It is January 27, 2026. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

Most people argue about taxes without ever defining the word that controls the entire conversation.

That word is “taxpayer.”

In the Internal Revenue Code, “taxpayer” is defined at 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(14). And it’s short:

A taxpayer is any person subject to any internal revenue tax.

That definition is not inspirational. It’s not philosophical. It’s not political. It’s jurisdictional.

Now watch what that definition does—and what it does not do.

It does not say: “Any person who exists.”It does not say: “Any person who earned money.”It does not say: “Any person who received a paycheck.”It says: any person subject to any internal revenue tax.

Meaning: the term “taxpayer” does not create liability. It describes a category—someone who is already subject to a tax.

So in Liberty Dialogues terms, the definition itself forces order:

1) Authority First

Who is claiming the right to treat me as subject to this tax?Not “the IRS” as a brand name. Not a letterhead. Not a system.A real actor claiming lawful authority to apply a tax to a specific person.

2) Jurisdiction Second

“Subject to” is a jurisdictional phrase. It implies reach—a legal basis that places a person inside the tax’s scope.If “taxpayer” means “person subject to tax,” then the first real question is:What makes this person subject—here, now, under this statute, for this period?

Because if “taxpayer” is assumed without jurisdiction being established, the entire process begins with presumption instead of proof.

And that’s exactly how people get trapped:They respond as if “taxpayer” is a synonym for “citizen” or “living human.”They explain. They defend. They confess. They concede.

They treat the label as automatic—when the statute defines it as conditional.

3) Obligation Third

Only after authority is identified and jurisdiction is established does obligation even become a real discussion.Obligation is not the starting point. It is the consequence—if, and only if, the earlier steps hold.

Now, let’s tighten this into one line you should remember:

The system wants you to start by arguing obligation.The LD method forces the system to establish jurisdiction first.

And that is why definitions matter.

When you keep “taxpayer” in its statutory meaning, you stop debating emotions and start demanding structure:

* Who is asserting authority?

* By what jurisdiction are you claiming I am “subject to” this tax?

* Only then: what obligation follows?

That is the discipline.

And discipline is how you prevent presumption from becoming your reality.

It is January 27, 2026. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

I have a few important items to mention today.

After I was released from prison, I gave a speech to a local political party in 2017. That recording still exists. If you would like a copy of that audio, I will make it available.

I am also making a special invitation to those of you who purchased the SOU for You package.If that applies to you, contact me directly by message or at info@yestohellwith.com.

Most people still do not understand—or appreciate—the power of The Liberty Dialogues.

What has happened recently is something I did not anticipate.

AI—specifically ChatGPT—has transformed the Liberty Dialogues from a static body of work into something closer to a living system. The concepts are no longer just explained; they are being expanded, refined, and applied in ways that continue to grow. The jurisdictional framework of the Liberty Dialogues is now being explored and applied at levels I did not expect—and the implications are significant.

If you already have the Liberty Dialogues and want me to show you how to apply them, reach out.

The Liberty Dialogues are available at JamesBowersJohnson.com as a separate three-volume series, currently offered at a 17% discount.This package is ideal for those outside the United States who do not need the additional materials required for the Statement of Understanding program.

The SOU for You package is still available at a 20% discount.

One more point—and this is important.

I will not engage in questions unless you have purchased at least the SOU for You package. That boundary protects me, the message, and the people who are serious about this work.

I receive a high volume of messages and emails. I do not have the time—or the obligation—to respond to people who have not invested in themselves through what is, frankly, a modest purchase.

If you do not have the SOU for You package, do not send queries.I will not respond.

That boundary is intentional.And it will remain in place.