It is April 27. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

Up to this point, we’ve examined the role of the prosecutor, the incentive structure, the charging process, and the withholding of evidence. Today, we move into what may be the most powerful—and least understood—mechanism in the entire system.

Plea bargaining.

Now understand this clearly. The vast majority of criminal cases do not go to trial. Not even close. In fact, well over ninety percent are resolved through plea agreements. Let that sink in. The system that is presented as a search for truth rarely engages in that process. Instead, it resolves cases through negotiation.

Now on its surface, plea bargaining is presented as efficient. It saves time. It reduces costs. It allows courts to function. And all of that may be true. But that is not the full picture. Because beneath that efficiency is pressure. And that pressure is not subtle. It is structural.

Now consider how this works. A person is charged, often with multiple offenses, facing significant penalties. And then an offer is presented. Plead guilty and receive a reduced sentence. Or go to trial and face the full weight of the charges. This is known as the trial penalty. And it is very real.

Now ask yourself: is that a voluntary choice? Or is that a calculated pressure point? Because when the risk of trial becomes overwhelming, the decision is no longer about truth. It becomes about survival.

Now bring this into the Liberty Dialogues framework. Because this is where the distinction becomes clear. At this stage, we are dealing with obligation and enforcement.

Because a plea agreement does something very specific. It converts an allegation into an accepted obligation without requiring full proof. Because once a plea is entered, the need for the government to fully prove its case disappears. The process stops. The structure is bypassed. And enforcement follows.

Now here is the critical insight. Plea bargaining is not simply a legal tool. It is a mechanism of resolution that operates outside the full testing of the system. Because if every case required full proof, the system would slow dramatically. So instead, it relies on agreement. Not necessarily truth—agreement.

Now understand this: an agreement made under pressure is not the same as an agreement made in freedom. Now most people believe, “If someone pleaded guilty, they must be guilty.” But within the Liberty Dialogues, that assumption does not stand.

Because the question is not, “What was agreed to?” The question is, “What was proven?” And if nothing was fully proven, then the foundation of the outcome must be examined.

Once a person enters plea negotiation, they often abandon structural questioning—from “What is the authority?” to “What is the deal?” and from “What must be proven?” to “What can I minimize?” And in doing so, they step out of the framework.

This is not about blaming individuals. This is about understanding the structure. Because the system is designed to create that pressure.

So what is the response? Awareness. Clarity. Structure. To understand that a plea is not proof, that agreement is not validation, and that obligation must still be examined at its source.

And as always, may truth reign supreme.

 It  is April 25th. Welcome to yes to hell with.com. I’m gonna speak extemporaneously for a moment and share something that’s really just angers me. And that is what we’re talking about already, and that is prosecutors. Now I’m gonna give you an analogy. Imagine a child drawing coloring in his or her coloring book. Now the image has lines to the characters, to the images, and the child draws within the lines, colors the picture. And when the child goes beyond the picture, then obviously it is. Let’s just call it an error. The child did not stay within the lines. Now, if we applied the same concept to the prosecutor, every time he crossed the line would be a violation of, let’s say, the consideration of facts, evidence, ethics, responsibility, a moral standard to uphold all of the things. That a good prosecutor would honor, and here is how I view a prosecutor. When a prosecutor sees a case and they’re driven by incentives and ego and glory, and they seek to make a, make a name for themselves to maybe enter politics, become a judge. This is the breeding ground for the contemptible characters that eventually run the system. The evil. That rises to the top, and that’s not too strong a term because what the prosecutors do is they don’t color within the image on the page with the facts and the ethics and the law and the moral responsibility. No. What they do is they get a blank sheet of paper and they create an entirely different representation of the case than what is the truth. Okay, and that is contemptible. It’s evil. It’s a lie, and I despise it. It angers me. Orlando Carter is innocent because of these very dynamics. Now, I’ve shared this with you before, but this is a book, prosecutorial Misconduct. Look at this thing. Thousands and thousands of cases of prosecutors. Committing violations. Let me just read a, in the contents here, just an example. Investigative misconduct. Misconduct in grand juries. Abuse of process. Abuse of charging function. We talked about that the other day. Non-disclosure of evidence, misuse. Of the media misconduct in plea bargaining process, summation misconduct, delay misconduct in presentation of evidence, jury selection, mistrials convictions, and double jeopardy misconduct at sentencing, thousands and thousands of examples. So. We grow up thinking that the justice system is sound. We all believe that as children, we might hear an example here and there that’s a stray that’s wrong and that it was overturned. But daily in this country, in this free country supposedly, where truth is paramount, where justice is a prime concern, yet thousands and thousands of Americans are being penalized. And incarcerated. Why? Because of lawyers. And lawyers who become judges because the misconduct of judges is just as bad at times. And when we see this in its raw form, and if we do nothing, then we are certainly just as culpable. So it’s time. It’s time to educate ourselves and other people. This is not difficult. Prosecutors, lawyers in general are not. Worthy within their profession. It is not a worthy profession as it is operated now. I mean, there are a handful, I believe, of good attorneys, attorneys who actually understand the problem, who actually can withstand the peer pressure and maybe risk not being promoted. But it’s got to end and it begins with education. And as always, may truth reign supreme.

