It’s a novelty because their only platform seems to be that the periodic elections that Canadians face from time to time are a violation of our freedom under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. Not because the elections themselves are a violation but because of all that time in between elections when we are not voting for something. Straight dictatorship where the Canadian citizenry has no input into the laws that affect us. This, in ISS's opinion, runs totally counter to our rights under section three of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which states;
3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of the members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.
ISS interprets this to mean that Canadians have been granted the right, under the Charter, to vote for their elected representatives at any and all times and as frequently as they want. Literally. The only way that our rights can be perfected is if every elected representative is, at all times, subject to being voted out at the whim of the citizenry. Under the ISS system if I wanted to obsess about voting to distract me from my overwhelming fear of the infinite black void (I'm clumsy, I could fall down the stairs again) I could vote for my elected representatives hundreds of times a day. As I understand ISS's position we all have the right to opt out from being subject to the laws set by our legislative assemblies because this obvious application of our basic Charter rights has not been implemented.
But fear not; anarchy shall not prevail! ISS has thrown itself into the breach by setting up its own legislative framework where laws are passed on the basis of its understanding of our Charter rights. You can propose whatever bills you want whenever you want and you can vote for anything at any time. Nitpickers tied to our old tired legacy systems are going to ask who enforces these laws? The current Canadian courts can't because they rule on cases which are based on our current laws, laws that ISS has proven are invalid and of no effect. So we need new courts to enforce the new laws. ISS to the rescue again. They have created their own courts to enforce their own laws. They claim to have created a voting system, called the "Interactive Electoral System" that is currently employed by ISS and can be easily scaled up to include all of Canada. Who says that ISS is just vapid libertarian daydreaming? They have a plan. Or, more to point, he has a plan since Frank seems to be pretty much it for ISS.
A warning before you jump into this voter's paradise. While this is my interpretation of what Frank and ISS are up to I've had very little time to actually dig down and get the full story. I ran across ISS by accident on Wednesday night, two days ago, when I found this heart-rending request for supporters to show up at today's court hearing.
http://issociety.org/crown-applies-to-h ... ri-17-oct/
Well we all know that Burnaby49 is a soft touch when it comes to a Freeman's plea for supporters at trial, so he could count on me. However I was in court yesterday on an entirely different matter that I've related elsewhere and I spent all of today at Frank's hearing so I've had no time for research. So I'll link you to background information at the end of this posting but keep in mind I have really just skimmed it myself. I quote some correspondence below but edited for brevity. Frank can be long-winded. I've linked to the full documents.
To start the ball rolling on a practical plan to achieved an ISS electoral system Frank wrote to the Queen rescinding his allegiance to the Crown. On reflection he decided to give the Queen one last chance provided that she smartened up.
http://issociety.org/wp-content/uploads ... Dec-13.pdf
Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada
London, England SW1A 1AA
I last wrote to You in February, 2011, with two important messages. First, I was rescinding my allegiance to your Majesty, taking on an individually sovereign character, and offering my friendship. Second, I was working on demonstrating and proliferating a form of election that I felt would improve the manifestation of democracy, an interactive electoral system, whereby voters could each make their choices at any time of their wishing, rather than only being allowed to periodically exercise this right.
Upon having given a great deal of scrutiny to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms assented by your Majesty when I was 9 years old, I am now giving strong consideration to renewing my pledge of allegiance to your Majesty, with gratitude, humility, and enthusiasm. It seems that all of the means to exercise the rights that I desire in my governance are already present in that Charter, and I had only failed to see them.
Section 3 of your Charter for Canada states that the right to vote is guaranteed, and uses no such word or phrase as “periodically”, “occasionally”, or “at agreed upon times” to designate the lawful guarantee of this right. It is simply guaranteed. The periodic elections currently used to choose officials provide the means to exercise this right on one day, and then the right is denied for as much as five years. The interactive electoral system does not ever deny this right, for any period of time. Therefore, as long as I am faithful to the laws of a Constitution for a society in Canada, open to participation by citizens of Canada, that uses the interactive electoral system to choose its legislative representatives, then according to Your Majesty’s Charter, no periodically elected legislative assembly in Canada has the right to have Me subjected to its governance.
