Brady Quiring's Case

Download the court case here This is a transcript of Brady Quiring Court case So what Brady did when he went into court? Brady knew they truly want him to claim the surname. This is the proof that it is the public side of things. Then the given name would be private. So what you’re doing is you’re mixing public and private. You’re kind of like an inter intermeddler, or whatever. The Court asked, Are you, Brady? Quiring? Brady replied, Well, I’ve been known to use that name. The judge reacted out right away. We’re not playing that game in this courtroom. You know the typical reaction when they think you are challenging the corporation’s jurisdiction. Brady replied Who is claiming that this is a game This basically putting it right into the judges lap. Because the judge made a claim on the record. The judge just basically entered into testimony as a witness A judge is supposed to listen to the Preponderance of the evidence Judges are not to be a witness! Brady replied to the judge, It is you who is claiming that this is a game. This basically put the judge and the corporation into a corner Brady then asked the judge would you be so kind to call me Brady? I believe to that This discussion went back and forth between the judge and Brady for a while. Then the judge replied, I cannot call you by the formal name This gave the evidence and facts which just cemented everything what the given name represents. They have Zero jurisdiction over formal name of Brady The surname, is Crown property, What they are looking for and use to maintain their corporate jurisdiction. Once you claim the surname to be yours. You just committed a trespass on the record. Now the corporate judges believe they have every right to do what they decide with impunity. This is where the ignorance comes in and must be corrected We all have been ill-informed that the all caps name is you or I , and we’re the beneficiaries of it. Which we are not As it a fiction created by the corporations and belongs to the corporations. Essentially what that is It’s just a receipt for what is being held in trust. A judge in the States said this! You’ve got to think of it like a bundle of sticks. But picture it as a bundle, right? So what they’re doing is they’re holding these rights and trusts. And they’re profiting off of these trusts. So, now they just exercise the right use of fraud. We did a little bit of research on use of Usufruct What it basically is the right to receive profit off property that belongs to another. Usufruct is a Latin term that refers to the right to use and benefit from someone else's property, without actually owning it. This can include the right to harvest resources, extract natural resources, or even collect rent from someone else's land. They exercise Usufruct, and they’re profiting off of these rights being held in trust. But they are not theirs. So when they did this they put themselves into something that is called the use of position. All this means is whoever exercises to maintain service, repair, pay all taxes, and set an account. So if they are profiting off of your rights being held in trust, They issue a receipt which is called a birth certificate, or a stock certificate. They then claim to be the receipt for the rights being held in trust. They are just claiming to be the trustee. Therefore they have the obligations. They are the usufructuary at that point. With a little research this is all backed up as we present these facts If you go through the vital statistic act, it says the Crown Actually owns all the information in the registry. So, therefore, they own the information on the birth certificate. He who creates own It is not your property. It never was. You’re just merely using it. So when you do a little more reading into the vital statistic it says you are suppose to use these certificates as evidence. So that’s exactly what Brady Quiring did when he went to court. Brady Quiring response was It appears that her Majesty owns this person on the birth certificate. So, therefore, her Majesty needs to be brought in To defend her property. The Court and judge agreed with Brady Quiring because they kicked that court case. Or they kicked that case right on court. The Corporate judge and court sealed the file. From Brady Quiring and the clerks in the courthouse. Brady Quiring actually had to contact the lieutenant Governor to get a copy of that court case And yes, it’s a miracle. Brady Quiring received this court case and has educated many on this important information of this specific court case with the documents. These fact present us all with the information that the ALL CAPS NAME is owned by the Corporation and they are responsible for that FICTION THEY CREATED. This information must go viral Once more are educated on this landmark decision Brady Quirin has used this information on more court cases with success . It has been successful

