As outlined in previous posts below, I recently filed my case about section 3 Charter voting rights, the aim of which is to give voters in Canada the uninterrupted right to choose who makes their laws. This, as ISS members know from experience, allows voters to make more informed decisions and to always feel enfranchised in the political process through their representative.
The Attorney General has filed to have my case thrown out of court, with three reasons given for doing so.
- The Attorney General refers to my case by what is referred to in Canada as an “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument” (“OPCA”) litigation (find details of the case of Meads v Meads in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench here), which is a common form of claim to being exempt from governance by the Crown for a variety of reasons. Precedents have been set and followed in Canada for OPCA litigants to have their proceedings dismissed.
- The Attorney General claims that the section 3 Charter right to vote may be justifiably denied for up to 5 years because section 4(1) of the Charter states that a legislative assembly cannot continue longer than 5 years without a new election being called.
- The Attorney General claims that I filed the wrong form of proceedings. I filed a petition, and the Attorney General claims that this sort of proceeding should have been filed as a civil claim.
I have filed my response to these claims in the court and served them on the Attorney General. The hearing date is Friday October 17 at 9:45. Any One interested in attending is welcome. The New Westminster Supreme Court is located at 651 Carnarvon St.
Here is a summary of my answers to these claims:
- Unlike OPCA litigants, I have not claimed to be able to opt out of laws, as not only do I still have laws, the ones made by the ISS, but also, if the Crown’s laws were made in a way that did not deny section 3 rights for periods of time, I would not dispute having those laws imposed upon me. I have only made my petition based on denials of the rights that the Constitution of Canada claims are not only guaranteed but enforceable by the courts.
- If one assumes that it is impossible to provide the right to vote at all without denying it for periods of time, then it would make sense to have a maximum time limit on how long a legislative assembly can continue before another election is required. Since the Attorney General cannot cite any usage of the interactive electoral system prior to the Interactive Sovereign Society, it seems that they are assuming that it is impossible to provide the right to vote without denying it for periods of time. However, the ISS’s demonstration of an interactive electoral system, showing that it is possible for the right to vote never to be denied, may render the need for a maximum time limit obsolete. So, setting a maximum time limit based on an assumption that it is impossible to make this right constantly available does not mean it is justifiable to deny this right when it is indeed possible not to.
- The Supreme Court Civil Rules state that a petition must be filed when there is no person against whom relief is sought. I seek no relief against any person. I only seek a declaratory order of the rights and freedoms that the Constitution claims I am guaranteed, therefore a petition is the appropriate proceeding. This particular claim by the Crown may be either an intimidation tactic or simply an indication that they still don’t fully grasp the implications of my allegations.
For a bit more detail about what will be addressed in the hearing, find a fuller description of the points above and an exposition of the order I am asking the court to make and the laws in question here.