Psam Frank - Sovereign with his own laws and court

Moderator: Burnaby49

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5816
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Psam Frank - Sovereign with his own laws and court

Postby Burnaby49 » Sun Oct 19, 2014 3:48 am

Now for something completely different - the Independent Sovereign Society:

http://issociety.org/

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
Buckingham Palace
London, England SW1A 1AA

Your Majesty,

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

Dear Madame,

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:

http://www.clicklaw.bc.ca/question/commonquestion/1107.

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;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9597

And here;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9683

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;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9377&start=220#p163974

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.

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9388&start=260#p165879

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);

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=9396

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;

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Psamfrank
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Psam-Frank/134224690626
Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbwiXE ... PsF4UwIVRg

He tried to run in a Federal Election!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukvQv-F3PTQ

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
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10893
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Psalm Frank - Sovereign with his own laws and court

Postby notorial dissent » Sun Oct 19, 2014 4:55 am

Very good Burnaby, and I think you got a good impression and flavor of the crazy. I also expect that he will ultimately be back with a new and not much improved complaint at some point, as he doesn't strike me as being terribly bright or good at catching a clue, or learning not one jot from past experience. I also suspect that he is well on his way to vex lit status as well, as stupid like that runs deep.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5816
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Psalm Frank - Sovereign with his own laws and court

Postby Burnaby49 » Thu Feb 19, 2015 9:02 pm

I almost decided to change the name of this discussion to "Death's Sweet and Sticky Embrace". Doesn't that sound just like the title of a British 1930's murder mystery? But I very reluctantly changed my mind. That would just be mocking Psalm Frank's upcoming death by maple syrup tentatively scheduled for some time late this summer, maybe early fall, whenever he finds time to get around to it.

Psalm's been busy after his stunning loss last October, avidly posting in his blog, and he's provided me with a unique opportunity to assign you all some homework! Less than a week ago, on February 13, I said in an entirely unrelated discussion;

I don't deal in "solutions", I try to promote awareness. Unlike the legions of the claimed Freeman supporters who babble endlessly on the internet I actually make the effort to go to court and sit through extremely boring court hearings to try and accurately report how Freeman bullshit fails in the only venue that counts. I've said over and over that I want an alternate conflicting narrative on what happens in the courtroom but showing up seems to be beyond the efforts that Freeman supporters are willing to make.


Well I should be careful what I wish for because Psalm has delivered a very authoritative "alternate conflicting narrative" to the one I wrote up here on his court hearing. An official court transcript of the proceedings!

http://www.mediafire.com/view/wxtv8z74b ... Oct-17.pdf

So for any of my readers who wonder from time to time about the veracity of my court reporting, here is a chance to compare whatever idiocy I lazily posted against what actually happened. Go to it! The transcript was provided by Frank as part of a bunch of new entries he's put on his blog, The Interactive Sovereign Society;

http://issociety.org/

I said in my posting of the hearing;

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.


After reading the transcript I still think the judge (actually a Master in Chambers, my mistake) did a great job. So feel free to comment on my hack-job but I'm standing by what I said about Master Keighley. He was tightly focused, concise but always to point and gave a thoughtful hearing. Psalm couldn't have asked for a better adversary.

Anyhow Psalm tells us in his new postings that he plans to die fighting for his ideals; the right to vote constantly, daily, hourly! Given the dismally low voter turnouts at even our very infrequent scheduled elections this many not be an idea the electorate is really clamoring for but Psalm feels that a world where you can't vote all day every day isn't a world worth living in. He has a responsibility to the rest of us to up the ante now that he lost at court so he's taking more direct action. He's going to kill himself in a hunger strike unless the government gives him what he wants. An odd kind of hunger strike though, his weapon of choice is maple syrup.

My hunger strike begins on July 1. For the first month, I intend to use maple syrup for sustenance, and drink plenty of water, as well as some juiced vegetables and a couple of sources of fibre to clean my system out. It will basically be more like a cleanse than a hunger strike. On August 1, I will begin rationing out the maple syrup to several tablespoons a day, gradually reducing this amount day by day. By September, I will have reduced the amount of maple syrup to none, and I will subsist entirely on water alone.!


That's from his somewhat rambling suicide note shown here;

http://issociety.org/wp-content/uploads ... Strike.pdf

Maybe he figures that after a month or two of a maple syrup régime death's embrace will come as a sweet, sweet, welcoming release. However there is still time for the government to act to save Psalm's life since he plans to pull the plug in September this year. Sadly we are probably facing a life tragically cut short over simple bad timing. The federal government must call an election by, at the latest, October 19th of this year. Traditionally a government calls an election before the clock runs out, waiting until the last minute just reeks of desperation. So the election should fall just when Frank is gracefully expiring and none of the political parties or media will have time to pay attention to Psalm's noble gesture. A suggestion Psalm, try and schedule your expiry date for about mid August. You should be in the clear then and the opposition parties can use your tragic ending as election issue. However Psalm has left himself a way out. He said in his suicide note;

I have chosen July 1, 2015 as the date to begin my hunger strike. There are two conditions on which I will end my strike. One is if the number of participants in an interactive electoral system doubles. The other is if a court of the Interactive Sovereign Society (click here for details) orders Me to cease my strike or cease planning my strike. There are presently two organizations that use an interactive electoral system, the Interactive Sovereign Society and the newly formed Interactive Party of Canada. By becoming a member of one of these organizations, You become a registered voter in an interactive electoral system and You can cast a vote to choose the legislative officials (law makers) of those organizations. It is also an opportunity to see if the solution I am proposing is indeed a viable possibility to be used on a larger scale.!


