Psam Frank - Sovereign with his own laws and court

[Burnaby49]

poor Psham. Much like all scammers....threatens to leave but keeps coming back.

Let's be fair to Psam, he's not scamming anyone. He's obsessed over a hopeless cause and if anyone has lost because of his obsession it's him.

[Hanslune]

Who has the right to govern Crimea, the government of Ukraine or the government of Russia?

Does the answer to that question have anything to do with the US or Canada? I didn't realize we were discussing Crimea.

Crimea is the Indo-European-Aztec word for creamed corn ...... so what does that have to do with frosted squid cereal and why the Russians lost at the battle of Friedland?

[LordEd]

Let's be fair to Psam, he's not scamming anyone. He's obsessed over a hopeless cause and if anyone has lost because of his obsession it's him.

Except for that part where he recommends that those in his system pay their taxes to his society rather than the government.

[Burnaby49]

Let's be fair to Psam, he's not scamming anyone. He's obsessed over a hopeless cause and if anyone has lost because of his obsession it's him.

Except for that part where he recommends that those in his system pay their taxes to his society rather than the government.

I can't see that as a scam, at least as defined;

scam (skăm) Informal
n.
A fraudulent business scheme; a swindle.tr.v. scammed, scam·ming, scams
To defraud; swindle.

Since he and his followers, if any, seem sincere and above-board in what they are doing. Misguided perhaps but with no intent to defraud or swindle.

Keep in mind that if any of them are employees (Psam once said he'd worked for a delivery company) they can't pay taxes to ISS rather than the government since taxes are taken off their pay by their employers before they get their net pay. If they are self-employed, which seems unlikely, and don't pay their required taxes it is tax evasion.

[LordEd]

That's like saying Menard isn't running scams because he believes it to be true.

[Hyrion]

I wonder if any participant in this conversation so far could think of assertions that We All might be expected to agree upon.

The answer to that is in your statement:

neither this Quatloos Crowd nor I appear likely to alter opinions on the matter

From my personal perspective, given that:

• 1) many hard questions of reality have been put to you and you've adamantly refused to answer them

• 2) many hard facts of reality have been put to you and you've adamantly refused to consider them

• 3) points of obvious contradiction in what you're presenting have been made that you adamantly refuse to respond to

• 4) you have a tendency to quickly and easily fall into extreme positions

... we won't agree - at least until such time as you start to acknowledge reality isn't the same as the fantasy (my humble opinion) world you apparently believe you live in.

--- topic change

"Evidence" points to a total membership of 3 so far?

Does that include Katrina?
...
Claiming that evidence points to Her being a member is at best ignorant and at worst insulting.

I believe reasonable logic dictates Psam has just admitted that the total membership is - at best - a maximum of 2. After all, if membership was above 3 he wouldn't bother to explain why Katrina is not a member.

[LordEd]

Ok, I found as many as 6 names:

http://issociety.org/wp-content/uploads ... equest.pdf
Rick Durie and Psam Frank

http://issociety.org/testimonials/
Carol and Misty

http://issociety.org/wp-content/uploads/ELR.pdf
Darren Childs.

http://issociety.org/wp-content/uploads ... utions.pdf
Lisa Shaw

[Arthur Rubin]

Moderator note Discussion of whether the ISS system would (or could) work, or the results of attempting to pay taxes to ISS rather than to the elected government, is on topic. Discussion of whether it is legal (under the Canadian charter?) is on topic. Discussion of the membership, and whether it is 2 or 3, is (marginally) on topic. Discussion of "rights" is off topic, except as to the opinions of "Sovereigns" or other relevant subjects of discussion on this board.

[Psam]

Somewhere earlier in this conversation, it was stated that morality is irrelevant to the law. Here's a Supreme Court of Canada quote that contradicts this.
"Our law's claim to legitimacy also rests on an appeal to moral values, many of which are imbedded in our constitutional structure."
Have a look at paragraph 67 of the SCC's Reference on Secession of Quebec.
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-c ... 3/index.do

I'm interested in hearing what kind of derisive comments are made about the whackjobs in the SCC by this quatloos mob.

[LordEd]

Have you asked for your section 12 rights today?

