Psam Frank - Sovereign with his own laws and court

[Wake Up! Productions]

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.

To simplify this, compassion is a human emotion or "feeling". Law has no feelings. Cars also have no feelings. Would you expect your car to feel compassion for you?

[Hyrion]

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

Assuming the above is true:

Source: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html

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.

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.

4. (1) No House of Commons and no legislative assembly shall continue for longer than five years from the date fixed for the return of the writs at a general election of its members. (81)

As the empirical evidence shows - and your empirical observation should be able to accept - a limitation of the legislative assembly of 5 years and the fact that you get to vote (I assume you're a Canadian citizen) guarantees you can "exercise your rights for periods of time".

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.

That makes the statement by you to be quite incorrect and the above proves your conclusion to be unreasonable. Your conclusion is not the "literal indisputable truth". Quite the contrary, I can't see how you can reasonably arrive at your conclusion with such clear points in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The only reasonable way I can see you conclude that you can't "exercise your right to vote for periods of time" is:

• 1) You are not a Canadian Citizen

Obviously the voice of a single person, or the voice of a minority, does not get to modify the CCRF to the potential detriment of the whole. So the only way you would not be able to "exercise your right to vote for periods of time" is if you're not a Canadian Citizen. If you are, then you are the only person stopping you from voting.

[LordEd]

Great points, All.

All of them compelling.

None of them more or less conclusive than mine.

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

I would suggest re-analyzing your conclusion that none of your conclusions are supported by anything.

The casual observers in this board have said that your arguments have no merit. The judge trained to interpret the law have said your arguments have no merit. The historical data that the charter has existed for the entire duration of the country's existence and that your form of election system has never existed here indicates your argument has no merit. The statements

I find the Constitution to be ambiguous on this matter.

Good for you. Nobody else here seems to. While you are entitled to your opinion and can exercise your right to express that opinion, I can also express my opinion that your system is not feasible in the real world and, while would be potentially legal as an alternative election process should it be introduced in parliament for legal reform and approved as is required, is NOT the legal requirement for a voting process.

Your findings are not definitive or binding upon anyone.

[Hyrion]

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.

Not true in the sense you intend - the sense that "it's not a right to periodically select a new government".

Get enough voters agreeing with you that the time frame should change and you'll see that happen. So while it's a "current limit" - it's a reasonable limit ultimately selected in democratic fashion that can be changed in democratic fashion.

Just like it's a "current limit" that no one has a right to murder another. And I'm sure if you think about that from the perspective of whether you'd want everyone to have a right to murder you just so you could have the right to murder another, you'll understand why it's in your best interest no one has such a right.

[Hyrion]

As a scientist, I am making ... empirical observation.

I really would love a bit of compassion.

As a scientist exploring the chemical interaction between a light base and light acid: do you feel compassion?

Some things are simply experienced without compassion simply because there are no emotions involved. Perhaps that's part of what you're experiencing here with some of us: you feel very very strongly about your perspective while we don't feel anything while pointing out what is clearly obvious to ourselves.

Some things are experienced with compassion even while tough love is being implemented.

• Young child touches hot stove for the first time, parent feels compassion for the child comforting the child while taking care of the wound.

• Slightly older, same child, touches hot stove for the second time, parent feels compassion but reminds child the stove is hot. Takes a little time before tending the wound.

• Older, but same child, touches hot stove for the fifth time, parent scolds the child telling him/her "you know better, go get some cream on that" and let's the child tend their own wound.

You claim to want compassion, but given what I understand to be your arguments I don't understand why you think you deserve compassion when you're clearly adult and fully responsible for the consequences of your own behavior.

If that behavior continues to be self-destructive I personally don't see why you should receive any compassion as you are totally 100% responsible for yourself at this point. That not includes the responsibility to deal with the consequences (positive for positive acts, negative for negative acts) but also includes the power to learn from your mistakes and choose a different path for a better tomorrow.

If, like that child who keeps touching the hot stove - you continue down the same path of self-destruction then in my humble opinion the only emotion you deserve (as long as your actions don't start harming others) is pity. Pity because you keep making choices that result in harm to yourself.

Sadly, ultimately no one can help you until you're ready to help yourself. That means learning from the mistakes that end up causing you very real harm - choosing to move away from those thoughts that end up causing you imagined harm resulting in a very real response from you that ends up causing you real harm.

