Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction Musings…. for an "At Law" argument/approach; (vs. equitable)

This is just observations, personal interpretations, and things to consider and investigate for yourself.

Not every county or state may be run the exact same way, thus everyone must do their own research, comparing their facts as compiled, to the laws that apply in their state and county.

Presumptions that need rebutting, and the Effect of Rebuttable Presumptions of Law upon the Burden of Proof

Relation-Back Doctrine Condemns Administrative Tax Lien & Levy - Dan Meador

JURISDICTION OVER FEDERAL AREAS WITHIN THE STATES
(Report of the Interdepartmental Committee - Submitted to the Attorney General and transmitted to the President - June 1957)

Venue?  Check out: Judicial Notice Re: Foreign Flag  and Stipulation As to Jurisdiction - Carmen



JURISDICTION Case Citations

Jurisdiction on land granted by an independent foreign nation is under Original Jurisdiction, Treaty Law, International Law, Equitable principles, Supreme Court Decisions, and the laws, customs and usages of the ceding nation…  See AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE 63C V. 28, 1 OF 139 REFERENCES

§ 3 Generally
 Title to lands in territory that is ceded to the United States passes to the federal government, n1  which takes proprietary title only to the lands that the ceding government held in a proprietary capacity. n2  Further, Congress, n3  federal courts, n4  or administrative agencies responsible for public lands n5  may establish the property rights of individuals in territories that are ceded or granted by a former sovereign. Property rights that vested prior to the cession of the land will be protected, n6  even if the United States claims the granted land for purposes of national defense. n7

Observation: Because a treaty of cession usually protects complete title in real property existing at the time of cession by a foreign government, n8  such title generally need not be presented for confirmation. n9

§ 4 Construction
In settling land claims involving the land of a superseded government, a court or tribunal is bound by the treaty under which the lands were ceded, international law, equitable principles, the decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and the laws, customs, and usages of the ceding nation. n1  An individual's rights in land granted by a foreign government are determined by the laws of the foreign government as they existed at the time of the grant of lands. n2  Any question as to restraints or restrictions upon the use of such land is, however, to be determined by the law of the state. n3

While the intention of the grantor is the paramount consideration in the interpretation of a land grant of a superseded government, n4  the conduct of the government that succeeded to the territory may also be considered in order to determine the limits of an ambiguous grant of a predecessor government. n5  Doubt as to the location and extent of a grants boundaries may also sometimes be resolved by proof of juridical possession. n6

If ambiguous, the land grant of a sovereign is strictly construed against the grantee. n7  A grant from a sovereign to a town will, however, be liberally construed to effect its object. n8

§ 6 Effect of confirmation of grant
The confirmation of a land claim arising under a grant of a superseded or predecessor government separates the lands owned by individuals from the public domain. n1  Recitals in a confirmation decree are generally conclusive as to title, n2  the specified boundaries, n3  and the validity, character, and nature of the grant. n4  A confirmation of title protects only the asserted claim and does not necessarily recognize the validity of the whole grant, n5  even if the claimed land is less than that covered in the original grant. n6  A confirmation decree is beyond collateral attack for mere error or irregularity n7  and, in the absence of extrinsic fraud, is binding on the courts, n8  the government, n9  grantees, n10  assignees, n11  and all parties who have acquiesced in the decree. n12  It does not, however, bind a person who was not a party to the proceedings culminating in the confirmation. n13

