It’s March 21. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

Let me share something amazing, the responses I get.

When I say:

“I will never file a federal income tax return again.”

People don’t ask questions.They don’t seek understanding.

They attack.

“You’re a d*****s.”“You’re ignorant.”“You don’t know the law.”

Or worse—

“You won’t be able to live.”“You won’t own a home.”“They’ll take everything from you.”“You should just leave the country.”

And then comes the most common one:

“Just pay your taxes… and enjoy your life.”

But let me ask you something.

If every man…If every woman…

Just complies—Just obeys—Just submits…

Then what changes?

Nothing.

Edmund Burke once said:

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

And that is exactly where we are today.

A nation of compliance.A culture of fear.A system built not on law—

But on presumption.

Let me make something very clear.

I did not go to prison because I was wrong.

I did not go to prison because I didn’t understand the law.

I went to prison because I challenged a systemthat does not operate on truth—

But on assumption… enforcement… and silence.

And in that fire—

I learned.

I saw how the system really works.

Not the theory.Not the textbooks.

But the reality:

A system that presumes jurisdiction…Assumes status…Constructs obligation…

And then enforces—

Unless you know how to stand.

Now think about this.

When a soldier goes to war…Do they expect comfort?

No.

They expect risk.They expect loss.They expect that standing for something may cost them everything.

An electrician risks death.A soldier risks death.

But a man who stands for truth?

He’s told:

“You’re stupid.”“Just comply.”“Stay safe.”

No.

There is always a price for admission.

Sometimes you win.Sometimes you lose.

But even in loss—

There is knowledge.

There is clarity.

There is a path forward for those who are willing to learn.

And that is the difference.

Some people see a man who stood and say:

“I don’t want that risk.”

Others say:

“What did he learn… and how do I prevail?”

Because this is not about recklessness.

This is not about ego.

This is about:

Authority.Jurisdiction.Status.Standing.Obligation.Presumption.

The Liberty Dialogues is not a theory.

It is a method of seeing what is actually happening—

And refusing to live under unchallenged assumption.

So if you want to mock—Mock.

If you want to condemn—Condemn.

If you want comfort over truth—

That is your choice.

But for those who seek understanding…For those who seek truth…For those who are willing to think—

I say this:

Build on the victories.Learn from the losses.Stand with clarity.

Because if good men…And good women…

Do nothing—

Then nothing changes.

But if even a few choose to understand—To question—To stand—

Then there is still a path forward.

Let us learn.Let us think.Let us stand.

And let us restore what has been lost.

It is March 21. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

A good-faith belief is not just something you say.

It is something you build.

And if you do not build it before conflict arrives, then later you may be left with nothing but unsupported assertion.

So how is a good-faith record built?

It is built by process.

It is built by identifying the statutes you relied upon.It is built by preserving the cases you studied.It is built by tracing the definitions you examined.It is built by documenting the questions you asked.It is built by showing the path by which you reached your understanding.

That is what gives structure to sincerity, good faith beliefs that are genuinely held..

Because the stronger evidence of good faith is not “I said I believed it.”The stronger evidence is: “Here is what I studied. Here is the law I read. Here is how I wrestled with the meaning. Here is the basis upon which I formed my understanding.”

That matters because Cheek makes genuine a genuine understanding or misunderstanding legally significant in the context of willfulness. And the more technical the law, the more important it becomes to show that your understanding was the product of real inquiry rather than convenience or improvisation.

In the Liberty Dialogues framework, that inquiry is not random. It moves in order:

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

When that sequence is written down, organized, and preserved, the person is no longer merely holding an opinion. He is creating a record of studied belief.

And that can become the difference between appearing reckless and appearing sincere.

Be strong.Be wise.And as always…

May truth reign supreme.

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.

It’s March 19, Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

Let me explain something very simple.

If I am not subject to the Internal Revenue Code—

then I do not adopt the language of that code.

I don’t call myself a “non-resident alien.”

I don’t accept classifications that do not apply to me.

Words matter.

Definitions matter.

And the moment you adopt their terminology—

you may be stepping into their purview.

Now this is where people get into trouble.

They run toward strategies—

revocation of election… discharging…

all kinds of so-called remedies—

without understanding what they’re doing.

And that’s dangerous.

Because the real question is not:

“Does this work?”

The real question is:

Do you understand what you’re doing… and why?

Take this example.

Some people will take 26 U.S.C. 7701

and argue that the definition of “State” is limited to exclude the 50 States.

But then—

they turn around and take something like 6013(g)

and expand it beyond what it actually says within the code

to justify a strategy.

So ask yourself:

Can you limit one definition…

and expand another…

just to get the result you want?

No.

That’s not law.

That’s preference and presumption.

So instead of chasing ideas…

instead of trusting what sounds good…

Test it.

Understand it.

Be consistent.

