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
  • You Must Have a Good Faith Belief Documented!

    You Must Have a Good Faith Belief Documented!
    Apr 2 2026

    It is April 2nd. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

    At the beginning of this Good-Faith Belief series, I told you I had a surprise. Today, I will share it.

    The Supreme Court said in US v Cheek that willfulness requires the intentional violation of a known legal duty. And if a man sincerely and honestly believed that the law did not impose that duty upon him, then that belief matters.

    But here is the hard truth:

    A belief that is not documented may later be treated as though it never existed.

    Look at the cases of Vernie Kuglin and Tommy Cryer. In both cases, the jury was shown years of letters, notes, research, statutes, and correspondence. The jury could see that these two had studied, questioned, and formed sincere good-faith beliefs.

    Their beliefs were not merely in their minds.

    Their beliefs were on paper.

    And because they were documented, the jury could weigh them.

    Now contrast that with what happened to me.

    Long before I was arrested, I had spent years studying these issues. I had written letters. I had read the books. I was a member of Save-A-Patriot Fellowship, We the People, and had attended meetings. I had created records of what I believed.

    But by the time the government came for me, my wife had become a government spy, my home was gone. My records were gone. My possessions were gone. I was raided at gun point in a public venue by a swat team of 15 agents with a fat CID IRS agent. I was immediately placed into jail and then isolation among murderers.

    And when I stood in court, I learned something devastating:

    The system does not care what you say you believed.

    The system cares what you can prove you believed.

    My attorneys would not present my good-faith defense. The court obstructed my efforts to even refer to letters, questions, and documents that once existed.

    And without that evidence, the jury could not fully see what had once been there.

    That is why I say this to you now:

    Do not make this mistake.

    If you are serious about protecting yourself—whether on taxes, property, licensing, regulation, or any other issue—then preserve your record.

    Duplicate it.Triplicate it.Keep one copy in your home.Keep one in a safe deposit box.Keep one with someone you trust.Store digital copies in more than one place.

    Preserve your letters.Preserve your notes.Preserve your statutes.Preserve your cases.Preserve your questions.

    Because one day, memory will not be enough.

    You will need a record.

    That is why I created the Liberty Dialogues.

    To teach you how to think.

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

    And that is why the Statement of Understanding program exists.

    It transforms sincere belief into a documented, organized, preserved evidentiary record. This is the surprise.

    The program includes not only the Statement of Understanding itself, but also a complete Good-Faith Belief letter series directed to congressmen, senators, and agencies.

    Those letters are designed to make your position clear.To show your questions.To show your effort.To prove that you did not hide, evade, or act recklessly.

    They preserve a written record that you sought answers directly from the very people responsible for the law.

    That is what makes this so powerful.

    This program does not merely teach you what to believe.

    It teaches you how to create the record of why you believed it.

    A record that may one day stand between you and the full force of presumption.

    The system depends on confusion.The system depends on silence.The system depends on people who cannot explain why they believe what they believe.

    Do not give it silence.

    Give it a record.

    Visit statementofunderstanding.com.



    Get full access to YesToHellWith at yestohellwith.substack.com/subscribe
    Show More Show Less
    5 mins
  • The Government use emotions to sway the jury!

    The Government use emotions to sway the jury!
    Apr 2 2026
    This is April 2 and part two of this video series. Welcome to yestohellwith.com. The prosecution often builds its case not upon proof of a guilty mind, but upon emotion.They know that many jurors file tax returns. They know many jurors struggle to pay their bills. They know some jurors pay child support. They know some jurors may resent anyone who appears not to comply.So the prosecution quietly appeals to those emotions.“Why doesn’t he pay his fair share?” “Why should he be different from everyone else?” “If I have to file, why doesn’t he?” “He must be hiding money.” “He must be selfish.” “He must be lying.”And if there is an issue like child support, unpaid debts, or financial problems, those facts may be used to suggest that the man is irresponsible, evasive, or dishonest.But none of that proves mens rea.A man may owe child support and still sincerely believe that no federal tax duty applies to him. A man may have financial struggles and still honestly believe what he believes. A man may be disliked by the jury and still be innocent of willfully violating a known legal duty.The danger is that the jury begins to punish the man not because the government proved the guilty mind, but because the jurors emotionally identify with compliance.The jurors may think:“I file. Why doesn’t he?” “I obey. Why doesn’t he?” “I pay. Why shouldn’t he?”But that is not the legal question.The question is not whether the jurors comply. The question is not whether the jurors think he should comply. The question is not whether the jurors dislike him.The question is whether the government proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this particular man intentionally violated a legal duty that he knew applied to him.That requires proof of a clear, coherent, deliberate mental state. Not emotion. Not resentment. Not envy. Not the assumption that because most people comply, every man who does not comply must therefore be guilty.The jury may realize:This man did not hide. He did not evade. He did not act recklessly.He studied. He questioned. He sought answers. He tried to understand.And a man who sincerely seeks the truth is not the same as a man who knowingly breaks the law.The danger becomes even greater if the court prevents the jurors from fully understanding just how difficult—perhaps nearly impossible—it is to prove mens rea.Because if the jury never learns the difference between actus reus and mens rea… if the jury never understands that the government must prove what was actually in the man’s mind… if the jury is never allowed to see the years of study, the letters, the questions, the doubts, and the sincere belief…then the jury may convict, not because the law was proven, but because fear was created.And that fear serves a larger purpose.The system wants a warning. A lesson. A poster child.A man placed before the public so that every other American will think:“I had better comply.” “I had better not ask questions.” “I had better not study too deeply.” “I had better not challenge what I have been told.”That is how an April fear campaign works. Not by proving the guilty mind. But by creating the appearance of guilt and then using that appearance to frighten everyone else into silence and compliance.The message becomes:“Look what happened to him. Do not be next.”But fear is not proof. And an example made for the sake of compliance is not justice.True justice requires the jury to understand the law completely. True justice requires the jury to understand that actus reus is not enough. True justice requires the jury to understand that without proof of mens rea—without proof of the intentional violation of a known legal duty—there is no crime.That is why the Liberty Dialogues matter.Because Liberty Dialogues forces the government to answer the questions they do not want to answer:What is the precise legal duty? What authority created it? What status causes it to apply? What facts prove that this man knew it applied to him personally?Not presumed. Not implied. Proved.Because the government cannot simply say:“He failed to file, therefore he is guilty.”No.They must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he intentionally violated a known legal duty.They must prove the mens rea, not merely the actus reus.And if they cannot prove what was in his mind…then all they have left is presumption.The system depends on that presumption.Do not let them have it.Document your study. Preserve your letters. Preserve your questions. Preserve your good-faith beliefs.Because one day, the difference between freedom and prison may come down to whether you can prove what you truly believed.We must become more discerning.We must listen carefully to the words they use. We must examine their meanings. We must ask what is really being said—and what is being hidden.Because words like “willfulness,” “known legal duty,” “intentional violation,” “compliance,” ...
    Show More Show Less
    8 mins
  • No Willful Failure to File

