Psam Frank - Sovereign with his own laws and court

[notorial dissent]

Psammy Psammy Psammy, long time no bore. What’s a matter, your little imaginary friends not paying attention to you anymore?

1750 words, giver or take, of pure uninspired unremitting blather. You really should quit buying those cut-rate bargain basement remaindered dictionaries, they make you look even sillier than you do by nature.

You are worse than a petulant two year old who has been told NO who keeps coming back trying to change the wording to get the answer he wants, A N D * I T * D O E S N ‘ T work. Your ideas are nonsense, NO ONE cares, and NO ONE is interested. On top of everything else, you are boring.

Go play with your little friends, maybe they’ll quit ignoring you.

[Pottapaug1938]

Psammy is the Humpty Dumpty of political science. When he uses a word, he uses it after having chosen his own meaning for the word.

[LordEd]

Did you run out of sources of punishment and have to come here for your constitutional rights?

Best be careful to keep records of being punished or we might not believe you're serious.

[Chaos]

typical Pscammer.........too many words and nothing to say.

[notorial dissent]

Did you run out of sources of punishment and have to come here for your constitutional rights?

Best be careful to keep records of being punished or we might not believe you're serious.

Now now, Psammy has a constitutional right, even in Canada, to say what is on what passes for his mind, just as we have a right to laugh and point at him for being a horse's hindmost. One I expect and intend to exercise at every opportunity.

[LordEd]

If his rights are violated by not voting at any given time, then his rights are being violated by not being punished in a non cruel or unusual way.

We must after all ensure his rights are upheld.

Bend over Psam.

[Psam]

Observer,

Excellent rebuttal. I appreciate the thought You have put into it. Thank You.

The definitions suffer from overthinking them and trying to twist the actual meaning into something Psam believes supports his quest to establish his own law.

The "war" definition is indicative of that. Sometimes war is waged for any number of other reasons than the belief that the enemy nation's way of making laws is morally wrong. I doubt that Genghis Khan waged war on half the world simply because he was upset with their set of laws.

Here is the definition that this is in reference to.

War - the use of force by states in circumstances where one state believes that the method used by the other state to write and adjudicate its laws allows its members to act in ways that are morally unacceptable and so uses forcible means to attempt to deprive the members of the other state of their individual sovereignty, which is then defended with force by the other state

Wikipedia claims that Genghis Khan "practiced meritocracy and encouraged religious tolerance in the Mongol Empire". I'm not sure as to the validity of this but I believe that meritocracy is consistent with another definition in the glossary I posted:

Labour sovereignty - the belief that it is morally justifiable to impose a method of writing and adjudicating laws upon a person or society whose preferred method does not provide stronger influence over the writing and adjudicating of laws to the members of society who work harder

So it seems quite plausible that Khan's war was, at least in part, waged because of ideological principles based on his opponents' regimes not providing political or social empowerment to People who have contributed to their society through the "merits" (hence "meritocracy") of their efforts and abilities. Perhaps most regimes at the time provided status and power to people based on their lineage and offering no opportunity for People of "lesser" lineage to merit any gain of status in society.

Sure, there may be regimes that have existed that made no effort whatsoever to justify their presumption of lawful authority over residents of the land that they claimed sovereignty on, but Khan seems to have at least purported to have had some justification for his authority, whether merited in his actions or not. The cruel treatment of Khan's family during his upbringing certainly would provide some incentive for Him to see the reigning powers at the time as being oppressive and lacking in principles of some sort. There might be further principles not recognized in history.

