Talk:Personal jurisdiction

Does anyone else think the "acquiring personal jurisdiciton" section is wrong?

I'm reading that section and I think it's almost entirely wrong. While no doubt service of process is a necessary for personal jurisdiction, it is not sufficient. Maybe this is sufficient internationally, but I know it's not in the US. Under the language as used in the article, I could serve someone in state A, for an action I bring in state B, and acquire personal jurisdiction in state B. That's not right.

This is correct - Under the due process clause as interpreted by the US Supreme Court in BURNHAM v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CAL., MARIN COUNTY, 495 U.S. 604 - service of process is enough.

The Supreme Court in Pennoyer v. Neff 95 US 714 held that there were 4 grounds for PJ - 1) Presence 2) Property 3) Domicile 4) Consent. While this has largely been modified over the years Presence still remains a valid ground for PJ under the Constitution. A State may however restrict its application by modification of its long arm Statute. I do not know how many states have done so, but I am sure you can find statistics on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaunaksayta (talk • contribs) 00:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

If this is an international issue perhaps we need to clarify. I'm sure that there is some concept of personal jurisdiction, but it may not be as fragmented as the US'. mmmbeer^{T / C / ?} 14:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

i moved that stuff to notice.

Yes it is wrong. In rem and quasi in rem jurisdiction are not subsets of "personal juridicition," although one could argue, based on the holding of Shaffer v. Heitner (see my additions) that in rem and quasi in rem jurisdiction can no longer be exercised without personal jurisdiction over the owner of the property. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.15.181 (talk • contribs)

I respectfully disagree in part. In rem jurisdiction and quasi in rem jurisdiction and in personam jurisdiction are indeed considered "subsets" of personal jurisdiction. However, I agree that mere service of process is not sufficient for personal jurisdiction. Famspear (talk) 03:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Famspear: Where do you get this from ? The US Supreme Court in Pennoyer v. Neff held that service of process is enough & this has further been endorsed by Burnam (citation above). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaunaksayta (talk • contribs) 19:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for properly formatting the citations to my additions. Respectfully: do you have authority for the proposition that in rem and quasi in rem jurisdiction are "personal jurisdiction?" One source distinguishes in rem judgements as not imposing "any personal obligation on the defendant . . . . Moreover, jurisdiction over property is subject to the same constitutional restrictions that govern personal jurisdiction." L. Mullenix, et al., Understanding Federal Courts and Jurisdiction § 7.01[2][b] (LexisNexis 1998) (citations omitted). I will be happy to do further research, if you can place any doubt in my mind. I have always understood "personal jurisdiction" to be the equivalent of "in personam jurisdiction" without the Latin. If I am wrong, I wish to learn why I am wrong. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hhblount (talk • contribs) 21:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Hhblount: In the law of American civil procedure, there is the concept of subject matter jurisdiction and the concept of personal jurisdiction. When I was in law school, the leading textbook on civil procedure was Civil Procedure, by Jack H. Friedenthal (Professor of Law at Stanford University), Mary K. Kane (Professor of Law at Hastings College of the Law), and Arthur R. Miller (Professor of Law at Harvard University), published by West Publishing (1985). The text includes a Chapter 3, entitled "Personal Jurisdiction." Here are the main subheadings under Chapter 3, "Personal Jurisdiction":

A. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF JURISDICTIONAL DOCTRINE

B. CONTEMPORARY JURISDICTION NOTIONS: IN PERSONAM JURISDICTION

C. CONTEMPORARY JURISDICTION NOTIONS: IN REM AND QUASI IN REM JURISDICTION

D. THE IMPACT OF SHAFFER V. HEITNER ON PENNOYER'S SATELLITES

E. AMENABILITY TO SUIT

F. NOTICE AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD

G. CHALLENGES TO JURISDICTION

As you can see from subheadings B and C, personal jurisdiction includes in personam jurisdiction, in rem jurisdiction, and quasi in rem jurisdiction, according to professors Friedenthal, Kane and Miller. Yours, Famspear (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Jurisdiction in rem and jurisdiction quasi in rem, like in personam jurisdiction, are really just different kinds of "personal jurisdiction." The authors, Friedenthal, Kane and Miller, state: "The Court [i.e., the U.S. Supreme Court in Shaffer v. Heitner] unanimously agreed that the distinction between the three jurisdictional categories was artificial inasmuch as 'all proceedings [ . . . ] are really against persons.'" See paragr. 3.14, page 150, Friedenthal, Kane & Miller, Civil Procedure (West 1985), quoting from footnote 22 of the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, at 207, footnote 22 (1977). Yours, Famspear (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Hhblount: To understand why in rem and quasi in rem jurisdictions are simply sub-categories of personal jurisdiction, also look at this statement:

One source distinguishes in rem judgements as not imposing "any personal obligation on the defendant . . . . Moreover, jurisdiction over property is subject to the same constitutional restrictions that govern personal jurisdiction."

The key word here is "personal." In the context of your statement, "personal" liability essentially means, roughly, "liability beyond that of losing the property itself." If I borrow money to buy a piece of property, and in connection therewith I sign an "in rem only" mortgage granting the lender a security interest in the property, the terms of the mortgage are such that if I default on my obligation to pay the loan, the lender's only recourse is to take the property itself. I have no "personal" liability beyond that. But the liability in rem is still, in economic substance, a PERSONAL liability -- I still lose the property. That is essentially an illustration of the concept of "substance over form." It may not "seem" like "personal" liability, but we can't be fooled by terminology. I still lose the property itself.

And what Friedenthal, Kane and Miller are saying is that, regarding the distinction between and among in personam jurisdiction, in rem jurisdiction, and quasi in rem jurisdiction, the Supreme Court wasn't fooled by terminology either. The Court recognized that all three categories are simply subsets of personal jurisdiction -- because a legal action against someone's property is, in economic substance, a legal action against that person, even if that person's liability is limited to losing just that particular property. Famspear (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

FAMSPEAR: The claim made in the article is unverified. We seem to agree that Shaffer v. Heitner changed things. But even, Shaffer v. Heitner does not state that in rem is personal jurisdiction. If in rem and quasi in rem jurisdiction were truly "personal jurisdiction" then why was Shaffer v. Heitner decided in the manner that it was? "The fiction that an assertion of jurisdiction over property is anything but an assertion of jurisdiction over the owner of the property supports an ancient form without substantial modern justification." 433 U.S. 186, 212 (1977). "Its continued acceptance would serve only to allow state-court jurisdiction that is fundamentally unfair to the defendant." Id. In other words, prior to Shaffer v. Heitner, in rem jurisdiction and in personam (personal) jurisdiction were clearly legally distinct concepts, and may still be, since the Court has yet to declare in rem jurisdiction to actually be personal jurisdiction. Historically, in rem is clearly not personal jurisdiction. Technically speaking, it may now be; but the Court has not explicitly stated that it is. So, shouldn't a well written Wikipedia article express that fact, rather than jumping to conclusions and confusing the lay reader? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hhblount (talk • contribs) 20:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia articles should report what reliable, previously published third party sources have said. The text by Friedenthal, Kane and Miller indicates that in personam, in rem and quasi in rem are indeed separate concepts (even after Shaffer v. Heitner), but that they are the three sub-categories of personal jurisdiction. I'm not sure that the statement "Historically, in rem in clearly not personal jurisdiction" is correct. Do you have a source supporting that? The textbook (hornbook) by Friedenthal, Kane and Miller entitled Civil Procedure is a reliable, previously published third party source. We would have to take the textbook's interpretation of Shaffer v. Heitner over your interpretation or my interpretation, don't you think?

Again, look at the quote you provided:

"The fiction that an assertion of jurisdiction over property is anything but an assertion of jurisdiction over the owner of the property supports an ancient form without substantial modern justification."

--433 U.S. 186, 212 (1977) (bolding added).

