own subordination.

In those circumstances, lawful confrontation becomes necessary.

Not violent confrontation.
Not reckless confrontation.

But constitutional and intellectual confrontation.

Jurisdiction must be questioned.
Authority must be proven.
Presumptions must be rebutted.

And this is precisely where the Liberty Dialogues enter the picture.

The Liberty Dialogues are not merely commentary on government. They are a constitutional analytical framework that confrontationally challenges the presumptive authority of government itself.

By forcing questions of authority, jurisdiction, status, standing, and presumption, the Liberty Dialogues bring the system into the open.

And that confrontation—peaceful, intellectual, and constitutional—creates something extremely important.

It gives the people the opportunity to finally understand the system they are dealing with, and once that understanding exists, it gives them the opportunity to prevail within it.

And as always,

may truth reign supreme.

It is March 5 and welcome to yestohellwith.com
Here is another testimonial of a yestohellwith subscriber who is applying the Liberty Dialogues to personal situations. Now before I quote this person, I invite you to note her posture and what kind of work she does. Moreover, she has been frequently kicked off of Facebook for speaking truth. Here is what this subscriber said:
I've been examining legislative bills so I can give intelligent non emotional testimony and I truly appreciate your work since it is grounded on facts and lawfulness that helps me dig into legislative bills for the hidden agenda of taking power from the people by presuming authority when non exists.
Now if this person can use the Liberty Dialogues to establish that no authority exists from the legislative perspective, how powerful would the Liberty Dialogues be for your personal life.
I will have a call this Friday at 6 EST for those who have the SOU for You package and want to learn how to apply ChatGPT or AI to your research. If you are interested, send me an email and Mention “Liberty Dialogues” in the subject line. I will send you the call credentials.
Be sure to prepare your good faith beliefs in writing. Go to statementofunderstanding.com to learn more. And as always, may truth reign supreme.

It is March 5, Welcome to yestohellwith.com
Let’s look at a tax question and ask yourself if you are prepared to defend your beliefs. We will then underscore the value of the Liberty Dialogues and their use with ChatGPT and AI to understand the power structures around us.
Income Tax — Obligation or Presumption?
Let’s see how presumption operates in the federal income tax system.
You earn wages in the United States.
April 15 approaches.
You assume you must file.
Why?
Because everyone does.
Because your employer issued a W-2.
Because it’s “the law.”
However, we should pause and ask,
Where is liability actually created?
Not in custom.
Not in repetition.
Not in fear.
In statute.
The system operates through voluntary compliance.
You calculate.
You report.
You pay.
But Liberty Dialogues teaches you to ask:
What statutory definition applies?
How does Title 26 define “person”?
How does it define “taxable income”?
What specific provision creates liability?
What establishes jurisdiction?
This is not about refusing the law.
It is about understanding its structure.
There is a difference between:
“Everyone must pay,”
and
“The statute creates liability under defined conditions.”
Most people never read definitions.
They operate on assumption.
The Liberty Dialogues series teaches you to locate the source.
If obligation exists, it should be demonstrable.
If liability applies, it should be definable.
Presumption is habitual.
Liability is statutory.
We must know the difference.
This is the inherent value of the Liberty Dialogues.
And as always, may truth reign supreme.

It is March 4. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.
I would like to share another testimonial from a YTHW subscriber about his use of the Liberty Dialogues. He states:
“These Video Calls concerning usage of the Liberty Dialogues is tremendous. As a long time Pro-Se litigant I have struggled with my research into the many aspects of law and government issues as applicable to my problems/concerns. Using the internet and even with my book research, I have always been saddled with the core structure of the individual reference(s) and its results.

There has been no control over the product on the internet until now. The use of the Liberty Dialogs with ChatGPT allows some control by the user with the ability to upload and have analysis based on a foundation and structure as directed by you. The Video call(s) with Beau and other participants discuss usage, implementation and result analysis - is invaluable. The Liberty Dialogues Video Calls are a valuable tool in my research and application of the Constitution and Laws of these United States.”
And as always, may truth reign supreme.