[Bill Lumbergh]

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.

That would only be true if we were in a constant election.

Again, section 3 has nothing to do with when elections are called. The timing of elections is determined by the other parts of the constitution (both written and unwritten) and statutes like the Canada Elections Act. There is no ambiguity. Section 3 exists to protect your right to vote when such an election is called. It prevents the government from doing things like disenfranchising people based on, say, race or creed.

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.

So by your own logic, this system would deny people their s.3 rights for six months, for each elected candidate, wouldn't it? Why would that be acceptable?

[Hyrion]

So by your own logic, this system would deny people their s.3 rights for six months, for each elected candidate, wouldn't it?

By the same logic, Psams system would deny people their s.3 rights "indefinitely" rather than the 5 year term outlined in the CCRF.

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

Of course, I could have missed the "ultimate" limitation in Psams system, but I'd suggest that since he's used the word indefinitely I should base the end-logic on the clear meaning of that word.

[grixit]

I find the Constitution to be ambiguous on this matter.

You find it ambiguous. Others do not.

[Hanslune]

I find the Constitution to be ambiguous on this matter.

You find it ambiguous. Others do not.

Reminds me of the old saying; "your finding Newton's law of universal gravitation ambiguous doesn't mean you can ignore it"

[notorial dissent]

I find the Constitution to be ambiguous on this matter.

It is not!! Your inability, or unwillingness, to read and comprehend plain English is no ones problem or concern but your own.

The judges who had to wade through your logorrhea obviously could and did, and they have ALL told you that YOU WERE WRONG, and that you apparently cannot read and comprehend simple English.

[LordEd]

Did a bit of reading on the transcript posted way back.

Frank:It’s my belief, based on a great deal effort, that no government committee would consider these submissions.

Keighley:Then why should the court?

Frank:Because the court is here to uphold the Charter, according to section 24 of the Charter. So if the rights in that Charter are being denied, then it is within this court’s jurisdiction to seek a remedy

If the court were to rule in your favor, they would in effect be making legislation, which is a violation of the charter.

Your remedy, although difficult, is to make political change. Consider this forum. There are, on quick count including yourself, 12 posters in this thread. Only you have posted in favor of your position. In order for your change to happen, you would need at least half to be in your favor. This forum has a bias, of course, and you could likely counter it with the likes of WFS or GOODF. Its the middle ground people you would need to convince.

Start your campaign now and get elected. Then you can get your revised election act introduced. Then you just need to convince half the representatives to accept your position. You would probably have to do that through the people they represent.

Not an easy task, but not impossible. That is, assuming people want your election system. If they don't, then forcing it upon them would be violating their rights.

[Hyrion]

That is, assuming people want your election system. If they don't, then forcing it upon them would be violating their rights.

Therein, I think, lies the core problem with the OPCA crowd. They have a singular focus on their own personal rights without considering the rights of others.

Perhaps fed by the mentality that they, individually, are better then others so they - as superior - should be able to decide for others.

The belief that they can foist unilateral contractual agreements on others, those others have no choice to opt out even while the OPCA believes s/he can also unilaterally decide the Laws do not apply to themselves is a great example of the apparent mentality.

And - of course - when said individual continues to fail to convince the rest of us they end up frustrated at their apparent lack of power. Quite the contradiction: to believe you're superior to others and yet powerless to force them to bend to your Will.

One of the true marks of a Free society - that someone can believe they are superior but under the actual Laws have no power to actually force others.

[Chaos]

sniveling for pity = teh lollerz

[Psam]

Wow, what a lot of great comments!

I love You People. It’s like my favourite kind of Christmas: all the presence and none of the krist.

I’ve been racking my brain trying to understand why You get so derisively angry and abusive toward People whose common attitude can be simply described as: “I don’t believe that this method of making rules is fair”. I couldn’t figure out why this is something to be so hateful toward.

The clue that I received was when it was pointed out to Me that I am speaking with a group of lawyers and accountants. These are professions whose ability to accrue wealth rests upon their ability to be perceived to be right about everything they say. You’re greedy, and You want to protect your ability to accrue wealth. That’s perfectly reasonable and I don’t blame You, but I am just glad to have figured it out.

So when a person says something that illustrates how the things You say may not be 100% accurate, You would of course like the person to stop talking. You will use any immoral tactics at your disposal: intimidation, belittlement, cruelty, deliberately quoting a person in a completely different way than their words were intended (I believe that’s known as obfuscation), and general disrespect. You won’t allow a comment that indicates a lack of truth to the statements You make to be considered with any patience or an open mind.

