Psam Frank - Sovereign with his own laws and court

[Burnaby49]

So where in all of the above nonsense is your explanation why you haven't gone to court?

As far as statutory jurisdiction goes, I find it likely that the courts would respond similarly to my question, as to where the Crown got its statutory jurisdiction from the First Nations, as the participants in this forum, although likely with less outrage and reproach. Plus, I don’t know of any precedents to cite that might affirm any possible answer to this question.

What question? You've just pulled the issue of the historic mistreatment of First nations out of your ass for no reason except a distraction. Not only does that topic have nothing to do with Quatloos it has nothing to do with you ISS fantasy or your complaint that your Charter rights have been violated. Just your much-used deflection tactic.

“Purposive interpretation means that remedies provisions must be interpreted in a way that provides ‘a full, effective and meaningful remedy for Charter violations’ since ‘a right, no matter how expansive in theory, is only as meaningful as the remedy provided for its breach’ (Dunedin, supra, at paras. 19-20). A purposive approach to remedies in a Charter context gives modern vitality to the ancient maxim ubi jus, ibi remedium: where there is a right, there must be a remedy. More specifically, a purposive approach to remedies requires at least two things. First, the purpose of the right being protected must be promoted: courts must craft responsive remedies. Second, the purpose of the remedies provision must be promoted: courts must craft effective remedies.”

If conferring conditional statutory jurisdiction upon the ISS is the only way to assure that a remedy for the denial of the impugned rights is effectively provided, then these precedents affirm that it is within the courts’ jurisdiction to do so. The condition would be of course that the ISS’s statutory jurisdiction holds only until such time as another legislative assembly with more consistency with the Constitution of Canada (i.e. one that is constituted by the Crown rather than independent citizens) is created or else an existing legislative assembly of the Crown is modified so that these rights are continuously available to be exercised.

If you believe the above then, as I've asked, and asked, and asked in vain, WHY DON'T YOU GO TO COURT? you keep bombarding us with quotes and citations proving that you'd win your arguments in court but then you stop. You refuse to either go or explain to us why you won't go. In other words all of your convoluted, endless dissertations are nothing but bullshit and you know it.

[Pottapaug1938]

More of the same delusional dreams offered by Psammy. I have deleted them.

Psammy is merely speculating as to what MIGHT happen. After endless repetitions of the same speculation, it is time for him to either act on his speculation, in ways which have been suggested to him; or he can hold his peace.

[Pottapaug1938]

Psammy's repetitive assertions have been deleted.

[Psam]

Here is a quote from the first case where the scope of jurisdiction of the courts conferred by section 24 was analysed, in Mills v the Queen, at para 278.

“It is difficult to imagine language which could give the court a wider and less fettered discretion.“

So, what's your point -- IF you have one?

[Psam]

Censorship is a great way to respond when you are insufficiently competent to refute the points being made.

[Pottapaug1938]

Censorship is a great way to respond when you are insufficiently competent to refute the points being made.

And unfounded allegations are easy to make when you have nothing else to offer.

We haven't banned you, Psammy -- YET. We've let you make the same unsubstantiated claims ad nauseam; and we've tolerated your shifting the goalposts. We also haven't wiped out your past posts, which we would do if we were REALLY censoring you. In case you hadn't noticed, we HAVE refuted your points -- if we can thus dignify them; and most of the Quatloos regulars, including the moderators and administrators, know much more about the law than you will ever know.

One other reason why we don't go into greater depth, when rejecting your fantasies and delusions, has to do with the cases of Wnuck v. Commissioner, and Crain v. Commissioner. The latter case contains the following quote:

"We perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit."

Wnuck quotes Crain; and it goes on to explain, in greater detail, why it is pointless to treat meritless positions as if they did have possible merit.

To sum it up -- if you can't offer us something more substantive than the same old, same old which you've been posting here, and can't be bothered to take action, based on our suggestions, with the goal of vindicating your claims, then stop whining about censorship. This is a forum for serious discussions, not pointless speculation.

[Pottapaug1938]

Another worthwhile point to ponder, from Crain, is this one:

"We are sensitive to the need for the courts to remain open to all who seek in good faith to invoke the protection of law. An appeal that lacks merit is not always — or often — frivolous. However, we are not obliged to suffer in silence the filing of baseless, insupportable appeals presenting no colorable claims of error and designed only to delay, obstruct, or incapacitate the operations of the courts or any other governmental authority. Crain's present appeal is of this sort. It is a hodgepodge of unsupported assertions, irrelevant platitudes, and legalistic gibberish. The government should not have been put to the trouble of responding to such spurious arguments, nor this court to the trouble of "adjudicating" this meritless appeal."

[Burnaby49]

Here is a quote from the first case where the scope of jurisdiction of the courts conferred by section 24 was analysed, in Mills v the Queen, at para 278.