Because if you don’t—

you’re stepping into something you do not control.

I don’t trust strategies.

I trust structure.

I trust definitions.

I trust consistency.

And if you want to protect yourself—

stop guessing.

Start understanding.

I have been involved with this effort for almost three decades.

I trust two sources and they provide excellent content, content that should be verified as well. One source has a link that describes the dangers of the ROE and some of the parties behind its use.

Caveat Emptor.

And as always—

may truth reign supreme.

It is March 18. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

One of the most important Supreme Court decisions in all of tax law is Cheek v. United States.

And the reason it matters is because the Court drew a line that every serious person must understand.

The Court held that a genuine good-faith understanding of what the tax law requires can negate willfulness — even if that understanding is objectively unreasonable. But the Court also held that a person’s belief that the tax laws are invalid or unconstitutional is different. That kind of disagreement does not negate willfulness in the same way.

That distinction is huge.

An understanding says:

“I believe the law says this because of X, Y, and Z. Or, I am sincerely determined that the law does not apply because of this reason, which is based upon the statutes and definitions.”

A protest says:

“I know the law applies, but I reject it.”

Those are not the same thing.

The Liberty Dialogues is directed toward the first category, not the second.

The purpose of the LDs is not to teach emotional defiance. It is not to encourage reckless noncompliance. It is not to promote shallow anti-government slogans.

It is to teach disciplined inquiry.

What did Congress define?What jurisdiction did Congress describe?What classes of persons appear in the title?What is the relationship between status and obligation?Where is liability actually imposed?And what parts of the structure are being presumed rather than proved?

That is not protest. That is study.

And that is why the work on definitions and jurisdiction is vital. Because when a person seriously studies the Code and attempts to understand the meaning of the words Congress chose, he is not merely rebelling. He is trying to understand the law as written.

That is exactly the kind of inquiry that Cheek makes legally important.

The law recognizes the significance of a sincere understanding in a technical statutory field.

That is the lane in which this series moves.

And as always…

May truth reign supreme.

Let’s have a serious conversation.

Every day, I receive documents, videos, and so-called solutions. Patriot mythology. Guru advice. Quick fixes. And I test some of them.

People are searching, desperate, they are looking for relief.

They want something to work. They need it to be the answer. I’ve been there myself.

But wanting something to be true does not make it so. It does not make it real. And it certainly does not make it safe.

That’s why the Liberty Dialogues exists.

It’s not a theory. It’s a filter.

A step-by-step framework that allows you to take any claim, any document, any notice—and break it down into authority, jurisdiction, status, standing, obligation, and enforcement—so you can see immediately whether a given document or theory holds… or collapses.

Let me give you a real example.

People come to me talking about a “Revocation of Election.” I ask one question:

Why are you doing it? What is the ROE?

And the answer is always the same:

“Because it gets me out of the tax system.”

But does it?

So I took one of those documents—twelve pages—and ran just two paragraphs through the Liberty Dialogues. These paragraphs dealt with the tax code’s election provision under 6013. This code section deals with:

A nonresident alien individual who is married to a U.S. citizen or resident, and who has made an election under §6013(g) to be treated as a resident of the United States for income tax purposes.

and does not deal with:

· Single individuals

· U.S. citizens filing alone

· People who never made a §6013(g) election

· General taxpayers

· Any broad “revocation of election” theory

Now, The Liberty Dialogues found nine errors.

Nine.

That’s not a solution. That’s a liability in progress.

And the cost of getting this wrong is not theoretical.

It’s liens.It’s penalties.It’s years trying to fix something that never should have been done.

This is the difference:

Everyone else gives you supposed answers to what is not real, .

The Liberty Dialogues gives you a way to test whether those responses are even valid.

It moves you from reacting… to analyzing.From believing… to verifying.From hoping… to knowing.

And here’s the better approach:

And even more important, why not use the Liberty Dialogues to compel the IRS to respond to your queries rather than submit a document that is suspect? Instead of making claims—ask the question.

Go to the IRS and ask:

What election exists?What classification applies?And how does it apply to you?

That’s how you maintain control.That’s how you build a record.That’s how you operate in good faith.

Every American should develop and document their good faith beliefs. Now, I provide a letter in the GOOD FAITH section to students who are involved in the statementofunderstanding.com program.

If you want to see this in action, I’ll send you a letter from this file that that holds the IRS accountable to the issue of the ROE withut making claims under statutes that do not apply.

If you want this document,

Send the CODE WORDS: Liberty DIALOGUES and And I’ll send it to you.

Now, let me share an important conclusion;

if you want to stop guessing…If you’re ready to stop relying on questionable opinions…

Get the Liberty Dialogues.

It’s $48. For this modest investment, you can avoid suspicious solutions that cost $500 that give you nothing and potentially cause a lot of problems.

The Liberty Dialogues is the most important filter you ever put between yourself and bad information.