Since Psalm is the court of the Interactive Sovereign Society he has a fix in at the judicial level if he decides to petition it for permission to end his syrup guzzling protest.

Apart from death threats the main issue in his new postings is a breast beating mea culpa about how he screwed up in court. I'm not going to review his confessions, you can read it yourselves.

http://issociety.org/two-mistakes-in-court/

However I think he's being too hard on himself. I've had a lot of experience testify in court and I've found that it is extremely hard to keep focused and on point when you are dealing in real time. Psalm had to respond to the Master's question right then and there and I think, overall, he did very well for a first timer.

Regardless of my derision and mockery I do have to say a few things in Psalm's favour. He isn't a bullshitter like most Freeman guru types I've dealt with (I'm looking at you Freedom Pickle). He went to court on a totally misguided idea but gave it his best shot. I have no doubts about his sincerity. When he lost he didn't try to give a fake alternate narrative about why the corrupt court had screwed him, he released the actual transcript showing exactly what he argued and why he lost. And he did an honest (if incorrect) analysis of his own mistakes that resulted in his failure. His problem, which he apparently hasn't yet realized, is that he did not make any mistakes. As the Master in Chambers said, Psalm did not bring forward any reasonable cause of action known to the law.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

Hyrion
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 616
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 2:33 pm

Re: Psalm Frank - Sovereign with his own laws and court

Postby Hyrion » Thu Feb 19, 2015 9:31 pm

Burnaby49 wrote:As an aside note that in Frank's alternate reality the Queen was actually concerned about his revocation of loyalty to her.

I don't think he cares at all. It's my humble opinion based on the clear actions of the OPCA group that any time they apologize it's just a formality.

One of those magical words that somehow excuses all the rest of the actions they keep doing.

It's like that physically abusive husband who is sitting there saying "I don't want to hurt you" while he's punching his wife in the face.

    Well dude.... if you really don't mean it - STOP!
An apology requires 3 elements to exist. All 3 must exist for the apology to have meaning:

    1) Recognition the individual did something that caused harm
    2) Some level of actual remorse at having caused that harm
    3) Some level of - at least - intent to not cause that harm again
If any element is missing, the apology is not meant for the victim - it is meant for the perpetrator. So they can feel free to cause the same harm again.

The OPCA group don't seem to be able to recognize what they are doing is harmful no matter how obvious.

For example, if the Volks had honestly believed in not paying interest they had a lawful, ethical and moral path they could have taken to get themselves out of the mortgage:

    Put the property on the market for sale, use part of the proceeds to pay off the outstanding amount and keep the rest.
Instead - they choose a path which ( in my humble opinion ) is clearly attempting to steal the property:

    By claiming the mortgage was fraud and they get to own the property anyway rather than it revert to the previous owner
If you can't recognize what you've done as wrong - there's no way you can meet the first element of a real apology.

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5816
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Psam Frank - Sovereign with his own laws and court

Postby Burnaby49 » Wed Apr 15, 2015 2:22 am

I just did a check on Psam Frank to see if he'd taken my advice and started his suicide by maple syrup earlier than planned to avoid conflicting with the upcoming federal election. We certainly don't want scheduling conflicts when a man is willing to lay down his life for something as important as a wacky theoretical voting scheme that has no popular support whatever! No new reports on that so I assume he's still sticking to the schedule. I did find a few new points. The first is that I've been spelling his name wrong. Up until today I've been calling him Psalm when it is actually Psam. Sorry Psam! I've changed the title of the discussion but I'm not going to root through all my posts to change every individual reference. But he's Psam from here on forward.

The second point is that I just spotted a post where Psam indicated he actually had another lawsuit, in Federal Court. Sure enough, here it is:

Docket: T-1286-12
A SOVEREIGN INDIVIDUAL KNOWN AS PSAM AND OTHERS v. AGC

I have no idea who the "others" are. The AGC is the Attorney General of Canada.

It didn't last too long. The judicial review was filed on June 14, 2012, And it triggered puzzlement:

Written directions received from the Court: Roger Lafrenière, Esq., Prothonotary dated 27-JUN-2012 directing that "Pursuant to Rule 72 of the Federal Courts Rules, the Notice of Application tendered by Sovereign-psam:frank was referred to the Court for directions because it does not refer to a specif (sic) decision in respect of which judicial review is sought. Although the Notice of Application is confusing and at times unintelligible, the Registry is directed to accept the document for filing." placed on file on 28-JUN-2012 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies)


Several amendment cycles later Psam gave up and discontinued the action on Nov. 22, 2012.

The full listing of the various submissions and responses can be found here;

http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/fc ... =T-1286-12

I'm going to the Federal Court registry this week on another matter (which I plan to report) and if I remember maybe I'll try and pull the file and see what Psam thought his lawsuit was about.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5816
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Psam Frank - Sovereign with his own laws and court

Postby Burnaby49 » Mon May 25, 2015 7:45 am

As I stated in my last posting I went to the Federal Court registry and checked out Psam's documents. But first his latest update from his website, dated April 26, 2015 and titled;

Statement From Fifth Prime Representative

http://issociety.org/statement-from-fif ... sentative/

Sounds like something the crew of the Enterprise heard over their hailing system at the beginning of another nail-biting adventure. All it really means is that Psam, with great reluctance and humility, has been elected to be the Prime Representative of the Interactive Sovereign Society. You can read his reasons for accepting the position here;

http://issociety.org/wp-content/uploads ... erm-15.pdf

He first rambles on about a letter he sent to the Minister of National Revenue. Since this is still in play he has to be Prime Representative to carry his great plan getting all the members of ISS exemption from income tax because of the flagrant violation of their rights to vote.

