Psam Frank - Sovereign with his own laws and court

[Gregg]

Just in case you have never seen my version of "Guidelines to avoid being a dick and earning my ire" thus follows:

(copy/paste from somewhere else in the Forum because you're not worth my time to actually write an original version of shit I've been saying for 15 years)

As always, this is not a rule, but a guideline 'cause we don't do actual rules. As such, the interpretation and application of any guidelines is entirely at the discretion of the Administrators, Moderators, and other various vassals, miscellaneous minions, and contracted performers of the management. Trust us, you agreed to all this when you signed up and consented to our terms of service, so if you don't like, start your own forum.

Your mileage may vary, not applicable where prohibited by law, Gunsmiths and Llamas are exempt in the US Virgin Islands, all tax is the responsibility of the user except registered members posting from Pango Pango. No Cash Value. Nunc de Dunk, Praeterea Preterea VIctor Victoria, Pizza Pizza: Notice to Waiter is Notice to Restaurant, Notice to Restaurant is Notice to Waiter

[Burnaby49]

As always, this is not a rule, but a guideline 'cause we don't do actual rules. As such, the interpretation and application of any guidelines is entirely at the discretion of the Administrators, Moderators, and other various vassals, miscellaneous minions, and contracted performers of the management. Trust us, you agreed to all this when you signed up and consented to our terms of service, so if you don't like, start your own forum.

And keep in mind I'm the Canadian moderator responsible for this thread. You've already seen how much fair even-handed treatment you can expect from me.

[Psam]

you are quoting from the explanatory dicta, or comments, rather than the holding

I’ve read a lot about distinguishing obiter dicta from ratio decidendi.

Here’s one, and it’s pretty similar to anything else I’ve read: https://successatmls.com/2019/10/17/ratio-obiter/

Do you disagree with what it says?

I’ve also noticed that when SCC precedents cite other precedents, they consistently follow the principles illustrated in the link I just posted above, and they seldom refer to the summarised holding, but rather to the expounded relevant details in the written commentary that follows the holding.

The quotes I posted from Sauvé and Figueroa explain the consistent interpretation of the SCC regarding sections 1 (reasonable limits demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society) and 24 (rights or freedoms denied or infringed may receive appropriate and just remedy) of the Constitution Act, 1982, elaborating on the brevity of the wording in those two sections. That is necessary reasoning for the remedies ordered by the courts in those decisions, so by that reasoning it qualifies as ratio, not dicta.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

I’ve read a lot about distinguishing obiter dicta from ratio decidendi.

Yet for some reason you have not read Dunning-Kruger

[Pottapaug1938]

you are quoting from the explanatory dicta, or comments, rather than the holding

I’ve read a lot about distinguishing obiter dicta from ratio decidendi.

Too bad that you often confuse the two. By the way, no lawyer I've ever met uses "ratio decidendi", and "obiter dicta" is used only in historical references. We usually drop the "obiter".

Here’s one, and it’s pretty similar to anything else I’ve read: https://successatmls.com/2019/10/17/ratio-obiter/

Do you disagree with what it says?

Of course not. It's the key to understanding case law.

I’ve also noticed that when SCC precedents cite other precedents, they consistently follow the principles illustrated in the link I just posted above, and they seldom refer to the summarised holding, but rather to the expounded relevant details in the written commentary that follows the holding.

Man Bites Dog. US courts also do this.

The quotes I posted from Sauvé and Figueroa explain the consistent interpretation of the SCC regarding sections 1 (reasonable limits demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society) and 24 (rights or freedoms denied or infringed may receive appropriate and just remedy) of the Constitution Act, 1982, elaborating on the brevity of the wording in those two sections. That is necessary reasoning for the remedies ordered by the courts in those decisions, so by that reasoning it qualifies as ratio, not dicta.

No they don't, either, because they do not address the points which, after wasting time better spent on watching the snow melt, I read through your earliest posts. They are general statements of law.

