Psam Frank - Sovereign with his own laws and court

[Psam]

Do you refute any of these claims?

- the Constitution is alleged by the Crown to be the supreme law of Canada, according to section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982 (“the Act”)

- section 3 of the Act states that every citizen has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly (“section 3 Charter rights”)

- the consistent view of the Supreme Court of Canada is that rights shall be defined broadly and liberally (Sauve v Canada para 11)

- it is more broad and liberal to say that a date upon which section 3 Charter rights are not available to be exercised is a date upon which those rights are denied than it is to say that a date upon which a periodic election has not been called is a date upon which those rights do not exist

- for a right that is not subject to the Act’s section 33 notwithstanding clause, the only way for it to be considered constitutional for the right to be denied or infringed is through section 1 of the Act, using reasoning such as is required in the Oakes Test

- in an election where each voter may cast or change their vote for or to any candidate at any time that the voter wishes, with no deadline or finish date, section 3 Charter rights are available to be exercised at all times

- when a right is denied or infringed and section 1 is not fulfilled by “reasonable limits” being provided, and showing that those limits “can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”, then according to section 24 of the Act, an appropriate and just remedy should be provided by the courts to cease the denial or infringement of that right

[Psam]

For reference, here are the sections and citations I made:

Constitution Act, 1982, section 52: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/con ... .html#h-58

Constitution Act, 1982, section 3: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/con ... .html#h-42

Sauve v Canada (scroll about a quarter way down the page to paragraph 11): https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-c ... 0/index.do

Constitution Act, 1982, section 33: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/con ... .html#h-50

Constitution Act, 1982, section 1: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/con ... .html#h-40

Oakes Test described in R v Oakes paras 65-71: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-c ... 7/index.do

[Psam]

...and perhaps you might scroll about half way down the page here https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-c ... 3/index.do to paragraph 67 and read the first sentence and tell me if you think it is ratio decidendi or obiter dictum

[Chaos]

Do you refute any of these claims?

you apparently overlooked this very important sentence:

Crain and Wnuck explain why neither I, not anyone else here, will spend time and money trying to refute your assertions.

[Pottapaug1938]

Posting Constitutional citations, without a surrounding context as to whey they are relevant to the discussion at hand, is pointless.

As for your SCC case -- I haven't seen the words "ratio decidendi" in 45 years, since I opened the then-current Black's Law Dictionary for the first (and close to the last) time. Every lawyer I've ever dealt with, since them, refers to the "holding" in a case; and to find the holding in your cited case, I only have to scan the first page to find:

"Held: Section 53 of the Supreme Court Act is constitutional and the Court should answer the reference questions."

There's your "ratio decidendi".

Now, as for your vaunted "two steps" -- you completed the first step. Bully for you. Well, to cite the title of one of my favorite paintings ever, "Meat Ain't Meat Till It's In The Pan" (https://www.charlesmarionrussell.org/Me ... e-Pan.html), until you take that second step -- and win, your paper is just another argument which has yet to be accepted by the courts. Yes, it might cost six figures to pursue it -- no lawyer with any brains is going to front the cost for a challenge such as this; but if -- IF -- there is any merit to your premises, you should be able to get some nonprofit institution (like a Canadian Civil Liberties Union, if such there be) to take the case.

[Psam]

Person: “I have a grievance due to the denial of my constitutional rights.”

You: “No you don’t.”

Person: “But the right cited in section 3 of the...”

You: “No. I already told you. You don’t.”

Person: “You didn’t even listen to which of my constitutional rights I’m claiming is denied.”

You: “My valuable time is not worth hearing a person claim their constitutional rights are denied when I know they are not.”

Person: “But if I paid you legal fees, you’d be willing to look at the sections of the Constitution upon which I base my claim?”

You: “Sure, then I would.”

Person: “So you don’t believe that a person is entitled to have their constitutional grievances addressed unless the person has the money to pay for it?”

You: “Oooooooh noooooo, of coooooourse I do. Nooooo reeeeeeally, I doooooo, I’m an ethical lawyer.”

