This article examines sources of extraterritorial jurisdiction in federal courts with the aim of comparing and distinguishing each, and finding authorities which distinguish each.
The most complete existing resources on our website that deals with this subject currently are:
- Wikipedia: Extraterritorial Operation (OFFSITE LINK)
- Wikipedia: Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (OFFSITE LINK)
- Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Form #10.004, Cites by Topic: “extraterritorial jurisdiction”
- Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.018, Sections 3 and 4
- Flawed Tax Arguments to Avoid, Form #08.004, Section 9.6
- Law and Government Page, Section 9.3: Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, Family Guardian Fellowship
- Government Identity Theft, Form #05.046-What happens when someone imputes or enforces a civil status against you that you don’t consent to
2. Sources of extraterritorial jurisdiction
We start off this analysis with a list of sources of lawful extraterritorial jurisdiction:
- Consent. This is a common law type of jurisdiction.
1.1 Express consent/comity either verbally (called parole) or in writing.
1.2 Assent (IMPLIED consent. Cooperation through ACTION although no consent EXPRESSLY given).
1.4 Debt. This is a product of contract, usually, and therefore is a subset of Contract.
1.5 Consenting to a statutory civil status such as “resident“, and thereby acquiring privileges and corresponding obligations in a foreign venue REGARDLESS of the domicile of the party who assumed the civil status.
- Political association. This is called “nationality” or “domicile” and creates “political jurisdiction” as described in Form #05.004. “Political jurisdiction” is NOT the same as “civil” jurisdiction.
2.1 Birth or naturalization in a specific country makes one a “national” of that country in an international sense. “Allegiance” is always associated with “nationality” and its existence entitles those having it to international protection when outside the country. This subject is discussed in:
Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional But not Statutory Citizen, Form #05.006
2.2 Domicile. This makes the consenting party a “member” and a “subject” of a political community who must obey civil statutes enacted by that community. This is discussed in:
Why Domicile and Becoming a “taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002
- Commerce in an otherwise foreign jurisdiction. This is a civil type of jurisdiction.
3.1 International: Described in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. Chapter 97
3.2.1 State Longarm Statutes
3.2.2 International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945)
3.2.3 Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878)
- Criminal activity instituted in a foreign state that affects a domestic venue. This results in the Defendant being extradited to the domestic venue for trial.
U.S. Department of Justice (OFFSITE LINK)
Extraterritorial Issues-U.S. Attorneys Bulletin, Volume 55, No. 2, March 2007. Very important issue
Justice Manual, Title 9, Criminal Manual, Section 1617: Extraterritorial Criminal Jurisdiction
3. Critical questions relating to Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
The critical questions about each of the above are:
- How might each of the above sources of extraterritorial jurisdiction be discerned based on evidence?
- Can one have a “civil status” WITHOUT having a “domicile“? If the answer is yes, then the statute operates as a quasi contract rather than a type of civil law.
- Does “resident” have SOME kind of domicile as a prerequisite in order to be enforceable based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17? For instance, is “resident” an OFFICE in the granting government and can that office lawfully exist WITHOUT a domicile of its own, given that 4 U.S.C. 72 requires all offices to be exercised ONLY in the District of Columbia and not elsewhere, except as EXPRESSLY provided by law?
- When those domiciled outside a specific venue declare a specific “civil status” within that venue where they are not physically located, is the enforcement of the obligations associated with the “civil status” PURELY contractual or quasi-contractual? For the purposes of this discussion, a statutory status that does not have domicile as a prerequisite is called a “contract status”.
- When a government enforces in its courts against a specific party not domiciled in their venue, are they acting as a “government” or merely as a private corporation (Form #05.024) in equity and waiving sovereign immunity?
- Given the rules later in Section 4.3for asserting extraterritorial jurisdiction over PROPERTY, exactly WHAT property, in the case of a “nonresident” party, is the state or national government acting upon that is WITHIN the statutory geographical “United States” in the case of a “nonresident alien” domiciled outside of the statutory geographical “United States“, who has no physical property WITHIN the statutory geographical “United States“, and who works for a company not domiciled in the statutory geographical “United States” either? It isn’t your PRIVATE earnings, and it has to be PUBLIC property based on the cites later in section 4.3, because the cites admit they can’t tax PRIVATE property.
“”Jurisdiction is acquired in one of two modes: first, as against the person of the defendant by the service of process; or, secondly, by a procedure against the property of the defendant within the jurisdiction of the court. In the latter case, the defendant is not personally bound by the judgment beyond the property in question. And it is immaterial whether the proceeding against the property be by an attachment or bill in chancery. It must be substantially a proceeding in rem.“
[Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 732-733 (1878)]
The purpose for asking the above questions is to formulate a technique for being able to prove that a specific type of statutory obligation is either purely contractual and therefore consensual by choosing the civil status associated with it, or whether the obligation has domicile as a prerequisite and therefore does not apply to those WITHOUT such a domicile. Answering the questions accurately is important for those who want to challenge government obligations, as documented in:
Lawfully Avoiding Government Obligations Course, Form #12.040
Key caselaw searches that will lead to answers to the above:
- “domiciled outside” AND “this state”
- “common law” AND “not domiciled”
- “creates rights” (STATUTORY civil rights are PUBLIC property per Form #05.002 and Form #05.037)
- “civil status” AND “domicile”
- “status” AND “no domicile”
4. Authorities on Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
4.1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17
U.S.C.S. Fed Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 17 (OFFSITE LINK) -this is the annotated version of the civil rule that is the basis for asserting CIVIL jurisdiction in federal court.
