Psam Frank - Sovereign with his own laws and court

[The Observer]

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.

I don't think I see anyone being derisively angry or abusive to you. What I have seen is people taking the time to explain to you why you are wrong and then watching you stubbornly refuse to accept the truth. I am seeing people essentially writing you off as another freeman/sovrun type who is going to keep doing things the wrong way and get punished for it; if that is abusive, then you must have lived in a very protected and shielded childhood.

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.

I am sure the fact that these lawyers and accountants who spent a great deal of time and money learning about the law and practicing it does not have any bearing for you in terms of the information they have provided you. I wonder if you feel the same way about the physician who tells you that you need medical treatment in order for you to become healthy. Do you immediately suspect the doctor is only recommending treatment for you so he can make a few extra bucks? Granted, there are doctors from time to time who do commit medical fraud, just as there are lawyers and CPAs who go bad. But do you seriously believe that all doctors are only in their field for the money and commit malpractice consistently for every patient?

...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.

Except no one here has stopped or even tried to stop you from "talking" on this site. If you want to interpret the fact that the opposition to your comments is somehow equivalent to trying to shut you up, that is your problem. For you to think that your comments should be accepted in whole and not subject to analysis and logic is really unrealistic. It shows that you are the closed-minded one, and not the people responding to you.

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”.

Please provide proof that anyone has said these things. Otherwise you are guilty of projecting your feelings onto others.

However, your livelihood depends upon that Constitution being the supreme law of the land,..

Lots of people's livelihoods depend on there being a Supreme Law of the land, not just attorneys and accountants. In fact all people of a nation depend on there being a code that is enforced and implemented. Ever consider what could happen to you if there was no Constitution in place to protect you and your rights?

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?

Please show me something that proves that compassion was the motivation for implementing laws that protect minorities as opposed to the motivation that putting such laws into place was to ensure that the underlying concept of "equality for all" was met? And even if one could argue that compassion was a reason for such laws, there is no requirement that the enforcers and implementers of the law have to be compassionate in order to carry out their duties. They only need to follow the law.

Imagine a law enforcement officer asking his superior, “am I required to exercise compassion in my methods of enforcing the law?”

I see no reason why a LEO would have to ask such a question. The law is the law. If he finds a person has broken the law, he has the authority to arrest and prosecute such a person. He also has the latitude to not enforce the law within reason, and that may involve compassion. But there is no requirement in laws that an LEO, or any other enforcer of the law must be compassionate. They are officers of the law, not your parents.

I wasn’t expecting compassion when I joined this conversation and I still don’t.

Yes, you did. Otherwise you wouldn't have brought up this entirely irrelevant issue. You are just unhappy that we are not accepting your baseless arguments and proving why they cannot prevail. So now you are just injecting personal feelings into an issue where they really don't belong.

[LordEd]

'Believer' is my own category. Others include 'scammer', 'opportunist' and 'victim'.

[Wake Up! Productions]

Instead you lost in court once then retreated to Facebook diatribes and ramblings about suicide.

He's in good company with Sinead O'Connor this week !!! http://www.people.com/article/sinead-oc ... t-hospital

[arayder]

Psam, It's real simple.

In the western democracies constitutions are the supreme law of the law and and controversies arising from those constitutions are settled in the courts. If I am reading this thread correctly you have had your day in court and you lost. Your argument has no basis in law.

That's a fact, Jack.

Like others I would urge to to turn your efforts toward something more productive.

Instead you lost in court once then retreated to Facebook diatribes and ramblings about suicide.

Hold on, Frank. You can be a force for good in the world and you can have a happy life. . .you just ain't gonna win your case.

Be safe, pard. Take care of yourself.

[Hyrion]

Otherwise you are guilty of projecting your feelings onto others.

Says it all in a nutshell I think.

But there is no requirement in laws that an LEO, or any other enforcer of the law must be compassionate. They are officers of the law, not your parents.

I'd also say the same for parents. If they've done everything they can to teach their child not to touch red hot metal and the child still does so - there comes a time where compassion is the wrong emotion to direct at the child.

• compassion: sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others

When I find someone deliberately harming themselves for no other apparent reason then because they want to, then the only concern I have is with them directing that destructive behavior at others. I do pity them - but for the reason they choose to harm themselves - not for the reason they have been harmed. So in that sense - I guess compassion is still shown even if it's not meant in the spirit that Psam seems to want.

I'm a geek, not a lawyer or accountant.

I also do not belong to either the Legal or Banking/Accounting industries. Makes me wonder what the actual percentages of Quatloosians fit in that "generalization" Psam prefers to allow to guide his thoughts/responses. And there's the real danger with taking an extreme position: it guides your responses into the extreme even when the perception is an illusion.

