Liberty Dialogue’s foundational principles

I am Beau Johnson. It is December 21, 2025. Welcome to YesToHellWith.com. Be sure to get the report for $1.00 on jamesbowersjohnson.com that reveals ChatGPT’s agreement that the Liberty Dialogue’s foundational principles are reflect truth about jurisdiction and the fraudulent application of the IRC tax system. To understand the true function of the IRS “frivolous arguments” list, it must be read alongside United States v. Cheek. In Cheek, the Supreme Court held something profoundly dangerous to administrative power: that a defendant’s good-faith belief negates willfulness, even if that belief is objectively unreasonable. Cheek did not require beliefs to be correct. It required them to be honestly held. That holding preserved two things the modern enforcement system finds deeply inconvenient: the jury’s role, and the defendant’s mind. The IRS “frivolous arguments” list exists, in practice, to short-circuit Cheek. By pre-labeling entire categories of belief as “frivolous,” the government transforms subjective belief into objective guilt. Once a belief is stamped forbidden, it is no longer examined. Intent is no longer weighed. The jury is no longer permitted to ask the Cheek question: Did this man honestly believe what he believed? Instead, the government substitutes administrative decree: This belief is not allowed. That is not adjudication. That is preemption. The danger becomes acute when the government imports this pamphlet into criminal court. The “frivolous arguments” document is not law. It is not evidence of jurisdiction. It is not a statute. It is not a regulation promulgated under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Get full access to YesToHellWith at yestohellwith.substack.com/subscribe