You may well have no applicable holding (or, if you must, ratio decidendi) to support your contentions. That's okay -- many court cases are of, as we say, "first impression", in which the courts will be asked to decide a principle yet to be mentioned in a any court decision. The trouble is that, until you get such a decision, your assertions that Section 3 and Section 24 mean what you claim that they mean is simply your personal opinion on the subjects; and based on what others who actually know and understand the law have said about your claims, I would not count on getting so far as getting an apprellate court to even consider a case based on your assertions.

[Psam]

Pottapaug, thank you for your feedback, and thank you for sharing your pride in your devoted service of your profession. It is an honour to see the formative roots that led to a career of sophisticated and ethical accomplishments.

I looked more closely at the link you cited about case briefs and I have created an initial attempt at summarising my case in the format you requested. I look forward to more abuse oops I mean guidance.
______________________
I can pay my taxes to the ISS, instead of the Crown’s provincial or federal authorities, provided that the ISS maintains a public standard of supportiveness to participation by all other citizens of Canada in the exercise of their rights to vote and pursue candidacy with respect to allocations of expenditures of those funds, unless and until the Crown makes these rights available to be exercised at all times in its legislative assemblies, because these rights are available to be exercised at all times in the ISS’s legislative assemblies whereas under the Crown’s legislative assemblies, these rights are only occasionally available to be exercised when given permission by authorities and denied the rest of the time, without any preponderance of evidence that any objective of pressing and substantial concern to a free and democratic society is achieved by the denial of these rights. Qualifying periods of time when these rights are not available to be exercised as denials in accordance with section 24 can be affirmed from Figueroa v Canada, which states that infringement of section 3 Charter rights is determined by analysing the purpose of section 3, “effective representation”, as well as Sauvé v Canada, which states that “rights shall be defined broadly and liberally”. Determining the requirements for the Crown to be allowed to deny these rights in accordance with section 1 can be affirmed from R v Oakes, which states that a limit on a constitutional right, in order to be deemed “reasonable” and “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” as per section 1, must be shown on “a preponderance of probability” to achieve an objective “of pressing and substantial concern to a free and democratic society”.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

I can pay my taxes to the ISS, instead of the Crown’s provincial or federal authorities...

No. No you can't. If you choose to withhold your taxes, then that is a decision you can make. If does not abrogate your liability.

If by paying your taxes to the ISS you mean "I'll stick it in a bank account until such time as they come after me for it and threaten me with jail", then I guess it is true that you are paying it to ISS

[Gregg]

Just curious, but how much tax does a part time pizza delivery boy still living with his mum pay?

[Burnaby49]

More to point psam can't pay his taxes to the ISS instead of the federal government. I assume that if he has any income it's through being an employee. Canadian employees have taxes automatically deducted at source before they get their pay. It's sent directly to the CRA and employees never get any control of it. If psam wants to pretend to pay taxes to ISS, fine, but the CRA gets its cut off the top.

It's possible he makes so little he's not taxable in which case he'll get whatever is deducted refunded. I suppose he could give that to the ISS (it's a left-pocket right-pocket transaction since he's the ISS) but that doesn't seem to be what he's saying.

[Psam]

Quatloos should use this as its advertisement.

[Pottapaug1938]

Pottapaug, thank you for your feedback, and thank you for sharing your pride in your devoted service of your profession. It is an honour to see the formative roots that led to a career of sophisticated and ethical accomplishments.

I looked more closely at the link you cited about case briefs and I have created an initial attempt at summarising my case in the format you requested. I look forward to more abuse oops I mean guidance.
______________________
I can pay my taxes to the ISS, instead of the Crown’s provincial or federal authorities, provided that the ISS maintains a public standard of supportiveness to participation by all other citizens of Canada in the exercise of their rights to vote and pursue candidacy with respect to allocations of expenditures of those funds, unless and until the Crown makes these rights available to be exercised at all times in its legislative assemblies, because these rights are available to be exercised at all times in the ISS’s legislative assemblies whereas under the Crown’s legislative assemblies, these rights are only occasionally available to be exercised when given permission by authorities and denied the rest of the time, without any preponderance of evidence that any objective of pressing and substantial concern to a free and democratic society is achieved by the denial of these rights. Qualifying periods of time when these rights are not available to be exercised as denials in accordance with section 24 can be affirmed from Figueroa v Canada, which states that infringement of section 3 Charter rights is determined by analysing the purpose of section 3, “effective representation”, as well as Sauvé v Canada, which states that “rights shall be defined broadly and liberally”. Determining the requirements for the Crown to be allowed to deny these rights in accordance with section 1 can be affirmed from R v Oakes, which states that a limit on a constitutional right, in order to be deemed “reasonable” and “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” as per section 1, must be shown on “a preponderance of probability” to achieve an objective “of pressing and substantial concern to a free and democratic society”.

