It ‘must’ be firmly understood that you cannot be held to an agreement by someone signing or contracting on your behalf without your explicit permission. If someone is held in high esteem because of their title, position or office, they still cannot contract you to an agreement without your permission, or even present a contract to you without ‘full disclosure’. To do so would make such an arrangement ‘null and void’, that is, it would have no ‘effect and force’ of law as an obligation towards it. There is no law where you have not contracted – CONTRACT IS THE LAW.

Anyone may of course freely choose to contract themselves into something considered ‘virtuous’, like a pretended nations jurisdiction or the combined jurisdictions of those same nations presented as one large authority like, for instance, the European Union (EU). That is their ‘freewill’ prerogative to do so.

In realising the importance of naturally having the freewill to contract, it becomes clear that ‘no one’ has any business meddling in your affairs, or contracting you to an ‘agreement’ without your explicit permission, regardless of how important ‘they’ consider themselves to be or are considered to be. It is simply not their business or in their jurisdiction to do so, regardless of the antiquity of ‘their’ office or the reasons ‘they’ cite as to the antiquity of what ‘they’ represent, or even how good an idea it is they have, be it an idea of a country, nation, kingdom, subject, citizenry, union, constitution, and so on.

These manufactured ‘opinions’ of the many and varied fictional ideas produced and pronounced with earth-shaking gravitas are just that, ‘opinions’ that meddle in your life and have nothing to do with you unless you concede to them. This remains the reason why constitutions can never be signed. Someone cannot sign you onto their ‘opinions’ or somebody else’s ‘opinions’. The only signatures constitutions are likely to retain are signatures of the ‘witnesses’ to them. Witnesses are not party to a contract that ‘claims’ to speak for everyone else without each and every individuals personal and explicit consent first being given.

Constitutions must remain unsigned, because no one of SANITY would dare have the temerity, aside from the ‘barefaced cheek’, to sign or contract into an ‘opinion’, or others ‘opinions’, on someone else’s behalf, without even that someone else’s explicit permission to do so.

This is the reality of how we exist and relate to each other; without even accounting for the requirement and necessity of having to have ‘full disclosure’, with regards to making known the parties involved and where they are to be found, as well as the merits or disadvantages of any ‘agreement’, that must be presented personally and separately to each and every individual for there to be fairness in dealings between people.

Without ‘full disclosure’ as to the underlying implications (slavery) of any imposed and pretended agreement, as well as each and every individuals explicit permission or consent being sort to such an agreement, then such a contract or agreement becomes ‘null and void’.

Those who would accept what would be infact a ‘presentment to contract’ or ‘an offer of acceptance’, that is, an offer presented for acceptance, would be within ‘their rights’, only with regards to themselves, to accept such ‘presentments to contract’.

Whether those who accepted such presentments formed a majority, would be irrelevant to the individual who refused such offers of presentment’.

Such a position is an entirely reasonable one, since each and every individual is expected to take responsibility for their actions, and must do so, in order to exercise freewill. The farcical notion of thinking that you could have the option of imposing your views, opinions or agreements on others, simply because you formed a majority, would be tantamount to ‘endorsing slavery by majority’ – an absolute and total absurdity. ‘So much for’ democracy.

Nevertheless, how then is it possible to be made to honour contracts without your explicit permission, if it is reasonable to say that ‘no one’ has any business meddling in your affairs, or contracting you to an ‘agreement’ without your consent.


It is ‘full disclosure’ that reveals that an agreement can only apply to you if you admit or agree to being under the jurisdictional territory where agreements could be imposed on you even without your consent.

Admitting to using or residing in someone else’s territory would more than likely expose you to their rules.

The key to not being interfered with and having your affairs remain private, would then be to establish full disclosure and show that it had been met by verifying the meaning of terms without assuming you understood what was meant.

Since admitting to being in a jurisdictional territory where others claim authority to be able to impose agreements on you, even without your consent, by virtue of simply being or admitting to being in that territory, is altogether contrary to having your private affairs remain private, it would be then prudent to verify where the jurisdictional territory you agreed you were in, and that compelled a claim of having jurisdiction over it, and therefore over you, was to be found.

A good way of finding out where this jurisdictional territory is, would be to simply ask questions in the nature of,

‘What is the jurisdictional territory that you have jurisdiction over’ ?

‘Where is the jurisdictional territory to be found that you have jurisdiction over’ ?

‘Do you have any witnesses or are you a witness with factual evidence to show that I was in (name territory)’ ?

‘Can you define that jurisdictional territory by telling me where it is on the land’ ?

And finally, if need be, the pièce de résistance,

‘Do you have any witnesses or are you a witness with factual evidence that can show that I was in (jurisdictional territory name), including its territorial waters, seabed, and subsoil’ ?

For a more comprehensive list of geographic terms given after the wording, ‘include, includes, or including’, for the jurisdictional territory named

For a graphic representation

If there were a failure to provide answers to the questions you asked, these failed responses would then become

your facts or factual evidence

taken directly from the pretended jurisdictional authorities mouth

for your use in motioning a dismissal

based on ‘failure to show jurisdiction for a cause of action’ for whatever charge or charges were brought against you.

In this way, you could not be held liable for any claim made against you, in presenting what would be factual evidence taken from your questioning of those who claimed jurisdiction over you, by having them admit that you were never in their territorial jurisdiction.

Reference Source – Live Birth Certificate:



Maritime disputes

Maritime zones Australia.gif

It’s cold. It’s harsh. And it takes a lot of cash.

Surveillance zones and protected areas

Maritime Zones and Jurisdiction



Jurisdiction Over the Sea Bed and Subsoil Beyond Territorial Waters


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s