Again, the concept is that substance is more important than mere form. The substance of in rem jurisdiction, for example, is that the court is deciding the rights of a person with respect to property. The fact that the person may have no "personal" liability beyond that of losing the property as a result of the litigation does not change the fact that in substance, what is being affected is that person's property right. That is why the Court in Shaffer v. Heitner made its comment in footnote 22, and that is why in rem jurisdiction, like in personam jurisdiction and quasi in rem jurisdiction, are considered to be subsets of "personal jurisdiction" in the textbook, Civil Procedure, by Friedenthal, Kane & Miller. Famspear (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

In short, I would say, add a citation to the Friedenthal/Kane/Miller textbook to the article. Then, if you can locate another textbook or other reliable, previously published third party source that says (for example) that in rem jurisdiction is not a subcategory of personal jurisdiction, then add that to the article as well. That way, you can show that different legal scholars view the concepts differently. Famspear (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I would note that Barron's Law Dictionary also discusses the sub-categories of "personal [in personam] jurisdiction" as follows:

1. Action in personam;

2. Action in rem;

3. Action quasi in rem.

See pages 254-255, Barron's Law Dictionary (2d ed. 1984).

Granted, this can be confusing, because "personam" is indeed a Latin cognate for the English "person" (or vice versa). Barron's Law Dictionary even uses the term "in personam" in the brackets for the heading for "personal jurisdiction" (as I noted above), but then goes on to differentiate the three sub-categories the same way the Friedenthal-Kane-Miller text does: in personam, in rem, and quasi in rem.

So, we have at least two sources (Barron's Law Dictionary and the Friedenthal-Kane-Miller textbook, Civil Procedure) that treat the three categories in personam, in rem, and quasi in rem as being sub-categories of "personal" jurisdiction. Famspear (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

FAMSPEAR: I wish you would stop trying to patronize me. I know very well what I wrote. You left out "Its continued acceptance . . . ." which is telling. Any cite would be an improvement and a direct quote, in context, from the Hornbook would do nicely; but a historical background would be much better. I think that "Three types of personal jurisdiction," is misleading for reasons already expressed. Black's Law disagrees with Barron's, by the way. "Personal jurisdiction. The power of a court over the person of a defendant in contrast to the jurisdiction of a court over a defendant's property or his interest therein; in personam as opposed to in rem jurisdicition. See In personam ["against the person"] jurisdiction." Blacks Law Dictionary 1144 (6th ed. 1990). I have never seen a court cite to Barron's. It seems you would rather be right, than get it right. Would action against property without an owner (e.g., abandoned) be an exercise of personal jurisdiction? Best wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hhblount (talk • contribs) 22:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not "patronizing" you. And I didn't quote you merely for the purpose telling you what you had already written. I quoted you to illustrate my point. Your statement, in my view, actually supports my point. And the fact that I left out the phrase "Its continued acceptance" is not "telling."

Again, "historical background" is fine. But we need to use reliable, previously published third party sources. I have never seen a court cite to Barron's either. That's not the issue. Barron's Law Dictionary is a reliable, previously published source, as is Friedenthal, Kane and Miller's textbook, Civil Procedure.

No, it does not "seem like" I would rather be right than "get it right." Please calm down. You asked me for sources. I provided two of them: the textbook Civil Procedure by professors Friedenthal, Kane and Miller, and the citation to Barron's Legal Dictionary -- both reliable, previously published third party sources.

On the question "Would action against property without an owner...be an exercise of personal jurisdiction?" The answer is probably yes. Even if no one has claimed the abandoned property (i.e., even if it had no owner), an action against the property in rem typically involves the determination of ownership rights in that property. So, even if no one were claiming the abandoned property at the time of the court's determination, a court ruling on who owns the property (even if it's just a determination that the property escheats) still affects the rights of everyone else, including (presumably) someone who would have claimed the property had he or she known it had been abandoned, etc. Yours, Famspear (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