    No Willful Failure to File
    Apr 2 2026
    It is April 2nd. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.Today I want to talk about one phrase.“Intentional violation of a known legal duty.”Those are the words the federal government uses in criminal tax cases. They call it willfulness.But stop and think about what those words actually mean.An intentional violation. Of a known legal duty.That does not mean a man failed to file.That does not mean a man changed his mind.That does not mean a man studied the law and reached a different conclusion.No.The government must prove something far more serious.It must prove that a man knew, with certainty, that the law imposed a duty upon him personally……and then deliberately chose to violate that duty anyway.In the law there are two parts to a crime.The first is called actus reus. That means the act itself. In this case, the actus reus is simply the failure to file.But the act alone is not enough.There is a second requirement. Mens rea.Mens rea means the guilty mind. The deliberate, conscious, intentional decision to violate a duty that the man knows applies to him.Without mens rea, there is no crime.So even if the government points to the actus reus—the failure to file—that proves nothing by itself.The government must still prove the mens rea. It must prove what was in the man’s mind.Ask yourself:How can they possibly know that?How can any prosecutor, any judge, any jury climb inside a man’s mind and heart and prove what he truly believed?They cannot.So what do they do instead?They substitute presumption for proof.They point to circumstances.“He filed before.” “He received notices.” “He signed papers.” “He stopped filing.”And then they say:“Therefore, he must have known.”But that is not proof.That is assumption.A man may have filed for years because he never questioned it. Because he was afraid. Because he trusted others. Because he had never studied the law.Then one day he studies.He reads. He researches. He writes letters. He asks questions. He struggles to understand.And after years of study, he sincerely concludes that no legal duty applies to him.Now ask yourself:Would a sane man risk four years in prison if he truly knew he was violating the law?Of course not.It makes no sense.The government wants you to believe that a man studies the law for years, risks everything, destroys his life, jeopardizes his freedom—and all the while secretly knows he is guilty.No.That is absurd.If a man sincerely believes no duty applies, then there is no “known legal duty.”And if there is no known legal duty…there can be no intentional violation.That means there is no mens rea. And without mens rea, the actus reus alone is not enough.The Supreme Court itself admitted this in Cheek v. United States.The Court said that if a man sincerely misunderstands the law—even if the government thinks he is wrong—then he may lack the willfulness required for conviction.Why?Because criminal guilt requires more than an act.It requires a guilty mind.The act is simple: failure to file.That is the actus reus.But the mind is everything.That is the mens rea.Did he know? Did he believe? Did he intentionally violate a duty he understood applied to him?That is the real question.And that is exactly why the government fights so hard to keep the jury from seeing a man’s letters, notes, research, questions, statutes, and good-faith beliefs.Because once the jury sees the record…the presumption begins to collapse.That is why the government often depends upon an unsuspecting, naive, compliant jury. A jury that has never studied these words. A jury that hears “he failed to file” and immediately assumes “therefore he intended to violate the law.”But those are not the same thing.A compliant jury may never be told the difference between actus reus and mens rea. A compliant jury may never be told that the act alone proves nothing unless the government also proves the guilty mind. A compliant jury may never be shown the years of study, the letters, the questions, the statutes, the doubts, and the sincere effort to understand.Instead, the jury is given a superficial argument:“He filed before, therefore he knew.” “He stopped filing, therefore he intended to violate the law.”And an unsuspecting jury may accept that shallow argument because no one has explained to them that the law requires far more. Get full access to YesToHellWith at yestohellwith.substack.com/subscribe
    Show More Show Less
    7 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.