John H.

Smith
c/o 123 Main
Las Vegas, Nevada [89xxx]

DISTRICT COURT
________________________CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC, an Ohio )
corporation, )
Plaintiff, )
vs. ) Case No. xxx
)
JOHN H. SMITH, an individual, ) NOTICE OF ANSWER
) AND COUNTERCLAIM
Defendants )
JOHN H. SMITH )
3rd Party Plaintiff )
vs. )
)
IMA SHYSTER, ESQ. No. xxxx )
rd
_ 3 Party Defendant )
John H. Smith, 3rd Party Interest Intervenor, Grantor/Settlor/Beneficiary

NOTICE OF EXPRESS TRUST

Without waiving any rights, remedies, and defenses: whereas I, John H. Smith, Grantor/Settlor

of the express revocable trust, JOHN H. SMMITH, now comes as beneficiary in the above

named action and states the following principles of law: 1. In construing trusts, unlawful

purpose should not be imputed to the Settlor, 2. The purpose for which the trust may be created,

the intent and purpose of the Settlor in truth is the law of the trust, 3. John H. Smith’s

expressing of the trust creates no default to him being construed as “trustee”.

NOTICE OF ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM AND

LIABILITY OF 3RD PARTY DEFENDANT

COMES NOW John H. Smith, a Third Party Interest Intervenor and Beneficiary of

JOHN H. SMITH, who is neutral in the public, who is unschooled in law, and

making a special appearance before this court under the supplemental rules of Admiralty,
Rule E(8), a restricted appearance, without granting jurisdiction, and notices the court of

enunciation of principles as stated in Haines v.Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, wherein the court

has directed that those who are unschooled in law making pleadings and/or complaints

shall have the court look to the substance of the pleadings rather in than the form, and

hereby makes the following pleadings/notices in the above referenced matter without

waiver of any other defenses.

NOTICE: The alleged IMA SHYSTER, ESQ [sic], Nevada Bar No. xxxx, having failed to

put in a notice of appearance nor to put any power of attorney into the appropriate court, and the

Attorney for Plaintiff having failed of protocol has failed to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted. In international law and according to the law of the land, agents of

a foreign principal are required to file any pretended claim in the appropriate district

court prior to exercising rights to that claim. The district courts have "exclusive original

cognizance" of all inland seizures and this includes vessels in rem (Rule C(3)) such as

trust organizations and legal names "...the United States, ... within their respective

districts, as well as upon the high seas; (a) saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a

common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it; and shall also have

exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land,..." The First Judiciary Act;

September 24, 1789; Chapter 20, page 77. The Constitution of the United States of

America, Revised and Annotated - Analysis and Interpretation - 1982; Article III, §2, Cl.

1 Diversity of Citizenship, U.S. Government Printing Office document 99-16, p. 741.

This fact of protocol - filing a claim in district court according to international law - is

beyond dispute and extends into antiquity: "Meanwhile those who seized wreck ashore

without a grant from the Crown did so at their peril." Select Pleas in the Court of
Admiralty, Volume II, A.D. 1547-1602; Introduction - Prohibitions, Note as to the early

Law of Wreck, Selden Society, p. xl, 1897.

ANSWER AND NEGATIVE AVERMENT

Nevada state )
) affirmed
Clark county )

I, John H. Smith, over the age of twenty-one years, competent to witness and with firsthand

knowledge do affirm and say that:

John H. Smith, Affiant, herein answers the allegations of Plaintiff, to wit:

1. Affiant denies that DISTRICT COURT, CLARK COUNTY NEVADA exists. There is

not any evidence that DISTRICT COURT, CLARK COUNTY NEVADA exists, and

Affiant believes that not any such evidence exists.

2. Affiant denies that Case No. xxxx exists. There is not any evidence that Case

No. xxxx exists, and Affiant believes that not any such evidence exists.

3. Affiant denies that AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR QUIET TITLE, DECLARATORY

RELIEF, AND MONEY DAMAGES (EXEMPT FROM ARBITRATION: ACTION

CONCERNS TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY), exists. There is not any evidence that

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR QUIET TITLE, DECLARATORY RELIEF, AND

MONEY DAMAGES (EXEMPT FROM ARBITRATION: ACTION CONCERNS

TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY) exists, and Affiant believes that not any such evidence

exists.

