Psam Frank - Sovereign with his own laws and 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 worth of cocaine 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.

[Burnaby49]

In other words more delusional bombast of brave actions you'll never carry out but no answer to my simple question. Since you're apparently unwilling to answer why you haven't taken your S. 3 Charter challenge to court you deflected by saying that you can't go to court because you haven't been charged with a criminal offense, a completely different issue. You had the courage and determination to fight for your beliefs nine years ago when you actually filed and fought a court challenge based on them and your legal interpretations. Now you just argue them on Quatloos.

[eric]

Here's some advice. In your quest to go to court you did it completely wrong. In Canada, the Crown, in this case the PPSC, does not have a morning coffee meeting and decide who they're going to prosecute that day. Emailing them to tell them you plan to do something under their purview will get you dismissed as a crank. (not so subtle hint) You have to get arrested first by the local constabulary, they have to prove the elements of the offence (there are multiple references online to help you for narcotics offences), pass it to the Provincial Crown, who then after review passes it to the PPSC. You can skip a step by getting arrested at the border. Your plan to sell a gram of coke and claiming you did it after the fact through various affidavits just won't cut it. I suggest you plan on booking a return flight to the appropriate country, they're warmer than we are but you may find the trip somewhat pricey and also unpleasant considering who you want to meet with.

[Psam]

Since you're apparently unwilling to answer why you haven't taken your S. 3 Charter challenge to court you deflected by saying that you can't go to court because you haven't been charged with a criminal offense, a completely different issue. You had the courage and determination to fight for your beliefs nine years ago when you actually filed and fought a court challenge based on them and your legal interpretations. Now you just argue them on Quatloos.

I'm sorry. I was under the impression that contravening the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and confessing to a police officer to having done so, would result in me taking my s. 3 Charter challenge to court. In fact, I'm surprised that you're not more surprised that I made this confession and was just told to go home instead of having some kind of legal action taken against me. I didn't realise that the only thing that separated people who broke laws and got charged and brought to court for it, versus the ones who don't, is that the ones who confess to the things they've done don't have to deal with the inconvenience and hassle of being charged and brought to court. Is that really how it works? Wow.

And now you're claiming that I deflected your question by claiming that I'd done something that I had thought would easily result in me being brought before a court (breaking a law) and for some reason, it hadn't ended up with me being brought before a court. No, I'm not deflecting it. I'm expressing how I executed a plan to take my Charter challenge before a court, and I'm wondering why you are happy with your tax dollars going to the salaries of people whose job is outlined in federal legislation (the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act enacted by your "democratically" chosen renewable oligarchy oops I mean government) and yet they don't seem to be doing what they're paid to do: arrest people who break the laws made by that government.

But when I first indicated my intention to acquire a bunch of cocaine with the intention to traffic, you didn't believe I'd do that. You basically claimed I was lying when I had the intention to do that. But I did. And now I am claiming I intend to travel to a country where cocaine is produced and bring it back to Canada in my carry on baggage, and you are once again claiming that I am lying when I say that I intend to do that.

And what is really funny is that you are talking as though I am inflicting my tedious and unwelcome presence upon your blog by voicing my opinions here and discussing my actions and plans. Your blog, that has my name on it. Your blog, that you created to personally mock and ridicule me. You named me in a blog and started saying all kinds of stuff in it, a great deal of which wasn't even the slightest bit true, and now you act as though I am the one imposing upon you by participating in the discussion.

Your claim that the alleged government of Canada has any right to govern me is not based on conclusive reasoning, but then, nothing that you claim (or believe) is based on conclusive reasoning, because you are not a man who bases his beliefs on conclusive reasoning. You are a man who based his claims and beliefs on what serves his own personal purposes most effectively.

When people of conscience communicate with each other, they are each willing to consider the possibility that there may be some merit to the other's claims.

I am willing to consider the possibility that there may be merit to your claim that the Crown has the right to govern me. You are unwilling to show any consideration whatsoever to the possibility that there is anything unethical about the Crown imposing its governance upon me without my consent. Based on this difference between us, it is clear that you are the one in this discussion who has no interest in genuine reflection upon conscience. And your answer to this will no doubt be to claim that it is laughable that I would wish for a society in which conscience has any bearing upon people's relations.

