Psam Frank - Sovereign with his own laws and court

[Psam]

He interprets Part 1, Section 3 of the Constitution:

Democratic Rights

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.

To mean that we Canadians have the right to vote whenever we want for whomever we want. No limits. Want to vote ten times tomorrow? A hundred? A thousand? As far as Psam is concerned the constitution demands that you be allowed to.

If you’re so intent on denying that a broad and liberal interpretation of section 3 can be interpreted to say that these rights are denied for periods of time by the Crown as per section 24 of the Charter, then you must believe that demonstrably justifying the limit with a preponderance of evidence as per section 1 of the Charter would not necessarily be doable.

Do you disagree with the SCC when it says that section 1 is the exclusive limits that can be applied to other sections of the Constitution such as section 3? Would you prefer that this not be their policy?

[Psam]

Why not have a limit on the number of visits you can make to the post office every day too?

Oh but wait, there are no such limits there and yet nobody goes back ten times a day to gum up the post office’s facilities. Hmm, I wonder why you think they would if they had the ability to change their vote at any time that they wish.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Oh dear. We have another live one to reel in!

[Pottapaug1938]

Oh dear. We have another live one to reel in!

We've heard from him before; and he has come to grace us, again, with his content-free posts. He has been warned about continuing them.

[notorial dissent]

Psammy IS NOT live, he is canned, a simulacrum of intelligence, a recurring boring and pointless loop, a perfect example of the Einstein corollary. Otherwise, he just goes over and over and over the same sterile and infertile ground to no effect, except to further annoy the choir that already doesn't care.

[JamesVincent]

I would hazard a guess but doesn't Canadian law have a timeframe specifically spelled out for voting, like ours is first Tuesday of November every whatever years for whatever office happens to be being voted upon? Seem to recall Burnaby mentioning that before.

[Burnaby49]

Hi Psam! It’s been a while. I haven’t checked your Face Book page in quite a long time because it’s just been same old, same old, for years. My first posting on this discussion was my report about attending your October 18, 2014 Provincial court hearing where you tried, and failed abysmally, to get the court to issue an order to the provincial government stating that none of British Columbia’s laws applied to you because the provincial legislature hadn’t bothered to get your personal approval of them before enacting them. Apart from your arguments being shot down because they were totally idiotic your lawsuit failed because you named the wrong party as defendant. After sporadically following you for a few years this seemed symptomatic of your entire approach so I stopped paying attention.

But it’s been six years since that disaster and you’re quoting a Supreme Court of Canada decision so I thought that maybe you’d found a new, fresh approach that had at least some merit. And I was wrong again.

You appear to have at least learned that you have no hope in court as a self-represented plaintiff. That was obvious six years ago when the judge told you to go get a lawyer. However it's taken you a while to get down to it. You seem to have concluded that the British Columbia Law Society has an obligation to cough up a free lawyer for you for the asking, at least that’s the gist of what I get from your fifteen page letter to them which I admit I didn’t bother finishing. You do tend to go on and on. The core of your argument seems to be this;

The Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons (“the statement” herein), by the Canadian Judicial Council, states in the preamble that “judges, court administrators, members of the Bar, legal aid organizations, and government funding agencies each have responsibility to ensure that self-represented persons are provided with fair access and equal treatment by the court”. Then later in the statement, on page 9, it states that “[m]embers of the Bar are expected to participate in designing and delivering legal aid and pro bono representation to persons who would otherwise be self-represented, as well as other programs for short-term, partial and unbundled legal advice and assistance as may be deemed useful for the self-represented persons in the courts of which they are officers.” In the Pintea v Johns decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Court stated that it “endorse[s] the Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons (2006) (online) established by the Canadian Judicial Council”.

http://issociety.org/wp-content/uploads ... he-Bar.pdf

You claim that universal access to free lawyers has been ordered by the SCC in Pintea v Johns;

Pintea v Johns
2017 SCC 23
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-c ... 9/index.do

Take out the filler and this is the entire text of that decision;

[1] KARAKATSANIS J. — The common law of civil contempt requires that the respondents prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Pintea had actual knowledge of the Orders for the case management meetings he failed to attend.