[Psam]

Posting Constitutional citations, without a surrounding context as to whey they are relevant to the discussion at hand, is pointless.

The first comment at the top of this page, which starts with “do you refute...”, provided the surrounding context.

The next comment, which starts with “for reference...” provides the citations relevant to the first comment.

[Psam]

As for your SCC case -- I haven't seen the words "ratio decidendi" in 45 years, since I opened the then-current Black's Law Dictionary for the first (and close to the last) time. Every lawyer I've ever dealt with, since them, refers to the "holding" in a case; and to find the holding in your cited case, I only have to scan the first page to find:

"Held: Section 53 of the Supreme Court Act is constitutional and the Court should answer the reference questions."

There's your "ratio decidendi".

Ratio decidendi is not the same thing as the holding.

I asked about paragraph 67, not the holding.

If paragraph 67 is ratio decidendi, then it would mean if the claim made in paragraph 67 were untrue, then the holding would not necessarily be justified. If paragraph 67 is obiter dictum, then even if paragraph 67 were untrue, it would not change the holding; it is just reference comments.

Paragraph 67 of the Reference re Secession of Quebec states that “the consent of the governed is a value that is basic to our understanding of a free and democratic society”.

That is not relevant to the holding you cited. The holding you cited was an intermediate holding. The holding that paragraph 67 is relevant to is (paraphrasing) that it is not lawful according to the Constitution for Quebec to secede based solely on a referendum with a majority vote in favour of secession.

[Pottapaug1938]

Ratio decidendi is not the same thing as the holding.

I asked about paragraph 67, not the holding.

If paragraph 67 is ratio decidendi, then it would mean if the claim made in paragraph 67 were untrue, then the holding would not necessarily be justified. If paragraph 67 is obiter dictum, then even if paragraph 67 were untrue, it would not change the holding; it is just reference comments.

Paragraph 67 of the Reference re Secession of Quebec states that “the consent of the governed is a value that is basic to our understanding of a free and democratic society”.

That is not relevant to the holding you cited. The holding you cited was an intermediate holding. The holding that paragraph 67 is relevant to is (paraphrasing) that it is not lawful according to the Constitution for Quebec to secede based solely on a referendum with a majority vote in favour of secession.

All of which is irrelevant to the fact that your bizarre proposed voting system is ridiculous on its face, and has been pointed out to you as such, when you were last here, and that your Interactive Sovereign Society is but one of many political crank groups populating our political world.

Now, please stop bothering us unless you have something a lot less self-serving to tell us. I'm invoking Wnuck and Crain, again.

[Psam]

So the Supreme Court of Canada says that “the consent of the governed is a value that is basic to our understanding of a free and democratic society”, but when a person who does not consent to the existing government and has stated an alternative complete and concise method of writing and adjudicating laws to instead consensually have her or his conduct constrained by, that person is “bothering us” just by asking to have their denial of consent shown the slightest bit of attention by anybody.

Cool. Got it. Totally. Thanks for explaining that.

[Burnaby49]

Psam! Nice to have you back. It's been, as you noted, a few years. I'm not going to argue your expert knowledge of all the byways of of the Canadian right to vote but I do question your understanding of it and maybe a question regarding how well you've spent your time during the last four years or so since you lost the hearing I reported.

You posted;

Master Peter Keighley told me I needed two things for the possibility of successfully being given a remedy by courts in accordance with section 24 of the Constitution Act, 1982 for the denials of the constitution rights that I was presenting my grievances of:

1) I needed to reframe my arguments to address a specific operation of the law instead of presenting my claims in the abstract, and

2) I was strongly advised to seek the assistance of professional legal counsel, which I later discovered would, in this case, cost somewhere in the six figure range, according to a lawyer who heard the arguments and considered them to have some merit.

Firstly, it's not the denial of your constitutional rights that was at issue. It was your claimed denial of your constitutional rights. And the court found no merit in your claims. You can't see the forest for the trees with comments like;

Do you refute any of these claims?