  1. "A void judgment is one that has been procured by extrinsic or collateral fraud or entered by a court that did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties." Rook v. Rook, 233 Va. 92, 95, 353 S.E.2d 756, 758 (1987)
  2. A court may not render a judgment which transcends the limits of its authority, and a judgment is void if it is beyond the powers granted to the court by the law of its organization, even where the court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. Thus, if a court is authorized by statute to entertain jurisdiction in a particular case only, and undertakes to exercise the jurisdiction conferred in a case to which the statute has no application, the judgment rendered is void. The lack of statutory authority to make particular order or a judgment is akin to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and is subject to collateral attack. 46 Am. Jur. 2d, Judgments § 25, pp. 388-89.
  3. A void judgment is to be distinguished from an erroneous one, in that the latter is subject only to direct attack. A void judgment is one which, from its inception, was a complete nullity and without legal effect. Lubben v. Selective Service System, 453 F.2d 645, 649 (1st Cir. 1972)
  4. A judgment rendered by a court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant is void. It is a nullity. [A judgment shown to be void for lack of personal service on the defendant is a nullity.] Sramek v. Sramek, 17 Kan. App. 2d 573, 576-77, 840 P.2d 553 (1992), rev. denied 252 Kan. 1093 (1993).
  5. "Where there are no depositions, admissions, or affidavits the court has no facts to rely on for a summary determination." Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D.C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647.
  6. "A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It is clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court", OLD WAYNE MUT. L. ASSOC. v. McDONOUGH, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907).
  7. "The law is well-settled that a void order or judgment is void even before reversal", VALLEY v. NORTHERN FIRE & MARINE INS. CO., 254 u.s. 348, 41 S. Ct. 116 ( 1920 )
  8. "Courts are constituted by authority and they cannot go beyond that power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgments and orders are regarded as nullities ; they are not voidable, but simply void, and this even prior to reversal." WILLIAMSON v. BERRY, 8 HOW. 945, 540 12 L. Ed. 1170, 1189 ( 1850 ).
  9. "Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but rather should dismiss the action." Melo v. U.S. 505 F 2d 1026.
  10. "There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v. U.S. 474 2D 215.
  11. "The burden shifts to the court [or charging entity] to prove jurisdiction." Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F 2d 416.
  12. "Court [or charging entity] must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted." Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York 37 F Supp. 150.
  13. "The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven [by the charging entity]." 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).
  14. "Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time." Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co. 495 F 2d 906, 910.
  15. "Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even on appeal." Hill Top Developers v. Holiday Pines Service Corp. 478 So. 2d. 368 (Fla 2nd DCA 1985).
  16. "Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term." Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27.
  17. "Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist." Stuck v. Medical Examiners 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389.
  18. "Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided." Maine v Thiboutot 100 S. Ct. 250.
  19. "The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings." Hagans v Lavine 415 U. S. 533.
  20. A judgment obtained without jurisdiction over the defendant is void.  Overby v. Overby , 457 S.W.2d 851 (Tenn. 1970). Volume 20: Corpus Juris Sec. § 1785.
  21. Challenge to court's jurisdiction is raised by motion to dismiss, Criterion Co. v. State, 458 So. 2d. 22 (Fla 1st DCA 1984.
  22. Since jurisdiction is fundamental, and it is jurisdiction alone that gives a court power to hear, determine, and pronounce judgment on the issues before it, jurisdiction must be continuing in the court throughout the proceedings [meaning at the time charges were lodged], Re. Cavitt, 254 P.599
  23. Since jurisdiction is fundamental to any valid judicial proceeding, the first question that must be determined by a trial court in any case is that of jurisdiction [of the charging entity], Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P,27.
  24. "A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court [or the charging entity] without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property." Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732.
  25. "Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear [due to lack of jurisdiction of charging entity] is void ab initio." In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.
  26. "A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that question in the first instance." Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409.
  27. "A departure by a court from those recognized and established requirements of law, however close apparent adherence to mere form in method of procedure, which has the effect of depriving one of a constitutional right, is an excess of jurisdiction." Wuest v. Wuest, 127 P2d 93 4, 937.
  28. "Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is deprived of juris." Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739.
  29. "The fact that the petitioner was released on a promise to appear before a magistrate for an arraignment, that fact is circumstance to be considered in determining whether in first instance there was a probable cause for the arrest." Monroe v. Papa, DC, Ill. 1963, 221 F Supp 685.
  30. A motion to set aside a judgment as void for lack of jurisdiction is not subject to the time limitations of Rule 60(b). See Garcia v. Garcia, 712 P.2d 288 (Utah 1986).
