Here is the proof of all that was filed
http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=T-1557-15&select_court=T
| Court Number : | T-1557-15 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Style of Cause : | DAVID RAYMOND AMOS v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN | ||
| Proceeding Category : | Actions | Nature : | Others - Crown (v. Queen) [Actions] |
| Type of Action : | Ordinary | ||
| Doc | Date Filed | Office | Recorded Entry Summary | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | 2016-12-19 | Ottawa | Copy of Order dated 19-DEC-2016 rendered by The Honourable Mr. Justice Webb The Honourable Mr. Justice Rennie The Honourable Mr. Justice de Montigny placed on file. Original filed on Court File No. A-48-16 | ||
| - | 2016-02-25 | Ottawa | Copy of Notice of Appeal (Appeal Court File No. A-48-16 ) appealing NOTICE OF CROSS APPEAL filed in Federal Court of Appeal filed in the Court of Appeal on 12-FEB-2016 on behalf of Plaintiff placed on file on 25-FEB-2016 | ||
| - | 2016-02-16 | Ottawa | Copy of Notice of Appeal (Appeal Court File No. A-48-16 ) appealing Order of Southcott, J. dated 25-JAN-2016 filed in the Court of Appeal on 04-FEB-2016 on behalf of Plaintiff placed on file on 16-FEB-2016 | ||
| - | 2016-01-25 | Toronto | Acknowledgment of Receipt received from Plaintiff and Defendant via fax transmission confirmation with respect to Order and Reasons dated 25-JAN-2016 placed on file on 25-JAN-2016 | ||
| - | 2016-01-25 | Toronto | Certificate of Order certifying that the Court (Justice Southcott) on 25-JAN-2016 ordered at the end of his Order and Reasons as follows: "This Court Orders that: 1. the Plaintiff's appeal is allowed in part; 2. the Order of Prothonotary Morneau dated 12-NOV-2015 is set aside; 3. the claims for relief in the final paragraph of the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim are struck without leave to amend, with the exception of the claim for monetary relief for allegedly being barred by the RCMP from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004; 4. the Defendant is at liberty to present a motion, to be filed within 30 days of the date of this Order or any decision resulting from any appeal of this Order, arguing which specific paragraphs of the Statement of Claim should be struck in order to accord with my decision; 5. the time for the Defendant to file a Statement of Defence is extended to 30 days from the date of this Order, the date of any Order resulting from a motion by the Defendant arguing which specific paragraphs of the Statement of Claim should be struck in order to accord with my decision, and the date of any decision resulting from any appea of either such Order; and 6. No costs are awarded on this motion." placed on file on 25-JAN-2016 | ||
| 20 | 2016-01-25 | Toronto | Reasons and Order dated 25-JAN-2016 rendered by The Honourable Mr. Justice Southcott Matter considered with personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to Motion Doc. No. 8 Result: granted in part 2. the Order of Prothonotary Morneau dated 12-NOV-2015 is set aside; 3. claims for relief in final paragraph of Plaintiff's Statement of claim are struck without leave to amend, ... 4. Defendant is at liberty to present a motion, to be filed within 30 days.. 5. time for Defendant to file a Statement of Defence is extended to 30 days... 6. No costs are awarde on this motion. **(see Reasons and Order for complete wording)** Filed on 25-JAN-2016 certified copies sent to parties Interlocutory Decision Copy of Reasons for Order entered in J. & O. Book, volume 1290 page(s) 470 - 484 | ||
| - | 2016-01-11 | Fredericton | Receipt for payment audio CD hearing Dec 14, 2015 and Jan 11, 2016. Req.by Roger Richard placed on file on 11-JAN-2016 | ||
| - | 2016-01-11 | Fredericton | Receipt for payment copy audio CD recording hearing Jan 11, 2016. Requested by Plaintiff placed on file on 11-JAN-2016 | ||
