Competition as a natural law, not as a criminally enforced dictate, forces quality up and cost down.

Competitors, not legal fictions, compete, which thereby credits individual people, not groups of people, as producers of anything worth stealing.

As with the concept of Federation, where competitive States compete for investors who agree to invest in a higher quality and lower cost state, so it is with every other valuable item worthy of the effort to make or to steal.

That above introduces the data now taken from Conceived in Liberty, by Murray Rothbard, a history of the competition between independent producers of anything worth stealing, and those who steal anything worth stealing.

East is where those who steal, so slaves run from slavery to the west.

“In 1684 all East New Jersey towns except Bergen were still claiming exemptions from all quitrents on the ground that their old Nicolls land patents, or Indian purchases, were superior to the proprietary claim. Moreover, many settles avoided payment of quitrents by not officially patenting their lands. The old Navesink towns of Middletown and Shrewsbury also claimed the full right to make their own laws and elect their officers under the Nocolls patents and the Nicolls-promulgated Duke’s Laws (but now forgotten by the East New Jersey governors). Over against this permanent state of quasirebellion. Larie was supposed to persuade the six towns of the colony that the Nicolls patents – or Indian lands or governmental patents – were invalid, and that all landowners must pay the quitrents due since their inception in 1670.
The new proprietary program of strict enforcement of quitrents was bound to create fierce opposition in the colony. The first crackdown was imposed in late 1684 on John Berry of Bergen, who was a revered old settler, an agent of William Penn in East Jersey, a councillor, and a former deputy governor. Berry was opposed to enforcing quitrents and had never paid any due on his own extensive lands. He countered by dramatically challenging the validity of the Court of Common Right – the new supreme court of the colony, founded during the Rudyard regime. The court fined Berry for contempt, and Berry’s refusal to pay finally caused his imprisonment in early 1685. By now Berry had become the leader of the colony’s resistance to quitrents, and the outcome of the Berry case would greatly influence the path of opposition. The Board of Proprietors, in one of its first acs, backed up Larie, determined on no abatement of quitrents, and took up the prosecution of Berry. Berry finally yielded, however, when the board commuted his back quitrents of over 116 pounds to 70 pounds.” 

Page 384, 385

“Speaker Richard Hartshorne defiantly spoke for the deputies when he bluntly declared that the people “were not willing to maintain a government against themselves.”
Page 386

54
The Development of West New Jersey

In March 1677 the proprietors issued the Concessions and Agreements, a document written largely by Edward Bylling, who was assisted by William Penn. It was signed by all the proprietors and freeholders of the colony. The Concessions and Agreements established a frame of government for West New Jersey. This was a highly liberal document – especially for a proprietary decree – that guaranteed no taxation save by consent of the people (  “we put the power in the people”  ), a representative assembly, trial by jury, full religious liberty (  “no person to be called into question or molested for conscience under any pretext whatever”  ), and no imprisonment for debt. 

Page 387

Note:
“He countered by dramatically challenging the validity of the Court of Common Right – the new supreme court of the colony, founded during the Rudyard regime.”

A recurring theme, pattern, routine, method of operation, criminal rules enforced by criminals upon anyone who dares to produce anything worth stealing under such a sorry state. The criminals pose as protectors and the criminals counterfeit a court of law which in reality is merely a debt collection agency, whereby the “debt” being collected is anything that can be stolen from anyone who dares to produce anything worth stealing.

Note also the opposite state of the west as compared competitively to the east in this specific case:

“... no imprisonment for debt.”

According to who, when, where, how, and why?

If it is the actual law, not the dubious debt collection agency, then the facts that matter in any specific case are facts determined as such by The People as represented in a lawfully constituted jury; according to the Ancient Law.

That is, again, a routine, pattern, method of operation, repeated time and again, in this place, and then the next place, by these people, and then the next set of people.

Run from fake law, run to higher quality and lower cost, where people are the law, and people defend each other the lawful, time honored, way.

(MAGNA CARTA.) Care, Henry, ed. English Liberties, Or The Free-Born Subject’s Inheritance: Containing Magna Charta . . . The Habeas Corpus Act, And Several Other Statutes
Boston: Printed by J. Franklin, for N. Buttolph, B. Eliot, and D. Henchman, 1721

Notes on Magna Carta:

"Farther, though it be said here, that the king hath given and granted these liberties, yet it must not be understood that they were meer emanations of Royal favour, or new bounties granted, which the people could not justly challenge, or had not a right unto before; for as lord Coke in divers places asserts, and as is well known to every gentleman professing the law, this charter is, for the most part, only declaratory of the principal grounds of the fundamental laws and liberties of England. Not any new freedom is hereby granted, but a restitution of such as the subject lawfully had before, and to free them from the usurpations and incroachments of every power whatever. It is worthy observation, that this charter often mentions sua jura, their rights, and libertates suas, their liberties, which shews they were before intitled to and possessed them, and that those rights and liberties were by this charter not granted as before unknown, but confirmed, and that in the stile of liberties and privileges long before well known.”

"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States.”
Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury, 1852