It is March 20. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

The law is not supposed to operate as a hidden trap.

That is not merely a moral statement. It is a legal one.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that when criminal liability is imposed, especially in technical areas of law, notice and culpable intent matter. In Morissette, the Court stressed the longstanding tradition that criminal culpability ordinarily requires a guilty mind. And in its constitutional doctrine on criminal notice, the Court has recognized that where conduct is not inherently blameworthy, due process concerns arise if liability is imposed without fair warning.

That matters in tax law because tax law is not self-evident. It is not written in ordinary common speech. It uses defined terms, technical relationships, and structural classifications.

That is why a serious person must ask questions before he can honestly say he knows what the law requires.

What class of person am I being treated as?What jurisdiction is being presumed?What statutory relationship is being assumed?What definitions control the title?And where, exactly, is the obligation claimed to arise?

Those questions are not games. They are the natural questions of a person trying to gain fair notice of what the law actually demands.

This is one of the most important differences between the LD method and ordinary compliance culture.

Compliance culture says:Do what you are told first, and maybe understand later.

The LD method says:Understand first, because presumption thrives where understanding is absent.

And when that inquiry is sincere, documented, and rooted in the statute itself, it becomes powerful evidence that the person was not acting with reckless indifference, but with a real effort to determine the truth.

That is the beginning of a defensible good-faith position.

And as always…

May truth reign supreme.

It’s March 20th. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

A few quick announcements.

Inner Circle and Patriot calls will be held next week. I’ll send out the schedule—if you have a preferred time, email me at info@yestohellwith.com.

There will also be a call this Saturday at 10 a.m. Eastern Time to demonstrate how to use the Liberty Dialogues with ChatGPT. This is open to those with the SOU for You package. Email me to attend.

Now—pay attention.

I do not offer solutions.

yesttohellwith.com does not offer solutions.

The only solution is knowledge—refined into wisdom.

The Liberty Dialogues were created to educate. And what they show is this:

The law, properly understood, defeats presumption.

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

If you don’t understand these—you’re operating on assumption.

That’s why I recommend:

Study the Liberty Dialogues.Review the supporting documents.Document your good faith beliefs.

Now—Revocation of Election.

A woman paid $500 for an ROE.

Filed it five years ago.

No response.

And today? She’s still dealing with IRS issues and liens.

So ask yourself—

If it worked… why is she still in the system?

Her document was 12 pages.

It could have been two sentences.

Worse—she didn’t understand what she filed.

That’s the issue.

People are acting without understanding.

They’re trusting “solutions” instead of knowing the law.

I received two responses.

One said: “It works. Stop with this goofy s**t.”

So I invited him to explain it—publicly.

No response.

The other—after decades of research—said:

“I may not fully understand what I’m doing… and I suspect no one else does either.”

That’s honesty.

So be clear—

I’m not saying the ROE doesn’t work.

I’m saying:

If you don’t understand it—you’re gambling.

And gambling with presumption is how people lose everything.

To those demanding solutions—

Knowledge is the solution.

Understanding is the solution.

And to those who claim certainty—

Come forward.

Let’s examine it publicly.

And as always—

May truth reign supreme.

It is March 19. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

Now we are able to connect the two halves of this discussion.

On one side, the Supreme Court says criminal tax liability depends on willfulness — the intentional violation of a known legal duty. On the other side, we have spent days examining definitions in 26 U.S.C. §7701, the function of includes, the meaning of trade or business, and the role of classes of persons and jurisdiction in the Internal Revenue Code.

These are not separate conversations.

They are the same conversation.

Because how can a duty be honestly known if the operative terms of the statute have never been seriously examined?

How can someone truly know a legal duty without asking:

What did Congress mean by United States?What did Congress mean by State?What does includes do under §7701(c)?Why does trade or business expressly include the performance of the functions of a public office?What significance do the classes of persons in the Code carry?Why does the nonresident alien provision reveal a structure of class, activity, jurisdiction, and consequence?

Those questions are not evasive. They are necessary.

And the Supreme Court has long held that tax statutes may not be enlarged by implication beyond the clear import of the language used. In Gould v. Gould, the Court said tax statutes are not to be extended by implication beyond the clear import of the language used. In United States v. Merriam, the Court repeated that if the words are doubtful, the doubt must be resolved against the government and in favor of the taxpayer.

That means careful attention to definitions is not frivolous. It is part of honest tax analysis.

In the Liberty Dialogues context, the point is this:

A good-faith belief is not formed by ignoring the statute.A good-faith belief is formed by confronting the statute.Reading it.Comparing its terms.Tracing its structure.Asking what Congress actually said.And refusing to let presumption replace proof.

That is what definitions are for.And that is why definitions and jurisdiction are part of the legal substance of good faith.

And as always…

May truth reign supreme.