Why was the the Brady Quiring court case a Win ! Just so we all comprehend this correctly and applying the correct logic to know 100% that taxes are NOT Mandatory. The Brady Quiring case is considered a win because it demonstrates how an individual successfully challenged the legal and administrative processes that attempted to impose obligations on them without proper jurisdiction or authority. Here are the key reasons why this case is seen as a victory and how it relates to the concept of taxes being non-mandatory: 1. Challenge to Jurisdiction and Authority: • Brady Quiring, through careful legal arguments, questioned the authority under which obligations were being imposed on him. The case documents reveal that he effectively argued that the person and the associated accounts (such as the Social Insurance account) were registered or created under circumstances that did not involve his consent or full understanding, particularly because they were established when he was a minor. • By asserting his rights and challenging the legitimacy of the jurisdiction and authority over him, Brady caused the case to be discontinued. • This suggests that the court recognized the validity of his arguments or, at the very least, saw sufficient reason to not pursue the case further. 2. Application of Legal Maxims and Rights: • The document refers to various legal maxims, such as "no man ought to be burdened in consequence of another’s act" and "long possession produces the right of possession," • which were used to argue that any obligations imposed on him due to actions taken by others (such as the registration of a Social Insurance account when he was a minor) were invalid. • By effectively applying these principles, Brady Quiring was able to assert that any obligations, including those related to taxation, could not be legitimately enforced without his consent. 3. Non-Mandatory Nature of Taxes: • The successful challenge in this case implies that the obligations, including tax obligations, are not inherently mandatory but rather depend on the individual’s consent and the proper establishment of jurisdiction. • The discontinuation of the case supports the idea that, when properly challenged, the imposition of taxes or other obligations can be resisted, reinforcing the notion that such obligations may be more voluntary than mandatory, especially when the legal basis for them is weak or improperly applied. 4. Discontinuation of the Case: • The case being discontinued is a significant outcome. • It suggests that the authorities either could not substantiate their claims against Brady Quiring or recognized that continuing the case would not be legally sound. • This outcome is a practical demonstration of how challenging the system's authority can lead to a withdrawal of imposed obligations. Conclusion: The Brady Quiring case is a win because it exemplifies how an individual, through the correct application of legal principles and a challenge to jurisdiction, can resist and ultimately nullify the imposition of obligations like taxes. This supports the argument that taxes are not inherently mandatory but depend on the individual's consent and the proper establishment of legal authority.

Zoom 7 PM Alberta time daily https://us02web.zoom.us/j/6945489985?pwd=UllwRmwzRUhWS2pXUWNQODNEbnhSZz09The de-facto system are Masquerading as a government , https://rumble.com/c/c-1516344 The Great Canadian Illusion https://rumble.com/v6e4mrd-the-great-canadian-illusion.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp The Secret Life of Canada - You do Not Want to Miss This (Share https://rumble.com/v6au8a7-the-secret-life-of-canada-you-do-not-want-to-miss-this-share.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp Constitution of The Sovereign Republic of (Liberty) https://rumble.com/v6bfa1s-constitution-of-the-sovereign-republic-of-liberty.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp Key Points from Brady Quiring's Transcript on 8-8-2024: 1. Mixing Public and Private: ◦ Brady discusses the concept of mixing the public (surname) and private (given name) identities. By claiming the surname, which is considered Crown property, you enter the public side and subject yourself to their jurisdiction. This is where many people unknowingly commit a "trespass" on the record. 2. Challenge to Authority: ◦ In court, Brady responded to the question, "Are you Brady Quiring?" by stating, "I’ve been known to use that name." This statement avoids direct acceptance of the name as his own, which immediately put the judge on edge. Brady emphasized that the judge, by reacting, became a witness rather than an impartial adjudicator, which is against court procedure. 3. Jurisdiction Over the Given Name: ◦ The judge acknowledged that he could not call Brady by his formal (given) name, suggesting that the court had no jurisdiction over the private individual—only over the public persona represented by the surname. 4. Use of Trust and Property: ◦ Brady explains that the all-caps name, often associated with a person's legal identity, is not something an individual owns but rather something held in trust by the Crown. When someone claims this name, they take on the role of trustee, thus assuming obligations and liabilities associated with it. 5. Surrendering Interests to the Crown: ◦ By surrendering the interest in the legal (public) identity back to the Crown, Brady asserts that he retains his equitable (private) interest while relieving himself of legal obligations. This action leads to the case being dismissed, as the court no longer has jurisdiction once the interests are merged. 6. Application Across Multiple Cases: ◦ Brady mentions successfully applying this approach in various situations, including car loans, child support cases, and interactions with the sheriff's office. Each time, the strategy of surrendering legal interests back to the Crown has resulted in favorable outcomes. 7. Philosophical and Religious Parallels: ◦ Brady draws a parallel between his legal strategy and spiritual teachings, likening the surrender of legal obligations to the act of surrendering to a higher power for spiritual salvation.

