Seven Elements of Jurisdiction, a good synopsis.

This is a classic.

I know many of you have seen it, but I wanted to post it for the benefit of
those who haven’t. There is a lot of “meat” here!  For the more advanced student.

* * * * * * *  *


  1.  Accused must be properly identified; identified in such a
    fashion there is no room for mistaken identity.  The individual must
    be singled out from all others; otherwise, anyone could be subject to
    arrest and trial without benefit of “wrong party” defense.  Almost
    always the means of identification is a person’s proper name, BUT, any
    means of identification is equally valid if said means differentiates
    the accused without doubt.  (There is no constitutionally valid requirement
    you must identify yourself) For stop and identify (4th Amendment) see

Brown v. Texas, 443 US 47 and Kolender v Lawson, 461 US 352.

  1.  The statute of offense must be identified by its proper or
    common name.  A number is insufficient.  Today, a citizen may stand
    in jeopardy of criminal sanctions for alleged violation of statutes,
    regulations, or even low-level bureaucratic orders (example:

Colorado National Monument Superintendent’s Orders regarding an
unleashed dog, or a dog defecating on a trail).  If a number were to
be deemed sufficient, government could bring new and different charges
at any time by alleging clerical error. For any act to be triable as
an offense, it must be declared to be a crime.  Charges must negate
any exception forming part of the statutory definition of an offense,
by affirmative non-applicability.  In other words, any charge must
affirmatively negate any exception found in the law.

Example of exception: “…. thereof to make a return (other than a
return required under authority of 6015)…..Indictment or information
is defective unless every fact which is an element in a prima facie
case of guilt is stated.  Assumption of element is not lawful.

Otherwise, accused will not be thoroughly informed.  26 USC 6012 is a
necessary element of the offense.  Since 6012 isn’t cited, the
information is fatally defective.  Additionally, information did not
negate the exception (other than required under authority of section
6015).”  After reading 6012 and 6015, and knowing that 7203 elements

  1.  Required to perform.
  2.  Failed to perform.
  3.  Failure was willful you may wish to ask, “how often is a
    valid 7203 or other information or indictment brought?
    How many citizens have been convicted on a fatally
    defective process?
  4.  The acts of alleged offense must be described in non-preju-
    dicial language and detail so as to enable a person of average
    intelligence to understand nature of charge (to enable preparation of
    defense); the actual act or acts constituting the offense complained
    of.  The charge must not be described by parroting the statute; not by
    the language of same.  The naming of the acts of the offense describes
    a specific offense whereas the verbiage of a statute describes only a
    general class of offense.  Facts must be stated.  Conclusions cannot
    be considered in the determination of probable cause.
  5.  The accuser must be named.  He may be an officer or a third
    party.  Some positively identifiable person (human being) must accuse.
    Some certain person must take responsibility for the making of the
    accusation, not an agency or an institution. This is the only valid
    means by which a citizen may begin to face his accuser.  Also, the
    injured party (corpus delicti) must make the accusation.  Hearsay
    evidence may not be provided.  Anyone else testifying that he heard
    that another party was injured does not qualify as direct evidence.
  6.  The accusation must be made under penalty of perjury. If
    perjury cannot reach the accuser, there is no accusation. Otherwise,
    anyone may accuse another falsely without risk.
  7.  To comply with the five elements above, that is for the
    accusation to be valid, the accused must be accorded due process.
    a. Accuser must have complied with law, procedure and form in bringing
    the charge.  This includes court-determined probable cause, summons
    and notice procedure.  If lawful process may be abrogated in placing a
    citizen in jeopardy, then any means may be utilized to deprive a man
    of his freedom.  All political dissent may be stifled by utilization
    of defective process.
  8.  The court must be one of competent jurisdiction.  To have
    valid process, the tribunal must be a creature of its constitution, in
    accord with the law of its creation, i.e. (article III judge).

Without the limiting factor of a court of competent
jurisdiction, all citizens would be in jeopardy of loss of liberty
being imposed at any bureaucrat’s whim.  It is conceivable that the
procedure could devolve to one in which the accuser, the trier of
facts, and the executioner would all be one and the same.