Prior to renewing my pledge of allegiance to your Majesty, I wish to ascertain that the representatives of the Crown in Canada are willing to adhere to the laws You have commanded of them in your Charter. I have written the Attorney General of the Province of British Columbia, and I wait to hear back from her to affirm that your beautiful laws will be respected. At such time that this affirmation is received, then it will be my great pleasure to once again call You my Queen, and You will hear back from Me at that time.
Having now regarded my Self as sovereign for several years, I can only imagine that having a pledge of allegiance rescinded and replaced with an expression of friendship is in no way an offensive proposition. However, though having been individually sovereign, I have not been a monarch, and therefore I must conclude, despite my inability to empathize and understand any reasons for such displeasure, that your Majesty may have been displeased. I therefore offer my apology for any displeasure I have caused, and I hope that forgiveness is a quality your Majesty enjoys exercising. From the bottom of my heart, I am grateful for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. My admiration and respect for your Majesty for assenting this law, as it is written, is resounding. I would dearly love to hear back from You to know whether my words meet your approval.
At the same time he informed the Attorney General of British Columbia of his decision and made the very reasonable demand that the province of British Columbia give him a written declaration that it was unlawful to try and impose its laws on him.
http://issociety.org/wp-content/uploads ... -of-BC.pdf
BC Minister of Justice and Attorney General
Honourable Suzanne Anton
PO BOX 9044 Stn Prov Govt
Victoria BC V8W 9E2
The purpose of writing is to inform your office of a systemic, perpetual denial of the author’s rights as guaranteed in section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and of the remedy by which the author asks to have this denial of his lawful rights ceased, and to ask either for acknowledgement from your office of the suitability of this remedy, or for an alternate suggestion as to how this denial may be remedied. Section 3 of the Canadian Charter states that a citizen of Canada is guaranteed by law the right to vote in an election of the members of a legislative assembly. All federal, provincial, and civic Crown legislative assemblies have legislated means for citizens to exercise this right on a date chosen by various criteria, and then no means is provided to exercise it (an unnecessary denial of a lawful right, as will be demonstrated) for a period of time, usually four years. It is possible to provide this right in a manner such that it is never denied for any period of time.
Because the law, declared under principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law, dictates in section 3 that the right to vote must be guaranteed, then according to these principles, Interactive Sovereign Society members, having chosen a legislative assembly that provides Them without fail this right as guaranteed under those principles, must not have any laws imposed upon Them that are created by any legislative assembly which denies this right for periods of time. Other, possibly more appropriate and/or just, remedies to the denial of this right might be conceived at some point, but for the present time, the above remedy is apparently the only one, as far as the author can see.
It is therefore being asked that a declaration be provided in writing from your office affirming that it is unlawful for the laws of Crown legislative assemblies to be imposed upon the author of this letter, unless and until such time as Crown legislative assemblies cease the periodic denial of this right. . . .
There are several specific needs which the author is presently denied due to the inability of many institutions and officials in Canada to recognize the denial of his lawful rights as stated above. With the declaration from your office as asked above, these needs may likely be attainable.
The author needs to have his lawful name designated in a manner which is determined by the legislative assembly to which He is responsible, and to have this name acknowledged and respected in Canada. He has previously used the legal name Samuel Michael Frank ascribed to Him by the Crown upon his birth, but He presently uses the lawful name Psam Frank, as recognized by his chosen legislative assembly. This makes it difficult to do such things as hold a bank account and seek contractual employment, since most companies which offer these things require a legal name designated by a bureau of vital statistics, commissioned by a Crown legislative assembly, and operating under regulations dictated by a Crown legislative assembly. The author needs to have confirmation that his monetary contributions to society will be allocated by a legislative assembly that does not deny his section 3 rights for periods of time. Contributions to Canada Revenue Agency are allocated among Federal and Provincial governments, whose legislative assemblies deny section 3 rights for periods of time, so the author needs to have the ISS receive his contributions and allocate the expenditures made from those contributions.