| - | 2016-01-11 | Fredericton | Fredericton 11-JAN-2016 BEFORE The Honourable Mr. Justice Southcott Language: E Before the Court: Motion Doc. No. 8 on behalf of Plaintiff Result of Hearing: Matter reserved held in Court Duration per day: 11-JAN-2016 from 09:31 to 10:47 Courtroom : Courtroom No. 1 - Fredericton Court Registrar: Michel Morneault Total Duration: 1h16min Appearances: David Raymond Amos 902-800-0369 representing the Plaintiff on his own behalf Jill Chisholm 902-426-7570 representing Defendant Comments: DARS Z005130 was used for the recording of the hearing Minutes of Hearing entered in Vol. 943 page(s) 475 - 477 Abstract of Hearing placed on file | ||
| - | 2015-12-23 | Ottawa | Acknowledgment of Receipt received from all parties with respect to the Order of the Court rendered on December 14, 2015. (via fax) placed on file on 23-DEC-2015 | ||
| 19 | 2015-12-23 | Fredericton | Order dated 14-DEC-2015 rendered by The Honourable Mr. Justice Bell Matter considered with personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to Motion Doc. No. 8 Result: Delivered orally from the Bench on December 14, 2015. As a result of my recusal, this Court orders that the Administrator of the Court schedule another date for the hearing of the motion. There is no order as to costs. Filed on 23-DEC-2015 entered in J. & O. Book, volume 1288 page(s) 428 - 430 Interlocutory Decision | ||
| - | 2015-12-23 | Fredericton | Correction to General Sitting concerning Motion Doc. No. 8 Hearing rescheduled from General Sitting at Fredericton on 14-DEC-2015 to General Sitting at Fredericton on 11-JAN-2016 at 09:30 duration: 2h Language: E Reason for correction: The presiding Judge recused himself on 14-DEC-2015 sitting | ||
| - | 2015-12-14 | Fredericton | Receipt for payment CD audio recording of the hearing on 14-DEC-2015, req. by Plaintiff placed on file on 14-DEC-2015 | ||
| - | 2015-12-14 | Fredericton | Fredericton 14-DEC-2015 BEFORE The Honourable Mr. Justice Bell Language: E Before the Court: Motion Doc. No. 8 on behalf of Plaintiff Result of Hearing: Matter adjourned sine die held in Court Duration per day: 14-DEC-2015 from 09:35 to 10:42 Courtroom : Courtroom No. 1 - Fredericton Court Registrar: Michel Morneault Total Duration: 1h07min Appearances: David Raymond Amos 902-800-0369 representing on his own behalf Jill Chisholm 902-426-7570 representing Defendant Comments: Tascam Backup was used for the recording of the hearing. Plaintiff requested an audio CD of the hearing. Minutes of Hearing entered in Vol. 943 page(s) 46 - 47 Abstract of Hearing placed on file | ||
| 17 | 2015-12-10 | Halifax | Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of Jill Chisholm confirming service of the Defendant's Motion Record (Doc.16) upon Plaintiff by courier on 10-DEC-2015 filed on 10-DEC-2015 | ||
| 16 | 2015-12-10 | Halifax | Motion Record in response to Motion Doc. No. 8 containing the following original document(s): 14 15 Number of copies received: 3 on behalf of Defendant filed on 10-DEC-2015 | ||
| 15 | 2015-12-10 | Halifax | Written Representations contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Defendant concerning Motion Doc. No. 8 filed on 10-DEC-2015 | ||
| 14 | 2015-12-10 | Halifax | Affidavit of Jill Thomson sworn on 10-DEC-2015 contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Defendant in opposition to Motion Doc. No. 8 with Exhibits 1 & 2 filed on 10-DEC-2015 | ||
| 13 | 2015-12-08 | Fredericton | Affidavit of service of David Raymond Amos sworn on 08-DEC-2015 on behalf of Plaintiff confirming service of doc.12 (doc.8,10,11) upon Defendant by Priority next day mail on 08-DEC-2015 filed on 08-DEC-2015 | ||
| 12 | 2015-12-08 | Fredericton | Motion Record containing the following original document(s): 8 10 11 Number of copies received: 3 on behalf of Plaintiff filed on 08-DEC-2015 | ||
| 11 | 2015-12-08 | Fredericton | Written Representations contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Plaintiff concerning Motion Doc. No. 8 filed on 08-DEC-2015 | ||
| 10 | 2015-12-08 | Fredericton | Affidavit of David Raymond Amos sworn on 08-DEC-2015 contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Plaintiff in support of Motion Doc. No. 8 with Exhibits A & B (Exhibit A is a CD) filed on 08-DEC-2015 | ||
