Why was the the Brady Quiring court case a Win !

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.