Jurisdictional Layers

By ftsig-admin | February 14, 2026

1. List of layers

Court jurisdiction is invoked based on the choice of law for any given proceeding. You as the Plaintiff determine that choice of law in most cases based on. The ordering of the list is based on sovereignty, where you as the human are at the top and government is at the bottom.

HUMAN: If you invoke NONE of the above, you remain exclusively private and subject only to the common law, equity, and the criminal law. These systems of law are what we call “Involuntary Protection (IP)”. The choice of law at this level is described in detail below:
Choice of Law, Litigation Tool #01.010
https://sedm.org/Litigation/01-General/ChoiceOfLaw.pdf
POLITICAL STATUS AT BIRTH: Your POLITICAL STATUS by virtue of BIRTH or naturalization at the TIME of said birth or naturalization. This makes you a CANDIDATE to invoke political jurisdiction LATER. This status is acquired by birth under the authority of the Fourteenth Amendment or 8 U.S.C. §1401.
POLITICAL STATUS ELECTION: Whether you as someone with a POLITICAL STATUS AT BIRTH CANDIDATE choose to invoke the privileges associated with the POLITICAL jurisdiction of the court during litigation. See:
Political Jurisdiction, Form #05.004
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/PoliticalJurisdiction.pdf
CIVIL STATUS ELECTION: Whether you ADD CIVIL jurisdiction by invoking a voluntary domicile that ADDS to the POLITICAL jurisdiction you invoke. This creates a CIVIL STATUS. See:
4.1. Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Domicile.pdf
4.2. This layer is ENTIRELY judicially constructed and NOT constitutional in origin. Exercising it INVOLUNTARILY is therefore “constitutionally suspect” See:
Microsoft Copilot: Origin of domicile and authority of courts to use it, FTSIG-judges COMPELLING domicile
https://ftsig.org/microsoft-copilot-origin-of-domicile-and-authority-of-courts-to-use-it/
FRANCHISE ELECTION: Whether you invoke a franchise WITHIN the civil laws of that jurisdiction that attaches to the voluntary DOMICILE. Note that a franchise election purely by contract and not based on civil domicile is a de facto franchise and not a sovereign act or de jure franchise. De jure franchises are implemented with civil law and anchored to domicile exclusively. For an example, see:
The “Trade or Business” Scam, Form #05.001
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/TradeOrBusScam.pdf

For a graphical representation of the above hierarchy, see;

Hierarchy of Sovereignty: The Power to Create is the Power to Tax, Family Guardian Fellowship
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Remedies/PowerToCreate.htm

2. Comparison Table

We will now provide a table summarizing the the nature of each of the above jurisdictional layers. They are ordered in the same sequence as above and also characterized based on the standard symbology used throughout this website.

#	Layer	Type of Presence	Origin	Geographical or Legal/ Corporate	Foreign or Domestic	Protection type	Applicable Law	Notes
1	Human (1)	Presence^I	Presumption or Identity Theft	Legal	Foreign^S	Involuntary Protection (IP)	Presumption or Identity Theft	See: Identity Theft Affidavit, Form #14.020
2	Human (1)	Presence^GC	Common law or Constitutional protections attaching to LAND without consent	Geographical	Foreign^S	Involuntary Protection (VP)	Common law, Bill of Rights	See: Choice of Law, Litigation Tool #01.010
3	Human (1)	Presence^CC	Commercial activity under Minimum Contacts Doctrine	Legal	Foreign^P, Foreign^S	Involuntary Protection (IP)	Minimum Contacts Doctrine, U.C.C., Common Law, Contract governing parties	See: 1. Minimum Contacts Doctrine; 2. Choice of Law, Litigation Tool #01.010
4	Civil Status Election (4)	Presence^G	Geographical area where a franchise is legislatively imposed	Geographical	Domestic^S	Voluntary Protection (IP)	Franchise contract or quasi-contract	United States^G is an example.
5	Civil Status Election (4)	Presence^D	Civil domicile	Legal	Domestic^S	Voluntary Protection (VP)	Civil statutes	See: Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002
6	Civil Status Election (4)	Presence^CS	Commercial activity under Minimum Contacts Doctrine involving domiciled counterparty	Legal	Domestic^S, Foreign^P	Voluntary Protection (VP)	Minimum Contacts Doctrine, U.C.C., Civil statutes	See: 1. Minimum Contacts Doctrine; 2. Uniform Commercial Code 3. Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002
7	Franchise Election (5)	Presence^F	Franchise election	Legal	Domestic^S	Voluntary Protection (VP)	Franchise contract or quasi-contract	See: Government Instituted Slavery using Franchises, Form #05.030

