Psam Frank - Sovereign with his own laws and court

[jcolvin2]

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

AirSoros - part of the OneWorld Alliance

[AnOwlCalledSage]

AirSoros - part of the OneWorld Alliance

I've been getting paid in SwissAirIndo points.

[The Observer]

Where's my check?

I bet it's in the mail.

[Pottapaug1938]

Where's my check?

I bet it's in the mail.

Get the Lord High Treasurer of your local Illuminati chapter to get you a new one, if it doesn't arrive soon.

[jcolvin2]

I've been getting paid in SwissAirIndo points.

Me too. When I shill for Soros, I feel the Bern!

[LordEd]

Where's my check?

I bet it's in the mail.

It is. Stamped with a painted red finger print to be delivered to addressee. They accept that for postage, right?

[Burnaby49]

No, you have to include the finger too.

[Psam]

So just to bring all of you luvzyduvzies back up to date on exactly where my nefarious intentions have progressed,...

https://issociety.org/vancouver-busines ... ine-sales/

That is a link where I've provided you with a copy of a letter that you can send to the City of Vancouver (CoV) reporting me for selling cocaine without a business licence, which carries the penalty in the CoV by-laws of a fine between $250 and $10,000.

You've told me that you believe that the product I've been selling is not cocaine.

Here is part of the Criminal Code of Canada.

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 ... ml#docCont

Public mischief is punishable by up to five years in prison. If I'm lying about having cocaine, there's sufficient evidence to easily have me convicted of this crime.

Now here is a recording of a conversation I had on the phone with Constable Sombrano of the Vancouver Police Department, in which he told me that even if I hand a bag of 20 grams of cocaine to a police officer and state clearly that I intend to sell this cocaine if I am not charged for trafficking, and even if they test it and it really is cocaine, they will not charge me.

https://issociety.org/wp-content/upload ... mbrano.mp3

In terms of trying to prove a trafficking case, we’ll need more than just a
confession and a bag of 20 grams of cocaine. Usually we’ll do, like, observations of hand to
hand transactions and a few other types of investigational tools…

(that's at 1:40 in the above audio recording of my discussion with the officer)

I'm looking forward to hearing your respect, love, and admiration for my efforts to bring democracy to a world that has never really known it yet.

[Psam]

One further note is that the participants in this discussion thread have mostly agreed upon the opinion that when I was in BC Supreme Court in New Westminster on October 17, 2014 in front of Master Peter Keighley, His Honour "eviscerated" me.

To recap the specific words that Master Keighley spoke to me: when I asked His Honour if, in the event that a person is denied their rights as guaranteed in the Charter, but the remedy asked by the person is not appropriate or just, it is within the court’s realm to suggest a remedy that would be appropriate and just, Master Keighley’s response was that “If the court’s prepared to move into that realm, it then has to consider whether your claims are frivolous, vexatious, scandalous, or an abuse of process. Then the court is going to get into a consideration of whether claims should be considered in the abstract. Should the court, which is an expensive operation to run at this level and the various appellate levels all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada, get engaged in deciding issues in the abstract. Should it not, the argument will go, confine itself to situations where an individual’s rights are being put into question by a particular operation of the law. In other words, say a charge under the income tax act, a charge under federal drug legislation, a charge under the criminal code or provincial quasi criminal statutes, in those circumstances the court will probably find it far more convincing that Charter issues could be invoked and argued. But if you want to bring a Charter application so to speak in the abstract saying look I’m not being subjected to the sharp end of any particular provincial or federal legislation, I’m not being charged with anything, I’m not being prosecuted, I’m not being sued, but I would like to have this issue resolved, I think I have a Charter right which in the abstract is being infringed by the existence of this legislation. That’s starting to sound like frivolous, vexatious, scandalous, in the legal sense, an abuse of process of the court.”

I recommend reading Part G here http://issociety.org/wp-content/uploads ... uments.pdf starting on page 30 to get the details of how this expoundment on court process from a BC Supreme Court judge may be included in the legal arguments that I have provided prosecution authorities to indicate why I believe my actions are lawful.

