From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: Another judge blows his cred in Nova Scotia where Chris   
   Ens helped Travis Patterson put the judge on the POLCOA   
   Prong with the Quash Motion:   
   Parliament's S.43 Interpretation Act says you can't revive   
   something in one act by repealing something in another. The   
   Crown points out that 50 courts have so far accepted that   
   the Hitzig Ontario Court of Appeal revived the prohibitions   
   in the CDSA when Hitzig repealed the unconstitutional caps   
   on growers in the MMAR.   
   We just look the judge in the eye and say:   
   I don't care how many other judges have chosen to obey the   
   Hitzig Decision rather than the Interpretation Act. Who are   
   you going to obey, Ontario Court of Appeal or Parliament?   
   The judge looks down in shame and says "the judges!"   
   That's okay, it's a crime and it's on their record! Har har   
   har har har har. Someday, we'll count all the criminal   
   judges who were put on the Parliament Only Legislates,   
   Courts Only Abrogate Prong and disobeyed Parliament.   
   Now we have our newest disobedient judge in Nova Scotia.   
      
   PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA   
   Citation: R. v. Patterson, 2015 NSPC 33   
   Date: 2015-05-20   
   Docket: 2708048, 2708049, 2708056, 2708057, 2708058   
   Registry: Pictou   
      
   Between:   
   Her Majesty the Queen   
   v.   
   Travis Lee Darnell Patterson   
      
             DECISION REGARDING PRETRIAL APPLICATIONS   
   Judge: The Honourable Judge Del W. Atwood   
   Heard: 19 May 2015, in Pictou, Nova Scotia   
   Crown: Bronwyn Duffy   
      
   Charge: Sections 4, 5 and 8 of the Controlled Drugs and   
   Substances Act; section 216 of the Excise Act; section 39 of   
   the Revenue Act Counsel: Bronwyn Duffy for the Public   
   Prosecution Service of Canada Jody McNeill for the Nova   
   Scotia Public Prosecution Service Travis Lee Darnell   
   Patterson representing himself   
      
   By the Court:   
      
   [1] This is an expansion of the oral judgment I rendered the   
   morning of 19 May 2015, which was abbreviated necessarily as   
   I was dealing concurrently with the court's full arraignment   
   docket.   
      
   [2] Mr. Patterson is charged under the Controlled Drugs and   
   Substances Act with possessing, producing and trafficking   
   cannabis; he is also charged under the Excise Act of Canada   
   and the Revenue Act of Nova Scotia with possessing   
   contraband tobacco. He elected trial in this court on the   
   indictable production and trafficking charges, and pleaded   
   not guilty across the board. He was represented initially by   
   a Nova Scotia Legal Aid staff lawyer. In time, that lawyer   
   sought leave of the court to be removed as solicitor of   
   record, informing the court concurrently that Mr. Patterson   
   had been served with a notice under the Protection of   
   Property Act not to enter Legal Aid offices. Mr. Patterson   
   was represented later by another lawyer under the terms of a   
   legal aid certificate. Mr. Patterson dismissed that lawyer   
   on an earlier trial date. Mr. Patterson is self-represented   
   at this time, and his trial is scheduled for 2 June 2015, to   
   be heard by me.   
      
   [3] Mr. Patterson brought three applications before me on 19   
   May 2015; on the motion of the federal prosecutor, I   
   dismissed all three. These are my reasons.   
      
   [4] First, Mr. Patterson sought to be represented at his   
   trial by a Mr. Enns, who had appeared with Mr. Patterson on   
   two earlier appearances. Even assuming, arguendo, that it   
   would be permissible for a person not qualified to practice   
   law in the province to represent an accused party charged   
   with indictable, rather than just summary, offences,   
   allowing Mr. Enns to represent Mr. Patterson would be   
   inappropriate. I have found Mr. Enns' conduct in court to be   
   disruptive and dilatory, and I have little hope that his   
   manner of advocacy would change at trial. In fact, during   
   the hearing of Mr. Patterson's applications yesterday, Mr.   
   Enns attempted to communicate impermissibly with me.   
   Applying the principles which I laid out in R. v. Martin   
   2012 NSPC 73 (in which I followed our Court of Appeal in R.   
   v. Wolkins 2005 NSCA 2 at para. 82, a case that dealt with   
   the discretion of a trial court to allow a non-lawyer agent   
   to represent a person charged with an offence), I dismissed   
   Mr. Patterson's application to be represented by Mr. Enns.   
      
   [5] Mr. Patterson sought concurrently a declaration of   
   statute invalidity under sub-s. 52(1) of the Constitution   
   Act, 1982 in relation to the provisions of the Controlled   
   Drugs and Substances Act under which he stands charged, and   
   a quashing of those charges under the provisions of s. 601   
   of the Criminal Code as disclosing offences not known to   
   law. The federal prosecutor argued that those applications   
   ought to be dismissed as having no prospect of success. I   
   agreed, and dismissed the applications.   
      
   [6] There is no doubt that a provincial court may declare   
   unconstitutional legislation as invalid and dismiss or quash   
   charges laid under that legislation. As was noted in R. v.   
   Big M. Drug Mart, [1985] S.C.J. No. 17 at paras. 33-47, a   
   statutory court may find unconstitutional legislation   
   invalid, not in exercising any sort of declaratory or   
   prerogative relief, but simply in ensuring that principle of   
   fundamental justice that an accused person not be convicted   
   under an invalid law.   
      
   JCT: And it's even better when a court doesn't have to first   
   declare the law invalid before ensuring no conviction but to   
   have had the law declared invalid by the Parker and Krieger   
   courts. Oh, he's not going to declare them invalid and if he   
   doesn't, then they're still alive because Parker and Krieger   
   mustn't have really invalidated after all if he's being   
   asked to invalidate them now.   
      
   [7] In resolving Mr. Patterson's application, the court was   
   assisted greatly by Ms. Duffy, who, although given only a   
   short time to prepare, pointed the court to what I consider   
   to be the key case on point: R. v. Turner 2014 ONSC 2736 per   
   Ray J.   
      
   JCT: James Turner was busted in 2006 and still hasn't been   
   brought to trial. Once to the Supreme Court did spend some   
   time. Justice Ray did rule James Turner was not allowed to   
   make a Mernagh Plus Why Charter challenge even though   
   Mernagh had been allowed to have his heard, a clean and pure   
   violation of Turner's rights. But Ray did not rule out   
   dealing with the Quash charge, he had dealt with it   
   originally back in 2007 or 8!!! Only the 55-witness Charter   
   motion that Mike Spottiswood had been granted permission to   
   proceed with was refused for James Turner.   
      
   It is a decision that dealt with analogues of Mr.   
   Patterson's applications. Essentially, what Mr. Patterson   
   seeks is what was sought by Mr. Turner: a declaration of   
   statutory invalidity based on the supposed repeal of   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)