This Supports that Taxes are Not Mandatory: Brady Quiring's Landmark Court Decision • Jurisdiction and Consent: The core of Brady Quiring's approach is that jurisdiction and consent are key. By not explicitly accepting the public identity (surname) as his own, he avoids the jurisdiction of the court and the legal obligations tied to that identity, including taxes. • Trust and Ownership: The legal identity and the associated obligations, such as taxes, are held in trust by the Crown. If an individual does not claim ownership of that identity (and therefore the obligations), the government cannot enforce those obligations, making taxes effectively voluntary for those who understand and apply this logic. • Successful Legal Strategy: Brady's success in having cases dismissed by applying this logic suggests that the system recognizes the validity of these arguments when properly presented. This success indicates that the enforcement of taxes and other legal obligations may rely more on individuals' acceptance of certain roles and identities than on absolute legal mandates. This transcript illustrates how Brady strategically navigates the legal system by understanding the distinction between public and private identities, challenging the jurisdiction, and asserting his rights, which aligns with the concept that taxes are not inherently mandatory.

Zoom 7 PM Alberta time daily https://us02web.zoom.us/j/6945489985?pwd=UllwRmwzRUhWS2pXUWNQODNEbnhSZz09The de-facto system are Masquerading as a government , https://rumble.com/c/c-1516344 The Great Canadian Illusion https://rumble.com/v6e4mrd-the-great-canadian-illusion.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp The Secret Life of Canada - You do Not Want to Miss This (Share https://rumble.com/v6au8a7-the-secret-life-of-canada-you-do-not-want-to-miss-this-share.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp Constitution of The Sovereign Republic of (Liberty) https://rumble.com/v6bfa1s-constitution-of-the-sovereign-republic-of-liberty.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp Understanding the Concept of the Queen (Crown) in Joinder - Brady Quiring's case 1. The Queen (Crown) as a Legal Entity: • The "Queen" or "Crown" in legal terms refers to the authority of the state, often symbolized by the monarchy, particularly in Commonwealth countries like Canada. It represents the government and its interests, rather than the individual monarch herself. • In legal contexts, the Crown is the ultimate owner of certain legal identities and properties, such as the name registered on a birth certificate. This ownership is foundational to many legal obligations imposed on individuals, such as taxes or other state duties. 2. Joinder in Legal Terms: • Joinder refers to the legal process of combining two or more legal issues or parties into a single proceeding. It ensures that all relevant parties are present in a case where their interests are involved. • In the context of Brady's case, joinder was used to argue that the Crown (as the original party with interest in the legal identity) must be joined in any legal matters concerning the name or identity registered by the state. 3. Applying Joinder to Challenge Legal Authority: • Brady's strategy involved invoking the rules of joinder to assert that any legal action taken against him, in his capacity related to the legal name (considered Crown property), required the involvement of the Crown itself. • By arguing that the Crown must be joined in the case, Brady effectively transferred the responsibility and obligation for any claims against the legal name back to the Crown. This meant that the court could not proceed against him without the Crown’s direct involvement, which they typically avoid due to the complexities and implications. 4. Legal Implications of the Queen in Joinder: • Shift of Responsibility: By demanding the Crown be joined in the case, Brady shifted the responsibility for the legal obligations associated with the name back to the state. This move acknowledges that the Crown, not the individual, holds the ultimate legal interest in the registered name. • Limitations on Court Proceedings: Courts are generally reluctant to force the Crown to participate directly in such cases because it challenges the very structure of how legal and governmental authority is exercised. If the Crown is forced to acknowledge its direct involvement, it could undermine the standard legal framework where individuals are treated as personally responsible for the obligations tied to their registered identities. 5. The Outcome of Using Joinder: • In Brady’s case, invoking joinder led to the court case being dismissed or "kicked out." This outcome suggests that the court recognized the validity of the argument that without the Crown's direct involvement, they could not proceed with the case against Brady. The court essentially acknowledged that it lacked the jurisdiction to enforce obligations on an individual when the true legal interest belonged to the Crown. 6. Broader Implications for Legal Identity and Obligations: • The strategy of invoking the Queen in joinder questions the legitimacy of imposing obligations like taxes or legal penalties on individuals who are considered merely users or beneficiaries of a name and identity that belong to the Crown. • It highlights the complex relationship between the individual and the state, where legal obligations are not necessarily inherent but are imposed based on the acceptance of a role or identity that can be contested