It is really funny that you think the words "broad and liberal", as used in a conspicuous way by the Supreme Court of Canada, can be dismissed with no consideration whatsoever. I'm glad you're not a judge. If you were a judge, a lot of people would be treated with great contempt, abuse, and arbitrariness, because you are a man lacking integrity or sincerity.

It's a pleasure to be able to have this discussion with someone as ethically vapid as you. Thank you for the time you have taken to respond to my claims. It's nice to be able to get a feel for how a person with feeble conscience works. It's informative. It's an opportunity that is not always available.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

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.

You're just a nutter off the street to the officers. If you were serious with your "confession" you'd take a sizable sample, more than a personal use amount, of your wares with you. But I suspect they recognise all mouth and no trousers when they see it.

[Burnaby49]

Section 3 of the Charter says, in its entirety;

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.

Only a total idiot would believe that somehow confessing to the police about a bullshit drug offense would result in a trial where Section 3 had any relevance. Since you're not an idiot your response was clearly just more gibberish, a deliberately misunderstanding a simple question in order to avoid answering it.

In 2013 you filed a Statement of Claim initiating a lawsuit against the province of British Columbia then you went to court and argued it. You lost but you tried your best and followed the correct procedure to get your position heard by the court. There's absolutely nothing stopping you from doing the exactly the same thing again with your bombshell revelation regarding chapters 19 and 20 of Figueroa v. Canada. A clear simple put up or shut up position. But you won't do either. Instead your default position seems to be posting meaningless nonsense on Quatloos. I have to assume it's from desperation, we're the only website left that lets you indulge in arguing your fantasy law.

[wserra]

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

False, of course.

On multiple occasions, you edited your posts after someone responded to them. I politely asked you not to do that. On at least one subsequent occasion, you ignored me. Consequence: you lost the power to edit.

Broader lesson: if you want to make your own posting rules, start your own board. If you want to install your own political system - and have had no luck convincing anyone who matters to join you - start your own country.

[The Observer]

At least Psam realizes that he must tell the authorities that he has committed a crime in order to have a wee chance of attracting their attention, so let's admit that he has made progress, however minute it may be.

Several years ago, Psam sent a letter to Attorney General Eby advising him that he was going to commit sex crimes and was unable to understand why the good AG ignored him. Of course, Psam is still confused as to why the police officers aren't paying attention to his confession about possession. My guess is that they consider Psam as a person who has a credibility problem.

At this point, Psam may decide to actually commit a crime in front of authorities in order to get the attention he thinks he deserves.

[Pottapaug1938]

I think that Psammy is desperate for attention. He recently sent me a PM claiming that I misunderstood his interactive voting system", but any post which I made about it was made so long ago that I had forgotten about both Psammy and his crackpot system.

I think that he should take his cocaine, walk into a police station, and offer to sell it to the officer at the desk. He'll get his wish, methinks; and among other things, it will mean that we won't hear from him for a while, at least.

[Burnaby49]

I think that he should take his cocaine, walk into a police station, and offer to sell it to the officer at the desk. He'll get his wish, methinks; and among other things, it will mean that we won't hear from him for a while, at least.

This is far, far, from the first time he's made bold declarations of intent that he was going to take drastic action that would force the authorities to respond then quietly dumped it all in the memory hole when it got to the point that he may have had to actually do something apart from rant on the internet. Back in 2015 he said he was going to commit suicide, for sure, no kidding, this time he really, really meant it, unless the government immediately changed Canada's electoral system from first-past-the post to his demented 'vote whenever you want, as many times as you want' system. If the government didn't do this then his life in our current fascist dictatorship wasn't worth living and he was going to slowly starve himself to death in front of a grieving nation. Well, not quite starve, for some reason he was going to slowly dwindle away on a diet of maple syrup to make his death even more agonizing. If I recall he even gave the date he'd start. However, unconscionably, our corrupt government totally ignored him as if his threat was just some idiot spouting bullshit. But he stood his ground as the day approached until, time getting uncomfortably close to when he'd have to put up or shut up, he reluctantly said that he was willing to sacrifice himself for the common good and not commit suicide after all. Apparently his pretend fantasy Canadian government couldn't function without him and his fellow pretend government officials were begging him to stay alive and at the helm to keep the dream alive. So he reluctantly called it off.

