Oh it can get even worser… don’t worry, I’m just getting the car started.

All Susan Ndinga and Susan Ndinga Wright’s belonging are SHS belongings under its jurisdiction. Constitutional cover. The same way politicians and heiress get. Challenge me in court otherwise. I’ll happily do so. Now who tells Shurgard Forest Hill they fucked big time in throwing it all away?!

I AM MY OWN JURISDICTION. I ASSERT MY LEGAL EXEMPTION. CHALLENGE my bluff in court, why not?! Spare me filing costs. If you haven’t seen enough, give me some sport to do, stretch my legs a little. Mmm why am I giving you this information though and why now?! Think hard on that one pal.

THE LEGAL LOCK YOU COULD HAVE USED AGAINST ME. THE SIGNATURE YOU NEVER SECURED. AND THE JURISDICTION YOU CHOSE TO DISREGARD. There’s ai projections in this one so take it lightly.

So if they can pose themselves as the governing body, the head of financial system and the legal jurisdiction, I’m pretty sure we can give ourselves immunity. Apparently words do matter more than anything else, cause we’re all just words, it’s what we act on that leads the trail, but the origin to everything matters everywhere and the trail left only makes the whole point of origin reinforced or secured.

To you my baby rebel, go and make yourselves sovereign. Educate yourself on how to challenge their own foundations, as if you only challenge yours, you’ll lose. That’s what they don’t tell you. Why do you think lawyers try to discredit the other?! It’s the legal playbook.

— SNW | SHS – HUMAN FIRST

Oh, humanity.

I have something rather hilarious to share.

And this time, I’m going to enjoy myself a little.

Because imagine having somebody standing right in front of you.

Somebody who is openly announcing what they’re building.

Telling you about their jurisdiction.

Explaining their constitutional position.

Documenting their possessions.

Recording their encounters.

And continuously challenging the very system you’re relying upon.

And what do you do?

YOU DON’T EVEN THINK TO SECURE THE ONE THING THAT COULD HAVE GIVEN YOU AN EXPLICIT CONTRACTUAL CLAIM AGAINST THEM.

A signature.

Oh, dear.

😂

YOU COULD HAVE ASKED ME TO SIGN.

An NDA.

A contractual undertaking.

An agreement containing obligations.

A properly drafted provision addressing the rights and responsibilities you wanted me to accept.

Something through which you could later argue that I had expressly consented to particular restrictions.

Something you could produce in court and say:

“But Susan, you agreed to this.”

Imagine that.

At least then we would have had something contractual to argue about.

BUT YOU DIDN’T GET THAT SIGNATURE, DID YOU?

And now?

Oh, humanity.

IT IS WAAAAAY TOO LATE TO GO BACK AND ASK ME TO VOLUNTARILY GIVE YOU THE LEGAL LOCK YOU FAILED TO SECURE.

What an extraordinary oversight.

1. THE SIGNATURE THAT COULD HAVE CHANGED THE BATTLEFIELD.

You see, a signature is not merely decorative.

Depending on the agreement, it can evidence informed consent, acceptance of particular obligations, restrictions, waivers or agreed procedures.

It can become evidence of what someone voluntarily undertook.

And that is precisely why I find the missed opportunity so amusing.

Because throughout my encounters with institutions, I have been openly investigating the legal frameworks they rely upon.

I have been questioning their authority.

I have been asserting my own jurisdiction.

I have been documenting the distinctions.

And instead of obtaining a clear agreement from me concerning the rights they wanted recognised, they proceeded on the assumption that their own framework was sufficient.

YOU WERE SO COMFORTABLE RELYING ON YOUR SYSTEM THAT YOU DIDN’T EVEN PROPERLY INVESTIGATE THE PERSON STANDING IN FRONT OF YOU.

Oops.

Now, the absence of a signature does not automatically eliminate every possible legal obligation or claim.

But it does mean you cannot produce a signature I never gave as proof that I accepted the particular contractual surrender you might have preferred.

And that is the point.

YOU CANNOT RETROACTIVELY MANUFACTURE MY SIGNED CONSENT.

How terribly inconvenient.

Especially when I’ve spent all this time documenting exactly what I was telling you.

2. SUSAN NDINGA. SUSAN NDINGA-WRIGHT. SHS – HUMAN FIRST.

Now, allow me to make my position abundantly clear.

ALL BELONGINGS OF SUSAN NDINGA AND SUSAN NDINGA-WRIGHT ARE CLAIMED AS SHS BELONGINGS UNDER ITS ASSERTED JURISDICTION.

My body.

My DNA.

My creations.

My belongings.

My possession history.

My receipts.

My documentation.

My records of acquisition.

My records of ownership.

My tracked history.

