Self-Executing Contract in Common Law:

Counterclaim
In the Common Law and for the record, know all men by these presents:
That I, one Jane Doe, Sui Juris, one of the people of California, state:

1. From the time that I was a teenager, I have been led to believe, through the news media, my
acquaintances and the IRS, that there was a law requiring me to pay taxes on my labor to the IRS each
year, and that failure to do so would be breaking the law.
2. After studying numerous writings on the subject of income taxes, and after watching Aaron
Russo’s “Freedom to Fascism”, I now believe that what I have been told was fraudulent. In fact, there is
no law requiring one to pay a tax on their labor exchanged for valuable consideration, unless one is an
employee of the UNITED STATES, or lives in the Federal Zone (Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa). Furthermore, the IRS has no legal right to force the public
to send in their valuable assets as a tax on their labor.
3. I did not send in my taxes voluntarily, but sent them in under duress. I believe that everyone
sends in their taxes under duress and that no one freely and voluntarily gives over their valuable assets to
the IRS.
4. I therefore am revoking my signature on all documents I have ever sent to the IRS wherein I
declared anything under penalty of perjury, as I was under duress when I signed them.

5. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land1 and under Article 1, section
8, under the authorities delegated to Congress it commands Congress to: “coin Money and regulate the
Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;” and under Article 1,
Section 10: “No State shall…make anything but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts”.

6. The Federal Reserve is the recipient of nearly 100% of the valuable assets of the American people
through IRS taxation, as is stated in President Reagan’s ‘Grace’ commission’s report.2

7. The only way to alter the Constitution is through ratification by three fourths of the States, and
the Constitution has never been altered as to the charge in point 5 above. The Congress, in collusion with
the Supreme Court, has unlawfully thwarted the Constitution by standing by and being silent when
members of the public are sent to prison without having violated any law, as evidenced by Congress’
refusal to address ‘We the People’s challenge to ‘show me the law’ and the Supreme Court’s refusal the
hear a right to redress on this issue, even though the right to redress is a first amendment right.

1
“If courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the
Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1
Cranch) 137 (1803)
2
“With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by
interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax
revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government.”
8. Congress has usurped the sovereignty of the people by unconstitutionally declaring it has the
power to create a Federal Reserve, to create an Income Tax, and to declare under HJR 192 (1933)3 that
gold could no longer be required as payment to settle a debt in a lawful binding contract.

9. Since Supreme Court Justice John Marshall stated, “A Law repugnant to the Constitution
is void.”4, therefore one can disobey any unconstitutional law with impunity.

10. The “Coinage act of 1792” sets the value of money for the united States and declares:
“DOLLARS or UNITS – each to be of the value of a Spanish milled dollar as the same is now
current, and to contain three hundred and seventy one grains and four sixteenth parts of a grain of
pure, or four hundred and sixteen grains of standard silver.” yet the Federal Reserve calls their
Paper Note “Dollar”, an act punishable by death for debasing the currency.5

11. Every American has the right to work, the right to possess the fruit of his labor, and the
right to contract.6 Rights cannot be taxed nor infringed upon or they are ‘privileges’.

Failure to rebut each and every point of this “Self-Executing Contract in Common Law”, and my attached
affidavit (Affidavit of Jane Doe) within 30 calendar days after receipt thereof, with factual verified and
certified evidence, sworn to (in the form of a Notarized affidavit) and signed with a wet-ink signature by a
flesh and blood man/woman, under their full commercial liability, will be tacit admission and silent
acquiescence to the truth of the statements made within these presented documents. Failure to provide a
Notarized affidavit as noted above within 30 calendar days after receipt thereof, will cause the IRS to be
barred and estopped from taking any legal actions against Jane Doe for any reason.

"Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry
left unanswered would be intentionally misleading." United States vs. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297 (5th cir.
04/08/1977).

Dated: _________________

Without Prejudice

By: ___________________

3
That (a) every provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the obligee a right to require
payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby, is declared
to be against public policy; and no such provision shall be contained in or made with respect to any obligation hereafter incurred.

4
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)
5
Section 19 Coinage Act of 1792 “..every such officer or person who shall be guilty of any * * * of the said offenses [debasing the lawful
coin money], shall be deemed guilty of felony, and shall suffer death.”
6
“The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His
power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an
investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom beyond
the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the
organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his
rights are a refusal to incriminate himself and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the
law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.” Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906)
 Authorized representative

AFFIDAVIT of Jane Doe

In the Common Law and for the record, know all men by these presents:
That I, one Jane Doe, Sui Juris, one of the people of California, being duly sworn, depose and says:

1. I revoke and rescind all my signatures on any declarations I have made to the UNITED STATES
corporation.
2. I revoke and rescind all my signatures on any paperwork I have submitted to the INTERNAL REVENUE
SERVICE.
3. I believe the IRS is not an agency of the UNITED STATES government and no evidence to the contrary
exists.
4. I believe the United States Department of Justice has no power of attorney to represent the INTERNAL
REVENUE SERVICE, as they are not a federal agency as legally defined in the Administrative
Procedures Act, or the Freedom of Information Act.
5. I believe the IRS is not an organization within the United States Department of the Treasury (codified
through Title 31 of the United States Code).
6. I believe the 14th and the 16th amendments were never properly ratified and no evidence to the contrary
exists, as proven by Bill Benson in his book “the law that never was” re the 16th amendment.
7. I believe there are no statutes in the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26) that create a liability to pay taxes
on a man’s labor, other than for employees of the UNITED STATES corporation, or for persons living
within the Federal Zone (Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands, and American Samoa).
8. I believe Title 26 (the Internal Revenue Code) was never enacted into positive law by the Congress of the
United States.
9. I believe the 1866 Civil Rights Act authorizes the UNITED STATES to have jurisdiction over the District
of Colombia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam.
9A. The Eight Circuit Court of Appeals has stated, “ The general term ‘income’ is not defined in the
Internal Revenue Code.” U.S. v. Ballard, 535 F.2nd 400, 404 (8th circuit, 1976).
10. I believe the Internal Revenue Code’s (Title 26) income tax provisions are municipal law, and as such
only apply to the District of Colombia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa and Guam.
11. I believe Federal judges who are appointed to preside on the District Courts of the United States (article 3
constitutional courts) are exempt from paying income taxes by Constitutional mandate but it is a fact that
all federal judges do pay taxes, and this is proof of the undue influence of the IRS posing as an authorized
agency of the executive branch.
12. I believe I have the right to my claim that I am sovereign as evidence by numerous Supreme Court cases,
such as: "...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns
of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves....".
CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL (1793) pp471-472. , and
"The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which
formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative." Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21
Am.Dec. 89 10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec.
 167; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7. , and “Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author
and source of law; but in our system, which sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of
government, Sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exist and
acts.” Woo Lee vs. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356
Affidavit of Jane Doe (page 2)

13. I believe that God created me and that God gave me inalienable rights, that the preamble to the united States
Constitution states: “WE THE PEOPLE ….do ordain and establish this Constitution…:” showing the status
of the PEOPLE to be superior to their creation the Constitution, the Constitution establishes the Federal
Government and therefore the PEOPLE are governed by the “consent of the governed” as they owe no duty
to their government as expressed in this Supreme Court decision "The individual may stand upon his
constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to
contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State,
since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as
existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only
be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a
refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except
under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights."
Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905).

Witness my hand and seal:

Without Prejudice

__________________
Grantor/authorized representative

JURAT

State of California
County of ________________
Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me on this _____ day of _______, 20__,
by _______________________, proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be
the person(s) who appeared before me.
Notary Public Signature Notary Public Seal
Notes: These documents are for entertainment and not to be construed as legal advice. In learning about our
position in regards to the IRS I have many sources to recommend reading. First a thorough understanding of ones
status is required. A readers digest version is at Scribd under ‘Foreclosure: Read this First’. The sovereign
man/woman only comes under the jurisdiction of the corporation known as UNITED STATES7 (not the organic
Republic for the united States) if one doesn’t demand one’s sovereignty position in writing and one is not getting
‘benefits’ from the government (although one can even argue that point8 as being sovereign means you do as you
please without injuring others). I also would include a copy of the ‘Revocation of Power of Attorney’ shown at my
Scribd site with the ‘divorce papers’. Next I, would read Pete Hendrickson’s Cracking the Code (available from him
online @ losthorizens-$20) and read some of his followers’ letter writing campaign at :
http://www.losthorizons.com/EveryWhichWayButLoose.htm and then read Paul Mitchels : 31 questions:
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm and his Federal Zone :
http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm
I believe in the responses to IRS letters should be within a short time period (never fail to respond) and should
include challenges to their assertions. “I conditionally accept your assertion that I, John Doe am a ‘Taxpayer’ as you
state at the beginning of your letter upon proof of claim, showing factual evidence supporting your assertion
attached to a notarized sworn affidavit or cease and desist from addressing me as a ‘Taxpayer’9. Second, I
conditionally accept the IRS and (whoever signed the letter to you) sending letters to JOHN DOE (all capital letters),
upon proof of claim that they intended the letters to be read by a fictitious entity and a response was to be made by
said fictitious entity. I, John Doe have copyrighted my fictitious commercial Corporate name JOHN DOE and so
have shown in writing that I, John Doe am separate and different from JOHN DOE and no one can use the
copyrighted name without my express written permission, I did not and never sign any letters or represent myself as
JOHN DOE, I am hereby giving you notice to cease and desist from using my copyrighted name JOHN DOE or pay
the agreed upon price for using it. For Frivolous filing threats :