[Burnaby49]

One further note is that the participants in this discussion thread have mostly agreed upon the opinion that when I was in BC Supreme Court in New Westminster on October 17, 2014 in front of Master Peter Keighley, His Honour "eviscerated" me.

I was at that hearing and while I don't recall using the word "eviscerated" it is certainly appropriate to describe the court's decision. That was almost a decade ago! Time moves on and here you are still relentlessly flailing away at the same totally hopeless issues. We even have a little smiley for your overwhelming obsessions;



Except that in your case it would be;



As the old showbiz saying goes "you can't even get arrested in this town". With you it's literal.

But as I said, time has moved on and so have I. I'm not interested in participating in another pointless round of discussions about your narcissistic campaigns. If you actually get arrested, go to court again, do something, anything, that actually has real-world results let us know. A phone call to the police where they told you to get lost doesn't cut it.

By the way, just by chance, I visited your Face Book page last week as part of my semi-annual check of bygone Quatloos topics. I've noted in the past about your overwhelming usage of obscenities in your ad hominem attacks on political and religious authorities. You seem to have ramped it up to even higher levels since my last visit. Perhaps a sign of desperation at your decades-long failure to attract any public notice or interest in your futile dreams?

[wserra]

As the old showbiz saying goes "you can't even get arrested in this town". With you it's literal.

I disagree, Burnaby - although I of course understand that you're making a rhetorical point. It's not that hard to get arrested, even for a numbnuts like Psam. As I've suggested before, he should get some real coke, stand in front of a precinct and hawk it to passersby. If he doesn't want to risk doing real time, there are plenty of other options. He could take that bat you have him swinging above and, instead of using it to beat dead horses, go to a precinct and use it to break a window. Then he'd have his opportunity to test his theories without risking much. If he has no record, it would likely only cost him the price of replacing the window.

He doesn't do that, of course, because he doesn't really want to get arrested. Instead, he wants to expound at mind-numbingly repetitive length on how the PTBs are so terrified of his legal acumen and the threat it would be to The Man that they dare not touch him. A Canadian Charlie Sprinkle. Instead of "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" - with all the risk to the author's life and freedom that letter represented - Psammy writes "Letter from a Vancouver Basement". No risk at all.

As with Sprinkle, it's all bullshit.

[Burnaby49]

Theoretically he could, of course, get arrested. Even that law-abiding paragon of civic virtue, Burnaby49, could get arrested if he really put his mind to it. But it's as likely as Robert Menard actually taking one of his myriad of proposed business enterprises to fruition.

It's just an Alfred Hitchcock macguffin, a theatrical device, meaningless in itself, used as a means to drive the larger narrative. In Menard's case his projects were originally a basis to solicit funds (how's the Robo-Breath doing Rob? Your computer gaming empire?) but now just part of his fantasy life. In Psam's case, an attempt to show the world how courageous and resolute he is, how willing to sacrifice himself for his idiotic voting scheme, but without actually doing anything that would get him arrested. He has no more intention to get arrested than Dashiell Hammett did that the Maltese Falcon be found. I don't doubt that a decade from now Psalm will still be boasting how he's still risking his freedom daily fighting to get ungrateful Canadians out of our dystopian dictatorship.

[Psam]

Given how little you appear to understand the Constitution, it's amusing that you seem so sure of yourselves in treating me with such derision.

Section 3 of the Charter guarantees the right to vote and be a candidate in an "election of members of a legislative assembly". https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/con ... .html#h-43

If I was to claim that "the government denies these rights for four years at a time and therefore I can break any law that the government enacts any time I feel like doing so", then it would be akin to asking to see every single other citizen of Canada denied these same rights with respect to any legislative assembly that I am governed by, ALL THE TIME, instead of just for several years at a time. R v Crawford says you can't have an infringement on your rights remedied by having someone else's rights infringed, and I hope that you and I can at least agree that the SCC is being absolutely reasonable by asserting such a condition, whatever else we may disagree on.

