Some of the old English law cases are still sort of relevant as a historical matter (and many casebooks for US law school courses start with them), but Keeble never says anything close to what he is claiming. He is basically interpreting “autonomy” to mean whatever he likes and then just listing his own opinions.

The other case he cites, Christianson v King County, is equally irrelevant, it’s an over 100 year old case dealing with the legal authority of the territory of Washington (pre statehood) over certain property issues. The only “identity” issue in the case is that someone had changed their name to conceal their identity, leading to a little confusion in the facts over the property. He is also flat out making up quotes, the court never said anything approaching what he claims.

I really wish people would stop posting fake legal analysis on the Internet. There’s so much misunderstanding of law already, and people tend to fall for whatever is said with confidence.