FAMSPEAR: Is Barron's more reliable than Black's? Who gets to decide? As for the rest of your latest argument, it is unconvincing. At least you are honest enough to hedge your argument with a "probably." Still, I find it unpersuasive. A State, in the case of an escheat, is not a person. It does not sound, even remotely, like an exercise of personal jurisdiction, IMHO. In that instance it is the State exercising its jurisdiction, as a sovereign, against property, not a person. Why did it take hours, accompanied by much tarradiddle, to provide your cites? Why were those cites missing from the Wikipedia article in the first place, if you are so certain of the correctness of your position? There is some confusion on the point (even if you were absolutely correct) and I would think that a good Wikipedian would seek to clear the confusion, even if he chooses not to consider other evidence that challenges his understanding. Truth should be the standard here and sometimes the truth is not clear cut and absolute. Sources often disagree. Some are flat wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.15.181 (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear IP 74.192.15.181: This is not a battle between Black's and Barron's to see which one is "more" reliable. What in the world are you talking about? What do you mean, "why did it take hours" to provide my cites? Of course it took "hours." What business is that of yours? It could have taken days, depending on when I get around to it. To answer your question: I made my original talk page posts at home. My law books are at work, which means my posts on the Friedenthal text came this morning, when I got to work. More on point: How "long" it takes me or other editors to respond to your questions, on a talk page, or to make a change in an article, is none of your business. The rest of us are not here to answer your questions to your satisfaction.

Tarradiddle? Tarradiddle means "nonsense." I do not write nonsense here, and I and other editors are not here to persuade you, to your satisfaction, about anything. I and other editors are here to edit Wikipedia articles. Providing specific citations to reliable sources, in response to a question you yourself raised, is not providing "tarradiddle."

What do you mean by the "correctness" of my "position"? Again, you asked for sources for the proposition -- already stated in the article -- that in rem jurisdiction and quasi in rem jurisdiction are categories of personal jurisdiction. I didn't write the article. Someone else did. But when you asked for a source, I cited the leading text on the topic of civil procedure -- namely, the hornbook (textbook) Civil Procedure, by Friedenthal, Kane and Miller. It's their position. The authors are the source. I didn't write the textbook. Professors Friedenthal, Kane and Miller did. Please put a cork in the rhetoric about my supposedly being "certain" of the "correctness" of my position. It's not "my position" we're here to discuss.

Our primary purpose here is not (or at least should not be) to debate over whether in rem jurisdiction is a subset of "personal jurisdiction." The issue is not what YOU AND I BELIEVE about this. The issue is: What do the reliable sources say? Again, you asked for sources, and I provided them. Now that I have provided them, you seem to be wanting to argue WITH ME over this point. We should be here only as Wikipedia editors -- to write what reliable, previously published sources have said about the topic.

You state that "sources often disagree." Good. Now we're in agreement. You say, "Some sources are flat wrong." Good. We agree on that, too.

Now, please calm down. I didn't put the material in the article regarding the categorization of in rem jurisdiction and quasi in rem jurisdiction. Someone else did. According to the textbook by Friedenthal, Kane and Miller, the material in the article is correct. You asked for sourcing and I provided it. Yours, Famspear (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

FAMSPEAR: Tarradiddle means "petty falsehood" or it could mean "pretentious nonsense." You gave me so much more than a cite, so it has grown tedious. Your sources and my sources disagree. I think the escheat example proves my point very well and I'll stand on Black's Law Dictionary any day. What could be more "reliable?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.15.181 (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Since this is an encyclopedia where we report what the sources say, where there is a disagreement between sources we teach the controversy. That is, we report what all reliable sources say and leave it to the reader to weigh the relative value of the conflicting sources. bd2412 T 03:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.15.181 (talk) 04:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree this section needs work

