1. Introduction

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

6. CHOICE OF LAW AND TERMS OF COMMERCIAL USE OF  MY PROPERTY AND IDENTIFYING INFORMATION:

1. This claim is brought under Article III and the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) and not the I.R.C, seeking recovery of amounts alleged to have been improperly assessed, collected, or paid to you. This petition is submitted in a purely private capacity, invoking rights and remedies recognized under general common law and equity rather than under statutory civil public capacity provisions. The exclusions asserted herein re not claimed as civil privileges or exemptions “created or organized” under Article I, but as mandatory constitutional recognition of private capacity under Article III.  On that basis, this submission is not intended as a proprietary election to be treated as a “nonresident alien individual” under 26 U.S.C. §§873(b)(3), 864(b), or 6671(b).  Such an election is not necessary given that I can find no express liability statute for 1040NR filers under 26 U.S.C. §871. If you believe otherwise, please provide evidence of an express liability.  I therefore assert that no civil statutory civil penalties or limitation periods may lawfully apply to this submission or any private capacity activity.

2. Accordingly, this action is brought as an illegal‑exaction claim seeking return of private funds collected under statutory provisions that do not apply to my circumstances. It is not a request for deductions, exemptions, or other statutory benefits available only to those who voluntarily elect public capacity within the proprietary authority established under Subtitle A pursuant to Congress’ proprietary Sixteenth Amendment powers. I do not dispute Congress’ sovereign power to rent public capacities it legislatively creates as public property for a free, call that fee a “tax”, or even do so without real consideration, but only to the extent that I can do the same thing to them with my private property and identity.  They cannot lawfully force those public capacities upon unwilling private capacity victims who enjoy constitutional protections like me without express, informed, and voluntary consent not evident in this case, however, without running afoul of the First, Fifth, and Thirteenth Amendments, and the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine, and committing identity theft and false personation.

3. If the bureau believes I remain in custody, use, or benefit of any proprietary public property, civil statutory status, or privilege that I both asked for and received that would trigger CIVIL regulatory or taxing jurisdiction (United StatesJ in 26 U.S.C. §864(b)), I respectfully request court admissible evidence of same signed under penalty of perjury as required by 26 U.S.C. §6065 and the Benefit Protection Equivalence Doctrine so that any such interest or value may be formally disproved with evidence or entirely returned immediately.  I am therefore literally asking you to do your only legitimate job as a real government under the constitution:  Protecting private property by keeping it separate from public property and never allowing it to mix with public property.  If you won’t do that, I question why I should hire you with taxes to protect me from anyone else. Absent said proof, ownership over myself and my property in private capacity is absolute and I hereby exercise the right to exclude and the right to exercise any method of control over that property in your wrongful custody that I choose.

4. All disclosures or commercially beneficial uses of my identifying information or private property in your wrongful possession or anyone you give it to are unauthorized beyond this direct interaction, and I reserve all rights regarding any unauthorized commercial use of my identifying information.  You agree to pay any amount I specify in return for all said unauthorized commercial uses or abuses if my property is not returned immediately.

5. Amounts reported and received by the United States have been falsely characterized as proprietary “tax” and “withholding” by the payer and are claimed for refund. Any of my absolutely owned property in your wrongful custody that is not returned as requested herein constitutes consideration beyond that point which gives rise to an equitable obligation to repay double the amount compounding every year and all legal fees and labor needed to recover it. This correspondence constitutes notice of said terms as the owner of the private property in your wrongful custody, if any.  To the extent my private property in your unauthorized, wrongful, and unlawful custody is not promptly returned as requested, this correspondence shall also serve as ACCEPTANCE of said terms. 

Statement for Administrative Record in the Event you ignore, refuse, or attempt to penalize this filing

In the event of a legal dispute over the equitable refund claimed herein, supporting materials are available upon request and may be incorporated into the administrative record as appropriate.  This submission is made in good faith with full reservation of constitutional rights. It satisfies the Beard Test criteria for a valid return and may not be penalized, ignored, or interfered with.  26 U.S.C. §7203 (failure to file) may be invoked if it is.  The agency’s jurisdiction arises from the public‑rights doctrine and from government‑created PUBLIC property interests, including civil statutory status, public capacity, definitions, or remedies “created or organized” under 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(4) and therefore “domestic”. Any presumption or equivocation that places me in a public capacity involuntarily raises constitutional due‑process concerns. I do not consent to waive constitutional due process or the Federal Rules of Evidence through any public‑capacity election and reject all attempts to compel said election as a constitutional tort under the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine.

Caselaw arising from circumstances involving elected public capacities, voluntary participation in civil statutory franchises, or parties other than nonresident aliens not engaged in a trade or business is inapposite to my situation and may not be cited in response.  Ensure that the facts in every case you cite EXACTLY match my circumstances or the case will be ignored as moot .

Pursuant to the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. Chapter 21B, my religion requires me to reject every benefit, privilege, domestic (INTERNAL) civil statutory status, public capacity, definition, or remedy “created or organized” under 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(4). My only civil statutory “creator and organizer” and civil “lawgiver” is God and His laws, not any government of men. Being compelled to recognize, elect, or become involuntary surety for public capacities created or organized by any other civil statutory lawgiver violates my sincerely held religious beliefs, biblical delegation order, and covenantal duties as God’s trustee.