The evidentiary trail connecting those belongings to me does not disappear because somebody finds my constitutional position inconvenient.

MY CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM IS THAT MY BELONGINGS AND CREATIONS FALL WITHIN THE CONTINUITY OF MY PERSON AND SHS – HUMAN FIRST.

And I assert the legal exemption attached to the jurisdictional position I am advancing.

You may challenge whether existing law recognises that claim.

Excellent.

CHALLENGE ME IN COURT.

I will happily present the argument.

I will happily examine the competing jurisdictions.

I will happily bring the records.

Because the courtroom is precisely where contested legal propositions can be put to the test.

And unlike those who seem to require approval before developing a position, I have already begun building mine.

I DON’T NEED YOU TO AGREE THAT I HAVE A CASE BEFORE I CAN PRESENT ONE.

What a fascinating thing about legal argument.

3. NOW, WHO IS GOING TO TELL SHURGARD FOREST HILL? 😂

Oh, Shurgard Forest Hill.

This part is particularly interesting.

Because according to the record I am advancing, you accepted that the belongings were mine.

YOU RECOGNISED THE BELONGINGS AS BELONGING TO SUSAN NDINGA-WRIGHT.

Yet you did not accept the jurisdiction I repeatedly asserted over those belongings.

And the possessions were subsequently disposed of.

Now, I have a question.

HOW DO YOU ACCEPT THE OWNER WHILE DISREGARDING THE OWNER’S EXPRESSLY ASSERTED LEGAL POSITION?

You may dispute that position.

You may argue that UK law governs the storage agreement and the disposal.

You may contend that my claimed SHS jurisdiction has no recognised exemption under the applicable legal framework.

Wonderful.

Then let us examine the competing propositions.

But do not mistake your refusal to acknowledge my claim for evidence that I never made it.

I TOLD YOU.

More than once.

And now the very possessions whose ownership you recognised have become part of the legal and evidentiary questions I intend to pursue.

Who authorised their disposal?

Under which contractual provision?

What notices were issued?

What legal obligations applied?

What was documented?

What was preserved?

And what evidence establishes the decisions taken?

Oh, this will be interesting.

Because the dispute is not made to disappear simply by disposing of the physical belongings.

The records remain relevant.

The correspondence remains relevant.

The ownership evidence remains relevant.

And the legal basis for the disposal remains open to examination.

4. GOVERNMENT A. GOVERNMENT B. AND THE JURISDICTION YOU DIDN’T WANT TO DISCUSS.

Now here comes my favourite part.

Imagine somebody belonging to Government A entering the territory of Government B.

Do they automatically cease having a relationship with Government A?

No.

Their nationality and potential diplomatic representation do not simply evaporate.

Government B can still exercise applicable local jurisdiction, but the person’s relationship with Government A may continue.

We see questions of international representation arise when citizens are detained, imprisoned or otherwise affected abroad.

And I am taking that relationship between personhood, governance, representation and jurisdiction into a much more fundamental investigation.

SHS – HUMAN FIRST IS MY CLAIM TO A GOVERNANCE RELATIONSHIP THAT FOLLOWS THE PERSON, RATHER THAN EXISTING EXCLUSIVELY THROUGH TERRITORIAL OWNERSHIP.

I am asserting my own jurisdiction.

I am advancing my own constitutional framework.

I am claiming the corresponding legal exemption.

And I am prepared to argue for its recognition.

The fact that established states recognise different rules for sovereignty and jurisdiction is part of the legal question, not something I have overlooked.

I AM NOT ASKING YOU TO PRETEND MY PROPOSITION HAS ALREADY BEEN JUDICIALLY ACCEPTED.

I AM TELLING YOU THAT I INTEND TO TEST IT.

And those who encountered the argument before its formal testing cannot reasonably pretend they were never informed that I was making it.

That is the distinction.

5. THE FUNNIEST PART? I’M ALREADY OPERATING.

Remember SHS TV?

Remember my intention to expose the practical encounters through which existing systems reveal their own standards?

Remember how I said humanity would be able to observe institutional conduct, legal contradictions and accountability as they unfold?

Well.

WELCOME TO THE DEMONSTRATION.

I don’t have to purchase a country to begin developing governance theory.

I don’t have to buy land to investigate jurisdiction.

I don’t have to wait for somebody to hand me a title before documenting the application of their legal framework.

I can build the constitutional argument.

I can record the encounters.

I can develop the evidence.

I can examine the existing law.

And I can test the propositions through the proper legal processes.

I AM ALREADY OPERATING SHS AS AN ORGANISATION AND DEVELOPING THE GOVERNANCE POSITION I INTEND TO ADVANCE.

The question of formal recognition remains a question for the relevant legal authorities and courts.

