Psam Frank - Sovereign with his own laws and court

[Psam]

what do these decisions say which support your illusions?

haven’t you been paying attention to what everybody on this forum has been saying? NOTHING!! I’m an idiot! Of course!!!

I’m just trying to figure out whether the people who are calling me an idiot are doing so because they actually know what they’re talking about or just because they’re too stupid to even know that they don’t know what the $%#! they’re talking about

If you haven’t read those precedents and yet you treat me like I’m an idiot, then YOU’RE a bigger idiot than I am, , EVEN IF I’m the BIGGEST IDIOT you’ve ever MET!

[Burnaby49]

I'll give you, yet again, the heart of psam's argument, the one he's been relentlessly, endlessly, obsessively, filling Quatloos and his web-page on about for years. It involves two sections in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

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.

Psam interprets this to mean that he, or any other citizen, has the right to vote whenever they want, as many times as they want, for whomever they want. So if Psam decided he wants to vote, and vote, and vote for his local member of parliament 1,000 times a day, every day, for the rest of his life, section 3 guarantees him that right. If he's denied this glaringly obvious Charter right, if he's only allowed to vote on a fixed election date every four years or so, we live in a dictatorship no better than North Korea. And he isn't just some amateur with an idiosyncratic interpretation of section 3, he was a political science major! So he's devised, after deep thought and reflection, his interactive voting system that allows people to do exactly that. But the Canadian government has completely ignored him. As far as I'm aware it hasn't even shown him enough respect to engaging in a month-long debate with him over it. He gets no respect. They just act like he and his Charter rights just don't exist even though his rights are clearly guaranteed by clause 24;

Enforcement

24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.

(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

However I have to point something out to you psam. Section 24 guarantees you fuck-all. It's a remedy section, not a rights section. So this comment of yours makes no sense;

I’m just wondering if anybody on this forum who is directing derisive contempt at my claim, that periods of time when section 3 Charter rights are not available to be exercised could be construed as denials of section 3 Charter rights in accordance with section 24 of the Charter . . . .

Because section 24 does not confirm your section 3 rights or any other Charter rights. It only allows you to apply to a court to hear your sad story about how the mean old government has violated your section 3 Charter rights. It's up to that court to determine if your rights have actually been violated and, if the court determines that they have, to give you a remedy. But you have to sell that story to a court, not us. So who gives a crap what we think? Convincing us of anything is meaningless. So stop your endless internet postings and GO TO A COURT FOR REDRESS. If you're not willing to do that then you're just another obsessive internet crank. And no, I'm not going to read whatever you've linked to that you seem to believe is precedence supporting your claims. Courts love reviewing precedence, take your list there. You did it once, I attended, are you too traumatized by that disaster to try again? If so, give up. You have no other remedy. You'll just have to live, as best you can, with the bitter knowledge that you are nothing more than an oppressed slave living under the heel of a tyrannical illegitimate government.

The Federal court of Canada is the perfect venue for your crusade. here's their website;

https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/home

With helpful advice how to represent yourself there;

https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/pages/repre ... rself#cont

Regarding those precedences;

If you haven’t read those precedents and yet you treat me like I’m an idiot, then YOU’RE a bigger idiot than I am, , EVEN IF I’m the BIGGEST IDIOT you’ve ever MET!

Guilty as charged.

[Pottapaug1938]

what do these decisions say which support your illusions?

haven’t you been paying attention to what everybody on this forum has been saying? NOTHING!! I’m an idiot! Of course!!!

I’m just trying to figure out whether the people who are calling me an idiot are doing so because they actually know what they’re talking about or just because they’re too stupid to even know that they don’t know what the $%#! they’re talking about

If you haven’t read those precedents and yet you treat me like I’m an idiot, then YOU’RE a bigger idiot than I am, , EVEN IF I’m the BIGGEST IDIOT you’ve ever MET!

When I was a law student, an answer such as yours would have gotten me laughed at in front of the class. If the professor asked me about the case of Vosburg v. Putney, it would not have been smart of me to tell him "well, the answer is in the textbook." I would have been expected to tell him what the holding was, in the case, and what the rationale was for the holding.

That's my challenge to you. You claim that Cases A, B, and C say "X, Y, and Z." However, rather than telling me WHERE and WHY those cases say X, Y, and Z, you simply tell me to dig up the answer for myself. I strongly suspect that I would reach a different conclusion. At any rate, you're in Constitutional Law 101, and the professor is challenging you to cite the exact reasons why Cases A, B, and C say X, Y, and Z. He awaits your answer. He thinks that you are like a poker player holding a ten-high hand, but is bluffing like you hold four aces. It is up to you to change his mind.

[Psam]

you're in Constitutional Law 101, and the professor is challenging you to cite the exact reasons why Cases A, B, and C say X, Y, and Z

Your question was how these precedents support my “illusions”.

Did a professor ever ask you that question in class?

I’m just gonna take a guess that if a professor was to ever ask you that question worded in precisely that way, she or he would be fired.

Did you ever learn in law school what the word “impartial” meant? I’m just curious if they ever taught you anything about that word. I think I read somewhere that it’s a word that actually means something in the law.

[TheNewSaint]

haven’t you been paying attention to what everybody on this forum has been saying? NOTHING!! I’m an idiot! Of course!!!

I’m just trying to figure out whether the people who are calling me an idiot are doing so because they actually know what they’re talking about or just because they’re too stupid to even know that they don’t know what the $%#! they’re talking about

If you haven’t read those precedents and yet you treat me like I’m an idiot, then YOU’RE a bigger idiot than I am, , EVEN IF I’m the BIGGEST IDIOT you’ve ever MET!

Psam... grow up.

I find your tone very disrespectful to Burnaby, Pottapaug, and other people in this forum who have given you a lot of very good information. They told you why your letters don't get replies, what you need to do instead, the flaws in your interpretations, and why your constant-voting plan wouldn't be feasible. These are civil servants, lawyers, and other very educated people. (Not me, I'm just a hobbyist.) You may not like their tone at times, but guess what? No one said changing the world was easy. You intend to fundamentally redefine how a nation of 38 million people operates, based on nothing more than how you think it should work. You're going to get pushback. I suggest you get used to the idea.

When you're trying to influence people, attitude and approach goes a long way. And yours need a lot of work. The tantrums, the suicidal ideation, the I-know-what-you-are-but-what-am-I responses, and the overall decision-making you've exhibited do not compel others to join your cause. You seem not only unprofessional, but unhinged. I think you need to take a step back, and reconsider just what it is you're trying to accomplish.

[Pottapaug1938]

you're in Constitutional Law 101, and the professor is challenging you to cite the exact reasons why Cases A, B, and C say X, Y, and Z

Your question was how these precedents support my “illusions”.

Did a professor ever ask you that question in class?

No, because I knew enough not to ask any damn fool questions.

I’m just gonna take a guess that if a professor was to ever ask you that question worded in precisely that way, she or he would be fired.

Wrong again. If a student were so rash as to try to claim an illusory result for a court case, the professor might well answer in that fashion. Law schools train lawyers, not pundits.

Did you ever learn in law school what the word “impartial” meant? I’m just curious if they ever taught you anything about that word. I think I read somewhere that it’s a word that actually means something in the law.

Yes, I did; but so what? I noticed that you are still ducking my question. I'm calling your hand, Pardner. Either explain what you mean when you cite those cases, or forever hold your peace.

[Psam]

Either explain what you mean when you cite those cases, or forever hold your peace.

Well before I know which parts to cite so that I don’t end up with an even longer than usual post, I need to ask you some questions to figure out which parts are relevant to your perspective. In particular, since the letter I’ve provided a link to several times during previous discussions gave the cornerstones of the arguments I am making as well as the most pertinent citations from those SCC precedents, I don’t which specific parts of my arguments you are discrediting.

So section 24 of the Constitution Act, 1982 states that when the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Act are infringed or denied, a court of competent jurisdiction can provide an appropriate and just remedy.

Section 3 of the same Act states that every citizen has the right to vote in an election of members of a legislative assembly.

When I claim that it is possible to construe periods of time when section 3 Charter rights are not available to be exercised as denials of these rights in accordance with section 24, the members of this forum typically treat me with contempt, derision, hatred, abuse, mockery, and ridicule, which is modestly entertaining of course, but very tedious when it comes to actually trying to confirm whether any of their criticisms of my arguments hold any actual merit or is just vapid spewing of natural human impulses regarding how to treat people with new and innovative ideas.