- the Constitution is alleged by the Crown to be the supreme law of Canada, according to section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982 (“the Act”)

- section 3 of the Act states that every citizen has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly (“section 3 Charter rights”)

- the consistent view of the Supreme Court of Canada is that rights shall be defined broadly and liberally (Sauve v Canada para 11)

Those aren't claims or legal arguments, they are just bald statements of law. Why would we disagree with them? If we agree with you, or the court agrees with you on these, how does this help you? As I wrote when you presented these same arguments to a court;

But the judge wasn't buying it. He was just too focused on one point. He couldn't see that Frank had brought forward any reasonable cause of action known to the law. He said he couldn't consider any of Frank's affidavits (apparently the source of his so-called evidence) because the point of the current proceedings wasn't a review of the strength of Frank's case but a review of whether he had any arguable case at all. This wasn't sounding good. Frank was required, in the petition that was under review, to lay out a claim "known to law". The purpose of pleadings was to explain the fundamental nature of the complaint and to give the other party a clear indication of the nature of the claim and the law being relied on. So, what was Frank's precise claim, as opposed to his opinions about voting rights, and how was it sustainable in law? Frank babbled about how paragraph 3 of the Charter guaranteed that every citizen had the right to vote but that had been denied to him because he couldn't vote any time he wanted, only when the government allowed him to through an election. Periodic voting wasn't good enough, the right to vote had to be available any time that Frank felt in the mood if his paragraph 3 rights were to be met. Presently he was allowed to exercise his paragraph 3 rights only every five years or so which was a clear Charter violation. Frank had devised what he called an Interactive Electoral System that would clear this problem right up if people would only listen to him.

Judge was relentless. He told Frank that he couldn't challenge parliament in the abstract. His Interactive Electoral System might be of interest to a parliamentary committee studying electoral reform but it was no business of the court. So, back to the question, "Tell me again why your claim has any chance of success". Silence. Then he started babbling about Quebec secession attempts. The Crown's rule over Canada was at risk without "evolutionary democracy" and his system would allow that. Sensing that he wasn't playing a winning hand Frank said "If we can move on from section 3" of the Charter, the section he himself had cited as the basis of his petition. So he started arguing freedom of conscience instead. Judge stopped him saying;

"I can't consider what you believe, that's not evidence just opinion, so tell my why your claim is sustainable. A person reading this has to what you are asking for and why you are entitled to it. I don't see that. I see that this is an issue for you but I don't see why the court should help you."

Getting desperate Frank asked for an adjournment. No, this will be decided today. Judge told him if he wanted he could try again with a new petition but to speak to a lawyer first so he could file an action that made legal sense. So Frank asked the judge for legal advice on what to do to ensure that he succeeded if he tried again. Forget it. Judge said he was trying to make this more "cost effective" for Frank because if he kept coming back with worthless actions he could find himself hit with special costs. Hinted that a vexatious litigant ban was lurking just over the horizon. This triggered a plaintive wail "But I've spent years of work to come to these conclusions". Well, the value you've extracted from those lost years and $1.75 will buy you a Skytrain ride to the Wiener Hut.

Judge was unmoved by Frank's anguish. "If you want to bring a Charter application in the abstract, not specific, it's beginning to sound like an abuse of court. Talk to a lawyer Mr. Frank, sooner rather than later"

After eviscerating you the judge tossed you a bone to let you down gently. You've somehow taken that as encouragement to try again. It wasn't. And, in any case, you haven't gone forward at all in the four years since your defeat. You've been spinning your wheels endlessly reframing the arguments you've already lost in court.

We argued all of your points four years ago and I'm not going to waste any more time enabling your endless obsession yet again. The only place your arguments matter is in court, nowhere else. Quatloos counts for nothing. If you can't convince a judge to accept your arguments then all of your years of relentless focus on this have been totally wasted. I'd recommend investing eight minutes watching this video. It was Alex Baldwin's only scene in the entire movie and he got an Academy Award nomination as best supporting actor for it;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4PE2hSqVnk&t=70s

"If you want to work here close!"

