This video is for February 4. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

Here is the order required by law:

Authority first.Jurisdiction second.Status third.Obligation last—if at all.

When that order is reversed, people are treated as liable first and forced to disprove obligation later. That is not due process. That is administrative convenience.

Liberty begins where power is forced to explain itself.Tyranny begins where power demands obedience without explanation.

The Liberty Dialogues exists to restore that order.

Enforcement begins where proof should begin, and the burden is shifted to the individual to disprove a liability that was never lawfully established in the first place.

At the same time, those same AI analyses also expose a deeper and more uncomfortable truth: the system prevails out of necessity, not legitimacy. It prevails because it must. It prevails because it always has. Continuity is preserved not because jurisdiction is cleanly proven in each case, but because disruption is intolerable to institutions dependent on uninterrupted revenue. In other words, the system survives not by truth, but by inertia—and inertia is sustained through fear.

I will speak candidly. I lost everything – family home, livelihood because the federal government needed to keep Americans fearful and compliant.

This truth gave rise to what is now known as the Liberty Dialogues.

The Liberty Dialogues is not a protest movement.It is not tax evasion.It is not defiance of lawful authority.

It is a comprehensive, documented framework designed to restore the proper constitutional order of governance: authority must be identified first, jurisdiction must be established second, and obligation may arise only afterward—if at all.

Where Congress has done this properly—through legitimate excise taxes tied to voluntary federal activity—the law functions cleanly. Where Congress has not, enforcement fills the void with presumption, and prosecution becomes the mechanism for enforcing silence.

For more than a century, this presumptive model has held the American people in a stranglehold. Generations have been conditioned to believe they are obligated to the tax system by their mere existence alone, governed by implication, and subject to punishment without proof. Fear has replaced clarity. Compliance has replaced consent.

Congress is not innocent in this. Rather Congress is GUILTY.

Congress is complicit by allowing laws in America—especially tax laws—to be written and maintained in vague, open-ended language that predictably invites presumption. Either Congress knows that obligation is being enforced against Americans without clearly established federal jurisdiction and allows it to continue, or Congress does not understand how its own statutes are being applied.

Both possibilities are unacceptable. And all congressman and senators should be terminated without question.

If those in Congress know and remain silent, they are complicit in fraud by omission, they have no business holding office. If those in Congress do not know of this fraud, they have no business holding office.

Ambiguity that predictably produces coercion is not neutral. It is culpable.

The Liberty Dialogues exposes this system conclusively—not through ideology, not through slogans, but through statute, definition, jurisdiction, and record. These works are not meant to inflame. They are meant to end a lie. They are meant to liberate the American people once and for all.

And they will.

The Liberty Dialogues are—and will be—the books read around the world, because they articulate what millions already know intuitively but have never seen demonstrated with precision: that federal power in America has expanded not through lawful definition, but through unchallenged assumption and massive and coercive fraud.

This message is not a threat.It is a demand for accountability.

To Congress: understand and comply with your limited authority and jurisdiction. State all taxable classes openly—or accept responsibility for the abuse that follows your ambiguity.

To the Executive: restraint is not weakness. Prosecuting Americans to maintain fear and compliance is not justice—it is coercion. Your duty is to execute the law faithfully, not to preserve your silence where authority has not been proven.

I am not asking for permission.I am not seeking mercy.

I am stating plainly that the truth is already out, and it will not be put back into the shadows.

Lawful authority does not fear examination.Truth does not fear definition.And a just government does not need to employ fear in order to function.

The century-long reliance on presumption ends when it is exposed.

That process has begun.

The American people demand and deserve this. And as always, may truth reign supreme.

It is February 3. Welcome to yestohellwith.com

This is a message to both the President and Congress of the United States and indirectly for the American people.

I am addressing you directly for one simple reason. The federal tax laws are being enforced against Americans through fraudulent presumptive authority rather than proven jurisdiction. Moreover, this has been done for more than a century. Sadly, many who understand this truth have been, are, and will be punished in order to preserve fear-based compliance to a tax system that is extra-jurisdictional. This is not accidental. It is not rare. It is a structural feature of the current system, and it is long past time for it to be confronted openly.

This problem begins with Congress. The House and Senate write the law beyond their authority within what is and should be a limited jurisdiction. When Congress fraudulently exerts power by presumption in silence, this is then handed to the Executive to be enforced in the same manner. What cannot be stated openly in statute is filled implicitly in practice. That is where abuse takes root.

When ambiguity is enforced as obligation, prosecution becomes a tool not of justice, but of deterrence. Americans are not being prosecuted primarily because they caused harm; they are being prosecuted to maintain silence, fear, and compliance—especially when they challenge presumption with genuinely- held good-faith questions.

I am not speaking about this in theory.

