Categorized | Articles, Video

Debunking Territorial/Personal Jurisdiction – Why it Doesn’t Exist

Posted on December 23rd, 2016 by Marc Stevens

There are two arguments critics raise when trying to discredit my work regarding jurisdiction: 1) it requires no evidence to prove the claim is true; and 2) is easily proven if accused of violating the “law” within a certain territory.  The first claim is so silly it should not have to even be addressed, though I still will as both are untrue.

The documents below and in the video are from a traffic appeal in New Jersey, Mark in New York, provided me with the transcript.

Jurisdiction is:

  1. Power of a court to adjudicate cases and issue orders.
  2. Territory within which a court or government agency may properly exercise its power.  See, e.g. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co. et al., 526 U.S. 574 (1999).   Cite.

Also from the Cornell Law School:

The term jurisdiction is really synonymous with the word “power”.   Any court possesses jurisdiction over matters only to the extent granted to it by the Constitution, or legislation of the sovereignty on behalf of which it functions.  (Emphasis mine.)

Personal jurisdiction is power of the man or woman, the same as territorial: “Territorial jurisdiction is the court’s power to bind the parties to the action.”  As shown and I don’t think up for reasonable debate, is that all jurisdiction is dictated ultimately by the supreme political rules called “constitutions.”  Yes, mere “laws” can, but those are still dictated by constitutions.

Jurisdiction is based on the constitution applying to people in a certain territory.  Yes, so-called federal jurisdiction is not so limited, but is still allegedly acquired because someone was born physically in the United States.  As far as federal law applying to people who have never physically been to the US, it’s just a blunt assertion of power.  Knowing this we can now debunk the above claims.

First, critics know the evidence must be presented to prove jurisdiction.  If we file against the IRS, then we have to prove the court has territorial/personal jurisdiction, it is not a privilege the judge will extend to us.  After all, that is something only federal prosecutors are given.  It’s been held many times by the Supreme Court:

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.  They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute, see Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U. S. ___, ___ (1992) (slip op., at 4-5); Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986), which is not to be expanded by judicial decree, American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn, 341 U.S. 6 (1951).  It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, Turner v. President of Bank of North America, 4 Dall. 8, 11 (1799), and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction, McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 182-183 (1936).  Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. (93-263), 511 U.S. 375 (1994).

There is also Rule 3.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct:

A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.

And Rule 11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as well as crimes such as obstruction/abuse of process and prosecutorial misconduct:

By going outside the evidence, the prosecutor “violated a fundamental rule, known to every lawyer, that argument is limited to the facts in evidence.”  United States ex rel. Shaw v. De Robertis, 755 F.2d 1279, 1281 (7th Cir.1985).

Unless you are raising a theoretical issue of law, you need evidence and a logical basis to support your claim.  Some argue that the applicability of this written instrument is a theoretical issue requiring only the say so of those who inflict it on others.  This is wrong as practical application is never theoretical as I’ve already covered.  Below are statements from an appellate judge in New Jersey who also rules that jurisdiction must be proven with evidence and witnesses.

The second part is equally false, that being territorial/personal jurisdiction is proven by only showing the alleged offense occurred in a territory over which the constitution/law give the court power to act.  This presupposes the prosecution’s claim the constitution, a written instrument, applies to everyone just because they are physically in that geographic area.  Presupposing your foundation claim (element of the charge) is true is not proving anything, it’s an example of a logical fallacy, such as circular logic and proof by assertion.  In court the objections are lack of foundation and assumes facts not in evidence.

Alleging someone violated the code is not proof it applies in the first place, they are two separate claims.  You cannot prove a rule was violated until after you prove it applies in the first place.  Sorry if I annoyed you with my logic.

The appeal documents show a judge allowing a prosecutor and judge to get away with arguing without evidence.  All three lawyers just assumed, over Mark’s many objections, the constitution applied just because he was physically in New Jersey.  The prosecution was not required to show any proof, even though the judge affirms it was the prosecutor’s burden.  The first document just identifies the proceedings and confirms where I am drawing the documents from.

The judge agrees with Mark that jurisdiction must be proven at trial (it still has to be shown before trial).