For my defence to even possibly be legitimate, I must specify a legislative assembly whose laws I consent to be governed by or else my defence is absolutely baseless.

The legislative assembly that I consent to be governed by so that I am no longer denied my section 3 Charter rights for several years at a time is the Canada Interactive Legislature (CIL), which is constituted as per this document here: http://issociety.org/wp-content/uploads/CIL-Charter.pdf. I recommend reading Appendix A, which starts on page 10, if you wish to intelligently criticise my defence, and even better (sorry for digressing a moment), try this https://issociety.org/wp-content/upload ... uments.pdf.

My defence will not allow me to break any law made by the Crown unless the CIL has enacted alternative legislation to the particular law I wish to disobey. You can call me an idiot for whatever other reason you want, but I am doubtful that you'd come up with any reasonable basis to claim that (assuming for the sake of argument that my hair-brained constitutional arguments had any legitimacy) that my defence would not be completely baseless if I don't meet this condition.

Now I know you don't believe that there are any other participants in the CIL who actually care which laws the CIL specifies that I may have some extent of exemption from, but given the cruel derision ( ) that I am subjected to on this discussion forum, can you blame them for wanting to maintain some extent of confidentiality in any public context where I'm discussing our legislative resolutions? The fact is that there are a number of such constituents, and I have to be held accountable to them for my defence to be legitimate. I can't just go around breaking any law I want unless I am confident that they are supportive of that particular law being replaced for CIL adherents by some kind of clearly specified alternative legislation.

So if you think that CIL constituents would be supportive of exempting dissenters to the denials of democratic rights from vandalism laws, then it's not me who's being an idiot here.

A member of your government has visited Switzerland, where drugs have been decriminalized for a long time. Deaths from poisoned drugs are a tiny fraction of what they are in Canada. (https://www.straight.com/life/866441/li ... -regulated)

The CIL's legislation is intended to provide a safe supply for users, TO REDUCE DEATHS, not to allow CIL adherents to just sell drugs whenever they want to whomever they want. I can't just go selling to anybody. So your idea that I should just go sell drugs publicly in front of a police station to any person who stops by and says "yeah sure I'll buy some of that" is not compatible with my defence. But stick around, maybe I'll find a way to do it that's compatible with my defence and meets the approval of the constituents I serve.

In the recording that I posted earlier https://issociety.org/wp-content/upload ... mbrano.mp3, in my telephone conversation with the VPD Constable, I was told that even if I bring him a bag of 20 grams of cocaine and confess to the intention to sell it, I would not be charged. He said he could confiscate it for me if I didn't want it anymore, but he said that no charges would be laid against me. I was ready to go meet him wherever he wanted, as long as I would then be able to use my defence against trafficking charges, but he said no such charges would be made. You're basically saying I should have shown a lack of respect for the integrity of a police officer by saying I didn't believe that he wouldn't arrest me if I handed him a bag of 20 grams of cocaine, and telling him that I'd like to take his time away from his important job to take the time to prove to me that he was being honest when he said over the phone that he wouldn't arrest or charge me if I brought him the drugs. That's basically what you're telling me I should have done. It's funny that you're so defensive of the legitimacy of your government and yet you seem to wish to see its enforcement officers disrespected.

I'm glad that the honourable servant of the People of Canada who took the time to answer my question on the phone that day had such a substantial advantage in abilities such as discretion, civil respect, and public peace over the participants in this discussion forum. I am much happier knowing firsthand how Constable Sombrano treats people who discuss their conduct with him than I would be imagining one of you in his position.

[JamesVincent]

You've made the exact same argument for how many years now and it's worked exactly zero times. Does it ever occur to you that you just may be plain wrong, on top of being a moron?