Leg 1
1. Court of proper Venue
2. Judge with Oath

Leg 2
3. Plaintiff
4. Sworn Complaint / Affidavit

Leg 3
5. Competent Witness
6. Sworn Affidavit

Leg 4
7. ‘In Personam’ Jurisdiction over the Defendant,

The first six elements above deal primarily with the issue
of personal jurisdiction.  The seventh element (also element #2)
addresses subject matter and territorial jurisdiction.  Subject matter 
     jurisdiction is conferred by acts controlled by law; territorial 
     jurisdiction attaches by venue of the parties in relation to the court 
     and to any trans-jurisdictional acts and/or activities of the parties 
     (extended territorial jurisdiction is conferred by controversial 
     long-arm statutes).


Lacking any of the seven elements or portions thereof, (unless
waived, intentionally or unintentionally) all designed to ensure
against further prosecution (double jeopardy); to inform court of
facts alleged for determination of sufficiency to support conviction,
should one be obtained.
 Otherwise, there is no lawful notice, and
charge must be dismissed for failure to state an offense.  Without
lawful notice, there is no personal jurisdiction and all proceedings
prior to filing of a proper trial document in compliance with the
seven elements is void.  A lawful act is always legal but many legal
acts by government are often unlawful.  Most bureaucrats lack
elementary knowledge and incentive to comply with the mandates of
constitutional due process.  They will make mistakes.  Numbers beyond
count have been convicted without benefit of governmental adherence to
these seven elements.  Today, informations are being filed and
prosecuted by “accepted practice” rather than due process of law.

See Corpus Juris Secundum (CJS), Volume 7, Section 4, Attorney &
client:  The attorney’s first duty is to the courts and the public,
not to the client, and wherever the duties to his client conflict with
those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of
justice, the former must yield to the latter.  Clients are also called
“wards” of the court in regard to their relationship with their
attorneys.  After you have read the foregoing, ask your attorney to
see a copy of “regarding Lawyer Discipline & other rules” (  Also Canons 1 through 9.     (

Corpus Juris Secundum assumes courts will operate in a lawful
 If the accused makes this assumption, he may learn, to his
detriment, through experience, that certain questions of law,
including the question of personal jurisdiction, may never be raised
and addressed, especially when the accused is represented by the bar.
(Sometimes licensed counsel appears to take on the characteristics of
a fox guarding the hen house.)

Jurisdiction, once challenged, is to be proven, not by the court,
but by the party attempting to assert jurisdiction.  The burden of
proof of jurisdiction lies with the asserter.  The court is only to
rule on the sufficiency of the proof tendered. Se McNutt v. GMAC, 298
US 178.  The origins of this doctrine of law may be found in
Maxfield’s Lessee v Levy, 4 US 308.

NOTE:  Today the courts are unconcerned with questions such as
whether or not the 16th or 17th amendments were ever lawfully
ratified.  If the courts were to address this type of question
honestly, the government, with its huge bureaucracy and patron special
interests would be placed in jeopardy.  This potential threat is not
allowed nor will it ever be.  It is much easier for the courts to
label such potential threats as political questions, point to the
lateness of the clock and refuse to hear or rule.  Whatever the
political jugernaut does, it uses the facade of law to justify or
reconcile it.  The only way such questions will have force and effect
is if the general public becomes aware and concerned with justice
being based upon law and not just policy based on a facade of law.

If you doubt such words, please be assured that they are not just
words but are, in fact, and articulation of the unwritten, unspoken,
present public policy, as enforced by the courts in dealing with
challenges to governmental acts and authority.  For documentation, see
US v WAYNE WOJTAS, 85 CR 48 in the US District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division and Judge Shadur’s opinion on
the 16th Amendment.  You will see the beginnings and threat of
disbarment of a certain “aggressive” licensed attorney.

To be truly effective in the courts in any challenge to
governmental power and authority, the challenger must possess a good
understanding of politics.  This is especially so since government and
the courts are primarily concerned with a public perception of the
balancing of the scales of justice rather than the attainment of true
justice under the law.