The judge agrees it’s an element of the charge, as an element of the charge, it’s supposed to be proven with evidence from a competent witness, one with personal knowledge.  Instead, all three lawyers just assumed, as irrefutably true, the constitution (written instrument) applies to Mark because he’s physically in New Jersey.  The judge even quotes the code as if anyone has presented any evidence the constitution and laws apply in the first place:

The judge knows the evidence must be from the prosecution and their witnesses, but seems oblivious to the fact that he, like the previous judge, is presuming an element of the charge.  He even knows the prosecution’s witness was declared incompetent to determine the constitution and code apply to Mark.  Despite Mark’s objections and the lack of evidence against him, the judge ruled in favor of the prosecution.

This is in stark contrast to the judge in Indiana who did require the prosecution to comply with the Brady request and also provide the evidence requested.  When the judges try to apply the rules to the prosecution, we usually get a withdrawal and dismissal.  When they refuse to though, and instead presume an element of the charge is irrefutably true, then we get false convictions like the one with Mark.

Irrefutably true claims are evidence of a rigged game.  But, if you disagree with my analysis, if I have my facts wrong, or I’ve made leaps in logic, please feel free to call into a live broadcast and correct me.


42 Comments For This Post

  1. Mark Says:

    This should be available in a download.

  2. Marc Stevens Says:

    I wasn’t done yet, I hit publish instead of preview, the video is not done yet. So there will be typos. I’ll get the video as soon as I can.

  3. stalski Says:

    Video is a bonus..great explanation, I’m going to do a copy paste into a marcs gold document.. priceless… and the judges circular reasoning, the delusional rulings is not so prized. but hey think about it, if they all said “your right Marc, allegations dismissed-discharged, sorry for assaulting you, here’s some cash for your troubles…” then the whole scam would collapse, the big ponzi scheme – the hustle would be over, then they’d have to get jobs like shoveling rat droppings in restaurants like others, no more luxury vacations, or expensive yachts or cars, just for sitting on their buts 3 hrs a day, scamming people, then going home and living the high life on our dime. Sad most sheeple don’t see it till they are caught in the toilet of legal land. cheers thanks for what you, Calvin, J.T. and others do.

  4. Inigo Montoya Says:

    Looking great so far.
    I will be forwarding it along in Twitter and when it is available.

  5. NonEntity Says:


  6. NonEntity Says:

    Ooops. Sorry, I’m just learning to read.

  7. Inigo Montoya Says: is an alternative to Twitter — advertising itself as social media without censorship.

  8. NonEntity Says:

    Ingesting. I read their terms of service and basically they said that if the government doesn’t like you they’ll close your account and maybe report you, not based on any threats you’ve made but just because someone put you on some list. I’m hearing Richie Havens singing Freedom in my head right now. Sigh.

  9. Rad Says:

    why even acknowledge that there even is a “court” as such – it’s just a euphemism for a guy in a robe

  10. NonEntity Says:

    “The term jurisdiction is really synonymous with the word “power”. Any court possesses jurisdiction…” over everyone else who does not possess a nuclear arsenal. That should clear it up.

  11. Boxer Says:


    “Ooops. Sorry, I’m just learning to read.”

    And yet you still act as the official nazi (of the grammerly type, of course).

  12. NonEntity Says:

    Well I haven’t seen YOU picking up the slack! Someone needs to control these unruly masses or we’d end up with ANARCHY!!!

  13. NonEntity Says:

    And as for “official,” you’re damned straight, I’ve granted myself as much authority as I need.

  14. Boxer Says:

    I thought we needed to put that to vote first. Or did we need to put it on parchment paper first? I so confused.

  15. NonEntity Says:

    Parchment or paper? Please make up your mind. (I know, it’s Confucius, but try, okay?)

  16. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    NonEntity Says:
    “Parchment or paper? Please make up your mind.”

    Plastic, Paper, or Parchment.
    A third option for bagging groceries.

  17. CorruptCourtofLaw Says:

    Of course the court has jurisdiction over it’s statutes and codes, that’s why they play games with you when you go into court stating that you are there to challenge their jurisdiction. Good luck with that challenge. What I found that works is when you be specific about which jurisdiction you are challenging such as personam and subject matter. They change their attitude a little bit though they still may try to test you to see if have any clue to what you are challenging.

    ”What evidence do you have that the codes/statutes apply to me”?

    When the prosecutor says the legislator, then I ask:

    ”Do you have any witnesses with first hand knowledge from the legislator that can testify today that the code/statutes apply to me?

    – It’s always hearsay. No witness. Don’t let them get away with it.

    Also, I love to ask for some of the elements that they never produce.