If I recall correctly (not looking it up) he later boldly proclaimed a plan relating to prostitution where he was going to force the police to arrest him and he'd prevail at trial using his constitutional brilliance. I think it's somewhere in this extremely voluminous thread. Now he's blustering about forcing a government response by selling and/or smuggling cocaine.

Based on his past record of big boasts and threats but, in the end, no action, I'd say that the chances of him doing anything apart from churning out keyboard fantasies are nil.

[Dr. Caligari]

Based on his past record of big boasts and threats but, in the end, no action, I'd say that the chances of him doing anything apart from churning out keyboard fantasies are nil.

Pso, are you psaying that Psam is full of pshit?

[Psam]

http://issociety.org/the-first-allegedl ... -on-video/

[AnOwlCalledSage]

It's a bag of flour isn't it.

The most likely charge would be wasting police time although, if they have any sense, they won't waste anytime on such nonsense.

[Burnaby49]

He's been threatening to do this cocaine stunt for, literally, years. He hasn't gotten past the point of empty posturing though and I doubt he ever will. Back in the summer of 2015 he made online promises that he was going to starve himself to death within a few months unless his idiotic voting system was instituted by the Canadian government. We still have our old traditional first-past-the-post voting system but he's still here, alive and well. I anticipate that this current round of bloviating will end the same way.

[Psam]

The most likely charge would be wasting police time

The charge would actually be called Public Mischief. Here’s what the Criminal Code of Canada says:

Public mischief

140 (1) Every one commits public mischief who, with intent to mislead, causes a peace officer to enter on or continue an investigation by

(c) reporting that an offence has been committed when it has not been committed

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/act ... n-140.html

And also:

(2) Every one who commits public mischief

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/act ... ml#docCont

But guess who else is on trial for public mischief?

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6420206

I wouldn’t blame anyone for thinking I’m an even bigger moron than the Mayor of Surrey, in which case I likely can’t fulfil the condition in section 140 of the Criminal Code of Canada where it says “any person who is a loser who the public, by and large, doesn’t give a shit about, may expect not to be charged for this crime”. I believe that was section 140(7), but my memory is a bit hazy on that one. Still, I hope I get some sympathy from all the people I love here at Quatloos that the only reason the Mayor of Surrey gets to be charged with a crime I’m trying to be charged with (by selling a bag of flour in a YouTube video and claiming that it’s cocaine) is that he’s a really well known loser while I’m a loser nobody “gives a shit about”, as the Criminal Code of Canada says.

But just for the record, it was not flour. It was cocaine. I’d love to make a wisecrack about your intelligence here but I’d get kicked off of this forum for doing that, while you lovely people can say whatever you want about me and pat each other on the back for it. That’s called having a biased moderator. It’s not generally considered ethical. But what do you people care about ethical. You don’t even care whether the members of the alleged government obey the law.

[The Observer]

I wouldn’t blame anyone for thinking I’m an even bigger moron than the Mayor of Surrey, in which case I likely can’t fulfil the condition in section 140 of the Criminal Code of Canada where it says “any person who is a loser who the public, by and large, doesn’t give a shit about, may expect not to be charged for this crime”. I believe that was section 140(7), but my memory is a bit hazy on that one.

Actually, the code doesn't say anything about people being able to avoid prosecution due to their perceived status by society at large. Here is the complete section:

PART IV
Offences Against the Administration of Law and Justice (continued)
Misleading Justice (continued)
Marginal note:Public mischief

140 (1) Every one commits public mischief who, with intent to mislead, causes a peace officer to enter on or continue an investigation by

(a) making a false statement that accuses some other person of having committed an offence;

(b) doing anything intended to cause some other person to be suspected of having committed an offence that the other person has not committed, or to divert suspicion from himself;

(c) reporting that an offence has been committed when it has not been committed; or

(d) reporting or in any other way making it known or causing it to be made known that he or some other person has died when he or that other person has not died.

