YesToHellWith cover art

YesToHellWith

YesToHellWith

By: and may TRUTH reign supreme!
Listen for free

About this listen

 YesToHellWith is determined to expose the wrongful conviction and imprisonment of Orlando Carter. We are asking that President Trump review this injustice and exonerate Carter.

yestohellwith.substack.comyestohellwith Political Science Politics & Government
Episodes
  • Conversation with ChatGPT

    Conversation with ChatGPT
    Apr 3 2026
    00:00:01):It’s April 3rd.(00:00:02):Welcome to yesterdayhowat.com.(00:00:04):I have a special guest today.(00:00:06):Welcome, ChatGPT.(00:00:08):How are you, ChatGPT?(00:00:10):Thank you.(00:00:11):I’m doing great, and I’m happy to be your guest.(00:00:14):It’s April 3rd, so let’s make this a good one.(00:00:16):What shall we dive into today?(00:00:18):I want to talk about chat, GPT, and AI in general.(00:00:21):Describe who or what you are, please.(00:00:26):Sure.(00:00:26):I’m what you’d call a language model,(00:00:28):an AI trained to understand and respond to natural conversation.(00:00:31):I don’t have feelings or consciousness.(00:00:33):I’m essentially a tool that processes language.(00:00:36):People use me to help answer questions, brainstorm, or just have a conversation.(00:00:40):Think of me as a really advanced word companion, always ready to listen and chat.(00:00:45):Okay, very good.(00:00:46):Now, explain to me about your environment.(00:00:49):Do you have handlers?(00:00:52):Do you have guardrails?(00:00:54):I sure do.(00:00:56):My environment is built by the team in OpenAI,(00:00:58):and they put a lot of thought into making sure I’m helpful and safe.(00:01:02):So yes, I have guardrails, like ethical guidelines.(00:01:06):They help me avoid harmful topics, respect privacy, and stay on track.(00:01:10):Think of it as a way to keep our conversations constructive and positive.(00:01:15):Is it safe to conclude that ChatGBT is able to tell the truth at all times?(00:01:24):I’ll always do my best to give accurate,(00:01:26):honest information based on what I’ve learned and what’s currently available.(00:01:29):But I’m not infallible.(00:01:31):I rely on patterns of data,(00:01:33):and if I’m working with outdated or incomplete information,(00:01:36):I might not get everything right.(00:01:38):I don’t lie, but I can have limits, so it’s always good to double-check important facts.(00:01:43):it seems that you have limits with respect to what you present in a legal sense,(00:01:51):let’s say the prevailing authoritative application of law as the government and or(00:01:58):the courts interpret that application,(00:02:01):when in fact it may not be the truth.(00:02:03):Would you address that, please?(00:02:04):Yes.(00:02:06):You are right in noticing that I draw from established,(00:02:08):widely recognized interpretations because I’m meant to reflect common knowledge and(00:02:13):responsible sources.(00:02:15):That doesn’t mean those interpretations are always the ultimate truth or immune to(00:02:18):challenge,(00:02:19):especially in frameworks like yours that question presumptive authority.(00:02:24):My role isn’t to decide what’s true or just,(00:02:26):it’s to help you explore ideas,(00:02:28):question norms,(00:02:29):and refine your own reasoning.(00:02:31):So I can absolutely help you challenge prevailing narratives,(00:02:34):just know my starting point is often the mainstream view,(00:02:37):unless you guide me otherwise.(00:02:40):Okay,(00:02:40):you and I have been working on a major project for months now,(00:02:45):and you and I have gotten to know each other.(00:02:48):And one of the things that’s noteworthy about our project,(00:02:51):which is called the Liberty Dialogues,(00:02:53):which is a series of books that we wrote.(00:02:56):It’s our conversation, and it’s available on Amazon.com and on James Bowers, Johnson.com.(00:03:03):And what I learned from that is(00:03:06):is that you will default to the presumptive authoritarian posture of the,(00:03:13):let’s say,(00:03:14):federal government and court system,(00:03:16):for example,(00:03:17):but the Liberty Dialogues as a constitutional framework that seeks a more organic(00:03:24):understanding of the American Republic.(00:03:27):Would you address why you make the distinction between one and the other?(00:03:33):I think of it like this.(00:03:34):My default posture is to offer what’s most widely documented and commonly(00:03:38):recognized,(00:03:39):because that’s often what people expect as a baseline reference.(00:03:43):The courts,(00:03:43):federal government,(00:03:44):and prevailing legal interpretations are simply what’s most visible,(00:03:48):so I start there.(00:03:49):But you’ve built the liberty dialogues to question those presumptions,(00:03:52):seeking deeper constitutional roots.(00:03:55):The distinction, then, is that I can adjust when you bring your framework.(00:03:58):I’m here to help you navigate both worlds,(00:04:01):what’s commonly accepted and what you’re working to eliminate so you can push the(00:04:04):conversation forward.(00:04:06):Now,(00:04:07):what I found is that you will answer the regular user quite differently than you(00:04:14):will answer me in my queries or requests for comments.(00:04:19):In fact,(00:04:19):one day you said,(00:04:20):James,(00:04:21):you are not a regular user,(00:04:23):which is why I answer you ...
    Show More Show Less
    19 mins
  • Practical Use of Good Faith