4.2 Maxims of Law
Common law maxims identify two main methods of establishing extraterritorial jurisdiction:
Here they are:
“Debitum et contractus non sunt nullius loci. Debt and contract are of no particular place.”
[Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856; https://famguardian.org/Publications/BouvierMaximsOfLaw/BouviersMaxims.htm]
4.3 Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Over Property
Hot Issues: Laws of Property-SEDM Blog
Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Form #10.004, Cites by Topic: “property”
“. . .the classification of direct was adopted for the purpose of rendering it impossible to burden by taxation accumulations of property, real or personal, except subject to the regulation of apportionment, it was held that the duty existed to fix what was a direct tax in the constitutional sense so as to accomplish this purpose contemplated by the Constitution. ( 157 U.S. 581.)”
[Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R, 240 U.S. 1, 16 (1916)]
[EDITORIAL: What they mean is PRIVATE property. Government can and does tax PUBLIC property all the time. Civil statuses of “citizen”, “resident”, and “person” are their creation and public property. See:
Hierarchy of Sovereignty: The Power to Create is the Power to Tax, Family Guardian Fellowship
That is the main and only way they can institute an excise tax to begin with. See the next case cite for proof.]
“We conclude that an excise tax (in contradistinction to a direct tax) is a tax imposed on the acquisition, ownership, or use of particular kinds of categories of [PUBLIC] property that falls short of being a general tax on the whole of an individual’s personal property.”
[Union Elec. Co. v. U.S., 363 F.3d. 1292, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2004)]
“A proper regard for its genesis, as well as its very clear language, requires also that this Amendment [the Sixteenth Amendment] shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal. This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.”
[Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)]
“In the case of the federal government where the individual is either a United States citizen or an alien residing in the taxing jurisdiction, the tax under section 1 of the Code is based upon jurisdiction over the person; where the individual is an alien [LEGISLATIVELY OR CONSTITUTIONALLY “foreign”, INCLUDING states of the Union] not residing in the taxing jurisdiction [the “geographical United States”, meaning the District of Columbia per 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10), the tax under section 871 of the Code is based upon jurisdiction over the [PUBLIC] property or income of the nonresident individual [GEOGRAPHICALLY and PHYSICALLY] located or earned in the taxing jurisdiction”
[Great Cruz Bay, Inc., St. John v. Wheatley, 495 F.2d 301, 307 (3d Cir. 1974)]
“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;’ and to ‘secure,’ not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property [or income] which a man has honestly acquired he retains full [meaning EXCLUSIVE and ABSOLUTE] control of, subject to these limitations:
 First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor’s injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor’s benefit [e.g. SOCIAL SECURITY, Medicare, and every other public “benefit”];
 second, that if he devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use [VOLUNTARILY associating it with an SSN/TIN, which is a “franchise mark” is the METHOD of donating it to a public use per Form #05.012, compelled use of SSN is THEFT of property]; and
 third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation [required by the Fifth Amendment].”
[Budd v. People of State of New York, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)]
“The State in such cases exercises no greater right than an individual may exercise over the use of his own property when leased or loaned to others. The conditions upon which the privilege shall be enjoyed being stated or implied in the legislation authorizing its grant, no right is, of course, impaired by their enforcement. The recipient of the privilege, in effect, stipulates to comply with the conditions. It matters not how limited the privilege conferred, its acceptance implies an assent to the regulation of its use and the compensation for it.”
[Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1876)]
[EDITORIAL: All privileges and franchises are based on GRANTS/LOANS of PUBLIC property with CIVIL LEGAL STRINGS attached. Those strings are the statutory civil law, and that law ONLY applies to those with a CONSENSUAL domicile within the jurisdiction of the granting power, as described in Form #05.030]
“Thus the State, through its tribunals, may compel persons domiciled within its limits to execute, in pursuance of their contracts respecting property elsewhere situated, instruments in such form and with such solemnities as to transfer the title, so far as such formalities can be complied with; and the exercise of this jurisdiction in no manner interferes with the supreme control over the property by the State within which it is situated. Penn v. Lord Baltimore, 1 Ves. 444; Massie v. Watts, 6 Cranch, 148; Watkins v. Holman, 16 Pet. 25; Corbett v. Nutt, 10 Wall. 464.”
So the State, through its tribunals, may subject property situated within its limits owned by non-residents to the payment of the demand of its own citizens against them; and the exercise of this jurisdiction in no respect infringes upon the sovereignty of the State where the owners are domiciled. Every State owes protection to its own citizens; and, when non-residents deal with them, it is a legitimate and just exercise of authority to hold and appropriate any property owned by such non-residents to satisfy the claims of its citizens. It is in virtue of the State’s jurisdiction over the property of the non-resident situated within its limits that its tribunals can inquire into that non-resident’s obligations to its own citizens, and the inquiry can then be carried only to the extent necessary to control the disposition of the property. If the non-resident 724*724 have no property in the State, there is nothing upon which the tribunals can adjudicate.“