1.    The Court has jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction.
2.    Subject Matter.
3.    In Personam.

IN PERSONAM: Power which a court has over the defendant's person. It is
absolutely required before a court may enter a personal judgment. Jurisdiction
over a person may be waived by consent.

In Personam jurisdiction may be acquired by an act of the defendant within a
jurisdiction under a law or statute by which the defendant implies consent to
the jurisdiction of the court over his person.

Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio.
Re Application of Wyatt, 114 Cal.App. 557, [300 P. 132];

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction is the threshold issue in all judicial proceedings. We examine our jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

[1] Absent jurisdiction over the case or controversy, a court is without power to act. "Lack of jurisdiction in its most fundamental or strict sense means an entire absence of power to hear or determine the case ...." (Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal (1941) 17 Cal.2d 280 , 288 [109 P.2d 942, 132 A.L.R. 715].) However, a court has jurisdiction to determine whether it does have jurisdiction, as we do in this appeal. It is settled that "a tribunal has jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction." (Id. at p. 302.)

[2] The right of appeal of a judicial decision is wholly statutory and no judgment or order is appealable unless expressly made so by statute. (Woodman v. Ackerman (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 644 , 649 [57 Cal.Rptr. 687]; Collins v. Corse (1936) 8 Cal.2d 123 , 124 [64 P.2d 137]; and see9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Appeal §§ 2, 37-38, pp. 33, 60-61.) A fortiori, a judgment or order which is declared by statute to be "not subject to appeal" is not appealable.

[3] If the judgment or order appealed from is not an appealable order it is the duty of the court, on its own motion, to dismiss the appeal. (Collins v. Corse, supra, 8 Cal.2d 123 , 124.) This court has no jurisdiction to exercise appellate review of the judgment in this case, which is not appealable.
Supple v. City of Los Angeles, 201 Cal.App.3d 1004
[No. B029166. Court of Appeals of California, Second Appellate District, Division Three. June 2, 1988.]

Jurisdiction

[1] "Jurisdiction is the threshold issue in all judicial proceedings. ... Absent jurisdiction over the case or controversy, a court is without power to act. ... The right of appeal of a judicial decision is wholly statutory and no judgment or order is appealable unless expressly made so by statute. [Citations.]" (Supple v. City of Los Angeles (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 1004 , 1009 [247 Cal.Rptr. 554]; and see, § 904.1.)

[2] "[T]he requirement as to the time for taking an appeal is mandatory, and the court is without jurisdiction to consider [an appeal] which has been taken subsequent to the expiration of the statutory period." (Estate of Hanley (1943) 23 Cal.2d 120 , 122 [142 P.2d 423, 149 A.L.R. 1250]; Vibert v. Berger (1966) 64 Cal.2d 65 , 67 [48 Cal.Rptr. 886, 410 P.2d 390]; accord, Hollister Convalescent Hosp., Inc. v. Rico (1975) 15 Cal.3d 660 , 674 [125 Cal.Rptr. 757, 542 P.2d 1349]; Pressler v. Donald L. Bren Co. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 831 , 835 [187 Cal.Rptr. 449,
654 P.2d 219].)
UAP-Columbus JV 326132 v. Nesbitt, 234 Cal.App.3d 1028
[No. B051918. Second Dist., Div. Three. Sept. 27, 1991.]

Lack of jurisdiction in its most fundamental or strict sense means an entire absence of power to hear or determine the case, an absence of authority over the subject matter or the parties.
Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, 17 Cal.2d 280
[S. F. No. 16357. In Bank. February 7, 1941.]

But the word is frequently used as meaning authority to do the particular thing done, or, putting it
conversely, a want of jurisdiction frequently means a want of authority to exercise in a particular manner a power which the board or tribunal has, the doing of something in excess of the authority possessed." (See, also, Weintraub v. Superior Court, 91 Cal.App. 763, 769 [267 P. 733]; State v. Reynolds, 209 Mo. 161 [107 S.W. 487, 491, 123 Am.St.Rep. 468, 14 Ann. Cas. 198, 15 L.R.A. (N. S.) 963
Ibid.

Notwithstanding a "special appearance" designation on a motion to quash, if the movant seeks relief on any basis other than lack of personal jurisdiction, he or she makes a general appearance. (See 2 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, supra, Jurisdiction, § 149 et seq., p. 534, and cases cited.)
Greener v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 6 Cal.4th1028
[No. S034084. Dec 27, 1993.]

