It is January 28, 2026. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

The Internal Revenue Code does not regulate human beings.It regulates legal constructs.

That distinction is structural, not philosophical.

Before the Code can require anything from anyone, it must first define who it applies to.

Under 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(1), the Code defines a “person.”That term includes individuals, trusts, estates, partnerships, and corporations.

An individual in the Code is not the living man or woman.It is a statutory abstraction — treated no differently than a corporation.

The real man or woman exists outside the Code.The “individual” exists only inside it.

The Code then narrows further.

Under 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(30), the Code defines a “United States person.”

That definition is not descriptive — it is jurisdictional.

A United States person is the class of persons Congress claims federal tax jurisdiction over.Without that classification, Title 26 has nothing to operate on.

But administratively, the order is reversed.

The system assumes the living man or woman is already:a person,a United States person,and therefore obligated.

None of that is shown.It is presumed.

The Liberty Dialogues restores the lawful order.

Authority first.Jurisdiction second.Status third — person, then United States person.

Only after thatcan obligation even be discussed.

Because obligation does not create jurisdiction.Jurisdiction creates obligation.

And law begins with definition —not assumption.