Your Majesty’s
This may be a plausible explanation for the term pass-over.
Firstly, as for the word person, from what I gather, association of the word person with you is to reduce ones status from the highest to lesser than.
Blacks 4th page 1300, person, a person is such, not because he is human, but because rights and duties have been ascribed to him. The person is the legal subject or substance of which rights and duties are attributes.
It is the later sentence The person is the legal subject or substance of which rights and duties are attributes that is of initial interest.
What do they mean legal subject or substance and the answer is simple, they do not mean human or man as such is not a legal subject or legal substance. However, the legal name is because it is that what is recognized in law, legal land. Salmond puts it this way, when the law creates a legal person it personifies a real thing. The thing personified may be termed the corpus of the legal person so created.
We men and women are not creations of the law thus not the corpus of the legal person. That is unless we appear as a legal person.
Furthermore, with the rights and duties thing in mind is this from the same page in Blacks; an individual human being considered as having such attributes is what lawyers call natural persons.
The only term that you are free of the legal rights and duties is to be a human or man or woman.
Any other status is lower in status. So unless a law speaks to human or men it does not apply to or should I say, is not meant that it shall apply to humans. They never do but it can appear that they do, the exception being laws/declarations/covenants concerning human rights.
Registration of birth is of a life event, a human, and that is what you are and that document is legal proof that is what you are.
Now when the law creates a legal person it does so by personifying a real thing, but again, the real thing the law sees is that name that is recognized in law. You need to comprehend that.
This means then that the personality is one thing and the real thing it is attributed to is another thing. A personality must be attributed to something. The term tenant will in my case be attributed to BVR if there is a landlord tenant lease. This is why they need us to be the name, in my case for me to say, I am BVR or to act like I am the tenant.
Therefore we can see it as this: The tenant is BVR and BVR is of a Statement of Birth (SOB).
The combination of tenant and BVR is the legal person.
Here is how i see what is going on, The tenant is BVR and as BVR I am stuck with the liability of the tenant.
Here is where I see the passover, The tenant is BVR and BVR is of a birth registration/Statement of Birth (SOB).
So long as I am not in the picture, the liability of the tenant passes over me to the holder of the SOB. It is when an individual appears as the tenant or says I am BVR that the liability of the tenant, a fiction, stops at the individual. Interestingly, the term ‘individual’ means natural person. So you see that by appearing as a tenant one is no longer a man but a natural person with rights and duties.
So yes, natural persons have rights and duties ascribed to him. But, as per human rights and freedoms documents such as the Charter and Declaration of Human Rights, you have the right to be a man who is a man. That is to say, not recognized as a person before the law, hence the passing over your head of the liability of the personality, e.g. tenant, driver, tax payer, citizen, subject.
When you are not a person, no rights or duties are attributable to you and therefore the liability of the tenant must pass-over you to the holder of the SOB as there is no other place to go for performance.
Interesting that it is indicated in Blacks on page 1300 that children are not persons but infants and that there are humans who are not persons thus have no rights or duties attributed to them.
I love you