I see one commonality to your perspective that I can agree with: I would agree that it is indeed conducive to a more civil and peaceful society when All of the People in a land can find a common way for their laws to be made that every member of society finds to be an acceptable compromise. I certainly agree with that.

Many of the People who You scorn and ridicule would refuse to accept my above statement and They would treat Me with the same scorn and ridicule for saying it as You treat Me with for stating that despite the validity of the point, I don’t find it to be a conclusive justification for any one state to be unilaterally, unconditionally imposed as the government over every single person in a land with or without their consent. But yes, People who refuse to acknowledge the value of a Constitution as a powerful social tool to create peace and civility confound and frustrate Me.

I believe your attitude is that “the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and every single person living on that land shall be subjugated under the authority of that Constitution whether they agree that it is fair or not”. I’m not saying this is entirely unreasonable, unlike most of the People You pour out your derision upon. However, the fact that I don’t agree that it is completely reasonable and sensible causes Me to endure what almost appears to be hatred from You.

One thing that the Constitution has in favour of its perceived supremacy is several forces of armed officers to make sure every person in the land is required to act as though the Constitution is their supreme law, whether They believe it is or not. In a de facto sense, perhaps this makes the Constitution their supreme law, sure, but that doesn’t make it “the truth” that the Constitution is their supreme law any more than the Crusades running around using force to subjugate non-Christians made it “the truth” that some guy was killed 2000 years ago and then came back to life three days later and walked up to his old buddies with a six pack of beer and said “hey guys, I’m feeling alright now, really, other than these stupid holes in my hands, so whaddya say, wanna party?” and then turned the six pack into a thousand six packs.

However, your livelihood depends upon that Constitution being the supreme law of the land, and You refuse to acknowledge that there is any logical fallibility whatsoever to the assertion that it is in fact the supreme law. If You were wrong about that most fundamental axiom upon which all of your other assertions rest, then of course it would draw all of your other conclusions into question wouldn’t it? Well actually, I don’t really believe it would. I think You could acknowledge that there may not be any perfectly conclusive reason to regard the Constitution as the supreme law of the land and then your services to help the legal and financial processes of the land run fairly and smoothly would still be worthy of admiration and (yes) remuneration. Nobody’s perfect, and nobody’s lack of perfection should be regarded as a detriment to their fine qualities. You’re not perfect, but I expect You do a pretty damned good job, judging by the adeptness You have displayed just in this conversation alone.

In addition to your mockery of People who do not agree that the Constitution is their supreme law, I have also seen several statements that basically say “unintelligent people who voice their thoughts make me angry”. Perhaps another part of those statements has been that “perhaps if I show enough derision toward an unintelligent person, then the person will stop talking”. This, of course, makes your life easier, because then there is less chance that something will be said that might make an observer question whether You are entirely correct about everything You say. Ya just lovez ta be raht doanchah?

So another point discussed earlier that I want to continue with is compassion.

In the 1998 Quebec secession Reference by the Supreme Court of Canada, one of the four constitutional principles that was presented by the court as a founding principle of the law in Canada was Protection of Minorities. What reason is there to hold the protection of minorities as an inherent principle of the supreme law of a land other than compassion? If the supreme law of the land has compassion as one of its motivations, then how can a person who does not exercise compassion be regarded as a reliable authority on the interpretation of the supreme law of the land?

Here’s another point. If a child is treated with compassion the first time he burns his hand on the stove, but then by the fifth time is reprimanded and told “you should know better than to do that by now”, then I predict that this would lead toward the child either being a bully or else too timid to fulfill his own aspirations in life. This attitude toward compassion is not a constructive or reasonable way to fulfil the purpose of having compassion at all. Therefore if that is your attitude, You may as well dispense with compassion entirely, because You aren’t doing it right. However, this may mean that You are then not an entirely reliable authority on the law in Canada.

Another point about compassion. Imagine a law enforcement officer asking his superior, “am I required to exercise compassion in my methods of enforcing the law?” The superior officer may answer this, but imagine if the superior goes to his superior and asks the same question, so that he knows how to answer his subordinate’s question. Imagine that this process continues until there are no further superior officers to consult. That would mean We now arrive at the point where We can ask how Her Majesty the Queen would answer this question. Would She consult the Minister of Justice? Would She consult the Supreme Court of Canada? Would her private answer to the police forces be different than her public answer if the question was asked in ear shot of the media?