 Since no public capacity privilege or “individual” status has been elected, 26 C.F.R. § 1.6012‑1(b)(1)(i) does not apply to private capacity parties and is merely directory in nature in my private capacity case. I also do not meet the regulatory definition of the alien “individual” subject to withholding under 26 C.F.R. § 1.1441‑1(c)(3), nor do I voluntarily engage in proprietary privileged activities treated as a “trade or business” or “effectively connected” for federal tax purposes. My understanding is these statutory terms reflect Congress’ exercise of proprietary authority over public civil capacities and activities “created or organized” under proprietary powers in the Sixteenth Amendment, not over private capacity sovereign taxation under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1.

Lastly, I am compelled to take the above approach because IRS guidance prohibits nominee relationships, and a statutory public capacity functions as a nominee for the human being. All determinations involving public capacities (“taxpayer”, “person”, “U.S. person”) require legal conclusions. I do not consent to make and am not authorized to make legal conclusions, and doing so would constitute the unauthorized practice of law.

Any perjury statement provided validates only facts I add to existing government forms, and not information preexisting on the form or its factual connection to me or my circumstances.  A perjury statement cannot validate legal conclusions, and nearly all entries on IRS forms relate to legal conclusions about statutory public capacity rather than private factual or evidentiary events that involve physical human beings. Ministerial officers may not rely on my perjury statement to validate legal conclusions, public capacities, or may they make legal conclusions of their own, act as fact witnesses, or turn my legal conclusions into facts.  This provision ensures these limits are not violated.

[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.

2. AI Validation

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.

3. The proper attitude

Electing to be a “taxpayer” whore and offering Uncle Sam or corrupt judges a bribe in doing so in order to have your case even heard and not censored or unpublished is an immoral and criminal event. 18 U.S.C. 208, 28 U.S.C. 144, 28 U.S.C. 455. Judges should never be in a position to be bribed to begin with. If the District of Criminals had stuck to only allowing “U.S. persons” abroad to be “taxpayers” as the constitution and even the Bible requires, that bribe would be IMPOSSIBLE and the integrity of the system would return.

Real law would not even permit this criminal financial conflict of interest, to hide it, or to pretend that its not happening or allowing people like you to make the crime happen.

There is no “moral high ground” in approaching the government as a “taxpayer” who owes anything, if in fact you don’t owe anything and consume no “privileges”.

You need to look at this issue beyond your own commercial concerns to see clearly for what it is. Its not about you. Its NEVER been only about you or your “benefit” or even your personal safety. Its about having INTEGRITY to the word and law of God.

The battle belongs to the LORD, and NOT you. HE is the only one who should get credit for any of this.

You seem to want to do it YOUR way, instead of GOD’s way. That’s what Satan insisted on as well.

The Character of Those Who May Dwell with the Lord

A Psalm of David.

Lord, who may abide in Your tabernacle?
Who may dwell in Your holy hill?

He who walks uprightly,
And works righteousness,
And speaks the truth in his heart;
He who does not backbite with his tongue,
Nor does evil to his neighbor,
Nor does he take up a reproach against his friend;
In whose eyes a vile person is despised,
But he honors those who fear the Lord;
He who swears to his own hurt and does not change;
He who does not put out his money at usury,
Nor does he take [or OFFER] a bribe against the innocent.

He who does these things shall never be moved.

[Psalm 15, Bible, NKJV]

By “dwell in” and “abide in”, God means “be domiciled” in His Virtual Kingdom with HIM as your King and CIVIL protector, rather than Caesar and thus to be TRULY foreign in a theological and legal and even CIVIL sense. The term “holy hill” is a metaphor for “political kingdom” and “legal jurisdiction”, just like the way Uncle Sam uses “in the United States”. Their system is a counterfeit of God’s.

You don’t EVER want to walk into court as a man-pleaser (friend of the world, James 4:4) who pays bribes like King Saul, rather than as the truly foreign stranger and full time officer of Heaven that God calls you to be.

Conflict of interest and bribery to overcome judicial misconduct can never truthfully be described as “brilliance”. Satan was brilliant and devious, but he was unrighteous

The only real “brilliant one” is the Lord. If you walk into court claiming to be an agent and trustee of the only Brilliant One, and claiming that the government as interfering with your role as God’s trustee and your right to covenant/contract. the First Amendment is the only thing you need.

If you are in fact God’s property, like the Heavens and the Earth (Psaml 89:11), that’s the only realistic approach you can take that is consistent with his word, which, like the constitution and the government corporation it implements, is a trust indenture.

Delegation of Authority Order from God to Christians, Form #13.007
https://sedm.org/Forms/13-SelfFamilyChurchGovnce/DelOfAuthority.pdf

If you don’t believe that, we question whether you really are a Christ follower. You’re either:

1. Domestic to Caesar and foreign to God
2. Domestic to God and foreign to Caesar.

You can’t be both. Matt. 6:24, Luke 16:13. Apostle Paul confirmed this when he said:

The New [FOREIGN] Man

 This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the [DOMESTIC] Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind,  having their understanding darkened [by “words of art”], being alienated from the life of God, because of the [LEGAL] ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart; who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.

But you have not so learned Christ, if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught by Him, as the truth is in Jesus:  that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness.

[Eph. 4:17-24, Bible, NKJV]

Our approach is as follows:

“Now therefore, fear the Lord, serve [ONLY] Him in sincerity and in truth, and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the River and in Egypt. Serve the Lord! And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve [ONLY] the Lord.”

[Joshua 24:14-15, Bible, NKJV]