The reason I received Rick’s vote, which gave Me the leading number of votes and elected Me to this position, was that I wrote a letter to send to the Canadian Minister of National Revenue and offered to send it on behalf of the society if elected Prime Representative. I have attached that letter to the end of this statement. I see my time as Prime Representative as being exclusively mandated for sending this letter and then carrying out whatever further actions are necessary on behalf of the society to help our members achieve what amounts to no taxation without representation. In Canada our section 3 Charter rights are our method of being represented in our government. Denying those rights for four years at a time effectively leaves Us unrepresented during that time.

At such time that I have completed dealing with the Minister of National Revenue on the intentions I have expressed in my letter, then I believe that the Interactive Sovereign Society should find a new Prime Representative to bring another new direction to our society. My success will mean that substantial funding may become available to the society, as Canadians will have the option to cease paying taxes to the Canada Revenue Agency and instead make contributions to the Interactive Sovereign Society in the same amounts. How We use this funding remains entirely up to Us, but I suggest that We remain clear that We have a responsibility in Canada to contribute to many of the same public works as any taxpayer, including social services, education, transportation infrastructure, and others. In addition to fulfilling these responsibilities, I believe that there will be much opportunity to invest funds into this society’s interests, as motivated by the principles that our society’s members serve.


The letter to the Minister of National Revenue stated;

The Honourable Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay, P.C., Q.C., M.P.
Minister of National Revenue
7th Floor
555 MacKenzie Avenue

Ottawa ON K1A 0L5
cc: The Honourable Murray Rankin
Opposition Critic for National Revenue
House of Commons

Ottawa ON K1A 0A6
Honourable Minister,

I am writing to inform you of my situation at present in relation to the Canada Revenue Agency as it relates to my rights under section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“the Charter”).

Section 3 of the Charter states that every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of a legislative assembly. Every legislative assembly in Canada provides the means to exercise this right on one arbitrarily chosen date and then no means is provided to exercise this right for several years. This is an unnecessary denial of this right, as illustrated by a society, of which I am a member, which has a legislative assembly for which section 3 Charter rights are available to be exercised by every member of the society at any time that she or he wishes.

I refer to the method of allowing a voter to cast her or his vote for a candidate for a legislative assembly at any time that the voter wishes and then change it at any time thereafter as an interactive electoral system (IES). The right guaranteed in section 3 of the Charter is thus never denied for any period of time. One society presently using this system is the Interactive Sovereign Society (ISS). This society has now existed in Canada for over four years.

During the time of the society’s existence and its usage of the interactive electoral system, no justification has been demonstrated by members or observers for the right to vote in an election of members of a legislative assembly to be denied for any period of time. It does not appear from experience thus far as if the constant availability of this right to be exercised has any detrimental impact upon freedom or democracy. This means that section 1 of the Charter could not be invoked to make it lawful for a legislative assembly to deny this right for any period of time.

As long as I am held responsible to the laws created by the legislative assembly of the ISS, then the only way that my section 3 Charter rights are denied for any period of time is if laws are imposed upon me that are created by a legislative assembly that does deny section 3 Charter rights for periods of time. This includes the Canada Income Tax Act, which is created by a legislative assembly that denies section 3 Charter rights for periods of time. Also, the choices as to how those taxes are spent are made in a fashion which denies section 3 Charter rights forperiods of time. Therefore I believe it to be unconstitutional for the Canada Revenue Agency to collect taxes from me subject to the Canada Income Tax Act, and I have therefore had no
dealings with the agency for several years.

At such time that either election laws in Canada are amended so as to cease the periodic prohibition of section 3 Charter rights or else justification is demonstrated as to how this limit on fundamental democratic rights serves freedom or democracy, I fully intend to responsibly act in accordance with all tax laws. Also, if my membership in the ISS is terminated for any reason, then I believe that this will also make me responsible to income tax laws in Canada, as I share the belief that it is neither justifiable nor acceptable for an individual to live lawlessly.

The ISS has a Prime Representative, interactively elected by the members of the society, who presides over the society’s legislative functions. I have recently been elected to this position and I am scheduled to take office on June 3, 2015. One of my principal goals in this position is to assure members who are aware of my abstinence from dealings with the Canada Revenue Agency that they may also have the denial of their section 3 Charter rights in Canada remedied by choosing to cease dealings with this agency, instead having their contributions determined by the laws of the ISS, and the allocations of those contributions decided by the ISS’s legislative assembly.

The members of the ISS share Canada with residents who do make contributions to Canada Revenue Agency, and as Prime Representative of the ISS, I wish to ensure that contributions of ISS members to public works are respectfully commensurate with other residents’ contributions. I intend to maintain respectful diplomatic relations with any members of the Canadian government who are willing to compare allocations of contributions so that this is achieved. I must of course remain responsible to the electorate of the ISS in my decisions, but I believe I have their support in my efforts to achieve a reasonable and responsible relationship with the Crown to their satisfaction. Some of them do in fact prefer to continue to make their contributions to the Canada Revenue Agency. These members would of course not wish to see any unfair disparity between their contributions for the public good in Canada versus the members whose contributions are made exclusively to the ISS. I trust any objections in this matter would be made transparently known to the Crown by those members, and if so, I intend to answer for them.

I would like to hear back from you to know if any of the assertions I’ve made herein seem incorrect or dissatisfactory to you.

Thank you.


In other words flogging the same very dead horse I reviewed a year and a half later. I suppose the only comfort that Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay can take from this is that it seems unlikely that Frank, given his relentless obsession with his own Constitutional rights, has time for involving himself in much gainful employment so it is unlikely there is much tax at risk. In any case, if he is an employee, his taxes are taken off his paycheck before he gets it so he has no choice whether or not to pay taxes.