A court need not have jurisdiction over the person, however, to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Indeed, the court must dismiss on that ground on its own motion. (Morris v. Gilmer, 129 U.S. 315, 326-327 [9 S.Ct. 289, 32 L.Ed. 690]; Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, 17 Cal.2d 280 , 302-303 [109 P.2d 942, 132 A.L.R. 715].) Thus, a challenge to the subject-matter jurisdiction of the court is not inconsistent with a challenge to personal jurisdiction. Moreover, since the court must dismiss on its own motion, an appropriate challenge to subject-matter jurisdiction aids the court in performing its duty. The defendant should therefore be allowed to point out lack of subject-matter jurisdiction without making a general appearance. Judson v. Superior Court, 21 Cal.2d 11 [129 P.2d 361], is to the contrary, but it has often been criticized [63 Cal.2d 485] (see 31 Cal.L.Rev. 342; 1 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (1954), § 76, p. 346) and is overruled.
Goodwine v. Superior Court, 63 Cal.2d 481
[L.A. No. 28464. In Bank. Nov. 4, 1965.]

We think it is clear that neither the Department of Professional Standards nor the bureau nor the officers provided for by the act herein under consideration, nor any other official acquired any jurisdiction of petitioner to consider or make any order and that the order made is null and void. This, of course, because petitioner herein was not a licensed contractor at the time of the proceeding which is a precedent necessity before any action is authorized.
O'neil v. Dept. of Professional & Vocational Standards, 7 Cal.App.2d 395
[Civ. No. 10276. Second Appellate District, Division Two. June 5, 1935.]

“Jurisdiction is essential to give validity to the determination of administrative agencies and where jurisdictional requirements are not satisfied, the action of the agency is a nullity...”
City Street Improvement Co. v. Pearson,  181 C. 640,  185 P. 962,

“Therefore, it is necessary that the record present the fact establishing the jurisdiction of the tribunal”.
Lowe v. Alexander, 15 C. 296,  People v. Board of  Delegates of San Francisco Fire Dept.,  14 C.
479

“...the states are separate sovereigns with respect to the federal government”.
Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 187

“There is a canon of legislative construction which teaches Congress that, unless a contrary intent appears is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States”.
U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217 at 222

“All legislation is prima facie territorial”.
American Banana Co. v. U.S. Fruit, 213 U.S. 347 at 357-358

“Criminal jurisdiction of the federal courts is restricted to federal reservations over which the Federal Government has exclusive jurisdiction, as well as forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards or other needful buildings”.
Title 18 USC, §451, 3rd paragraph

“The laws of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government”.
Caha v. U.S., 152 U.S. 211

“It is an elementary rule of pleading, that a plea to the jurisdiction is...a tacit admission that the court has a right to judge in the case, an is a waiver to all exceptions to the jurisdiction”.
Girty v. Logan, 6 Bush Ky. 8
 

“Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen”.
Title 26, CFR §1.1-1(c)

Why was the word “their” not use in place of the word "it's"? "It's" denotes the singular and not the many, as in states of the union.

“We have in our political system a Government of the United States and a government of each of the several states.  Each is distinct from the other and each has citizens of its own...”
U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542,  23 L.Ed. 588

“State governments are but trustees acting under a derived authority...”
4 Wheat 402

“Special provision is made in the Constitution for the cession of jurisdiction from the states over places where the federal government shall establish forts or other military works.  And it is only in these places, or in territories of the United States, where it can exercise a general jurisdiction”.
New Orleans v. U.S., 35 U.S. 662 (1836),  10 Pet., at 737

Privileges and immunities protected by this clause are only those that belong to citizens of the United States as distinguished from citizens of state, and arise from Constitution and laws of United States as contrasted with those that spring from other sources.
Addison v. Addison, (1965) 399 P2d. 897, 62 C2d. 558, 43 Cal.Rptr. 97

This clause do not refer to citizens of the states.  It embraces only citizens of the United States.  It leaves out the words "Citizen of the state," which are so carefully used, and in contradistinction to citizens of the United States, in the proceeding sentence.  It places the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States under the protection of the Constitution, and leaves the privileges and immunities of citizens of the state under protection of the state constitution.
Cory v. Carter, (1874) 48 Ind. 349.

National government, though supreme within it own sphere, is one of limited jurisdiction and specific functions, and it has no facilities but such as Constitution has given it, either by expressly or incidently by necessary intendment.
Pacific Ins. Co. v. Soule, (1869) 74 U.S. 433, 19 L.Ed. 95.

Federal government is one of delegated powers.
Briscoe v. President and Directors of Bank of Kentucky, (1837) 36 U.S. 257, 9 L.Ed. 709.

Government of United States and of state are distinct and independent of each other within their respective spheres of action although existing and exercising their powers within the same territorial limits.
Tarbles Case, (1872) 80 U.S. 397, 20 L.Ed. 597.

United States government is as sovereign within its sphere as states are within theirs.
Kohl v. United States, (1876) 91 U.S. 367, 23 L.Ed. 597.

Citizenship by birth is not to be withdrawn or extinguished by the courts except pursuant to a clear statutory mandate.
Mandoli v. Acheson,  344 U.S. 133, 97 L.Ed. 146, 73 S.Ct. 135 (1952)

It is an axiom in our government, that all legitimate power emanates from the people."
Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 7 Pick (Mass.) 344, 345