[Burnaby49]

Now I know you don't believe that there are any other participants in the CIL who actually care which laws the CIL specifies that I may have some extent of exemption from, but given the cruel derision ( ) that I am subjected to on this discussion forum, can you blame them for wanting to maintain some extent of confidentiality in any public context where I'm discussing our legislative resolutions?

It's very easy to avoid our cruel derision. Stop posting here.

For those readers who don't know what the Canada Interactive Legislature (CIL) is, it's Psam's very own fantasy Canadian government that he thought up all by himself years and years ago. I did an extensive review of it back in 2014 when I started this thread. Apparently when the world gets too cruel and indifferent Psam escapes into daydreams that it actually exists.

Feel free to maintain as much confidentiality about CIL's resolutions and plans as you want. I found out as much as I wanted to know about it in 2014.

[Psam]

Yeah sure, fine, whatever, that's great, but I can't remember, did you say you wanted to buy the 2.5 gram bag for $125 or do you want to start with a 1 gram bag for $50?

Come on, man, you're not gonna find such reasonable rates anywhere else, and it is excellent cocaine.

[JamesVincent]

Burnaby started this thread on Oct 18, 2014. It has been over 9 years that this theory of yours has been circulating and has gone exactly nowhere. So, Psam, answer this question honestly:

What has changed that makes you think that it will somehow work now?

[Psam]

Burnaby started this thread on Oct 18, 2014. It has been over 9 years that this theory of yours has been circulating and has gone exactly nowhere. So, Psam, answer this question honestly:

What has changed that makes you think that it will somehow work now?

What has changed, JamesVincent, is that I could sell you a bag of 2.5 grams of cocaine in front of a police station for $125 as long as you fill out the required paperwork https://issociety.org/wp-content/upload ... mplate.pdf, and we could notify the police that the sale is taking place, perhaps by making a phone call to the non-emergency line while standing outside of the police office, and we could exchange the money for the drugs in front of the surveillance cameras, and from what I have been told by the police so far, we may expect that I would not be detained or charged for the transaction.

There's already an exemption in place in British Columbia for possession of up to 2.5 grams of drugs for personal use https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2168720451954, so you wouldn't be doing anything illegal. In fact, because of how much it would help me out in providing a more convincing public illustration of the validity of my defence, I would offer you a great deal: $20 for a gram, as long as we could have someone film the transaction so I can post it on youtube. You won't find a deal like that anywhere, and even if you don't like the stuff, it's the price of a movie (with popcorn, so I'll throw in a bag of popcorn for you, like a big Costco size bag) and you can just toss it in the trash afterwards.

And if I do get charged, I'll finally have a chance to test my defence in court. I would be really excited about that.

So now that my defence has worked effectively for selling cocaine, I'm going to try the same defence for taxes. I'm going to find an employer who is willing to pay me in full without deducting my taxes and then I'm going to deduct the taxes myself and put them in the account of the Canada Interactive Legislature (CIL). I will then write the Canada Revenue Agency with periodic updates as to how much tax I've paid to the CIL, informing them of my defence and asking whether they would like to meet in court to see if my defence is accepted. If they don't come after me, then eventually I might be able to persuade other people to also stop paying their taxes to the revenue agency and pay them to the CIL in the same amounts instead.

Much discussion has already taken place about how the CIL shall spend those taxes, but I'm sure it would make this post too long to elaborate on those details here.

So how about it? Do you want to buy a gram of cocaine from me for $20 in front of the Vancouver Police Department station at Cambie Street? Would Sunday the 17th of December at noon be a good time for you?

[JamesVincent]

So in other words absolutely nothing has changed and you still have no plan.

(BTW you could actually be a legit drug dealer and sell illegal drugs in quite a few places around the country since several cities stopped prosecuting minor drug offenses. Nothing in your statement is new or unique.)

[The Observer]

I'm going to find an employer who is willing to pay me in full without deducting my taxes and then I'm going to deduct the taxes myself and put them in the account of the Canada Interactive Legislature (CIL).

I doubt you will get to first base with your plan. After hiding out in your parents' basement for the last 9 years, who would want to hire you?