I suppose this at least shows that Psam is still in there trying. Why elect yourself to a sham position then broadcast it about unless you plan to continue your moronic quest? Maybe, after all these years, he figures he has too much invested in it to quit.

So is death by maple syrup still on? He hasn't said that it isn't apart from that escape clause he made that says he is a servant of whatever ISS commands. He happily now has a very close friend in an influential position. I anticipate an executive order from the Fifth Prime Representative instructing him to abandon any selfish thoughts of sugarcide and instead to continue his essential work of tilting at windmills.

He at least plans to leave the society in good financial shape when his term ends;

At such time that I have completed dealing with the Minister of National Revenue on the intentions I have expressed in my letter, then I believe that the Interactive Sovereign Society should find a new Prime Representative to bring another new direction to our society. My success will mean that substantial funding may become available to the society, as Canadians will have the option to cease paying taxes to the Canada Revenue Agency and instead make contributions to the Interactive Sovereign Society in the same amounts. How We use this funding remains entirely up to Us, but I suggest that We remain clear that We have a responsibility in Canada to contribute to many of the same public works as any taxpayer, including social services, education, transportation infrastructure, and others. In addition to fulfilling these responsibilities, I believe that there will be much opportunity to invest funds into this society’s interests, as motivated by the principles that our society’s members serve.


Well on to his Federal Court lawsuit. He fired the opening gun with this application to the court dated June 13, 2012. This places the court action just a bit over two years prior to the hearing I reported.

http://www.mediafire.com/view/5ff7l4etq ... cation.pdf

He started out by giving a little history of his name;

APPLICANT: a sovereign individual known as psam, of paternal lineage known as frank, also referred to as "the sovereign" for the purpose of this application, previously known by the legal name of Samuel Michael Frank, all of which may be abbreviated "Sovereign - psam: frank"


The filing is essentially the same idiocy he was trying to argue at my hearing. Since the government of Canada wouldn't kiss his ass and give him everything he demanded, including revising the entire way the Canadian electoral system works to meet his requirements of being able to vote all the time, his rights under the Charter have been violated. It isn't that he didn't try to explain things to them. He sent a letter to the Governor General of Canada demanding a "recognition", like a school pass, from the GG stating that he was exempt from all of the laws of Canada. He needed this because government actors, ignorant of his status as an independent sovereign, were insisting on treating him just like the rest of we Canadian cattle;

In July 2011, the applicant sent a letter, by registered mail, to His Excellency, the right honourable David Johnston, Governor General of Canada. The letter made the request that His Excellency present signed recognition of the applicant's sovereignty and of the applicant's consent to be held to adhere to the laws enacted by the Interactive Sovereign Society. At the time of the filing of this notice of application, His Excellency has thus far decided not to reply to this letter. Because of this decision, many officers, representatives, or agents of the respondent's government have no definite means of being made aware of, or comprehending, the sovereignty of the applicant. On occasion, this leads to the appiicant being treated by those individuals as though He is subject to the lawful authority of the respondent's government. The rights and freedoms that are thus denied and infringed are depicted in section III of this notice of application. The remedy asked to these denials and infringements is depicted in section IV of this notice of application. Following is a description of the reasoning behind the present sovereign status declared by the applicant.


The nightmare of being treated like a Canadian citizen! This was just perfidious backstabbing by the Governor General! The GG is the Queen's representative in Canada acting on her behalf and, as Frank related, the Queen herself had already agreed that he was entitled to full independent sovereign status;

Prior to corresponding with His Excellency the Governor General, the applicant had already presented notification of his present declared sovereign status to the respondent's sovereign head of state, Her Majesty Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada. A copy of this notification, as well as the correspondence with His Excellency, will be included in the application. As no response was received to the initial notification to Her Majesty, it is believed that She has affirmed Her tacit consent to this declaration of sovereignty on behalf of the state She heads. It is expected by the applicant that Her Majesty may acknowledge that the matter, of having the applicant's sovereignty defined for the benefit of relations with citizens sharing the respondent's government, may be decided by the court hearing this application in accordance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as per section 24(1) of that charter (please see section I.a).


Since she didn't personally reply to his letter how could she have made it clearer that she had agreed to all his demands? This injustice cried out for redress from the Queen's court, The Federal Court of Canada.

The applicant asks that the Court declare that the applicant has the right to choose a legislative assembly, to prescribe reasonable, lawful limits on his rights and freedoms, that is constituted so as not to deny the right to vote in an election of its members, or to deny the right to be eligible for membership in it, for any period of time. This legislative assembly must be open to participation by any individual who wishes to have a democratic voice in determining the applicant's laws as a requirement for this legislative assembly to qualify as placing sufficient reasonable limits upon the applicant's conduct to assure his individual role in facilitating a free and democratic society.

The applicant asks that the Court declare that, for as long as the applicant chooses a legislative assembly as described above, then the applicant has the right to not be subject to the governance of, nor presumed to be under the authority of, the respondent's government, as long as this government denies the right to vote in an election of members of its House of Commons for any periods of time.

The applicant asks further that the Court declare that the applicant has the right to not be subject to the governance of, nor presumed to be under the authority of, an institution founded on principles of a religious nature, which includes principles that reference any form of deity, spiritual entity, or religious scripture. Given the religious nature of the principles upon which the respondent's governance is founded, this includes the right to not be subject to the governance on behalf of which the respondent acts.

