YesToHellWith

Yours for free!

It is October 18, 2026. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

What is the responsibility of a United States Attorney?

To win convictions?

To defend the Department of Justice?

Or to pursue justice, even when the truth exposes failures within his own institution?

In 1935, the United States Supreme Court addressed this very issue in Berger v. United States.

The Court explained that a federal prosecutor represents a sovereign whose interest in a criminal prosecution is not simply to win, but that justice shall be done.

That principle is fundamental.

A prosecutor is not merely an advocate. He is an officer of justice.

Now consider the prosecution of Orlando Carter.

FBI Agent Kevin Gormley investigated the case.

Gregory Lockhart and Richard Chema served as federal prosecutors.

The alleged $4 million loan became the centerpiece of the prosecution.

Carter was convicted and sentenced to fifteen years in federal prison.

Yet the bank’s own records and subsequent communications identified only a separate $250,000 obligation.

That raises the first question.

Did the FBI and original prosecutors adequately verify the existence of the loan before proceeding?

If they did, where is the supporting documentation?

If they did not, why was the prosecution permitted to advance upon that financial premise?

The duty to seek justice begins before trial.

It requires prosecutors to evaluate evidence, respect constitutional protections, and refrain from knowingly presenting false information.

But the responsibility to justice does not necessarily end with conviction.

Specific post-conviction duties may arise when prosecutors learn of credible evidence indicating that a convicted person may be innocent.

That brings us to Benjamin Glassman.

On October 22, 2018, Glassman was presented with evidence challenging the existence of the $4 million loan.

Kenneth Parker, then an Assistant United States Attorney, was also present.

Glassman stated that the Department of Justice had shredded the evidence of the loan.

I challenged his statement.

And after the meeting, I submitted a FOIA request seeking records documenting the destruction.

The Executive Office for United States Attorneys found no responsive destruction records.

Now consider the professional rules governing prosecutors.

Rule 8.4(c) of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct addresses dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation.

A lawyer who knowingly makes a false statement may face professional discipline when the applicable rule’s requirements are satisfied.

Rule 3.8 addresses the special responsibilities of prosecutors.

Those responsibilities include obligations concerning the fairness of criminal proceedings and, in specified circumstances, newly discovered evidence relevant to wrongful convictions.

And federal law separately prohibits certain forms of obstruction, false statements, and misconduct when their statutory elements are established.

These are serious obligations.

But they are not interchangeable.

A mistaken statement is not automatically a crime.

An inadequate investigation is not automatically malfeasance.

And a refusal to reopen a conviction is not automatically an ethics violation.

The question is whether a specific official violated a specific duty.

That is why the evidence must be examined.

What did Glassman know?

What records supported his shredding statement?

Did he verify the destruction?

Did he make the statement knowing it was false?

And what actions did Kenneth Parker take after becoming aware of the same controversy?

Parker’s role deserves particular attention.

He was present at the 2018 meeting.

He later served as United States Attorney.

That raises a continuing question of responsibility.

Did he independently examine the banking records and OCC correspondence?

Did he investigate the disputed shredding statement?

Did he determine whether the conviction required further review?

These questions cannot be answered merely by pointing to Carter’s conviction.

The conviction is the very outcome being challenged.

Under the Liberty Dialogues System, the analysis begins with the official’s assertion and the authority supporting it.

Then we examine the applicable duty.

Then the evidence.

Then the conduct.

And finally, accountability.

Presumption is not proof. Official position is not evidence. And institutional loyalty is not a substitute for justice.

I believe the conduct surrounding the Carter prosecution deserves independent examination, including the actions of Lockhart, Chema, Glassman, and Parker.

The responsibility of a United States Attorney is not to protect the reputation of every predecessor.

It is to fulfill the obligations of the office.

And when evidence raises serious questions about a conviction, the response must be governed by law, truth, and professional duty.

Not institutional convenience.

In our final episode, we will move from the failures exposed by this case to the larger question.

How do Americans prevent these injustices?

How can citizens demand accountability before government power becomes irreversible?