It is April 25. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

Up to this point, we’ve examined the role of the prosecutor, the incentives that shape their behavior, and how charging decisions create leverage before a case even begins. Today, we move into something far more serious—something that strikes at the very heart of justice itself: the withholding of evidence.

Now, under the law, a prosecutor is required to disclose evidence that is favorable to the accused—evidence that may prove innocence, reduce culpability, or undermine the government’s case. This is not optional. This is not discretionary. This is a constitutional requirement, established clearly in Brady v. Maryland (1963). And yet, despite that clarity, violations occur—frequently, and often without consequence.

Now think about what that means. If a prosecutor is entrusted with the duty to seek justice, but withholds evidence that may exonerate the accused, then the process is no longer about justice. It becomes something else entirely—control, outcome management, preservation of a case rather than pursuit of truth.

Now let’s bring this into the Liberty Dialogues framework, because this is where the issue becomes unmistakably clear. At this stage, we are dealing with proof versus presumption. When evidence is withheld, the record becomes incomplete, and when the record is incomplete, the outcome is no longer based on full truth—it is based on a curated version of reality. And a curated version of reality is nothing more than structured presumption.

Now understand the severity of this. When a person stands accused, the government is required to prove its case—not partially, not selectively, but completely. And if information exists that contradicts the government’s position, that information must be disclosed. Because without it, the accused is not defending against the truth—they are defending against a narrative. And a narrative can be controlled, shaped, and manipulated.

Now here is the critical insight. Most people assume that if something is not presented in court, it does not exist. That assumption is dangerous because it places blind trust in the process instead of examining the structure. Within the Liberty Dialogues, we do not assume completeness—we test it. We ask: what evidence exists, what has been disclosed, what has not been disclosed, and why? Because if evidence exists that alters the outcome and it is withheld, then the entire proceeding is compromised—not flawed, compromised.

Now let’s take this one step further. Even when Brady violations are discovered, what happens? In many cases, the conviction stands, the prosecutor faces no real consequence, and the system absorbs the violation and moves forward. Why? Because the system is designed to preserve itself, not dismantle itself. And that is a hard truth—but it is a necessary one. Because once you understand that, you stop relying on assumption and you begin requiring proof.

Now bring this back to first principles. Authority: if authority is exercised without full disclosure, then it is not being exercised lawfully. Jurisdiction: if jurisdiction is asserted while suppressing material facts, then it is not being established properly. Standing: if the government’s position depends on incomplete information, then its standing is weakened. Obligation: if the accused is responding to a partial record, then no true obligation has been fully proven. And enforcement, under those conditions, becomes nothing more than the execution of presumption.

So the question becomes: how do you respond? Not emotionally. Not reactively. But structurally. You require disclosure. You question completeness. You test the record. You do not assume that what is presented is all that exists. Because once you do, you surrender the very mechanism designed to protect you—and that mechanism is truth.

And as always, may truth reign supreme.