Several years ago, the author notified your highest commanding officer, her sovereign Majesty, Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, that He was rescinding his allegiance to Her. It has been the author’s impression that her Majesty has approved of, and respected, the motives and methods for this display of civil disobedience by the author as a form of protest to the denial of his rights. He now anticipates with pleasure the possibility of renewing his pledge of allegiance to her Majesty upon the provision of a suitable remedy for these denials.
Upon failing to receive a response to this letter, the author intends to follow it with two further notices, one month apart each, after which, if no response is received, the author intends to commence action in Provincial Court to see that remedies may be ordered by which the cessation of these denials of the author’s rights may be enacted. Contact information for the duly elected Prime Representative of the Interactive Sovereign Society is also provided herein so that any matters under consideration may be discussed with Him.
He's proposing a sweet deal for himself. Instead of paying his taxes to the various levels of government he wants approval from these governments to pay them to ISS. Essentially to himself.
As an aside note that in Frank's alternate reality the Queen was actually concerned about his revocation of loyalty to her. What kind of adult writes a letter to the Queen and thinks that she actually read it and was concerned about his opinion? Then again Bernard Yankson did the same thing so maybe that answers my question. Keep in mind that these are not the actions of a callow young idealist. Frank is forty-one and, as he told the court, he's spent years working on his study of the Charter and perfecting his voting system. I don't for a moment doubt him. This is his life. A life that is about to have a little rain fall on it.
Unfortunately while the Queen was no doubt willing to scramble to acquiesce to his terms to keep his loyalty the Attorney General of British Columbia was not so accommodating and fired this hostile shot back across the bow.
(http://issociety.org/wp-content/uploads ... sponse.pdf
Dear Mr. Frank:
Your letter dated February 3, 2014, addressed to the Attorney General and Minister of Justice of British Columbia, and enclosures have been forwarded to me for response on her behalf.
Your correspondence and the assertions made in it do not create any enforceable rights against the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, the Government of British Columbia or anyone else. Whatever enforceable rights you may have arise from and under the law of British Columbia and Canada as interpreted by the courts. Those rights are always subject to the limits of the law.
As for your obligations under law, while you are in this province you are subject to all of the laws of Canada and British Columbia, including those with respect to your conduct while you are here or any property you may have here. If you engage in conduct that is contrary to the law of Canada or British Columbia, you will be subject to whatever penalties or remedies that the law may provide.
This letter constitutes a specific refusal by the Government of British Columbia and any other officials of the Government of British Columbia to whom your correspondence may refer to accept, agree to or be bound by the alleged legal outcomes asserted in that correspondence. It also constitutes a general reservation of the rights of the Government of British Columbia and its officials in response to your correspondence.
That refusal and reservation of rights also apply to anything in or arising from any similar correspondence that you may have sent to officials of the Government of British Columbia in the past, or that you may send to them in the future, without any need for future response by any such official.
If you commence or are otherwise involved in any legal proceedings in which you intend to assert positions of the sort referred to in your correspondence, you must deliver notice in accordance with Rule 4-3(6) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules. For more information on the rules of the court and how to access the applicable forms, you may wish to access the Clicklaw website at:
If you need advice about your legal rights and options, you may consider contacting a lawyer in private practice. If you do not currently have a lawyer, you may wish to call the Lawyer Referral Service at: 1-800-663-1919. This service, provided by the Canadian Bar Association, can refer you to a lawyer in your area who will meet with you for up to 30 minutes for a fee of $25 plus applicable taxes. I am enclosing a brochure that describes ways of finding legal information and counsel in British Columbia.
Nancy E. Brown
Acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General
No smiley face stickers on that sucker! So Frank made good on his threat "to commence action in Provincial Court to see that remedies may be ordered by which the cessation of these denials of the author’s rights may be enacted". The action was a demand that the Supreme Court of British Columbia issue a court order to the Attorney General of British Columbia compelling him to provide a declaration, on behalf the provincial government, that Frank was sovereign and not subject to the laws of British Columbia.