Zoom 7 PM Alberta time daily https://us02web.zoom.us/j/6945489985?pwd=UllwRmwzRUhWS2pXUWNQODNEbnhSZz09The de-facto system are Masquerading as a government , https://rumble.com/c/c-1516344 The Great Canadian Illusion https://rumble.com/v6e4mrd-the-great-canadian-illusion.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp The Secret Life of Canada - You do Not Want to Miss This (Share https://rumble.com/v6au8a7-the-secret-life-of-canada-you-do-not-want-to-miss-this-share.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp Constitution of The Sovereign Republic of (Liberty) https://rumble.com/v6bfa1s-constitution-of-the-sovereign-republic-of-liberty.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp Step-by-Step Explanation of the Brady Case Discussion in Absolute Layman’s Terms 1. Summary Overview: Key Idea: Brady successfully challenged the legal system by arguing that the government, not him, owns the legal name (the name on his birth certificate). By refusing to claim this name as his own, he avoided the court’s authority and got the case dismissed. 2. Expanded Explanation: Step 1: Understanding the Legal Name: • What is a Legal Name? When you’re born, the government creates a legal identity for you, which is the name on your birth certificate. This name, often written in all capital letters, is like a label the government uses to manage things like taxes, fines, and other legal matters. • Who Owns This Name? According to Brady’s understanding, this name isn’t really yours; it’s owned by the government. They created it, so they control it. You just use it, like borrowing something that belongs to someone else. Step 2: The Court’s Game: • How the Court Sees You: When you go to court, they assume you are responsible for everything tied to that legal name. They treat you as if you own it and are therefore liable for any obligations (like debts or legal penalties) associated with it. • Brady’s Response: Instead of saying, “Yes, I am Brady Quiring,” which would mean accepting responsibility for the legal name, Brady said, “I’ve been known to use that name.” This simple statement is powerful because it separates him from the legal identity the government created. Step 3: Forcing the Court’s Hand: • Judge’s Reaction: The judge didn’t like this because it challenged the normal process. The judge’s job is to stay neutral, but by reacting strongly, the judge actually became a participant, or a “witness,” in the case instead of just overseeing it. • Why This Matters: When the judge reacted, Brady pointed out that the judge was acting as a witness instead of being neutral, which is a big deal because it shows the judge was rattled by Brady’s strategy. Step 4: Bringing in the Big Guns (The Crown): • What is Joinder? Brady used a legal tactic called “joinder,” which means he demanded that the government (the real owner of the legal name) be brought into the case. He argued that since the government owns the legal name, they should be responsible for any obligations tied to it. • Why the Court Backed Down: Courts don’t want to involve the government directly because it complicates things and challenges the usual legal framework. By forcing this issue, Brady put the court in a position where they couldn’t continue the case without dragging the government into it. The court would rather drop the case than do that. Step 5: Real-Life Success: • Case Dismissed: The court eventually dismissed the case, meaning they couldn’t proceed against Brady without involving the government. This dismissal is a big win because it shows that if you challenge the ownership of the legal name correctly, the court may have no choice but to drop the case. • Brady’s Other Wins: Brady mentioned that he has used this strategy in other situations, like dealing with car loans and child support, and it worked every time. This reinforces that his approach is not just theoretical —it actually works. 3. Breaking It Down Further: What This Means for You: • Think of it Like Renting a Car: Imagine if you’re driving a rented car, and someone tries to sue you over something that happened with the car. You could say, “Hey, this car isn’t mine; it belongs to the rental company.” The rental company, not you, would be responsible. • In the Same Way: Brady essentially said, “This legal name isn’t mine; it belongs to the government.” By doing that, he avoided the responsibilities the court tried to impose on him. Why It Works: • Courts and Governments Don’t Like to Admit This: The government and courts operate on the assumption that you’re responsible for the legal name. By challenging this and involving the government, you can make it very hard for them to enforce anything against you. 4. Final Thoughts: This whole approach is about understanding that the name on your birth certificate is a tool the government uses, not something you truly own. By challenging this ownership and using legal strategies like joinder, you can protect yourself from unwanted obligations. Brady’s case shows that this isn’t just an idea—it’s a practical method that has real, successful outcomes.