If you want to rub our noses in the brilliance of your arguments then don't just keep demanding that we endlessly debate them with you. Been there, done that. None of us have spent a decade or two burning the midnight oil relentlessly exploring the legal basis of Canada's voting rules and the Constitutional issues surrounding them. I readily concede that ground to you. You can humiliate all of we scoffers by doing as Alex Baldwin advised and close, go to court and win this time. Everything else is totally meaningless. But, at your next attempt, try to remember to file your lawsuit against the correct party. That was an awkward moment at your last hearing.

And, to end on a more personal note, you posted:

Here's a bit of an update on what's happened since then.

I took an LSAT and scored 160.

That's not quite enough to get me into the Allard Law School at UBC but it might be enough to get me in elsewhere.

Scoring enough to have a chance of making it into law school upon one's first attempt at taking the admission tests is, I've been informed by people in the legal profession, a display of a reasonable level of intelligence.

So let's disabuse ourselves of the notion that I'm an idiot, unless of course empirical evidence is considered to be a largely irrelevant sideline in discussions between members of this group. Hey, to each their own.

Congratulations! I have no idea what LSAT scores are, obviously of no relevance back in my day, but I don't doubt that 160 is an impressive score. However while you apparently feel a compelling need to believe that you're being persecuted by a bunch of dolts who cravenly deny your genius and broadcast to the world that you're an idiot, I've never said, written, or thought that I consider you so. I thought you were quite bright but obsessive. I wrote this about you;

However I think he's being too hard on himself. I've had a lot of experience testify in court and I've found that it is extremely hard to keep focused and on point when you are dealing in real time. Psalm had to respond to the Master's question right then and there and I think, overall, he did very well for a first timer.

Regardless of my derision and mockery I do have to say a few things in Psalm's favour. He isn't a bullshitter like most Freeman guru types I've dealt with (I'm looking at you Freedom Pickle). He went to court on a totally misguided idea but gave it his best shot. I have no doubts about his sincerity. When he lost he didn't try to give a fake alternate narrative about why the corrupt court had screwed him, he released the actual transcript showing exactly what he argued and why he lost. And he did an honest (if incorrect) analysis of his own mistakes that resulted in his failure. His problem, which he apparently hasn't yet realized, is that he did not make any mistakes. As the Master in Chambers said, Psalm did not bring forward any reasonable cause of action known to the law.

One further thought just struck me. This is your first LSAT test? And you're considering going into law school?

Just wondering because you were 41 when I first posted about you in October 2014. That makes you 45 or 46 now. I'd say you're a few decades past the point where most of us get around to making these major career/life decisions. Perhaps, just a suggestion, you might start thinking about dropping your hopeless quest for court vindication and, instead, focus on that nascent legal career. Tempus fugit!

Or, as Dylan and the Band sang on the Basement Tapes;

Odds and ends, odds and ends,
Lost time is not found again.

[Psam]

You’ve used the words “brilliant” and “genius” to try to describe how you believe I see myself.

“I am not being provided any means today to exercise a right that the Constitution claims I have” is not a claim to be a genius, or brilliant.

Being able to posit that it might be viable to provide every person the means to exercise a particular set of rights at any time that they wish instead of only occasionally when given permission by authorities is not a claim to be a genius. Or brilliant.

Between a person who believes “X” absolutely, a person who believes “not X” absolutely, and a third person who claims neither of those first two people is sufficiently laden with data to make their claim with such conviction, I would call the third person more rational, more open, and more scientific than the other two, but not necessarily genius, or brilliant.

[Pottapaug1938]

So the Supreme Court of Canada says that “the consent of the governed is a value that is basic to our understanding of a free and democratic society”, but when a person who does not consent to the existing government and has stated an alternative complete and concise method of writing and adjudicating laws to instead consensually have her or his conduct constrained by, that person is “bothering us” just by asking to have their denial of consent shown the slightest bit of attention by anybody.

Cool. Got it. Totally. Thanks for explaining that.

