Psam Frank - Sovereign with his own laws and court

[Philistine]

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

Constitutional Monarchy.
That's wots got psammy's knickers in a twist.
We're under the Queen's thumb.

[The Observer]

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?

Well, that could only be proved by "before-and-after" pictures. In Chapman's case, (1) I could never tell that there was any loss of weight, and (2) it took many hours of a psychologist's intervention after I viewed the pictures before I could be returned to society as a functioning person again. So please excuse me if I don't repeat the experiment.

[notorial dissent]

Braver soul than I, some things just can't be unseen.

[LordEd]

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

Based on the events, orange.

Yeah I know, no politics...

[Pottapaug1938]

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

Based on the events, orange.

Yeah I know, no politics...

The Tories, I believe, use blue.

I find that interesting, because I have a fragment of a letter, written to my great-grandmother by a Canadian cousin, talking about the election of the day, and saying that the Grits used blue and the Tories used red.

[Burnaby49]

Finally, it's Psam's big chance! We have a unique, never to be repeated moment in British Columbia political history that is almost scripted for Psalm to come to the forefront and lead us to a new world of totally fair and representative voting. But I'm going to have to go into details on our recent provincial election and it's consequences to explain how Psam can triumph.

All of the Canadian provinces have governments organized on parliamentary principles essentially the same as the federal government. We have an equivalent to the federal parliament called the British Columbia Legislative Assembly. The head of the British Columbia government is the premier. We don't vote directly for the premier like Americans vote for their president. We vote only for whomever is running in our local riding. Whichever party gets the most seats in the Legislature forms the government and the party leader, chosen by party members rather than the voting populace, becomes premier.

British Columbia has only three political parties with any chance of getting any seats in the legislature, the Liberals, the New Democratic Party, and the Green Party. In the past the Greens have had elected, at best, one seat in the legislature. The Liberals were, until very recently, in power for sixteen years with majority governments. Majority governments are almost guaranteed provincially since we essentially have only two parties, the Liberals and NDP, that get a significant number of seats.

There are 87 seats in the provincial legislature and, going into the recent provincial election in May the Liberals had 47 seats, the NDP 35 seats and the Greens 1 seat. This doesn't add up to 87 because of vacancies and new seats this election. After the vote was in the seat totals were 43 for the Liberals, 41 for the NPD, and 3 for the Greens. This was actually an historic election for a number of reasons. It was British Columbia's first minority government since 1952, essentially my lifetime, and it was the first election anywhere in Canada where the Greens got more than one seat. However while they got only 3 seats they had actually received 17% of the popular vote. This would have entitled them to 15 seats on a representation by population basis. As I'll explain in a moment this disparity is fuelling Psam's chances.

For the first time in Canada's electoral history the Greens held the balance of power. They could support the Liberal government and keep it in power or side with the NDP and bring the government down through a no confidence vote. This is a no confidence vote.

Canada

In federal politics, a vote of no confidence takes down the government, and votes of no confidence may be asserted automatically if the House of Commons rejects the government's budget. Provincial governments may also fall if a motion of no confidence is passed by the legislature or if the legislature fails to pass a confidence measure (e.g. the provincial budget).

Budget votes are always non confidence votes. The federal government fell in 2011 as a result of losing the budget vote and had to call a general election. This is a critical difference from the American system where a government stands until the end of its term regardless of its popularity or wishes of the non-ruling parties. If a government loses a non confidence vote it automatically falls and we either have another election or another party takes over and forms the government. The choice of which path to take is the decision of the Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia. The LG is an appointed official tasked with the role of representing the Queen in British Columbia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieutenan ... h_Columbia

Generally this just means a tiresome grind of ribbon cutting and pointless dreary speeches;

The viceroy is also expected to undertake various ceremonial roles. The lieutenant governor, him or herself a member and Chancellor of the order,[3] will induct deserving individuals into the Order of British Columbia and, upon installation, automatically becomes a Knight or Dame of Justice and the Vice-Prior in British Columbia of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem.[4] The viceroy further presents other provincial honours and decorations, as well as various awards that are named for and presented by the lieutenant governor; these are generally created in partnership with another government or charitable organization and linked specifically to their cause.[5] These honours are presented at official ceremonies, which count amongst hundreds of other engagements the lieutenant governor partakes in each year, either as host or guest of honour; the Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia undertook 350 engagements in 2006 and 390 in 2007.[6]

However there is one role the Lieutenant Governor fills, one that has been very rarely called upon in British Columbia but which was absolutely critical in this election cycle. As I wrote above;

If a government loses a non confidence vote it falls and we either have another election or another party takes over and forms the government. The choice of which path to take is the decision of the Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia.