NOTES:

POLITICAL STATUS ELECTION and CIVIL STATUS ELECTION are linked together, because as a matter of practice, no jurisdiction we are aware of will allow you to vote without a civil domicile. That is why the following layers don’t appear as rows in the above table:
1.1. POLITICAL STATUS AT BIRTH (layer 2).
1.2. POLITICAL STATUS ELECTION (layer 3).
Column 3: For an itemized list of the types of presence on this website, see:
Writing Conventions on This Website, Section 9: Types of CIVIL Legal Presence
https://ftsig.org/introduction/writing-conventions-on-this-website/#9._Types
For an itemized list of the franchise elections, see:
Catalog of Elections and Entity Types in the Internal Revenue Code, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/catalog-of-elections-in-the-internal-revenue-code/

3. Example Application: Foreign National in the USA

Consider a Mexican national who is residing in Long Beach legally. This is very illustrative of how they are equivocating between the political sense and the geographical sense. Here is a tabular representation of their condition and the type of presence they have in each case:

#	Jurisdiction	Layer	Franchise	Alienage	Presence Name	Presence Type	Geographical or Legal/ Corporate	Protection Type
1	City	4	NA	Alienage	Resident of City^G	Presence^G	Legal	Voluntary Protection (IP)
2	County	4	NA	Alienage	Resident of County^G	Presence^G	Legal	Voluntary Protection (IP)
3	State	4	Driver License		“Resident” of States^G	Presence^G	Legal	Voluntary Protection (IP)
4	Federal	4	Federal Income Tax	Alienage	“Resident” of United States^G	Presence^G	Legal	Voluntary Protection (IP)

NOTES:

The geographies above represent the jurisdiction over which a given government can preempt authority and jurisdiction over a subordinate government.
The privilege in most cases is physical presence as an alien (alienage).
Every layer implements a form of preemption for the government at that level, but doesn’t affect the layers below or above it. This is because it is based on property or privileges offered only by the government at that specific layer.
Physical presence tests or purely geographical CIVIL STATUTORY jurisdiction over human beings is limited to aliens only by default. It does NOT apply to political citizens*, who are “nonresidents under the presence test everywhere, such as in 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1).
Beyond these defaults, U.S. nationals may ADD a statutory status election and thus a civil privilege to surrender their Level 1 status in exchange for level 4 status. Thus, they trade rights^PRI for rights^PUB/privileges.
State vehicle codes that MANDATE getting a driver license based on presence in the state for a specified time period DO NOT apply to U.S. nationals and are INCORRECTY applied to them.

From this example, it’s easy to see what’s going on when you apply the above concepts to a foreign national who is here legally.

4. Tools for Challenging Jurisdiction

Challenging Jurisdiction Workbook, Form #09.082
https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/ChalJurWorkbook.pdf
Challenging Federal Jurisdiction Course, Form #12.010
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/ChallFedJurisdiction.pdf
Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.018
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/FederalJurisdiction.pdf

5. Judicial Corruption as a cause for INVERSION of the layers and hierarchy

During debates over the federal constitution, there were to two camps:

Federalists: believed in supremacy and sovereignty of the government over the people REGARDLESS of consent. Thus, the people become CHATTEL just like the original black slaves.
Anti-Federalists: Who placed the INDIVIDUAL and PRIVATE rights at the top of the hierarchy and the government at the bottom.

