Explanation of Why the Judge Became a Witness in Brady Quiring's Case

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.