Wednesday 8 March 2017

MEMORANDUM OF FACT AND LAW OF THE RESPONDENT ON CROSS-APPEAL

FEEL FREE TO SCROLL DOWN PAST MY LATEST FILING TO REVIEW THE REST OF THE EMAIL THAT WAS OBVIOUSLY ACKNOWLEDGED BY AT LEAST ONE LIEBRANO BOSS THIS MORNING N'ESY PAS NORMY BOY SABOURIN AND HARVEY BABY CASHORE????


---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 09:18:47 -0400
Subject: ATTN Hon Joseph T Robertson I just called and left a voicemail I truly hope that you get back to me ASAP
To: Joseph.Robertson@unb.ca, jrw , nbrooks@osgoode.yorku.ca, "mark.vespucci" , "Diane.Lebouthillier"
Cc: David Amos


Hon Joseph T Robertson
Jurist-in-Residence
Law, Faculty of
1 506 451 6919
Ludlow Hall, 105
UNB Fredericton Campus
Joseph.Robertson@unb.ca


Need I say that I found it interesting that you were appointed on
polling day for the Election of the 42nd Parliament? I wonder if you
recall my name on the ballot in Fredericton in 2006 when Harper won
his first mandate?

http://blogs.unb.ca/newsroom/2015/10/19/title/

University of New Brunswick appoints retired Court of Appeal Justice
Joseph Robertson to law faculty
 


---------- Original message ----------
From: "Gallant, Premier Brian (PO/CPM)"
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 11:53:02 +0000
Subject: RE: Norman Sabourin, executive director of the Canadian Judicial Council launches 'Potential misconduct' probe but only after his associates in the Crown Corp CBC exposes hiis pals???
To: David Amos

Thank you for writing to the Premier of New Brunswick.  Please be assured  that your email will be reviewed.

Nous vous remercions d’avoir communiqué avec le premier ministre du Nouveau-Brunswick.  Soyez assuré(e) que votre  courriel sera examiné.



---------- Original message ----------
From: Póstur FOR
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 11:57:18 +0000
Subject: Re: Norman Sabourin, executive director of the Canadian Judicial Council launches 'Potential misconduct' probe but only after his associates in the Crown Corp CBC exposes hiis pals???
To: David Amos

Erindi þitt hefur verið móttekið  / Your request has been received

Kveðja / Best regards
Forsætisráðuneytið  / Prime Minister's Office



---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 07:52:50 -0400
Subject: Norman Sabourin, executive director of the Canadian Judicial Council launches 'Potential misconduct' probe but only after his associates in the Crown Corp CBC exposes hiis pals???
To: "Norman.Sabourin" , "harvey.cashore" , "marc.giroux" , mcu , "bill.pentney" , "bob.paulson" , "ralph.goodale" , "hon.melanie.joly" , "David.McGuinty" , Geoff Regan , "heather.bradley" , "jan.jensen" , "Jody.Wilson-Raybould.a1" , postur , premier , "Stephen.Horsman" , Craig Munroe , "denis.landry2" , "serge.rousselle" , "brian.gallant" , "Katie.Telford" , "Gerald.Butts" , "Michael.Wernick" , pm , "ht.lacroix" , newsroom , news , "steve.murphy" , nmoore , "alison.crawford" , "David.Coon" , david , "blaine.higgs"
Cc: David Amos , oldmaison , andre , president

Methinks Mr Norman Sabourin, his buddy Marc A. Giroux, Deputy Commissioner
Federal Judicial Affairs Canada and their cohorts really should be
preparing to argue mean old me in Federal Court N'esy Pas Mr Prime
Minister Trudeau "The Younger" ???

http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2017/03/memorandum-of-fact-and-law-of.html

Wednesday, 8 March 2017
MEMORANDUM OF FACT AND LAW OF THE RESPONDENT ON CROSS-APPEAL

http://www.fja-cmf.gc.ca/home-accueil/index-eng.html

Welcome to the Website of the Office of the Commissioner for Federal
Judicial Affairs Canada

The Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs reports directly to the
Minister of Justice. The Office of the Commissioner was established in
1978 to safeguard the independence of the judiciary and provide
federally appointed judges with administrative services independent of
the Department of Justice.

Duties and responsibilities include:

    administering Part I of the Judges Act, which deals with
eligibility for appointment, retirement age, and salaries of federally
appointed judges;

    preparing a budget and providing services and staff to the
Canadian Judicial Council;

    providing support to the Independent Advisory Committee for
Supreme Court of Canada Judicial Appointments;

    managing the Judicial Appointments Secretariat, which administers
17 advisory committees responsible for evaluating candidates for
federal judicial appointments;

    managing the Federal Courts Reports Section, which is responsible
for selecting and publishing Federal Court of Appeal and Federal Court
decisions in both official languages;

    administering a judicial intranet called JUDICOM, which provides
judges with email, a secure and restricted communication system, and a
virtual library;

    providing language training to judges in both official languages;

    coordinating initiatives related to the Canadian judiciary's role
in international cooperation.

In order to carry out these activities and provide services to
approximately 1,100 active judges and 850 retired judges and their
survivors in Canada, the Commissioner is assisted by the Deputy
Commissioner, seven Directors and, at present, 70 other staff members.

This Web site is designed to inform all Canadians about FJA's role and
activities in judicial affairs in Canada. We welcome any requests for
information and any comments or suggestions. Please do not hesitate to
Contact Us.

Enjoy your visit to our site!