In the United States, there are at least four ways that a court can obtain personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a civil case. Service of a summons and complaint is one way. The voluntary submission of the defendant to the jurisdiction of the court is a second way. The participation of the defendant in the proceedings of the court, even without the specific intent to submit to the jurisdiction of the court is a third way. That can be a trap for the unwary. The fourth way is service of notice by publication after attempts at personal service have failed. This section, as written, is incomplete and misleading. Kmorford 18:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Somewhat accurate. Personal jurisdiction is slightly different in each state, however I would not support categorizing methods of obtaining personal jurisdiction by the different methods of notice. Service by publication and personal service are merely two methods of service, which are a form of notice. Other methods can be used as well: waiver is essentially required of U.S. defendants in Federal Court under FRCP 4(d), for example, and service upon international defendants (under FRCP 4(f)) must comport with various treaties (notably the Hague Treaty) or, in the absence of a treaty via letters of request (AKA letters rogatory). I hope that the section I recently added re: power, consent, and notice (as well as the rest of my significant re-write) satisfactorily addresses the topic. Please provide your feedback, if you would! Manumitany (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Venue?

Shouldn't venue be included in the list of required items for a court to have any power other than to dismiss a case? Speaking of which, it should probably be spelled out more clearly that a court can dismiss a case (and must) without these things... Really, it seems like they're starting a list of the Rule 12(b) motions which is overkill. Twinotter 00:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

"Had the plaintiffs sued in U.S. federal court sited in Oklahoma, venue would have been proper under 28 USC § 1391, the general federal venue statute, because Oklahoma was a state in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. However, the United States Supreme Court found that the defendants (World-Wide Volkswagen Corp.) did not have the minimum contacts with Oklahoma necessary to create personal jurisdiction there. [World-Wide Volkswagen was one of the "defendants"; the case cited is WWV Corp (original defendant) v. Woodson (the Oklahoma state judge)" Italic textIN ORDER FOR PLAINTIFFS TO SUE IN FEDERAL COURT, DIVERSITY JURISDICTION WOULD HAVE TO EXIST, WHICH IT DOES NOT IN THIS CASE. (IN ORDER TO HAVE DIVERSITY JURISDICTION, NO TWO PARTIES CAN BE FROM THE SAME STATE). PLAINTIFF PURPOSEFULLY NAMED TWO DEFENDANTS LOCATED IN NEW YORK SO THAT THE CASE COULD BE HEARD IN FRONT OF A MORE SYMPATHETIC JURY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.225.158 (talk) 04:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Internet jurisdiction

My opinion is that the stuff about internet jurisdiction is very interesting and should be expanded on. It would be neat if Wikipedia became the primary source of information for Google searches regarding the topic. However, I feel it is inappropriate in the personal jurisdiction article, because it is too specific. The rest of the material in the article is very fundamental. If there is no objection, I will remove it, link to it, and add stuff. hlsgrad (not logged in).

Venue?

"Had the plaintiffs sued in U.S. federal court sited in Oklahoma, venue would have been proper under 28 USC § 1391, the general federal venue statute, because Oklahoma was a state in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. However, the United States Supreme Court found that the defendants (World-Wide Volkswagen Corp.) did not have the minimum contacts with Oklahoma necessary to create personal jurisdiction there. [World-Wide Volkswagen was one of the "defendants"; the case cited is WWV Corp (original defendant) v. Woodson (the Oklahoma state judge)" Italic textIN ORDER FOR PLAINTIFFS TO SUE IN FEDERAL COURT, DIVERSITY JURISDICTION WOULD HAVE TO EXIST, WHICH IT DOES NOT IN THIS CASE. (IN ORDER TO HAVE DIVERSITY JURISDICTION, NO TWO PARTIES CAN BE FROM THE SAME STATE). PLAINTIFF PURPOSEFULLY NAMED TWO DEFENDANTS LOCATED IN NEW YORK SO THAT THE CASE COULD BE HEARD IN FRONT OF A MORE SYMPATHETIC JURY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.225.158 (talk) 04:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I dont think he mentioned in complete detail. 1391 has 2 parts (a) and (b) 1391 (a) talks about venue based ONLY on diversity of citizenship (ie. 1332). However, 1391(b) talks about venue when your seeking to get into F. Court not based SOLELY ON diversity. That is, you could have a federal question claim (1331) in part or an exclusivity clause (like an admiralty statute or a copyright dispute). The specific part you are quoting is only 1 way to get into fed. court (ie. diversity). No matter which way you get in, you need to satisfy 1391. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaunaksayta (talk • contribs) 00:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

