Understanding the Concept of the Queen (Crown) in Joinder - Brady Quiring's case

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