Wikipedia explains IN REM as:
“Within the American state court systems, jurisdiction in rem may refer to the power the state court may exercise over real property or personal property or a person’s marital status. State courts have the power to determine legal ownership of any real or personal property within the state’s boundaries.
A right in rem or a judgment in rem binds the world as opposed to rights and judgments inter partes which only bind those involved in their creation.
Originally, the notion of in rem jurisdiction arose in situations in which property was identified but the owner was unknown. Courts fell into the practice of styling a case not as “John Doe, Unknown owner of (Property)”, but as just “Ex Parte (property)” or perhaps the awkward “State v. (Property)”, usually followed by a notice by publication seeking claimants to title to the property.”

So action IN REM is AGAINST THE PROPERTY (or Ex parte) as the defendant.
And since in personam jurisdiction is a “jurisdiction over defendant’s PERSONAL RIGHTS”, I don’t see how the State can claim that jurisdiction over foreigners or other NON-RESIDENTS, since ONLY State residents are State’s SUBJECTS, since only they receive benefits from it. EXCEPT if they charged them under Common/Public Law, as men with inalienable rights.

Remember, the State Constitution DID NOT give the State jurisdiction over everyone; it only delegated CERTAIN powers to the State from the sovereign People of the State. If you disagree, please point out the Article of State Constitution which gave the State power over using PRIVATE CONVEYANCES on public roads.
And there also is QUASI IN REM jurisdiction. That refers to jurisdiction over a PROPERTY which belongs to someone over whom the court does NOT have jurisdiction. I.e. a property in California which belongs to someone in Nevada. In which case a California court can bring an action against the Nevadan when there’s a dispute over his California property, even though he is outside of court’s jurisdiction.
Wikipedia says:
“A quasi in rem legal action (Latin, “as if against a thing”) is a legal action based on property rights of a person absent from the jurisdiction. In the American legal system, the state can assert power over an individual simply based on the fact that this individual has property (bank account, debt, a share of stock, land) in the state.
Of note, in a quasi in rem case, the court may lack personal jurisdiction over the defendant, but it has jurisdiction over the defendant’s property. The property could be seized to obtain a claim against the defendant.
On June 24, 1977, in the case of Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, the Supreme Court of the United States decided that the requirement that the circumstances giving rise to jurisdiction comply with the notion of “fair play and substantial justice” should apply to the quasi in rem jurisdiction questions. ”

BTW, you’re entitled to know EXACTLY which kind of jurisdiction the court claims when there are charges against you. And if the judge won’t tell you, then you can refuse to plea, or appeal for denial of due process, since you CANNOT effectively defend yourself without knowing which jurisdiction the court exercises.

Plus, if a judge tells you that it exercises a STATUTORY jurisdiction, then I’d either just walk out, or disqualify him FOR A CAUSE since he LIED to you because there’s no such thing as statutory jurisdiction. There’s no such jurisdiction defined in Black’s Law Dictionary.

Also, originally, under Common/Public Law in the USA, courts had a territorial jurisdiction, but there had to be an INJURED PARTY who signed a VERIFIED complaint before the court could assert that jurisdiction.
It seems to me that after 1933, when they switched to a so-called “statutory” jurisdiction, they still have a territorial jurisdiction, but you ALSO have to be one of their STATUTORY PERSONS or be a State RESIDENT, i.e. have a ZIP code address, in order for the court to have in personam jurisdiction. I mean, just try to assert with courts or gov’t agencies that you DON’T have a ZIP code address – it can’t be done, they only operate in the ZIP code areas, which seems to be the requirement for them in order to exercise their “statutory” jurisdiction.

So their position basically is, that if you have a ZIP code address, you’re a State RESIDENT, which makes you a SUBJECT to STATUTES. I.e. you’re a statutory person. And statutory persons are like corporations. They’re LEGAL FICTIONS that the State creates to provide certain benefits for the applicants. In case of corporations, it’s limited liability, and in case of residents, it’s entitlement to certain gov’t benefits. And, of course, persons that the State creates, it also REGULATES.
And THAT, I believe, is why they print your NAME in all-caps; it’s because they’re charging a STATUTORY PERSON (State’s subject), not a man with inalienable rights.
Like I said, before, in order to be able to effectively claim private property rights, you gotta be either a State Citizen or Inhabitant, AND use silver, gold or Bitcoin to make purchases, or make 12USC411 lawful money demands on all your bank deposits.

So the main point here is that if you have a ZIP code ADDRESS, you’re a RESIDENT of the CORPORATE STATE, i.e. a STATUTORY SUBJECT, which is someone who is SUBJECT to STATUTES. Probably BOTH, State AND federal ones. And if you DON’T have a ZIP code address, then you STILL are subject to statutes, UNLESS you use silver, gold or Bitcoin for your purchases, since the State can assert control over NON-RESIDENTS via QUASI IN REM jurisdiction, if it doesn’t have IN PERSONAM jurisdiction.
I.e. the State has territorial jurisdiction, but that presupposes FREE MEN, in which case it’d have to charge you UNDER PUBLIC/COMMON LAW, where your name is Jaro Henry Smith, not JARO HENRY SMITH.

So in order to properly charge you as JARO HENRY SMITH, the State’s subject, there HAS TO BE a CONTRACT or evidence of your subject status. Of course, that includes being a RESIDENT with a ZIP code address.

This is important. State court’s territorial jurisdiction DOES NOT entitle the State to charge a NON-RESIDENT as a statutory subject! It ONLY entitles it to charge that non-resident under Common/Public Law, as a man with inalienable rights, i.e. John Doe, NOT a statutory subject JOHN DOE. If it wants to charge a non-resident as a statutory person, it NEEDS to provide EVIDENCE of his subject status on the record (such as operating in commerce), if he challenges court’s jurisdiction.
And the reason why the State would charge even non-residents as statutory subjects, would be EITHER because it is bankrupt, so it has no power to charge anyone under real/common law, OR because there’s no real money in circulation so everyone is PRESUMED bankrupt also, unless and until he can provide a PROOF of having REAL money, such as a 21 silver dollars BOND, or evidence of having real, LAWFUL money.

I.e. non-residents need to present an EQUITABLE CLAIM in order to defeat court’s assertion of QUASI IN REM jurisdiction.

And as I mentioned before, when I presented a proof of lawful money to the US Comptroller (an equitable claim), my US savings account has disappeared and the IRS didn’t touch my bank account, even though they levied my Paypal account with a $150k lien twice. That shows you that having an equitable claim can work when properly asserted.

*******************

BTW, this is just like local “governments” such as CITIES and COUNTIES. Those are municipal CORPORATIONS, created by a vote of RESIDENTS, so they OBVIOUSLY don’t have authority over non-residents. So a MUNICIPAL court would have no jurisdiction over a non-resident, and if there was a common law violation, then the charges would have to be filed in a court of GENERAL jurisdiction, i.e. a court of RECORD.

Same with the State; in order for it to charge anyone with a statutory violation, he has to be a resident, or if non-resident, he has to operate in commerce. Of course, voluntarily using debt notes FRNs, is operating in commerce, so the State can bring statutory charges on that basis, or via quasi in rem jurisdiction, since your property is collateral for the federal debt, if you paid for it with FRNs.