Psam Frank - Sovereign with his own laws and court

[SteveUK]

I love the smell of freeman garbage in the morning.

[Chaos]

Samuel Michael Frank
Suicide may be for quitters,.............. There is virtue in knowing when to quit.

November 23 at 8:55am

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.

Ha.....paradox

[LaVidaRoja]

Psam - you might look at California where there is an initiative for a State Constitutional amendment on EVERY state-wide ballot. It becomes a form of mob rule, or election by the best-financed (or best bumper-sticker). Constantly changing how the government operates, or what it must do, or what it must spend funds on is NOT a way to create and efficient democracy.

[JamesVincent]

You might also want to take a look at France. I worked for a French couple for several years and always had to hear about how France is the only "true" Democracy in the world since everyone votes on everything and everything is majority rule. From what I understand of what they were saying they really enjoyed living in a Socialist nightmare. (TO give you a little hint, no, I was not in France, they had come here years before when he was a professor at Georgetown and maintained their French citizenship so, yeah, must be really awesome there.)

[Psam]

Burnaby49, I have to start by thanking You for bringing section 41 and 50 of the Constitution Act, 1867, to my attention. I must admit that I hadn’t given full consideration to the relevance of those sections to my case, and it certainly is good to be aware of all relevant arguments that might be made. However, I don’t see this to be a “constitutional argument why it won’t work”.

It’s a constitutional argument that opposes the validity of my constitutional arguments with some effectiveness, yes, but I don’t believe it negates them entirely any more than my arguments negate yours entirely. You have made a persuasive counter argument and I am grateful for that.

However, if there is a conflict between different portions of the Constitution, then the court must look at the constitutional principles that are not directly written in the law but without which the Constitution could not have become the supreme law of Canada in the first place.

If it were true that there were a conflict between portions of the Constitution (which You and I might disagree on), then this would certainly bring Us to the relevance of the article I recently posted which You have already cited above. http://issociety.org/wp-content/uploads ... Quebec.pdf

With regard to your descriptions of my intentions to hunger strike, I just want to know how You would respond to my assertion that: if it could be confirmed without any doubt that I would spend the rest of my life being governed by legislative assemblies elected once every four years (or some comparable number) then I would prefer to end my life now. Would any of the following describe your reaction when I make this assertion?


- You doubt the sincerity of my claim. You don’t believe that I would really wish to end my life if this were confirmed beyond any doubt.

- You believe the sincerity of my claim but You believe that an interactive electoral system would not improve how governance works, so You would find it to be a poorly conceived choice.

- You believe the sincerity of my claim but You are not sure how it could be “confirmed without any doubt” that I would spend the rest of my life being governed by periodically elected legislative assemblies, and therefore You find my assertion to be purely hypothetical with no reasonable chance of ever being acted upon.

I agree that stating intentions to do something drastic and then failing to actually do it does in general detract from the credibility of a person’s stated convictions. However, if a person’s convictions are sincere, then a hunger strike may be expected to literally be the last thing that the person does in pursuing those convictions. Therefore it should literally be treated as the last resort that it effectively is. When any other possible methods appear still available by which to pursue those convictions, then those methods should be pursued first. Stating an intention to hunger strike and then finding other methods that should be resorted to first should then be a reason for a person with sincere convictions to be applauded for having exhaustively searched for alternatives. You, on the other hand, appear to find my actions to detract from my credibility, which I can then only assume means that You are stating that my intentions to hunger strike, and the reasons for those intentions, are not sincere.

I believe that any person whose sincerity is questioned about anything They say or do should treat those questions with gratitude. If their sincerity can’t be proven nor disproven, then I find it a valuable exercise to discuss openly both possibilities as assumptions for the sake of argument and then possibly agree to disagree. So let’s start by assuming for the sake of argument that I’m not sincere when I say that confirmation of the certainty that I would be governed by periodically elected governments for the rest of my life would induce Me to wish to end my life. Assuming that I am not sincere about this, then does this detract from whether You find my convictions to be sincere regarding the superiority of an interactive electoral system as a form of governance over periodic elections?

It seems to Me that the only way for a rationally minded person to deduce the differences between an interactive electoral system and a periodic electoral system would be to look at real life examples where either system has been used and make assessments about the decisions collectively made by the participants in either system, the process used to arrive at those decisions, and the effect of that process upon the general level of satisfaction experienced by all participants. Whether my hunger strike intentions are sincere or not, and whether my own personal convictions about the superiority of one political system over another are sincere or not, any person who tries to make assessments of this comparison by deeming my own personal methods (as perhaps the principal proponent) as being relevant to that assessment rather than resorting to the scientific method described above would be indicating a lack of ability to think rationally.

