originally posted on October 29, 2021
Several months ago, I gave confessions to possession of a quantity of cocaine valued at $100 to the Vancouver Police Department (in person at their headquarters, showing them the cocaine), as well as the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, the BC Attorney General, and the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (indicating an intention to bring the cocaine with me on a flight). None of them indicated any intent to detain, charge, or prosecute.
I gave several months notice before the confessions, providing a description of my claim that it would be in violation, of the Crown’s supreme law for the federation of Canada (the Constitution), for relevant laws to be enforced upon me. However, there has been a policy of not enforcing possession laws anymore in some places in Canada for some time now (despite those laws still being in force, not exactly a democratic situation). It is likely that my constitutional defence was not part of the reasoning by which they chose not to charge me. However, they have not made any notice of abstaining from charging for trafficking. If I were to sell the same cocaine that I confessed to possession of, then the only reason I believe they would not interfere with the sale (if I was to confess the full details of the transaction to them) is if they believed that the courts would uphold the Constitution as per my claims.
I am now planning to auction off the same cocaine that I confessed to being in possession of, with full transparency to Canadian enforcement authorities, using a similar constitutional defence. Essentially, if authorities detain me and press charges in court, I believe the court will acquit me of the charges because a conviction would be in violation of the Constitution.
I have written a letter to send to lawyers in Canada to see if accredited professional scrutiny finds inconsistencies with previous constitutional precedent in the interpretations I draw of the sections of the Constitution that I cite, as per reasons given by the Supreme Court of Canada in previous decisions involving those sections in which the Court gave rulings as to how those sections should be interpreted.
If you are a Member of the Bar in Canada, I would be very grateful if you would take the time to respond to this letter.
If you are interested in the development of the interactive electoral system, you will likely be interested in familiarizing yourself with what’s written here.
If you are an Interactive Sovereign Society member, I admire your receptiveness to real democracy and I hope that we change the world for the better together. Perhaps drug users can be more effectively encouraged to do themselves less harm in ways other than threats of being put in a cage for years. Perhaps some drug users know how to enjoy their indulgence safely and responsibly, and preventing them from doing so is an unjustifiable violation of their liberty. Perhaps drug salespersons can be given legal requirements to assure that people who might be harmed by these drugs can be required to receive professional addictions counselling as a condition of continuing their usage. Perhaps there are ways in which many Crown laws could be accurately described as tyranny.
I hope you find this letter as fascinating to read as it was to me to write it.
Honourable servant of the Courts and defender of the Constitution,
I am writing to get an estimate from you on the cost of your services in assessing a plan I am preparing to execute.
I am planning to contravene federal drug legislation, with a constitutional defence that I will describe herein, providing full information to enforcement authorities as to my actions in contravention of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
I wish to receive professional scrutiny as to whether any flaws can be found in the interpretations of sections of the Constitution, based on relevant passages from previous court precedent clarifying definitive prescribed interpretations of those sections, that I cite in my defence.
I am a member of a society that uses an interactive electoral system (IES) to choose its representatives. With the IES, each voter has one vote that can be cast for any candidate at any time that the voter wishes and changed to any other candidate at any time after that, with no deadline or finish date.
With the IES, the rights enumerated in section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“section 3 Charter rights”: voting and pursuing candidacy) are available to be exercised at all times, unlike under elections for Crown legislatures, for which these rights are only occasionally available to be exercised when permission is given by authorities. I shall contend that these periods of unavailability of these rights qualifies as a denial of these rights in accordance with section 24 of the Charter, which would mean that I, as well as other members of the society that uses the IES, may be entitled to an appropriate and just remedy for these denials.
The representatives of this society have enacted alternative legislation (see page 7 of the ISS External Legislation Registry) to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for the society’s members. My contention shall be that adjudicating my conduct in reference to this alternative legislation, instead of adjudicating my conduct in reference to legislation enacted by a legislature that denies section 3 Charter rights for periods of time, would be a full, effective, and meaningful remedy for the denial of a constitutional right. The question then remains as to whether the denial of this right can be saved by section 1 of the Charter as demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
A draft has been prepared of a charter of commerce for me to sell cocaine. It has been agreed that some extent of due diligence prior to ratification of this charter of commerce is prudent. Seeking public authorities willing to act in accordance with the responsibilities that the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed, in Pintea v Johns (at para 4), are applicable to Members of the Bar (inter alia), as described in the Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons adopted by the Canadian Judicial Council, is thought to be a commensurate preparation for enactment of documents of this importance.
In addition to this charter of commerce draft, a further draft of a proposed enactment for the society to officially designate its Canadian federally mandated legislative body as the Canada Interactive Legislature (CIL) has been prepared, called the CIL Charter.
