This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider It is January 15, 2026, welcome to yestohellwith.com.

Order and form together ensure that the system is required to establish its claims, while you avoid supplying facts, consent, or admissions that the system failed to prove on its own. Now, in a prior video we established what questions must be asked, and in what order. Now we deal with a different problem. Most people destroy their position while asking the right questions, because they ask them the wrong way. This part is about form, not substance. A question can preserve position — or it can silently concede everything you’re trying to protect. Here is the rule. If your question contains an assumption, you have already lost ground. Many people ask questions like this: “Why do you claim I owe this tax?” “Where did I consent to this obligation?” “Why do you have jurisdiction over me?” Those are not neutral questions. They assume: that a tax exists, that consent is the theory, or that jurisdiction already applies. That is arguing, not questioning. Proper questions do not challenge conclusions. They require definitions. They do not dispute facts. They require identification. They do not deny obligations. They require citation. A proper question never states what you believe. It never explains your position. It never argues fairness, intent, or facts. It asks the agency to state its position clearly and completely. Here is the discipline. You do not say: “I am not liable.” You ask: “What law creates the alleged obligation, and how does it apply?” You do not say: “You lack jurisdiction.” You ask: “What is the jurisdictional basis for this claim, and where is it established?” You do not say: “I never consented.” You ask: “What specific legal mechanism creates the alleged duty?” The difference matters. Statements and denials add content to the record. Questions restrict the record. Tone matters too. Aggression invites argument. Emotion invites escalation. Explanations invite mischaracterization. Neutral questions do none of that. They do not cooperate. They do not resist. They require clarity. If the agency answers, the record is clarified. If the agency avoids answering, the record still speaks. But only if the question was clean. This is why wording matters as much as order. You can ask the right question at the wrong angle and still destroy your position. In the next part, we’ll address what happens after you ask correctly — how agencies typically respond, and what their silence actually means.becoming a free or paid subscriber.

It is January 15, 2026, welcome to yestohellwith.com.Order and form together ensure that the system is required to establish its claims, while you avoid supplying facts, consent, or admissions that the system failed to prove on its own. Now, in a prior video we established what questions must be asked, and in what order. Now we deal with a different problem. Most people destroy their position while asking the right questions, because they ask them the wrong way. This part is about form, not substance. A question can preserve position — or it can silently concede everything you’re trying to protect. Here is the rule. If your question contains an assumption, you have already lost ground. Many people ask questions like this: “Why do you claim I owe this tax?” “Where did I consent to this obligation?” “Why do you have jurisdiction over me?” Those are not neutral questions. They assume: that a tax exists, that consent is the theory, or that jurisdiction already applies. That is arguing, not questioning. Proper questions do not challenge conclusions. They require definitions. They do not dispute facts. They require identification. They do not deny obligations. They require citation. A proper question never states what you believe. It never explains your position. It never argues fairness, intent, or facts. It asks the agency to state its position clearly and completely. Here is the discipline. You do not say: “I am not liable.” You ask: “What law creates the alleged obligation, and how does it apply?” You do not say: “You lack jurisdiction.” You ask: “What is the jurisdictional basis for this claim, and where is it established?” You do not say: “I never consented.” You ask: “What specific legal mechanism creates the alleged duty?” The difference matters. Statements and denials add content to the record. Questions restrict the record. Tone matters too. Aggression invites argument. Emotion invites escalation. Explanations invite mischaracterization. Neutral questions do none of that. They do not cooperate. They do not resist. They require clarity. If the agency answers, the record is clarified. If the agency avoids answering, the record still speaks. But only if the question was clean. This is why wording matters as much as order. You can ask the right question at the wrong angle and still destroy your position. In the next part, we’ll address what happens after you ask correctly — how agencies typically respond, and what their silence actually means.

YesToHellWith

Before we go any further, one thing has to be cleared up—or everything that follows will fail. Most people are already asking: “What about my past filings?” “My Social Security number?” “The IRS records that already exist?” That’s exactly where they lose. They assume history equals proof. It doesn’t. An IRS record is not authority. It’s administrative history that creates presumption. And here’s the rule that matters: You do not address the past first. The moment you start explaining, revoking consent, or correcting records, you’ve accepted their framing and fixed their problem for them. Order doesn’t erase history. Order brackets it. It forces proof of the present—authority, jurisdiction, obligation—before the past matters at all. If the system ignores that, the record shows abuse, not consent. You don’t fight the past. You force justification of the present. Now we can move forward