Marc A. Giroux, Deputy Commissioner


---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 19:13:47 -0400
Subject: Hey Frank you got it wrong I was offering to help your client
Justice Robin Camp BTW say Hey to Marie Henein, Alan Gold and the
ghost of Eddy Greensan for me for me
To: faddario@addario.ca, "Norman.Sabourin"
, ministryofjustice
, "Kathleen.Ganley"
, mhenein
Cc: David Amos , sfine

---------- Original message ----------
From: Frank Addario
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 22:34:05 +0000
Subject: Re: A-48-16 scanned documents Hey Frank I just called from
902 800 0369 Enjoy the attachment
To: David Amos
Cc: David Amos

David, thanks for your phone call.
I don¹t think there is anything I can do to help you

Frank Addario
T. 1.416.649.5055
F. 1.866.714.1196

171 John Street, Suite 101
Toronto, ON M5T 1X3
www.addario.ca

 f>


http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2016/09/re-justice-camp-malicious-nonsense.html

Wednesday, 7 September 2016
RE Justice Camp malicious nonsense versus the RCMP, Peter MacKay
Federal Court, the Canadian Judicial Council and its cover up of the
Monumental Newfy sexual abuse issues






                                                                                                Court File No. A-48-16
(Federal Court No: T-1557-15)

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

BETWEEN:                     
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS

                                                                       Plaintiff/Respondent on Cross-Appeal


and


HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

                                                                       Defendant/Appellant on Cross-Appeal




MEMORANDUM OF FACT AND LAW OF THE
RESPONDENT ON CROSS-APPEAL






DAVID RAYMOND AMOS                              WILLIAM F. PENTNEY Q.C.
P.O. Box 234                                                         Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Apohaqui, NB                                                        per: JAN JENSEN
E5P 3G2                                                                 Department of Justice
                                                                                Suite 1400, Duke Tower
                                                                                5251 Duke Street
                                                                                Halifax, NS B3J 1P3

Telephone No: (902) 800-0369                              Telephone No: (902) 426-8177
Fax No: (506) 432-6089                                         Fax No: (902) 426-2329
E-Mail: David Raymond.Amos@gmail.com           E-Mail: Jan.Jensen@justice.gc.ca

Respondent on his own behalf                                Solicitors for the Appellant     






CONTENTS


OVERVIEW…………………………………………………………….……... ……2

PART I – STATEMENT OF FACTS..……...………………………...……………..4

PART II – ISSUES…… .…………………………………………………………….8

PART III – SUBMISSIONS …,,,…………………...………………………………..9

PART IV – ORDER SOUGHT ………………………………………………….....10

PART V – LIST OF AUTHORITIES…………………...……………………..…...11


OVERVIEW
1.      On December 14, 2015.  the Plaintiff/Appellant/Respondent on Cross-Appeal, David Raymond Amos (AMOS) began his study all the Justices on the bench in Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal after a hearing of an appeal of this matter before Justice B. Richard Bell. The judge acted ethically after discussing the issues he read within the motions and evidence filed by AMOS and counsels to Her Majesty the Queen (CROWN).  Justice Bell named many parties whom he, the CROWN and AMOS were familiar with then delivered an oral order for another hearing of the appeal and recused himself referring to the applicable test regarding allegations of bias based on Justice de Grandpré’s dissenting judgment in Committee for Justice and Liberty et al v National Energy Board et al, [1978] 1 SCR 369 at p 394 for.
2.      AMOS, provided the Registry Office of the Federal Court with a list of judges with whom he had a conflict of interest over two weeks before the upcoming hearing on January 11, 2016. The list of Justices in Federal Court is as follows: Justices Richard F. Southcott, Sylvie E. Roussel, Catherine M. Kane, Yvan Roy, Cecily Y. Strickland, Glennys L. McVeigh, George R. Locke, Martine St-Louis, René LeBlanc, Henry S. Brown, Alan Diner, Keith M. Boswell, Denis Gascon, Simon Fothergill, Anne Marie McDonald and B. Richard Bell.
3.      On January 11, 2016, AMOS stood before Justice Richard F. Southcott and did his best to explain why the judge should recuse himself. Justice Southcott did not agree and stated he would only hear arguments with regard to the faulty motions made by the CROWN (The motion to strike named the wrong defendant and the opposition to the appeal was unsigned and served very late). The judge refused to look at the plaintiff's motion in opposition to the defendant's motion to strike or the evidence supporting the appeal of the prothonotary's decision that Justice Bell had discussed with AMOS and the CROWN one month earlier. AMOS objected to Justice Southcott's actions and informed him that whatever he decided would be appealed forthwith. Justice Southcott reserved his decision.