However, if I have "twisted meanings" in the definitions I wrote, I am certainly open to seeing dictionary definitions of the words I used and seeing how inconsistent they might be with the glossary I wrote up. Certainly the definitions that I meant to place the most importance on are these ones:

Sovereignty - the condition where there is no justifiable reason for any other party to claim authority to overwhelm a person's or a society's choice of method by which to write and adjudicate laws

Responsible sovereignty - the ability to ascertain that a method of writing and adjudicating laws is complete and concise

Irresponsible sovereignty - refusal upon request to entertain the possibility that one's method of writing and adjudicating laws is not entirely complete or concise

Conscientious consent - an expression of willingness to accept a method of writing and adjudicating laws by which to have one's conduct constrained

Tacit consent - implicit agreement to the rule of law without explicitly specifying consent to a method of writing and adjudicating laws and therefore being ascribed a method commonly used in a lawful society

Here is Merriam-Webster's definition of sovereignty: a country's independent authority and the right to govern itself

Clearly this definition implies that residents who live in a country and yet do not consent to be governed by whatever "independent authority" deemed itself to have the "right to govern" may possibly be unreasonable to deny their consent. I believe this implies that the "independent authority" believes that there is justifiable reason "to claim authority to overwhelm a person's or a society's choice of method by which to write and adjudicate laws", if there are any People in that land who prefer a different method than the one exercised by the "independent authority". I don't see any inconsistency then between Merriam-Webster's definition of sovereignty and mine, just a difference in extent of clarification.

The Supreme Court of Canada claimed in the Reference re Secession of Quebec that "the consent of the governed is a value that is basic to our understanding of a free and democratic society".

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-c ... 3/index.do paragraph 67

If consent is a part of the Supreme Court's interpretation of constitutional principles that form the alleged supreme law of Canada, and the Supreme Court's interpretation is described in the Constitution as being the definitive word on how that law is to be applied, then doesn't this mean that denial by an individual of consent to be governed is actually an important matter under the law?

So I'm interested in seeing the definitions of the words "consent", "conscientious", and "tacit" that You can find to show that I have twisted meanings to ponder the implications of the Supreme Court's constitutional judgments.

[Psam]

Here's one other point that You made, Observer.

As far as a "moral" right to no longer be governed, that is a subjective issue

First of all, nowhere in my glossary do I claim that there is any moral justification for a person to "no longer be governed". I only claim that there may be justification for being allowed to choose a different complete and concise method for one's laws to be written and adjudicated from the one commonly used in a land.

As far as the subjectivity of the moral justification to impose governance upon a person, it would seem that the Supreme Court of Canada believes that it is morally imperative to attempt to reduce the subjective nature of this justification to the extent possible. Here is another quote from the Supreme Court's ruling on the Reference re Secession of Quebec:

"Our law's claim to legitimacy also rests on an appeal to moral values, many of which are imbedded in our constitutional structure."

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-c ... 3/index.do paragraph 67

[The Observer]

Here is the definition that this is in reference to.

You have missed the point. Your definition is too absolute; it does not take into account the myriad reasons for why a war was launched. The cause of most wars had little to do with the aggressor country being unhappy with the types of laws the defending country had passed, especially if they were laws that impacted only their own citizens.

So it seems quite plausible that Khan's war was, at least in part, waged because of ideological principles based on his opponents' regimes not providing political or social empowerment to People who have contributed to their society through the "merits" (hence "meritocracy") of their efforts and abilities.

No, I think if you really studied the Mongol wars, you would see that the motivation was that Ghengis just wanted to rule a lot of people, regardless of what kinds of laws had been passed by the conquered nations

First of all, nowhere in my glossary do I claim that there is any moral justification for a person to "no longer be governed". I only claim that there may be justification for being allowed to choose a different complete and concise method for one's laws to be written and adjudicated from the one commonly used in a land.

No, you asked what might give a person the moral right to be no longer governed by their government. I see no difference in that phrasing and this latter statement. If a person is acting to choose a different way to enact laws than what the current government is doing, they are effectively trying to remove themselves from being governed by said government - especially if they are doing it without the government's consent. The fact that you opened up this current topic with the reliance on morality suggests that you think that this is the fig leaf that is going to allow people to unilaterally remove themselves from the authority of the government. However, you are going to find that governments are not going to fall for that, and the courts will simply find any person using this argument as guilty and toss them into the slammer.

[LordEd]

One set of laws, not two. Two sets makes inequality.