The applicant asks further that the Court declare that the applicant has the right to be informed by the respondent of any reasonably demonstrable justification by which any limits be placed on the applicant's lawfully allowable conduct above and beyond the laws enacted by his chosen legislative assembly, the Interactive Sovereign Society. Such limits must be based on grounds that allege that there are observable and describable ways in which the Interactive Sovereign Society's role in Canada offers less supportive facilitation of a free and democratic society than the respondent's governance.

The applicant asks that the Court declare that the applicant has the right to seek future remedy as recourse if the above rights are denied by the respondent at any time.

The applicant also asks for any other relief as this honourable Court may deem appropriate.


The case puttered around for a bit with the Crown arguing it was senseless gibberish and wanting it kicked out for no cause of action. Frank tried to amend his filing in October because he'd forgotten a few things. The Crown didn't care, probably figuring the more gibberish the better, but the court wasn't allowing it.

The general rule is that an amendment should be allowed at any stage of an action for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties, provided to do so would not result in an injustice to the other party not capable of being compensated by an award of costs and that it would serve the interests of justice: Canderel Ltd v Canada, [1994] 1 FC 3. Although the same rule applies to applications, the window of opportunity to amend a pleading filed pursuant to Paii 5 of the Federal Courts Rules is circumscribed by the fact that such proceedings are meant to be heard in a summary manner.

Upon carefully reviewing the proposed amendments, I conclude that it would not be in the interests of justice to grant the present motion. First, there has been undue delay by the Applicant in requesting leave to amend. The Applicant states in his affidavit filed in support of the motion that he received correspondence from the Respondent identifying a number of deficiencies in his pleading. There is no indication when the letter was received by the Applicant, or any explanation provided as to why the Applicant waited until September 17, 2012, three months after filing the Notice of Application, to bring the present motion.

Secondly, the amendments are not appropriate. The Applicant seeks leave to amend the Notice of Application by adding, modifying or deleting a number of paragraphs that appear to involve matters that are not within the Federal Court's jurisdiction. By way of example, the Applicant named the "Crown" as the Respondent in the Notice of Application, but failed to identify any federal board, commission or tribunal. At paragraph (a) of the Grounds for the Application, the Applicant seeks to add wording that the electoral system "used by the legislative assembly for the Province of British Columbia, as outlined by the Constitution Act, chapter 66" deprives voters of the right to vote for periods of time between the elections. The Applicant seeks to challenge a provincial decision and/or legislation; however, this Court has no jurisdiction over provincial matters.

When considering a motion to amend, the Court should not allow any amendments that are amenable to be struck. The Applicant's proposed amendments, much like the allegations in the Notice of Application, are unclear and confusing. The Court will not assist the Applicant by compounding the deficiencies in his pleading.

THIS COURT ORDERS that the motion is dismissed.


http://www.mediafire.com/view/nep5pc2rb ... _Order.pdf

Note that the order was given by Prothonotary Roger Lafreniere. Roger has been involved in a lot of the Freeman filings I've reviewed and will be a star player in my next big posting tentatively titled;

LORD JESUS THE CHRIST v. CANADA

I think Roger deserves a beer.

Psam tried yet again to rewrite his application and this time the court wasn't as polite in it's rejection of him;

This is the third motion by the Applicant seeking leave to amend the Notice of Application. The first motion was rejected by Order dated October 2, 2012 on the grounds that there was undue delay by the Applicant in requesting leave to amend, and because the proposed amendments were unclear and confusing. The second motion was granted as the only change requested was to the style of cause by removing The Crown and substituting the Attorney General of Canada as the Respondent. However, the amendment was allowed without prejudice to the right of the Attorney General of Canada to bring a motion to strike the Notice of Application on the grounds that the proceeding is bereft of any possibility of success. By the present motion, the Applicant seeks leave to effect wholesale amendments to the Notice of Application.

As stated in the Order dated October 2, 2012, the general rule is that an amendment should be allowed at any stage of a proceeding for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties, provided to do so would not result in an injustice to the other party not capable of being compensated by an award of costs and that it would serve the interests of justice: Canderel Ltd. v. Canada, [1994] 1 FC 3. For the reasons that follow, I conclude that it is not in the interests of justice to allow the proposed amendments as they are both frivolous and vexatious, and constitute an abuse of process.

By way of illustration, the Applicant states in the section entitled Background of the proposed amended pleading (page 5 of the Applicant's motion record), that he sent a letter to the Governor General of Canada requesting "signed recognition of the applicant's sovereignty and of the applicant's consent to be held to adhere to the laws enacted by the Interactive Sovereign Society" but did not receive a reply from the Governor General. In his prayer for relief, the Applicant seeks various relief, including a declaration that he has the right to choose a legislative assembly and not be subject to the governance of the Canadian government.


Then on to that damn Meads v Meads. Will we never hear the end of it?

The manner in which the Applicant identifies himself in the style of cause (Sovereign - psam: frank) and the terminology he uses in his pleading exhibit many of the stereotypic traits of a specific kind of vexatious litigant who has become increasingly common in this Court and provincial courts. In Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571, Associate Chief Justice Rooke of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench surveyed and reviewed case law across Canada to help more readily identify vexatious litigants intent on disrupting court operations and frustrating the legal rights of governments, corporations, and individuals. ACJ Rooke labelled such litigants as Organized Pseudo legal Commercial Argument litigants [OPCA litigants]. They refer to themselves by various names, including Sovereign Men or Sovereign Citizens. They spell their name with irrelevant punctuation, or only in lower case letters in the belief that it somehow makes them immune to court and state action. They claim that they can declare themselves exempt from the law, or can opt out of being governed. They say they are only subject to some special and different law as bizarrely defined by them, or no law at all. The Applicant falls squarely within this idiosyncratic group.