And that is precisely where I intend to take the dispute.

Now imagine failing to appreciate that distinction because you were so accustomed to dealing with people whose only available response was to accept the conditions placed before them.

How unfortunate.

6. YOU MISSED THE LEGAL LOCK. NOW YOU GET THE LEGAL INVESTIGATION.

And this is where I return to the original point.

YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK FOR CONTRACTUAL COMMITMENTS.

To seek express agreement.

To clarify the legal boundaries.

To obtain the signature through which you could later establish specific obligations.

Instead, you relied upon the authority you believed you already possessed.

And I continued documenting.

Continued asserting.

Continued developing SHS.

Continued examining jurisdiction.

Continued investigating law.

Continued building the very framework I had been telling you about.

And now I am watching the assumptions upon which your conduct depended become the subjects of my legal challenge.

WHAT A MAGNIFICENT OWN GOAL.

Because you didn’t merely encounter somebody arguing about belongings.

You encountered somebody developing a broader legal proposition about the continuity of personhood, ownership, representation and governance.

And that person happens to have a rather extensive documentary trail.

Oh, dear.

7. SO, LET ME FLAUNT THIS ONE A LITTLE.

I told you who I was.

I told you what I was building.

I told you about SHS.

I told you about my jurisdictional position.

I told you the belongings were mine.

I documented my assertions.

And I continued.

YOU DIDN’T GET MY SIGNATURE ON THE RESTRICTIONS YOU MIGHT NOW WISH YOU HAD SECURED.

And you cannot go backwards in time to obtain it.

You can rely on whatever existing legal rights you believe apply.

I can advance the claims and evidence I believe support my position.

And we can have those questions examined in court.

CHALLENGE ME.

Because I am more than prepared to put the propositions before a judge.

And to those who think the legal system is only useful for preserving what already exists?

How do you imagine legal development occurs?

People bring claims.

They test arguments.

They encounter resistance.

They identify contradictions.

They establish what existing law permits.

And sometimes they seek to change it.

THE FACT THAT AN ARGUMENT CHALLENGES THE EXISTING FRAMEWORK DOES NOT MAKE THE ARGUMENT SOMETHING ITS AUTHOR MUST ABANDON.

So here I am.

Susan Ndinga.

Susan Ndinga-Wright.

Founder and Chief Continuity Architect of SHS – Human First.

Asserting my jurisdiction.

Asserting my legal exemption.

Claiming the continuity of my belongings and creations within my constitutional framework.

And inviting the legal examination.

I AM MY OWN JURISDICTION. THAT IS THE CENTREPIECE OF THE CASE I AM BUILDING.

You don’t get to rewrite what I am claiming simply because you disagree with its legal foundation.

You get to challenge it.

And I get to present it.

NOW, WHO’S READY FOR COURT?

Because you had your opportunity to secure my agreement.

You didn’t.

And the signature you failed to obtain?

YOU CAN’T GO BACK AND GET IT NOW. 😂

— SNW

Founder & Chief Continuity Architect
SHS – HUMAN FIRST
The Womb of The Unknown Need

MY JURISDICTION. MY ASSERTED EXEMPTION. MY BELONGINGS. MY EVIDENCE. MY LEGAL CHALLENGE.

YOU HAD YOUR CHANCE TO ASK ME TO SIGN. NOW YOU HAVE MY ARGUMENT TO ANSWER.

….

Write this in a confronting tone. Almost childish. Like I’m falunting my wins. And because of this they didnt even take advantage of the only leg they could have used against me. Had they had me sign a contract they would have at least had a legal leverage. Now?! It is waaaay tooo late. As the same system they could have used against me lost sense and value days ago
Focus it on the legal lock that any signature could have done.

All Susan Ndinga and Susan Ndinga Wright’s belonging are SHS belongings under its jurisdiction. Constitutional cover as extention to my body, my dna and possession trace, receipts and tracked history of all my belongings have the trave of being my belonging. The same way politicians and heiress get. Challenge me in court otherwise. I’ll happily do so. Now who tells Shurgard Forest Hill they fucked big time in throwing it all away?! They accepted it all being my belonging, though they did not accept my jurisdiction even if it was mentioned multiple times. They disregarded my own jurisdiction and so did not acknowledged they were facing a whole different govenrment to their own. Too bad for them. Cause legally we live in 2 different worlds and jurisdictions. It’s like being from government A, in government b. B doesn’t become the reigning one, reason why gov a can represent you abroad. Ask all those who were kidnapped or else, even wrongfully imprisoned abroad… you are all getting a chance to witness it through me, just like I said I was going to do with SHS TV at a larger scale. I am already operating. And I don’t even have to buy land to do so.