| - | 2015-11-23 | Fredericton | Memorandum to file from Michel G. Morneault dated 23-NOV-2015 a copy of the Notice of Motion filed on November 20th, 2015 appealing the decision of Proth. Morneau dated November 12th, 2015, sent to Mr. Morneau placed on file. | ||
| 9 | 2015-11-20 | Fredericton | Affidavit of service of David Raymond Amos sworn on 20-NOV-2015 on behalf of Plaintiff confirming service of doc.8 upon Defendant by mail on 20-NOV-2015 filed on 20-NOV-2015 | ||
| 8 | 2015-11-20 | Fredericton | Notice of Motion on behalf of Plaintiff returnable at General Sitting in Fredericton on 14-DEC-2015 to begin at 09:30 duration: 2h language: E for an appeal of the decision of Richard Morneau, Esq., Prothonotary dated 12-NOV-2015 Doc. No. 6 filed on 20-NOV-2015 | ||
| - | 2015-11-19 | Ottawa | Letter sent by Registry on 19-NOV-2015 to Plaintiff providing a certified copy of the order dated 12-NOV-2015 to the Plaintiff that had previously been faxed to him on 12-NOV-2015 and 19-NOV-2015 Copy placed on file. | ||
| - | 2015-11-19 | Ottawa | Confirmation of receipt by fax printout by the Plaintiff of the Order dated 12-NOV-2015 of Mr. Prothonotary Morneau placed on file on 19-NOV-2015 | ||
| - | 2015-11-12 | Montréal | Acknowledgment of Receipt received from parties with respect to reception of order 6 placed on file on 12-NOV-2015 | ||
| 6 | 2015-11-12 | Montréal | Order dated 12-NOV-2015 rendered by Richard Morneau, Esq., Prothonotary Matter considered without personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to Motion in writing Doc. No. 2 Result: granted Filed on 12-NOV-2015 copies sent to parties entered in J. & O. Book, volume 1283 page(s) 357 - 359 Interlocutory Decision | ||
| - | 2015-11-06 | Montréal | Communication to the Court from the Registry dated 06-NOV-2015 re: Notice of Motion (doc. #2) + request for direction | ||
| 18 | 2015-10-26 | Fredericton | Affidavit of service of David Raymond Amos sworn on 26-OCT-2015 on behalf of Plaintiff confirming service of doc.7 upon Defendant by mail on 26-OCT-2015 filed on 26-OCT-2015 | ||
| 7 | 2015-10-26 | Montréal | Motion Record in response to Motion Doc. No. 2 Number of copies received: 1 on behalf of Plaintiff (filed as per order 6; one copy only) filed on 26-OCT-2015 | ||
| 5 | 2015-10-14 | St. John's | Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of Jill Chisholm confirming service of Doc 4 Motion Record upon Plaintiff by Courier on 14-OCT-2015 filed on 14-OCT-2015 | ||
| 4 | 2015-10-14 | St. John's | Motion Record Number of copies received: 3 on behalf of Defendant filed on 14-OCT-2015 | ||
| - | 2015-10-14 | St. John's | Draft Order concerning Motion Doc. No. 2 received on 14-OCT-2015 | ||
| 3 | 2015-10-14 | St. John's | Written Representations contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Defendant concerning Motion Doc. No. 2 filed on 14-OCT-2015 | ||
| 2 | 2015-10-14 | St. John's | Notice of Motion contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Defendant in writing to be dealt with in the Montréal local office for an Order purusant to Rules 221(1)(a) and (c) to strike and an order pursuant to Rule 8 extention of time to serve and file Defence. filed on 14-OCT-2015 Draft Order\\Judgment received. | ||
| - | 2015-09-16 | Fredericton | Letter sent by Registry on 16-SEP-2015 to DOJ Halifax R.133 service letter Copy placed on file. | ||
| 1 | 2015-09-16 | Fredericton | Statement of Claim and 2 cc's filed on 16-SEP-2015 Certified copy(ies)/copy(ies) transmitted to Director of the Regional Office of the Department of Justice Section 48 - $2.00 | ||
Court File No. T-1557-15
FEDERAL
COURT
BETWEEN:
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
Plaintiff/Moving Party
and
HER
MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant/Responding
Party
NOTICE OF A MOTION TO APPEAL
THE ORDER OF
MR. PROTHONOTARY MORNEAU AND
REQUEST AN ORAL HEARING OF THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
THE APPEAL IS FOR:
1.