If you have already discerned from the letter I wrote that I linked earlier that there is plenty of reason based on prior precedent to construe periods of time when section 3 Charter rights are not available to be exercised as denials in accordance with section 24, then I don’t have to bother with those citations. However, as the SCC has stated numerous times, the first stage of a Charter issue is to assess whether the allegation or infringement or denial is valid, so it is definitely the first issue to address. Would you like to see some quotes from those precedents on this stage of the analysis?

[Burnaby49]

I find your tone very disrespectful to Burnaby, Pottapaug, and other people in this forum who have given you a lot of very good information.

At least in my case just fair play since my patience has worn out and I've certainly been very disrespectful to his idiotic ideas and his unreadable convoluted postings. I've been futilely trying to convince him that his endless posting here is pointless since it doesn't matter what we think, his only avenue to forward his electoral dreams is the courts. But he still persists. I'm assuming he only continues here because everywhere else he's tried to share his wisdom with has eventually banned him.

However if he escalates from disrespectful to abusive I'm more than willing to ban him. He's been warned once and his postings on his Face Book page certainly indicate a willingness to go past our limits. I certainly wouldn't miss him.

[Dr. Caligari]

Your question was how these precedents support my “illusions”.

Did a professor ever ask you that question in class?

I’m just gonna take a guess that if a professor was to ever ask you that question worded in precisely that way, she or he would be fired.

I don't know how they run law schools nowadays, but the movie "The Paper Chase" was a pretty good depiction of what some of my law school classes were like. (As in this scenehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SEZDLRzn_A, for example.)

[notorial dissent]

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.

Psam interprets this to mean that he, or any other citizen, has the right to vote whenever they want, as many times as they want, for whomever they want.

Enforcement

24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.

(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

So after all the blather it comes back to the above.

Psammy has fixated on two sections of the CCRF. Well and good. There are two insurmountable problems for Psammy, firstly that 3 doesn't say what he thinks/wants it to, and no amount of whining whinging or blathering is going to change that. Section 3 does grant/guarantee the right to vote, it HOWSUMEVER does not specify the when where or in what manner. When something like that is left unsaid, it means then that it is up to the gov't/legislature(s) to define just how that is to be accomplished. Which is precisely what has happened. The Canadian Parliament has established laws about when where and how elections are to be handled, they have therefore met their Charter legal obligation of making voting available. They are obligated under the Charter to do so and they have. They do also, under that self same Charter, get to specify the when where and the how. the Charter makes no specifications for that other than just that it be available, which it is. So, therefore there is NO ajudical violation of rights or freedoms in the way it is handled.

That Psammy doesn't like it and/or believes it is an infringement of his rights is irrelevant to reality.

The second problem is that Canada, like the US and UK, is not a pure Democracy, but rather a representative on, which means that the voters pick representatives to represent their interests and give them a mandate to do so for a finite period of time, in the US it is for a finite period of time, in the UK and Canada it is for a fixed period of time or until the gov't calls for elections within that fixed period. Other than that it is assume that the representative will carry out their mandate and represent their constituency. If they don't then that constituency gets to vote them out at the next election, but there is no provision, in any of the three govt's mentioned, for back seat driving such as what Psammy is wanting.

As has been pointed out to Psammy on far too many occasions, if he doesn't like the way they do it now, all he has to do is find enough like minded people to get the laws changed. Strangely, he just can't seem to be able to do that.

[Psam]

Okay, so here is what one person has said about section 3 of the Charter.

Section 3 does grant/guarantee the right to vote, it HOWSUMEVER does not specify the when where or in what manner. When something like that is left unsaid, it means then that it is up to the gov't/legislature(s) to define just how that is to be accomplished.

Now, here is what another person has said about section 3 of the Charter.

“19 Under s. 3 of the Charter , ‘[e]very 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’. On its face, the scope of s. 3 is relatively narrow: it grants to each citizen no more than the bare right to vote and to run for office in the election of representatives of the federal and provincial legislative assemblies. But Charter analysis requires courts to look beyond the words of the section. In the words of McLachlin C.J.B.C.S.C. (as she then was), ‘[m]ore is intended [in the right to vote] than the bare right to place a ballot in a box’: Dixon v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1989] 4 W.W.R. 393, at p. 403.