Both of us drive too fast on the same street, both get a speeding ticket. Except maybe you decided that law doesn't apply to you.

No Psam, you aren't special. You can't have a temper tantrum and tell everyone it's not fair because you don't like it.

There is no moral reason for you to arbitrarily have special privileges over others.

[LordEd]

I see you were fired Psam.
http://issociety.org/statement-from-new ... sentative/

I also see that the new leader isn't afraid to state the membership count of 33 members like you were.

[Burnaby49]

And, in an ironic twist, the previous Prime Representative wants to have Psam face the fake courts the society he founded pretends to have set up;

http://issociety.org/the-previous-prime ... rinciples/

Seems like an organization consumed by internal squabbles. The above notice, posted in January, says that Psam won the vote for Prime Representative this year yet the posting that LordEd linked to was written by someone called Darren Childs who stated that he is the new Prime Representative. At least with 33 members it won't be a big deal getting them all together at a plenum session to haggle it all out. Somebody's basement would do.

It's probably all linked to this pdf of December 2015;

http://issociety.org/wp-content/uploads ... equest.pdf

Where a Rick Drurie wanted to form a Judicial Panel to hold a hearing on how Psalm plans to starve himself;

(3) The allegation I am making is that Psam’s stated intention to conduct a hunger strike violates the principle of Cycle of Wellness, one of our laws stated in our Summation of Principles. I believe that even stating this intention causes emotional harm to our members. I do not deny that Psam’s claim, that holding these intentions may improve his emotional wellness, may possibly be valid. However, I believe that the harm done to others by these intentions is greater than the harm done to him by finding alternative methods to advance his convictions other than by making such distressing statements.

I have to say that they must be an emotionally fragile bunch if Psam's bullshit promise to die a death by maple syrup causes them emotional distress. They needn't get too concerned. I reported on Psam's promise to kill himself almost two years ago. He'd scheduled it for the summer of last year, fall at the latest. Yet here he is, still blovating on Quatloos.

[The Observer]

I have to say that they must be an emotionally fragile bunch if Psam's bullshit promise to die a death by maple syrup causes them emotional distress. They needn't get too concerned.

It certainly sounds as though this call for a judicial panel is based on the fact that ISS does not believe that Psam has the right to unilaterally off himself under his own laws. It almost sounds as if they declared war on Psam because he has enacted a law that ISS finds morally repugnant.

[LordEd]

Was bored with the other Menard drama and decided to see if old Psam was doing anything. By luck (or misfortune) he posted on the iss website a few days ago; the first post since July. Seems (pseems) he wants a lawyer for his section 3 rights.

In short, he equates his experience with a room of voters to be equal to a full country, and wants his taxes paid to his own organization.

He doesn't however mention he also should have constant non-cruel or unusual punishment so remains inconsistent in his Constitutional beliefs. For that, he should seek the service of a dominatrix.

For the readers punishment of the day, I present his letter:

http://issociety.org/wp-content/uploads ... awyers.pdf

Samuel Michael's Frank
#204 - 2222 Cambridge St
Vancouver, BC
V5L 1E6
phone: 604-765-1496
email: psamfrank@gmail.com
Notice to Canadian lawyers
http://lawyers.findlaw.ca/human-rights/ ... vancouver/
I am seeking legal representation in commencing precedent setting proceedings
against the Crown regarding section 3 Charter rights.
To convey my case, I must start by describing an interactive electoral system
(IES). This is a method of electing a representative 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. There is no deadline or end date. It is an
ongoing electoral process. "The right to vote in an election of members of a
legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein", as guaranteed
in section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is available to be
exercised at any time, instead of only periodically. There are more details to
describe the system, but the ability to change the vote at any time is the
fundamental point of it.
When I first devised this system, I made several calculations to compare it to the
practice of periodic elections. In ten years of experience now with IES, as a voter
and on occasion an elected representative, in several different contexts, I have
found all observations to be consistent with these calculations. These include:
• greater stability in terms of composition of elected legislative assembly
• more expedient decision making process overall
• higher proportional voter satisfaction with decisions made by the elected
legislative assembly
• less vehement antagonism from dissenters to decisions made by the
elected legislative assembly
• more cost effectiveness in implementation and maintenance of the
electoral system
• section 3 Charter rights are available to be exercised at any time instead of
only periodically
• effective demonstration that denial of section 3 Charter rights for periods of
time can not be justified as a reasonable limit in a free and democratic
society
Based on sections 1, 3, 24, and 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, I would like to
seek the courts' constitutional enforcement of my section 3 Charter rights by
having all taxes paid by me forwarded to the society of which I am a member that
uses an interactive electoral system to choose its representatives, the Interactive
Sovereign Society. I clearly understand and would unequivocally agree that if the
Crown enacts a legislative assembly under the authority of Her Majesty the
Queen that does not periodically prohibit section 3 Charter rights, then my taxes
could be diverted there instead of to a society alleging its own sovereignty. The
Governor General has already been contacted by registered mail with a
suggestion and a written Constitution that would accomplish exactly that.
I pursued this matter under my own representation in BC Supreme Court in 2014.
The Crown applied to have my petition dismissed. The application was heard in
front of Master Peter Keighley in New Westminster on October 17, and His
Honour granted the Crown's request. The judge did state that my case could be
reframed with the possibility of success and strongly encouraged me to seek
legal representation before doing so to avoid being charged costs that might end
up being prohibitive. I am indeed far from wealthy.
I have since then continued my research on decisions in Canadian courts
regarding interpretations of section 3 of the Charter and I have become
extensively familiar with the use of section 1 of the Charter in the determination
of "reasonable limits" that "can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic
society", in general as well as regarding the specifics pertaining to my case. The
decisions I have found to be most relevant are Reference re Secession of
Quebec, Sauvé v Canada, Figueroa v Canada, and Harper v Canada. I find all of
the text in these decisions to indicate that the remedy I am seeking to the denial
of my section 3 Charter rights is consistent with the courts' interpretations of s. 3.
I found the most information about relevant democratic and constitutional
principles in the Quebec Reference. I have written an extensive description of
quotes from this decision which offers further insight into the validity of my case. I
also have found several quotes from the other decisions:
• " In a democracy, sovereign power resides in the people as a whole and
each citizen must have a genuine opportunity to take part in the
governance of the country through participation in the selection of elected
representatives." - Figueroa
• "While on its face, s. 3 grants only a right to vote and to run for office in
elections, Charter analysis requires looking beyond the words of the
section and adopting a broad and purposive approach. The purpose of
s. 3 is effective representation. Section 3 should be understood with
reference to the right of each citizen to play a meaningful role in the
electoral process, rather than the election of a particular form of
government." - Figueroa
• " The framers of the Charter signaled the special importance of this right
not only by its broad, untrammeled language, but by exempting it from
legislative override under s. 33 's notwithstanding clause." - Sauvé
• " Denial of the right to vote on the basis of attributed moral unworthiness is
inconsistent with the respect for the dignity of every person that lies at the
heart of Canadian democracy and the Charter . It also runs counter to the
plain words of s. 3 of the Charter , its exclusion from the s. 33 override,
and the idea that laws command obedience because they are made by
those whose conduct they govern." - Sauvé
Pursuing these proceedings is what I have devoted my life to for six years now,
and I intend to see it through. Nothing will deter me from this goal. I have a
conviction that the success of these proceedings will draw public attention to
principles such as accountability, individual freedoms and choices, and effects of
enfranchisement upon the respect between members of society. I believe that the
impact of these principles in public awareness will cause a substantial
improvement to the integrity of relations between members of societies
everywhere that give any focus to this innovation in democracy, particularly in the
ability of people with polarized opposite opinions to handle their disagreements
with respect and dignity.
I greatly appreciate your willingness to learn of my efforts and I would very much
wish to discuss the possibility of procuring your assistance. Please feel free to
contact me at 604-765-1496 at any time or respond to this notice. I am grateful
for the time you have taken to read this and I am eager to hear back from you.
Sincerely,
______________________________________________________
Sam Frank

[notorial dissent]

I can't decide if Psammy never really learned to read, has serious comprehension problems, or is just several cards shy a deck. In the first place Canada IS NOT a democracy, it is a monarchal commonwealth/parliamentary democracy, so he strikes out there. Second, his cosplay voting system has no basis in reality or law, and I really do not see on what basis didn't tell him his action was a steaming pile with no hope of success.