Thanks for the attempt; but you still fall short of being able to convince us.

First, your run-on sentences make it extremely difficult to read, and understand, what you are trying to say.

Second, there is an old legal maxim, set forth by our SCOTUS Justice Holmes in his famous dissent, in Lochner v. New York, which says that "[g]eneral propositions do not decide concrete cases." Not only do you fail to show any statutory authority for your ISS, or for your alleged right to pay taxes to it instead of to provincial or federal governments, you still fail to cite any controlling legal authority supporting your assertions. As I said in my last response to you, there may well be no supporting case law which is relevant to your assertions, because no one has ever brought a case such as yours before the courts; but therein lies your great opportunity. File suit in your local provincial courts, making the claims which you have made here; and see how you make out. If -- IF -- you win, then great. You have created new case law, and a new way of governance for Canada. If you lose, you have two choices: either admit that you lost, and move on from there, or keep on digging into that steaming heap of manure, looking for the pony which, you are convinced, is at the bottom of the heap.

Third, since Canada (like the US) functions as a representative democracy, you will need to address the question of why, since you have the right to ask your provincial and federal MPs and Senators to propose certain legislation, and vote a certain way on it, does not amount to satisfaction of your right to "participation by all other citizens of Canada in the exercise of their rights to vote and pursue candidacy with respect to allocations of expenditures of those funds."

Fourth, you will want to do a little political science research, focusing on the good and bad points of direct vs. representative democracy.

So now, you've stated your case, over and over and over again. Now, either provide us with statutory citations, or case law which is "on all fours with" your assertions, or forever hold your peace.

[Psam]

you fail to show any statutory authority for your ISS

To help me better understand where statutory authority comes from, I’m just wondering what kind of statutory authority the Crown showed to the First Nations to become the government over all of the people residing in this land. Do you happen to know?

[Burnaby49]

you fail to show any statutory authority for your ISS

To help me better understand where statutory authority comes from, I’m just wondering what kind of statutory authority the Crown showed to the First Nations to become the government over all of the people residing in this land. Do you happen to know?

Your standard debating style. Change the topic and always answer with a question, ideally, as with this example, totally unrelated to your original point. Just going around in circles.

[Pottapaug1938]

you fail to show any statutory authority for your ISS

To help me better understand where statutory authority comes from, I’m just wondering what kind of statutory authority the Crown showed to the First Nations to become the government over all of the people residing in this land. Do you happen to know?

You're talking about two different issues. You are asking HOW it came to exist; and I am saying that, however it came to exist, IT EXISTS, by majority consent and agreement. Down here, we can have the same discussion about European settlers and Native Americans. You might also take some basic courses in political science and law, which should help you answer those questions.

At any rate, if you think that the Crown's authority is illegitimate because of a lack of respect shown to the rights of the First Nations, or that the conquering, by the Crown, of those First Nations renders its statutory authority illegitimate, FILE SUIT IN THE COURT OF RELEVANT JURISDICTION. You may have problems in establishing standing to sue; but you can find someone who has such standing, and enlist their assistance. You may have problems establishing a claim for which relief can be granted. Your case may be dismissed before, during, or after trial, but before a verdict or decision. You may actually win.