4. Affiant denies that CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC, an Ohio corporation, exists. There

is not any evidence that CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC, an Ohio corporation, exists,

and Affiant believes that not any such evidence exists.

5. Affiant denies that JOHN H. SMITH , an individual exists, and Affiant believe that not

any such evidence exists.

6. Affiant denies that IMA SHYSTER, NV Bar No. xxxx exists. There is not any

evidence that IMA SHYSTER, NV Bar No.: xxxx exists, and Affiant believe that not

any such evidence exists.

7. As to Plaintiff’s allegation “1.”, unknown answer Affiant.

8. As to Plaintiff’s allegation “2.”, denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence that

John H. Smith is a party to this matter or that John H. Smith is the same as JOHN H.

SMITH, and Affiant believes that any such evidence exists.

9. As to Plaintiff’s //Ima Shyster Law Firm LLP …, denied answers Affiant. There is not

any evidence that //Ima Shyster Law Firm LLP has any interest in this instant matter,

and Affiant believes that not any such evidence exists.

10. As to Plaintiff’s “28.”, denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence that to the

allegations contained in “28.” exists, and Affiant believes that not any such evidence

exists.

11. As to Plaintiff’s “29.”, denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence that to the

allegations contained in “29.” exists, and Affiant believes that not any such evidence

exists.

12. As to Plaintiff’s “30.”, denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence that the

allegations in “30.” exists, and Affiant believes that not any such evidence exists.

13. As to Plaintiff’s “31.”, denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence that the

allegations in “31.” exists, and Affiant believes that not any such evidence exists.

14. As to Plaintiff’s “32.”, denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence that the
 allegations in “32.” exists, and Affiant believes that not any such evidence exists.

As to Plaintiff’s PRAYER FOR RELIEF

15. As to Plaintiff’s “1.”, denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence that Plaintiff, a

fictitious plaintiff, has any standing to pray for relief in a tax payer supported court, and

Affiant believes that any such evidence exists.

16. As to Plaintiff’s “2.”, denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence that Plaintiff, a

fictitious plaintiff, has any standing to pray for relief in a tax payer supported court, and

Affiant believes that any such evidence exists.

17. As to Plaintiff’s “3.”, denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence that Plaintiff, a

fictitious plaintiff, has any standing to pray for relief in a tax payer supported court, and

Affiant believes that any such evidence exists.

18. As to Plaintiff’s “4.”, denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence that Plaintiff, a

fictitious plaintiff, has any standing to pray for relief in a tax payer supported court, and

Affiant believes that any such evidence exists.

19. As to Plaintiff’s “5.”, denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence that Plaintiff, a

fictitious plaintiff, has any standing to pray for relief in a tax payer supported court, and

Affiant believes that any such evidence exists.

20. As to Plaintiff’s “6.”, denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence that Plaintiff, a

fictitious plaintiff, has any standing to pray for relief in a tax payer supported court, and

Affiant believes that any such evidence exists.

21. As to Plaintiff’s “7.”, denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence that Plaintiff, a

fictitious plaintiff, has any standing to pray for relief in a tax payer supported court, and

Affiant believes that any such evidence exists.

 21. As to Plaintiff’s “8.”, denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence that Plaintiff, a

fictitious plaintiff, has any standing to pray for relief in a tax payer supported court, and

Affiant believes that any such evidence exists.

22. As to Plaintiff’s “9.”, denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence that Plaintiff, a

fictitious plaintiff, has any standing to pray for relief in a tax payer supported court, and

Affiant believes that any such evidence exists.

23. As to Plaintiff’s “10.”, denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence that Plaintiff, a

fictitious plaintiff, has any standing to pray for relief in a tax payer supported court, and

Affiant believes that any such evidence exists.