[Psam]

Since some efforts have been made to find out who some more members of the Interactive Sovereign Society (ISS) are, I will provide some additional clues that are in public places on the ISS website, that haven't been caught yet on here.

When I was preparing my case for BC Supreme Court that Burnaby49 was present to see argued, I obtained affidavits from a few ISS members. Here's one:
http://issociety.org/wp-content/uploads ... Bodner.pdf

There are a few more by names already mentioned above, but I thought this might help with your search into figuring out the number of members there are.

If I had the complete assurance from every participant in this conversation so far who has made derogatory remarks about People who believe that the interactive electoral system might provide superior stability, efficiency, decisiveness, ease of implementation, and of course accountability over periodic elections; if I had their assurance that comments in future will be more respectful toward such People, then perhaps I might consider discussing things like the number of members and the situations that have occurred that shed some empirical light upon real life experience with this democratic system and its viability for a nation based upon extrapolations taken from this subset's decisions. However, at present, as I said earlier, applying for membership just long enough to get the details and then resigning would certainly make all of that clear. However, since You are prejudiced by the inconclusive notion that an interactive electoral system is an inferior form of collective decision making, I can certainly understand why You wouldn't bother to make a sincere investigation into its viability for your own personal knowledge.

[LordEd]

Oh and your quote doesn't exist in the link provided.

Did you actually read that link, or just a few sentences you percieve to help your case?

[LordEd]

So 7 members.

[Psam]

I have read all of the parts of that decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that apply to the Constitution of Canada, but not the parts about international law. Paragraph 67, as I said earlier, is where You can find the quote I cited. I expect that the paragraphs are numbered the same on your browser as they are on mine. It's about halfway down the document.

Here's a bit more discussion about this particular SCC decision.
http://issociety.org/wp-content/uploads ... Quebec.pdf

[LordEd]

We're biased that your system won't work, and that's the reason you won't explain how it could work.

So in other words, you only explain it to those predisposed to think it will work.

[Psam]

Have you asked for your section 12 rights today?

LOL!!

[Psam]

We're biased that your system won't work, and that's the reason you won't explain how it could work.

So in other words, you only explain it to those predisposed to think it will work.

Re-write the Canada Elections Act to use an interactive electoral system to choose MPs. The economy will improve. Environmental sustainability will improve. Respect for the authority of police will improve. Treatment of suspected criminals by police will become more conducive toward effective rehabilitation. Corruption will subside. Respect for elected officials will improve. Conditions of Those living in poverty will improve. Respect for business leaders by consumers will become more reflective of the work involved in coordinating employment.

That's the cause and effect that I see based on my experience with the interactive electoral system. I expect I will not be asked to elaborate on the experiences I have had that lead Me to these conclusions.

[LordEd]

And rainbows and unicorns will scatter across the countryside.

You haven't substantiated any other points. Why should be bother asking this time? Your experience with a group of 7 people means nothing.

[Psam]

Rather than discuss what You appear to believe to be exaggerated predictions I have made then, perhaps We can discuss some more concrete theories.

Here are three theories that I have had about the interactive electoral system (IES) ever since I first conceived of it.

Just to update here, an IES is a method of electing a representative or official in which each voter has one vote that can be cast for any candidate at any time and changed to a different candidate at any time after that.

I intend to put my reasons for having postulated these theories into clear graphical illustration as well as describe the mathematics by which I arrived at them before having had any empirical experience to base them on. In nearly ten years of experience with the IES, I have seen no evidence contradicting them. I'd be interested in knowing if any quatloosians might consider the possibility that there is any merit to these theories. Here they are.

1. IES results in the people with the highest potential for impartiality having the greatest influence over decisions.

2. With IES, a lower proportion of support for the leading candidate indicates a lower level of political polarisation throughout the electorate.

3. For an electorate using IES, the level of proportional electoral support for the leading candidate will experience an overall decline with the passage of time.

As an example, I will suggest hypothetically considering two cities, each with 100,000 residents, one of which has a mayor with 1,000 votes and the other 10,000 votes. Both mayors have stayed elected for six years.

[LordEd]

In nearly ten years of experience with the IES, I have seen no evidence contradicting them.

You have no experience with IES as none have been implemented. You have a group of like-minded buddies chatting about politics over coffee.

Did you receive your section 12 rights today?