Samuel Michael's Frank
#204 - 2222 Cambridge St
Vancouver, BC
V5L 1E6
phone: 604-765-1496
email:
psamfrank@gmail.com
Notice to Canadian lawyers
http://lawyers.findlaw.ca/human-rights/ ... vancouver/
I am seeking legal representation in commencing precedent setting proceedings
against the Crown regarding section 3 Charter rights.
To convey my case, I must start by describing an interactive electoral system
(IES). This is a method of electing a representative in which each voter has one
vote that can be cast for any candidate at any time and changed to a different
candidate at any time after that. There is no deadline or end date. It is an
ongoing electoral process. "The right to vote in an election of members of a
legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein", as guaranteed
in section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is available to be
exercised at any time, instead of only periodically. There are more details to
describe the system, but the ability to change the vote at any time is the
fundamental point of it.
When I first devised this system, I made several calculations to compare it to the
practice of periodic elections. In ten years of experience now with IES, as a voter
and on occasion an elected representative, in several different contexts, I have
found all observations to be consistent with these calculations. These include:
• greater stability in terms of composition of elected legislative assembly
• more expedient decision making process overall
• higher proportional voter satisfaction with decisions made by the elected
legislative assembly
• less vehement antagonism from dissenters to decisions made by the
elected legislative assembly
• more cost effectiveness in implementation and maintenance of the
electoral system
• section 3 Charter rights are available to be exercised at any time instead of
only periodically
• effective demonstration that denial of section 3 Charter rights for periods of
time can not be justified as a reasonable limit in a free and democratic
society
Based on sections 1, 3, 24, and 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, I would like to
seek the courts' constitutional enforcement of my section 3 Charter rights by
having all taxes paid by me forwarded to the society of which I am a member that
uses an interactive electoral system to choose its representatives, the Interactive
Sovereign Society. I clearly understand and would unequivocally agree that if the
Crown enacts a legislative assembly under the authority of Her Majesty the
Queen that does not periodically prohibit section 3 Charter rights, then my taxes
could be diverted there instead of to a society alleging its own sovereignty. The
Governor General has already been contacted by registered mail with a
suggestion and a written Constitution that would accomplish exactly that.
I pursued this matter under my own representation in BC Supreme Court in 2014.
The Crown applied to have my petition dismissed. The application was heard in
front of Master Peter Keighley in New Westminster on October 17, and His
Honour granted the Crown's request. The judge did state that my case could be
reframed with the possibility of success and strongly encouraged me to seek
legal representation before doing so to avoid being charged costs that might end
up being prohibitive. I am indeed far from wealthy.
I have since then continued my research on decisions in Canadian courts
regarding interpretations of section 3 of the Charter and I have become
extensively familiar with the use of section 1 of the Charter in the determination
of "reasonable limits" that "can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic
society", in general as well as regarding the specifics pertaining to my case. The
decisions I have found to be most relevant are Reference re Secession of
Quebec, Sauvé v Canada, Figueroa v Canada, and Harper v Canada. I find all of
the text in these decisions to indicate that the remedy I am seeking to the denial
of my section 3 Charter rights is consistent with the courts' interpretations of s. 3.
I found the most information about relevant democratic and constitutional
principles in the Quebec Reference. I have written an extensive description of
quotes from this decision which offers further insight into the validity of my case. I
also have found several quotes from the other decisions:
• " In a democracy, sovereign power resides in the people as a whole and
each citizen must have a genuine opportunity to take part in the
governance of the country through participation in the selection of elected
representatives." - Figueroa
• "While on its face, s. 3 grants only a right to vote and to run for office in
elections, Charter analysis requires looking beyond the words of the
section and adopting a broad and purposive approach. The purpose of
s. 3 is effective representation. Section 3 should be understood with
reference to the right of each citizen to play a meaningful role in the
electoral process, rather than the election of a particular form of
government." - Figueroa
• " The framers of the Charter signaled the special importance of this right
not only by its broad, untrammeled language, but by exempting it from
legislative override under s. 33 's notwithstanding clause." - Sauvé
• " Denial of the right to vote on the basis of attributed moral unworthiness is
inconsistent with the respect for the dignity of every person that lies at the
heart of Canadian democracy and the Charter . It also runs counter to the
plain words of s. 3 of the Charter , its exclusion from the s. 33 override,
and the idea that laws command obedience because they are made by
those whose conduct they govern." - Sauvé
Pursuing these proceedings is what I have devoted my life to for six years now,
and I intend to see it through. Nothing will deter me from this goal. I have a
conviction that the success of these proceedings will draw public attention to
principles such as accountability, individual freedoms and choices, and effects of
enfranchisement upon the respect between members of society. I believe that the
impact of these principles in public awareness will cause a substantial
improvement to the integrity of relations between members of societies
everywhere that give any focus to this innovation in democracy, particularly in the
ability of people with polarized opposite opinions to handle their disagreements
with respect and dignity.
I greatly appreciate your willingness to learn of my efforts and I would very much
wish to discuss the possibility of procuring your assistance. Please feel free to
contact me at 604-765-1496 at any time or respond to this notice. I am grateful
for the time you have taken to read this and I am eager to hear back from you.
Sincerely,
______________________________________________________
Sam Frank