[2] The case management judge failed to consider whether Mr. Pintea had actual knowledge of two of the three Orders upon which she based her decision. The respondents concede that the requirements of Rule 10.52(3)(a)(iii) of the Alberta Rules of Court, Alta. Reg. 124/2010, were not met with respect to these two Orders.

[3] As a result, the finding of contempt cannot stand.

[4] We would add that we endorse the Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons (2006) (online) established by the Canadian Judicial Council.

[5] The appeal is allowed, the action is restored and the costs award vacated.

Note that the court said that “we endorse” the Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons. All that means is that they think the statement is a good idea. Their endorsement is strictly their opinion of its merits, nothing more. Since it is not an order of the court it has no more legal weight than if they said they endorsed Harvey’s Char-Broiled burgers, a great burger that I had many times almost a half-century ago when I lived in Ottawa, the Supreme Court’s home.

So what is this statement that the SCC endorses?

Development:

The Canadian Judicial Council Administration of Justice Committee focused in 2006 on “ensuring that self-represented persons who appear in the court system have fair access and equal treatment in the courts.” (Annual Report at 4.)

After extensive work by the Committee, a statement of principles on self-represented persons was issued in December 2006. The Committee’s work began with a detailed examination of the issues facing self-represented persons in court. They concluded that self-represented persons are generally uninformed about their legal rights and about the consequences of the options they choose. They find court procedures complex, confusing, and intimidating and they generally do not have the knowledge to effectively participate in their own litigation (Annual Report at 4).

Description of Reforms

The Statement is is advisory, and is not a code of conduct.

The principles expressed by the CJC include:

We must promote rights of access to justice for those who represent themselves. This means that all aspects of the court process must be open, simple, and accommodating. The court process should be supplemented by alternate dispute resolution procedures and self-help support.

We must promote equal justice. Judges and courts should do everything possible to prevent unfair disadvantage to self-represented persons.

Judges and court administrators have a responsibility to meet the needs of self-represented litigants for simple information and referrals.

Self-represented litigants are expected to prepare their own case and make themselves familiar with court practices and procedures. They must be respectful of the court process and its officials. Vexatious litigants cannot abuse the process.

In conjunction with the statement of principles, other helpful working tools were developed to help judges assist people who represent themselves in court. These tools provide:

information for judges about the needs of self-represented litigants;

case law and annotations on issues that have impacted on those representing themselves in court;

advice and suggested plain language words to explain legal procedures to self-represented litigants in family, civil, and criminal cases; and

references for local resources for self-represented litigants (Annual Report at 5).

https://cfcj-fcjc.org/inventory-of-refo ... d-persons/

Note this statement right at the beginning;

Description of Reforms:

The Statement is advisory, and is not a code of conduct.

Meaning that it’s just an “in a perfect world wish list” of what the The Canadian Judicial Council Administration of Justice Committee hopes will one day come to pass if they just wish hard enough. It’s an aspiration goal which carries no legal weight and is as useful to you as if they’d instead endorsed world peace.

You are requiring the British Columbia Bar association to provide you with legal representation based on these two items, a comment by the Supreme Court of Canada which isn’t relevant to the actual decision (called an obiter in Canada) and has no legal weight whatever and a Christmas present request from a legal society. Since you are sending this to actual lawyers the recipients will know, as I do, that it is legally worthless and they can just ignore it. The Law society does have members doing pro bono representation but it's a very limited resource and they do a thorough review of the merits of a case before accepting it. Since your case has no merit whatever you've got a long wait.

So on to your new challenge to Burnaby49!

If you’re so intent on denying that a broad and liberal interpretation of section 3 can be interpreted to say that these rights are denied for periods of time by the Crown as per section 24 of the Charter, then you must believe that demonstrably justifying the limit with a preponderance of evidence as per section 1 of the Charter would not necessarily be doable.

Do you disagree with the SCC when it says that section 1 is the exclusive limits that can be applied to other sections of the Constitution such as section 3? Would you prefer that this not be their policy?