International Application

I am not entirely familiar with personal jurisdiction in non-American forums. I believe that the fundamentals of personal jurisdiction are Common Law in nature, but I've titled the section to refer to the U.S. As this article is almost, if not entirely US-centric, I would recommend that it be renamed to Personal Jurisdiction (U.S.) or similar once we can establish a substantive nation-neutral page that it can be linked to from.Manumitany (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This article has been almost entirely written from the US jurisprudential perspective, which has diverged very greatly from the other significant common law systems, ie. England, and of course continental European systems, including unified regimes like the EU's Brussels I Regulation. Hopefully contributors will begin to fill up this article with information representing a more global scope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.132.250.13 (talk) 05:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Original research and unsourced material

The exercise of PJ finds its origin in the concept of power of the king. The power that he had to make sure that justice was done. Read up some English law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaunaksayta (talk • contribs) 01:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that "in personam" and "in rem" are both species of Personal Jurisdiction.

This is based on what my Civil Procedure professor at UCLA Law has said.

In response to User Shaunaksayta: No, we don't need to "read up some English law." And we don't need a lecture on this talk page about the law. We do need to read up on Wikipedia rules -- which include No Original Research. That means, in part, that we are not supposed to "read up some English law" and then add our own essays to Wikipedia articles without providing sourcing. Famspear (talk) 04:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No where in my contribution have I provided an opinion. I have said that a king cannot exercise power outside his kingdom. That is something very obvious! And, I have said that this was the concept finds its origins there - this is a broad statement - not specific to any one particular article. It certainly is true, on the basis of my understanding. In short, nothing that I have said is untrue. You cant have specific citations for a broad statement such as the one I have made. When you are reading huge amounts of material, and making a general observation which is very obvious I dont think you can possibly cite any one particular thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaunaksayta (talk • contribs) 00:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Shaunaksayta: You may want to review the basic Wikipedia concepts of Verifiability and No Original Research. (A third basic concept is Neutral Point of View, but I think Verifiability and No Original Research are the more material concepts for purposes of this particular discussion.) Stating that something is "true" on the basis of your "understanding" illustrates why the material is problematic. The fact that something is true does not in and of itself make it acceptable for purposes of Wikipedia. You cannot really properly cite your "understanding" that something is "true" as basis for insertion of that material in Wikipedia.

If you "cannot possibly cite any one particular thing" then that is another indication that the material is problematic. It sounds as though you may have done some original research and you have tried to summarize it without citing the sources. That is problematic as well. Yours, Famspear (talk) 01:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Famspar: That does not mean you cant put it up on wikipedia. Suppose you want to put up the fact that the Sun is yellow during the day and that its not visible to the eyes during night, how would you cite that ?

The fact that this page needs work, shows that there are things which are very obvious which are left out, you cant possibly cite everything you put in. Thats ridiculous. Some things which are essentially obvious have to be put in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaunaksayta (talk • contribs) 08:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC) If you dont agree with me on anything that I have said in particular, tell me. I can give you a cite for that in particular. But what your asking for, ie. a cite for every word that I have put in, is impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaunaksayta (talk • contribs) 08:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but no one here is asking for a "cite for every word." And the test for what "has to be put in" is not a belief by one editor (yourself) that the material he or she seeks to insert is very "obvious." For example, the statement that the "exercise of PJ [personal jurisdiction] finds its origin in the concept of power of the king" is not "very obvious." It may or may not be a correct statement, historically, but it is in no way "obvious" that the statement is correct.

"Obvious" means "easily discovered, seen or understood...." Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 793, G.&C. Merriam Company (8th ed. 1976). For example, the truth of a statement "that the Sun is yellow during the day and that it is not visible to the eyes at night" is probably "obvious" to the average person, who needs no specialized training or experience to understand that the statement is correct. The average person has lots of experience with the Sun.