Maybe that famous all knowing constitutional lawyer up north who keeps losing spectacularly will take his case and cost him some serious costs.

[Burnaby49]

Well he's picked a propitious time to renew his campaign. Canada currently has a "first past the post" electoral process where whichever candidate gets the most votes wins even without a majority. In the last election the Liberals won 184 of 338 seats in Parliament (54%) while getting 40% of the votes. The most out of balance parties were the New Democratic Party which got 20% of the votes but only 13% of the seats and the Green party with 3.4% of the votes but only 0.3% of seats (1 seat). On a proportional basis the Greens would have won 11 seats.

Justin Trudeau, our prime minister, promised during the 2015 federal campaign that it would be the last federal election based on this system and that by the next election it would be replaced by one which more accurately reflecting the voters wishes. While Justin promised to end our current system he did not give details during the election of what a new system would entail except to say that whatever was chosen would be based on a national referendum. So Psam's system has it's chance. We've had first past the post since confederation but now any system, no matter how loony, has the opportunity to present itself to the public and, maybe, get onto the referendum slate.

The only real steps taken to date have been a commission which really said nothing and an a much mocked national on-line questionnaire put out by the government.

https://www.mydemocracy.ca/

However it puts "propositions" like these that really don't seem related to any voting system. You get a range of strongly agree to strongly disagree.

A party that wins the most seats in an election should still have to compromise with other parties, even if it means reconsidering some of its policies.

A party that wins the most seats in an election should still have to compromise with other parties, even if it means reconsidering some of its policies.

Canadians should have the option to cast their ballot online in federal elections, even if this increases the cost of elections.

There should be greater diversity of views in Parliament.

This questionnaire is another opportunity for Psam to get his opinion in since you can fill it out as may times as you want! Just like the major change proposed by his "interactive electoral system". So the government, at least in this one respect, has adopted Psam's idea.

Even you Americans can join in and influence our electoral process! The questionnaire takes no personal information and does not record IP addresses. So anyone can participate.

[notorial dissent]

But again, we're back to the irritating fact, at least for Psammy, that he can't find enough like minded crazy people to even get a micro percentage vote in a local election. He can't sell it and can't give it away, and in fact no one is really paying attention to him except those of us who like to laugh at the village idiot. I do think the PN should be sanctioned for not telling him he was wasting everyone's time and to go get another hobby. I can't imagine that any way he reformats his hooey or how many lawyers he gets that it is going to ever get anything but dismissed.

[Burnaby49]

I recently thought I'd check up on Psam and see how he's doing. His main outlet to the world is FaceBook so I checked his account. Sadly he's not a happy camper. In fact he seems increasingly angry and bitter about how things have turned out for him. How, after all of his years of dedication to perfecting his voting system, the world has totally ignored it.

First, before I go into his recent Face Book I'm going to have to discuss politics, both federal and provincial because Psam has spent his adult life trying to devise a voting system that allows anyone to vote anytime at both voting levels.

This is the problem as Psam sees it. We vote for a government once every four or five years. Psam is happy at that moment in time when we vote but the period in between elections is the issue that obsesses him. Take our current federal government. The Liberal Party was voted into government on a majority which means that the opposition parties and the people are helpless to stop the Liberals from doing whatever they want until they are forced to call another election in three years or so. As far as Psam is concerned that makes Canada a totalitarian dictatorial nightmare and Canadian democracy is nothing but a sham. We're no better off than the most oppressive African strongman state. He's devised a system which, in his view, represents true democracy. Any registered voter can vote whenever he wants. You wake up at 3AM to take a leak (to take a Burnaby49 example) and feel like voting? Go for it. And at 5AM when you're up again for another visit vote again! Any elected representative can wake up any morning to find he's out of a job thanks to Burnaby49's elderly prostate. True democracy!

