Psam Frank - Sovereign with his own laws and court

[Psam]

Eric,

I’m exceedingly grateful for your participation.

Please let me know if there are any terms or conditions in the written agreement between the auctioneer and the bidder that you would prefer to see changed.

http://issociety.org/wp-content/uploads ... eement.pdf

Please let me know if you would be comfortable having a name printed on the society’s website where your bid is published and if so, please state whether it is your legal name or a pseudonym.

Please let me know if I may share your contact information with the previous bidder to keep the tone of the bidding friendly and social.

If this sale takes place with no intervention by authorities, then by that same precedent a provincial interactive legislature could amend Covid restrictions for ISS members, and those amended restrictions may be held in force for those members. I ask you to consider the reasoning that “more enfranchised voters are more likely to adhere to the measures that they collectively agree upon, so measures may be expected to be more effective and therefore lesser restrictions may achieve the same level of reduction in virus transmissibility”. Based on that reasoning, if you inform other bidders of your intentions as to whether to use your democratic enfranchisement to push for minimal reductions in restrictions or far reaching reductions, it will be easier to negotiate that compromise once members start working down to the final wording on the precise alterations to legislation. Who knows, perhaps the end result will overwhelmingly be to give no reductions in restrictions whatsoever. There are members strongly on both sides of that issue and we have a judicial mechanism to force a resolution of compromise in a middle ground when contention is aggravated.

All I’m asking is that you give some thought to that.

If you answer the first three questions, and no response required on the fourth, then I will put your bid on the registry. No need to read on any further for the purposes of the auction but I would enjoy hearing your response if you wish to be generous with your time.

It’s an honour, my friend.

Just a suggestion: I could post your name as “Eric who I met on Quatloos” and put a link to this blog.

Also please consider the eventuality that I continue to confess to authorities of these intentions in greater quantities. The RCMP officer I spoke to, for instance, informed me that he is willing to continue to monitor these intentions and inform me when it appears that investigatory and prosecutory authorities would consider it warranted to pursue judicial action or constitutional reference questions. If constitutional reference questions are put into motion, then it would merit my ceasing and desisting of intentions in good faith, halting the auction until further notice. But if my actions continue to grow in scope (publicly reporting cumulative amounts sold) and the authorities still do not intervene, then people who engage in these sorts of transactions may become confident that agreeing to the restrictions on their sales as outlined in the Charter of Commerce http://issociety.org/wp-content/uploads ... tances.pdf may allow them to continue their commerce without concern for intervention by authorities when the duly designated committee chooses to provide their license. In that case, I would relinquish my license and pursue a couple of other legislative mandates I have in mind. I do not intend to be competitive with people who may have far more experience and adeptness than I do at being accountable, responsible, and vigilant to the safety and emotional wellness of their customers.

People who would be entertained by a prosecution against me but would be pleasantly surprised to find that no such thing occurring means an opportunity for them to continue their actions with no concern of intervention by authorities have nothing to lose by paying interest in this auction.

I would like to see less people die. I hope that doesn’t make me naïve, over-idealistic, unreasonable, or just plain stupid, but I believe it would be arrogant for someone to claim to be able to know with conclusive certainty that it does, and I will be nothing but grateful for the honesty of someone who is willing to say that it appears that way to them as long as they’re not arrogant about it. And I’ll accept their bid for my cocaine with gratitude and friendship.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

And I’ll accept their bid for my cocaine with gratitude and friendship.

Oooh. Count me in. I bid 6,000,000,000 Swissindos.

[Psam]

I need to know the exchange rate between Canadian dollars and Swissindos before I’ll accept that bid, but if you like, I’ll put an honourable mention of your bid in the public update. What about Glissandos? How many of those would you pay to win a $100 bag of cocaine in an auction?

[eric]

Eric,
I’m exceedingly grateful for your participation.
Please let me know if there are any terms or conditions in the written agreement between the auctioneer and the bidder that you would prefer to see changed.

Please insert "Auctioneer shall deliver the product to the winning bidder in a manner and time and place specified by the bidder." If I win I choose 10543 101 St NW, Edmonton, AB T5H 2R9 at 9 PM on 26 September. Auctioneer must come alone and on foot. Don't worry, there's lots of public transportation available and an economical place to stay the night right across the street. It's a parking lot btw.

OK, I can't keep this going any longer. Yes I had a family member who moved a lot of product. He is also deceased, the phones were his. Signal is the app of choice for making drug deals. The specified meetup place at that time of night on welfare weekend should be just a'rocking. The place to stay across the street is a homeless shelter and at 9 pm those who are too intoxicated or belligerent to get into other shelters are lining up to "hit the mats" in the basement. Oh, and the neighborhood - imagine the entire Downtown East Side of Vancouver condensed and crammed into a few blocks. You really don't want to be there at night, alone, and on foot. Even the police foot or bicycle patrols are in groups of four. Sorry folks, just felt like doing a bit of trolling.