By contrast, the correctness of a statement about the genesis of a technical legal doctrine such as personal jurisdiction is not "obvious" to the average person. Most people -- who, after all, are not lawyers -- cannot even define the legal term "personal jurisdiction", much less make a judgment about historical antecedents of the concept of personal jurisdiction. Famspear (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It was nice of you to have concede that obvious things dont need citations. Let me quote the part that I added, which in my understanding you have a problem with, so that we can be clear.

"The concept of personal jurisdiction finds its origin in the idea that the power of the King vests in his Sceptre. The King could not possibly exercise power over persons or property situate outside of his kingdom."

The King in times of absolute monarchy, was the sole bearer of power. Even today, the President (ie. the head of state in the US) or the Queen of England (the head of state in the UK) has absolute power to act in any matter, in keeping with the provisions of the Constitution.

What is obvious in my opinion is that the head of state of one kingdom (or State - as we use the term now) has no power to act outside of that State. So, for example - if Obama goes to Saudi for a visit, he cant decide how oil production would be allocated or how much production would be sold etc.. This is what is very obvious to me, and in my opinion would be obvious to anyone.

This is the concept that I am talking about. The king cannot exercise his power outside of his kingdom. The origin of this is the fact that the king would not take his scepter when he left to visit another kingdom. The scepter if taken outside of the other kingdom would mean that the King is there as an act of war, ie. to annex property. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaunaksayta (talk • contribs) 09:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Shaunaksayta: What is "obvious in your opinion" is not necessarily "obvious" for purposes of Wikipedia. You're still trying to tie the history of the development of the American legal concept of personal jurisdiction to your own, unsourced theory about a King exercising power. You are trying to do this in the form of an unsourced essay which, at best, constitutes Original Research by you. Instead, please look for a reliable, previously published third party source that has made this particular connection, and if and when you have found such a source, consider adding the material to the article with the proper sourcing.

By the way, a head of state -- or a state itself -- does indeed have the legal power to operate outside its territorial area. For example, under United States law, American law enforcement personnel (operating under the authority of the President) have the authority to operate against persons or property outside U.S. "jurisdiction," as you put it. A U.S. President has the legal power to order the apprehension of Americans or even non-American persons on the high seas (in international waters) and to have them brought to the United States for trial and conviction for acts committed on the high seas against Americans and even against non-Americans. Need an example? Here it is: The law of piracy. Famspear (talk) 13:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Your confusing the exercise of executive power with personal jurisdiction. If someone commits a crime in the US the US government has the power to apprehend him anywhere in the world (example : Osama), the other state may take issue on the exercise of that power in keeping with its own laws, but that does not vitiate the fact that the US would have power to apprehend a criminal for crimes committed against the US or on US soil.

Personal jurisdiction relates to exercise of power to decide disputes between private persons, and disputes of a civil nature against the Federal Government (or State Government). Not criminal matters. As far as criminal matters are concerned jurisdiction is never really an issue, a criminal can be apprehended wherever he is found or can be extradited under treaty.

Again, to reiterate my older example, the US president cannot make decisions of a policy nature when he is present on foreign soil. Like for example, he cant decide how much oil the Saudi should drill and to whom it should sell the oil to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaunaksayta (talk • contribs) 06:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not confusing the exercise of executive power with personal jurisdiction. I'm responding to what you wrote. You incorrectly stated that "the head of state of one kingdom ... has no power to act outside of that State."

You are correct, of course, when you say that personal jurisdiction does indeed relate to civil matters, not criminal matters. But in your incorrect statement about the "head of state of one kingdom", you did not expressly limit your analysis to non-criminal matters. You went down a rabbit trail.

And you are correct when you say that a criminal can be apprehended pretty much wherever he is found, etc. In effect, you're now agreeing with me.