The Lieutenant Government can chose not to call an election after a non confidence vote but instead pass power to another party if the LG thinks that the other party has a chance of effectively ruling.

So, having set the background, on to current events. The NDP and the Greens banded together in a shaky coalition to defeat the Liberals. They had their chance almost immediately because a budget vote came up very shortly after the election. The coalition defeated the budget and the government fell. Another historic first. This was the first time in the history of British Columbia that a government has lost a non confidence vote. So our defeated premier Chrissie Clark went to the Lieutenant Governor and petitioned strongly to have another election. Instead the LG chose to let the coalition have a chance so the NDP/Green cabal is now our new provincial government.

Now another quirk of parliamentary government comes into play. The government in power must chose a speaker for the Legislative Assembly. The speaker has to be a sitting member of the Assembly and can't vote except in the case of a tie. So we now stand as;

Liberals - 43 seats
Coalition less speaker - 43 seats
Speaker - 1 seat.

So if one member of the coalition misses one vote for any legislation and the Liberals have full attendance the vote will fail. That's why I noted that we had a 'shaky coalition'. They could also easily fall on the budget vote they are now required to pass. This will demonstrate that they can't govern and will force another election.

I know, I know, you're asking yourself what the hell does this trivia have to do with Psam and his voting system?

Everything;

No political priority looms larger for the B.C. Greens than reforming the electoral system to establish proportional representation and improve their chances of winning seats in the legislature.

The commitment is foremost in the power-sharing agreement they struck with the New Democrats for obvious reasons.

In May, the Greens won 17 per cent of the vote but only three seats. With a system that allocated representation in proportion to the share of the vote, they would have 15 seats.

http://vancouversun.com/opinion/columni ... -than-done


Changing the electoral system to one that is more representative of the popular vote is a life or death issue for the Green Party so if the NDP don't cooperate the Greens will withdraw their support for the NDP and the NDP government will fall necessitating an election. Current polling shows the Liberals winning a new election. So this is now a priority for the NDP too. But, critically, the deal doesn't include a demand by the Greens for a specific electoral system. Any will do as long as it gives them a more balanced seat to popular vote ratio;

Still, Green Leader Andrew Weaver is not lobbying for any particular system, so long as the replacement meets the test of proportionality.

“I honestly have no preference, and the B.C. Green party has no formal preference,” he told me last week on Voice of B.C. on Shaw TV, before acknowledging the limitations of some of the options.

So this leaves the door wide open for Psam to walk in and persuade the people of British Columbia on the merits of his system. It's a unique once in a lifetime opportunity. He's spent his adult life refining his electoral system into a viable way to elect a government and it's now put up or shut up time. And he already has an advantage because of the past history of alternate systems in British Columbia.

In 2005 the provincial government, at great expense, set up a task force to review the options for a new, fairer system of electing representatives. They pondered mightily on my tax dollars searching for the fairest possible system and finally puked out a misbegotten abomination called the Single Transferable Vote system. In 2005 we had a referendum on whether we should change from our current first-past-the-post system to the STV and the STV lost. It's proponents forced yet another referendum in 2009 and that one lost by an even greater majority. Why? Because nobody had even the slightest fucking idea how it was supposed to work. Even it's supporters couldn't explain it. I mean that literally. I have a University degree and had two professional accounting designations but, even so, when we had the referendum and I read all of the information provided by the STV supporters I was totally befuddled as to how it supposedly worked. Supporters just couldn't explain how my vote actually affected anything or how it would be counted. All they provided was 'trust us' blue sky and sunshine platitudes about how fair it was. The system was so complex that the final decision of who won and who lost was to be determined by complex computer algorithms. The idea was to throw all the votes in the hopper and let the computer sort it out. So we just had to take it on trust that it was fair without having any idea about the most fundamental issue of democracy, how our votes actually determined which candidates were elected. As the article cited above says;

“The purists, as you know, love STV,” continued Weaver, referring to the single-transferable vote option that was twice put to referendum in B.C. and twice fell short of the legislated threshold for approval.