And in 2015 Psam had a golden opportunity. Both the Canadian federal government and the provincial governments have a 'first past the post' system where the candidate with the most votes in any riding gets the job and the losing votes are essentially wasted. One of the campaign promises of the Liberals was to end that, at least at the federal level and change to a more equitable system where all votes somehow counted. They actually promised that the 2015 elections would be the last federal election using first past the post method. A traveling commission was set up to hold hearings to find out the will of the people regarding a new voting system. Finally Psam's big chance to promote his system and convince the Canadian populace of its merits. It must have been a euphoric period for him. As I said in an earlier posting here;

Justin Trudeau, our prime minister, promised during the 2015 federal campaign that it would be the last federal election based on this system and that by the next election it would be replaced by one which more accurately reflecting the voters wishes. While Justin promised to end our current system he did not give details during the election of what a new system would entail except to say that whatever was chosen would be based on a national referendum. So Psam's system has it's chance. We've had first past the post since confederation but now any system, no matter how loony, has the opportunity to present itself to the public and, maybe, get onto the referendum slate.

But then crass politics raised it's ugly head. It turned out the Liberals had an agenda. They wanted to change to a specific voting system which favoured their party. When they found out that the majority of Canadians opposed that system and wanted one that didn't give the Liberals an advantage they suddenly lost their enthusiasm for electoral reform and decided that it wasn't really a priority after all. So they scrapped the promised referendum and deep-sixed the entire issue. And Psam's dream died yet again.

Here in British Columbia we've just had a provincial election. After sixteen years the Liberals (no connection to the federal Liberals), led by Chrissie Clark, have been kicked out and the New Democratic Party, headed by our new premier John Horgan, has taken over.

So what are Psam's views on all this? What deep insightful political analysis has he offered up in response to our current electoral situation? I offer you first his opinion on our prime minister Justin Trudeau (note the spelling of the last name) as given in his FaceBook page;

Justin Turdeau is a fucking worthless maggot

Okay . . . . . What about his opinion on British Columbia's new premier?

Don't worry. Some day John Horgan will have a heart attack and die and the world will be a better place. What a piece of shit.

A sentence that has the name John Horgan in it but doesn't include the word fuck is an obscenity.

So he's not happy with Horgan, What about our defeated ex-premier?

Yay! BC doesn't have a maggot for premier anymore! Now instead we have a sack of shit.

Allakazoola menchikaroola bibbitybobbityboo
Put 'em together and whadavya got?
Horgan, Clark and Weaver are worthless maggots

Weaver is the head of the Green Party.

So let's move from specific personalities to his analysis of politicians as a general group;

Comparing two politicians who ran against each other in an election is like comparatively taking bites of cat shit and dog shit.

I saw this posted by someone:

"As a public policy and political consultant, I am careful to only opine on those things in which I believe myself to have an expertise, and can add value. Therefore, I have free advice to all of those commenting on the current situation in BC. Reading a series of opinions expressed in 140 characters or less does NOT make you an expert worthy of opining on the subject. It does, however, make you highly entertaining."

It's true. Just because you think you know what the red, orange, and green maggots are doing in Victoria doesn't mean you know the chemical composition of the slime they're covered in.

Oops, I just assumed I knew they were slime covered maggots and I'm hardly an expert.

Oh that's right I'm just a voter. What do I know when I and my fellow citizens are getting fucked over hard by a bunch of red, orange, and green maggots?

Liberals are the red and the NDP are Orange. I'll let you figure out what colour the Green Party uses.

Just heard Carole James on the radio. Had forgotten what a filthy piece of garbage she is.

Carole James is a former head of the NDP party.

