Canadian Nationalist Party

TO:
City Solicitor’s Office
City Of Saskatoon
222 3rd Avenue North,
Saskatoon, SK, S7K 0J5

FROM:
Canadian Nationalist Party Inc.
Travis Patron
PO Box 490,
11 Broadway Street,
Redvers, SK, S0C 2H0

Date Served: March 23^rd, 2020

NOTICE OF CORPORATE REPRESENTATION

RE:
Canadian Nationalist Party Inc. v City of Saskatoon
QBG 310 of 2020
Judicial Centre of Saskatoon
File No. 110.0445

ATTENTION: Alan Rankine

City Of Saskatoon,

In response to your letter dated February 25^th, 2020, the Canadian Nationalist Party retains the right to be represented by Mr. Patron, citing recent decision in the 2014 case of Howden Bros. Construction Limited v Freshair Enterprises Limited, whereby the defendant was entitled to be represented by a “non-lawyer”.

The criteria for this decision in the case was laid out in [18] as follows:

In light of these authorities, and the emphasis by The Queen’s Bench Rules on access to justice and the timely and cost effective resolution of disputes, I offer the following revised list of factors which may be relevant on a Rule 2 34(2) application:
• (i) Whether the proposed representative has been duly authorized by the corporation to act as its representative in the action;
• (ii) The nature of the connection, such as share ownership, an office or employment, between the proposed representative and the corporation;
• (iii) The structure of the corporation in terms of shareholders, officers and directors, and whether it is closely held;
• (iv) Whether the interests of shareholders, officers, directors, employees, creditors and other potential stakeholders are adequately protected by the granting of leave, taking account of the significance of the action and its potential impact on the corporation and those stakeholders;
• (v) Whether the proposed representative is, in light of the nature of both the claim and the proposed representative, reasonably capable of comprehending the issues in the litigation, participating in the court’s processes, and conducting her or himself in a manner that will promote the timely and effective resolution of the claim;
• (vi) The potential impact of refusing or granting the order on the financial and other interests of the other parties, whether due to the possibility that the proceedings will not be conducted in a manner that is proportionate in light of the nature of the claim, or otherwise;
• (vii) Whether the corporation is financially capable of retaining counsel; and,
• (viii) Any other relevant factor arising from the specific facts.

Canadian Nationalist Party Inc. observes that permitting Mr. Patron to act as counsel for the corporation is in alignment with at least criteria (i)(ii)(iii)(iv)(v)(vi).

We intend to have Mr. Patron continue acting as our corporate representation in this matter and are requesting from Court Of Queen’s Bench that this intention be honoured.

Signed,

TO:
Premier Scott Moe
Government Of Saskatchewan
226 Legislative Building
Regina, SK, S4S 0B3

CC:
Chief Judge J.A. Plemel,
Crown Prosecutor Landry
Provincial Court Of Saskatchewan
1815 Smith Street
Regina, SK, S4P 2N5

FROM:
Travis Patron
Canadian Nationalist Party Inc.
PO Box 490,
11 Broadway Street
Redvers, SK, S0C 2H0

DATED: March 23^rd, 2020

NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY TO CURE

Government Of Saskatchewan,

I am writing you today after not receiving a response in regards to our recent Notice Of Conditional Acceptance served to your office on March 16^th within the allotted 7 (seven) days.

Whereas it is my understanding that Article 61 of our Magna Carta was successfully invoked on March 23^rd, 2001, it is my required duty to stand entirely under the tenets of English Constitution in lawful dissent, and that I am required to request a properly convened court de jure in accordance with “a lawful sentence of a jury of peers and according to the Common Law” in order to settle the charges which are currently before me on behalf of your court.

It is not my intention to conduct myself unlawfully nor act against the conditions before me. Whilst the Magna Carta provides a ‘lawful excuse’ to distress the crown and its institutions at this time, it is to my understanding that I cannot consent to any other method of settling the aforementioned charges except by way of “a lawful sentence of a jury of peers and according to the Common Law”. English Constitutional Law forbids me to aid and abet the Crown until redress has been made in accordance with Article 61. It also forbids me to aid and abet any other man or woman who is not also standing in lawful dissent under Article 61 of the Magna Carta (1215). We must (by law) also compel you, Government Of Saskatchewan, to abide by constitutional law and to stand with the people in lawful dissent as is demanded of us.