I went to prison for attempting, in good faith, to defend my understanding of the law in a legal system that has become hellbent on preserving fear-induced enforcement of tax laws rather than adjudicating jurisdiction and authority. I did not harm another man or woman. I did not commit a crime when I refused to concede obligation by presumption in a system that depends on that concession to survive.

While incarcerated—and afterward—I undertook a disciplined, exhaustive examination of federal taxation, jurisdiction, and enforcement. I tested assumptions. I examined relevant statutes. I documented the analysis carefully, including extended, structured dialogue with advanced AI systems, including ChatGPT, designed specifically to reason through statutory text, definitions, jurisdictional structure, and enforcement mechanics in support of the current corrupt enforcement.

And this must be stated plainly:

As much as AI fought against this admission, ChatGPT and other advanced AI reasoning systems explicitly acknowledge that the federal tax system, as applied in practice, operates through fraud – as in fraudulent presumption.Status is presumed.Jurisdiction is presumed.Obligation is presumed.

This video is for February 3. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

No one is afraid to buy an airline ticket.No one fears prison for boarding a plane.

Why?

Because the airline excise tax is clear. Congress defines the activity, the federally regulated domain, and who pays. The tax attaches only if you voluntarily engage in that activity.

No ticket.No tax.

Fear is not needed when law is clear.

So when a system relies on fear—audits, penalties, prosecution—to enforce compliance, it’s compensating for something missing.

Law doesn’t need fear.Only presumption does.

It is February 2. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

Now that Donald Trump is in office, it’s important to speak plainly about what can happen, what cannot happen, and what would happen if certain lines were even approached.

The idea that a sitting president could abolish the IRS is not just unlikely—it is structurally impossible without catastrophic consequences.

And that matters.

To be clear: when people say “eliminate,” many mean it literally. They are not confusing elimination with restraint. They are not talking about budget cuts, leadership changes, or fewer audits. They genuinely believe that because Trump is in office, the IRS will cease to exist—that it will be dismantled, abolished, and gone.

That belief is understandable.It is also structurally wrong.

The IRS is not a policy preference.It is not an agency that exists by executive grace.It is the administrative instrument through which Congress’s taxing power is executed.

Eliminating the IRS—literally—without repealing or fundamentally rewriting the taxing statutes would not eliminate federal taxation. It would only remove one enforcement mechanism, which would be immediately replaced by another under a different name. The authority would remain. The obligation would remain. Only the label would change.

More importantly, even suggesting abolition from the Oval Office would be catastrophic.

Markets would react instantly.Federal credit would be questioned.Bond ratings would be threatened.Treasury operations would destabilize.Courts would intervene.Congress would move to counteract.

Not because the IRS is sacred, but because federal revenue continuity is foundational to the current system. Even signaling uncertainty about collection authority would be interpreted as a threat to the government’s ability to function.

That is not political theory.That is operational reality.

This is why no sitting president—Trump included—ever suggests abolition. It would trigger immediate institutional resistance across every branch of government and every financial sector tied to federal solvency.

So when people say, “Trump will eliminate the IRS,” what they are really expressing is a hope that the system itself will be undone by personality or election.

Liberty Dialogues rejects that hope—not because it lacks sympathy, but because it misunderstands how power is structured.

Presidents manage enforcement.They do not erase statutory authority.Agencies are instruments, not sources.

If the IRS vanished tomorrow, the power behind it would not. It would reappear—rebranded, reorganized, and reauthorized—because the law that creates obligation would still be intact.

That is the distinction Liberty Dialogues insists on making.

Trump, as a sitting president, can restrain enforcement, redirect priorities, change leadership, influence funding, and limit abuses. But he cannot—and will not—challenge the jurisdictional foundation of federal taxation from the Oval Office without triggering a constitutional and financial crisis.

That is not cowardice.That is constraint.

And it is why waiting for any president to “eliminate the IRS” misunderstands how power is actually organized.

Liberty is not restored by removing an agency.It is restored by understanding authority, jurisdiction, and status, and by refusing to concede them by presumption.

Agencies execute power.They do not create it.

And power does not disappear just because its instrument does.

That is the reality—whether people like it or not.

This video is for February 2. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

Most people think a tax is lawful simply because the government says it is.That is not how law works.

Lawful taxation begins with authority.Then jurisdiction.Only after those two are established can obligation arise.

That order matters.

When Congress writes a lawful excise tax, it defines the activity being taxed, the jurisdiction where it applies, and the class of persons involved. Airline travel is a perfect example. If you don’t buy a ticket, no tax applies. No activity, no jurisdiction, no obligation.

But when obligation is asserted first—before authority and jurisdiction are proven—that is not law.

That is presumption.

And presumption is not authority.

It is January 31. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

This past week, we examined definitions:person, United States person, individual.We examined real excise taxes—the airline travel excise and the firearms occupational excise—and we saw what lawful federal taxation actually looks like when Congress does its job.