The
Plaintiff sued the Queen of England. The Deputy Attorney General named the
Attorney General as the Defendant in his motion to dismiss this matter pursuant
to Rules 221(1)(a) of the Federal Court
Rules instead of HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (CROWN) then named
her as the Defendant in the Court Order he had composed for a Prothonotary to
dismiss the Statement of Claim in its entirety, without leave to amend before
the Plaintiff could file the evidence to support his claim against the CROWN seeking
eleven million dollars and proper apologies for its offences against his rights
under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) that could be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada if necessary.
2.
Mr.
Prothonotary Morneau is not an infant or incompetent. He should had understood
Rule 50(2)(5) of the Federal Court Rules
in that he had no authority to strike a statement of claim seeking eleven
million dollars in monetary relief in light of the fact that no consent was
given by the Plaintiff for any prothonotary to render a final judgment in this
matter. The objection filed by the Plaintiff on October 26, 2015 to the
vexatious Motion to Dismiss by the Attorney General of Canada clearly states
that the Plaintiff requests an oral hearing before a Judge of Federal Court. No
consent was expressed or implied in order to allow a prothonotary to ignore the
Federal Court Rules.
THE GROUNDS TO APPEAL THE ORDER
OF MR. PROTHONOTARY MORNEAU AND THE REQUEST AN ORAL HEARING OF THE DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS ARE:
- The Attorney General of Canada and Mr. Prothonotary Morneau have falsely claimed that the Plaintiff discloses no reasonable cause of action despite the fact that the CROWN admitted within its Motion to Dismiss that the Plaintiff had stated that the CROWN had breached his right to peaceful assembly and association pursuant to section 2(c) and (d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The facts are the Plaintiff is still barred today from access to parliamentary properties and public records buildings and that the Queen of England rules over every jurisdiction in Canada. The Federal Court of Canada does have the jurisdiction to hear this matter and the Plaintiff did file his statement of claim against the CROWN in a timely fashion because he is still barred from the most important public properties in all of Canada.
- Due process of law entitles the Plaintiff, to provide the Federal Court with the evidence to support his Statement of Claim and to be heard rather than be summarily dismissed in writing by a prothonotary because the counsel for the Defendant makes allegations that his actions in defence of his rights and freedoms under the Charter are frivolous and vexations or that the Federal Court does not have the jurisdiction to hear a claim against the CROWN.
THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTRY EVIDENCE will be
used at the hearing of the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.
- The Statement of Claim filed September 16, 2015.
- The Motion to Dismiss served on the Plaintiff on October 16, 2015.
- The Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss filed on October, 26, 2015
- A CD containing a true copy of a police surveillance wiretap tape and numerous documents that the CROWN has in its possession before the Plaintiff was illegally barred from parliamentary properties for unethical political reasons.
DATED at Fredericton, New Brunswick,
this the 20th day of November, 2015
___________________________
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
P.O. Box 234
Apohaqui, NB E5P 3G2
Plaintiff on his own
behalf
TO: Administrator, Federal Court
AND TO:
WILLIAM F. PENTNEY
Deputy Attorney General of
Canada
per: JILL CHISHOLM
Department of Justice
Suite
1400-Duke Tower
5251 Duke Street
Halifax, NS
B3J 1P3
Counsel for
the Defendant
WRITTEN
REPRESENTATIONS
OVERVIEW
- The Plaintiff seeks an order to revoke the Order of the Prothonotary Richard Morneau and award a judgment by default against the Defendant.
PART I--FACTS
- The Deputy Attorney General for reasons unexplained named his superior the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA as the Defendant in his motion to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim pursuant to Rules 221(1)(a) of the Federal Court Rules instead of the true defendant, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN.