I’m not going to argue your positions with you. This issue seems to consume your entire life, you’d love to argue forever about it and even if I conclusively proved that you are wrong you're in too deep to accept it. You’ve pissed away too many years on this to suddenly accept that your cause is hopeless and you have no chance of succeeding.

In any case, as I’ve said before in other threads in different contexts it doesn’t matter in the slightest what I believe, what I agree or disagree with. I’m completely irrelevant to your goals. There are only two ways you can get your interactive voting system implemented and convincing me of the merits of your arguments isn’t one of them. It can be done either politically, through a change in the federal legislation that establishes our current system, or judicially through an order from the Supreme Court of Canada. So far you’ve failed abjectly in both of those venues and I don’t see that changing no matter how brilliant you think your legal arguments are. So prove me wrong.

[notorial dissent]

Executive summary, Psammy has had basically two options for implementing his view(s) of how the world ought to be run, 1) convince a sufficiency of the voting public that his grand plan is the bees knees and better than sliced bread with marmite and get it passed in to law, OR 2) convince the courts to foist/order it onto an unsuspecting, unwilling, and totally uninterested public, because well they just should. Surprisingly, he has failed, as Burnaby has gently and subtly pointed out, abysmally in both attempts. The voting public isn't in the least interested and would rather have multiple root canal procedures first, and the courts well you can guess the rest.

[wserra]

Pdamn, Psam, I'm really glad that you Pshowed up again. I've been thinking about something while you've been gone. The Declaration of Independence guarantees me "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". For me, in order to pursue happiness, I need a modest income ($100K per month should do it), a house in the Hamptons and a Mercedes SL550 convertible. Now, I've been trying to convince the PTBs here of the great handicap under which I suffer for not having these things, without success. But I've had to do that pro se, since I can't afford a lawyer either. Now you tell me that, in Canada, I could get a free lawyer to pursue my dreams. What a country! See you soon!

Oh, yeah, and dancing girls. Don't forget the dancing girls.

[Burnaby49]

You always have to take it too far don't you Wes? The dancing girls are on your own dime. As for the rest your dreams are no less attainable than Psams.

[Burnaby49]

I would hazard a guess but doesn't Canadian law have a timeframe specifically spelled out for voting, like ours is first Tuesday of November every whatever years for whatever office happens to be being voted upon? Seem to recall Burnaby mentioning that before.

I started responding to that last night but the answer is either surprisingly complex or I'm way to long winded. Probably a combination of both. In any case I got distracted by jackro, a troll who finally pissed me off past my very limited tolerance. By the time that was done it was past 2:30AM and bedtime. I've got most of the response done but busy day so I'll finish later this evening.

In a nutshell both the federal government of Canada and at least the province of British Columbia have fixed time limits established by law that are supposed to mandate fixed terms of office. However since they are essentially honour systems run by politicians they're as totally meaningless as me pledging publicly right here, right now, to never have another beer again. A promise I fully intend to honour until I feel like having another beer.

[noblepa]

IANAL, much less a Canadian one, but, even if lawyers were required to represent him for free, they are not allowed to walk into court and make nonsense arguments, even if that is the client's most ardent wish.

In fact, it is my understanding that lawyers in both Canada and the US are PROHIBITED from doing so, and, if they do it once too often, they can lose their license. More than one sovcit or tax denier has fired their lawyer for refusing to file absurd and legally unfounded motions.

[notorial dissent]

Don't forget the pony, it doesn't count if you don't ask for the pony along all the other stuff.

[Psam]

I can’t believe I let so much time pass between visits to this place. You people are so full of love and support for people who find the alleged Canadian government to be unsatisfactory to their conscience that I think more people should adopt that attitude so they can come here and feel all your good cheer. Thanks, from my bottom where I fart.

I do sense, though, that even though it’s been so long since I’ve been on here, you’re all getting bored of my interest in seeing citizens free to make choices uncoerced by deadlines and periods of being stuck with the lying cockroaches that end up writing their laws for them, so I thought perhaps instead of continuing to discuss my insane political convictions, you might like to make fun of my banjo playing for a while.

Have a listen to this song and let me know what you think. Oh and please, don’t insult my singing voice. I swear, that’ll be it, I’ll never come back here again. I’m very sensitive about these things.