“20 In order to determine the scope of s. 3, the Court must first ascertain its purpose. As Dickson J. (as he then was) wrote in R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295, at p. 344, ‘[t]he interpretation [of a section of the Charter ] should be . . . a generous rather than a legalistic one, aimed at fulfilling the purpose of the guarantee and securing for individuals the full benefit of the Charter ’s protection’. In interpreting the scope of a Charter right, courts must adopt a broad and purposive approach that seeks to ensure that duly enacted legislation is in harmony with the purposes of the Charter .

“21 This Court first considered the purpose of s. 3 in Reference re Provincial Electoral Boundaries (Sask.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 158 (“Saskatchewan Reference’). In determining that s. 3 does not require absolute equality of voting power, McLachlin J. held that the purpose of s. 3 is ‘effective representation’ (p. 183). This Court has subsequently confirmed, on numerous occasions, that the purpose of s. 3 is effective representation: see Haig v. Canada, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 995; Harvey v. New Brunswick (Attorney General), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 876; and Thomson Newspapers Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 877.”

Now, I’ll let you take a wild guess who wrote the second quoted passage, and then I’ll let you take a wild guess on who is a more credible source of Charter interpretation.

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-c ... 9/index.do

[Pottapaug1938]

Either explain what you mean when you cite those cases, or forever hold your peace.

Well before I know which parts to cite so that I don’t end up with an even longer than usual post...

I'll point you in the right direction. You say that your four cases support your position; so you must have seen something in them to make you think that the cases are relevant to your assertions. Simply go back and find the quotes which rang true for you, and tell us how they are relevant to the ISS and your assertions about voting on anything and everything, and there you are! Share them with us, and then, we'll talk.

Or, evade our questions again, and I'll start deleting your next repetition of the same old horsebleep.

[Psam]

Excuse me, Mister Moderator, I’d just like to know if I understood the rules correctly where they said that other participants are allowed under the rules to address me like this but I’m not allowed to address them like this,

Otherwise shut the fuck up.

because if I’m wrong about that, and this kind of talk is actually allowable under the rules, then I would like to tell the person who wrote this to shut the fuck up.

[Psam]

Simply go back and find the quotes which rang true for you

I just did, in the comment just before yours. I’ve actually quoted that particular section many times now. If I put all the citations in one comment that I’ve ever found in SCC ratio decidendi that are relevant to my arguments, undoubtedly people would be complaining that my comment is too long, as has happened numerous times already.

[JamesVincent]

Excuse me, Mister Moderator, I’d just like to know if I understood the rules correctly where they said that other participants are allowed under the rules to address me like this but I’m not allowed to address them like this,

Otherwise shut the fuck up.

because if I’m wrong about that, and this kind of talk is actually allowable under the rules, then I would like to tell the person who wrote this to shut the fuck up.

Lmao. You can tell me all you want but you have yet to answer a single thing I've brought up. Since I'm not the one on here making claims that I can't prove I really don't have to shut up. Still waiting Psammy. Like the man said put up or piss off.

BTW generally the mods do tend to hold that kind of statement in disfavor but they also know that that's how I actually talk. I wouldn't tempt them if I was you.

[Psam]

But Pottapaug, here is another SCC quote from Sauvé v Canada.

“10 The Charter distinguishes between two separate issues: whether a right has been infringed, and whether the limitation is justified. The complainant bears the burden of showing the infringement of a right (the first step), at which point the burden shifts to the government to justify the limit as a reasonable limit under s. 1 (the second step). These are distinct processes with different burdens. Insulating a rights restriction from scrutiny by labeling it a matter of social philosophy, as the government attempts to do, reverses the constitutionally imposed burden of justification. It removes the infringement from our radar screen, instead of enabling us to zero in on it to decide whether it is demonstrably justified as required by the Charter .