  31. A judgment is void, and therefore subject to relief under Rule 60(b)(4), only if the court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction or in circumstances in which the court's action amounts to a plain usurpation of power constituting a violation of due process. United States v. Boch Oldsmobile, Inc., 909 F.2d 657, 661 (1st Cir. 1990)
  32. Where Rule 60(b)(4) is properly invoked on the basis that the underlying judgment is void, "'relief is not a discretionary matter; it is mandatory.'" Orner v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307, 1310 (10th Cir. 1994) (quoting V.T.A., Inc. v. Airco, Inc., 597 F.2d 220, 224 n.8 (10th Cir. 1979)).
  33. In order for a judgment to be void, there must be some jurisdictional defect in the court's authority to enter the judgment, either because the court lacks personal jurisdiction or because it lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit. Puphal v. Puphal, 105 Idaho 302, 306, 669 P.2d 191, 195 (1983); Dragotoiu, 133 Idaho at 647, 991 P.2d at 379.
  34. A void judgment is one that has been procured by extrinsic or collateral fraud or entered by a court that did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties. Rook v. Rook, 233 Va. 92, 95, 353 S.E.2d 756, 758 (1987)
  35. "Though not specifically alleged, defendant's challenge to subject matter jurisdiction implicitly raised claim that default judgment against him was void and relief should be granted under FRCP Rule 60(b)(4)." Honneus v. Donovan, 93 F.R.D. 433, 436-37 (1982), aff'd, 691 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1982).
  36. "A judgment is void if the court acted in a manner inconsistent with due process. A void judgment is a nullity and may be vacated at any time." 261 Kan. at 862.
  37. Although Rule 60(b)(4) is ostensibly subject to the "reasonable" time limit of Rule 60(b), at least one court has held that no time limit applies to a motion under the Rule 60(b)(4) because a void judgment can never acquire validity through laches. See Crosby v. Bradstreet Co., 312 F.2d 483 (2nd Cir.) cert. denied, 373 U.S. 911, 83 S.Ct. 1300, 10 L.Ed.2d 412 (1963) where the court vacated a judgment as void 30 years after entry. See also Marquette Corp. v. Priester, 234 F.Supp. 799 (E.D.S.C.1964) where the court expressly held that FRCP Rule 60(b)(4) carries no real time limit.
  38. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause." Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 506, 514 (1869). "On every writ of error or appeal, the first and fundamental question is that of jurisdiction, first, of this court, and then of the court from which the record comes. This question the court is bound to ask and answer for itself, even when not otherwise suggested, and without respect to the relation of the parties to it." Great Southern Fire Proof Hotel Co. v. Jones, supra, at 453. The requirement that jurisdiction be established as a threshold matter "spring[s] from the nature and limits of the judicial power of the United States" and is "inflexible and without exception." Mansfield, C. & L. M. R. Co. v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379, 382 (1884).Cited in Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 US 83 - Supreme Court 1998
  39. "Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived by parties, conferred by consent, or ignored by court". Babcock & Wilson v. Parsons Corp., 430 F.2d 531 (1970).
  40. "Subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived and courts may raise the issue sua sponte"  FRCP, Rule 12(h).
  41. "Lack of subject matter jurisdiction is a defense that is never waived."  FRCP, Rule 12(h)3.
  42. "Subject matter jurisdiction can never be waived and can be raised at any time, even after trial". Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd., 494 F.Supp. 1161 (D.C. Pa., 1980).
  43. "Lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not waivable and can even be raised on appeal after judgment on the merits". Monaco v. Carey Canadian Mines, Ltd., 514 F.Supp. 357 (D.C.,Pa., 1981)
  44. "Judgment of court lacking jurisdiction is void" Burnham v. Superior Court of California, County of Marin, 110 S.Ct. 2105 (1990).
  45. "Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided." Maine v Thiboutot 100 S. Ct. 250.
  46. One of the hallmarks of subject matter jurisdiction is that it can be raised at any time, including on appeal. If the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, we would have to vacate its order.
    Hawley v. Murphy, 1999 ME 127, ¶ 8, 736 A.2d 268, 271; M.R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3)
  47. "Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but rather should dismiss the action." Melo v. U.S. 505 F 2d 1026
  48. A judgment obtained without jurisdiction over the defendant is void. Overby v. Overby , 457 S.W.2d 851 (Tenn. 1970).
  49. "A void judgment is one that has been procured by extrinsic or collateral fraud or entered by a court that did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties." Rook v. Rook, 233 Va. 92, 95, 353 S.E.2d 756, 758 (1987)
  50. "Therefore, it is necessary that the record present the fact establishing the jurisdiction of the tribunal." Lowe v. Alexander 15C 296; People v. Board of Delegates of S.F. Fire Dept., 14 C 479
  51. "The law requires PROOF OF JURISDICTION to appear on the Record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings." Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533 (1974)
  52. "If any tribunal (court) finds absence of proof of jurisdiction over person and subject matter, the case must be dismissed." Louisville RR v. Motley, 211 U.S. 149, 29 S.Ct. 42 (1908)
  53. "Where there is no jurisdiction there is no judge; the proceeding is as nothing. Such has been the law from the days of the Marshalsea, 10 Coke 68; also Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall 335,351." Manning v. Ketcham, 58 F.2d 948.
  54. A distinction must be here observed between excess of jurisdiction and the clear absence of all jurisdiction over the subject-matter any authority exercised is a usurped authority and for the exercise of such authority, when the want of jurisdiction is known to the judge, no excuse is permissible." Bradley v.Fisher,13 Wall 335, 351, 352.
  55. "Ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all in a sworn officer of the law." In re McCowan (1917), 177 C. 93, 170 P. 1100.

