When Americans Play Judge and Condemn Others without Truth!

It is February 13. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.Recently Bradley Allen, who follows YTHW on Facebook, made a categorical judgment against me by posing a question loaded with presumption regarding my moral character. Specifically, he asked me to respond to my “version” of the government’s accusation that I hid money and failed to pay child support.This is not the first time I have encountered Mr. Allen’s perspectives presented with an air of condescension and assumed superiority. He consistently angles his approach as though he begins from the position of correctness. That posture forecloses objectivity before inquiry ever begins. Since he openly identifies himself as a tax paralegal by profession, that posture is all the more troubling.1fd5ad45-c3ff-46a0-b062-aabfaa6…I raise this issue publicly because Mr. Allen’s method is not unlike that of the IRS and the broader federal enforcement apparatus. When Americans judge fellow Americans outside of lawful proof, outside of jurisdictional inquiry, and outside of structural authority, we do the government’s work for it. We abandon the framework of organic law that undergirds the Constitution and defeat freedom ourselves. The federal system is sufficiently corrupt and procedurally predatory without citizens reinforcing its habits.1fd5ad45-c3ff-46a0-b062-aabfaa6…Given our recent discussions concerning authority, jurisdiction, status, standing, and obligation, Mr. Allen’s posture cannot be reconciled from a lawful perspective, much less a disciplined moral one. What is revealed here is not a disagreement over tactics or personality. What is exposed is a moral impasse — one that mirrors the pathology of modern courts, prosecutors, and administrative enforcement systems.1fd5ad45-c3ff-46a0-b062-aabfaa6…This discussion surrounding alleged child-support issues and accusations of “hiding money” is not about taxation. It is not about jurisdiction. It is not about statutory construction. It is about substituting moral condemnation for legal proof when authority and jurisdiction cannot be clearly established.Under the Liberty Dialogues, this substitution is not incidental. It is systemic.Law exists for one reason: to restrain power by requiring proof. Authority must be identified. Jurisdiction must be established. Status must be shown. Standing must be demonstrated. Obligation must arise from statute. These are structural requirements — not philosophical abstractions. When those requirements are bypassed, process becomes discretionary.And when discretion replaces law, truth becomes irrelevant.That is precisely what occurred here.The question Mr. Allen posed — “what is your version of the government’s accusation that you hid money to avoid child support?” — is not neutral. It assumes relevance. It assumes legitimacy. It assumes that an accusation external to the charged offense deserves moral weight.1fd5ad45-c3ff-46a0-b062-aabfaa6…Child support was not an element of the alleged tax offense. Its introduction was prejudicial narrative. Even Mr. Allen acknowledges it was prejudicial. Yet he simultaneously treats it as probative of intent and character. That is not analytical consistency. That is error.Character does not create jurisdiction.Moral failure does not expand congressional power.Alleged intent does not substitute for statutory applicability.Even if — hypothetically — every moral accusation were true, it would have no lawful bearing on whether federal jurisdiction existed, whether statutory authority applied, or whether prosecution was legitimate under the written law.If courts may skirt black-letter law whenever a defendant appears morally distasteful, then justice becomes conditional. Liberty becomes discretionary. Truth becomes tactical.Mr. Allen’s reasoning mirrors prosecutorial design.When authority is weak, narrative is introduced.When proof is thin, moral outrage fills the void.When jurisdiction is questionable, character assassination becomes leverage.This is not theory. It is common courtroom strategy.Mr. Allen made this personal by framing moral conclusions rather than structural questions. He has done so before.In the orchid case involving George Norris, Mr. Allen declined assistance not after a jurisdictional examination, but after concluding — based upon government documents — that Norris was guilty and therefore unworthy of support.1fd5ad45-c3ff-46a0-b062-aabfaa6…Whether Norris was morally innocent or guilty is not the central issue. The issue is that Allen again substituted personal judgment for structural inquiry. That is how prosecutors think. That is how administrative systems preserve outcomes. Get full access to YesToHellWith at yestohellwith.substack.com/subscribe