Yes, I’ve been angry on occasion, and yes, I have watched a lot of South Park and the form of humour in the show has found its way into my way of expressing my thoughts, so yes, I have made comments about elected political representatives in Canada similar to the “giant douche vs turd sandwich” episode of South Park. And yes, I actually have conducted a hunger strike once before. I didn’t eat for eight days. It was in 2010.

Discussing my ways of venting my anger and my ways of showing my dissent and trying to use them to detract from the credibility of my observations comparing an interactive electoral system to a periodic electoral system might be flawed reasoning perhaps?

As far as res judicata goes, there are several comments made by the judge in my case last year that indicated that res judicata is not applicable in that particular hearing. I don’t want to get into the details rights now, but just for the record, I disagree with your assertion that I “had my shot in court and I’m done”, and I believe so would Master Keighley, based on his statements from the transcript.

Simmering beneath the belief that an interactive electoral system is not an improvement over periodic elections is the thought that “my fellow citizens are prevalently too stupid to be given a real choice as to how their government works”. Freeing a person from being consensually governed by periodically elected legislative assemblies has a great deal of commonality with freeing a person from a violent or abusive spouse. Some People under periodically elected governance appear to have a great deal in common with the spouse who I would wish to see freed. Other People who condone non-consensual imposition of periodically elected governance appear to have a great deal in common with the violent or abusive spouse whose acts I would wish to curtail. I have made great efforts to avoid contact with the latter, and perhaps this does reduce my effectiveness at achieving what I am pursuing.

[notorial dissent]

And again we are back to blah blah blah blah. You still do not get even the basics of what you've been told.

[LordEd]

A continuous voting system wouldn't work. Having a constant flow of in/out representatives would mean you couldn't have any in depth discussions on any topic as at any time a key member of the committee could disappear and stall while a replacement is brought up to speed.

Plus continuous training to government life including procedure and crash course second language for many would be expensive.

I'll counter argue with

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society

I think it is easy to demonstrate that even if your interpretation is somehow correct (which I don't believe), that you are not able to demonstrate that periodic election is unjustifiable.

[LordEd]

How does your system allow for a secret vote?

Specifically employers forcing a certain vote or spouses/families.

Continuous vote would requiring knowing how they last voted to negate the old vote. How does it prevent techs from seeing the vote?

[SteveUK]

So much garbage . So little space

[AndyK]

In addition, given the Canadian parliamentary form of government, continuous voting could swing the majority dramatically in a short time -- thus requiring a complete overhaul of all the cabinet ministers, ambassadors, etc.

This constant flux of ministerial leadership could rapidly bring all but routine government activities to a halt.

[Psam]

LordEd, You have made several excellent points. Thank You.

First of all, I would like to address the question You asked about secret voting. There is a simple solution.

As a voter, you get to choose between a secret periodic ballot and a confidential interactive ballot.

There’s a periodic date for voters with secret periodic ballots. It could be every four years. On that date, if you cast a secret ballot, then you are consensually waiving your section 3 Charter rights for the next four years. Your vote gets counted with the rest and added to the tally of the candidate you choose.

If you choose to opt out of the secret voting date in favour of a confidential interactive ballot, then after the voting date, you have one ballot which may be cast for any candidate at any time after that, adding a vote to that candidate’s tally. A record is kept of who your vote stands for, just like there is a record of your medical profile, your bank balance and investments, your social insurance number, and probably a few other things. That record is treated with the same confidentiality that we have come to expect of all of these other kinds of records. If you want an interactive ballot so that you can change your choice when your supported candidate changes their mind on an issue you feel strongly about, then yes, you must have a record kept of your vote somewhere, as you have pointed out. If you change your vote after that, then one vote gets deducted from the candidate you previously voted for, and a new one gets added to the tally of the candidate you change your vote to.

This leaves the option open for a secret ballot for people who are worried about things like employer, spouse, or family coercion.

Another point You made is about stability. You were asking about a constant flow of representatives in and out.

If the interactive electoral system were used to choose MPs in the House of Commons, then I am confident, based on my experience with this system, that the average MP would remain in office for about ten years in any constituency. However, that MP would be a great deal more accountable to the voters. The other candidates that have comparable running totals would be consulted by that MP in the decision making process, instead of ignored completely as they are now. The voters whose votes stand for the other candidates would be far more satisfied with the decisions made by the MP, and the voters whose votes stand for the MP would be only marginally less satisfied than voters under the present system who happen to be the ones fortunate enough to have voted for the winner of the golden parachute.