“I’m not sure British Columbians want to go and vote a third time for STV,” he said, citing the mathematical complexities of the system’s methods for counting votes and distributing seats.

“My philosophy on a system is if you can’t explain it to your grandmother, it ain’t a system that’s going to work in B.C.,” said the professor-politician with a doctorate in applied mathematics. “I don’t think I could explain it to you.”

And another preferred system, at least by the government in power, has little popular support;

He also gave short shrift to the system of preferential balloting that was touted then shelved by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

“Preferential balloting isn’t proportional representation,” said Weaver, with a nod to how the system can favour large parties over smaller ones no less than the status quo system of first-past-the-post.

Hollywood couldn't have scripted a more improbable backstory for a movie about a scrappy underdog. No party has stated a preference for which new voting system to chose. The issue will probably go to a refrendum. So the field's wide open. Go for it Psam!

[The Observer]

This is sad; despite your in-depth coverage of Psam and his political philosophy, you have failed to grasp exactly how Psam wanted his system to be approved and acknowledged, Burnaby. It is obvious even to a simple man as myself that Psam did not want to have to sell his system to the panicked career politicians in the middle of the night in some smoke-filled room. Psam has demonstrated that he has a sensitive side and that his meticulously devised electoral system needs to be recognized as a earth-shattering political development and the renaissance of Canadian politics. The only correct way to do this was for the courts to have ruled the current system to be unlawful, unconstitutional and ungodly. Psam gave them the chance to do exactly that and your haughty, clueless justices predictably relied on the knee-jerk decision-making process they always do: by stomping all over Psam's case. Instead of granting Psam the recognition and gratitude of the nation by acknowledging Psam as having moral superiority and the judicial insight that they lack, your justice system just steam-rolled over his idea and dream. And now you think that Psam is going to simply work his fingers to the bone 24/7 and give you feckless Canadarians another chance of accepting his peerless gift to society? You would only slap him in the face once again. So, Psam, if you are reading this, just remember that I understand fully why you refuse to share your grand plan of reformation with the ingrates and support you 100% in denying them the way to salvation.

[Burnaby49]

You're right, we don't deserve Psam and all the work he's done for us. We had our chance and squandered it. Psam quite rightly now ignores us in this time of need when everything is in flux.

[Gregg]

I have a question.

In England, I think that it is so that they have various constituencies which each send one member to the Commons. But, (like our House of Representatives, where they only have to live in the State) the Member need not actually live there to represent it. I also think, though I could be wrong, that if a leader of a given party loses his local election, another member of his party in another district can step aside to allow the leader to remain in Parliament, which I always thought was a curious rule.

Does Canada, or the Provinces have a rule like this?

[HardyW]

I have a question.

In England, I think that it is so that they have various constituencies which each send one member to the Commons. But, (like our House of Representatives, where they only have to live in the State) the Member need not actually live there to represent it. I also think, though I could be wrong, that if a leader of a given party loses his local election, another member of his party in another district can step aside to allow the leader to remain in Parliament, which I always thought was a curious rule.

Does Canada, or the Provinces have a rule like this?

I can't answer about Canada, but just to explain the situation you refer to in the British House of Commons, if any member lost their seat they couldn't act as leader. If any member steps down there will be a by-election ('special election' in US terms) so if a loyal party MP can be persuaded to step down, the defeated leader could then become the candidate in the resulting by-election. However the electorate in the constituency may not look favourably on being required to go to the polls to sort out the ruling party's mess.

see Wikipedia articles on Alec Douglas-Home and Patrick Gordon Walker for similar cases.

By the way an MP can have a home address anywhere in the UK. Again the voters may take a view on whether they want a local to represent them - but it did Tony Blair no harm to represent a North East England ex-mining community.

[LordEd]

if any member lost their seat they couldn't act as leader. If any member steps down there will be a by-election ('special election' in US terms) so if a loyal party MP can be persuaded to step down, the defeated leader could then become the candidate in the resulting by-election. However the electorate in the constituency may not look favourably on being required to go to the polls to sort out the ruling party's mess.

We had that happen in bc where the liberals won the election but the leader lost her seat. A by-election happened in a 'safe' riding and she got a new seat.