NOTICE

24. Statements by attorneys, who are expatriate and especially those who have failed to

register as agents of a foreign entity under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as

amended January 9, 1996 as H.R., IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, have no

standing nor remedies in the tax payer supported courts. To allow attorneys access to any

remedy in the tax payer supported courts is tax fraud and misappropriation of tax payer

funds.

25. Plaintiff in this instant matter has subrogated all rights and defenses to any relief

to the STATE OF NEVADA and have not any legal expectation of any relief, as Plaintiff has

not prosecuted this matter as a Real Party in Interest.

26. Attorneys for Plaintiff have frauded the court by introducing a fictitious plaintiff.

NOTICE UNDER 18 USC 4 misprision of felony

Affiant believes it to be his duty to report any suspected crime to the appropriate authorities. For
that cause, Affiant notices the court of his belief that a crime or crimes maybe have been

committed by the attorneys in this matter for failure of applicable protocols of seizure. The

alleged Attorney for Plaintiff having failed of protocol has failed to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted. In international law and according to the law of the land, agents of

a foreign principal are required to file any pretended claim in the appropriate district

court prior to exercising rights to that claim. The district courts have "exclusive original

cognizance" of all inland seizures and this includes vessels in rem (Rule C(3)) such as

trust organizations and legal names "...the United States, ... within their respective

districts, as well as upon the high seas; (a) saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a

common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it; and shall also have

exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land,..." The First Judiciary Act;

September 24, 1789; Chapter 20, page 77. The Constitution of the United States of

America, Revised and Annotated - Analysis and Interpretation - 1982; Article III, §2, Cl.

1 Diversity of Citizenship, U.S. Government Printing Office document 99-16, p. 741.

This fact of protocol - filing a claim in district court according to international law - is

beyond dispute and extends into antiquity: "Meanwhile those who seized wreck ashore

without a grant from the Crown did so at their peril." Select Pleas in the Court of

Admiralty, Volume II, A.D. 1547-1602; Introduction - Prohibitions, Note as to the early

Law of Wreck, Selden Society, p. xl, 1897.

CERTIFICATION

I, John H. Smith, on my own unlimited commercial liability do state that I have read the above
affidavit and to know the contents to be true, correct, and complete, and not misleading, the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and do believe that the above described acts
have been committed contrary to the laws of Nevada state and the united States of
America.

_______________________________ ________
John H. Smith date

NOTARY

I, _____________________________ , a notary public residing in Clark county, Nevada, state

that on the _____ day of _________________ month, 2010, that a man appearing in his true
character as John H. Smith and upon display of picture identification, did affix his autograph to
the above affidavit.

_________________________________ ________
NOTARY date

Seal

NOTICE

Plaintiff is granted twenty (20) business days to rebut the above affidavit point for point,

omitting none in affidavit form, swearing and autograph to rise to the level of swearing by

John H. Smith on said affidavit. Failure to rebut in total constitutes agreement in full, and the

affidavit of John H. Smith stands as the truth in commerce. Failure to respond creates estoppel

which John H. Smith will claim as his remedy in this matter.

COUNTERCLAIM

NOTICE OF EXPRESS TRUST

Without waiving any rights, remedies, and defenses: whereas I, John H. Smith, Grantor/Settlor

of the express revocable trust, JOHN H. SMITH, now comes as beneficiary in the above

named action and states the following principles of law: 1. In construing trusts, unlawful

purpose should not be imputed to the Settlor, 2. The purpose for which the trust may be created,

the intent and purpose of the Settlor in truth is the law of the trust, 3. John H. Smith’s
expressing of the trust creates no default to him being construed as “trustee”.

Nevada state )
) affirmed
Clark county )

I, John H. Smith, Grantor/Settlor, Affiant, over the age of twenty-one years, competent with

firsthand knowledge do state the following:

1. That I am the Trustor on DEED OF TRUST recorded at Clark County Recorder as

200xxxxxxx, and that

2. That I am the “maker” of the note tendered at time of closing of escrow on said

transaction the note being an asset to maker being essentially a loan to the bank, and

3. That upon discovery of fraud in the DEED OF TRUST and resulting mortgage contract I

did correct the fraud and completed administrative due process in that matter, and