One aspect of the interactive electoral system that helps produce this stability is called a guaranteed term of office. A good period of time for an MP would be a six month guaranteed term of office. So if a candidate gets more votes than the MP, the MP stays in office for six months. If the MP hasn’t regained the lead by the end of those six months, then the new candidate takes office on that date. If the incumbent regains the lead during the guaranteed term, then she or he keeps the office indefinitely until the next time another candidate gains a lead and the full six month guaranteed term of office begins again.

Even in the ridiculously unlikely event that all 338 MPs were all to be surpassed in electoral support over the same six month period, this still gives voters six months to adjust to the forecasted change in the government. That’s a lot more notice than is typically available under the present system of elections. It also gives voters who do not wish to see this change some time to persuade their fellow voters to give the lead back to their incumbent.

Your point about section 1 of the Charter is very well presented. The reason I disagree is because the present government denies section 3 Charter rights for four years at a time. That is a limit upon this right. Section 1 says that any limit upon our constitutional rights must be reasonable and also it must be demonstrated that the limitation placed upon this right causes society to be more free and/or democratic. Therefore it is up to a person who wishes to continue to see this right denied for periods of time to demonstrate that the denial of this right makes society more free and/or democratic. The onus is not on Me to provide a demonstration that a periodic election is unjustifiable. According to section 1 of the Charter, it is the reverse.

Great questions LordEd. Thanks again.

[LordEd]

Your suggested approach doesn't help anybody who could be in a vulnerable voting position. They would be forced into a position that not verifying their correct vote would result in punishment, or proving their eligibility to continue to vote.

Recording votes is unacceptable. I don't trust that the vote would be kept safe. Medical records and such have been accidentally lost.

As such, this creates an unacceptable risk to the democratic process and violates s.1 of the charter.

The media would gain further power as officials could be framed into a negative view and punished with no due process by the public.

And in any case, your belief that elections MUST be continuous is not reasonable. It would not have been technically feasible when it was written, so the intent to have that interpretation is not likely.

[notorial dissent]

Still nonsense, still unworkable. If you want to push for a constitutional change go for it, WILL NEVER EVER HAPPEN, but please feel free to do so. If you are not willing to do that then you aren't serious or honest about this, and all you are wanting to do is foist your delusion on a majority that isn't interested in it.

[Bill Lumbergh]

Section 3 of the Charter:

3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.

Psam - Why do you think this has anything to do with the timing of elections? It doesn't say anything about that. It only applies to rights that are exercised when an election is actually called (and that question is settled by the constitution).

The other (insurmountable) constitutional hurdle you have is right in the preamble of the 1867 BNA Act:

Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom:

Emphasis added.

What this means is that the constitution is made up of not only written documents, but many other unwritten rules and conventions that we inherited from the UK. This includes our Westminster democratic system. From wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Canada:

Unwritten sources

The existence of an unwritten constitution was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Reference re Secession of Quebec.

"The Constitution is more than a written text. It embraces the entire global system of rules and principles which govern the exercise of constitutional authority. A superficial reading of selected provisions of the written constitutional enactment, without more, may be misleading."

In practice, there have been three sources of unwritten constitutional law:

Conventions
Constitutional conventions form part of the constitution, but they are not legally enforceable. They include the existence of a prime minister and Cabinet, the fact that the governor general in most circumstances is required to grant Royal Assent to bills adopted by both houses of parliament, and the requirement that the prime minister either resign or request a dissolution and general election upon losing a vote of confidence in the House of Commons.

Royal prerogative
Reserve powers of the Canadian Crown, being remnants of the powers once held by the British Crown, reduced over time by the parliamentary system. Primarily, these are the Orders in Council, which give the government the authority to declare war, conclude treaties, issue passports, make appointments, make regulations, incorporate, and receive lands that escheat to the Crown.

Unwritten principles
Principles that are incorporated into the Canadian constitution by reference from the preamble of the Constitution Act, 1867, including a statement that the constitution is "similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom", much of which is unwritten. Unlike conventions, they are legally binding. Amongst the recognized constitutional principles are federalism, liberal democracy, constitutionalism, the rule of law, and respect for minorities. Other principles include responsible government, representation by population, judicial independence, parliamentary supremacy, and an implied bill of rights. In one case, the Provincial Judges Reference (1997), it was found a law can be held invalid for contradicting unwritten principles, in this case judicial independence.

So in other words, the supreme law of the land imposes a system of government you don't like. You're not going to get anywhere by claiming that the constitution itself is unconstitutional.

[LordEd]

3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.

This applies to when an election happens.

12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

This applies when you are subjected to punishment.

Saying that 3 is being violated because there isn't an election happening is like saying that 12 is being violated because you aren't currently being punished. If you insist that your rights in 3 are being violated, please let us know when you aren't being punished so we can ensure you are being punished per your rights in 12.

