You have not shown that precedent is against me. Where has this argument been tested and rejected? >>The question isn't whether or not the consent was genuine,

You have not shown that precedent is against me. Where has this argument been tested and rejected? >>The question isn't whether or not the consent was genuine, the answer to that is a resounding "yes". The question is "is the person now, 10 years later, a different person such that their prior genuine consent no longer applies" That goes to the question of whethee the consent was genuine. Consent is not genuine when it is provided on behalf of another party. >>This question can be rephrased as "Is there a way to re-invent myself as a new legal being and avoid prior obligations and agreements at no consequence to myself?" A disingenuous leading construction of the question.. And being considered a different person does not allow one to avoid all obligations and agreements that their pass self entered into. All property bounded by past agreements would still be bound, and the vast majority of agreements use property as collateral to compel compliance. Only self-imposed slavery would be nullified by such an affirmative response to the question. This has nothing to do with your "freemen-of-the-land" nonsense accusation. I'd be open to seeing a single court case where someone used the "they are not their past self" argument to get out of their legal obligations.