The text of the constitution doesn’t appear to favor either of the above models for political hierarchy. However, through the accretion of power by a corrupt federal judiciary since the founding of our country, America has migrated to the Federalist position above, as explained below:

Microsoft Copilot: Origin of domicile and authority of courts to use it, FTSIG-judges COMPELLING domicile
https://ftsig.org/microsoft-copilot-origin-of-domicile-and-authority-of-courts-to-use-it/
PROOF OF FACTS: Involuntary civil statutory obligations are a product of Judicial Corruption of Republican Principles, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/proof-of-facts-involuntary-civil-statutory-obligations-are-a-product-of-judicial-corruption-of-republican-principles/
HOW TO: Distinguishing the LEGAL STATUS from the HUMAN, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/how-to-distinguishing-the-legal-status-from-the-human/

The corruption of our system is most noticeable in the CIVIL law area. That corruption is evidenced by the following government behaviors, all of which would be impossible without judicial collusion of the kind described in detail above:

Implementation of the Public Rights Doctrine that removes disputes from Article III courts and puts them in Article I courts so that constitutional rights within the Bill of Rights can be IGNORED by the courts. See:
Catalog of U.S. Supreme Court Doctrines, Litigation Tool #10.020
https://sedm.org/Litigation/10-PracticeGuides/SCDoctrines.pdf
Abuse of the civil law to destroy the separation of powers between the state and the national government. See:
Government Conspiracy to Destroy the Separation of Powers, Form #05.023
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/SeparationOfPowers.pdf
Establishment of the administrative state to implement the Public Rights Doctrine. This involves the unconstitutional delegation of legislative powers by the Executive Branch. See:
Administrative State: Tactics and Defenses Course, Form #12.041
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/AdminState.pdf
The abuse of federal legislative powers to invade the states by offering franchises designed to destroy the sovereignty and autonomy of individuals. See:
Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Franchises.pdf

Collectively, the above forms of corruption are described and shown graphically and even tied to biblical prophecy that predicts them:

How Scoundrels Corrupted Our Republican Form of Government, Family Guardian Fellowship
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Evidence/HowScCorruptOurRepubGovt.htm

6. Summary of Tactics Used by Corrupt Judges to make CIVIL enforcement involuntary

The following list describes some of the tactics that corrupt judges will use to unlawfully expand their power and make civil obligations involuntary, even though they must be voluntary to be constitutional.