[Burnaby49]

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.

Did you think my suggestion was made for his benefit? I need diversion in retirement and It's more fun watching him in court than listening to him drone on about legislation.

[Psam]

Burnaby49,

If it's diversion You are looking for, then perhaps You would be willing to indulge Me in a diverting little exercise.

Assume for the sake of argument that the following conclusions were drawn by a court:

1) there are periods of time in Canada where a citizen has no way of exercising their section 3 Charter rights

2) a member of the Interactive Sovereign Society (ISS) may exercise their section 3 Charter rights at any time that they wish

3) until it has been demonstrated how the denial of section 3 Charter rights for periods of time causes society to be more free and/or democratic, it would be an unlawful denial of section 3 Charter rights for an ISS member to be imposed upon by laws created by a periodically elected legislative assembly.

The laws presently created by the ISS governing its members who are citizens of Canada are written here: http://issociety.org/wp-content/uploads/ELR.pdf

Based on the above assumptions (which are only agreed to for the sake of argument despite their obvious lunacy if You are kind enough to do so), how would You describe your satisfaction level with the laws that an ISS member is required to follow as illustrated in the above link?

[NYGman]

1) there are periods of time in Canada where a citizen has no way of exercising their section 3 Charter rights

However, if 1 is not true, then what is the point of 2 and 3?

You have quoted §3 as follows:

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.

For completeness here is the whole section:

Democratic Rights

Marginal note:Democratic rights of citizens

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.
Marginal note:Maximum duration of legislative bodies

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)
Marginal note:Continuation in special circumstances

(2) In time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, a House of Commons may be continued by Parliament and a legislative assembly may be continued by the legislature beyond five years if such continuation is not opposed by the votes of more than one-third of the members of the House of Commons or the legislative assembly, as the case may be. (82)
Marginal note:Annual sitting of legislative bodies

5. There shall be a sitting of Parliament and of each legislature at least once every twelve months. (83)

This seems very straight forward, and needs no interpretation. Take a look at the included Margin notes from the source http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html

All §3 does is define the Democratic rights of Canadians, that is it. Nothing more. Nothing complex.

Let's further break this down:

3) You have the right to vote in elections
4) Elections must be held at a maximum, every 5 years (But can be called earlier) Unless there is a time of war, if certain conditions are met.
5) They have to at least meet once a year

That is it. No more no less. So you have a right to vote in an election to be held at least every 5 years, unless during war, and once elected, they must meet at least once a year.

How you get anything more from that, beats me. It is plain English, and very easy to understand, why make it more difficult that it is plainly stated in the charter??

P.S. I am a Lawyer and a Banker, and have absolutely nothing to gain or loose in this argument. I could care less how often Canadians vote, what their voting system is, or how it works. I am just reading the Charter, for what it is, and explaining it back to you, in the hope you will get it, but knowing you wont.

[Burnaby49]

The assumptions you just gave me were essentially the issues you went to court to get and lost. You demanded that either the entire country to jump to you whims and revise the electoral system to your idiotic ideas or that the court issue an order stating that the court authorized your exemption from all of Canada's laws because your feeling were hurt. You seemed genuinely indignant and shocked when the court refused to play your silly game. If the Supreme Court of British Columbia won't indulge your fantasies I see no reason why I should bother.

[Wake Up! Productions]

Again I state that I see no point in this.

If I was going to opt for a revamped or new system, it would make more sense to champion Menard's "Direct Democracy" approach. This is the idea that we can do away with representatives all together, and directly vote online (or in person) on crucial issues. Alas, in a world of hacking scandals, even this idea is flawed.

[Burnaby49]

Again I state that I see no point in this.

If I was going to opt for a revamped or new system, it would make more sense to champion Menard's "Direct Democracy" approach. This is the idea that we can do away with representatives all together, and directly vote online (or in person) on crucial issues. Alas, in a world of hacking scandals, even this idea is flawed.

And would require far too much from citizens to keep on top of every issue and constantly vote on them. It would be overwhelming. The budget alone would be impossible. Eventually fantics and single issue voters would predominate. People are satisfied to vote from time to time then let the elected representatives go through it.

[Philistine]

Psam, for reference, Ontario held a referendum question in 2007 where the question asked if people wanted to exchange the first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system for a Mixed-member proportional representation(MMP)(still every 4-5 years mind) and even that change was voted down with "no" taking over 63%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_e ... ndum,_2007

Outside of the fact that your system could never work in that it would completely stall the legislature, the majority of Canadians would never vote in favour of it. They hesitate to even move from FPTP.