4.      On February 4, 2016, AMOS filed this appeal of Justice Southcott's order. In a sincere effort to offset what had occurred Federal Court with regards to conflicts of interest, the Registry Office of the Federal Court of Appeal was provided with the list of Justices of this court whom the plaintiff had issues with before he filed any documents into the record of this matter. The list of Justices is as follows: Justices David W. Stratas, Yves de Montigny, Richard Boivin, André F.J. Scott,  Donald J. Rennie, Wyman W. Webb, David G. Near and C. Michael Ryer (Who resigned effective May 1, 2016)  
5.      On February 12, 2016, this cross appeal was filed by Her Majesty the Queen thereby making the plaintiff, David Raymond Amos the respondent. Solicitors of the CROWN continued in their incompetent and unethical defence by claiming that the Federal Court erred in its decisions because it did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter.
6.      On January 30, 2017, the CROWN faxed 4 pages of a memorandum of fact and law of the respondent byway. Whereas AMOS knew he was the respondent on cross- appeal, he suspected the CROWN had discovered its error and stopped the fax transmission in order to correct it. On February 2, 2017, the CROWN sent a fax stating that it had notified the court of its error and sought directions from the court. The plaintiff heard nothing further from the court about the mistake made by the CROWN. Later he received hard copy of a memorandum of fact and law of the respondent byway of regular Canada Post. The Registry Office instructed the plaintiff to file a memorandum of fact and law of the respondent by March 6, 2016 and leave it for the judges of this court to decide the matter.
7.      The CROWN has filed another faulty document with an incomplete statement of facts and wishes to argue a recent decision made on August 31, 2016 by a coram of judges in which a correction was made on February 23, 2017.
8.      The actions of the CROWN in matter caused it to be subject to more claims.
PART I – STATEMENT OF FACTS
9.      On September 16, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a statement of claim (The Claim) against Her Majesty the Queen. The plaintiff when to great length to explain to the court why his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Sections 2 (s) and (d) had been breached and why the Federal Court was the only court to have the jurisdiction to hear this matter.
10.  On October 16, 2015, the plaintiff received a copy of a notice of a motion that the CROWN filed with a heading falsely stating that the Claim was against the Attorney General of Canada. The CROWN asked the court to strike the Claim in its entirety pursuant to Rule 221 (1), (a) and (c) and to award the defendant the costs of creating its incompetent motion.
11.  On October 26, 2015, AMOS filed a motion in opposition to the motion to strike. The plaintiff did not recognize the standing of a Prothonotary to dismiss a claim seeking eleven million dollars in the form of relief. The plaintiff sought an oral argument before a Justice of Federal Court and asked for costs in the creation of his motion in response.
12.  On November 12, 2015, the Registry Office in Montreal faxed a redacted copy of the Order of the Prothonotary, Richard Morneau. The Registry Office of Federal Court  in Montreal would not respond to the plaintiff's queries as to what was written on the third page of the court order.
13.   On November 19, 2015, the Registry Office in Ottawa faxed a true copy of the order of the Prothonotary, Richard Morneau after the plaintiff had contacted and complained to the Attorney General of Canada, Federal Court's legal counsel and the Office of Commissioner of Judicial Affairs amongst others. Once the plaintiff read the third page of the order he understood why it had been redacted. It stated "No costs are awarded to the defendant since none were requested by same". It was obvious that the Registry Office in Montreal acted fraudulently because the prothonotary had not studied any of the documents in the record at all.
14.  On November 20, 2015, the plaintiff filed a notice of motion for hearing on December 14, 2015 in order to appeal the decision to the prothonotary.
15.  On December 8, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion record of the appeal with a supporting affidavit and exhibits. One exhibit was a true copy of an American police surveillance wiretap tape which is one of many he has in his possession that all law enforcement authorities in Canada and the USA he has encountered have refuse to investigate.
16.  On December 14, 2014, Justice B. Richard Bell discussed with the plaintiff some of the documents on file in the record and their common concerns then ethically recused himself on his own motion. Another hearing of the motion to appeal was scheduled for January 11, 2016.
17.  On or about December 22, 2015, the plaintiff provided the Registry Office a list of all the judges seated in on the bench in Federal Court that had a conflict of interest with the him in order to prevent another hearing as had occurred with Justice Bell.
18.  On January 11, 2016, AMOS stood before Justice Richard F. Southcott and did his best to explain why the judge should recuse himself. Justice Southcott did not agree and stated he would only hear arguments with regard to the faulty motions made by the CROWN (The motion to strike named the wrong defendant and the opposition to the appeal was unsigned and served very late). The judge refused to look at the plaintiff's motion in opposition to the defendant's motion to strike or the evidence supporting the appeal of the prothonotary's decision that Justice Bell had discussed with AMOS and the CROWN one month earlier. AMOS objected to Justice Southcott's actions and informed him that whatever he decided would be appealed forthwith. Justice Southcott reserved his decision.
19.   On February 4, 2016, the plaintiff filed an appeal of Justice Southcott's order and the Registry Office of the Federal Court of Appeal was provided with the list of Justices of this court who have a conflict of interest with him.
20.  On February 12, 2016, this cross appeal was filed by Her Majesty the Queen thereby making the plaintiff, David Raymond Amos the respondent in this memorandum of fact and law.
21.  Solicitors of the CROWN continued in their incompetent and unethical defence of their client in the Federal Court of Appeal. They began by by refusing to discuss the contents of the appeal book until it was too late to do so then faxing a document containing their demands and quoting the rules of the court. 
22.  In April of 2016 after attempting to resolve his longstanding concerns with the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Commissioner of Federal Judicial Affairs, the Canadian Judicial Council, the Commissioner of  Revenue Canada, the Attorney Generals of the United States and Canada, the plaintiff became aware a of a webpage hosted by a server based in Sweden about this very lawsuit. The malicious webpage within the egregious website entitled known as Encyclopedia Dramatica was supported by a new round of blogs and YouTube channels based in the USA. In an effort to put a stop to the malice and bring this matter to a conclusion. The plaintiff requested an oral hearing of this matter in confidence to this court's judicial administrator pursuant to Rule 35.
23.  The plaintiff heard nothing back from the Judicial Administrator of the Federal Court of Appeal. However the confidential letter and the draft of the motion the judicial administrator had requested was placed the public record and a copy was sent to the CROWN.
24.  On May 5, 2016 the CROWN docketed a letter addressed to an unnamed party within the Federal Court of Appeal insulting the plaintiff and ridiculing his confidential letter to the Judicial Administrator. The plaintiff heard nothing further from the court on the topic so he filed a motion seeking case management and directions from the court about the creation of the appeal book.
25.  On May12, 2016, Justice Trudel made an order denying an oral hearing and case management and providing directions on the appeal book.
26.  On June 10, 2016, the plaintiff followed the order of Justice Trudel and filed a motion about in the creation of the appeal book.
27.  On June 20, 2016, the CROWN responded changing its demands about the creation of transcripts and opposed the filing of important documents supporting the plaintiff's claim being recorded within the appeal book.
28.  On July 4, 2016, Justice David Stratas made the order pertaining to the creation of the appeal book instead of Justice Trudel. The plaintiff went forward and created the appeal book so that he would not be in default. However he could not ethically follow any orders of judges that he and the court knew he had a conflict of interest with. Some lawyers working for the Federal government and certain private lawyers are well aware that the plaintiff has no respect for Justice Stratas whatsoever. The lack of respect is caused by Justice Stratas' former partnership with the Heenan Blaikie law firm and his appointment as a Special Advocate by the Harper government. The plaintiff diligently attempted to tried resolve his concerns about Justice Stratas in confidence with the Attorney General of Canada and the Canadian Judicial Council and was ignored.
29.  On Oct 17, 2016, Justice Pelletier issued an order for a status review and the plaintiff responded on November 21,2016 which was one day later due to human error.  The Registry Office did not record the response in the docket and would not permit the plaintiff to file the motion that Justice Trudel had stated he could file until further notice from the court.
30.  On November 30, 2016, CROWN also responded to the status review stating things that were definitely not true while admitting its knowledge of police surveillance wiretap tapes and many other things yet still considered the Claim to be frivolous and vexatious.   
31.  On December 19, 2016, three Justices that the Federal Court of Appeal is well aware that the plaintiff has a conflict of interest with dismissed the appeal in writing without having to meet him in a public hearing and deny the conflict.
PART II – ISSUES
32.  The plaintiff considers that the CROWN is being frivolous and vexatious to claim that the Federal Court does not have jurisdiction over legislative affairs in the Province of New Brunswick in light of the fact that New Brunswick has no Constitution whatsoever. Irrefutable proof is the Constitution Amendment, 1993 (New Brunswick).The Governor General and Commander-in-Chief was advised by the Queen's Privy Council to issue a proclamation in order to amend the Constitution of Canada that was recorded by the Registrar General of Canada. Therefore the plaintiff has every right to defend his rights and freedoms under the Constitution Act, 1982 in New Brunswick. Furthermore the plaintiff has stated several times though out the documents found in the record of this matter that he has been barred from access to the House of Commons, the National Capital District, all provincial legislative properties, the University of New Brunswick and the Town of Woodstock New Brunswick apparently for the benefit of  his political opponents and their many cohorts.
33.  The Governor General, the Attorney General of Canada, many parliamentarians, the Commissioner and many members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, many members of the Canadian Forces, the Canadian Judicial Council, the the Commissioner of Federal Judicial Affairs, Commissioner of Public Sector Integrity,  the Commissioner of Revenue Canada, many solicitors acting on behalf of the CROWN at a Federal and provincial level throughout Canada have continued to refuse to act within the scope of their employment in dealing with the plaintiff since he first ran for a seat in the 38th Parliament in 2004.
34.  The Governor General of admitted in writing that she had two sets of documents and a CD of the plaintiff's (one set was forwarded from the Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick) involving public corruption. All public servants are relying on the actions of the Attorney General of Canada and the judges of this court to make the plaintiff's concerns appear to be frivolous, vexatious and without any merit whatsoever. However not one lawyer is willing to argue the plaintiff.
35.  The plaint must remind the court that since the Claim was filed, four lawyers three parliamentarians and one former parliamentarian have responded to the plaintiff in writing. They are Minister of Heritage Melanie Joly, David McQunity MP, Geoff Regan the Speaker of the House of Commons and Peter Milliken the former Speaker of the House of Commons when the plaintiff was barred from that public property in 2006. The plaintiff has filed their communications to him in the public record of this matter and the evidence of it has been ignored.
PART III – SUBMISSIONS
36.  Whereas the CROWN now wishes to argue a recent decision involving the actions of a prothonotary, the plaintiff to relies on the Rules of Federal Court Section 50 in particular. It states as follows:
50 (1) A prothonotary may hear, and make any necessary orders relating to, any motion under these Rules other than a motion
(a) in respect of which these Rules or an Act of Parliament has expressly conferred jurisdiction on a judge;
(b) in the Federal Court of Appeal;
(c) for summary judgment or summary trial other than
(i) in an action referred to in subsection (2), or
 (2) A prothonotary may hear an action exclusively for monetary relief, or an action in rem claiming monetary relief, in which no amount claimed by a 