“11 At the first stage, which involves defining the right, we must follow this Court’s consistent view that rights shall be defined broadly and liberally: Hunter v. Southam Inc., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145, at p. 156; R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295, at p. 344; Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624, at para. 53. A broad and purposive interpretation of the right is particularly critical in the case of the right to vote. 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. I conclude that s. 3 must be construed as it reads, and its ambit should not be limited by countervailing collective concerns, as the government appears to argue. These concerns are for the government to raise under s. 1 in justifying the limits it has imposed on the right.“

[Burnaby49]

Now, I’ll let you take a wild guess who wrote the second quoted passage, and then I’ll let you take a wild guess on who is a more credible source of Charter interpretation.

Great! Finally! With that stunning evidence of the validity of your arguments you've proven to us all, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that you'll win your section 3 complaint at the Federal Court of Canada. That rock-solid precedence from the Supreme Court of Canada itself guarantees you total victory after all these years.

So why are you still here? Stop yammering at us and get your ass over to the FCC. Section 24 guarantees that they have to hear you out. Then come back and rub our noses in it after your momentous win for the rights of all Canadians to vote 1,000 times a day, every day.

[Burnaby49]

Excuse me, Mister Moderator, I’d just like to know if I understood the rules correctly where they said that other participants are allowed under the rules to address me like this but I’m not allowed to address them like this,

Otherwise shut the fuck up.

because if I’m wrong about that, and this kind of talk is actually allowable under the rules, then I would like to tell the person who wrote this to shut the fuck up.

You just did.

If you're unhappy about the arbitrary, unfair way you are treated, move on to a site that shows you more respect.

[Pottapaug1938]

But Pottapaug, here is another SCC quote from Sauvé v Canada.

“10 The Charter distinguishes between two separate issues: whether a right has been infringed, and whether the limitation is justified. The complainant bears the burden of showing the infringement of a right (the first step), at which point the burden shifts to the government to justify the limit as a reasonable limit under s. 1 (the second step). These are distinct processes with different burdens. Insulating a rights restriction from scrutiny by labeling it a matter of social philosophy, as the government attempts to do, reverses the constitutionally imposed burden of justification. It removes the infringement from our radar screen, instead of enabling us to zero in on it to decide whether it is demonstrably justified as required by the Charter .

“11 At the first stage, which involves defining the right, we must follow this Court’s consistent view that rights shall be defined broadly and liberally: Hunter v. Southam Inc., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145, at p. 156; R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295, at p. 344; Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624, at para. 53. A broad and purposive interpretation of the right is particularly critical in the case of the right to vote. 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. I conclude that s. 3 must be construed as it reads, and its ambit should not be limited by countervailing collective concerns, as the government appears to argue. These concerns are for the government to raise under s. 1 in justifying the limits it has imposed on the right.“

All that you are doing is mining quotes. Even worse, you are quoting from the explanatory dicta, or comments, rather than the holding -- in other words, the main point of the case; and you STILL have not stated your main premise -- certainly, recently enough for us to remember it.

Here's how it's done in law school:

https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/tor ... -v-putney/

Note the following excerpt:

"Held. "...in actions for assault and battery, Plaintiff must show either that the intention was unlawful, or that Defendant is at fault. Yes, the wrongdoer is liable for all injuries resulting directly from the wrongful act whether they could or could not have been foreseen by him. Judgment reversed and case remanded for a new trial."

I have a soft spot for this case, because it's the first one I ever studied after I began law school.

Now, back to you. You've cited many case quoted, out of context. It's time to make your summation, on the order of "I can pay my taxes to the ISS, instead of the provincial or federal authorities, because (here, you cite cases in which the holding is directly applicable to your premise, and not in a merely general way)." Do the same for anything else you wish to assert with us.

Serve us more word salad, and your words might just disappear down the memory hole.

[Gregg]

This being the Canada forum, where I generally don't participate, and because I respect a lot of people not you posting in this thread, I'll try to be brief, and gentle and give you the version reserved for the cheap seats.

Listen you swarmy little shit, this forum is not here to indulge you childish attempts at mental masturbation. If you don't have anything based in reality to talk about, and cannot provide Douglas Adams references at the very least, why don't you STFU and go play on a busy highway.

None of us grownup are impressed with your middle school level "attempting to do a book report about a book you haven't read" routine. If you need attention so bad, why don't you paint you ass pink and go to a hockey game in Montreal.

Otherwise, we'd all appreciate you doing what the phuck ever you're trying to do here, somewhere besides here.

Okay?

You're dismissed.