[The Observer]

compassion: sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others

And I think the definition provided by you shows that Psam is really just trying to guilt us into accepting his flawed arguments. He believes somehow that that laws are making him "suffer" and causing "misfortune" in his life, so therefore we should be demonstrating our "concern" by going along with him. If we don't, then we are worse than the laws themselves. He can't win in open court, so he falls back on trying to make everyone think that he was a victim.

This is really typical behavior of the person who believes that somehow the world owes them something - and more than something.

[Hyrion]

Assume for the sake of argument that the following conclusions were drawn by a court:

1) there are periods of time in Canada where a citizen has no way of exercising their section 3 Charter rights

2) a member of the Interactive Sovereign Society (ISS) may exercise their section 3 Charter rights at any time that they wish

3) until it has been demonstrated how the denial of section 3 Charter rights for periods of time causes society to be more free and/or democratic, it would be an unlawful denial of section 3 Charter rights for an ISS member to be imposed upon by laws created by a periodically elected legislative assembly.

The laws presently created by the ISS governing its members who are citizens of Canada are written here: http://issociety.org/wp-content/uploads/ELR.pdf

Assuming those facts: I still have no desire of being a member of Interactive Sovereign Society. I'll stick with being a Canadian Citizen.

[LordEd]

1) there are periods of time in Canada where a citizen has no way of exercising their section 3 Charter rights

2) a member of the Interactive Sovereign Society (ISS) may exercise their section 3 Charter rights at any time that they wish

3) until it has been demonstrated how the denial of section 3 Charter rights for periods of time causes society to be more free and/or democratic, it would be an unlawful denial of section 3 Charter rights for an ISS member to be imposed upon by laws created by a periodically elected legislative assembly.
...
Based on the above assumptions (which are only agreed to for the sake of argument despite their obvious lunacy if You are kind enough to do so), how would You describe your satisfaction level with the laws that an ISS member is required to follow as illustrated in the above link?

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

1. There are periods of time in Canada where a citizen has no way of exercising their section 12 Charter rights.

2) a member of the Interactive Sovereign Society (ISS) believe they may exercise their section 3 Charter rights at any time. They should also insist upon exercising their section 12 charter rights.

3) Until it has been demonstrated that they exercise their section 12 charter rights on a daily basis, their interpretation of section 3 charter rights are going to be ignored as the member is simply trying to cherry pick portions of the charter to personal benefit, and ignore others carrying the same argument to personal detriment.

Therefore, I ask each member the ISS to assume the position for some punishment, so you may ensure that you are being punished in a non-cruel or unusual way in upholding your section 12 rights.



You keep repeating those points. I will keep repeating this one.

Please read these words IN AN ELECTION. Now write those words 100 times on the blackboard.

in
[in]
Spell Syllables
Word Origin
preposition
1.
(used to indicate inclusion within space, a place, or limits):
walking in the park.
2.
(used to indicate inclusion within something abstract or immaterial):
in politics; in the autumn.
3.
(used to indicate inclusion within or occurrence during a period or limit of time):
in ancient times; a task done in ten minutes.

[Psam]

http://issociety.org/the-definition-of- ... -freedoms/

[LordEd]

Freeman wordsmithing. There is no way you can read the definition of 'in' that way without crossing your eyes and using some illegal green substances.

Please submit for more section 12. Repeat after me: thank you sir may I have another.

[arayder]

Psam's idea is impractical to the point of insanity.

Rather than torture the english language many western democracies allow the electorate to, between regular elections, remove incompetent or corrupt elected officials from office through recall provisions in election laws.

If Psam wanted to get the job done and address the issue at hand he'd be touting recall laws instead of titling wind mills over the nutty idea that not allowing him to vote anytime he pleases and as often as he pleases is a violation of his rights.

Recall legislation is doable.

Some folks are doers. Some folks are professional victims.

[Wake Up! Productions]

Freeman wordsmithing. There is no way you can read the definition of 'in' that way without crossing your eyes and using some illegal green substances.

Please submit for more section 12. Repeat after me: thank you sir may I have another.

If there is one positive thing that I learned from Robert Menard, it would be the fact that legislative drafters must use the clearest and most precise language possible, so as to NOT be misinterpreted.

When they use the word "in" they mean it in one of the 3 senses that you pointed out. The only place where this differs is when they say point blank, "in this section the word 'in' means this ...".

For example the word "act" in drafting has a different meaning than the word "Act". The word "act" means an action, whereas the word "Act" means a statute.

[Burnaby49]

This is why Galati's COMER action is going to fail. The statute he's contesting says the Bank of Canada may do something. He's interpreting that to mean that it must do something. If parliament had wanted to require the bank to do it they would have used "must", the use of "may" was a deliberate choice to give the bank flexibility. The Federal Court will strike COMERS' motion because the interpretation of the law they contest is clear and obvious.