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
  • What Happens When We Create Stories?

    What Happens When We Create Stories?
    Feb 14 2026
    It is February 14. Welcome to Yestohellwith.com. A system that does not require proof is not a legal system.A system that replaces authority with narrative is not just.A system that maligns truth to ensure compliance is hostile to freedom.When Mr. Allen says he “cannot support” someone based upon alleged moral failings, he adopts the same posture used by federal apparatuses when they malign defendants to secure compliance. The discussion shifts from lawful authority to moral condemnation.That is not resistance. That is participation.The Constitution does not protect liberty only for the morally approved. It does not extend due process only to those who satisfy public opinion. Rights do not depend on commentary.When law is replaced by narrative, liberty retreats.When moral judgment replaces proof, justice collapses.Now let me address Mr. Allen respectfully and directly.You are free to withhold your support from anyone. But you are not free to treat allegations as settled truth while demanding that others defend themselves against prejudicial narratives that have no bearing on lawful authority.You object to the requirement that individuals study the Liberty Dialogues before engaging in extended debate. That requirement exists to protect disciplined discourse. It ensures that conversations begin from shared structural understanding rather than fragmented assumptions. You would not provide unlimited professional time without compensation. I protect my time and framework the same way. The principle is identical.You state you cannot support anyone who allegedly failed to pay child support. That is your moral boundary. But if you accept allegations as conclusions without first examining authority, jurisdiction, procedural posture, and statutory applicability, then you have already abandoned structural analysis in favor of narrative.Firmness is not defensiveness. And defensiveness is not guilt. I am curious if Mr. Allen were told by a judge to defend a man accused of failing to sign a city filing, if Allen would refuse becase the defendant did not pass Allen’s character test, if he allegedly hid money while he failed to feed his dog. I can imagine Mr. Allens declaring, “No, Judge, I cannot defend a man who is innocent in this case, because I deem him to be morally bankrupt in other areas of his life.”Now let me address another topic. Yes, I went to prison.It is reality and not the product of cowardice. It was the result of a corrupt judicial posture that preferred narrative over jurisdictional proof. I did not concede to what I believed to be unlawful overreach simply in order to preserve my comfortable life with my children. I stood on principle — and I paid the cost.I did not endure that experience for vanity or spectacle. I endured it because I believed — and still believe — that the structural issues at stake affect every American, to include Mr. Allen. Authority, jurisdiction, status, standing, and obligation are not academic abstractions. They are restraints on power. When those restraints fail, everyone is vulnerable.Today, I educate those who seek disciplined understanding. If Mr. Allen knew of my financial condition, and if he understood that books belong to the publisher, he might be slower to imply profit motive. The Liberty Dialogues are not a profit center. They are a structured body of work for serious study. Thankfully, when my students learn and apply the Liberty Dialogues with AI, they will not need the services of those like Mr. Allen.As for Mr. Allen’s professional posture: I say this without hostility but with clarity — I would not seek his counsel. His reasoning mirrors too closely the posture of modern judiciary: narrative accepted as probative, suspicion treated as leverage, structural inquiry subordinated to personal judgment. We can see where that mentality has taken this country.If we replicate that posture in private discourse, we become indistinguishable from the systems we criticize.My children did not suffer for anything. Curiously, by the world’s standards, I did not allow them to have cell phones, x-box, or media distractions. We had no television. NO. We read book, told stories, played, wrestled, kickball, soccer, hide and seek, flashlight tag. I invested my time into my children. Now consider this, Mr. Allen. They suffered because a system weaponized narrative to discredit and to secure outcomes. They lost a father for four years. Ask yourself honestly: who deprived them? The man who challenged structural authority — or the system that insisted on narrative compliance?If Mr. Allen understood how and why child support entered the courtroom narrative — and the procedural posture under which it was inserted — he would not treat it casually. He would recognize it as tactical prejudice. And he would be ashamed, personally and professionally, for equating prejudicial insertion with moral failure.I remain committed to truth, to structural analysis, and to ...
    Show More Show Less
    7 mins
  • When Americans Play Judge and Condemn Others without Truth!