The Applicant's proposed amendments have a vexatious aspect as they are based on flawed logic and arguments unknown to and invalid under the law. I also consider this third attempt by the Applicant to seek leave to amend to be an abuse of the Court's process. Not only has the Applicant failed to account for the delay in requesting the proposed amendments~ he has not explained why leave to make the proposed amendments could not have been sought in the previous motion.

THIS COURT ORDERS that the motion is dismissed.


http://www.mediafire.com/view/yiwghv4b5 ... _Order.pdf

So, a week later, Frank took his ball and went home. Perhaps he was offended by being called idiosyncratic;

The Applicant is saddened than an institution would make such laudable claims as are made in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but then show contempt and prejudice to a Man who simply and innocently asks to have it observed that these claims are not being substantiated toward Him, just because of his apparent inexperience with the Court's protocol as to how He might describe his circumstances. The decision rendered by the prothonotary on this Application on November 14, 2012 displayed exactly this form of treatment, and thus it has become apparent that pursuing this matter further will not be of any avail to the Applicant. The Applicant therefore wholly discontinues this Application.


http://www.mediafire.com/view/d00gya0vo ... nuance.pdf

We can construct an informal timeline from all this. Since Psam is the fifth Prime Representative and starting his term mid 2015 the first Prime Representative, and the Society, must have started mid 2011. A year after that Psam filed the Fedral Court action which was discontinued at the end of 2012. A little over a year later, in early 2014, he had the hearing that I attended. Another loss. Then, on April 26, 2015, he posted the entry on the ISL website saying full steam ahead, victory is in sight! No taxes for us and unlimited government funds to finance ISL!

It's great to have a dream but this one is costing Psam any chance at a normal life.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10893
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Psam Frank - Sovereign with his own laws and court

Postby notorial dissent » Mon May 25, 2015 11:09 am

Definitely a different flavor, but still nutters all. Doesn't sound like there are a whole lot of them either. I'm still perplexed as to why the courts let it linger on as long as they did, I would have thought they'd have flushed it fairly early on for being nonsense.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5816
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Psam Frank - Sovereign with his own laws and court

Postby Burnaby49 » Sat Aug 01, 2015 5:48 am

Remember Psam Frank? I just found his Facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/psamuel.frank

Not a pleasant read. The anger, the bitterness, the obsessive postings are overwhelming. We have a federal election coming up and he's raging against all of the political parties.

Samuel Michael Frank
June 16
I heard today that Justin False-Doh is considering mandatory voting in Canada. If they can make it mandatory for us to vote, why can't we make it mandatory for those miserable pieces of shit to hold an election when we tell them to? Mandatory voting is a bullshit propaganda strategy of deceitful control freaks.


"Justin False-Doh" is Justin Trudeau, head of the federal Liberal party and the son of Pierre Trudeau, our Prime Minister from time to time between 1968 and 1984.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Trudeau

Many of his posts are too obscene to copy unedited here. Posts like this;

Samuel Michael Frank
Yesterday at 1:36pm ·
Any Canadian of moderate intelligence who finds genitalia unpleasant would agree that Stephen Harper is either a d*** or a c***, depending upon which gender of genitalia is more unpleasant to that person. Any Canadian who appreciates genitalia but finds shit kind of gross would agree that Stephen Harper is an a******. Any Canadian of moderate intelligence would also agree that replacing Stephen Harper with d****, c*****, or a******* like Thomas Mulcair, Justin Trudeau, and Elizabeth May will leave Canada's government equally obscene and offensive, so there is no point in voting on October 19.


Mulcair is the leader of the New Democratic Party, May is the leader of the Green Party.

Samuel Michael Frank
Yesterday at 1:20pm
This is a public service announcement to anyone who intends to vote Conservative, NDP, Liberal, or Green on October 19. Fuck you, you dumb, useless, worthless, stupid, empty headed piece of shit.

Samuel Michael Frank
Yesterday at 1:11pm
Just because Stephen Harper is a worthless scrap of mouldy belly button lint doesn't mean that it is a good thing to put your support behind maggots like Justin Trudeau, Elizabeth May, or Thomas Mulcair. Yet any Canadian who believes that the election on October 19 is in any way a constructive effort is either stupid enough to like Stephen Harper or naïve enough to think replacing him with one of the above three morons will make a difference.

Samuel Michael Frank
May 30 ·
If You actually believe that voting New Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, or Green makes any difference at all to the corruption, deceit, and decay perpetrated by the members of your government, then You are too fucking stupid to bother with.

Samuel Michael Frank
June 1 ·
People that support New Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives, and Greens are worthless brain dead fucking idiots.


He's still very bitter about the country rejecting his voting system;

Samuel Michael Frank
Yesterday at 11:38am ·
Who fucking cares if Stephen Harper and the Conservatives are gutting Elections Canada? When has an election ever helped make Canada a better place? Fucking NEVER. Holding an election once every four years is just a circus of stupidity.

Samuel Michael Frank
July 27 at 12:26am ·
If You live in Canada, and You believe in God and heaven and hell, and You believe it is acceptable for the government to be elected once every four years, and You consensually refer to the Crown as your government, then according to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, when You die, You will burn in the painful fires of hell. If You would like to know why, feel free to ask. I would love to see any One try to refute my logic, because it appears quite sound to Me.


