Psam Frank - Sovereign with his own laws and court

[Psam]

I wouldn’t be surprised if there was nobody here who would really be interested in applying an open mind to the wording of the Constitution of Canada and the literal interpretations that the Supreme Court of Canada has made of the Constitution in previous decisions based on explicitly presented reasoning, but nonetheless, I’m gonna ask a question just in case anyone wants to just give that a shot.

The constitutional defence I’ve sent to enforcement and prosecution authorities in my now numerous confessions to possession of 20 grams of cocaine with the intention to traffic and other drug act contraventions is in Appendix A of the Canada Interactive Legislature Charter, which can be found starting on page 10 here: http://issociety.org/wp-content/uploads/CIL-Charter.pdf.

It’s almost five pages, and of course it wouldn’t be worth your time unless the mockery of my delusions would be enjoyable to you, which I’m about fifty fifty on in terms of likelihood.

I would love to know specifically which part of the defence written in those five pages appears inconsistent with precedent to anyone in this forum.

If you’re gonna treat me like the idiot you know I am, at least you may as well do it for the most applicable reasons, and that defence written on those five pages is the essence of what I’m working with, so that should be the most salient part of my rationale to criticise.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

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?

No. It makes you an idiot living in your Walter Mitty world. That, as far as I'm aware, is not a crime.

Fantasists exist all over the world. Most civilised countries don't jail them for it.

[Pottapaug1938]

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?

C'mon, now. You know full well what you are trying to trick the police into doing; and I do not have the time to tell you. I'd rather sit at my window and watch the grass turn brown.

[wserra]

it wouldn’t be worth your time

Well, you got one thing right. It would no more be worth my time to read it than it is worth the time of law enforcement to humor your publicity-stunt "drug sale".

On the other hand, were you actually serious about this, I have a suggestion. Forget the videos and the confessions. Go to the RCMP station nearest you, stand in front of the door, and start asking passers-by if they want some coke. Real coke, not the talc or mannitol you were pretending to sell. Wave it around. Snort some yourself. Then you will have the opportunity to test out your "defense".

But you won't do that, will you? An internet Rambo, a real-life Brave Sir Robin.

[Psam]

It seems everyone on this thread believes I have not broken the law at this point, except The Observer.

I’ll just remind everyone who disagrees that I have broken the law exactly what the law is.

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

In my video, the camera pans from my face down to my hand and a buyer’s hand, and there is some money and allegedly, according to me, some cocaine there, and I change the items between the hands.

If I claim that it is cocaine in my hand in this video, then unless my constitutional defence is valid, I am reporting that an offence has been committed. If I know that it is actually not cocaine and yet I claim that it is, then I am “reporting that an offence has been committed when it has not been committed”, as section 140(1)(c) claims is in violation of the Code.

Who knows what kind of clarification might be found as to how it might be the case that I have not committed a crime (failing the validity of my constitutional defence, which I believe everyone here believes is baseless).

If you believe there are some occasions when a person violates the laws in the Criminal Code of Canada with enforcement authorities having full knowledge of the contravention, and the authorities do nothing about it, perhaps the conditions that distinguish the violations against which action is taken versus the violations which are ignored should be clearly stated. Isn’t it the government’s duty to clarify what the law is for citizens?

The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that “laws command obedience because they are made by those whose conduct they govern”. Do you believe the members of this Court are, what, a bunch of hacks? Do those words actually dictate a valid and lawful principle of constitutional interpretation or are they just some fluff mixed in with a handful of candy floss?

[eric]

Let me just see if I understand this. For a couple of years you have claimed to have committed criminal acts involving hookers and blow, and perhaps public mischief. The whole purpose of doing this is so that you can be arrested, go to court, and try out your miracle defense. Instead of trolling quatloos why don't you just sucker punch a cop, beat up a little old lady, or rob a liquor store? Seems a lot simpler and faster to me or are you just as previously mentioned nothing more than a keyboard warrior.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

In my video, the camera pans from my face down to my hand and a buyer’s hand, and there is some money and allegedly, according to me, some cocaine there, and I change the items between the hands.

Here's shocking evidence of Matthew McConaughey caught on film. Just as convincing as your "evidence"



It you want to cause mischief, walk into a police station with some real cocaine. Wave it in front of the duty officer.

But you don't have any cocaine do you. It is not a criminal offence to sell flour, icing sugar or bicarbonate of soda.

[Psam]

shocking evidence of Matthew McConaughey caught on film. Just as convincing as your "evidence"

Owl,

Here are some questions you might consider.

Do you agree that Portugal and Switzerland have both decriminalised drugs?

Do you agree that in both places, since decriminalisation, there have been less drug associated deaths?

Do you agree that in both places, there are less drug associated deaths than there are in Canada?

Do you feel a personal sense of desire to see less deaths of the people with whom you share the land in which you reside?

If your answer to these questions, or at least just that very last one in particular, isn’t the same as what I’m sure you know I’d like to see your answer be, then I don’t care in the slightest whether you believe me that the bag in my hand in the video is real cocaine. I don’t give an F, a U, a C, or any other conceivable letter that forms a word with them. I don’t give any appendage or protrusion of a rat or mouse, anterior, posterior, cranial, I don’t care.

…unless of course you work for the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. Then I care. But you don’t appear to have the knowledge of the law necessary to pass the LSAT in the first place, let alone rise through the ranks of a career in law to get to a level of accreditation to be welcomed into the squad of lawyers who decide on behalf of the nation which people accused of crimes shall be prosecuted and which shall not.