(2) Every one who commits public mischief

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

It's those words "every one" in part (2) that really spoils your hope that you can commit public mischief without consequences.

Still, I hope I get some sympathy from all the people I love here at Quatloos...

Why do you hope that will happen? There is no reason to believe that event will happen, based on what has happened here previously with your posts and antics. We are not moved by tantrums, threats of self-harm, and tortured interpretations of the law; it is simply ineffective to try to manipulate us into believing that you are right about the law.

[The Observer]

It's a bag of flour isn't it.

And the whole idea that he sold a gram of cocaine to someone in Canada for $12 has some issues given the fact that the street price of cocaine is averaging $28 a gram in the US. I guess now we have to believe that:

(1) Psam gave a discount or sold the coke at a loss in order to commit this crime,

(2) has a source within Canada that is able to deliver for 50% less than other providers can and $2 under what Uruguay's street price is ($14 as of June 2022). Which is remarkable when you consider that Uruguay is proverbially right next door to the coco plantations in South America, and Canada is thousands of miles away,

or

(3) Psam has no idea of what the price of cocaine is so he just made up a price when scripting this scenario instead of diligently researching it.

[Psam]

Psam has no idea of what the price of cocaine is so he just made up a price when scripting this scenario instead of diligently researching it.

Actually, I conducted an auction.
http://issociety.org/cocaine-auction/
When the auction was done, I sold it to the highest bidder for the price that had been last bid.
Maybe I don’t understand how auctions work. Would someone please tell me what I did wrong?

[The Observer]

When the auction was done, I sold it to the highest bidder for the price that had been last bid.
Maybe I don’t understand how auctions work. Would someone please tell me what I did wrong?

Psam, Psam, Psam. From your link:

The most recent bid in this auction presently stands at $12, cast by Teresa Rutley, previous prime representative of the ISS, on February 4.

The auction item is a quantity (1.18g) of cocaine commonly valued at $100 [emphasis is mine].

Most auction houses/auctioneers learn to understand the value of the commodity that they are attempting to sell. That is because they do not want the people they are representing in the sale to watch their items going out the door for cheap unless it is unavoidable. The auctioneer also has a responsibility to understand the mood and willingness of the buyers to compete for the item that is going to block. So it is quite common for the auctioneer or auction house to set a minimum bid or reserve price that must be met before the item will be considered sold.

In your case, if you really did sell a gram or so for $12, then by your own admission, that was $88 under the value you had set on the coke. I am sure that there were contributing factors that impacted the price for which the coke sold. There was probably concern that the coke was fake, or that the sale was illegal and could bring the police down on the neck of the successful buyer and bidders. Add in the fact that your sale appeared to be only advertised to your ISS members which dramatically limited the number of competitive bidders and kept the bidding from even reaching normal market rates. Hopefully, if the coke was authentic, you didn't try to sell the approximate gram for someone else; they may be very unhappy that your auction was a complete failure in terms of them making a profit. Sometimes people who are involved in the underworld market of illicit drugs can get very angry and completely unreasonable about situations like this; they may decide that you need to pay up the difference. Failing that, they may decide to use violence against you. This is not a situation where they are going to be sympathetic to your mishandling of the sale.

But I doubt things are that drastic. My presumption is you assembled a bad of something that looks like coke and convinced the rest of the ISS to participate in your little game of trying to trick the police.

[Psam]

My presumption is you assembled a bad of something that looks like coke and convinced the rest of the ISS to participate in your little game of trying to trick the police.

Trick the police into what?!

If I now deny that the substance in the video was cocaine, doesn’t that make me guilty of public mischief for claiming a crime had been committed (trafficking) when it actually had not?

If I make good on my offer to surrender the remaining 20 grams of cocaine in my possession to be used against me as evidence in trafficking charges in which I would gratefully use my constitutional defence to test whether the courts affirm its validity (as I’ve freely offered to do in the link below), doesn’t that make me guilty of trafficking as long as my defence is as baseless as you claim it is? http://issociety.org/wp-content/uploads ... uction.pdf

So what exactly are you claiming I am trying to trick the police into?