The Solicitor General, rather than doing the right thing, petitioned the court for an order declaring Frank's lawsuit scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, and requesting that the action be struck. Today's hearing was to address the Crown's petition to strike. This is exactly the same tactic employed by the Crown to stop Bernard Yankson and Charles Norman Holmes. Discussed here;
Crown figured that since it worked a charm on Yankson and Holmes it would do the same number on Frank. Just lazy thinking, don't they have any new ideas?
The hearing turned out to be a Chamber's session. I've written about a prior Chambers sessions I attended in a posting about Chief Rock Sino General;
Basically housekeeping for lawyers. It was an applications session where lawyers try to get a judge to sign court orders on their behalf. Actually an efficient way to handle things. Say a lawyer wants a bread and butter court order signed, for example, a foreclosure order (I heard a lot of those in the session). There are two alternatives. Schedule a trial session that will be held about the same time as the Tokyo Olympics or go to a Chamber's hearing and just ask the judge for his signature. At the beginning of the session you have to give the approximate amount of time you'll need and the applicants are slated in from shortest to longest. Since we were scheduled for 45 minutes (most were 15) we were second to last. So we sat for two hour waiting for the court to work through prior business.
Frank's plea for an audience had gone unheeded. While he hooked me his only other supporters were his mom and dad and I doubt they needed an internet request to attend. His parents seemed to be avid supporters.
I'll give my comments on the judge before we get into the nitty-gritty; the guy was great. Possibly the best judge I've watched yet. Calm, knowledgeable, in control, unhurried but getting the job done, he seemed a master of absorbing information and coming up with an instant coherent response. Keep in mind his role. He had maybe a dozen decisions to make in this one session. Each one had a lawyer giving a story about what he wanted and why and sometimes an opponent wanting something different so a mini-trial (like ours) was in order. And he had to give immediate coherent oral decisions. Did a fantastic job.
Well enough fan club adulation, back to the hearing. My first impression of Frank was not encouraging for potential entertainment value. Seemed a passive aggressive type with no fire in him. Yankson or Holmes had style! We got our shot at 12:22 with an hour and a half lunch break starting at 12:30. I'm sure it was just coincidence but there had been no security at all up to this point. Just before we started a sheriff walked in and sat down. When I left at the end of the session there was another one just outside the courtroom doorway. New Westminster has had a lot of experience with Freeman/Sovereign types.
Crown opened with an eight minute defence of their refusal to allow Frank the justice he deserved. Claimed his action was frivolous, scandalous, whatever, and had to be struck for no reasonable cause of action. Crown showed a total lack of imagination, just went into a Meads v Meads ramble about how that case covered everything that Frank was trying and so why bother to even try and think of something new and innovative? Frank responded that his action was reasonable because the legislature of British Columbia hadn't requested his approval before enacting laws so they obviously didn't apply to him. He just needed the court to beat that into the Attorney General's head. Frank was vehement, if that word can be applied to someone as essentially passive as he seemed, that Meads and the OPCA designation did not apply to him. He was not one of those guys so Meads was irrelevant to his case. To bad the judge didn't end up agreeing with him. Then our eight minutes were up and it was lunch.
Now a personal note. Readers know about my complaints about getting a decent lunch in downtown New Westminster. I had a brilliant idea this time. I frequent Burnaby Hobbies, a small hobby shop carrying supplies for my hobby, making plastic model airplanes. There is a new and apparently good small Japanese restaurant beside it I wanted to try and they are just three Skytrain stations down the line from the new Westminster courts. So I spent a $1.75 on a train ticket and chugged off to visit Burnaby Hobbies and have lunch next door. What could go wrong? When I got to the street where they are located I saw a huge garish pedestal mounted sign of a massive hot dog with name WIENER HUT across it planted right in front of the Japanese restaurant, Burnaby Hobbies, which has held that name for over fifty years, was now Murphy's Hobbies. Had I been transported into Frank's alternate reality? It turned out that a film crew was using the locale for a TV show segment. Burnaby Hobbies was still open but the restaurant was closed for the day. So I had a muffin at the coffee shop across from the courthouse.