Your "complete and concise method of writing and adjudicating laws" is horsebleep. You're just upset that no one will take your horsebleep seriously. And, by the way, you "consent to the existing government" by living within its jurisdiction. If you don't like that -- fina a more congenial country to live in -- IF you can.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Between a person who believes “X” absolutely, a person who believes “not X” absolutely, and a third person who claims neither of those first two people is sufficiently laden with data to make their claim with such conviction, I would call the third person more rational, more open, and more scientific than the other two, but not necessarily genius, or brilliant.

I would hazard a guess that, whatever an LSAT is, it doesn't test logic.

[Pottapaug1938]

Between a person who believes “X” absolutely, a person who believes “not X” absolutely, and a third person who claims neither of those first two people is sufficiently laden with data to make their claim with such conviction, I would call the third person more rational, more open, and more scientific than the other two, but not necessarily genius, or brilliant.

I would hazard a guess that, whatever an LSAT is, it doesn't test logic.

It's the Law School Admissions Test. I took it in the fall of 1973.

[Pottapaug1938]

Being able to posit that it might be viable to provide every person the means to exercise a particular set of rights at any time that they wish instead of only occasionally when given permission by authorities is not a claim to be a genius. Or brilliant.

Good move. Whining loudly that you wanna be able to vote when you want, how you want, and on what you want is neither brilliance nor genius. It's crankery. The remark about you considering yourself brilliant, and a genius, comes from reading between the lines of your proclamations about what a great idea your Interactive Voting (or whatever it's called) is. Anyone with any knowledge of political science knows that it will never work.

[Arthur Rubin]

Between a person who believes “X” absolutely, a person who believes “not X” absolutely, and a third person who claims neither of those first two people is sufficiently laden with data to make their claim with such conviction, I would call the third person more rational, more open, and more scientific than the other two, but not necessarily genius, or brilliant.

I would hazard a guess that, whatever an LSAT is, it doesn't test logic.

Actually, it does test logic. It also tests reading comprehension.

Neither of which is indicated in Psam's latest document.

[notorial dissent]

Psamy Psamy Psamy, still trying to dress that poor pig up in satin and face paint, but when you finally get down to it, it is still a pig when all is said and done.

Your acquaintances, since I serious doubt you actually have real friends, narcistic buffoons seldom do, as well as your coterie of imaginary friends, have rejected you and your brilliance, which is pretty much a commentary of your life, the run of the mill populace has rejected your brilliance, the courts have repeatedly rejected your brilliance, and when all is said and done you are still trying to pass off the poor pig no one wants.

The/your constitution such as it is, for the most part lays out basic things, like your having a vote. It quite sensibly does not lay out in detail how that is done. It wisely leaves that to the legislature/parliament to delineate. Once the legislature/parliament does that, as long as it meets the constitutional guidelines, it is sufficient. The constitution grants the right(to vote), the legislature/parliament spells out the how and when. That you don't happen to like how that is established is just so much tough tuccis for you unless and until you can convince sufficient other voting citizens to do it differently it stands.

[wserra]

It's against my better judgment that I write this. It must be OK, though, since I do it all the time.

I am not a Canadian lawyer. I really don't know the import of most provisions of the Canadian Constitution or Charter. From the opinions of those who do understand them, it appears that you don't. Let's assume, however, for the sake of the argument that you do. Your opinion of the meaning of a Charter provision, if not shared by those with the actual authority to interpret it, is meaningful only to you. The rest of the world could give a damn.

I am a U.S. lawyer. I really do know the import of most provisions of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Let's assume, however, for the sake of the argument that my opinion of such import is different from that of those with the actual authority to interpret it. In that case, my opinion is meaningful only to me. The rest of the world could give a damn.

But go ahead, keep charging at those giants. It's only those who try to deceive you that claim they're really windmills.

[Burnaby49]

You’ve used the words “brilliant” and “genius” to try to describe how you believe I see myself.

“I am not being provided any means today to exercise a right that the Constitution claims I have” is not a claim to be a genius, or brilliant.