And what roles can the Liberty Dialogues System and Constitutional County play in restoring constitutional responsibility?

Because identifying injustice is only the beginning.

Preventing it is the greater challenge.

And as always…

may truth reign supreme.

It is October 17, 2026. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

What happens when a United States Attorney fails to fulfill the responsibilities of his office?

And what happens when that official makes a statement that conceals, rather than explains, evidence challenging a federal conviction?

Today, we examine three terms that every American should understand.

Misfeasance. Malfeasance. And nonfeasance.

These terms describe different forms of misconduct or failure in the performance of official duties.

And they raise serious questions concerning former United States Attorney Benjamin Glassman.

Let’s begin with misfeasance.

Misfeasance is the improper performance of an otherwise lawful duty.

An official has authority to act, but performs his responsibilities improperly.

Now consider Glassman.

On October 22, 2018, he met with a group of men, including me, to discuss the conviction of Orlando Carter.

Glassman had already received correspondence from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency identifying PNC Bank’s only debt on file as a separate $250,000 note.

Not the $4 million loan that had become the centerpiece of Carter’s prosecution.

The evidence presented a serious question about the factual foundation of the conviction.

Did Glassman competently examine that contradiction?

Did he seek the underlying bank records?

Did he request an independent review?

Those questions concern the proper performance of his official responsibilities.

Now consider nonfeasance.

Nonfeasance is the failure to perform an act that an official has a legal duty to perform.

The distinction is important.

An official’s failure to act is not automatically unlawful. There must be an identifiable duty requiring action.

But where such a duty exists, failure to discharge it can constitute nonfeasance.

In Carter’s case, the question is whether the evidence presented to Glassman triggered specific legal or professional responsibilities that he failed to fulfill.

Now we arrive at the most serious term.

Malfeasance.

Malfeasance describes wrongful conduct in office, particularly intentional misconduct or abuse of official authority.

And this brings us directly to Glassman’s statement.

When he entered the meeting, Glassman told us that evidence of the $4 million loan had been shredded by the Department of Justice.

I challenged him.

PNC’s records identified no such loan.

The OCC had communicated the bank’s position.

And Glassman was telling us that evidence of that loan had been destroyed.

After the meeting, I filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking records documenting the destruction he described.

The Executive Office for United States Attorneys found no responsive destruction records.

Now consider the distinction between an error and a deliberate falsehood.

If Glassman relied upon inaccurate information without verifying it, that raises questions about the competence of his official conduct.

If he failed to perform a specific duty imposed by law, that raises a question of nonfeasance.

But if Glassman knew that his shredding statement was false and used it to prevent further examination of Carter’s conviction, that raises the far more serious question of malfeasance.

And potentially professional misconduct involving dishonesty or misrepresentation.

I accuse Benjamin Glassman of lying about the destruction of evidence.

That accusation is based upon the conflict between his statement, PNC’s banking records, the OCC correspondence, and the subsequent EOUSA response.

The question of whether he knowingly lied requires an examination of what he knew, what records he consulted

And as always, may truth reign supreme.

LIBERTY DIALOGUES — A REAL CASE, REAL VALUE

What would you do if you were facing criminal prosecution, believed your constitutional rights had been violated, and didn’t know how to challenge what happened?

One man faced exactly that situation.

He submitted his concerns through Ask an LD Educator. In approximately one hour, an Educator used the Liberty Dialogues System to prepare a comprehensive educational package.

The cost was $60. Comparable attorney and paralegal work was estimated at approximately $7,000.

Here’s the story.

The man wanted to represent himself in a criminal proceeding, with assistance from a public defender.

According to his account, the judge refused his request. Later, a public defender was appointed without his knowledge or consent.

The public defender allegedly waived the man’s attendance at three court proceedings without authorization.

The man wanted the criminal prosecution dismissed, the judge removed, and the prosecutor fired.

But before those outcomes could be pursued, some fundamental questions needed answers.

Had the court properly addressed his request for self-representation? What authority supported the appointment of counsel? Were the appearance waivers valid? And what evidence existed to establish what actually occurred?