    ”Did you file a verified complaint”

    The cop usually says yes, and then, when I ask was the verified complaint made upon oath before any person authorized by law to administer oaths?

    He looks dumb founded and gets silent as he stares at the prosecutor that answers for him and before I know it the case is dismissed. No argument on the merit. Never saw a judge slam his gavel so quick before…lol

    Use Marc’s style but def be specific about which jurisdiction you are challenging so that these crooks don’t scream at you and tell you to sit down and threaten to lock you up for contempt of court or send you out for a mental evaluation…etc.

  18. Boxer Says:


    Don’t you tire of “lamb basting” everyone? Jeesh!

  19. NonEntity Says:

    So Boxer, do you have a clue what that question is about? And besides, who likes hard, crusty lamb? If you’re gonna kill and roast the poor thing, at least give it the courtesy of basting it, huh? Sheesh indeed! Also you may consider that life is greatly more fun if one has a sense of humor. Note, that was greatly more, not grately more. No greightlies implied, infered or requested in attendance. Well, you may have indeed one. I have no control over people’s inferences, as is obvious from the lack of humor displayed hereabouts. Life is too serious to take seriously, afterall. So Happy New Year and better audio quality to all. (Well, maybe not to demon.)

  20. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

  21. Boxer Says:


    Clearly my humor was lost on you.

  22. NonEntity Says:

    Hey,I ain’t prefect either! 🙂

  23. NonEntity Says:

    Habby, I see in your link that they discuss Jewish parchment. I didn’t read the citation but I presume it’s about making parchment out of sheep foreskins. (Probably Palestinian sheep.)

  24. NonEntity Says:

    Okay, I feel really guilty. Marc has posted an excellent bit of material here am I’m responsible, partially, for trashing the discussion column for his post. Therefore I suggest a different venue (i hope this works as I can’t edit it later):

  25. Boxer Says:

    Speaking of this post, I was thinking in the shower like a statist that perhaps statists believe the “laws” apply not because there is eveidence to prove it but because there are too many people who benefit from such a corrupt system that to end it would destroy far too many livelihoods. Or as Marc put it in his book, “there’s no point in steering now”. Jurisdiction being nothing more than a fancy word for “this is how we’ve been doing it for so long why change now”?

  26. NonEntity Says:

    Boxer, it’s obvious to me that so many who benefit from the criminal activity called government are narcissisticly focused on their own benefits with the knowledge that they cannot and will not be held responsible for their depredations. Recipients of social security checks need never worry that they will be jailed for the forcible extraction of those funds from those to whom the funds actually belong. Corporations and governments are simply means for people to profit while protecting them from any personal responsibility for their actions. How often have you heard people proclaim their disgust with the jobs and harm they are involved with and anxiously sticking it out until they can retire and be fully funded in the benefits of their criminal actions while not having to be involved in the day to day crimes? It is the separation of people from the responsibility for their actions which facilitates these huge criminal enterprises. Add to this the propensity for humans to turn a blind eye to the devastation of others’ lives as long as they are personally profiting from said activities. Sigh.

  27. 11:11 Says:

    It’s not clear in the article to me if the appeals court affirmed or reversed the trial court’s opinion?

  28. NonEntity Says:

    !!!And people give me grief for being the grammar NAZI!!! 🙂

  29. Andy Says:

    Nazi. Izzat better?

  30. Doug Olesen Says:

    I love the stuff you are doing mark! I would like to talk to you. I am going to court on Jan 10th. I submitted a request for media coverage, denied with in 30 mins. I will be challenging jurisdiction for a DUI case I was not in the car nor drove the car. Illegal search of car on my property asulted in jail no paper presented before blood draw. I hope you can email me so I can give you my number to talk to you. Thank you Doug….. Keep up the good work

  31. Marc Stevens Says:

    Either set up a consult or call into the show Sat. You should be role-playing in the skype chat, the link is under upcoming events.

  32. James Says:

    Was there supposed to be a video associated with this post? I don’t see one…

  33. Marc Stevens Says:

    I’m working on it.

  34. david dan Says:

    Juris = Law
    diction = words
    Venue means place where Law/words apply
    and to whom in the enacting clause
    What is the name of the man or woman with firsthand knowledge
    that will sit on the witness stand, in an open court of record. under penalty of perjury, subject to direct examination,(by me) and enter documents into the record or testify that I am one subject to the legislative enactments of ….