When we resumed the Crown argued that Charter rights are not absolute and can't be taken to the maximum limits for any perceived breach. In any case Frank hadn't entered any facts into evidence to show that any of his Charter rights had been violated. All he had was a differing opinion on how voting should be effected in Canada. Then the Crown went into a long Meads exhortation. Much citing of Meads, paragraphs 317 to 319, 587 to 597, on and on then a comparison of Frank to all the other OPCA characters that ACJ Rooke had put the boots to. Also cited Fischer, discussed in Quatloos here (We Canadian contributors have covered everything);
Crown didn't bring Fischer up in relation to his tax evasion but his squabble with the College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of British Columbia. I can't explain the relevance because I was getting behind transcribing and it's not in my notes. He also cited the Yankson decision which I've already linked.
Frank's turn. First a comment. He really seemed to have no clue about court procedures or the point of arguments. So he tended to be too general and his arguments were too caught up in his complaints about his not being listened to or obeyed.
He started by saying that he'd already refuted all of the Crown's arguments in his written submission but he'd go through them again. His issues had no resemblance at all to Meads OPCA types. His understanding of sovereignty was completely different. He accepted that a legislature had authority over him and he was required to obey its laws. But the laws he obeyed weren't your standard government legislated laws. Since he was not obliged to obey any laws that he wasn't allowed direct involvement in implementing no laws of any legislating body in Canada applied to him. In response to this legal void ISS had set up its own legislating function and he was required to obey the ISS mandated laws. In order to enforce the law ISS had established its own court and the ISS court had authority over him. Since he had accepted the authority of a valid law-making body and was under the jurisdiction of its court he had the right to revoke any responsibility to the Crown's laws or courts. Except for today of course because he needed a little help from the British Columbia Supreme Court to get the government to play ball. He did let the judge know that he needn't worry about his future employment under an ISS regime. He told the judge that ISS planned to use the existing British Columbia Supreme Court as an appellate court to the ISS court. Bet that was a big relief.
But the judge wasn't buying it. He was just too focused on one point. He couldn't see that Frank had brought forward any reasonable cause of action known to the law. He said he couldn't consider any of Frank's affidavits (apparently the source of his so-called evidence) because the point of the current proceedings wasn't a review of the strength of Frank's case but a review of whether he had any arguable case at all. This wasn't sounding good. Frank was required, in the petition that was under review, to lay out a claim "known to law". The purpose of pleadings was to explain the fundamental nature of the complaint and to give the other party a clear indication of the nature of the claim and the law being relied on. So, what was Frank's precise claim, as opposed to his opinions about voting rights, and how was it sustainable in law? Frank babbled about how paragraph 3 of the Charter guaranteed that every citizen had the right to vote but that had been denied to him because he couldn't vote any time he wanted, only when the government allowed him to through an election. Periodic voting wasn't good enough, the right to vote had to be available any time that Frank felt in the mood if his paragraph 3 rights were to be met. Presently he was allowed to exercise his paragraph 3 rights only every five years or so which was a clear Charter violation. Frank had devised what he called an Interactive Electoral System that would clear this problem right up if people would only listen to him.
Judge was relentless. He told Frank that he couldn't challenge parliament in the abstract. His Interactive Electoral System might be of interest to a parliamentary committee studying electoral reform but it was no business of the court. So, back to the question, "Tell me again why your claim has any chance of success". Silence. Then he started babbling about Quebec secession attempts. The Crown's rule over Canada was at risk without "evolutionary democracy" and his system would allow that. Sensing that he wasn't playing a winning hand Frank said "If we can move on from section 3" of the Charter, the section he himself had cited as the basis of his petition. So he started arguing freedom of conscience instead. Judge stopped him saying;
"I can't consider what you believe, that's not evidence just opinion, so tell my why your claim is sustainable. A person reading this has to what you are asking for and why you are entitled to it. I don't see that. I see that this is an issue for you but I don't see why the court should help you."
Getting desperate Frank asked for an adjournment. No, this will be decided today. Judge told him if he wanted he could try again with a new petition but to speak to a lawyer first so he could file an action that made legal sense. So Frank asked the judge for legal advice on what to do to ensure that he succeeded if he tried again. Forget it. Judge said he was trying to make this more "cost effective" for Frank because if he kept coming back with worthless actions he could find himself hit with special costs. Hinted that a vexatious litigant ban was lurking just over the horizon. This triggered a plaintive wail "But I've spent years of work to come to these conclusions". Well, the value you've extracted from those lost years and $1.75 will buy you a Skytrain ride to the Wiener Hut.
