71 ). This territorial principle, which has its origins in early English common law (id. at 470), is codified in CPL 20.20, which sets forth various factual predicates for finding jurisdiction. Territorial jurisdiction "may never be waived" and must be established beyond a reasonable doubt (id. at 470-471). Venue, on the other hand, is a concept distinct from territorial jurisdiction, and addresses a defendant's right to be tried in the county where the crime was committed (see CPL 20.40). Because it relates only to the proper place of trial, and not to the power of the court to hear and determine the case, venue is waivable and need only be proved by a preponderance of the evidence (McLaughlin, 80 NY2d at 471-472).
as one can see territorial jurisdiction (TJ) IS NOT venue so to challenge venue is a no no. Keep in mind that most if not all court rules or procedures NEVER provide the option of challenging TJ. Also take note and be WARNED, proper challenge of territorial jurisdiction MUST
be made against the CHARGING PARTY/PLAINTIFF, NOT the court nor the plaintiff's attorney if they have one. A court ONLY gets it authority to move initially by the Plaintiff HOWEVER if the Plaintiff does not have TJ the court is powerless. The court always has tj based on their location so challenging the court is a no no. Again if Plaintiff doesn't have TJ it can't move the court. In your foreclosure case look up the definition of "State" or "in this state" and you will no doubt find that the definition means "United States or District of Columbia" which one can conclude then that the Bank/Plaintiff does not have TJ since, (A) your "land" is not situated in District of Columbia (State of whatever). Keep in mind that this type of challenge is different then other jurisdiction challenges and not used when utilizing the CR(tm) process.
The CR(tm) process eliminates a controversy thus negates any claim since there is no controversy and the jurisdictional challenge would be lack of subject matter as there exists no controversy. One should be prepared that the court may deny such challenge in order to play out their game to "determine" if there really is or is not a controversy and/or to test you.
I was also reading in another case when a party, as Plaintiff brought an action against, I believe it was a public officer, the court dismissed the action and their reason was the Plaintiff did not provide the public officer a notice of intent to sue. Good insight if anyone is/was planning an action against a public officer to make sure you provide notice of intent to sue. This does not mean that is what we desire to do for we should be peacemakers although if one public officer chooses to ignore what the CR(tm) process actually does said Notice may be the wake up call to them to make the shit go away.
If one wants to see how a challenge of TJ gets a conviction reversed one can look to https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1537298/west-v-state/
Guy was convicted by State of Maryland for raping a woman that he and a friend picked up in Maryland but the alleged rape took place in District of Columbia.
This is some info on jurisdiction, specifically territorial jurisdiction... from People v. Thomas. 997 N.Y.S.2d 53