[Burnaby49]

Here in Canada, at least federally, a party leader does not have to be a member of parliament, in fact there are no statutory or constitutional rules at all about the position;

The Prime Minister of Canada (French: Premier ministre du Canada) is the primary minister of the Crown, chairman of the Cabinet, and thus head of government for Canada, charged with advising the Canadian monarch or federal viceroy on the exercise of the executive powers vested in them by the constitution.[2] Not outlined in any constitutional document, the office exists only as per long-established convention (originating in Canada's former colonial power, the United Kingdom) that stipulates the monarch's representative, the governor general, must select as prime minister the person most likely to command the confidence of the elected House of Commons; this individual is typically the leader of the political party that holds the largest number of seats in that chamber.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_Canada

As far as I'm aware the Prime Minister doesn't even have to be a Canadian or live here. Everything is by custom. Custom does dictate that a party head not sitting in parliament get a seat but it isn't required. In fact we had one Prime Minister who was not a member of parliament for his entire (brief) term as Prime Minster;

While there is no legal requirement for the prime minister to be a member of parliament, for practical and political reasons the prime minister is expected to win a seat very promptly.[10] However, in rare circumstances individuals who are not sitting members of the House of Commons have been appointed to the position of prime minister. Two former prime ministers—Sir John Joseph Caldwell Abbott and Sir Mackenzie Bowell—served in the 1890s while members of the Senate.[11] Both, in their roles as Government Leader in the Senate, succeeded prime ministers who had died in office—John A. Macdonald in 1891 and John Sparrow David Thompson in 1894. That convention has since evolved toward the appointment of an interim leader from the commons in such a scenario.

Prime ministers who are not Members of Parliament upon their appointment (or who lose their seats while in office) have since been expected to seek election to the commons as soon as possible. For example, William Lyon Mackenzie King, after losing his seat in the 1925 federal election (that his party won), briefly "governed from the hallway" before winning a by-election a few weeks later. Similarly, John Turner replaced Pierre Trudeau as leader of the Liberal Party in 1984 and subsequently was appointed prime minister while not holding a seat in the House of Commons; Turner won a riding in the next election but the Liberal Party was swept from power. Turner was the last serving prime minister to not hold a commons seat.

Gregg wrote;

I also think, though I could be wrong, that if a leader of a given party loses his local election, another member of his party in another district can step aside to allow the leader to remain in Parliament, which I always thought was a curious rule.

Yes and no. It isn't a rule, there are no rules, just custom. But yes, it is a custom that when a party head loses his seat in an election a junior member of parliament in a safe riding fall on his sword and resign his seat so that the party head can take it;

Should a serving prime minister today lose his or her seat in the legislature, or should a new prime minister be appointed without holding a seat, the typical process that follows is that a junior member in the governing political party will resign to allow the prime minister to run in the resulting by-election.[11] A safe seat is usually chosen; while the Liberal and Conservative parties traditionally observed a convention of not running a candidate against another party's new leader in the by-election, the New Democrats and smaller political parties typically do not follow the same convention. However, if the governing party selects a new leader shortly before an election is due, and that new leader is not a member of the legislature, he or she will normally await the upcoming election before running for a seat in parliament.

One comment in the Wikipedia article that I found amazing was this;

In a poll conducted by Ipsos-Reid following the first prorogation of the 40th parliament on December 4, 2008, it was found that 51% of the sample group thought the prime minister was directly elected by Canadians.[12][13]

Amazing because nobody in that sample group, or indeed anyone in the history of Canada, has ever voted to elect our national leader. The only people who have ever vote for the Prime Minister are the people in the whatever riding he ran in to be elected as a member of parliament, essentially equivalent to Americans voting for their congressman.

[Burnaby49]

And yet another quirky parliamentary rule. Note that in this case it is actually a rule;

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/australian ... -1.4209902

[Psam]

It's been two years since any discussion on this topic.

Kind of a nice break, thanks.

Here's a bit of an update on what's happened since then.

I took an LSAT and scored 160.

That's not quite enough to get me into the Allard Law School at UBC but it might be enough to get me in elsewhere.

Scoring enough to have a chance of making it into law school upon one's first attempt at taking the admission tests is, I've been informed by people in the legal profession, a display of a reasonable level of intelligence.