I hope you all enjoy the birthday of that whackjob anti-establishment lunatic from a couple of thousand years ago. He may have been an idiot, but he sure did know how to tell people their government and marketplace were missing a conscience. Gotta love that, no matter how much of an idiot he was.

[Burnaby49]

Banjo, as far as I can tell from what gets through the pounding drums, is fine as is your singing voice. Can't say I think much of the lyrics though.

[Psam]

Pounding drums?!!! Why you little, why I oughta, why I’m gonna,...

But I guess it’s pretty clear you’re not a Led Zeppelin fan.

But seriously though, which line did you like more, “I hope John Horgan dies of cancer”, or “I hope Justin Trudeau does too”?

If one of those cockroaches ever does die of cancer, I’m gonna laaaaaugh

They actually deserve it, man. They really do. Filthy cockroaches.

[Burnaby49]

Psam, finding the quality of our responses to his brilliant legal arguments sadly lacking, has moved on to a more stimulating venue where he can discuss his issues with people who have actual in-depth legal expertise and a vast experience in intellectual debate. I’m of course referring to the constitutional experts at Practical Law dissent U.K Canada and Commonwealth where he got the ball rolling with this thought-provoking comment;

So far in this group, nothing has given me any reason to believe the government set up by the barons to replace the present existing government will be any sort of improvement. I’m willing to continue listening though.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/7543384 ... 484684072/

Puts me to shame, I stopped listening to Psam years ago. His comment immediately generated a vigorous debate with Psam finally getting responses from kindred spirits seeking the truth, whatever it may be, as long as it agreed with their pre-conceived positions. But all too soon Psam was silenced by an unimaginative bureaucracy promoting the party line;

A moderator turned off commenting for this post.

With this comment,

Mariete Lz
Off Topic - Group Rules are there for us to keep focus on Remedy. A61 mc1215 is the Remedy.
a61Magna Carta 1215 (Remedy)

This is a Learning Group and Focussed on the Remedy. Not the problems. e.g.: the problems = branches, and when you focus on the branches (problems), you get more branches = more problems. Dissenters use the Remedy (a61/Oath + Notices) and go for the Trunk = Government. And that is the Remedy for the branches (problems). Words from our Mentor David Robinson:

To ALL members;

An original post from David Robinson, it’s an old post where PLD have since moved away from using the terms rebel/rebellion.

It has come to my attention that a number of members are having difficulty in understanding why it is that I take advantage of the function in admin tools to turn off comments on posts. There are a number of reasons why I do this and none of them have anything to do with censorship or some surveillance purpose. You have my word on that.

One reason is of course that a satisfactory and easy to understand answer has been given and requires nothing further.

Members generally require answers from the admins or moderators who approve the post and not from the majority of the general population of members who do not know enough to give that satisfactory answer. Neither do they need to be bombarded with false or even deliberately misleading information from shills and infiltrators, of whom there are many.

If admins and mods do not do housekeeping, the threads get so full of comments of all types, the true answer becomes lost and the new member is none the wiser and learns nothing from the shear amount of contradictory information. It is their job to limit threads to the key points and guide the discussion or simply give a correct answer, then shut it down before it gets way too big.

Before I go on to the last but most important point, you need to understand why I have been an admin here for so long. I understood in its most simplest of terms what was expected of me under the law; my oath to disobey the Crown by ironically obeying the Crown, and the duties I have to all of you since removing my assumed allegiance from the Crown. It was and still is my uncompromising stance and for telling you what you need to hear regardless of how personally you take it.

The final and most brutal truth you have to get to grips with is the single truth that has allowed me to remain here while many other admins and moderators have came and went from Practical Lawful Dissent.

The Law does not care for any of our opinions. It was set up to protect us long ago by men who survived with their lives to set up rules so that we would not have to suffer at the hands of despotic government like what they did. Therefore it COMMANDS you to obey it!

One of the commands is to swear to rise up against the Crown if it does not meet its obligations to us. That command was given in 2001.

I obeyed that command along with the other command of informing you of the command to swear to disobey.