[Psam]

That’s pretty funny Eric. And pretty douchie. I put a lot of time, effort, and love into writing all that out for you. Now I’m gonna have to sell my cocaine for Glissandos.

[wserra]

Supreme Court of Canada, Sauvé v Canada para 44: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-c ... 0/index.do

The case holds that it is a Charter violation for the govt of Canada to deny the vote to inmates. While I admittedly didn't waste time by reviewing your prolix history here, I don't recall your arguments (such as they are) having anything to do with inmates. It is therefore unclear why you cite it.

[Psam]

The case holds that it is a Charter violation for the govt of Canada to deny the vote to inmates. While I admittedly didn't waste time by reviewing your prolix history here, I don't recall your arguments (such as they are) having anything to do with inmates. It is therefore unclear why you cite it.

Here’s a quote from Sauvé: “ 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”.

Hunter v Southam is about privacy rights and search and seizure. That has nothing to do with electoral rights for prisoners, like in Sauvé. What were these incompetent hacks in the Supreme Court of Canada doing citing Hunter in a decision about a completely different subject matter?

Big M Drug Mart and Eldridge have nothing to do with prisoners’ electoral rights either.

Wow, they’ll let any idiot into the Supreme Court of Canada these days, it seems.

[Psam]

Here’s something that might help you comprehend this, wserra.

https://www.iilsindia.com/blogs/ratio-d ... ter-dicta/

To cite the reasoning in a decision in another decision, it is not necessary that both decisions be about the same subject matter. It is only necessary that the reasoning in the initial decision was a part of the rationale that resulted in the decision, as opposed to being observations made by the judicial official(s).

The quote I cite from Sauvé is that “laws command obedience because they are made by those whose conduct they govern”. I would love to hear your speculation as to why this might not be a part of the reasoning that resulted in the final overall decision in the case, but perhaps we might agree that it is, in fact, germane.

Can the reasoning quoted above be applied to the question of whether or not periods of time during which fundamental democratic constitutional rights are not available to be exercised qualify as periods of denial of these rights?

If so, then it is quite reasonable to cite Sauvé while discussing my grievance.

I hope this helps you understand.

[Psam]

And wserra, if you really want to show any kind of reasoned criticism of my legal arguments, go to Appendix A starting on page 10 here
http://issociety.org/wp-content/uploads/CIL-Charter.pdf

Please feel free to ridicule me for what’s written there instead of taking cheap useless shots from your perch in the peanut gallery.

[Dr. Caligari]

Wow, they’ll let any idiot into the Supreme Court of Canada these days, it seems.

...but there's still not one stupid enough to buy your arguments.

[Psam]

...but there's still not one stupid enough to buy your arguments.

It’s funny that two officers have received a confession from me in person to contravention of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and yet neither one seems to have bothered recommending to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada that charges be pursued against me. If they really thought that the courts would not be stupid enough to buy my arguments, then wouldn’t they go ahead and charge me so that the courts could hear the case against me, reject my defence, and sentence me accordingly?

[AnOwlCalledSage]

If they really thought that the courts would not be stupid enough to buy my arguments, then wouldn’t they go ahead and charge me so that the courts could hear the case against me, reject my defence, and sentence me accordingly?

Or they really couldn't be arsed.

[wserra]

The quote I cite from Sauvé is that “laws command obedience because they are made by those whose conduct they govern”. I would love to hear your speculation as to why this might not be a part of the reasoning that resulted in the final overall decision in the case, but perhaps we might agree that it is, in fact, germane.

Can the reasoning quoted above be applied to the question of whether or not periods of time during which fundamental democratic constitutional rights are not available to be exercised qualify as periods of denial of these rights?

I thought it was something like that.

It's characteristic of certain wannabe-legal wackos to take very general language - such as “laws command obedience because they are made by those whose conduct they govern” - and superimpose their wackness on it. So you interpret "fundamental democratic constitutional rights" as inclusive of your pet peeve - something that has zero support in the law - and then rip general language from Sauvé to paint yourself as aggrieved.

The U.S. version of this shell game: 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. Denying them to me obviously violates fundamental U.S. law.

I've pointed this out to you before.

[Burnaby49]

Wally Dove had the same brilliant idea nine years ago which he actually took to the Federal court of Canada, lost, and appealed and lost again.

https://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewto ... =48&t=9418

Wally wanted a $100,000,000 handout from the Canadian government because the UN said he was entitled to it to provide an adequate living for himself.

[Psam]

Read paragraphs 19 and 20:
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-c ... 9/index.do

[Burnaby49]

Wow! what a stunner! Canadians have the right to form fringe political parties and benfit thereby. I guess you win and we Canadians will all be voting through your idiotic system next election.