I’m sure the officers I’ve spoken to in person at the Vancouver Police Department and Burnaby RCMP believed the cocaine I had on me (or in one case, was willing to remove from my safety deposit box and surrender it as evidence if they would accompany me there) was real. That matters to me, and they should know, being officers of the law, that if I am lying to them that I have enough cocaine in my possession to qualify for trafficking, then I am guilty of public mischief for telling them this lie, with a penalty of up to five years in prison according to the Code.

If prosecutors believe that my defence may succeed in court, then they may be abstaining from pursuing me because malicious prosecution is against their ethics.

Is there anyone on this thread who can think of another profession that takes the word “ethics” as seriously as the law profession?

The fact that prosecutors know that I have stated in person on video that I am selling cocaine, and that my name is not listed in the credits as an “actor” but rather I state plainly that I am speaking genuinely, and yet they have not taken any action against me, that is a sign to me that my constitutional defence is being taken seriously by the people who matter.

I’m just here to rub that in your faces. If you want to deny me that satisfaction by claiming that I haven’t given enough evidence of my alleged crimes for a conviction to be an absolute certainty if my constitutional defence fails, despite the fact that the evidence is plentifully persuasive to any court as per any other trafficking conviction, then I’ll just take satisfaction in the fact that you want me to be wrong so badly that you’ll doctor the truth to make it appear as if I am.

That’s highly entertaining, and I thank you for those moments of lighthearted mirth.

[wserra]

that is a sign to me that my constitutional defence is being taken seriously by the people who matter.

But that is a sign to the sane universe that they think you're a harmless nutcase.

[Burnaby49]

I’m just here to rub that in your faces. If you want to deny me that satisfaction by claiming that I haven’t given enough evidence of my alleged crimes for a conviction to be an absolute certainty if my constitutional defence fails, despite the fact that the evidence is plentifully persuasive to any court as per any other trafficking conviction, then I’ll just take satisfaction in the fact that you want me to be wrong so badly that you’ll doctor the truth to make it appear as if I am.

We'd have to care, at least to some minuscule amount, about your arguments before you'd rub anything in our faces. We don't. We didn't invite you to come and babble here about what a hero you are, you're here because nobody else will put up with your gibberish. As I've posted over and over in the past, if you actually believe your own legal interpretations stop posting hypothetical questions and nonsensical arguments and go and do whatever you are threatening to do. This cocaine bullshit is getting old, you keep pretending that you are going to force the police to arrest you, soon, sometime, one day, eventually. Why not today? Otherwise it's all empty bluster, your specialty. We're not doctoring the truth to make it appear you are wrong, that would imply that your arguments or positions were of interest to Quatloos posters. They're not. Your getting arrested and tried for coke possession is a different matter. That would get my attention and at least some respect. I'd attend your trial and write it up here. But, as your past boasting but lack of any follow-through has shown us, that's never going to happen.

[NYGman]

But confused, outside PSAMs word, we have no independent proof he had coke. Could have been corn starch for all any of us know. Given that PSAM is a bit of a nut, has a somewhat questionable past when it comes to the law and law enforcement I would tend not to put any faith or belief in what he said. Now as I think Wes said, if he wants to take some coke into a police station and ask them to test it for him so he can sell it, then maybe we would have something.

For some reason this whole thing reminds me of this

[wserra]

For some reason this whole thing reminds me of this

The reason, Gman: every silly situation has its Python metaphor. And Psam is high on the list of psilly psituations.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

For some reason this whole thing reminds me of this

The reason, Gman: every silly situation has its Python metaphor. And Psam is high on the list of psilly psituations.

'tis true dat. Ptham will next claim he's Thimon the Thaduthees Thwangler yet Pontius Pilot doesn't believe him.

[Pottapaug1938]

Until and unless Psammy stops dumping heaps of word salad onto this site, and actually does something which he is always claiming that he is going to do, he's not worth any of my time.

[The Observer]

Trick the police into what?!

I said "...[T]trying to trick the police." You would have to be successful at tricking them in the first place, which would mean they actually came out to arrest you. That didn't happen.

It seems everyone on this thread believes I have not broken the law at this point, except The Observer.

No, I don't believe you committed a crime. You failed at tricking the police into believing you were selling cocaine. So no crime was committed. That point seems to keep escaping you. I could record videos claiming that I had robbed a bank on a certain date, but if there is no evidence of a bank being robbed on that date and no bank is willing to support my statement, I am not going to be visited by the FBI.

In short, you created a scenario that would keep you from being arrested while claiming that you had proven your tortured illogical interpretation of the law.

[Dr. Caligari]

Why is anyone responding to this guy?

[The Observer]

Why is anyone responding to this guy?

Because Quatloosians get $100 a word when they respond and explain why none of this nonsense works or makes sense.

[Dr. Caligari]

Why is anyone responding to this guy?

Because Quatloosians get $100 a word when they respond and explain why none of this nonsense works or makes sense.

Where's my check?

[Pottapaug1938]

Why is anyone responding to this guy?

Because Quatloosians get $100 a word when they respond and explain why none of this nonsense works or makes sense.

Where's my check?

We don't get checks. We get 100 Quatloos per word; and we can only spend those in the various chapters of the Illuminati, enjoying various dissipations.

[Burnaby49]

In other words worth no more than my wife's air miles.