Frankly he seems mentally disturbed. His failure to somehow force the government to adapt his magical voting system seems to have unhinged him. He wasn't this way in his prior writings that I reviewed and he seemed quite calm and reasonable when I watched him in court but now he's just ranting. Perhaps he's suddenly realized that, at forty-two, he's squandered his life. As far as I'm aware he lives with his parents and makes, at best, a marginal income as a delivery man. He's said he spent years studying and researching his hopeless dead-end dream of either getting his voting system accepted or getting the courts to exempt him from Canada's laws and perhaps he realizes now that it was all wasted. So he's lashing out at the rest of us for failing him.

Samuel Michael Frank
July 29 at 10:19am ·
If You think it is acceptable for Crown governance to be imposed upon Me despite the fact that section 3 Charter rights are denied for years at a time, then every time something happens that makes You deeply unhappy, I am laughing at You. Two wrongs may never have made a right, but sometimes it's the rightest possible outcome, despite still being wrong.


He's also squabbling with Face Book about their insistence that he use his actual name for his page;

Samuel Michael Frank
My Facebook id was previously "Psam Sovereign". My account was disconnected and I got an email asking Me for "government issued identification" to prove that my name was real. I believe the Federal Court is a branch of the government. The Federal Court issued this document. This document identifies who I am, to the satisfaction of the Federal Court Registry Officer. I made sworn testimony with my name read aloud exactly as written in this document. So this document is government issued id, and yet Facebook refused to allow Me to use the name "Psam Sovereign". Which word does Facebook not understand, "government", "issued", or "id"? It seems to Me that all three words are satisfied by this document.


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152889332135812&set=a.428733230811.215145.580965811&type=1

This has all opened up a disturbing window into his mind.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10893
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Psam Frank - Sovereign with his own laws and court

Postby notorial dissent » Sat Aug 01, 2015 6:48 am

Definitely bitter, caustic, foulmouthed, and I would agree unhinged. What a way to waste a life.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

pigpot
Banned (Permanently)
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 546
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2015 8:49 am

Re: Psam Frank - Sovereign with his own laws and court

Postby pigpot » Sat Aug 01, 2015 7:51 am

notorial dissent wrote:Definitely bitter, caustic, foulmouthed, and I would agree unhinged. What a way to waste a life.


Like me though he could be just plain old fed up with the rubbish he is fed daily and told it's the truth when he has completely seen through the veil of lies etc. I don't know... but I know a few that think they know better than me and will try and force me to behave. That's a hard job. I just want to live peacefully without threats and things. :shock:

Ta. :|
Boaz. It's a little like Shazam. It certainly meant a lot to Billy Batson.
Nothing in this post is legal or lawful advice, it is only used for the sake of entertainment.
All "rights" are reserved by this poster.

User avatar
arayder
Banned (Permanently)
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 2117
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 4:17 pm

Re: Psam Frank - Sovereign with his own laws and court

Postby arayder » Sat Aug 01, 2015 12:34 pm

Some of the folks in "the movement" love to pitch the idea that they have awoken, gained insight into the ways of society and government and are hence sickened by what they see. They tell us they are only peaceful seekers of change who, upon pointing out the ills of "the system" fear they will be persecuted.

There was no "awakening". These folks have simply chosen to believe a package of propaganda comprised of re-written history, legal nonsense and conspiracy theory.

The ills of society they rail against are often those of their own invention. Some ills are the same ones the rest of us see. The difference being the rest of us have the will and ability to do something about our admittedly imperfect society.

And as we see in the cases of so many in "the movement" brought to justice some of these folks can be violent, self-centered and dangerous. Some are just plain crazy.

We should be thankful that many are nothing more than badly addled keyboard warriors.

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10893
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Psam Frank - Sovereign with his own laws and court

Postby notorial dissent » Sat Aug 01, 2015 1:13 pm

I find it fascinating, well not really, more actually very disturbing, that the FOTL definition of seeing the light is to move in to a land of fantasy and unreality having nothing to do with the real world or how the real world operates. And that their version of being left alone implies allowing them to do whatever they damn well please even when it is or is potentially dangerous to the rest of us who really do wish they'd leave us alone.

In this particular case Psammy wants everyone to do things his way, and no one does, or at least not enough any ones, so he is going to go off and pout and sulk about how mean the world is to him. The thing is, he'd still be pouty and sulky if they decided to do things his way, and everyone didn't vote the way he wanted them to, so he'd still be in the same boat of whiner tears. :violin:
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
arayder
Banned (Permanently)
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 2117
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 4:17 pm

Re: Psam Frank - Sovereign with his own laws and court

Postby arayder » Sat Aug 01, 2015 2:39 pm

It used to be that upon finding graft, corruption or downright criminality in government it wasn't hard to find a journalist or media outlet who, upon substantiating the validity of the allegation, would jump at the chance to scoop their journalistic competition and print the story.

I think today the media has more non-journalistic talking heads and more cautious editorial offices.

But there are still a few journalists who would love to print "the movement's" stories if they were true.

The problem "the movement" has is that its claims are so absurd and their attitude so strident that the media has learned to blow them off as a matter of habit.

The interesting thing is that members of "the movement" love to search the web news media for stories about government misconduct so they can shout, "See, I told you so!"

What they don't get is that the fact that a clerk was taught stealing money from the city, or that a cop lost control of himself during a traffic stop doesn't prove that the banks, the Pope, the Rothschild's and the rest of the NWO sit up nights trying to find ways to steal our freedoms.