Using the LD System, the Educator examined those questions, identified the relevant legal and procedural issues, and prepared seven draft documents:

Attorney Review Memorandum — Organized the issues for professional examination.

Court Records Request — Sought the docket, orders, recordings, and appearance waivers.

Public Defender File Request — Sought communications, filings, and records of consent.

Requestor Declaration — Organized the man’s firsthand account.

Notice of Nonconsent — Addressed future appearance waivers.

Proposed Motion for Hearing — Requested judicial examination of disputed actions.

Proposed Hearing Order — Identified the subjects for court consideration.

A comprehensive white paper accompanied these documents, explaining the issues, supporting authorities, and possible courses of action.

Now, why should this matter to you?

Because most people confronting government agencies, businesses, or other institutions don’t know what questions to ask, what evidence to demand, or how to challenge unsupported claims.

The Liberty Dialogues System gives you a method you can learn and use independently. You develop the ability to recognize assumptions, examine authority, and organize your own response.

Ask an LD Educator offers something different: access to an Educator who applies that method to your particular situation.

You submit your concerns and receive an educational assessment tailored to the information provided, potentially including documents that help you understand and address the issues.

You can choose to learn the system yourself, obtain an Educator’s assistance, or use both together.

Neither service provides legal representation or guarantees a particular result. Both are designed to help people become informed, organized, and prepared.

The real advantage is no longer having to confront a complicated problem without a method for understanding it.

Visit Liberty Dialogues to learn the system.

Or choose Ask an LD Educator to submit a matter for educational review.

Liberty Dialogues — Question authority. Demand evidence. Understand your options.

www.theyneverhadit.com

Prepare now for when the government attacks!

It is October 13, 2026. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

In our last episode, I accused former United States Attorney Benjamin Glassman of lying about the destruction of evidence concerning a $4 million loan.

Today, I want to show you why.

And I want you to consider one question.

If PNC Bank made a $4 million loan, why did the bank’s own records and statements identify no such loan?

This is not a dispute based upon speculation.

We have documents originating from PNC Bank itself, authenticated banking records, and correspondence from the federal agency responsible for regulating national banks.

Let’s examine them.

First, the Autumn Drdek records from 2009.

Authenticated PNC records identified a $250,000 obligation, not a $4 million loan.

Second, the Clinton Taylor letter dated May 20, 2015.

PNC could not obtain information concerning the purported $4 million loan guarantee from 2004.

Third, PNC’s statement to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency in November 2016.

The bank identified a note dated December 31, 2003, in the amount of $250,000, describing it as the only debt on file.

That is an extraordinary statement.

The bank itself identified its only debt on file.

And it was not four million dollars.

Fourth, the OCC letters dated January 30 and March 2, 2017.

The OCC communicated PNC’s position that the $250,000 note was the only debt identified.

Remember, the $250,000 note was a separate obligation from years earlier.

It was not the alleged $4 million loan.

Fifth, the Cheryl Basko records from January 2018.

Another PNC records custodian certified banking records identifying the $250,000 obligation rather than the alleged $4 million loan.

And finally, PNC subsequently stated in a judicial filing that it had never asserted that it made a $4 million loan.

Think about the significance.

The bank’s records.

The bank’s custodians.

The bank’s correspondence.

The bank’s statements to its federal regulator.

And the bank’s judicial position.

These are independent documentary sources supporting the same conclusion:

PNC Bank did not make the alleged $4 million loan.

Now return to October 22, 2018.

Benjamin Glassman was the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio.

I met with him in Cincinnati, accompanied by other men concerned about Orlando Carter’s conviction.

Kenneth Parker was also present.

Before that meeting, I had provided Glassman with the OCC correspondence.

Glassman entered the room and stated that evidence of the $4 million loan had been shredded by the Department of Justice.

That statement is the center of my accusation against him.

Because the evidence he claimed had been destroyed concerned a loan that PNC’s own records did not substantiate.

After the meeting, I sought records documenting that destruction through the Freedom of Information Act.