51 (1) An order of a prothonotary may be appealed by a motion to a judge of the Federal Court.
 (2) Notice of the motion shall be served and filed within 10 days after the day on which the order under appeal was made and at least four days before the day fixed for the hearing of the motion.


PART IV – ORDER SOUGHT

The plaintiff therefore asks this court for the following relief:

(a)    A public apology by the Prime Minister and each Premier for the illegal barring of a citizen from access to parliamentary properties.

(b)   A declaration signed by the Minister of Public Safety and witnessed by the Governor General stating that the Canadian government will no longer allow the RCMP and the Canadian Forces to harass the Plaintiff and his Clan.

(c)    A settlement of eleven million dollars ($11,000,000.00) in the form of relief and punitive damages for being barred from eleven parliamentary properties for eleven years.

(d)   Costs to the Plaintiff in bringing this matter before the court




                                                                           ___________________________
  Dated March 6, 2017                                      DAVID RAYMOND AMOS                            
                                                                          P.O. Box 234                                                        
                                                                          Apohaqui, NB
                                                                          E5P 3G2 

                                                                          Respondent on his own behalf  


TO:             Administrator, Federal Court of Appeal

AND TO:   WILLIAM F. PENTNEY
                    Deputy Attorney General of Canada
                    per: JAN JENSEN
                    Department of Justice
                    Suite 1400-Duke Tower
                    5251 Duke Street
                    Halifax, NS B3J 1P3

                    Solicitors for the Appellant     



PART V – LIST OF AUTHORITIES

The Constitution Act, 1867

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Schedule B to the
Canada Act 1982 (U.K.) 1982, c. 11,

The Crown Liability and Proceedings Act. R.S., 1985, c. C-50, s. 1; 1990, c. 8, s. 21.

The Federal Courts Act R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7
The Federal Courts Rules SOR/2004-283, s. 2.

---------- Original message ----------
From: "Gallant, Premier Brian (PO/CPM)"
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 11:53:02 +0000
Subject: RE: Norman Sabourin, executive director of the Canadian Judicial Council launches 'Potential misconduct' probe but only after his associates in the Crown Corp CBC exposes hiis pals???
To: David Amos

Thank you for writing to the Premier of New Brunswick.  Please be assured  that your email will be reviewed.


Nous vous remercions d’avoir communiqué avec le premier ministre du Nouveau-Brunswick.  Soyez assuré(e) que votre  courriel sera examiné.


---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 07:52:50 -0400
Subject: Norman Sabourin, executive director of the Canadian Judicial Council launches 'Potential misconduct' probe but only after his associates in the Crown Corp CBC exposes hiis pals???
To: "Norman.Sabourin" , "harvey.cashore" , "marc.giroux" , mcu , "bill.pentney" , "bob.paulson" , "ralph.goodale" , "hon.melanie.joly" , "David.McGuinty" , Geoff Regan , "heather.bradley" , "jan.jensen" , "Jody.Wilson-Raybould.a1" , postur , premier , "Stephen.Horsman" , Craig Munroe , "denis.landry2" , "serge.rousselle" , "brian.gallant" , "Katie.Telford" , "Gerald.Butts" , "Michael.Wernick" , pm , "ht.lacroix" , newsroom , news , "steve.murphy" , nmoore , "alison.crawford" , "David.Coon" , david , "blaine.higgs"
Cc: David Amos , oldmaison , andre , president

Methinks Mr Norman Sabourin, his buddy Marc A. Giroux, Deputy Commissioner
Federal Judicial Affairs Canada and their cohorts really should be
preparing to argue mean old me in Federal Court N'esy Pas Mr Prime
Minister Trudeau "The Younger" ???

http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2017/03/memorandum-of-fact-and-law-of.html

Wednesday, 8 March 2017
MEMORANDUM OF FACT AND LAW OF THE RESPONDENT ON CROSS-APPEAL

http://www.fja-cmf.gc.ca/home-accueil/index-eng.html

Welcome to the Website of the Office of the Commissioner for Federal
Judicial Affairs Canada

The Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs reports directly to the
Minister of Justice. The Office of the Commissioner was established in
1978 to safeguard the independence of the judiciary and provide
federally appointed judges with administrative services independent of
the Department of Justice.