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10893
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Psam Frank - Sovereign with his own laws and court

Postby notorial dissent » Sat Aug 01, 2015 3:09 pm

Strange, WYMMV, I find that here we have sufficient news outlets hungry enough for attention and the money that brings that they seem to have no problems turning over all the local rocks and exposing the things that come crawling out, sometimes to the point of going a bit over board. At the same time I don't think that there isn't reason to be watching, things happen, and as long as there are positions of power and people wanting that power it will ever be so. There are definitely things wrong in the world, but it is not the overwhelming conspiracy of darkness that the conspiraloon contingency would like to believe and the reason it doesn't get covered is because a great deal of it doesn't exist, at least not in the context they want to see.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Hanslune
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 286
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2014 12:07 am
Location: Oregon

Re: Psam Frank - Sovereign with his own laws and court

Postby Hanslune » Sat Aug 01, 2015 8:33 pm

What was this fine fellow's magic method of voting?

User avatar
eric
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 586
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 3:44 pm

Re: Psam Frank - Sovereign with his own laws and court

Postby eric » Sat Aug 01, 2015 9:15 pm

Hanslune wrote:What was this fine fellow's magic method of voting?

Pretty simple really. All elected candidates should always be subject to recall and every bit of legislation should come up for referendum. Actually a noble idea in theory, impossible to implement in reality, and would result in an almost complete state of electoral flux, given that some people are never satisfied and he had no practical plans for implementation. It appears now that he's completely gone off the deep end......

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5816
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Psam Frank - Sovereign with his own laws and court

Postby Burnaby49 » Sun Aug 02, 2015 12:15 am

eric wrote:
Hanslune wrote:What was this fine fellow's magic method of voting?

Pretty simple really. All elected candidates should always be subject to recall and every bit of legislation should come up for referendum. Actually a noble idea in theory, impossible to implement in reality, and would result in an almost complete state of electoral flux, given that some people are never satisfied and he had no practical plans for implementation. It appears now that he's completely gone off the deep end......


Not quite. While I never really got a handle on it (no doubt it is somewhere in the linked documents) the idea wasn't formal referrendums or recalls as such as much as vote any time you want. If you didn't like an elected candidate vote against him, anytime, RIGHT NOW. If there were enough votes against him he was out. Then people voted willy-nilly and a new guy was in. But if you didn't like him a week later you could start voting against him. Every elected representative was therefore always vulnerable to being kicked out on a whim. Frank thought that this was the only way a democracy could be run because otherwise, between fixed elections, you had a dictatorship since nobody could be voted out.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

User avatar
eric
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 586
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 3:44 pm

Re: Psam Frank - Sovereign with his own laws and court

Postby eric » Sun Aug 02, 2015 1:53 am

Burnaby49 wrote:Not quite. While I never really got a handle on it (no doubt it is somewhere in the linked documents) the idea wasn't formal referrendums or recalls as such as much as vote any time you want. If you didn't like an elected candidate vote against him, anytime, RIGHT NOW. If there were enough votes against him he was out. Then people voted willy-nilly and a new guy was in. But if you didn't like him a week later you could start voting against him. Every elected representative was therefore always vulnerable to being kicked out on a whim. Frank thought that this was the only way a democracy could be run because otherwise, between fixed elections, you had a dictatorship since nobody could be voted out.

Got the methodology figured out - every politician would have the equivalent of a facebook page and if he had enough "likes" he stayed on, if not the job went to the opposing candidate who offered adequate beer and circuses. (purposeful misquote of an old adage) Can I apply for the job of technical advisor to Frank?

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5816
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Psam Frank - Sovereign with his own laws and court

Postby Burnaby49 » Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:40 am

eric wrote:
Burnaby49 wrote:Not quite. While I never really got a handle on it (no doubt it is somewhere in the linked documents) the idea wasn't formal referrendums or recalls as such as much as vote any time you want. If you didn't like an elected candidate vote against him, anytime, RIGHT NOW. If there were enough votes against him he was out. Then people voted willy-nilly and a new guy was in. But if you didn't like him a week later you could start voting against him. Every elected representative was therefore always vulnerable to being kicked out on a whim. Frank thought that this was the only way a democracy could be run because otherwise, between fixed elections, you had a dictatorship since nobody could be voted out.

Got the methodology figured out - every politician would have the equivalent of a facebook page and if he had enough "likes" he stayed on, if not the job went to the opposing candidate who offered adequate beer and circuses. (purposeful misquote of an old adage) Can I apply for the job of technical advisor to Frank?


Haven't you been paying attention? He spent years in study and research perfecting his system. It has to be deeper than that.

It reminds me of a referendum we had here in British Columbia a few years ago. We voted on whether or not to change our provincial voting system from first past the post to some sort of weighted-average multi-vote system we were told would be much fairer. Something to do with every voter picking a list of perhaps half a dozen candidates at a time in preferred order and even your losing votes at the bottom of the list somehow counted in chosing winners. The guy with the most first-choice votes might not win if somebody else got more third-choice votes and the fourth choice candidate might beat the second. I literally had no idea how it worked. And that was the problem. For all of the old system's perceived faults everybody understood how it worked. But the proponents of the new system could not explain how the winners were determined from the raw vote count. The method of qualifying the votes was so complex that the winners would be chosen by a computer analysis without any obvious connection to the actual voting results. The yes side just said it works, it's fair, trust us. I wasn't going to vote in favour of a system where our elected representatives were chosen by computer algorisms that we had to accept on faith and apparently nobody else was happy about the idea either. The referendum lost.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10893
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Psam Frank - Sovereign with his own laws and court

Postby notorial dissent » Sun Aug 02, 2015 6:25 am

My take on Psammy was blathering about was essentially an electronic pure democracy, otherwise known as mob rule or more properly mob rule by social media. I'm sure to his mind it was a great and wonderful system, to me it sounded like an enormous headache. Sorry he doesn't like the way things work, to bad, so sad, NOT!!!! Life's rough when you're living outside of your reality.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.


Return to “Canada”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest