Psam Frank - Sovereign with his own laws and court

Moderator: Burnaby49

User avatar
eric
Trivial Observer of Great War
Posts: 1298
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 2:44 pm

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

Post by eric »

Burnaby49 wrote: The issue of swearing, or more to the point, not swearing allegiance to the Queen as part of the Citizenship Oath, was fairly recently covered in this court decision;
McAteer v. Canada (Attorney General), 2014 ONCA
http://canlii.ca/t/g8kld
An excellent analysis of the law on the issue. I had to swear allegiance to the Queen although born here because it was, and probably still is, required of federal government employees.
Damn, since I physically swore allegiance to the Queen way back in 1972 or so my qualifications as a FMOTl have been compromised. That being said, since I also held an officer's commission from a few years later and she "espouses special trusts in me" and I'm supposed to make sure my subordinates are up to snuff the next time I get stopped for speeding that sheriff better watch out. :naughty:
That being said, I always have a private chuckle whenever someone such as Menard claims a few years spent in the military as proof as to how manly they are, it's like saying my truck is bigger than your truck. (my truck(s) weighed 50 tons or so) :snooty:
User avatar
grixit
Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
Posts: 4287
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:02 am

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

Post by grixit »

Interesting explanation. So in effect, Canada is an elective shogunate.
Three cheers for the Lesser Evil!

10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4
Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 8219
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

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

Post by Burnaby49 »

Hanslune wrote:Question what would be the legal way to remove the Queen from the picture - a law passed by Canada or do the UK and Queen have to agree?
It is my understanding that we could just vote her out by an act of parliament. The obvious flaw in that is the problem that it would require Royal Assent. If not given we would be stuck with the Crown. However I actually can't see Royal Assent not being given, no matter how reluctantly, even to a law eliminating the crown. I can't see the UK, as a country, caring one way or the other since there is no benefit to Britain in Canada being under the same monarch. Elizabeth is queen of Canada in an entirely separate capacity from being queen of the United kingdom and she does not consult the British government in respect to Canadian issues nor does the British government have any say whatever in Canadian affairs. While the governor general sometimes has issues with what the Canadian government is doing those issues relate specifically to our relationship with the crown, not to Britain. Absolute compatmentalization. This is the same for all commonwealth countries. When the United kingdom (and I assume the crown itself) wanted to change the law of primogeniture, which had required that succession to the crown go down male lineage only, it had to be agreed to unanimously by all 16 commonwealth countries because they were all separate subjects of the crown. If just one refused the law of succession could not have been changed because each country has the right to determine that country's relationship with the monarchy.
Each of the Commonwealth realms has the same person as monarch and, to maintain that arrangement, they have agreed to continue the same line of succession; some realms do so through domestic succession laws, while others stipulate whomever is monarch of the United Kingdom will also be monarch of that realm. In February 1952, on her accession, Elizabeth II was proclaimed as sovereign separately throughout her realms. In October 2011, the heads of government of all 16 realms agreed unanimously at a meeting held in Perth, Australia, to proposed changes to the royal succession laws that would see the order of succession for persons born after 28 October 2011 governed by absolute primogeniture—wherein succession passes to an individual's children according to birth order, regardless of gender—instead of male-preference primogeniture. They also agreed to lift a ban on the spouses of Roman Catholics. The ban on Catholics themselves was retained to ensure that the monarch would be in communion with the Church of England.[11] The changes came into effect across the Commonwealth realms on 26 March 2015, after legislation was made according to each realm's constitution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Successio ... ish_throne

Australia had a referendum on the issue of abolishing the monarchy and forming a republic in 1999 and they stand in the same position to the monarchy as we do. The referendum question was;
A proposed law: To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament
However it was decisively beaten because of the usual squabbles about what form a republic would actually take.
With republican models of one form or another winning a majority in opinion polls prior to the referendum, it was expected that the republican referendum would pass.[citation needed] However, the question put was for a particular model of republic with a head of state appointed by Parliament. This was opposed by some supporters of the republic who preferred a directly elected head of state. Some of these, such as Phil Cleary, advocated that republic supporters vote No in order that a future referendum could be put on the directly elected model. Some commentators identified this split within the republican camp as a key reason for the referendum's failure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia ... c_question

I can't see it being any different here. In my 66 years as a Canadian observer (granted the first 20 or so were not particularly observant) I've seen the actual support for the monarchy as an institution dwindle but that has not resulted in any significant popular support for eliminating the Constitutional Monarchy as our form of government. This is because the "flesh and blood" monarchy itself is irrelevant to the monarchy's role in our government. Changing the form of government would be a major undertaking with no obvious reason to assume that a new form would serve Canada any better. "If it ain't broke don't fix it" seems to be the general opinion.
"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: 8219
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

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

Post by Burnaby49 »

When listing adherents to "the queen has violated her oath" theory I completely forgot Allan James: Curle;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10060

A shameful omission on my part since Curle is striving mightily to be a new guru and had been in court very frequently defending himself in various actions using his grab-bag of OPCA arguments. Curle doesn't follow any particular guru, he seems to consider the theories of other gurus to be akin to menus to peruse. Hmmm, the Strawman looks nice today, is it fresh? No? Fine, I think I'll go with the daily special, the Coronation Oath.

As far as the oath is concerned Curle has tried two approaches. The queen has violated it by not enforcing biblical law as the supreme law (Curle claims, like Menard, to be a devout King James man) and the queen has also violated the oath by adding to god's laws as contained in the King James bible. Apparently all the laws we need were finalized in 1611. He has harassed his ex wives and the court so much with his gibberish that he has, like Allen Boisjoli, been designated a vexatious litigant.
"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
Hercule Parrot
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 2164
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2014 9:58 pm

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

Post by Hercule Parrot »

Burnaby49 wrote:Remember Psam Frank? I just found his Facebook page.
https://www.facebook.com/psamuel.frank
Interesting photo at the top of the page. Reflection in sunglasses shows the photo was taken at a table in a small, gloomy room, but he has painstakingly photoshopped himself onto an outdoor background. He has added the dog, and made his visible shoulder naked.
"don't be hubris ever..." Steve Mccrae, noted legal ExpertInFuckAll.
Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 8219
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

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

Post by Burnaby49 »

Hercule Parrot wrote:
Burnaby49 wrote:Remember Psam Frank? I just found his Facebook page.
https://www.facebook.com/psamuel.frank
Interesting photo at the top of the page. Reflection in sunglasses shows the photo was taken at a table in a small, gloomy room, but he has painstakingly photoshopped himself onto an outdoor background. He has added the dog, and made his visible shoulder naked.
I gave the link in my October 7th posting on page 2. I've been following him from time to time to see how he responded to our recent election where we decided on a new government without using his voting system. Very badly.
"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
LordEd
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 3:14 pm

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

Post by LordEd »

Not that bad in terms of freemanism. With legalization/decriminalization/whatever of pot, the number of freemen will drop significantly because they can do what they really wanted to do within the system.
Hercule Parrot
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 2164
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2014 9:58 pm

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

Post by Hercule Parrot »

Burnaby49 wrote:I've been following him from time to time to see how he responded to our recent election where we decided on a new government without using his voting system. Very badly.
Yes, he seems to have become somewhat embittered and nasty in his tone. Hope he doesn't speak to people like that IRL, or someone will punch his lights out pretty soon.
"don't be hubris ever..." Steve Mccrae, noted legal ExpertInFuckAll.
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

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

Post by notorial dissent »

For some unidentifiable reason, I thought he was a whole lot older. The dog looks considerably smarter all things considered.
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.
Psam
Banned (Permanently)
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 171
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2015 2:55 pm

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

Post by Psam »

I hope no One minds if I interject with some info. I am happy to see my case discussed, and I prefer to focus on gratitude for that than dispute the criticisms delivered. Perhaps I'm wrong in what I'm doing, and the reasons why I might be wrong should be given open discussion, or I couldn't very well claim to be in pursuit of a truly democratic society now, could I?

Anyway, there was discussion about how to remove the Queen from the Constitution earlier. I suggest reading section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Cons ... .html#h-56

It was stated that the Queen could be removed from the Constitution by an Act of Parliament. That's not quite the case. It would take the same Act to also be passed by all ten Provincial Legislatures.

If any One would like to hear any response to anything written in this thread, please feel free to ask. Otherwise I'll just let the conversation happen as it does. No need for Me to get involved, I don't think, since it seems everything I have to say has already been looked at, including my time in court last year.

Best wishes to All.
Enfranchisement breeds social responsibility

“[L]aws command obedience because they are made by those whose conduct they govern.”
Supreme Court of Canada, Sauvé v Canada para 44: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-c ... 0/index.do
Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 8219
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

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

Post by Burnaby49 »

Welcome to Quatloos Psam. I'm the guy that sat through your court hearing scribbling away. I thought that you did as good a job as could be expected under the circumstances given that I thought your case hopeless. I was very impressed by your publishing the transcript of your hearing. Normally when I report on a freeman/OPCA type's (I know, you claim that you are not one of them) court hearing I expect the loser to give a lot of almost incomprehensible bullshit about how they had actually won even though the decision seemed to be against them. You admitted you lost and, rather than make excuses, showed us exactly why from the transcript. Almost unique from my extensive experience. I also accept, which I don't often do with these kind of cases, that you sincerely believe in your position about your charter rights and how Canada, if it doesn't change its voting system, must exempt you from its laws.

However you lost and you can't win no matter what you do. Your case is hopeless and your endless Facebook ranting is essentially just a bitter acknowledgement of that. Our recent federal election was conducted the same way as all of our past elections and, unless changed by parliamentary legislation, always will be held. You can spend the rest of your life in a futile fight to change it and you will have no effect on our voting system whatever. So it is time, no matter how hard it may be, to shed your dreams of getting your Interactive Electoral System implemented and move on.
"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
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

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

Post by notorial dissent »

Psam, as Burnaby says, welcome to Quatloos.
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.
Psam
Banned (Permanently)
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 171
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2015 2:55 pm

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

Post by Psam »

Thank You for the warm welcome. I’m glad to be having this discussion.

If it is true that my case is hopeless as You suggest, Burnaby49, and through our discussion I come to see that it is a good idea to shed my dreams of getting an interactive electoral system implemented and move on, then of course I will owe You a debt of gratitude for helping Me choose an effective way to spend my life pursuing wishes that there is some hope of eventually fulfilling. Perhaps You could start by helping Me see precisely which of the facts I am using to back up my case are incorrect.

Here is a list of facts that I believe provide support for my case and I would like to know whether any or all of them appear untrue to You and then perhaps You would be so kind as to help Me see why.

1. Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, states that the Constitution is the supreme law of Canada and that any laws that are inconsistent with the Constitution are of no force or effect to the extent of the inconsistency.

2. Section 3 of the Constitution Act, 1982, part of the supreme law of Canada, states that every citizen has the right to vote in an election of members of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein. These are known as section 3 Charter rights.

3. Periods of time go by for the House of Commons and Provincial Legislatures during which there is no means for a citizen to exercise the section 3 Charter rights that are guaranteed by the supreme law of Canada.

4. The interactive electoral system provides each voter with one vote that may be cast for any candidate at any time that the voter wishes and changed to a different candidate at any time after that.

5. When an interactive electoral system is used to choose the members of a legislative assembly, section 3 Charter rights are available to be exercised at any time by every voter.

6. Section 24 of the Constitution Act, 1982, part of the supreme law of Canada, states that a court of competent jurisdiction may provide an appropriate and just remedy when there is a denial of any of the rights guaranteed by the supreme law of Canada.

7. The Interactive Sovereign Society (ISS) uses an interactive electoral system to choose the members of its legislative assembly; therefore, an ISS member is never denied their section 3 Charter rights for any period of time.

8. The only way for an ISS member to have her or his section 3 Charter rights, as guaranteed in the supreme law of Canada, denied for any period of time is if She or He has laws imposed upon Her or Him that are created by a legislative assembly that does deny section 3 Charter rights for periods of time.

9. Denial of section 3 Charter rights for periods of time might be a reasonable limit, but section 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, part of the supreme law of Canada, states that the only way for the law to allow reasonable limits, such as periodic denials, to be placed upon the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the supreme law of Canada is if it can be demonstrated that those limits are justifiable in a free and democratic society.

10. The most rational and dependable way to demonstrate the validity of a theory is to look at an application of the theory in a real life context and then extrapolate from observations about how it works to figure out principles that appear to be manifested in actual usage.

11. If the laws made by a legislative assembly that denies section 3 Charter rights for periods of time are declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be of no force or effect in relation to a person who has expressed a willingness to be held accountable to laws that are created in a manner that never denies section 3 Charter rights then according to the supreme law of Canada, the court’s decision must stand.

I eagerly await your guidance and support in choosing a life that is more sensible and more likely to provide Me with success and fulfilment.
Enfranchisement breeds social responsibility

“[L]aws command obedience because they are made by those whose conduct they govern.”
Supreme Court of Canada, Sauvé v Canada para 44: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-c ... 0/index.do
User avatar
Wake Up! Productions
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1061
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 4:25 am

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

Post by Wake Up! Productions »

Psam wrote:4. The interactive electoral system provides each voter with one vote that may be cast for any candidate at any time that the voter wishes and changed to a different candidate at any time after that.
Though it may sound like a wonderful dream to some, I frankly don't see the point of this. To me this is the equivalent of perpetually rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. If, as most freemen see the government as a whole being corrupt to the core, I don't think you could sell it to them. This system would still allow for the same corruption, the only difference would be that, much like with baseball players, the politicians "stats" (statistics) would change on a daily basis.

In short, in my opinion, it accomplishes absolutely nothing in terms of creating a more perfect form of government.
Last edited by Wake Up! Productions on Sat Nov 28, 2015 9:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
DEAN CLIFFORD IS OUT OF PRISON !!! :shock:
Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 8219
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

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

Post by Burnaby49 »

Thank You for the warm welcome. I’m glad to be having this discussion.

If it is true that my case is hopeless as You suggest, Burnaby49, and through our discussion I come to see that it is a good idea to shed my dreams of getting an interactive electoral system implemented and move on, then of course I will owe You a debt of gratitude for helping Me choose an effective way to spend my life pursuing wishes that there is some hope of eventually fulfilling. Perhaps You could start by helping Me see precisely which of the facts I am using to back up my case are incorrect.
And if I got into a long debate with you about all of your "facts" what good would that do you? You are so locked into your position that I could debate you until Doomsday (or the actuarial end of my lifespan which is a lot closer) without changing your mind. You've evolved from an analysis of facts, whether you are right or wrong, to creating an entire belief system.

The more pertinent point is that it is entirely irrelevant whether I agree with you or not. If you demolished me on Quatloos how does that help you? The only opinions that count are those of the courts and you were immediately cut off at the knees, totally defeated, the first time you tried to get your dream voting system validated by the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Keep trying and you'll keep getting the same result until you are declared a vexatious litigant. Unless you get a court to agree with your position all of the reams of paper you send off to the Queen, the government of British Columbia and whomever, are just worthless gibberish. The only way that you can prove you are right and change anything is by winning in court. So go back and try debating with them. You'll have to think of something new. You're prior loss can't be appealed because you've passed the appeal period and you can't go back with the same arguments because it will be struck for res judicata.

I'd suggest you keep away from the tenderizers. They are goading you into really infantile comments. What rhymes with schmuckstead? Do you really want to debate at that level?
"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
JamesVincent
A Councilor of the Kabosh
Posts: 3047
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 7:01 am
Location: Wherever my truck goes.

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

Post by JamesVincent »

Like others have said Welcome to Quatloos Psam. I am heartened by someone who can come here and discuss their beliefs in a calm, intelligent way and I'm glad that you did come here. I have to ask you one question though.

What exactly would winning your case create? Is it just for a better system of voting or a way to get rid of politicians you don't like? Do you not enjoy your ships being labeled HCMS, just like Australia has it's HMAS? I gotta tell you that the Australian ships are pretty cool, I was onboard the HMAS Darwin when it was commissioned. You haven't lived until you've been in the Officer's Lounge, oh boy. Burnaby would have been in heaven. Anywhos, what exactly do you want to accomplish with this whole thing?
Disciple of the cross and champion in suffering
Immerse yourself into the kingdom of redemption
Pardon your mind through the chains of the divine
Make way, the shepherd of fire

Avenged Sevenfold "Shepherd of Fire"
Psam
Banned (Permanently)
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 171
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2015 2:55 pm

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

Post by Psam »

Thanks JamesVincent. It’s my pleasure to be here and I am grateful for the question.

I first conceived of the interactive electoral system after David Emerson crossed the floor after being elected as a Liberal. He joined the Conservatives before even being sworn in. I would use the word “incensed” to describe my frame of mind at the time.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... n-1.585039

After considering the possibility that an interactive electoral system would prevent such incidents, I then did some math to determine a few things. Clearly stability is an important factor in governance, so I wanted to make some rough projections based on whatever prior data could be used to see if loss of stability would be a prohibitive factor in accepting this solution.

I also considered cost of implementation. I could certainly imagine the possibility that this might prove a prohibitive factor as well.

My conclusions were that this system would actually be more stable and cost less. I have seen no indications whatsoever during real life usage of this system and observation of the participation of voters taking a sincere interest in decisions being made that these predictions were inaccurate. They were extremely ballparkish, sure, but nonetheless they appear to have been pretty well placed ballparks to end up hitting the ball in.

Another prediction that appeared likely after some in depth consideration of the effect of this system on voters was that the more moderate minded voters in a constituency would be the ones with the most influence on getting politicians to consider their advice, while with periodic elections, it is the voters that are more polarized to one side or the other that usually end up with more influence. I found this to be a strongly desirable quality in a democratic system.

Another prediction I surmised was that the ability for voters on an individual level to discuss their differing opinions and the reasoning behind them would end up showing a great deal more patience and respect than with periodic elections.

After nearly a decade of experience observing participants in this system now, I find all of my above predictions to be consistent with all of my observations. Any person who would detract from the validity of my observations just based on their own theoretical reasoning without looking at an actual implementation of this system in a society that has now existed for five years, I would find to have an unscientific mind with questionable credibility and no understanding of what the word “demonstrable” means as used in section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

So what do I want to accomplish? I want more accountable government deciding how my taxes are spent. I want calm, respectful, frequent conversation with my fellow voters where contrasting opinions are treated with respect and patience. I want an electoral system that is less costly to maintain. I want a government that treats people with respect for their abilities to make responsible informed decisions. I want youths who reach voting age to feel as though their newly earned chance to participate is not a cheap joke, but rather something to be proud of. When a person tells Me that They do not approve of a decision a government is considering, I want Them to either tell Me an action that can be recommended to be taken right now to do something about it or else I want Them to shut up and quit complaining.

Yeah, that last thing, I must admit, has been one of the most satisfying experiences I have had with an interactive electoral system. If you’re whining and complaining and you don’t have a constructive suggestion about a way to act now to fix your problem, then SHUT. UP. It’s pretty easy in an interactive electoral system to make that happen.
Enfranchisement breeds social responsibility

“[L]aws command obedience because they are made by those whose conduct they govern.”
Supreme Court of Canada, Sauvé v Canada para 44: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-c ... 0/index.do
Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 8219
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

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

Post by Burnaby49 »

Psam is threatening to go on a hunger strike again. No, he did not go on a previous hunger strike. He threatened to starve himself to death if he lost his case and when he did lose he quietly shelved the idea. However he's decided to dust it off and try again;
Samuel Michael Frank
Suicide may be for quitters, sure, but the cause of it is having the choices available to you in your life reduced. Therefore any person who helps provide you more choices that can be made more flexibly is giving you reasons to live. Any person who reduces the number of choices available to you and confines the time at which you may make those choices is eliminating your reasons to want to live.

If I have to live the rest of my life governed by a group of people chosen once every four years, I'd prefer to quit now. There is virtue in knowing when to quit.

November 23 at 8:55am
Samuel Michael Frank

I plan to take my case regarding section 3 Charter rights to the Supreme Court of Canada. If the court rules against making section 3 Charter rights available to be exercised at any time instead of only once every four years then I plan to commence hunger strike. There are 3 possible ways my hunger strike will end:

1) membership in the Interactive Sovereign Society doubles,
2) an Interactive Sovereign Society court rules that I must cease my hunger strike, or
3) I die.

If You would like to learn more about my case for making section 3 Charter rights available to be exercised at any time instead of only once every four years, then I would be happy to discuss it with You. Otherwise, please respect my right to die in the way that I have chosen.

November 23 at 10:09am
Samuel Michael Frank

...and if the court makes statements like the ones quoted in the above document and then denies my request even though it is completely consistent with their words, after having put years of effort into this and devoted my life to it because that's what the courts say the law IS, then isn't a hunger strike a suitable recourse?

It's not like I'm going to get listened to by being polite. Look at You, for instance. How many times have I politely asked You to discuss the details of how an interactive electoral system works? And have You bothered? Well, no actually. That's the same with 99.9% of Canadians. So if the courts won't defend my rights, it's pretty clear that no One else will, or at least not enough to make anything happen. So what's left but to say "if You refuse to bother defending my rights, You can have this world to your Selves. I don't want to be in it with You".

November 23 at 12:32pm
Uh, Psam, you said that you were going to have that Maple sugar hunger strike last summer and not stop until you died or the voting system was changed. According to your own forecast you should be dead by now.

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

Threats get a little farcical if you don't follow through but instead just keep hauling new hunger strikes out of the closet whenever the whim suits you. You certainly don't have the sympathy of your audience;
Brad Carter

If it bothers you that much that you're going to commit suicide I respect your decision. Just be discreet and don't make a mess. I suggest an overdose or carbon monoxide.

November 23 at 9:55am
On to Psam's recent ideas on how to win. Tell the Supreme Court of Canada they have to accept his case.
Samuel Michael Frank

Please read this and tell Me if You think the Supreme Court has any right to deny my request after having made the statements of interpretation of the Constitution that it has.

http://issociety.org/wp.../uploads/SCC- ... Quebec.pdf
November 23 at 12:16pm · Edited
http://issociety.org/wp-content/uploads ... Quebec.pdf

Sorry to rain on your parade Psalm but the Supreme Court of Canada is not bound by any requirements to accept leave to appeal from anyone regardless of how deeply the applicant feels about the justice of their case. The decision to accept leave is made by the Supreme Court without any reference to any other authority. So you can't argue that the Supreme Court does not have the right to deny your request because the court is not bound by any rules or laws that require them to accept it. Nor are they required to justify denying leave to appeal. In any case an applicant can't file a leave to appeal with the Supreme Court unless he has lost at a lower level then exhausted all of his venues for appeal. In your case, since you were heard by a Master and not a judge, you could have appealed to the Supreme Court of British Columbia. When you lost there you could have appealed to the Court of Appeal of British Columbia. When you lost there you could have file leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. However since you chose not to appeal the Master's decision that route is closed and you have no right to even file a leave to appeal. And you are locked out from starting the process again and appealing this time because you would be stopped because you are trying to re-litigate the same issue that you lost and did not appeal. This is consider an abuse of the court. You had your shot in court and you're done.
Res judicata or res iudicata , also known as claim preclusion, is the Latin term for "a matter [already] judged", and refers to either of two concepts: in both civil law and common law legal systems, a case in which there has been a final judgment and is no longer subject to appeal; and the legal doctrine meant to bar (or preclude) continued litigation of a case on same issues between the same parties. In this latter usage, the term is synonymous with "preclusion".

In the case of res judicata, the matter cannot be raised again, either in the same court or in a different court. A court will use res judicata to deny reconsideration of a matter.

The legal concept of res judicata arose as a method of preventing injustice to the parties of a case supposedly finished, but perhaps mostly to avoid unnecessary waste of resources in the court system. Res judicata does not merely prevent future judgments from contradicting earlier ones, but also prevents litigants from multiplying judgments, and confusion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_judicata

You say that the Supreme Court must accept your Section 3 charter claim. Section 3 reads;
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.
This is exactly what you tried in your Supreme Court of British Columbia case and lost. But hey, go ahead and file a leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Be sure to attach a note to it saying you'll starve yourself to death if they don't accept it. Keep us posted on developments.

And James, in answer to your question if Psam has an animus against any politicians, he hates all of them! First, his opinion of the leaders of the parties involved in our last federal election.
Samuel Michael Frank
July 30 ·
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.
Then we move on to his opinion of the rest of the candidates;
Samuel Michael Frank
August 22 ·
If you are running as a candidate in the election on October 19, then words can't express how worthless you are. You should hate yourself for being such a disgusting creature. Any hatred that any person expresses for you is just what you deserve. Fuck off.
Then on to the rest of us Canadians;
Samuel Michael Frank
August 27 ·
People who believe that holding an election once every four years is a fair, decent, or reasonable excuse to call a bunch of people "the government" don't deserve to have any self respect and have no superiority whatsoever as an organic life form as compared to maggots and cockroaches.
"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: 8219
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

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

Post by Burnaby49 »

Since you're citing the constitution as the basis of your argument I'll give you a constitutional argument why it won't work.

You've been arguing your ongoing election scheme on the basis of the Charter. Your argument is almost certainly unconstitutional because it conflicts with the The Constitution Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Vict, c 3. This is also part of the Constitution, and the Charter does not override its own provisions. Instead, the Charter and the Constitution Act must be read harmoniously with one another.

Here's where you hit a rock:
50. Every House of Commons shall continue for Five Years from the Day of the Return of the Writs for choosing the House (subject to be sooner dissolved by the Governor General), and no longer.
This sets the maximum duration that Parliament can set between elections. Note - the House of Commons, not individual members. The Constitution Act's provisions for Parliament are based on the concept of general elections, that are held once up to every five years, not ongoing elections.

Furthermore, Parliament has inherited the processes - on a constitutional level - from its colonial precursors:
41. Until the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides, all Laws in force in the several Provinces at the Union relative to the following Matters or any of them, namely, — the Qualifications and Disqualifications of Persons to be elected or to sit or vote as Members of the House of Assembly or Legislative Assembly in the several Provinces, the Voters at Elections of such Members, the Oaths to be taken by Voters, the Returning Officers, their Powers and Duties, the Proceedings at Elections, the Periods during which Elections may be continued, the Trial of controverted Elections, and Proceedings incident thereto, the vacating of Seats of Members, and the Execution of new Writs in case of Seats vacated otherwise than by Dissolution, — shall respectively apply to Elections of Members to serve in the House of Commons for the same several Provinces.
So your problem is not with legislation - which could be found unconstitutional per the Charter, but with other parts of the Constitution itself.
"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
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

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

Post by notorial dissent »

Psam, you present an interesting proposal.

You even have it on track right up through point 2, at which point you derail in spectacular fashion.

You also somehow miss that there is more to your constitution than just Sec’s 3 and 52, there is the whole body of law that springs from it, not to mention the basic traditions and attitudes that go along with something like that.

You have had this pointed out to you repeatedly, and you either are not listening, or not learning, or both, and you continue that fail to this present medium.

What you are proposing is what is called in the parlance, direct absolute democracy, nothing new, although a bit of a novel concept, never actually tried or carried out to my knowledge. the Greeks invented it, sort of. The Swiss come the closest to actually doing it with their form or government, and have found it cumbersome and unwieldy, and being Swiss have opted not to change it. It does have one thing going for it, it makes it virtually impossible to get anything serious accomplished unless it really is serious and of immediate biting in their butts, like women’s suffrage, they’re still not real sure about that last I checked.

At any rate the system you propose is completely unwieldy since it would result in a total and continual disruption of government and policy, unless of course that is what you intended, and would in effect make for a government totally incapable fo responding.

What you are basically proposing is government by Facebook or twitter. A concept I find morally and just generally offensive on all counts. I absolutely reject gov’t by social media.

People really simply don’t care, to the point that the last thing they want is to have to be minute by minute involved in the workings of their government. Having to deal with it every five years or whatever is usually about all that most feel is necessary, or are willing to do.

The other, and way way much bigger, thing you have yet to figure out is that the courts are not going to, and will not, entertain your nonsense, simply because it is not within their purview. Apparently they don’t have the problem reading and comprehending the constitution and laws that you do. I realize that YOU think that the Charter gives you the right to vote on everything and anything and whenever you feel like it, but, IT DOESN’T, and they’ve told you that repeatedly. It says you get to vote at THE regularly held and scheduled elections according to the laws of Canada, if you register and follow the rules. That is not a difficult concept except you seem to not get it.

If you want to foist your system off on the rest of the world, and that is exactly what you are attempting, trying to impose your world view on the rest of the world(well Canada anyway) who don’t care and aren’t interested. You see their view point counts too, in this case, more than yours.

If you believe in this, then your ONLY palpable honest and honorable option is to get out and convince the Canadian public that this is a good and right thing, and change your constitution and change the laws engendered by that constitution. I will give you a bit of free advice, IT AIN’T NEVER EVER GONNA HAPPEN. The greater majority of the Canadian public is NOT interested in having to deal with gov’t matters any more than they absolutely have to, and I don’t see that changing.

My advice to you is to get a life, find something else to obsess over that is at least marginally less silly, and do something productive and positive with yourself, this isn’t it.
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.