Duties and responsibilities include:

    administering Part I of the Judges Act, which deals with
eligibility for appointment, retirement age, and salaries of federally
appointed judges;

    preparing a budget and providing services and staff to the
Canadian Judicial Council;

    providing support to the Independent Advisory Committee for
Supreme Court of Canada Judicial Appointments;

    managing the Judicial Appointments Secretariat, which administers
17 advisory committees responsible for evaluating candidates for
federal judicial appointments;

    managing the Federal Courts Reports Section, which is responsible
for selecting and publishing Federal Court of Appeal and Federal Court
decisions in both official languages;

    administering a judicial intranet called JUDICOM, which provides
judges with email, a secure and restricted communication system, and a
virtual library;

    providing language training to judges in both official languages;

    coordinating initiatives related to the Canadian judiciary's role
in international cooperation.

In order to carry out these activities and provide services to
approximately 1,100 active judges and 850 retired judges and their
survivors in Canada, the Commissioner is assisted by the Deputy
Commissioner, seven Directors and, at present, 70 other staff members.

This Web site is designed to inform all Canadians about FJA's role and
activities in judicial affairs in Canada. We welcome any requests for
information and any comments or suggestions. Please do not hesitate to
Contact Us.

Enjoy your visit to our site!

Marc A. Giroux, Deputy Commissioner


---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 19:13:47 -0400
Subject: Hey Frank you got it wrong I was offering to help your client
Justice Robin Camp BTW say Hey to Marie Henein, Alan Gold and the
ghost of Eddy Greensan for me for me
To: faddario@addario.ca, "Norman.Sabourin"
, ministryofjustice
, "Kathleen.Ganley"
, mhenein
Cc: David Amos , sfine

---------- Original message ----------
From: Frank Addario
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 22:34:05 +0000
Subject: Re: A-48-16 scanned documents Hey Frank I just called from
902 800 0369 Enjoy the attachment
To: David Amos
Cc: David Amos

David, thanks for your phone call.
I don¹t think there is anything I can do to help you

Frank Addario
T. 1.416.649.5055
F. 1.866.714.1196

171 John Street, Suite 101
Toronto, ON M5T 1X3
www.addario.ca

 f>


http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2016/09/re-justice-camp-malicious-nonsense.html

Wednesday, 7 September 2016
RE Justice Camp malicious nonsense versus the RCMP, Peter MacKay
Federal Court, the Canadian Judicial Council and its cover up of the
Monumental Newfy sexual abuse issues

---------- Original message ----------
From: William Brooks
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2016 16:21:58 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: RE Justice Camp malicious nonsense versus
the RCMP, Peter MacKay Federal Court, the Canadian Judicial Council
and its cover up of the Monumental Newfy sexual abuse issues
To: David Amos

My term as Commissioner ended on August 14, 2016. Marc Giroux, Deputy
Commissioner, will be acting as Commissioner. He may be contacted at
613-947-1875 or at
marc.giroux@fja-cmf.gc.ca.

If you wish to contact me personally, I may be reached at
wm.brooks@sympatico.ca
__________________________________________________________

Mon mandat de commissaire a pris fin le 14 août 2016. Le
sous-commissaire Marc Giroux agira donc comme commissaire. Vous pouvez
communiquer avec lui au 613-947-1875 ou à
marc.giroux@fja-cmf.gc.ca

Vous pouvez communiquer avec moi à titre personnel à
wm.brooks@sympatico.ca.

Bill Brooks

---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2016 12:21:36 -0400
Subject: RE Justice Camp malicious nonsense versus the RCMP, Peter
MacKay Federal Court, the Canadian Judicial Council and its cover up
of the Monumental Newfy sexual abuse issues
To: nicole.ireland@cbc.ca, meghan.grant@cbc.ca, awoolley@ucalgary.ca,
koshan@ucalgary.ca, elaine.craig@dal.ca, elyn.downie@dal.ca,
"Kathleen.Ganley" , investigations
, cbcinvestigates ,
gopublic , alison.crawford@cbc.ca, jcarpay
, HAnglin
Cc: David Amos , "Ian.McPhail"
, mcu , "bill.pentney"
, faddario@addario.ca, info@cjc-ccm.gc.ca,
"william.brooks" , "PETER.MACKAY"


Judge Robin Camp's rape remarks led to appeal before Peter MacKay promoted him
Judge asked woman in sex assault case why she didn't just keep her
knees together
By Alison Crawford, CBC News Posted: Nov 18, 2015 5:00 AM ET

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/judge-robin-camp-knees-together-1.3322867

Robin Camp, who berated sex assault complainant, says counselling will
make him a better judge
Federal Court justice will fight to keep his job at judicial council
hearing in September
By Alison Crawford, CBC News Posted: Jul 04, 2016 12:40 PM ET

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/judge-sex-assault-robin-camp-1.3663552

Judge Robin Camp's 'insensitive, rude' comments not grounds for
dismissal: lawyer
Inquiry will determine if Camp has been remediated or should be
removed from office
By Meghan Grant, CBC News Posted: Sep 06, 2016 1:57 PM MT

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/robin-camp-judge-inquiry-calgary-1.3750135


FRANK ADDARIO
Phone 1.416.649.5055
faddario@addario.ca



https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/inquiries/goudge/pws/pdf/03/Frank_Addario_CLA.pdf

http://davidamos.blogspot.ca/2006/05/mariitime-and-yankee-arseholes.html

July 31st, 2005

Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin,
C/o Norman Sabourin General Counsel and
Andrew Grant and Renée Maria Tremblay
Canadian Judicial Council
150 Metcalfe Street,
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0W8

Shirley Heafey Chair of Commission
for Public Complaints against the RCMP
P.O. Box 3423 Station "D"
Ottawa, ON K1P 6L4

                                 RE: Rampant Public Corruption

 Hey,

      Pursuant to my recent phone calls to Norman Sabourin and various
underlings of Shirley Heafey within the Commission for Public
Complaints against the RCMP over the years plus my many faxes and
emails please find enclosed exactly the same material received by
every Attorney General in Canada over the past year. The CD which is a
copy of a police surveillance wiretap tape # 139 is served upon you as
officers of the court in order that it may be properly investigated.
As you can see I have enclosed a copy of a letter sent to the latest
Attorney General Mr. Wally Opal in BC. Perhaps he should take a little
trip to Surrey and ask your office some hard questions. Perhaps the
ghost of my fellow Independent politician, Chuck Cadman may wish to
answer few questions now as well. Hard telling not knowing.

