It is March 14. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

In the last several videos we examined several critical parts of federal tax law. We discussed the constitutional meaning of income. We examined the Supreme Court’s rule that tax statutes must be strictly construed. We reviewed the definitions contained in 26 U.S.C. §7701. And we discussed the statutory classes of individuals: citizen, resident, and nonresident.

At first glance these topics may seem separate, but they are not. They are all pieces of a much larger structure within the concept known as The Liberty Dialogues.

The Liberty Dialogues is a framework for understanding how law actually operates in the United States.

Most people approach legal questions backwards. They begin by arguing about obligation. They ask: Do I owe this tax? Must I comply with this regulation? Does the government have authority over me?

But obligation is the last step in the legal structure, not the first.

The Liberty Dialogues teaches that law must be examined in a specific order.

First: Authority.Where does the government derive the power it claims to exercise?

Second: Jurisdiction.Where does that authority apply geographically or legally?

Third: Status.What class of person does the statute actually address?

Fourth: Standing.Is the individual even a party to the statute in question?

And only after those elements are established do we arrive at the final step:

Obligation.

Then there is the ever-present element of presumption. What presumptions does the system make if these questions are never asked?

Now let me ask a simple question.

If the income tax truly applied universally to every American in the fifty states, why did Congress not simply write the law in plain language?

Why does 26 U.S.C. §1 not say something like this:

“Every person living in the fifty states of the United States must pay a federal income tax on their earnings.”

That would be very easy for everyone to understand.

But Congress did not write the law that way.

Instead, Congress wrote the statute through defined terms, statutory classes, and jurisdictional definitions.

Why?

Because federal statutes are written to operate upon specific legal classes of persons, and those classes become liable only when the conditions described in the statute are met.

For example, a nonresident alien individual becomes subject to the income tax when that individual is engaged in a trade or business within the United States, as described in 26 U.S.C. §871(b). In that circumstance, the statute treats the income connected with that trade or business as taxable under the rate structure found in 26 U.S.C. §1.

Likewise, citizens of the United States and resident aliens are treated as persons whose income is subject to taxation under the Internal Revenue Code because the statute defines them as individuals operating within the jurisdictional scope of the United States as used in the code.

In other words, the statute does not simply impose liability on everyone.

Instead, it operates through legal classifications that determine when jurisdiction and liability arise.

This is precisely why Congress did not simply say “everyone in the fifty states.”

Instead, Congress constructed the statute around legal definitions that determine jurisdiction and status.

In the next video, I will explain why this is critical for our defense. And as always, may truth reign supreme.