“It is difficult to imagine language which could give the court a wider and less fettered discretion.“

So, what's your point -- IF you have one?

Exactly the question I've been asking you. Since you aren't stupid your stupid evasion tactics are obviously deliberate to avoid answering my clear, simple question. I ask why you haven't gone to court, you reply with nonsense about how you are guaranteed a win in court. However I can answer my own question, you're just too terrified to go again.

[wserra]

From what I see in Burnaby's quotes from your posts, it wasn't censorship. It was mercy killing of empty, repetitive verbosity.

You blather on and on about the breadth of a court's power to remedy Charter violations. You never get to the question of remedy until you establish the violation. You have never explained how it violates the Charter that you don't get to dictate the method of political decision-making to the rest of the country. As a corollary, you have never explained why, if you are so clearly right, you have never succeeded in establishing the correctness of your position where it counts - in the courts.

You shouldn't feel compelled to respond to this. If you do, however, and it's the same old non-responsive bullshit, don't be surprised if it doesn't stick around.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

One of my favourite poems...

HE TELLS HER | WENDY COPE

He tells her that the Earth is flat—
He knows the facts, and that is that.
In altercations fierce and long
She tries her best to prove him wrong.
But he has learned to argue well.
He calls her arguments unsound
And often asks her not to yell.
She cannot win. He stands his ground.

The planet goes on being round.

[Psam]

My point was that I was told that the ISS has to prove statutory jurisdiction and I was explaining where that statutory jurisdiction comes from, but my point was deleted.

I have plans to take this to the courts. I doubt that anyone here would refute that such plans should be made carefully and patiently. I’m just responding to a forum that claims that my allegations have no substantiation whatsoever. It doesn’t make much difference to me that even after illustrating where the necessary statutory jurisdiction could be conferred by courts, I’ve had my comments removed and I continue to be told my claims are baseless; for me it’s great practice and I’m grateful for that, so thanks.

[JamesVincent]

I have plans to take this to the courts.

Then shut up and do it. More action, less talk. Until you have a court agree with your claim your claim has no substance. I can say that I feel it violates my right to sleep when I want to because the sun rises at the wrong time. Unless a court agrees with me then all I have is a claim with no substance.

[morrand]

Here is a quote from the first case where the scope of jurisdiction of the courts conferred by section 24 was analysed, in Mills v the Queen, at para 278.

“It is difficult to imagine language which could give the court a wider and less fettered discretion.“

So, what's your point -- IF you have one?

Point #1: I should know better. Normally I do know better. As to my transgression, I plead incompetence, driven in part by a very nice four-year-old bottle of Stone w00tstout! that I have retrieved from my cellar for the holiday.

Point #2: Full citations are essential. I'm assuming you meant to cite Mills v. The Queen, 1986 CanLII 17 (SCC), [1986] 1 SCR 863, http://canlii.ca/t/1cxmx, retrieved on 2020-12-24. If not, too bad; write your cites next time.

Point #3: Reading is fundamental, and though this is a long and rangy case, the headnote explains:

The accused's appeal to this Court raised several issues: (1) Where an application alleges a breach of s. 11(b) of the Charter (a) is a judge or justice presiding at a preliminary inquiry a court of competent jurisdiction for the purposes of an application under s. 24(1) of the Charter; (b) is a judge of the supreme court of a province a court of competent jurisdiction for the purposes of an originating application under s. 24(1) of the Charter; (2) Assuming that a judge presiding at a preliminary hearing is a court of competent jurisdiction, is the decision of the inferior court susceptible to review either by prerogative writ or by independent application to a superior court pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter; and (3) Did the Court of Appeal for Ontario err in concluding that the appellant's constitutional right to be tried within a reasonable time had not been violated?

None of this has anything to do with...well, much of anything in this thread, since the question of which court to call on doesn't seem to have come up.

Point #4: The headnote also says, as one of the holdings,

When a Charter right is violated, s. 24(1) authorizes the court to grant an appropriate remedy. It neither excludes the court from further participation in the matter nor specifies the remedy. The remedy will vary with the circumstances.

This does not support your case as much as I think you think it does.

Point #5: You quote is deceptive. The full paragraph (with your portion highlighted) is:

[278] What remedies are available when an application under s. 24(1) of the Charter succeeds? Section 24(1) again is silent on the question. It merely provides that the appellant may obtain such remedy as the court considers "appropriate and just in the circumstances". It is difficult to imagine language which could give the court a wider and less fettered discretion. It is impossible to reduce this wide discretion to some sort of binding formula for general application in all cases, and it is not for appellate courts to pre‑empt or cut down this wide discretion. No court may say, for example, that a stay of proceedings will always be appropriate in a given type of case. Although there will be cases where a trial judge may well conclude that a stay would be the appropriate remedy, the circumstances will be infinitely variable from case to case and the remedy will vary with the circumstances.