Being able to posit that it might be viable to provide every person the means to exercise a particular set of rights at any time that they wish instead of only occasionally when given permission by authorities is not a claim to be a genius. Or brilliant.

Between a person who believes “X” absolutely, a person who believes “not X” absolutely, and a third person who claims neither of those first two people is sufficiently laden with data to make their claim with such conviction, I would call the third person more rational, more open, and more scientific than the other two, but not necessarily genius, or brilliant.

Psam, what can I say? You're absolutely right, mea culpa! I was presumptuous in assuming that you were intelligent. I defer to your greater knowledge of your IQ.

But back to the question I've asked you repeatedly on Quatloos. When are you going to try again in Court? You talk and talk about a return bout but your disasterous Supreme Court of British Columbia hearing that triggered this discussion took place on October 18, 2014, well over four and a half years ago. America's participation in World War II was over a year shorter than that! Is it all just bluster on your part?

Oh, and another suggestion if you're seriously considering applying for law school. I'd tidying up your Facebook page a bit. You have a few questionable posts that might give a law school pause, they tend to check up on applicant's social media accounts nowadays. Just look what happened to this poor guy, and he was only 16 when he made his comments;

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-18/ ... m/11219294

I doubt that any law school worth getting into will consider an applicant who's made Facebook postings like these to be prime admission material.

Samuel Michael Frank
Yesterday at 1:20pm
This is a public service announcement to anyone who intends to vote Conservative, NDP, Liberal, or Green on October 19. Fuck you, you dumb, useless, worthless, stupid, empty headed piece of shit.

Samuel Michael Frank
May 30 ·
If You actually believe that voting New Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, or Green makes any difference at all to the corruption, deceit, and decay perpetrated by the members of your government, then You are too fucking stupid to bother with.

Samuel Michael Frank
Yesterday at 11:38am ·
Who fucking cares if Stephen Harper and the Conservatives are gutting Elections Canada? When has an election ever helped make Canada a better place? Fucking NEVER. Holding an election once every four years is just a circus of stupidity.

Samuel Michael Frank
August 22 ·
If you are running as a candidate in the election on October 19, then words can't express how worthless you are. You should hate yourself for being such a disgusting creature. Any hatred that any person expresses for you is just what you deserve. Fuck off.

Samuel Michael Frank
October 19 ·
If You step in dogshit today, then walk into the office of the nearest candidate in today's election and take your shoes off and rub them all over the place. They deserve it because they're worthless degenerate filth and the smell of the dogshit will cover up their foul stench.

But, in a crowded field, I think this one's my favorite, as hard a choice as it is;

Samuel Michael Frank
October 29 ·

Telling your child that Canada is a democratic nation because it holds an election every four years is like putting a plate of cow shit on the table in front of Her and claiming that it is delicious because the whipped cream that You put on it has a dash of icing sugar and vanilla in it.

Then telling your child how grateful She should be to live in Canada because look how bad things are in places like North Korea and Sudan is like telling Her that She should be grateful for the breakfast You gave Her because your neighbours don't put any whipped cream on the cow shit They feed their child, and in fact there's a house across the street that feeds their child cat shit, which is way less healthy than cow shit.

That's how I felt when I looked at the ballot last Monday: like I was being fed cow shit, but with whipped cream on it. Hey Canada! Go fuck yourself.

Although this one was certainly a worthy contender;

Samuel Michael Frank
September 7 ·

Elizabeth May, Stephen Harper, Justin Trudeau, and Thomas Mulcair should take the next runny s**t that comes out of your ass, put it in their coffee, and drink it. And no fucking milk or sugar. And no arguing over which one gets a larger portion. Measured equally with a well calibrated scale.

Hey, it's just what they deserve for being who they are.

Just sayin', it's competitive out there. You'll be fighting people who've actually gone out and done something to fill out their resumes, anything, worked at a soup kitchen, helped build a hospital for the poor in Haiti, whatever. And they've been very careful what they've posted on social media.