- The Deputy Attorney did name HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN as the Defendant in the Court Order he drafted for a prothonotary to use to dismiss the Statement of Claim in its entirety, without leave to amend.
- The Deputy Attorney General submitted a request to the court to allow a prothonotary to ignore Federal Court Rules in lieu of filing a defence of HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN before the Plaintiff could possibly amend his claim or meet a judge of Federal Court and file the evidence to support his claim against the CROWN seeking eleven million dollars for offences against his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that could be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada if necessary.
- On October 26, 2015 the Plaintiff filed an objection to the Motion to Dismiss by the Attorney General of Canada and clearly stated that he was requested an oral hearing before a Judge of Federal Court. No consent was expressed or implied in order to allow a Prothonotary to ignore the Federal Court Rules render a final judgment in this matter.
- On November 12, 2015 the Plaintiff received a fax that did not include the last page of the ORDER of the Prothonotary Richard Morneau. The ORDER does state that this matter is between DAVID RAYMONDAMOS as the Plaintiff and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN as the defendant and that UPON reviewing the motion records filed by the parties and UPON being satisfied that he could adjudicate on the instant motion without holding an oral hearing and believed the defendant’s counsel in that the Federal Court does not have jurisdiction to hear a matter involving HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN in right of the provinces while ignoring the Plaintiff’s statements about the Governor General, the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Canadian Forces and the RCMP.
- On November 19, 2015 the Plaintiff received a fax from Federal Court and then later a certified copy containing page 3 of the unsigned ORDER of Prothonotary Richard Morneau. Statement 2 on page three states as follows: “No costs are awarded to the defendant since none were requested by same.”
PART
II –ISSUES
- Statement 2 of the ORDER of Prothonotary Richard Morneau forever proved to the Plaintiff that the prothonotary had not read the Motion to Dismiss because Statement 35(b) of the Defendant’s motion requested that the Federal Court award the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA the costs of his motion. Therefore he likely did not read any of the Plaintiff’s documents in order to understand that the Plaintiff was not consenting to his actions.
PART III---ARGUMENT
- Mr. Prothonotary Morneau QC is not an infant or incompetent. He should had understood Rule 50(2)(5) of the Federal Court Rules in that he had no authority to strike a statement of claim seeking eleven million dollars in monetary relief in light of the fact that no consent whatsoever was given by the Plaintiff for any prothonotary to render a final judgment in this matter.
- The objection filed by the Plaintiff on October 26, 2015 to the vexatious Motion to Dismiss by the Attorney General of Canada clearly states that the Plaintiff requests an oral hearing before a Judge of Federal Court. No consent was expressed or implied in order to allow a prothonotary to ignore the Federal Court Rules.
- The Attorney General of Canada and Mr. Prothonotary Morneau have falsely claimed that the Plaintiff discloses no reasonable cause of action despite the fact that the CROWN admitted within its Motion to Dismiss that the Plaintiff had stated that the CROWN had breached his right to peaceful assembly and association pursuant to section 2(c) and (d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The facts are the Plaintiff is still barred today from access to parliamentary properties and public records buildings and that the Queen of England rules over every jurisdiction in Canada. The Federal Court of Canada does have the jurisdiction to hear this matter and the Plaintiff did file his statement of claim against the CROWN in a timely fashion because he is still barred from the most important public properties in all of Canada.
- Due process of law entitles the Plaintiff, to provide the Federal Court with the evidence to support his Statement of Claim and to be heard rather than be summarily dismissed in writing by a prothonotary because the counsel for the Defendant makes allegations that his actions in defence of his rights and freedoms under the Charter are frivolous and vexations or that the Federal Court does not have the jurisdiction to hear a claim against the CROWN.