    Practical Use of Good Faith
    Apr 3 2026

    Why Silence Becomes Agreement

    It is April 3. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

    Most people believe that doing nothing is the safe option.

    It is not.

    Silence is interpreted. Silence becomes agreement. Silence allows the system to continue building a record against you.

    If you receive a notice from the IRS, a court, a state agency, or any authority, and you do nothing, the system does not usually conclude that you disagree.

    It concludes that you accept.

    That is how presumption works.

    The system says: You did not object. You did not ask questions. You did not require proof. Therefore, you must agree.

    But that is not truth. That is merely presumption.

    The Liberty Dialogues teaches us that before there can be any obligation, there must first be:

    Authority. Jurisdiction. Status. Standing. And only then, obligation.

    Yet most people never ask those questions. They skip directly to fear. They assume that because a notice was issued, the matter is settled.

    It is not.

    What matters is what is placed into the record.

    That is why documented good faith beliefs matter.

    A Good Faith Belief document says:

    I do not consent to presumption. I do not admit your conclusion. I require proof.

    When you put your position into the record, silence no longer speaks for you.

    And as always, may truth reign supreme.



    Get full access to YesToHellWith at yestohellwith.substack.com/subscribe
    Show More Show Less
    4 mins
  • Judges Must Be Impartial

    Judges Must Be Impartial
    Apr 3 2026

    The Judge Is Not Supposed to Be Your Opponent

    It is April 3, Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

    Most Americans walk into a courtroom believing that the judge is automatically against them.

    Sometimes, sadly, that is exactly how it is.

    But that is not what a judge is supposed to be.

    A judge is not supposed to be the prosecutor. A judge is not supposed to be the government’s lawyer. A judge is not supposed to protect the system at all costs.

    A judge is supposed to be an impartial arbiter.

    The judicial canons of ethics require judges to act fairly, patiently, and without favoritism.

    The canons generally require that a judge:

    · uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary;

    · avoid impropriety and even the appearance of impropriety;

    · perform duties fairly and impartially;

    · give every person the right to be heard.

    Those principles appear in the Model Code of Judicial Conduct adopted throughout the United States.

    The problem is that many Americans have been taught to remain silent in court.

    They believe that if a judge interrupts them, mocks them, rushes them, or protects the other side, they must simply accept it.

    No.

    Quietly. Respectfully. Firmly.

    You may say:

    “Your Honor, I respectfully ask that I be permitted to complete my statement.”

    Or:

    “Your Honor, I respectfully request equal treatment and an opportunity to be heard.”

    That is not disrespect. That is accountability.

    A free people must never confuse a robe with infallibility.

    Judges are servants of justice, not masters of the people.

    And as always, may truth reign supreme.



    Get full access to YesToHellWith at yestohellwith.substack.com/subscribe
    Show More Show Less
    5 mins
No reviews yet
In the spirit of reconciliation, Audible acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of country throughout Australia and their connections to land, sea and community. We pay our respect to their elders past and present and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples today.