    When Americans Play Judge and Condemn Others without Truth!
    Feb 13 2026
    It is February 13. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.Recently Bradley Allen, who follows YTHW on Facebook, made a categorical judgment against me by posing a question loaded with presumption regarding my moral character. Specifically, he asked me to respond to my “version” of the government’s accusation that I hid money and failed to pay child support.This is not the first time I have encountered Mr. Allen’s perspectives presented with an air of condescension and assumed superiority. He consistently angles his approach as though he begins from the position of correctness. That posture forecloses objectivity before inquiry ever begins. Since he openly identifies himself as a tax paralegal by profession, that posture is all the more troubling.1fd5ad45-c3ff-46a0-b062-aabfaa6…I raise this issue publicly because Mr. Allen’s method is not unlike that of the IRS and the broader federal enforcement apparatus. When Americans judge fellow Americans outside of lawful proof, outside of jurisdictional inquiry, and outside of structural authority, we do the government’s work for it. We abandon the framework of organic law that undergirds the Constitution and defeat freedom ourselves. The federal system is sufficiently corrupt and procedurally predatory without citizens reinforcing its habits.1fd5ad45-c3ff-46a0-b062-aabfaa6…Given our recent discussions concerning authority, jurisdiction, status, standing, and obligation, Mr. Allen’s posture cannot be reconciled from a lawful perspective, much less a disciplined moral one. What is revealed here is not a disagreement over tactics or personality. What is exposed is a moral impasse — one that mirrors the pathology of modern courts, prosecutors, and administrative enforcement systems.1fd5ad45-c3ff-46a0-b062-aabfaa6…This discussion surrounding alleged child-support issues and accusations of “hiding money” is not about taxation. It is not about jurisdiction. It is not about statutory construction. It is about substituting moral condemnation for legal proof when authority and jurisdiction cannot be clearly established.Under the Liberty Dialogues, this substitution is not incidental. It is systemic.Law exists for one reason: to restrain power by requiring proof. Authority must be identified. Jurisdiction must be established. Status must be shown. Standing must be demonstrated. Obligation must arise from statute. These are structural requirements — not philosophical abstractions. When those requirements are bypassed, process becomes discretionary.And when discretion replaces law, truth becomes irrelevant.That is precisely what occurred here.The question Mr. Allen posed — “what is your version of the government’s accusation that you hid money to avoid child support?” — is not neutral. It assumes relevance. It assumes legitimacy. It assumes that an accusation external to the charged offense deserves moral weight.1fd5ad45-c3ff-46a0-b062-aabfaa6…Child support was not an element of the alleged tax offense. Its introduction was prejudicial narrative. Even Mr. Allen acknowledges it was prejudicial. Yet he simultaneously treats it as probative of intent and character. That is not analytical consistency. That is error.Character does not create jurisdiction.Moral failure does not expand congressional power.Alleged intent does not substitute for statutory applicability.Even if — hypothetically — every moral accusation were true, it would have no lawful bearing on whether federal jurisdiction existed, whether statutory authority applied, or whether prosecution was legitimate under the written law.If courts may skirt black-letter law whenever a defendant appears morally distasteful, then justice becomes conditional. Liberty becomes discretionary. Truth becomes tactical.Mr. Allen’s reasoning mirrors prosecutorial design.When authority is weak, narrative is introduced.When proof is thin, moral outrage fills the void.When jurisdiction is questionable, character assassination becomes leverage.This is not theory. It is common courtroom strategy.Mr. Allen made this personal by framing moral conclusions rather than structural questions. He has done so before.In the orchid case involving George Norris, Mr. Allen declined assistance not after a jurisdictional examination, but after concluding — based upon government documents — that Norris was guilty and therefore unworthy of support.1fd5ad45-c3ff-46a0-b062-aabfaa6…Whether Norris was morally innocent or guilty is not the central issue. The issue is that Allen again substituted personal judgment for structural inquiry. That is how prosecutors think. That is how administrative systems preserve outcomes. Get full access to YesToHellWith at yestohellwith.substack.com/subscribe
    Show More Show Less
    9 mins
  • Liberty Dialogues Study Groups

    Liberty Dialogues Study Groups
    Feb 12 2026

    Welcome to YesToHellWith.com.

    This will be brief.

    I’ve had several conversations with individuals using the Liberty Dialogues alongside ChatGPT. Each experience has been different. Why? Because the results depend on the knowledge, clarity, and framework of the person asking the questions.

    So here’s what I’m considering.

    For those of you who own the Liberty Dialogues, I’m thinking about forming a group — meeting biweekly, possibly twice a week — where we work live with the Liberty Dialogues and AI. You would submit questions in advance. I would share my screen. We would walk through the order of authority, jurisdiction, status, standing, and obligation — step by step — and analyze how responses unfold in real time.

    I believe this could be extremely valuable for anyone serious about applying the Liberty Dialogues properly and in order.

    If you’re interested in participating in this experiment, send me an email. We’ll evaluate it immediately.

    To those who have sent donations — thank you. I will not mention names, but your support matters.

    To those reading the SOU For You package — thank you. If you are in the United States, I strongly recommend purchasing the SOU For You package with the books. There is a reason for that. If you are international, the Liberty Dialogues are available at 17% off. Both links are at JamesBowersJohnson.com and YesToHellWith.com.

    The Liberty Dialogues are now active in Canada, Britain, Sweden, the Netherlands, New Zealand, South Africa, and Australia. I’m also connecting individuals in various countries so they can begin forming their own study groups.

    If you have questions — about the SOU, the group, or applying the Liberty Dialogues internationally — reach out.

    And as always,

    May truth reign supreme.



    Get full access to YesToHellWith at yestohellwith.substack.com/subscribe
    Show More Show Less
    2 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.