I’m not going to claim to know how Her Majesty would answer this question. I doubt that You would either. It is entirely possible that compassion is a principle that exists behind the purpose of the rule of law itself, and there certainly are clues in the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of it that would support this.

I wasn’t expecting compassion when I joined this conversation and I still don’t. I’m completely at peace with not receiving an ounce of compassion from You. I was simply stating that the logical validity of your stance, from a moral and constitutional perspective, may be detracted from when You show no compassion to a person who says “these rules aren’t fair” and is told “well those are the rules and there’s nothing You can do about it”.

[LordEd]

You’re greedy, and You want to protect your ability to accrue wealth. That’s perfectly reasonable and I don’t blame You, but I am just glad to have figured it out.

I'm a geek, not a lawyer or accountant. Not particularly wealthy either. I find rules and interpretation interesting as well as the behavior of the 'believer' such as yourself.

I'm not how many different ways we can say 'you are wrong' without venturing into ridicule. You simply won't accept that concept.

Don't take it that I believe the system is perfect or anything. I just understand there is a process to make change, and that there are millions of other people who don't think the same way I do. I just assume I get the benefit of something that others believe I shouldn't have, and vice versa. It will all average out eventually.

So when a person says something that illustrates how the things You say may not be 100% accurate, You would of course like the person to stop talking.

Actually, we would like that person to keep speaking, but to do so coherently.

[Psam]

LordEd,

I agree.

I was generalizing.

You are one participant in this conversation who does not fit the descriptions I was making.

I am not asking to have my electoral system imposed upon any other person though.

I am asking to not have their electoral system imposed upon Me.

I think this is an important distinction.

[Psam]

One more point LordEd.

I am not a "believer".

A person who believes that the Constitution is the irrefutable supreme law over every single person in the land of Canada is a believer.

A person who believes that the Constitution is not the supreme law over every single person in the land of Canada is a believer.

I believe neither of the above. I see a great deal of validity to both perspectives and I respect the wisdom that goes into trying to proliferate them, but I don't believe either perspective can be conclusively regarded as "the truth".

I am the disbeliever.

[LordEd]

Your presence in this country and default citizenship by birth means you are part of the 'their'. You have the same rights and entitlement as everyone else, and same restrictions. You have the right to ask the collective 'their' to let you take up the office and make changes to the system.

If the system is unbearable, and you are unable or unwilling to take and gain the office to make the changes required to make it bearable, or to have those in office agree with you and make the changes on your behalf, your only remaining recourse is to fully reject this country. This also means geographically and to have another country that is compatible with your beliefs accept you as their own. There are many to choose from. There is no guarantee of success.

You will have a home here until you find a system to your liking. That you are guaranteed. And as your beliefs do not match my own, I will continue to disagree with you. If your beliefs lead you to believe you have or demand special rights that I am not able to legally attain (such as being exempt from the law under various freeman-style arguments), I will provide negative-feedback through the mockery you dislike, as I consider those actions to be insulting to all of those who make the best of the system given.

[Burnaby49]

So when a person says something that illustrates how the things You say may not be 100% accurate, You would of course like the person to stop talking. You will use any immoral tactics at your disposal: intimidation, belittlement, cruelty, deliberately quoting a person in a completely different way than their words were intended (I believe that’s known as obfuscation), and general disrespect. You won’t allow a comment that indicates a lack of truth to the statements You make to be considered with any patience or an open mind.

Talk all you want, have you been censored here? You are free to say what you want and we are free to disagree with you. If our goal was to silence you that big block of text you just spewed out shows how abjectly we've failed at it. If you really think that disagreeing with you indicates intimidation, belittlement, cruelty and disrespect you must be a very sheltered precious little snowflake indeed and just too sensitive for the brutal world outside your door.

The point you seem to be missing is that you are talking to the wrong audience. We don't count one way or another in your little fantasy whether we agree with you or not. We are totally irrelevant. The only audience that counts is the court so you should be talking to them. Instead you lost in court once then retreated to Facebook diatribes and ramblings about suicide.

[LordEd]

The court is the wrong audience as well. Its legislative change he's looking for, so its people he needs to convince. Lots and lots of people.