During the return filing process, we suggest the following provision on the tax return:

CHOICE OF LAW:

I do NOT accept the benefit or privilege of any “domestic” civil statutory status or definition created or organized by any government. Exclusions claimed herein are not privileges but a statutory recognition of the exercise of private unalienable rights under rules of equity and the common law. 26 C.F.R. §1.6012-1(b)(1)(i)(c) recognizes this fact. Therefore, any administrative or legal disputes relating to this claim or submission shall be settled ONLY under equity, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and the common law and no civil statute. This claim would not be necessary if you would penalize and prosecute third parties for falsely characterizing or stealing my private property without my consent as the law requires. I will not tolerate efforts to convert my private property to public property without express written consent, consideration, definitions, and choice of law that only I can determine as the absolute owner of the private property documented herein. When justice becomes a civil privilege, it becomes injustice. All rights reserved.

[Effect of Definitions Upon OWNERSHIP and CONTROL of Property
Section 10: Administrative and litigation tactics to prevent violations of these concepts
https://ftsig.org/how-you-volunteer/effect-of-definitions-upon-ownership-of-property/#10._Administrative]

But why do we take this approach? Here is the logic:

1. You can’t ask for a return of unlawful withholding unless you’re the owner.
2. If you’re the owner, their rules don’t apply. Constitution Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2.
3. The fact that the reporting or withholding was in error and that there was a mischaracterization through false reporting can only be rebutted if its private property.
4. Once you establish you’re the owner using the above, if they don’t disagree, they agree. The fact that you aren’t “effectively connecting” is proof that you didn’t relinquish that ownership in exchange for a privilege.
5. And if they want to disagree, they have to prove how that ownership was acquired so that their civil statutes apply. Don’t help them!
6. They can NEVER satisfy that burden of proof if you made no elections such as “effectively connecting”. Elections are the only mechanism to convert the property from PRIVATE to PUBLIC.
7. Thus federal preemption can’t operate and there is no USPI.

Thus, you FORCE them to admit, through acquiescence at least, that they are in wrongful custody of private property and that you are the owner if they say NOTHING. All the above are implied by their conduct from mere silence. A failure to deny is an admission. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b)(6). That gives you standing to sue in equity later. And because you remain in equity, the full payment rules and none of the I.R.C. applies.

Once the litigation gets into state court, the feds may try to remove the case to federal court. That litigation will follow the format of a common law trover action. Keep in mind though, that this posture makes that much more difficult because:

1. Feds can’t move the property to federal court without a proven property interest that would make it a federal question.
2. The owner is the only one who can define the choice of law. Otherwise, the feds are stealing. You as the owner must consent to the removal if its private property:
   Choice of Law, Litigation Tool #01.010
   https://sedm.org/Litigation/01-General/ChoiceOfLaw.pdf

Judges are completely silent on this mechanism for removal because if they spilled the beans, the whole thing would collapse. So you just have to know this and call them out on it and set a trap like this one beforehand. Choice of law and the ability to define both travel together and depend on ownership. Therefore, you should establish ownership at the earliest possible point and demand that they prove otherwise.

Below is a Microsoft Copilot description of a common law trover:

---

QUESTION:

What is a common law trover action?

ANSWER:

A common‑law trover action is one of the classic forms of action in early English and American common law. It sits inside the family of torts protecting personal property, and it has a very specific purpose and structure.

Below is the clean, doctrinal definition you can plug directly into your ontologies.

Common‑Law Trover — Core Definition

Trover

A common‑law action for money damages brought by a person who has the right to immediate possession of personal property and alleges that the defendant has wrongfully converted that property to their own use.

In short: Trover = remedy for conversion, measured by the value of the chattel.

Essential Elements

A plaintiff had to show:

1. Ownership or right to immediate possession of the chattel.
2. Defendant’s wrongful act amounting to conversion (e.g., refusal to return, destruction, sale).
3. Value of the chattel at the time of conversion.

Trover did not seek the return of the item. It sought money damages equal to the value of the property, plus incidental losses.

How Trover Differs from Related Actions

Action	Purpose	Remedy	Key Distinction
Trover	Conversion of personal property	Value of the chattel	Treats the property as if sold to the defendant
Replevin	Wrongful taking or detention	Return of the chattel	Focus is recovery, not value
Detinue	Wrongful detention	Return or value	Older, more technical pleading
Trespass to chattels	Interference short of conversion	Actual damages	Lesser interference than conversion

Trover became the dominant remedy because it was procedurally simpler and avoided the messy issue of physically recovering the item.

Modern Status

In modern U.S. law:

• Trover has been merged into the tort of conversion.
• The remedy remains the fair market value of the property at the time of conversion, plus consequential damages.

Doctrinal Architecture (for your Logseq ontology)

Trover

• Type: Common‑law tort
• Parent Doctrine: Protection of personal property
• Core Wrong: Conversion
• Remedy: Money damages (value of chattel)
• Historical Form of Action: Yes
• Modern Equivalent: Conversion (Restatement (Second) of Torts § 222A)

If you want, I can map trover into your broader property‑tort ontology or contrast it with equity’s handling of wrongful possession.