If any flaws identified in either of these documents by any public authority willing to look at them are resolved, and the designated representatives of the society resolve to enact these two documents, then I plan to auction off a bag of cocaine in my possession, with a market value of $100, to members of the society, giving enforcement authorities full knowledge of the start and end dates of the auction and a record of the transaction once the exchange has been made with the auction winner.
If enforcement authorities do not intervene in the auction or indicate any intention to detain or prosecute me for trafficking as per the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, then I intend to seek greater quantities of this drug and establish a clientele, providing notice to any other people who might presently be concealing similar actions to let them know how they may take advantage of this precedent to continue such actions without the need of secrecy or fear of authorities.
Following is a quote from the Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons (at page 10). “Members of the Bar are expected to participate in designing and delivering legal aid and pro bono representation to persons who would otherwise be self-represented, as well as other programs for short-term, partial and unbundled legal advice and assistance as may be deemed useful for the self-represented persons in the courts of which they are officers.”
The same Statement also places expectations upon self-represented litigants (also at page 10), namely: “familiarize themselves with the relevant legal practices and procedures pertaining to their case”, and “prepare their own case”. I humbly hope that I have made every possible effort to fulfil this expectation. I have certainly tried.
I believe in good faith that, if you devote any time to scrutinising this matter, you will be remunerated as per your typical professional fees, because if the denial of section 3 Charter rights by the government qualifies as a reason for members of a society that uses the IES to be subjected to the society’s legislation regarding controlled drugs and substances instead of the Crown’s, then by the same reasoning, members of the society should also be able to have their taxes received by the society instead of by the Crown, so that they are not denied those same rights for sustained periods of several years at a time with respect to the legislature that decides how to spend those funds. If members are provided the means to pay their taxes to this society, then it shall be dependably due course for you to receive remuneration for any work you do to assist the society in receiving this lawful protection for the fundamental democratic constitutional rights of its members.
However, my funds are limited at present and I would like to discuss whether you might be able to offer any services that I could pay for in full up front. I believe I could afford five hours of your time, paid in advance, based on market value for professional constitutional legal counsel.
I would like to remunerate you for five hours of your time to read through the two document drafts that I have cited, the Charter of Commerce and the CIL Charter, and make note if you find any inconsistencies, ambiguities or unintended interpretations in my invocations of reasons given by the Supreme Court of Canada for its decisions as I’ve stated them relevant to my claims.
I advise starting with Appendix A of the CIL Charter, starting on page 10, to see the fundamental legal arguments of the claims. Then I advise reading the Charter of Commerce with these arguments in mind. Lastly, return to the CIL Charter and read it in full, skipping Appendix A since you’ll already have read it.
If you could then provide a document describing the documents you’ve read and stating any inconsistencies, ambiguities, or unintended interpretations in them, I would very much appreciate having a copy to present to the members of the society, so that they can ascertain due diligence having been taken prior to assenting to enactment of these documents.
If this takes you less than five hours, then I would also ask you to read supporting constitutional arguments to these claims. If after five hours you believe that there are parts of the first two documents that you haven’t scrutinised closely enough yet to be sure that you’ve found all constitutional inconsistencies, then I would appreciate an estimate as to how much further time it might be expected to take. I will gratefully remunerate you for any time up to five hours worth.
If you are not willing to transact these services, then I request that you recommend any of your colleagues who might be amenable to applying their professional expertise for what I hope is a fair and respectful payment and for my gratitude for their devotion to a document I have come to have a great deal of love for, the Constitution of Canada. I have come to feel admiration for people who take it to heart that the words “free and democratic society” are so centrally placed as a part of the foundation of the architecture of the document. You have my unreserved approval for anything I’ve written to be shared with any of your colleagues on the Bar for whom you believe it would be appropriate.
If you are not willing to transact these services as requested nor recommend a colleague to do so, then I humbly and respectfully ask for your help to get a better comprehension of the words “partial and unbundled legal advice and assistance as may be deemed useful for the self-represented persons”, which the Supreme Court of Canada stated is part of the expectations of Members of the Bar toward “persons who would otherwise be self-represented”, in the previously mentioned Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons.
Please accept my sincere gratitude for the impacts of your devotion in good faith to the defence of the values of the Constitution upon the dignity and contentment of our fellow residents of this land. I think that my research of the Constitution and judicial expounding of its implications has led me to see this devotion as the most profoundly ethical course for a person’s life to be led by.
If you are willing to discuss this further with me then it will be my great pleasure.
Sincerely,
Psam Frank