It further commands that those who do not listen or who refuse to obey the command to rise up are to be treated as traitors and charged with treason.

The message of this page is a simple one and it is not up for debate. You either follow the command to swear your oath to obey the law and rise up against the Crown, or you do not and become informed that you are a traitor to the realm. If you choose the latter or ignore the command to rebel then we who have sworn to obey the law are commanded to give you no assistance whatsoever otherwise we too become traitors for helping you.

So now you have it in a nutshell. Everyone who is sworn, has no obligation to discuss anything other than tell you what you are commanded by Royal decree to do as a subject of the Crown. You do not get a choice in whether you obey the law or not. Obey, or disobey! One grants you the freedoms of the realm, and one will eventually make you answer for your treason.

So when a post is answered and comments are turned off, don't take it personally.

The ONLY text you should be absolutely aware of is the 61st chapter or article 61 of the Magna Carta 1215, where these rules I have just relayed, are written as plain as the nose on your face. Afterwards, read the document The Layman's Guide for an in depth look at why we have come to be in a position that required article 61 in the first place, along with cases that have used the lawful standing against the Crown and succeeded.

In summary, you are commanded by law to obey the law. I tell you to swear to obey as I am commanded, you either swear too, or you do not and I then have nothing more to do with you as I am commanded.

That's it. Simple. Plain. Brutal to snowflakes who can't get passed being told what to do.

Lastly, if obeying the law is too hard for you to understand, then there is no helping you, because it was written for you; in simple terms. No ambiguity and no nonsense opinion from doubters or shills.

You have been told. Make your choice.

And I just recently accused Psam of rambling on and on. I didn’t realize that I’d soon be dealing with a real expert in turgid verbosity.

I guess Mariete was feeling threatened by the way Psam was tearing apart the legal basis of PDL's constitutional beliefs and leaving them with nothing. Exactly the same reason I declined to debate him, I'm out of my league.

[Burnaby49]

But I guess it’s pretty clear you’re not a Led Zeppelin fan.

Damn right. Back in the day I was a devout Beatles fan. I was one of approximately 73,000,000 people who sat glued to the TV on February 9th, 1964 when they first played on Ed Sullivan.

[Psam]

I guess Mariete was feeling threatened by the way Psam was tearing apart the legal basis of PDL's constitutional beliefs and leaving them with nothing. Exactly the same reason I declined to debate him, I'm out of my league.

Thanks for rehashing that little exchange, Burnaby49. Quite entertaining, your take on it.

I made a point in that debate that I would like to hear some responses to from people in this forum.

The point I made was that I believe the most compelling ethical justification for imposing a form of governance upon an individual is if the individual has not publicly and resolutely chosen an alternative complete and concise method of writing and adjudicating laws by which to instead consensually have her or his conduct constrained.

If you deny consent to be governed by an existing institution of law without providing an alternative such method of writing and adjudicating laws, then nothing anybody else does to you, including forcing you to comply with what THEY call “laws”, would be in contravention of anything YOU would call “laws”. That looks like a QED to me, please tell me if you disagree.

I’m sure there are other reasons by which one might claim that it is ethical to impose governance upon an individual, and I’m sure I’d probably disagree with most of them, but on the other hand, I’m not so arrogant as to claim that there isn’t any merit to many of the other arguments that exist for this ethical question. However, I find most people on the other side of that question from myself are typically arrogant enough to claim that their ethical reasoning is absolutely flawlessly conclusive.

So I’m just wondering if anybody believes that there is any more compelling ethical reason to impose a form of governance upon an individual than the one I’ve outlined above.

And again, if you listen to the song I posted the link to a few comments ago, DON’T insult my singing. Seriously man, nothing would incur my wrath more, and you don’t wanna see me angry.

...although I’m sure you’d get a laugh out of my antics.

[notorial dissent]

One gets the feeling that if the yoiks at PLD were listening to him that he would be over there annoying them, and since he isn't, and is here, one suspects that they too have tuned him out as uninteresting background noise. He certainly isn't saying anything they are even remotely interested in. Must be getting lonely in the echo chamber in his head.