Consent
- Using “implied” or “constructive consent”
  - Constructing consent fictionally when no actual agreement is shown.
- Labeling obligations “quasi‑contractual”
  - This frames obligations as if voluntarily agreed to, even when no explicit consent exists
- Method of defeating the above:
  Requirement for Consent, Form #05.003
  https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Consent.pdf
Status
- Using the term “statutory status” without defining how someone becomes surety
  - Judges allegedly avoid specifying whether a status is political or civil, or how a person becomes responsible (“surety”) for that status. This ambiguity makes it difficult to challenge involuntary obligations.
- Treating statutory classifications as “status” instead of property
  - Framing them as inherent personal conditions, not elected or owned (private property).
- Calling someone a “resident” without proving alienage
  - Creating obligations based on undefined residency categories.
- Equivocating political and civil meanings of key terms
  - Using the same word in both political and civil contexts without clarifying which meaning applies.
- Method of defeating the above:
  Your Exclusive Right to Declare or Establish Your Civil Status, Form #13.008
  https://sedm.org/Forms/13-SelfFamilyChurchGovnce/RightToDeclStatus.pdf
Sovereignty
- Replacing consent-based jurisdiction with the single word “sovereignty”
  - Judges substitute the legal bases of civil jurisdiction—consent, privilege, membership, or injury—with an undefined notion of “sovereignty,” allowing courts to assert authority without demonstrating individual consent.
- Invoking sovereign immunity broadly
  - Shielding government from having to justify statutory claims or obligations.
- Expanding the “public rights doctrine”
  - Allowing administrative or statutory obligations without traditional due‑process protections.
- Labeling obligations as “public duties” rather than private burdens
  - Shifts the framing from voluntary civil participation to inherent obligation.
- Method of defeating the above:
  PROOF OF FACTS: Income taxation of “nationals of the United States” within the exclusive jurisdiction of a constitutional state is NOT a “sovereign power”, FTSIG-judges equivocating POLITICAL and CIVIL citizenship to make everyone an involuntary and illegal “taxpayer”
  https://ftsig.org/proof-of-facts-income-taxation-of-nationals-of-the-united-states-within-the-exclusive-jurisdiction-of-a-constitutional-state-is-not-a-sovereign-power/
Property
- Refusing to classify statutory statuses as “public property”
  - This avoids acknowledging that adopting such statuses might require voluntary choice.
- Avoiding discussion of property rights and substituting abstract terms
  - Judges deliberately avoid addressing the property implications of civil status and instead rely on abstract power terms like “sovereignty” or “sovereign power,” which removes the issue from constitutional limits (especially the Bill of Rights).
- Method of Defeating the above:
  Property View of Income Taxation, Form #12.046
  https://sedm.org/LibertyU/PropertyViewOfIncomeTax.pdf
Sophistry
- Presuming ANYTHING, including consent, status, election, etc. See:
  Presumption: Chief Weapon for Unlawfully Expanding Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.017
  https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Presumption.pdf
- Using negative claims that cannot be proven
  - A major tactic of judicial argument is relying on unprovable negative assertions, which shifts the burden away from government and makes obligations effectively unavoidable.
- Engaging in what the article calls “judicial communism”
  - By ignoring constitutional and statutory limits, judges effectively repeal the Bill of Rights through discretionary practices—making civil obligations compulsory by ignoring property protections.
Favoritism and destruction of equity
- Lowering proof standards for jurisdiction. Examples include:
  - Not requiring evidence of purposeful availment
  - Treating domicile as presumed
  - Treating physical presence as equivalent to legal presence
- Using rational‑basis review to dismiss challenges
  - Setting a low standard of justification for government actions, making objections difficult.
- Equating statutory privileges/benefits with consideration
  - Refusing to require moving party to PROVE actual real consideration.
- Method of Defeating the above:
  Requirement for Equal Protection and Equal Treatment, Form #05.033
  https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/EqualProtection.pdf
Identity Theft
- Compelling domicile by mere physical presence
  - This makes civil obligations unavoidable simply by being physically located in a place.
- Applying “presence tests” to people they claim should not be subject to them
  - For example, applying rules meant for aliens to U.S. nationals.
- Enforcing civil statutes without proving government employment or agency
  - Many statutes apply only to government actors, yet judges apply them broadly.
- Changing the “choice of law” from private‑law (lawPRI) to public‑law (lawPUB) without consent
  - This maneuver effectively places individuals under public‑law obligations they didn’t choose.
- Method of defeating the above:
  Identity Theft Affidavit, Form #14.020
  https://sedm.org/Forms/14-PropProtection/Identity_Theft_Affidavit-f14039.pdf

7. Conclusions

More like the above at:

Microsoft Copilot: Origin of domicile and authority of courts to use it, FTSIG-judges COMPELLING domicile
https://ftsig.org/microsoft-copilot-origin-of-domicile-and-authority-of-courts-to-use-it/
What is “Justice”?, Form #05.050
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/WhatIsJustice.pdf
How Judges Unconstitutionally “Make Law”, Litigation Tool #01.009
https://sedm.org/Litigation/01-General/HowJudgesMakeLaw.pdf
What Happened to Justice?, Form #06.012
https://sedm.org/ItemInfo/Ebooks/WhatHappJustice/WhatHappJustice.htm

Posted in Litigation