  56. “The rule of governmental immunity as to all political subdivisions of government is hereby abrogated as it has heretofore been abrogated as to municipal corporations, i.e., cities. No longer is the defense of governmental immunity for tort liability available, irrespective of whether the involved political subdivision is functioning ‘governmentally’ or ‘proprietarily’.” MYERS v GENESSEE COUNTY, 375 Mich 1, 1965.

  57. “The principal of sovereign immunity is not one which allows the sovereign to continue to inflict injury.... †[sovereign immunity] does not give the sovereign the right to totally disregard the effect of its’ actions upon the public.”_ Shaw v. Salt Lake County, 224 P2d 1037. †

  58. “Sovereign immunity does not apply where (as here) government is a lawbreaker or jurisdiction is the issue.” Arthur v. Fry, 300 F.Supp. 622 (1960).

  59. Jurisdiction is of two kinds, of the subject matter and of the person, and both must concur or the judgment will be void in any case in which a court has assumed to act, the difference being that jurisdiction of the subject-matter given by law cannot be conferred by consent, while jurisdiction of the person may be obtained by consent. Rabbitt v. Frank c. Webber & Co. 130 N.E. 787, 788
  60. .....in criminal cases we have repeatedly stated that the failure of an indictment to allege an element of the offense deprives the court of jurisdiction to proceed with the prosecution of the defendant. See State v. Levasseur, 538 A.2d 764, 766 (Me. 1988)
  61. Jurisdiction is the essential basis of the court's authority, and this issue may be raised at any time. See State v. Dhuy, 2003 ME 75, ¶ 8, 825 A.2d 336, 341; M.R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) ("Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.")
  62. "[a] challenged judgment is either valid or void." Boyer v. Boyer, 1999 ME 128, ¶ 6, 736 A.2d 273, 275. "A judgment is void and must be vacated if the court issuing the judgment lacks subject matter jurisdiction." Id.
  63. There is marked distinction in law between a natural person and a legal person. One can be both a legal fiction or a real human being, the other cannot.  The Supreme Court has actually touched on this issue in Monroe Cattle Co. v. Becker, 147 U.S. 47 (1893): Defendant was impleaded by the name of A. W. Becker. Initials are no legal part of a name, the authorities holding the full Christian name to be essential. Wilson v. Shannon, 6 Ark. 196; Norris v. Graves, 4 Strob. 32; Seely v. Boon, 1 N. J. Law, 138; Chappell v. Proctor, Harp. 49; Kinnersley v. Knott, 7 C. B. 980; Turner v. Fitt, 3 C. B. 701; Oakley v. Pegler, (Neb .) 46 N. W. Rep. 920; Knox v. Starks, 4 Minn. 20, (Gil. 7;) Kenyon v. Semon, (Minn.) 45 N. W. Rep. 10; Beggs v. Wellman, 82 Ala. 391, 2 South. Rep. 877; Nash v. Collier, 5 Dowl. & L. 341; Fewlass v. Abbott, 28 Mich. 270.
  64. The United States Government Printing Office Style Manual clearly defines the rules of grammar for recording of a proper noun in Chapter 3.2, Capitalization.  “Proper nouns are capitalized [examples given] Rome, Brussels, John Macadam, Macadam family, Italy, and Anglo-Saxon.”  It further defines, in Chapter 11.7, that “Names of vessels are quoted in matter printed in other than lower case roman…[examples given are] LUSITANIA [or] Lusitania.”
  65. The term vessel, as defined in Black’s, 6th Ed.  Is noted as being a legal description not limited to ships or vessels engaged in commerce pursuant to case law like St. Hilaire Moye v. Henderson, C.A. Ark., 496 F.2d, 973.  The definition of the term is also provided in the United States Code;
  66. Should the judge not have subject-matter jurisdiction, then the law states that the judge has not only violated the law, but is also a trespasser of the law. --Von Kettler et.al. v. Johnson , 57 Ill. 109 (1870)
  67. "If the magistrate has not such jurisdiction, then he and those who advise and act with him, or execute his process, are trespassers." --Elliott v. Peirsol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828)
  68. "Without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers. This distinction runs through all the cases on the subject; and it proves, that the jurisdiction of any court exercising authority over a subject, may be inquired into in every court, when the proceedings of the former are relied on and brought before the latter, by the party claiming the benefit of such proceedings." --In re TIP-PA-HANS Enterprises, Inc., 27 B.R. 780, 783 (1983)
  69. Part of Article VI:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

The Colonists' intent not to create a SOVEREIGN but rather, to further bind the Branches of government is made clear in the Preamble To The Bill Of Rights-December 15, 1791.