This, too, does not seem to support your case. It says that, if a Charter application succeeds, then the court of competent jurisdiction (which is defined elsewhere in the case, according to the notes) gets to decide how to address it. That hardly compels any particular kind of relief: if anything, the Court here seems to be saying exactly the opposite of that. You certainly can't demand any particular outcome based on it.

Point #5: The law is not poker. You can't just draw a winning hand and slap it on the table like you do, even if you had one, and cry, "Aha!" and win the pot. At least you can't most of the time, and you certainly can't with the hands you're showing.

Point #6: The court is so pissed. Baker et al. v. Allstate Insurance Co. et al., U.S.D.C. Cen. Dist. Calif. (W.D.) case 19-cv-08024, Transcript (Order to Show Cause Hearing) (Doc. #44), p. 7: 2. That case is not directly relevant to yours, but the transcript is hilarious anyway in a definite schadenfreude way and I hope it compensates in part for spilling more words over this topic.

Point #7: My own patience, beer, and tolerance from the forum are all likely to run out before you get a chance to respond, so please don't expect me to engage in a discussion around these things. I do not care. If you do take this to court, I wish you success, but I expect otherwise.

[Psam]

I wish everybody here a happy holiday, and thanks for all the friendly and informative discussions. I’ve learned a lot here.

[Burnaby49]

I have plans to take this to the courts. I doubt that anyone here would refute that such plans should be made carefully and patiently. I’m just responding to a forum that claims that my allegations have no substantiation whatsoever. It doesn’t make much difference to me that even after illustrating where the necessary statutory jurisdiction could be conferred by courts, I’ve had my comments removed and I continue to be told my claims are baseless; for me it’s great practice and I’m grateful for that, so thanks.

You went to court, and lost, in October 2014, over six years ago. Your delay in going again isn't the result of "carefully and patiently" planning, that wouldn't take any sentient being six years and counting. You're talking a good game but you're afraid to get out of the dugout.

if you do go to court and advise us of it I'll be there reporting but I don't anticipate that happening in my expected remaining lifespan. If I last as long as my father I've got about twenty years left. You'll still be working on your arguments.

I’m just responding to a forum that claims that my allegations have no substantiation whatsoever.

I plead guilty as charged.

[Pottapaug1938]

My point was that I was told that the ISS has to prove statutory jurisdiction and I was explaining where that statutory jurisdiction comes from, but my point was deleted.

I have plans to take this to the courts. I doubt that anyone here would refute that such plans should be made carefully and patiently. I’m just responding to a forum that claims that my allegations have no substantiation whatsoever. It doesn’t make much difference to me that even after illustrating where the necessary statutory jurisdiction could be conferred by courts, I’ve had my comments removed and I continue to be told my claims are baseless; for me it’s great practice and I’m grateful for that, so thanks.

Your comments were removed because 1) you were making the same unsupported claims, over and over and over and over and over again, and not paying attention to our responses; 2) you kept on "moving the goalposts" by needless requests for further proof, after we had provided you with plenty; and 3) your claims rarely (and I'm being generous, here) had enough substance to merit a reasoned response (see Wnuck and Crain). You were so fixated on the issue of courts having jurisdiction to hear your claims that you failed to realize that jurisdiction is not enough. To borrow a US phrase, you need to show that you have stated a claim on which relief can be granted by the courts; otherwise, your case gets summarily dismissed, or dismissed on motion of the opposing party.

It will be your time and money, if you really do intend to pursue your claims in court; so I wish you all the luck in the world. You will need every bit of it, and then some.

[Psam]

Was I not told earlier in this discussion after the briefs of my arguments were assessed that one of the issues I was going to have to deal with was that the statutory jurisdiction of the ISS would have to somehow be demonstrated?

The first answer I gave to this question was soundly derided. Fine. Fair enough.

The second answer I gave to this question was deleted and I was told I was being repetitive, even though the answer was completely different from the first one I gave and it was the first time I was giving it.

As you’ve stated, in this forum you have no obligation to treat me fairly or respectfully. Great, I get that. So you’ll probably delete this comment too. Excellent. Please prove to me that you experience enough trepidation at the thought of the courts seeing any validity to my arguments that you don’t even want to see those arguments stated publicly if you have the power to prevent it.

Clearly you think I’m an idiot for claiming that according to Mills v. The Queen, 1986 CanLII 17 (SCC), [1986] 1 SCR 863, the courts have the constitutionally endowed authority to confer statutory jurisdiction upon the ISS if it is the only (or most effective and practicable) available means of ceasing the denial of a right that has not been justified according to s.1. Please elaborate upon how stupid I am for thinking this. I love it.

[Burnaby49]

Please prove to me that you experience enough trepidation at the thought of the courts seeing any validity to my arguments that you don’t even want to see those arguments stated publicly if you have the power to prevent it.