I will further observe, solely for your edification, that USC Title 26 Section 7214(a) states that:
(a) Unlawful acts of revenue officers or agents
Any officer or employee of the United States acting in connection with any revenue law of the United States - (1)
who is guilty of any extortion or willful oppression under color of law; or
(2) who knowingly demands other or greater sums than are authorized by law, or receives any fee, compensation, or
reward, except as by law prescribed, for the performance of any duty; or
(3) who with intent to defeat the application of any provision of this title fails to perform any of the duties of his office
or employment; or
(9) who demands, or accepts, or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly as payment or gift, or otherwise, any sum of
money or other thing of value for the compromise, adjustment or settlement of any charge or complaint for any violation or
alleged violation of law, except as expressly authorized by law so to do; shall be dismissed from office or discharged from
employment and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or
both. The court may in its discretion award out of the fine so imposed an amount, not in excess of one-half thereof, for the
use of the informer, if any, who shall be ascertained by the judgment of the court. The court also shall render judgment
against the said officer or employee for the amount of damages sustained in favor of the party injured, to be collected by
execution.

7
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Owner/My%20Documents/Us%20bankruptcy2.htm
8
. “ It is one thing to find that the Tribe has agreed to sell the right to use the land and take valuable minerals from it, and quite another to
find that the Tribe has abandoned its sovereign powers simply because it has not expressly reserved them through a contract. To
presume that a sovereign forever waives the right to exercise one of its powers unless it expressly reserves the right to exercise that power
in a commercial agreement turns the concept of sovereignty on its head.” MERRION ET AL., DBA MERRION & BAYLESS, ET AL. v.
JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE ET AL. 1982.SCT.394 , 455 U.S. 130, 102 S. Ct. 894, 71 L. Ed. 2d 21, 50 U.S.L.W. 4169 pp. 144-148
9
"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers.
The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and
remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the
revenue laws." United States Court of Claims, Economy Plumbing and Heating v. United States, 470 F.2d 585, at 589 (1972)
Further, each and every penalty that is imposed without any basis in law and fact, will be considered an “extortion or willful
oppression under color of law” – a violation of 26 USC 7214(a) (1).

Additionally Title 26 section 6703 (a) states:

“In any proceeding involving the issue of whether or not any person is liable for a penalty under section 6700, 6701, or 6702,
the burden of proof with respect to such issue shall be on the Secretary.” I conditionally accept your assertion that a
‘frivolous filing penalty’ should apply upon proof of claim that the Secretary of the United States presents a burden of proof
Nothing in Title 26 applies to the people as LAW, it is only a guideline for the Public Servants in government:
TITLE 26. § 7806. Construction of title
(a) Cross references
The cross references in this title to other portions of the title, or other provisions of law, where the word “see” is used, are
made only for convenience, and shall be given no legal effect.
(b) Arrangement and classification
No inference, implication, or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the location
or grouping of any particular section or provision or portion of this title, nor shall any table of contents, table of cross
references, or similar outline, analysis, or descriptive matter relating to the contents of this title be given any legal effect. The
preceding sentence also applies to the sidenotes and ancillary tables contained in the various prints of this Act before its
enactment into law.

No legislative contruction means the legislature didn’t pass TITLE 26 as LAW, so none of TITLE 26 (the IRC code) applies
as LAW.

The IRS and [whoever sent you the letter] are Trustees of Public Trust and serve the Beneficiaries (the people who created
the Public Trust) unless of course they (IRS) are a private corporation collecting money for the Federal Reserve and
ultimately the IMF as is my claim. The IRS and [whoever sent the letter] failure to rebut my assertions made in the
Documents noted above demonstrates the truth contained therein because in LAW, an unrebutted affidavit stands as TRUTH,
and TRUTH is sovereign in commerce.

Without prejudice

By:____________________
Grantor/Beneficiary/Authorized Representative

I heard a guy state that he sent out his documents to a group of his representatives (Congressmen and Senators) to get them to
make the IRS answer his queries about the legality of the IRS collection process and then could threaten to supeona them to
come to court if the IRS proceeded against him, I say that is brilliant. In addition to all this, it would be a good thing to
expatriate and renounce your quasi-contractual agreements with the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT (the coporation).

I do my best to ascertain verification of the court case cites I use, however while I can easily search Supreme Court cases
from 1792-Today and California law from 1943-Today, I cannot look up other cites without going to a law library and I see
quite a bit of evidence of people copying and pasting court cites that are invalid.

Always sign your signature with a qualifier such as ‘All rights reserved’, or Without prejudice’, or ‘ Under threat and duress’
as this vacates the presumed contractual agreement that would negate your common law/constitutional rights. The By:
signature separates the ‘you’ from any promises above in the writing that would hurt you. John Doe is the authorized
representative of JOHN DOE. Look at your checkbook check, get a high powered magnifying glass and look at the line that
you sign your name on. It says “ authorized signature only” over and over. Now why would your account be JOHN DOE
and why would you the signer need to be authorized to sign on your own account? If you were a Corporation the only the
president, secretary and financial officers would be ‘authorized’ to sign.