      I will not bother you with the details of what I am sending to
you byway of the certified US Mail because I will be serving identical
material to many other Canadian Authorities in hand and tell them I
gave this stuff to you first and enclose a copy of this letter. All
that is important to me right now is that I secure proof that this
mail was sent before I make my way back home to the Maritimes. However
I will say I am also enclosing a great deal more material than what
Allan Rock had received in the UN. Some of it is in fact the same
material the two maritime lawyers, Rob Moore and Franky Boy McKenna in
particular received, while I was up home running for Parliament last
year. Things have changed greatly in the past year so I have also
included a few recent items to spice thing up for you. I am tired of
trying to convince people employed in law enforcement to uphold the
law. So all I will say for now is deal will your own conscience and be
careful how you respond to this letter. If you do not respond. Rest
assured I will do my best to sue you some day. Ignorance is no excuse
to the law or me.

Veritas Vincit
David R. Amos
153 Alvin Ave
Milton, MA. 02186

Label/Receipt Number: ED71 7170 484U S
Detailed Results:


Delivered Abroad, August 11, 2005, 6:49 am, CANADA
Out of Foreign Customs, August 08, 2005, 2:37 pm, CANADA
Into Foreign Customs, August 04, 2005, 1:52 pm, CANADA
Arrived Abroad, August 04, 2005, 1:52 pm, CANADA
International Dispatch, August 03, 2005, 8:32 am, KENNEDY AMC
Enroute, August 03, 2005, 8:30 am, JAMAICA, NY 11499
Acceptance, August 02, 2005, 10:40 am, QUINCY, MA 02169


"Heafey, Shirley" HeafeyS@cpc-cpp.gc.ca wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From: "Heafey, Shirley"HeafeyS@cpc-cpp.gc.ca
Sent: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 14:10:00 -0400
To: "David Amos" motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Just so you know


Just so you know, there was no message attached to the e-mail sent to
me. SO, in fact, I don't know what you think I should now know. Try again.
SH


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/judge-removal-canadian-judicial-council-1.3314962

Robin Camp case: What does it take to remove a judge from the bench?
Only two federally appointed judges recommended for dismissal since 1971

By Nicole Ireland, CBC News Posted: Nov 12, 2015 5:00 AM ET

The case of a judge who asked a woman, "Why couldn't you just keep
your knees together?" during an Alberta sexual assault trial is
raising questions about what kind of behaviour warrants removing a
justice from the bench.

    Judge under review for berating sex assault complainant
    Read the complaint against Justice Robin Camp

Only two judges have been recommended for removal by the Canadian
Judicial Council — a group of federally appointed judges tasked with
investigating complaints about their peers — since it was created in
1971.
Trevor Farrow

Trevor Farrow, associate dean at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto,
says it's 'a good thing' that judges don't lightly recommend
dismissing their peers. (Osgoode Hall Law School)

In both cases, the judges resigned before the recommendations made it
to Parliament, which ultimately decides whether or not to dismiss a
Canadian judge.

On Monday, the judicial council announced it was reviewing the conduct
of Robin Camp while he was an Alberta provincial court judge in 2014,
when he presided over a case involving a 19-year-old woman who alleged
she was sexually assaulted by a Calgary man during a house party.

According to the complaint that prompted the review, in addition to
the "keep your knees together" comment, Camp asked during the trial,
"Why didn't you just sink your bottom down into the basin so he
couldn't penetrate you?" (The woman alleged she was sexually assaulted
over a sink).

"At numerous points during the proceeding, Justice Camp was dismissive
of, if not contemptuous towards, the substantive law of sexual assault
and the rules of evidence," the complaint said. "In particular, he
showed disregard, if not disdain, for the rape shield provisions under
the Criminal Code, the legal definition of consent to sexual touching,
and the Criminal Code provision and case law regarding the doctrine of
recent complaint.

"His articulated disrespect for these legal rules was, in some
instances, combined with a refusal to apply them."

The Canadian Judicial Council must decide whether the complaint
against Camp, now a Federal Court judge, has merit and, if so, whether
it warrants the establishment of a review panel that could call a
public inquiry.

In the last four decades, the judicial council has ordered public
inquiries for 11 complaints against judges. Two of those inquiries are
still ongoing. In some cases, the judge resigned before the inquiry
was complete. For example, the late Judge Robert Flahiff was convicted
in 1999 for laundering money for a drug dealer back in the 1980s,
before he became a judge. He resigned before the judicial council
finished its inquiry.

    Former Quebec judge convicted of money laundering dies
    Convicted Quebec judge resigns

In other cases, the council recommended that the judges involved not
be removed from the bench — even if there had been inappropriate
conduct.

"It's not a fait accompli that if you have engaged in some kind of
misconduct you should be removed from office," said Norman Sabourin,
the Canadian Judicial Council's executive director, in an interview
with CBC News on Tuesday. "Assessing the gravity of a misconduct is a
difficult exercise."
Media placeholder

Canadian Judicial Council exec on review of judge's behaviour7:06

The overarching question in making that determination, the council
said, is whether the judge has the required confidence of the public
to continue to preside in court.

So when has the council recommended that a judge be removed? Here are
the two cases in which that happened. The details come from documents
available on the Canadian Judicial Council's website:

Paul Cosgrove, Ontario Superior Court

On April 22, 2004, Ontario's attorney general at the time, Michael
Bryant, asked the council to consider whether Judge Paul Cosgrove
should be removed from office based on his conduct in the murder trial
of Julia Yvonne Elliott.