As Wes implied, you've got one real talent, the ability to pull random paragraphs out of court decisions otherwise totally unrelated to the issue you're arguing and claim it means you win. Chapters 19 and 20 are what we reviewers of legal decision call boilerplate. Very general statements of law with no legal weight without support from other evidence. In this case the issue under review had nothing whatever to do with voting systems but related to the federal funding of political parties. The Supreme Court of Canada determined that Canadians' right to vote in federal elections were adversely affected by denying fringes parties the same government benefits as mainstream parties.

But, as a more general point, I keep going back to the question of why you're bothering with us. You returned here with the purported reason of trying to sell cocaine. This was was clearly bullshit from the start and you immediately abandoned it when your bluff was called. But you've stayed to argue the same idiocy that's already been beaten to death on this thread. Why? What do you gain even if you convinced us? We're nobody's, our agreeing with you advances nothing in your decade's long campaign in futility. If paragraphs 19 and 20 prove you're right your only avenue forward is to take it to court using a Section 3 Charter based argument. But you're afraid to take that step because you know the court will eviscerate you yet again. All that arguing here shows is that even you recognize the futility of your attempts to force the government to implement your system and squabbling with us is the limit of what you can achieve.

[Psam]

In this case the issue under review had nothing whatever to do with voting systems but related to the federal funding of political parties.

It also had to do with whether a political party could be disallowed from having its name on the ballot next to a candidate if the party was running less than fifty candidates.

Funny how you didn’t notice that this was part of the case.

You are really good at catering to your confirmation bias by showing deliberate ignorance toward facts that work against the result that you would prefer to see be true.

You returned here with the purported reason of trying to sell cocaine. This was was clearly bullshit from the start and you immediately abandoned it when your bluff was called.

And now you are, once again, deliberately lying. I did abandon it, no such thing at all. In fact, I was ready to accept a bid from a participant in this thread. You wanna check out the identities of the officers I named in the articles I wrote describing my confessions in the links I posted earlier? Go ahead! The officer at the VPD gave me his badge number as 2239 and the officer at the Burnaby RCMP was named Constable Kalsi.

Like I said earlier though, if you choose not to believe me, then that’s just more entertainment for me, seeing that you are so unable to refute the legal arguments I am presenting that you have to resort to disbelieving something I happen to know to be true as your effort to deny that there is anything the slightest bit reasonable about my claims.

But you're afraid to take that step because you know the court will eviscerate you yet again.

I’ll just remind you that the judge’s words to me were “in those circumstances the court will probably find it far more convincing that Charter issues could be invoked and argued”, NOT “there are absolutely no circumstances in which the Charter arguments you are presenting would have any merit in the eyes of the court”.

Paragraph 142 on page 32: http://issociety.org/wp-content/uploads ... uments.pdf

So “eviscerated” is clearly no just an exaggeration, but a stupid one to boot. But you’ll do whatever is in your power to discredit what I have to say: lie, deceive, manipulate, anything, whatever it takes. So feel free to continue to use the word “eviscerate” to describe the words that the judge spoke to me as quoted above. It’s quite entertaining.

[Psam]

I have been disallowed from editing my posts on this forum because one time I changed the word “a” to “an” in a previous comment and I was told that it was a deliberate attempt to deceive the participants in the thread.

So I wrote “I did abandon it”, what I meant to write was “I didn’t abandon it”. And where I wrote “clearly no just an exaggeration”, I meant “clearly not just an exaggeration”.

[Burnaby49]

I’ll just remind you that the judge’s words to me were “in those circumstances the court will probably find it far more convincing that Charter issues could be invoked and argued”, NOT “there are absolutely no circumstances in which the Charter arguments you are presenting would have any merit in the eyes of the court”.

So, in your analysis of your adverse decision, you were encouraged by the court to return and try again with with a Charter based argument. You claim that Figueroa v. Canada (Attorney General) is a Supreme Court decision that meets that requirement. So why haven't you tried again in court?

[Psam]

In the last month or so, I have been to two different police stations in two different cities and spoken to two different police officers confessing to possession of a couple of thousand dollars with the intention to traffic.

Neither one of them was interested in taking any action.

So I haven’t had the chance to test my defence in court.

Perhaps it would have helped if I hadn’t emailed the Public Prosecution Service in advance and told them which police station I’d be going into and what time I’d be showing up there. Maybe they instructed the police not to detain me because they want to avoid the possibility of having my defence be accepted by a court because then I wouldn’t come across as delusional anymore to people who are sceptical of my constitutional claims.

I’ve also emailed the Attorney General of Canada http://issociety.org/wp-content/uploads ... ederal.pdf asking to have some constitutional reference questions put before courts. No answer.

I guess the next thing I’m going to try to do is go to a country where cocaine is produced and take home a lot more than two thousand dollars worth in my carry on baggage, and alert Canadian enforcement authorities as to my intentions and the flight I expect to be on. That way I’m pretty sure I’d get a chance to try my defence in court.

But if they still didn’t charge me and prosecute me even THEN, then I’d start to be really disappointed. But hey, at least I’d probably make some money off of the cocaine, so that wouldn’t be a bad consolation prize.