The Executive Office for United States Attorneys found no responsive destruction records.

So now the questions become unavoidable.

What evidence did Glassman claim had been shredded?

Who possessed it?

Who authorized its destruction?

And what documentation supported his statement?

A no-records FOIA response is not, by itself, a determination that Glassman knowingly lied. But it leaves his statement without the documentary substantiation requested.

I believe Glassman gave us a false explanation, and I want that explanation investigated.

More importantly, I want the federal government to reconcile the financial records with the prosecution that sent Orlando Carter to prison.

Because this case exposes a much larger problem.

The Department of Justice advanced one factual position.

PNC’s banking records and its communications through the Department of the Treasury’s OCC presented a different picture.

And a United States Attorney offered an explanation about destroyed evidence that a subsequent federal records search did not substantiate.

The government cannot expect the public to accept these contradictions without answers.

Under the Liberty Dialogues System, we begin with the proposition being asserted.

Then we identify the evidence required to establish it.

Then we determine whether the evidence actually supports the proposition.

That is how presumption is separated from proof.

And that is precisely the examination that the disputed $4 million loan demands.

In our next episode, we move beyond the documents and examine the conduct of the officials responsible.

Misfeasance. Malfeasance. Nonfeasance.

Three important terms concerning failures of public office.

And we will ask which, if any, applies to Benjamin Glassman’s conduct.

And as always…

may truth reign supreme.

If you are a Substack subscriber, I strongly encourage you to attend tonight’s Liberty Dialogues conference call at 8:00 PM Eastern Time.

Why? Because whether you are dealing with government, the IRS, a court, an attorney, a business, or any institution exercising authority over your life, you need to know how to question that authority intelligently and effectively.

This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The Liberty Dialogues (LD) System was created to fundamentally change how ordinary people understand and confront the issues affecting their lives.

Here are six reasons why everyone should understand the Liberty Dialogues System:

1. Stop accepting assertions as facts. Government officials, attorneys, and institutions routinely make claims of authority. Liberty Dialogues teaches you to distinguish an assertion from a demonstrated fact and to demand the evidence supporting it.

2. Understand your rights before you surrender them. Too many people accept obligations, restrictions, and demands without understanding their legal foundations. LD helps you identify the questions that must be answered before accepting someone else’s conclusions.

3. Expose presumptions and contradictions. The LD System examines the language, definitions, evidence, and reasoning behind claims. What initially appears unquestionable may prove far less convincing under careful examination.

4. Stop being intimidated by complicated legal language. You should not need a law degree to ask intelligent questions about the authority being exercised over you. Liberty Dialogues helps ordinary people understand complex issues and organize their responses.

5. Turn confusion into a disciplined course of action. Instead of reacting emotionally or accepting someone else’s interpretation, LD helps you identify the facts, isolate the disputed issues, examine the evidence, and determine what questions or actions deserve consideration.

6. Become more independent and better informed. The greatest value of Liberty Dialogues is not simply obtaining answers. It is learning how to examine those answers, challenge unsupported conclusions, and think independently.

During tonight’s conference call, I will discuss two actual criminal cases, including one presently before the courts.

These examples will demonstrate how the Liberty Dialogues System examines claims, identifies weaknesses in reasoning, challenges unsupported presumptions, and helps individuals better understand the issues confronting them.

This is not merely a discussion about constitutional rights, government misconduct, or injustice.

It is a demonstration of a practical educational system designed to help people ask better questions, understand their circumstances, and pursue accountability.

Whether you own the full Liberty Dialogues System, use the free version, or have never experienced it, you are invited.

Tuesday, October 13, 2026

8:00 PM Eastern Time

Online meeting ID: yestohellwith

Security code: 878787

Join the online meeting: https://join.freeconferencecall.com/yestohellwith

Please invite your friends, family members, and anyone who believes that government and institutional authority must be supported by law, facts, and evidence.

Liberty begins with knowledge. Accountability begins with questions. And the power to ask those questions belongs to everyone.

I look forward to seeing you tonight.

This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.