PART IV---ORDER
REQUESTED
- The Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honourable Court order that:
(a)
The ORDER of the Prothonotary, Richard Morneau striking out
the Statement of Claim be revoked; and
(b)
The Defendant be found in Default; and
(c)
Award the Plaintiff
eleven million dollars ($11,000,000.00) in the form of relief plus the costs of
his Opposition to the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and his Appeal of the Order
of the Prothonotary, Richard Morneau.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
DATED at Fredericton, New Brunswick,
this the 8th day of December, 2015
___________________________
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
P.O. Box 234
Apohaqui, NB E5P 3G2
Plaintiff
on his own behalf
TO: Administrator, Federal Court
AND TO:
WILLIAM F. PENTNEY
Deputy Attorney General of
Canada
per: JILL CHISHOLM
Department of Justice
Suite
1400-Duke Tower
5251 Duke
Street
Halifax, NS
B3J 1P3
Counsel for
the Defendant
Court File No. T-1557-15
FEDERAL
COURT
BETWEEN:
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
Plaintiff/Moving Party
and
HER
MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant/Respondent
ORDER
UPON Motion of the Moving Party, the Plaintiff David Raymond Amos
to appeal the ORDER of the Prothonotary,
Richard Morneau striking the Statement of Claim
and
UPON reading the Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff’s objection to
the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and viewing and listening to the evidence
filed herein;
IT IS ORDERED that:
(a) The ORDER of the
Prothonotary, Richard Morneau striking out the Statement of Claim is revoked;
and
(b) The Defendant is found in
Default: and
(c) The Plaintiff is awarded eleven million
dollars ($11,000,000.00) in the form of relief plus costs of his Opposition to
the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and his Appeal of the Order of the
Prothonotary, Richard Morneau.
DATED at
____________this____day of__________ , 20
______________________
A Judge of Federal Court
Court File No. T-1557-15
FEDERAL COURT
BETWEEN:
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
Plaintiff
and
HER
MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant
AFFIDAVIT OF THE PLAINTIFF,
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
I, David Raymond Amos of
Apohaqui, New Brunswick MAKE OATH AND
SAY:
- Hereto attached to this document as Exhibit A is a CD which is a true copy of an American police surveillance wiretap tape entitled 139.
- Beginning in 2002 I have provided a true copy of the CD entitled 139 to many American and Canadian law enforcement authorities and not one of the police forces or officers of the court are willing to investigate it.
- I have also provided many original American police surveillance wiretap tapes to the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), several US Attorneys, the US Senate Judiciary Committee, two District Attorneys within in the US State of Massachusetts and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and I have received no response whatsoever.
- I have more American police surveillance wiretap tapes in my possession in Canada and many more scattered around the USA. However many more were stolen from my home in Massachusetts. The Fredericton Police Force took three wiretap tapes along with my motorcycle legally registered in the USA when they seized it in 2007 and falsely claimed that it was a stolen vehicle. The Fredericton Police Force refused to return my property or the contents of its saddlebags after it was proven that the motorcycle had a legally registered serial number created by the manufacturer. Service New Brunswick has lost all records of my motorcycle and the Tow Company that had it in its yard has threatened to press charges for harassment if I ever contacted them again.
- The Fredericton Police Force are now claiming that they no record of seizing my motorcycle and have no idea of its whereabouts or of the wiretap tapes that were in its saddlebag.
- Hereto attached to this document as Exhibit B are many of the very same documents that the Governor General of Canada admitted that she had in her possession in 2004 and a few more documents that the Plaintiff has sent to and received from the CROWN since 2004.
- The most notable documents with regards to this claim against HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN should be the letters from the Deputy Prime Minister, the Governor General, my letter to the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Ambassador of Iceland in 2006 and the subsequent barring notice from the Sergeant of Arms of Province of New Brunswick written in only one official language and never published in the Royal Gazette.
- I am certain that once the court listens to the CD and reviews the documents hereto attached it will be assured that I have a very justifiable claim against HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN and it is not frivolous and vexatious as the PROTHONOTARY RICHARD MORNEAU and the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA have claimed within their documents.
- I have more police surveillance wiretap tapes and many more documents in my possession in Fredericton New Brunswick if the court is not satisfied that this claim has merit and wishes to listen and review more of the same sort of evidence.
Affirmed before me at the City of
Fredericton in the County of York of New Brunswick on December 8, 2015.
|
|
_____________________________
Commissioner for
Taking Affidavits
|
|
_____________________
David Raymond Amos
P.O. Box 234
Apohaqui, NB E5P 3G2
No comments:
Post a Comment