Failure to respond to this notice within the reasonable time frame allotted, or without providing evidence in substance that clearly disproves Article 61 is currently in effect, shall be taken to mean by all interested parties that there exists no lawful objection against the claims made in this letter.

We are all responsible and culpable for our actions or omissions under English Constitutional Law. Ignorance is no defence. Please check the facts for yourself before replying: Public Notice: Invocation Magna Carta

Be it understood that this notice is a lawful instrument which requires your attention and prompt response. This ‘Notice Of Opportunity To Cure’ may be used as evidence in my defence and is the second notice to be served to your office regarding this matter. The first preceding notice has thus far either been ignored or mislaid. This succeeding notice is to be considered a further opportunity to rebut or confirm our original observation made that Article 61 of the Magna Carta is currently in effect and that it stands as the Supreme Law of the realm.

Allowing for a reasonable time frame for you to respond, we provide a further 7 (seven) days from your receipt of this document for you to reply in substance and remain in honour, enabling us to remedy this matter and save any breach of peace.

Whereas it stands that the invocation of this most important constitutional Magna Carta did occur on the aforesaid date, and that it currently stands as the Supreme Law of the realm, I ask you kindly to provide evidence in substance to counter this lawful requirement of court de jure within 7 (seven) days from your receipt of this notice.

Any reply must be made on your full commercial liability and on penalty of perjury.

Signed,

To:
Premier Scott Moe
Government Of Saskatchewan
226 Legislative Building
Regina, SK, S4S 0B3

CC:
Chief Judge J.A. Plemel,
Crown Prosecutor Landry
Provincial Court Of Saskatchewan
1815 Smith Street
Regina, SK, S4P 2N5

From:
Travis Patron
Canadian Nationalist Party
PO Box 490
Redvers, SK, S0C 2H0

Date Served: March 16^th, 2020

NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE

Government Of Saskatchewan,

I am writing you after being charged under the Criminal Code Of Canada for a number of offenses:

• [Section 266(b) CC];
• [Section 268(1) CC];
• [Section 733.1(1);
• [Section 145(3).

Whereas it is my understanding that Article 61 of our Magna Carta was successfully invoked on March 23^rd, 2001, it is my required duty to stand entirely under the tenets of English Constitution in lawful dissent, and that I am required to request a properly convened court de jure in accordance with “a lawful sentence of a jury of peers and according to the Common Law” in order to settle the aforementioned charges.

Whereas it stands that the invocation of this most important constitutional Magna Carta did occur on the aforesaid date and, that it currently stands as the Supreme Law of the realm, I ask you kindly to provide evidence in substance to counter this lawful requirement of court de jure within 7 (seven) days from your receipt of this notice.

It is not my intention to conduct myself unlawfully nor act against the conditions before me. Whilst the Magna Carta provides a ‘lawful excuse’ to distress the Crown and its institutions at this time, it is to my understanding that I cannot consent to any other method of settling the aforementioned charges except by way of “a lawful sentence of a jury of peers and according to the Common Law”. English Constitutional Law forbids me to aid and abet the Crown until redress has been made in accordance with Article 61. It also forbids me to aid and abet any other man or woman who is not also standing in Lawful Dissent under Article 61 of the Magna Carta (1215). I must (by law) also compel you to abide by constitutional law and to stand with the people in Lawful Dissent as is demanded of us.

Failure to respond to this notice within the reasonable time frame allotted, or without providing evidence in substance that clearly disproves Article 61 is currently in effect, shall be taken to mean by all interested parties that there exists no lawful objection against the claims made in this letter.

Any reply must be made on your full commercial liability and on penalty of perjury.

We are all responsible and culpable for our own actions or omissions under English Constitutional Law. Ignorance is no defense. Please check the facts for yourself before replying: Public Notice: Invocation Magna Carta (1215)

Be it understood that this notice is a lawful instrument which requires your attention and prompt response. This ‘Notice Of Conditional Acceptance’ may be used as evidence in my defense.

If I am coerced/forced under duress into conducting myself unlawfully by your court, then it shall be your court solely liable for the consequences.

Sincerely, without any admission of liability whatsoever, and with no attempt to deceive or to appear vexatious, and with all inalienable, constitutional rights reserved.

Signed,