Stop being a martyr weaving paranoid fantasies of persecution and repression. Had we been so terrified of the power of your arguments that we want to stop them becoming public knowledge we wouldn't have allowed you to post here in the first place. Instead you've been posting here for years. As far as I know Quatloos is the only public forum (apart from your website) that has allowed you, until recently, such unlimited access. You've seen some of your recent posts deleted because you're getting overwhelmingly tedious and incomprehensible, not because we give a crap about your political nonsense. If you check back you'll find almost all of your prior posts still intact, unedited, and available to anyone who wants to read them. Your real problem is that nobody does, the rest of the world doesn't give a crap either. If you feel that you haven't been able to prove whatever it is your trying to prove in the thousands of words of gibberish you've already inflicted on us that's your fault, not ours. I have the "power to prevent" your arguments being "stated publicly" by simply deleting all your posts and banning you from Quatloos yet you, and your posts, are still here.

Clearly you either think I’m an idiot for claiming that according to Mills v. The Queen, 1986 CanLII 17 (SCC), [1986] 1 SCR 863, the courts have the constitutionally endowed authority to confer statutory jurisdiction upon the ISS if it is the only (or most effective and practicable) available means of ceasing the denial of a right that has not been justified according to s.1. Please elaborate upon how stupid I am for thinking this. I love it.

First a quibble about that atrociously written, virtually unintelligible first sentence. If you use the word "either" you are presenting two alternatives. You presented no alternatives, you just state we think you are an idiot for your interpretation of Mills.

I'd go more for willfully blind. First, as Wes and I have both pointed out Mills is totally irrelevant until you prove a Charter right has been violated. Since you are never going to work up the nerve to go to court it doesn't matter what Mills says. I think on some level you are aware you won't win which is why you waste your time here fantasizing about how welcoming the court will be to your Charter arguments rather going there and putting them to the test.

As to why you won't win, I've beaten that to death but here are a few;

1 - the Charter allows you the right to vote. Nobody's stopping you however you chose not to. You chose not to because the Canadian government won't meet your demands that our entire system of voting and party politics be modified to meet your whims. You have the Charter right to vote and a court would confirm that but you don't have a Charter right to pick whatever voting system meets your fancy an impose it on the rest of us Canadians. The court would confirm that too. You know this. But if you can't stop the madness without absolute proof don't argue with me about it, go to court and find out for yourself.

2 - The voting system is a political issue which the courts will not, in fact cannot, order changed to an alternate system. That's the duty of parliament acting on behalf of the people of Canada. The judge at your 2014 hearing told you this. Go back and read the transcript you paid for.

[JamesVincent]

[snip a bunch of dumb, irrelevant shit]
Please elaborate upon how stupid I am for thinking this.

You're a moron. Less talking, more action.

[Psam]

Speaking of wilfully blind,

Mills is totally irrelevant until you prove a Charter right has been violated.

I’ve already stated several times that the SCC uses expressions like “rights shall be defined broadly and liberally” in Sauvé, “Charter analysis requires courts to look beyond the words of the section” in Figueroa, “[a]ny limit on the right to vote must be carefully scrutinized and cannot be tolerated without a compelling justification“ in Frank, and several others to show that there would be some consistency with previous precedent for courts to agree that periods of time when section 3 Charter rights are not available to be exercised can indeed be qualified as denials of these rights in accordance with s.24.

Still you insist that it is insane to consider the possibility that this might be construed as a denial of these rights in accordance with s.24.

Sure, I’m sorry I accidentally put the word “either” in a sentence where it shouldn’t have been. That was a mistake, sort of like when Pottapaug thought “SCC” was some illusion I had come up with and then apologised for it sincerely. Did I treat him with contempt for that mistake? I hope not, and your contempt toward me for mine seems to indicate that you hate me for reasons beyond just my occasional lack of thorough attention to the accuracy of every single thing I write.

That’s totally okay that you hate me though. I’m okay with it. Please don’t think I’m martyring myself over it. I’m not. Go ahead and hate me because I like to see people have freedom to make choices. No problem. Like I say, it’s good practice for me for when I am actually in court.

It is funny that you seem to want me to rush to get my case into court though. I mean, you said you worked for a great deal of your life in accounting, I believe, so I would think you have enough of an understanding of the patience required for success in matters like taxes, judicious accountability, and scrutiny for the law that you would agree that patience and preparation are to my advantage. You’re either deliberately trying to goad me into going into court unprepared or else you’ve lost your edge in your retirement.

Is it not true that I was asked previously whether any statutory jurisdiction for the ISS could be demonstrated?

Do you disagree that s.24 of the Charter gives the courts the authority to confer conditional statutory jurisdiction upon the ISS if it is the only available means of providing a remedy for a right that is denied without demonstrable justification as per section 1 of the Charter?