It seems the point I was trying to make about Doreen's cases has eluded you. If you read my posts again on this thread, you will see that I contend that no contract was actually formed, but Doreen's conduct implies that one was formed, and the Court presumes that one was formed.
In any case, a written contract is not necessary, as you seem to presume. Contracts may be formed by conduct, as when you sit down in a restaurant and order from the menu, forming a contract to pay the prices on the menu for the items you have ordered.
Contracts may also be formed by course of dealing over time. A person who has filed tax returns every year for several years has established a course of dealing, by which a contract may be inferred.
A contract may be silently presumed by a court, and in fact this is exactly what happens in the admiralty jurisdiction of a federal court in a revenue related matter.
Until Doreen recognizes the presumed contractual nature of her obligation to file the way the court ordered her to, she will misunderstand what is going on. Arguments about common law rights in her case are futile, irrelevant, even frivolous. She is presumed to have waived her rights, and presumed to know that she has done so.
I will be the first to agree this is deceptive, but it is how it works. We would all be better served to understand this and inform others than to just complain that the system is not how we think it should be.
I don't know whether Doreen complied with the court orders or not. I know the IRS frowns upon any additions or modifications to the perjury statement that constitute a negation. Referring to her own testimony as perjury is very likely to result in the return being considered a nullity, as though no return was filed. This is how Wesley Snipes ended up being convicted for willful failure to file, by negating the perjury statement.