Judge was unmoved by Frank's anguish. "If you want to bring a Charter application in the abstract, not specific, it's beginning to sound like an abuse of court. Talk to a lawyer Mr. Frank, sooner rather than later"
Frank tried one last attempt to salvage something. He said that if he claimed that his Charter right to vote had been denied he wasn't obliged have to prove it, the government had to prove it wasn't denied and they had failed to do that. Then he asked yet again for an adjournment to see if he could dredge up more legislation to support him. Refused. Judge told him his petition failed in any case because it was aimed at the wrong party. The only named party was the Attorney General of British Columbia who had nothing to do with voting rules. The Attorney General acted as legal counsel for the government. Judge compared this to someone filing a lawsuit against the opposing party's lawyer rather than the actual defendant. And with that he gave his judgment.
Keep in mind that I did my best to copy it exactly as spoken but I couldn't keep up so I may well be in error in some parts. As best I could transcribe the decision was;
''Application by the British Columbia Attorney General to strike petition of September 17, 2014 is granted. Petitioner is a member of an organization that supports an alternative form of voting and as a sovereign man does not need to follow that don't meet his preferred method of voting. He seeks exemption from the laws by his petition."
I lost track here but he was just mentioning something to do with the case of Gateway Building Management, another case cited by Crown. I got back on track with;
"The test essentially is if it is plain and obvious that no claim known to the law is proposed. I have decided yes. I present form your claim must be struck."
Judge asked Crown what it wanted for costs. Nominal. For once Frank agreed with the Crown's position. He even called Crown counsel "my learned friend" while doing it. Judge said pleadings more misguided than contempt of court. He said that normally the Court Registrar would assess costs but he was doing it right now by assessing one day of Crown counsel's time at $1,500. The Court had been generous with its time in hearing Frank out. We had been allocated 45 minutes and there were people in line behind us but the Court allowed him 70 minutes.
As my wrap-up I'd say that Frank came to court with two totally preposterous ideas;
1 - That since he'd squandered years of his life obsessed with this issue he was entitled to get whatever he wanted as recompense. He seemed to sincerely believe that if he chanted the magic words "Charter Rights" instead of the equally relevant phrase "I'm sad because everybody ignores me" that the Court would grant him whatever remedy he demanded no matter how extreme. In his world view there are no limits to what the government is required to do to make him whole after the imaginary breach of his rights as he alone defined them. He had a theoretical dispute with the way electoral process is set up and he seemed to feel that his opinion trumped the opinions of everybody else in Canada. As a result he believed that the court was compelled to either force the government to formally exempt him from all of its laws or to change our entire electoral system to match up to his pipe-dream. Essentially Frank was telling us that all Canadians can exempt themselves from the laws of the land if they just go to court and whine that their feelings are hurt.
2 - His belief that the Supreme Court of British Columbia had the power to grant him his requested remedy. That it could, by scribbling out a court order, somehow exempt him from the very laws the court existed to enforced or order the government to fundamentally change how Canadian democracy operates. He had no idea about the actual powers and limitations of the court or how the court system functioned. He seemed to think it was there just to grant his whims.
He has a serious problem with reality. After all these years of dreaming in the basement his head-on crash into it must have been hard.
For those who are interested some other Frank and ISS links are;
Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbwiXE ... PsF4UwIVRg
He tried to run in a Federal Election!
A podcast about the ISS plan:
http://talkdigitalnetwork.com/2014/09/c ... -more-say/
Dumploads of election related items:
http://www.punditsguide.ca/candidate_e. ... idate=5461
http://www.cbc.ca/news2/canadavotes/rid ... idate.html
http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?se ... dat&lang=e
Ran for leadership of the Canadian Action Party – but lost
http://archive.rabble.ca/babble/ultimat ... 1&t=007087
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/F ... 02294.html