Hi cahlen,
I think the 3 generic cases describe the whole of it.
One question however,
What is happening in the 1st scenario of trespassing, if the guy trespassing is unable to understand the notice ? (like blind, illiterate, or foreigner not speaking the language at all)
And if I understand well (correct me if I'am wrong) under natural law, when noticing your country you not being a part of their legal fiction anymore.
They have the right to claim anything you owned during that period of enslavement because it was acquire with the legal persona.
They may not do it, mostly because they have other things to do, but it would be a legal move (under natural law).
Because you were part of their group,
The rule of this group is you are a slave, anything you own is just temporary put in your keeping but in the end come back at the master.
By notifying you leaving the group, they could make an inventory, and send you back to the state you entered the group (naked).
The person being trespassed against would ideally gain that type of information before acting.
Technically you can be a slave and sovereign at the same time, like how a cop can be off-duty. They can't really tell what property belongs to what version unless you register it. So everything beyond car and land would be ambiguous.
Indeed, it would applied only to registered belongings.
As for the unnoticeable trespasser, I agree with you, on a practical view.
But do you get the dilemma on a more theoretical view.
To solve this you can only :
And both are imperfect cause,
He initiate no harm to anyone, an if he get noticed with something he can't understand, you can't say he willingly trespassed.