  35. Dude Says:

    Hi Marc.

    You said “Territorial jurisdiction is the court’s power to bind the parties to the action.”

    I disagree. This statement is at odds with the statement “Territory within which a court or government agency may properly exercise its power.” you made in regards to the Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil case you cited above.

    A court’s power to bind to the parties is a *consequence* of having territorial jurisdiction, but is not territorial jurisdiction itself.

  36. spooky2th Says:

    That’s the whole point here. There are no actual facts that prove territorial jurisdiction.

  37. NonEntity Says:

    Point? There’s a POINT? … COOL!

  38. spooky2th Says:

    You know what’s wrong with circles?
    They are “pointless!”

    Q: What do you have when 100 lawyers are buried up to their necks in sand?
    A: Not enough sand.

  39. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Q: Why won’t sharks and barracudas attack a lawyer swimming in the ocean?
    A: Professional courtesy.

  40. david dan Says:

    Thurgood Marshall said the “constitution” was replaced with the 14th Amendment – the constitution didn’t survive the Civil War

    This speech Thurgood Marshall gave in 1987 was part of the constitutional bicentennial celebration. Politicians and Judges around the country were praising the “founding Fathers” for their genius at writing a document that established the guiding legal principles of the republic for generations. But Marshall was one of the few voices pointing out that the original constitution required numerous amendments and came to a crisis that required a Civil War to solve. In a time of flag waving and patriotic rhetoric, Marshall’s comments surprised many and created Front-page headlines:
    Remarks of Thurgood Marshall
    At The Annual Seminar

    While the Union survived the civil war, the Constitution did not. In its place arose a new, more promising basis for justice and equality, the 14th Amendment, ensuring protection of the life, liberty, and property of all persons against deprivations without due process, and guaranteeing equal protection of the laws. And yet almost another century would pass before any significant recognition was obtained of the rights of black Americans to share equally even in such basic opportunities as education, housing, and employment, and to have their votes counted, and counted equally. In the meantime, blacks joined America’s military to fight its wars and invested untold hours working in its factories and on its farms, contributing to the development of this country’s magnificent wealth and waiting to share in its prosperity.
    What is striking is the role legal principles have played throughout America’s history in determining the condition of Negroes. They were enslaved by law, emancipated by law, disenfranchised and segregated by law; and, finally, they have begun to win equality by law. Along the way, new constitutional principles have emerged to meet the challenges of a changing society. The progress has been dramatic, and it will continue.

    of the
    In Maui, Hawaii May 6, 1987

  41. david dan Says:

    Might bring this up and ask
    “What is the name of the man or woman with firsthand knowledge that will sit on the witness chair in an open court of record under penalty of perjury subject to direct examination and testify or enter documentation into the that Thurgood Marshall was lying or that what he published and said in his speech is not true?”

  42. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Have you evidence that law is not merely the opinions of some politicians?

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events

: Tune-in to the LIVE No STATE Project broadcast as we report on the weekly happenings in legal-land and current events. You may call-in to the show at (218) 632-9399 passcode is 2020#, or Skype-in, with your thoughts on tickets, tyrants, assessments, activism, anarchy, agorism, or, of course; any and all criticisms. If you are being attacked by those with arbitrary titles and shiny badges, or if you have an interesting observation or criticism; then feel free to call-in to the LIVE show at (218) 632-9399, or you'll need to contact Marc on Skype by searching for username: frankrizzo3, and we can also add you to the NSP skype group chat where you can engage in some courtroom role-play exercises to refine your litigation skills and boost your confidence if you have a court hearing coming up. Also, here is a comprehensive list of the many ways you can interact with the No STATE Project broadcast and community.

Wednesday, 6-7pm EST: Tune-in to the new No STATE Project midweek commercial-free video-stream now broadcast via You can join Marc live, or contact Marc to ask a question if you cannot make it on live. You can find archives of the Wednesday broadcast here on the website and on YouTube.

If you want to join the forum, you must email me a username so I can create the account. This is to stop the flood of spambots.

Contact update: If you email me a wall of text, then I probably will not read it. If you email me telling me to call you right away I won't. You'll have to set up a phone consult so we can set an appointment.

Mailing address has changed as of 1 October 2016. The new mailing address is: G.M. or Occupant 1496 N. Higley Rd., Suite 102-37 Gilbert, Arizona 85234.

Join Marc Stevens' Newsletter

Advertise Here