The attorney general said Cosgrove had ordered an "unwarranted stay"
of proceedings.

    Ontario judge resigns over misconduct

"The proceedings tarnished the administration of justice and turned
into an exercise of vilifying the state built on irrelevant,
inappropriate and harmful findings," Bryant wrote. "The proceedings
trivialized the charter and deprived society and the victim's family
of any semblance of justice."

The attorney general's complaint alleged that Cosgrove had
demonstrated similar behaviour in other court cases, citing Court of
Appeal findings that the judge had "reduced the proceedings to a
'procedural nightmare' for the Crown" and shown a "suspicious attitude
toward the government that caused him to misapprehend some of the
evidence before him."

On March 30, 2009, after a public inquiry, the Canadian Judicial
Council recommended that Cosgrove be removed from office. The judge
resigned the following month.

Jean Bienvenue, Superior Court of Quebec

In December 1995, the then attorneys general of Quebec and Canada,
Paul Bégin and Allan Rock, asked the Canadian Judicial Council for a
public inquiry into the conduct of Judge Jean Bienvenue during the
trial of Tracy Théberge, who was convicted of second-degree murder in
death of her husband.

According to the inquiry report, Bienvenue made offensive comments
about Jewish victims of the Holocaust and about women while sentencing
the accused.

"It is said that when women ascend the scale of virtues, they reach
higher than men, and I have always believed this. And it is also said,
and this too I believe, that when they decide to degrade themselves,
they sink to depths to which even the vilest man could not sink,"
Bienvenue said.

The judge also said: "At the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp in
Poland, which I once visited horror-stricken, even the Nazis did not
eliminate millions of Jews in a painful or bloody manner. They died in
the gas chambers, without suffering."

During the inquiry, Bienvenue argued that he had not meant to be
offensive and that he had met with the Canadian Jewish Congress. He
also issued a statement apologizing to women offended by his remarks.

On June 25, 1996, four out of five members of the Canadian Judicial
Council committee recommended that Bienvenue be removed from office.
They wrote, "We believe that if Mr. Justice Bienvenue were to preside
over a case, a reasonable and informed person... would have a
reasonable apprehension that the judge would not execute his office
with the objectivity, impartiality and independence that the public is
entitled to expect from a judge."

Bienvenue resigned before the recommendation went to Parliament.

What does the low number of removals mean?

The rarity of judges removing their peers from the bench is a
reflection of the value Canada places on an independent judiciary,
said Trevor Farrow, a professor and associate dean at Osgoode Hall Law
School in Toronto.

"Judges don't recommend removal lightly," he said. "That's a good
thing when you're balancing the requirement that judges have the
courage and independence to make tough choices in often really
challenging circumstances that involve vulnerable people."

At the same time, Farrow said, it's important that the Canadian
Judicial Council has "the power to recommend sanctions, including
removal if warranted, to maintain the public's trust and confidence."

With files from Kathleen Harris, Alison Crawford and The Canadian Press


https://www.mcgill.ca/law/about/staff

Robert Leckey
Dean, Faculty of Law
Old Chancellor Day Hall
3644 Peel Street Room 15
Montreal, Quebec
Canada H3A 1W9
514-398-6604 [Office]
dean.law@mcgill.ca

http://lawjournal.mcgill.ca/en/text/96

The Politics of Judicial Appointments, part I
Posted on Wed, 14 Oct 2015 11:00:00 +0000

The federal government has been criticized for allegedly picking
judges based on political considerations and in a non-transparent
manner. In the first part of a two-part episode on the federal
judicial appointment process, we look into the scope of the
government’s discretion in naming judges and the role that ideology or
partisanship might play in the process. We speak with Sean Fine,
justice reporter at the Globe and Mail; Professor Robert Leckey of
McGill’s Faculty of Law; and David Gourdeau, a former commissioner for
federal judicial affairs.

The Politics of Judicial Appointments, part II
Posted on Wed, 04 Nov 2015 12:30:00 +0000

The former federal government has been criticized for allegedly
picking judges based on political considerations and in a
non-transparent manner. In the second part of a two-part episode on
the federal judicial appointment process, we look into whether the
current process needs to be reformed and, if it does, how. We speak
with Leonid Sirota, J.S.D. Candidate at the New York University School
of Law and Professor Rosemary Cairns Way from the University of
Ottawa’s Faculty of Law.

Lawyers We Can Trust? The Good Character and Mental Fitness Requirements
Posted on Wed, 29 Jun 2016 10:00:00 +0000

Every law society in Canada requires that prospective lawyers satisfy
some version of the requirements of good character and mental fitness.
In this episode, we discuss the meaning, purpose and effectiveness of
these requirements with Professor Alice Woolley of the University of
Calgary’s Faculty of Law and Mr. Raj Anand, a partner at WeirFoulds
LLP and bencher of the Law Society of Upper Canada.

http://globalnews.ca/news/2612649/looming-inquiry-into-federal-judge-exposes-flaws-with-canadas-judicial-appointment-process/

"When a lawyer or provincial judge applies for a job to one of those
courts an application is filled out. That application goes to the
Office of the Commissioner of Federal Judicial Affairs. Consider this
the administrative arm of the appointment process.

The Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs does an
initial screening, ensuring the person meets the statutory
requirements. Then the applications gets passed onto the provincial
committee — the Judicial Advisory Committee (JAC).

JACs are supposed to do a thorough vetting of a candidate; this means
evaluating competency and fitness for the bench, checking references,
and calling various members of the legal community.

If the applicant is a lawyer the committee members can then either say
on the application “recommend” or “unable to recommend.” The
application then gets sent to the Justice Minister’s office.

But if the applicant is a provincial court judge things are different.
JACs cannot “recommend” or “not recommend” those candidates. When the
candidate is a provincial court judge, the JAC can only comment on a
candidate’s suitability for the bench. Those applications are
automatically forwarded to the Justice Minister."