Now let’s put 26 U.S.C. § 1 next to those statutes and tell the truth.

Section 1 begins with familiar language:

“There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual…”

At first glance, that looks like a levy.But structurally, it is nothing like the airline excise or the firearms excise.

And that difference matters.

REAL EXCISES START WITH JURISDICTION

Look at the airline excise under 26 U.S.C. § 4261.

Congress:

defines the taxable activity (air transportation),

defines the jurisdictional domain (federally regulated air commerce),

identifies the liable party (“the person making the payment”),

and ties obligation to a voluntary act.

No ticket.No jurisdiction.No tax.

That is lawful structure.

Now look at the firearms occupational tax under 26 U.S.C. § 5801.

Congress:

defines a regulated federal activity,

limits the tax to importers, manufacturers, and dealers,

ties jurisdiction to voluntary entry into a federally regulated occupation,

and imposes a status-based excise only after that status exists.

No occupation.No status.No tax.

Again—lawful structure.

26 U.S.C. § 1 DOES NONE OF THIS

Section 1 does not define:

what makes an “individual” taxable,

where federal jurisdiction attaches,

what conduct triggers liability,

or how a living man or woman enters the taxable class.

Instead, § 1 assumes all of that work has already been done.

It taxes “taxable income” of “every individual” without establishing:

jurisdiction,

status,

or a voluntary federal nexus.

That is not how excises work.That is not how lawful taxation works.

That is presumption doing the work Congress failed to do explicitly.

SECTION 1 IS A RATE SCHEDULE, NOT A COMPLETE TAX

Structurally, § 1 is incomplete.

It provides:

rates,

brackets,

calculations.

What it does not provide is the jurisdictional hook.

Unlike the airline excise, § 1 does not say:

“upon the act of earning income within federal jurisdiction…”

Unlike the firearms excise, it does not say:

“on persons engaged in a federally regulated occupation…”

It simply assumes the subject is already inside the system.

That assumption is fatal under LD analysis.

THIS IS WHY ENFORCEMENT RUNS BACKWARDS

Because § 1 lacks clear jurisdictional structure, enforcement proceeds by:

presuming “individual” equals taxable person,

presuming “income” equals taxable income,

presuming federal jurisdiction by silence,

and forcing the burden onto the accused to disprove status.

That inversion does not happen with real excises.

No one buying an airline ticket has to argue jurisdiction.No firearms dealer has to guess whether they are regulated.

Jurisdiction is created first, not asserted later.

THE LD CONCLUSION

26 U.S.C. § 1 is inferior because it:

does not define the taxable class,

does not establish jurisdiction,

does not tie obligation to a voluntary federal activity,

and relies on presumption instead of structure.

By contrast, the airline and firearms excises:

identify authority,

establish jurisdiction,

define status or conduct,

and let obligation arise last.

That is the difference between lawful taxation and administrative coercion.

The Liberty Dialogues does not deny Congress’s power to tax.It exposes where Congress failed to do so lawfully.

A real excise does not need silence to operate.A real excise does not fear definition.A real excise does not require presumption.

Section 1 does.

And that tells you everything.

It’s January 30th.Welcome to YesToHellWith.com.

I mentioned last week that I made a speech to a local political party after my release from prison. That speech is available for download along with the transcript on yestohellwith.com to the left of the donation button free of charge.

Back in 2016 and 2017, I focused on one thing—and I still do:

Jurisdiction.

I’ve also posted the IRS materials a viewer requested.This package is to the right of the donation button and includes the IRS Letter, the person’s response and a recommended response based upon the Liberty Dialogues concepts about jurisdiction. It is free for anyone who cares to have it.

For Inner Circle and Patriot members, your membership page now includes a full study package of the same material in the IRS package as well as more redacted letters and a comprehensive study guide that shows responses for a number of various IRS letters.

This is not a silver bullet.It does not fix IRS problems.It preserves position.

Now, very plainly:

If you do not own the Liberty Dialogues, you are missing the core tool I use on this platform. They are not just books. They are a working library, and as AI has stated, the Liberty Dialogues is a living system for authority, jurisdiction, status, standing, obligation, and presumption. I am learning more than I ever imagined from this process and platform and the answers are evolving.

I have to remind you that if you have the Liberty Dialogues and the SOU for You package, you will become more informed, more confident, and more independent.

If you email me or ask me a question in chat, you will not receive a response unless you have the SOU for You package at a minimum.And even then, I may not respond, depending on the question.

And one final point:

Anyone who intends to participate in the upcoming Statement of Understanding program—which documents good-faith beliefs before any government action—must already have the SOU for You package.

If you do not also have the Statement of Understanding package together with the Liberty Dialogues volumes, you are missing the foundation of this work.