Psam seems a touch bitter about how things have worked out for him. But there's hope for Psam! Not of getting his voting system implimented or even the hope that anyone but me will pay the slightest attention to him. But the sweet, sweet oblivion of death beckons! His latest FaceBook posting says;

This is literally my life.

If the courts disagree with the reasoning in this then I will literally wish my life to cease.

I live for this to be heard by the courts.

But, to be completely frank, I have doubts about his sincerity. He's already gone to the well to many times on that one. 'This', referred to above, is one of his endless streams of documents demanding that the courts finally shape up and either force Canada to accept his voting system or cough up an order exempting him from Canada's laws. Apparently in Psam's world no law has any force against him unless he is personally allowed to approve or veto it before it becomes effective. The only laws that he acknowledges as being applicable to him are the ones passed by ISS, his own little private government.

The problem is that this was exactly the issue he took to court way back in 2014 and I reported at the beginning of this discussion. The judge was polite to Psam but dismissed his application as being hopeless and having absolutely no basis in actual law.

As a result Psam publicly declared that he was going on a hunger strike starting July 1, 2015 and it would only end with his death unless he got his way. You can read his suicide note here;

http://issociety.org/wp-content/uploads ... Strike.pdf

My hunger strike begins on July 1. For the first month, I intend to use maple syrup for sustenance, and drink plenty of water, as well as some juiced vegetables and a couple of sources of fibre to clean my system out. It will basically be more like a cleanse than a hunger strike. On August 1, I will begin rationing out the maple syrup to several tablespoons a day, gradually reducing this amount day by day. By September, I will have reduced the amount of maple syrup to none, and I will subsist entirely on water alone.! !

This is probably difficult to understand, but if I have to spend the rest of my life being governed by politicians chosen once every four years, then I do not wish to live the rest of my life. I have spent a great deal of time now, since my last hunger strike five years ago, seriously considering whether to make this choice, and I have decided it is time to make it. I have done everything at my disposal to have my laws made the way I wish them to be made, in a way that is fair and respectful, and I have been ignored and mocked by the vast majority of People to whom I have expressed this desire. While I have the utmost gratitude for the People who have allowed Me to experience the interactive electoral system even in the small context where it has been used, my dissatisfaction with the inability of People in general to rise above their indoctrination has left Me with the belief that my wishes for my life will be idly overridden by the vast majority of People in Canada.! !

I have prepared my will. I leave everything that is mine to the Interactive Sovereign Society. If I do not survive my hunger strike, I am at peace with that. I have had many different experiences in my life, always searching for the right way to live. Now after all of those experiences, I believe I have found the right way that I wish to live. If I will not be allowed to live that way, then I am content that the experiences I have had are enough to have made a life out of.!

And this was at least his second threatened 'to the death' hunger strike. Yet, somehow, he's still here with us.

[The Observer]

nd this was at least his second threatened 'to the death' hunger strike. Yet, somehow, he's still here with us.

He obviously took lessons from Gene "Togadude" Chapman on how to to do a death fast.

[notorial dissent]

Don't forget the "and him" to go with his voting system.

Strange, I wasn't aware that Canada was a Democracy, I've always been under the assumption, mistaken apparently, that like us and the UK you were a Representative Democracy, well I guess you lives and you learns, or have I got that all wrong?

I can understand the middle of the night urge to vote someone out of office, I have that often, but who then replaces them?

I'd say at a guess that poor Psammy is not enchanted with politics UNLESS he is directly involved in it.

You forgot the "or reality" part to go with "in actual law" which pretty much says it all.

I wonder if Psammy and holds his breath and kicks his feet when he goes on a hunger strike temper tantrum. I mean talk about a petulant two year old. Question, how do you go on a hunger strike f you're going to be sucking down maple syrup??? I mean just askin'?

It sounds like he throws an awful lot of tantrums doesn't it? Parents, really???

Observer, I was just thinking about old white as a sheet as well, and I would say the results were pretty much on par, I wonder if he also gained weight like TD did?