Zoom 7 PM Alberta time daily https://us02web.zoom.us/j/6945489985?pwd=UllwRmwzRUhWS2pXUWNQODNEbnhSZz09The de-facto system are Masquerading as a government , https://rumble.com/c/c-1516344 The Great Canadian Illusion https://rumble.com/v6e4mrd-the-great-canadian-illusion.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp The Secret Life of Canada - You do Not Want to Miss This (Share https://rumble.com/v6au8a7-the-secret-life-of-canada-you-do-not-want-to-miss-this-share.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp Constitution of The Sovereign Republic of (Liberty) https://rumble.com/v6bfa1s-constitution-of-the-sovereign-republic-of-liberty.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp Explanation of Why the Judge Became a Witness in Brady Quiring's Case When Brady responded to the court by saying, "I’ve been known to use that name," he did something significant: 1. Avoiding Direct Claim: Instead of directly accepting the name "Brady Quiring" as his own, which would implicitly accept the jurisdiction of the court and the obligations tied to that legal name, Brady distanced himself from the name. By saying he has been "known to use" that name, he implies that it is not his true, private identity but rather a name associated with a public persona, potentially Crown property. 2. Judge's Reaction: The judge immediately reacted to this statement, becoming visibly agitated and claiming, "we’re not playing that game in this courtroom." This reaction was not just a procedural statement; it was a personal response to Brady's challenge. 3. Judge as a Witness: In legal proceedings, a judge's role is to remain impartial and evaluate the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The judge is not supposed to make personal assertions or express opinions that could influence the case. When the judge reacted strongly to Brady's statement, he essentially made a personal claim on the record, which is akin to providing testimony. ◦ Testimony and Witnessing: Testimony involves providing evidence or making a statement under oath about the facts of the case. By reacting to Brady's statement as he did, the judge inadvertently provided his own opinion, which Brady cleverly pointed out. By asking, "Outside of you, who’s claiming that this is a game?" Brady highlighted that the judge had stepped out of his role as an impartial adjudicator and had, in a sense, become a witness who was testifying to his own beliefs about the nature of the court proceedings. 4. Implications for Jurisdiction: The judge's reaction suggested that he recognized Brady's refusal to fully claim the name "Brady Quiring" as a challenge to the court's jurisdiction. By becoming a witness rather than remaining a neutral party, the judge compromised his position, indicating that Brady's approach was effective in disrupting the court's usual process of asserting jurisdiction over individuals by having them claim their legal (public) identity. Summary: The judge became a witness because, by reacting personally to Brady's statement, he essentially made a claim on the record about the nature of the proceedings. This reaction indicated that the judge was recognizing Brady's challenge to the court's jurisdiction over him as an individual. Brady's approach effectively forced the judge to reveal his own position, which should not happen if the judge were strictly acting as an impartial adjudicator.