WATCH: Former Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs David Gourdeau
explains the appointment process

For the record I had a long talk with David Gourdeau in the fall of
2005 before the writ was dropped for the election of the 39th
Parlaiment. I liked the guy and apparentely harper did not because he
did not keep his job as Commissioner after I sent him the document I
promised. I have never been able to speak to Gourdeau since
then.However David Gourdeau obviously does speak to "Journalists" and
law students. Ne'sy Pas Dominic Leblanc and  Prime Ministe Trudeau
"The Younger"???

http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/qrtrl-fnncl-rprt-20150930/index-en.aspx

On September 14, 2015, Mr. Michael Sousa joined Public Safety as the
Executive Director and Senior General Counsel of Legal Services.

Approved by:

Original signed by

François Guimont, Deputy Minister
Public Safety Canada
Ottawa (Canada)
November 18, 2015

Michael Sousa
Executive Director & Senior General Counsel
Public Safety Canada
Legal Services
269 Laurier Ave. W.
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0P8
Phone: 613-991-9375
Fax: 613-990-8307
Email: Michael.Sousa@ps-sp.gc.ca


http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/judges-probe-potential-misconduct-1.4013170

'Potential misconduct' probe launched into judges after CBC revelations
Tax court justice seen on video attending KPMG-linked party

By Harvey Cashore, Kimberly Ivany, Nicole McCormick, Gillian Findlay,
CBC News Posted: Mar 07, 2017 6:23 PM ET

The body that oversees federally appointed judges in Canada has
launched an investigation into three judges after revelations on CBC's
the fifth estate and Radio-Canada's Enquête last week.

The Canadian Judicial Council began the review following the
documentaries that showed two judges attending evening social events
during a KPMG-sponsored tax conference in Madrid last fall. A third
judge, the chief justice of the Tax Court of Canada, was revealed
making a speech in which he promoted drinking alcohol with the tax
industry.

"I decided that it was important to initiate a review of the
situation," Norman Sabourin, executive director of the council, said
Tuesday, citing "potential conflict of interest."
Norman Sabourin

Norman Sabourin, executive director of the Canadian Judicial Council,
says he 'decided that it was important to initiate a review of the
situation.' (CBC)

In an exclusive interview, Sabourin told the fifth estate that he
launched two investigations after watching the CBC coverage. A further
investigation into a third judge was launched after a complaint was
received from the public.

The judges under review are Eugene Rossiter, chief justice of the Tax
Court of Canada; Randall Bocock, a Tax Court of Canada judge in
Vancouver; and Denis Pelletier, a judge with the Federal Court of
Appeal, which hears appeals of tax court cases.

the fifth estate called and emailed the Tax Court of Canada and the
Federal Court of Appeal for comment on the investigation. By Tuesday
evening, CBC received no response.

    Watch "The Untouchables" on CBC's the fifth estate
    Tax court judge attended party hsoted by law firm linked to KPMG
    ​Wealthy Canadians exposed in KPMG offshore tax 'sham'

"I think in the public interest and for the judge's own interest, it's
good for the council to shed light on the situation, to review the
issue and to come to a decision as to whether or not there is a
potential misconduct there," Sabourin said. "I think the public
expects things will be reviewed diligently."

    For tips on this story, email investigations@cbc.ca or phone
Harvey Cashore at 416-526-4704

Is there a conflict of interest?

Sabourin told CBC News he has already informed the three judges of the
review process, described by the council as an initial
"investigation."

That investigation, which could take up to two months, could end there
or, if unresolved, the matter could be referred to a special review
panel.

    KPMG offshore tax dodge a 'facade' designed to hide money, ex-client says
    KPMG offshore 'sham deceived tax authorities, CRA alleges

Sabourin cautioned there are "benefits" in judges attending
educational tax conferences. The judicial council itself signed off on
the Madrid conference. He said concerns relate to the judges attending
evening social events.

"I think now we delve into the area of potential conflict of interest.
And again, I can't comment on specific cases, and that's why we need
to do a review in this particular instance to find out all the facts,
to find out if there is a possibility of a conflict of interest."
Eugene RossiterTax Court of Canada

Chief Justice Eugene Rossiter of the Tax Court of Canada addressed
industry accountants and academics at a tax conference in Calgary last
November. (Tax Court of Canada)

At a recent tax conference in Calgary, Rossiter defended the practice
of judges on his tax court drinking alcohol at evening social events
with tax industry officials.

"We will have coffee and we will have pizza and we will have wine and
lots of it," he said before hundreds of accountants, lawyers and other
members of the tax industry from across Canada.

Sabourin declined to comment on those remarks, except to say that
chief justices in particular have a duty to "set ethical aspirations."

"Chief justices of course are considered to be role models. They are
the members of the Canadian Judicial Council. They set the ethical
aspirations for judges collectively."

He said there can be occasions when judges and lawyers get together
for drinks without there being anything inappropriate.
'Good exchanges can take place'

"If the wine at some point is paid by the bar, the next day is paid by
the bench, these are normal gatherings where good exchanges can take
place."

At an international tax conference in Madrid last fall, CBC cameras
captured one of Rossiter's judges, Randall Bocock, attending an
evening soiree on a rooftop terrace sponsored by a law firm linked to
KPMG.
Justice Randall Bocock

Justice Randall Bocock travelled to Madrid last year to attend
conference put on by the International Fiscal Association. (CBC)

Bocock is the case management judge in a KPMG-related file involving a
tax dodge the accounting firm set up in the Isle of Man. The Canada
Revenue Agency alleges in court documents that scheme is a "sham" that
"intended to deceive" the federal treasury.

The law firm hosting the Madrid party, Dentons, is named in those
court documents as allegedly signing off on the KPMG tax dodge before
it was sold to wealthy Canadians.

Bocock is currently the case management judge in the Vancouver tax
court case and will likely not be the judge presiding over the actual
trial. No trial date has been set.
Dennis Pelletier

Federal Court of Appeal Judge Denis Pelletier is seen exiting Madrid’s
Prado Museum. (CBC)

Pelletier was also at the KPMG-sponsored conference. CBC footage shows
him attending a social event at the Prado Museum.

Pelletier initially denied attending any of the conference's evening
social events. The Federal Court of Appeal later clarified that there
had been a "miscommunication" and that he did in fact attend.

    For tips on this story, email investigations@cbc.ca or phone
Harvey Cashore at 416-526-4704

No comments:

Post a Comment