You're throwing out ideas that keep sending you on fruitless rabbit trails. I understand that you have thoughts and feelings and theories about the legal concept of personal jurisdiction. But under the rules of Wikipedia, what you need to do as a Wikipedia editor is to find what previously published third party sources say about the subject. You might be able to find such material that supports your view, and you might be able to properly source it in the article. That's the way to go with it. Famspear (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your personal attack ("fruitless rabbit trails") I did not say anything to incite that. I am a lawyer qualified in one jurisdiction, and pursuing qualification in another jurisdiction. In any event, this page only deals with Personal Jurisdiction, I did not think it appropriate to talk about other things. And, I thought that what I was adding would most obviously be related only to personal jurisdiction. If a sentence says "apples, oranges etc" you cant interpret pens and pencils as the "etc", its obviously only restricted to fruits. When I say that the head of state has no power to act outside his kingdom in an article titled "personal jurisdiction" it most certainly cannot be construed that he cant do ANYTHING in that other state, what is said has to be read in light of the subject being spoken of. Otherwise you can have absolutely ridiculous interpretations of what I have said. By that sense, any and every action of the head of state outside the territory would be illegal, thats insane. I dont think you are really objecting to what I am saying, I think this is more of a turf war, and you seem to have a problem with the fact that I have added something and you did not. If thats the case, I dont really care, this is something I am doing for spreading knowledge not for any personal gain, you may go ahead and abuse your power as an editor and deface the page. I shall however reiterate that if you have any objection with anything in particular you can tell me what exactly you want a cite for, ill try my best to get the cite. However, if you indulge in any further personal attack I shall not respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaunaksayta (talk • contribs) 10:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Shaunakasayta: My reference to "fruitless rabbit trails" is not a "personal attack." It is a reference to what was written in this talk page.

No, this is not a "turf war." And no, I am not "abusing" my "power." I am just a Wikipedia editor.

In terms of "what I want cites for," the issue is not what "I want." What I am explaining are the rules of Wikipedia -- specifically the rule on Verifiability. Statements in articles should be supported by citations to reliable, previously published third party sources.

No one here has made a personal attack on you. Famspear (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and in response to your comment that if I "have any objection with anything in particular", I should tell you "what exactly" I "want a cite for" -- that's already covered in the article. Here's some of the material you added:

.....The concept of personal jurisdiction finds its origin in the idea that the power of the King vests in his Sceptre. The King could not possibly exercise power over persons or property situate outside of his kingdom.

The citation tags were added to the article several days ago. Famspear (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Im a little new here, so forgive my unfamiliarity with the wikipedia lingo. Ill look for the cites. But what if I get the cite in book ? and not online ? How do I cite that ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaunaksayta (talk • contribs) 04:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Shaunaksayta: In Wikipedia, I do not believe there are any "hard" rules about citation forms. I am not consistent with the way I cite books, for example, and no one has ever told me that there is one correct way to do it for Wikipedia. There are several pages in Wikipedia that talk about citation forms:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MOS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Legal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_citation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluebook

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_citation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_citation_signals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALWD_Citation_Manual

--but I don't know that these pages themselves would answer your question, either. Because Wikipedia is not a formal law review or law journal, I believe that the precise form of a citation itself is not as important as just giving enough information in the citation so that someone could find the source.

The book or other material you are going to cite does not have to be online. Yours, Famspear (talk) 05:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I found a cite for the scepter bit its in this book called Fundamental law in English constitutional history By John Wiedhofft Gough Pg. 52 Shaunaksayta (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Famspear (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Misc issues

Where a defendant challenges jurisdiction, courts may still exercise personal jurisdiction when they have independent power to do so.

I dont agree with this line the way its written. Will some editor please cite this. The sentence taken literally is correct. But your supposing that the defendant is wrongly disputing jurisdiction. If the court has jurisdiction, and the defendant challenges it, that does not take away the jurisdiction of the court. It only allows the defendant to appeal. If the court did not have jurisdiction and the defendant disputes it, the order of the court would be void ab initio (ie. void at the outset), in other words, it would not be worth the paper its printed on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaunaksayta (talk • contribs) 08:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)