The bottom line is, YOU MUST EITHER CONVINCE YOUR PROVINCIAL OR FEDERAL PARLIAMENT TO PASS LAWS WHICH ARE TO YOUR LIKING, OR YOU MUST BRING A LAWSUIT, IN PROVINCIAL OR FEDERAL COURT, AND WIN IT, FOR YOUR SUPPOSITIONS TO HAVE ANY VALIDITY. Unless you do that, you are wasting our time by "just asking questions", or playing the "what if" game; and you just may start to see your posts edited or deleted, if you continue these games.

You also ought to look into the following logical fallacy. I think that you will see yourself:


https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/log ... -Goalposts

[JamesVincent]

I seriously doubt Psam quite understands how the real world world works so maybe we should explain in no uncertain terms.

Psam, this here website is the creation of Jay, who in his wisdom, decided such a place needed to be available for research purposes. It's purpose in life is to serve as a clearing house of sorts for all the conspiracy theorists, tax evasion scams, and any other scam it's members decide need to be addressed. Burnaby started a thread on you since you seemed to him to be one of the aforementioned screwballs. You've proved him correct. Time after time. The moderators and older members are here to carry on Jay's wishes and abide by his words. So if you run afoul of those wishes they come down on you. And since this is Jay's pool you play by his rules.

While it may seem like you are scoring points by posting all these irrelevant quotes and taken out of context court cases the only thing you've done so far is prove exactly how little you do know. There are multiple points you have yet to address and every time that someone calls you out on it you run and hide and start an entirely different attack on sensibility. So, Burnaby, I have a proposal.

I propose that we make a decision on which point Psammy has to address in clear terms, without quotes and in his own words. If his post does not reflect what the point is supposed to be then it be edited to read "Some dumb irrelevant shit was typed here" and left at that. And let that continue until he gets the point that either he plays by the rules or gets nowhere.

[Burnaby49]

I have an alternative suggestion. Don't respond to any of his idiotic postings, in other words, all of them. Ignore his juvenile debating tactic of throwing out clouds of irrelevant questions every time he's asked something concrete. You're just encouraging him to post more endless masses of unintelligible gibberish. That's his one real talent. While I've concluded he's just another obsessive internet crank perhaps his postings give him a different perspective on his life, that of a deep, profound thinker selflessly sharing his vision. Maybe that viewpoint is what's getting him through life, we all need our illusions.

While I've responded to him frequently it's to help him move forward to what he claims is his life's goal, getting his voting system implemented. God knows he needs help, he's been stalled for at least the last wasted decade with no progress whatever. So I've pointed out, over and over, that his only way forward is through the courts, specifically the Federal Court of Canada. If he truly believes that his Section 3 Charter rights have been violated and he sincerely wants to make a constructive effort towards realizing his voting system goal that's the step he has to take instead of pissing away his life on endless Facebook and Quatloos postings that just earn him ridicule. But he won't take that step and, something I find of interest, he won't discuss the topic at all or explain why he won't go to court. He completely ignores anything I write about it. He just posts more waves of convoluted rubbish every time I bring the court option up. Why is that psam?

I've come to the conclusion that this is a deliberate choice. He's afraid to risk it all in one shot at a court hearing. He knows he won't win there, he was shredded the last time he tried, and what does he have left after he's brutally stripped of fantasies? Why else does he post here? As James has pointed out Quatloos has nothing to do with his obsessions. We can neither help or harm him in his purported goal of implementing his voting system. But we've allow him to post his garbage here and that seems to be enough. It's my opinion that he's well aware that he's failed but he's afraid to try and move past his life as a keyboard warrior. He'll never test his arguments in court but he'll keep spinning his ISS dreams forever. That, such as it is, is his life. I'll never get more women than a passenger train can hold but I at least realized early on what was reasonably attainable and chose to pursue reality rather than fantasy.

[wserra]

Don't respond to any of his idiotic postings

That, for all the reasons Burnaby says.

[Pottapaug1938]

I prefer James Vincent's approach. If Psammy says the same thing for the 594th time, we delete it, or edit it as he suggests.

[Psam]

More of the same pointless drivel from Psammy; deleted.

[Psam]

[Nothing worthwhile said by Psammy.] -- Moderator