[Burnaby49]

So in other words, the supreme law of the land imposes a system of government you don't like. You're not going to get anywhere by claiming that the constitution itself is unconstitutional.

I've read somewhere in a decision that it is a rule of constitutional interpretation that no part of the constitution can be deemed unconstitutional.

[Psam]

Great points, All.

All of them compelling.

None of them more or less conclusive than mine.

I find the Constitution to be ambiguous on this matter.

Here's another interesting point.

Here's a written historical depiction of the birth of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
http://www.charterofrights.ca/en/26_00_01

In this history, it says that "[t]he Charter was significantly inspired by documents such as the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Other international influences included the 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights."

I've looked at all of those documents, and the resemblances are resounding. Except, of course, when it comes to the right to democratic participation. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says "periodic and genuine elections". The European Convention doesn't even say anything about democratic rights. The International Covenant says "genuine periodic elections", reversing the order of the words in the Universal Declaration.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms seems to be the only document in the world that has these written in a way so that it is not unreasonable to say "there is no way for me to exercise these rights for periods of time" and have it be the literal indisputable truth.

I don't know if any participant in this conversation wishes to show any sign of recognition that there is something conspicuously significant about the distinction in wording in the above documents. I don't know if any participant in this conversation wishes to acknowledge that there is something inherently, tragically unfair about the conventional concept of democracy. I don't know if any participant wishes to acknowledge that a person who does not consent to being governed by an institution deserves support, apology, and understanding when having that governance imposed upon Her or Him anyway. It is such a fundamentally unjust imposition upon a person's liberty that it should be done only with the greatest of regret and only to fulfil the most penultimate, explicit needs.

If the Constitution of Canada provides Me with a form of governance that I find fair and acceptable, then I consent to that Constitution being regarded as my supreme law. If the courts say that the Constitution does not provide Me with a form of governance that I find fair and acceptable, then given the attitudes of People like the Ones in this conversation, I don't have any wish to endure life among such vultures, unless my denial of consent to be governed in such a way is at least shown some form of compassion.

I really would love a bit of compassion. I don't see any participants in this conversation as portraying any degree of such a quality. I have seen many participants in and supporters of an interactive electoral system exhibit great compassion.

As a scientist, I am making my conclusions from the data that becomes available through empirical observation.

[arayder]

So in other words, the supreme law of the land imposes a system of government you don't like. You're not going to get anywhere by claiming that the constitution itself is unconstitutional.

I've read somewhere in a decision that it is a rule of constitutional interpretation that no part of the constitution can be deemed unconstitutional.

There's a crowd here in the U.S. who claim that the 14th amendment to the constitution is unconstitutional because it runs counter to article 1, section 2, clause 3 of the 1789 Constitution.

They don't seem to get it when one points out the amendments amend.

[The Observer]

I really would love a bit of compassion. I don't see any participants in this conversation as portraying any degree of such a quality. I have seen many participants in and supporters of an interactive electoral system exhibit great compassion.

Why would you expect compassion from participants of a site dedicated to exposing the fallacies and lies regarding Freemen/sovereign philosophy? Compassion would be the wrong thing to be handing out to you at this time. What you are being given is the hard, cold facts that explain why you are wrong. Compassion is something that is appropriate for situations where the person is suffering from events or episodes outside their control. What you are being given here is the appropriate medicine for people who have inflicted their misery upon themselves, in the hope that they will wake up and realize how wrong they really are.

[Burnaby49]

I really would love a bit of compassion. I don't see any participants in this conversation as portraying any degree of such a quality. I have seen many participants in and supporters of an interactive electoral system exhibit great compassion.

Good luck on that, you won't get it here. This is not a touchy-feely site. Many of the contributors here are lawyers and accountants, not groups known for compassion in their professional dealings. I spent 35 years as an income tax auditor so you can guess my compassion quota. The purported purpose of this site (the UK is proving me wrong on this) is the interpretation and application of the law. Not hugs with tea and cookies. I've noted from your little bout with Scott Duncan's crew that you're not getting it on Facebook either.

Your participants and supporters are compassionate. So what? What else they got? What good is that doing you? If you want your voting system implimented you'll only get it through law and what you've been getting here is legal advice and interpretations. Whether you accept it or not is up to you but it is a lot more useful to you than your friend's cheap sentiment. Heartless as I am I took the trouble to attend your court hearing. I didn't see any of your warm-hearted sympathetic buddies there supporting you. That would have taken an effort above the level of cranking out more Facebook drivel.

Speaking of court I didn't see you get any hugs and tears of sympathy from the Master either. He was polite and professional but all he would focus on was the slight obstacle that your claim had absolutely no basis in law. So dump compassion and focus on law. That's what you are getting here and that's all you are going to get from us.