"The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, IN ORDER TO PREVENT MISCONSTRUCTION OR ABUSE OF ITS POWERS, THAT FURTHER DECLARATORY AND RESTRICTIVE CLAUSES SHOULD BE ADDED: And as extending the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution."

Any Jurisdiction emanating from a presumption of a fiction is presumptive or fictitious, and Such is a Factitious Tool For Unlawful Control.

Government sovereignty over THE PEOPLE is a presumption and a fiction, and which when once repudiated, must thereafter be proved to exist.

If the Individual cannot be Proved to be subject to the Jurisdiction of any Constitution or Other Social Contract or Compact, He also cannot be proved to be subject to the Jurisdiction of any Branch of government Created Thereunder.

Likewise, if it cannot be Proved that The Individual is DIRECTLY Subject to the Jurisdiction of any Legislature, it also cannot be Proved that He is INDIRECTLY Subject to Such Jurisdiction by way of any Legislative Enactments.

In the absence of proof that The Individual is subject to the Jurisdiction of any Constitution or other Social Contract or Compact, Jurisdiction over Him DOES NOT EXIST.

Since the intent of Article VI is to define exactly to Whom the Constitutional Jurisdiction applies; since the fact exists that THE PEOPLE are excluded from the requirements of Article VI, prima facie; See: INCLUSIO UNIS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS: Black's, Page 687;

since no presumption that THE PEOPLE are subject to the Jurisdiction of the Constitution is, or can be made; since all Constitutions are considered in pari materia with all other Constitutions;

since all Constitutions are subject to the provisions of Article VI; since no Constitution operates on THE PEOPLE at-large by virtue of the fact that THE PEOPLE are excluded from the requirements of Article VI, et seq; then in pursuing His occupations of Common-Right, the Individual has made no Oath or Affirmation supporting any Constitution, and He is not subject to any Constitutional Jurisdictions.

CONCLUSION - SUMMARY

If The Individual is not subject to any Constitutional Jurisdictions, He is also not subject to any Enactment made by any Constitutionally Created Legislature; and,

if He is not subject to any Constitutional Jurisdictions, He is also not subject to any Jurisdiction presumed by any Constitutionally Created Executive Branch of Government; and,

if He is not subject to any Constitutional Jurisdictions, He is also not subject to any Jurisdiction presumed by any Constitutionally Created Judiciary.

In the complete absence of any Lawful and verified Oath or Affirmation made by a Nonparticipant Individual, to support any Constitution; or in the complete absence of proving a Higher Title to that Property Known and Described as the Nonparticipant Individual Himself, In Personam Jurisdiction does not exist; and,

in the complete absence of proving a Lawful and voluntary contract made by Such Nonparticipant, pledging Himself and/or His Property- Rights to certain specified performance, Subject Matter Jurisdiction does not exist; and, in the complete absence of any Lawful and verified complaint made against Such Nonparticipant, wherein a Real Injured Party Claims a Damage, no criminal Jurisdictions exist; and, in the complete absence of the Nonparticipant Individual, being a Private Man upon the land, no Venue Jurisdiction can exist; thus,  in the complete absence of proving the existence of either In Personam, Subject Matter Jurisdiction or Venue Jurisdiction, corporate governmental Jurisdiction over the Nonparticipant Individual does not exist. QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM.

TORT REMEDY

Every Act perpetrated by any Constitutional Created Branch of government while absent Jurisdiction; every Such Act being required to be made unlawfully under Forces of Arms; and every Such act having been made without probable cause; then, every Such Act is required to have been made as a Trespass, and/or other Tort upon a Nonparticipant Individual, and shall constitute a Case to be pursued against the Perpetrator in an Action At Law for the recovery of Damages.

OTHER:

Also See Law Tab; Sub-Tab: International Law / Law of Nations:
Situs vs. Taxable Situs -  There are significant distinctions.  Similar things are not the same!
Voluntary Rendering up of private property in exchange for the privilege of voting on Bond Elections
Cede / Relinquish All Rights and Title In and To Land Granted; No Reservations  excepted or reserved to generate revenue off private property, unless expressly stipulated on original land grant/patent