4. That parties void of any legal claim in said matter have acted ultra vires, and

5. That said parties have created a vexatious law suit against my secured interests in an

apparent attempt to convert the original fraud for financial gain, and

6. That I am injured by said parties, and

7. That the following verified True Bill is created as my remedy for the unlawful acts of

Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s Attorney(s) to wit:

True Bill

For the injury of property $ 260,000.00

Times 3 punative damages $ 780,000.00
Sub-total $1,040,000.00

For the injury of vexatious suit $ 100,000.00

For the slander on title $ 100,000.00

Total $1,240,000.00
 Invoice

Demand is now made upon Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s Attorney(s) for One-million two-hundred

forty thousand and zero cents ($1,240,000.00) jointly and severally to be paid over to John H.

Smith in functional currency of the United States.

Surety

Surety for the True Bill is the following:

1. Nevada Bar No. xxxx,

2. Nevada Bar No. zzzz,

3. Operational and public hazard bonds of IMA SHYSTER LAW FIRM LLP,

4. Operational and public hazard bonds of CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC,

5. Any and all bonds, assets, of the real parties involved which may be discovered.

I, John H. Smith, on my own unlimited commercial liability do state that I have read the above

affidavit and to know the contents to be true, correct, and complete, and not misleading, the

truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

_______________________________ ________
John H. Smith date

NOTARY

I, _____________________________ , a notary public residing in Clark county, Nevada, state

that on the _____ day of _________________ month, 2010, that a man appearing in his true
character as John H. Smith and upon display of picture identification, did affix his autograph to
the above affidavit.

_________________________________ ________
NOTARY date

Seal
 Notice to Rebut

Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s Attorney(s) are requested to rebut this affidavit if any rebuttal there be

within twenty (20) days of receipt of this writing. Failure to rebut and swearing to the level

sworn by John H. Smith will be fatal, the matter being stare decisis and res judicata thus

creating estoppels against said parties. Any subsequent attempts to rescue said estoppels will

result in trespass on claim of John H. Smith by any and all parties so attempting.

Notice of Holder in Due Course

For the record, John H. Smith Accepts for Value Case No.: xxxx and Returns the Same for

Value (see Exhibit RTA) giving John H. Smith Holder in Due Course status, and does not waive

any defenses on Case No.: xxx, a negotiable instrument.

Notice of Appointment/Nomination of Fiduciary/Trustee

John H. Smith, Grantor/Settlor for JOHN H. SMITH, a trust/vessel under US registry, as in

Case No.: xxx, nominates Judge ___________________________ (yet unknown) to the

position of Fiduciary Trustee for JOHN H. SMITH to settle and close all matters pertaining to

Case No.: xxx in a timely manner, to execute and collect True Bill for the estate of JOHN H.

SMITH to be turned over to the Beneficiary John H. Smith. As executor of JOHN H.

SMITH in Case No.: xxx, Judge ____________________________ is granted five percent

(5%) of probate of JOHN H. SMITH thus collected for the estate. The fiduciary trustee is

granted the use of the exemption of John H. Smith, namely JOHN H. SMITH 123456789, to

settle any and all public matters.

Petition for Quiet Title

John H. Smith can find no reason why the court ought not grant a quiet title to the property in
question as there are not any valid claims in this matter above that of John H. Smith.

Bond of John H. Smith

This is the solemn promise of John H. Smith to indemnify any and all actors in this matter and

effect payment for any and all valid claims of injury caused by the actions of John H. Smith in

this tax payer supported court. John H. Smith believes that remedies afforded to him will cause

no harm to the public.

_________________________________ ________
John H. Smith, 3rd Party Interest Intervenor date
and Beneficiary to JOHN H. SMITH

Proof of Mailing and Contents Mailed

I, John H. Smith, over the age of twenty-one years, competent with firsthand knowledge do state
that on the _______ day of ____________ month, 2010, that I did cause a copy to be mailed of
the above NOTICE OF ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM by posting said document certified
mail return receipt requested pre-paid to the following party:

IMA SHYSTER ESQ [sic]

321 State Street
Las Vegas, NV 89xxx

_____________________________________ ________
John H. Smith, UCC 1-308 all rights reserved date