So let's disabuse ourselves of the notion that I'm an idiot, unless of course empirical evidence is considered to be a largely irrelevant sideline in discussions between members of this group. Hey, to each their own.

Now, before informing you of the other update I was going to bring here, I'll just bring us back up to date on where we're at.

When I was in court for the hearing that resulted in this discussion group being opened up to mock my convictions (http://issociety.org/wp-content/uploads ... Oct-17.pdf), Master Peter Keighley told me I needed two things for the possibility of successfully being given a remedy by courts in accordance with section 24 of the Constitution Act, 1982 for the denials of the constitution rights that I was presenting my grievances of:

1) I needed to reframe my arguments to address a specific operation of the law instead of presenting my claims in the abstract, and
2) I was strongly advised to seek the assistance of professional legal counsel, which I later discovered would, in this case, cost somewhere in the six figure range, according to a lawyer who heard the arguments and considered them to have some merit.

I have completed the first step: http://issociety.org/wp-content/uploads ... Quebec.pdf

Please feel free to refute the arguments made there.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Is an "refutation" really necessary? Orphan Red is a member of MENSA. She still thinks the Earth is flat.

[Arthur Rubin]

The petitioner wrote:

This document is public domain. Share freely. The author will use and advocate all available legal means to prosecute any attempt to profit financially from selling or exchanging any part of this work.

This shows a serious misunderstanding of copyright law. If it is public domain, there are no legal means to prevent one from "profit(ing) financially from selling or exchanging". He would need to have some sort of a "copyleft"-like agreement, possibly Creative Commons BY-NC, BY-NC-SA. or BY-NC-ND. I think I would use the latter, as misinterpretation already seems possible likely.

This is aside from any non-standard interpretation of the Charter.

[edited]. "Copyleft" seems to require that, not just reprinting, but derivative works are permitted, and must also be covered by the same licensing agreement. Hence, among Creative Commons licensing, only the -SA variants are considered "copyleft". Some would consider the -NC (non-commercial use only) not "copyleft", as well. I'm just trying to find a licensing agreement which matches what the petitioner seems to want.

[Psam]

“...will use all available legal means to do [X]” is not inaccurate because it does not go on to specify that there are no legal means to do X.

It seems you might be finding it difficult to refute the claims made in the main body of the document so you are taking the easier way out of refuting fine print that is not at all relevant to the grievances described in the text’s main body.

If I thought you had any constitutional expertise then that would certainly boost my confidence.

[Pottapaug1938]

I have completed the first step: http://issociety.org/wp-content/uploads ... Quebec.pdf

Please feel free to refute the arguments made there.

First of all, the fact that you scored 160 in the LSAT is not indicative of wisdom or legal perception -- both in law school and while practicing law, I met many people who had neither. Secondly, instead of using my valuable time to refute the assertions in your document, I offer you the famous quote from Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984) which stated:

"We perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent".

I would also refer you to Wnuck v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. 498 (U.S.T.C. 2011), which has an excellent compendium of reasons why it is pointless to try to refute papers like yours.

[Psam]

None of the reasons given by Wnuck are remotely similar to the grievances expressed in the document I posted.

I understand, though, that you believe that lawful protection for denial or infringement of constitutional rights is not something that people should be provided if they do not have the money to pay for that protection. Everyone has their own opinion, of course.

[Pottapaug1938]

None of the reasons given by Wnuck are remotely similar to the grievances expressed in the document I posted.

I understand, though, that you believe that lawful protection for denial or infringement of constitutional rights is not something that people should be provided if they do not have the money to pay for that protection. Everyone has their own opinion, of course.

I never said that they were. You are focused on the trees, and not the forest. Crain and Wnuck explain why neither I, not anyone else here, will spend time and money trying to refute your assertions.

You are also wrong in asserting that I "believe that lawful protection for denial or infringement of constitutional rights is not something that people should be provided if they do not have the money to pay for that protection". Quite the contrary -- I do. However, there has to be a genuine and palpable constitutional right which exists in the first place; and I've lived long enough to see a lot of dubious ones set forth. Down here, for example, I see many examples where people are trying to assert "sincerely held religious beliefs" as constitutional justifications for denying services to certain classes of people. From the 1879 case of Reynolds v. United States, 98 US 145, 166-67:

“Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.”