Once it is realized that the court is primarily concerned with
politics, it then becomes necessary for any challenger to become
proficient in the political arena.  By politics, we speak, not of the
electoral process, but of the politics of association.

Keeping this in mind, and truly understanding the concept, a man
accused of breaking a “rule” for which he may suffer penalties of
imprisonment, fine and costs without benefit of trial or
Constitutional safeguards, may very will consider bringing a criminal
charge against himself directly in court and thereby blunt his
adversaries’ attack.  To the uninitiated, this may sound like madness,
but to the political scholar destined to appear before a “master” to
answer to alleged rule violation of the unauthorized practice of law,
the self-accusatory route to the courts may be the only hope of
victory; both legal and political.

The cop can’t be the WITNESS, INJURED PARTY and PROCESS SERVER, all at the same time. It is a CONFLICT of INTEREST….  The same goes for the DA, as well.  The judge is not allowed to prosecute the case, just the TRIER of the LAW and FACTS but yet that should be the responsibility of the JURY, not the JUDGE.  The judge is supposed to be a NEUTRAL PARTY to the case but can’t, as he/she is an EMPLOYEE of the STATE (CONFLICT of INTEREST), who is bringing the charges against you by the SURROGATE (DA).  The STATE is a FICTION and can’t be INJURED.  The DA has NO FIRST HAND INFORMATION about the supposed CRIME (VICTIMLESS), as there is NO INJURED PARTY and NO CORPUS DELICTI).  A STATUTE is not Law but COLORABLE LAW only….  No living man or woman comes forward to state a CLAIM of INJURY… The DA only relies on the STATUTES, which are for those operating as GOVERNMENT Employee or those OPERATING in COMMERCE. When you are going about your everyday task, and going from POINT A to POINT Z, you are not operating in COMMERCE and are to have UNFETTERED movement on the PUBLIC ROADWAYS….

We have NO


A fully informed jury is a Constitutionally literate jury.




Last reviewed and edited December 16, 2012                                                        Including amendments effective January 1, 2012   

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court adopted the Maine Rules of Professional

Conduct, effective August 1, 2009. On the same date Maine Bar Rule 2-A

(Aspirational Goals for Lawyer Professionalism), Maine Bar Rule 3 (Code of

Professional Responsibility) and Maine Bar Rule 8 (Contingent Fees) were

abrogated, as they are replaced by the Maine Rules of Professional Conduct.

About Paul John Hansen

Paul John Hansen -Foremost I love the Lord, His written Word, and the Elect Family of God. -My income is primarily derived from rental properties, legal counsel fees, selling PowerPoint presentations. -I am a serious student of territorial specific law, and constitutional limitations of the US and STATE Governments. -I have been in court over 250 times. -I have received numerous death threats that appear as to come from NEBRASKA STATE agents. -I have been arrested an estimated 8 times. Always bogus false warrants, misdemeanor charges. (Mostly Municipal Housing Codes, or related acts.) -I file no Federal Income Taxes (1040 Form) since the year 2001. (No filings in any form.) -I pay no State income taxes. -I do not pay STATE sales tax on major purchases. -I pay no COUNTY property taxes with out a judicial challenge. ( I believe I have discovered a filing for record process that takes my land off the tax roles. ) -I currently use no State drivers license, carry no vehicle liability insurance, do not register my automobiles. -I do not register to vote for any representatives. -I am a 'free inhabitant' pursuant to Article 4 of The Articles of Confederation. (Not a US citizen.) -I am subject to the Church jurisdiction, and a strong advocate of full ecclesiastical independence from the United States jurisdiction. -I believe in full support of the perpetual Union as found in the Articles of Confederation. -I believe that a free inhabitant has the lawful standing to choose to live independent of the constitutional corporate US governments, and its statutory courts in the vast majority of his daily life, and to be forced to do otherwise is slavery. -I believe that most all US written law is constitutional, but most all of that same law is misapplied upon jurisdictions where it has no force and effect of law and the bar association has perfected a system of keeping the people from knowing its true application. Order my 5$ presentation 'Free Inhabitant One A', for the truth in limited jurisdiction of all US written law.
This entry was posted in Jurisdiction. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *