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.
