It is March 16. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

Let’s discuss good faith beliefs.

American law has long recognized that guilt is not supposed to arise from the mere existence of an act alone. The law has long required something more — a blameworthy state of mind. There is a maxim which says: actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. This means: The act does not make a man guilty unless the mind is also guilty.

The Supreme Court affirmed that principle in Morissette v. United States, explaining that criminal liability traditionally requires a culpable mental state and does not ordinarily rest on the bare doing of an act alone.

That principle matters profoundly in tax law, because tax law is dense, technical, and full of defined terms. And when a body of law operates through definitions, classifications, and jurisdictional structure, the mind of the accused is relevant. What did he understand? What did he believe? What effort did he make to determine what the law actually required?

That is why the Liberty Dialogues exists.

Not as entertainment.Not as rebellion.Not as fantasy.

But as a method by which a person can work through authority, jurisdiction, status, standing, obligation, and enforcement and form a documented and sincere understanding of the law.

A good-faith belief is not a slogan.It is not outrage.It is not a position which says: “I don’t like the system.”

It is a reasoned belief formed through honest inquiry.

And that matters because the law itself has recognized that when a statute is technical and a person is sincerely trying to understand what it requires, that effort is legally significant.

In this series, we are no longer merely discussing definitions in the abstract or concretely. We are showing why those definitions, and the jurisdiction they imply, become part of the foundation of a genuine good-faith belief.

And as always…

May truth reign supreme.