Court File No. A-48-16
FEDERAL COURT OF
APPEAL
BETWEEN:
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
Plaintiff/Respondent on Cross Appeal
and
HER MAJESTY THE
QUEEN
Defendant/Appellant on Cross Appeal
RESPONSE OF DAVID
RAYMOND AMOS TO THE
SUBMISSIONS OF HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN PURSUANT TO
THE JUNE 8, 2017 DIRECTONS OF THE FEDERAL COURT
OF APPEAL
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS NATHALIE G. DROUIN
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
Email: David.Raymond.Amos@gmail.com Email: Jan.Jensen@justice.gc.ca
Plaintiff on his own behalf Counsel for the Defendant
FACTS
1. The
Plaintiff/Respondent is grateful for the July 7, 2017 directions of the court permitting
his June 26,
2017 submission to be filed thereby allowing this response to be filed in a timely fashion pursuant to the June
8, 2017 direction. After filing his brief the Plaintiff/Respondent became aware that two more lawyers whom
he has a conflict of interest with were appointed to sit on the bench of Federal Court on the very same day
he had been ordered to file his brief. They are William F. Pentney the very lawyer who has received all of
the filings in this matter until today. The other is John B. Laskin, a lawyer whom the Plaintiff/Respondent has
contacted and spoken to personally in the past about several different matters. The Plaintiff/Respondent
must Update the list of Judges he truly believes that he has a conflict of interest with.
2017 submission to be filed thereby allowing this response to be filed in a timely fashion pursuant to the June
8, 2017 direction. After filing his brief the Plaintiff/Respondent became aware that two more lawyers whom
he has a conflict of interest with were appointed to sit on the bench of Federal Court on the very same day
he had been ordered to file his brief. They are William F. Pentney the very lawyer who has received all of
the filings in this matter until today. The other is John B. Laskin, a lawyer whom the Plaintiff/Respondent has
contacted and spoken to personally in the past about several different matters. The Plaintiff/Respondent
must Update the list of Judges he truly believes that he has a conflict of interest with.
The
list is as follows:
Justices William Pentney, John Laskin, Richard Bell, René
LeBlanc, Henry
Brown Catherine Kane, Richard
Southcott, Glennys McVeigh, Alan Diner, Denis Gascon, Martine St-Louis, Cecily Strickland, Sylvie
Roussel, Anne Marie McDonald, George Locke, Simon Fothergill, Keith Boswell, Yvan Roy, Yves de
Montigny, Russel Zinn, Donald Rennie, André Scott, Richard Boivin, Patrick Gleeson, Mary Gleason, David
Near, Wyman Webb, and David Stratas
Southcott, Glennys McVeigh, Alan Diner, Denis Gascon, Martine St-Louis, Cecily Strickland, Sylvie
Roussel, Anne Marie McDonald, George Locke, Simon Fothergill, Keith Boswell, Yvan Roy, Yves de
Montigny, Russel Zinn, Donald Rennie, André Scott, Richard Boivin, Patrick Gleeson, Mary Gleason, David
Near, Wyman Webb, and David Stratas
2.
The Crown counsel, Jan Jensen acting on behalf of
Her Majesty the Queen, the Defendant/Appellant
(CROWN) is well aware that the Plaintiff/Respondent's name is David Raymond Amos (AMOS). He is
proud to the namesake of RAYMOND his Uncle who was killed defending the CROWN on June 8th,
1944 in Normandy.
(CROWN) is well aware that the Plaintiff/Respondent's name is David Raymond Amos (AMOS). He is
proud to the namesake of RAYMOND his Uncle who was killed defending the CROWN on June 8th,
1944 in Normandy.
3. On AMOS considers the CROWN's argument with his brief as a fruitless attempt to negate
his
concerns about a conflict of interest he has with judges who were in private practice and all the others who
were employed in government service before being appointed to the Federal Court and the Federal Court
of Appeal. Justice David Near should recall that the AMOS addressed his concerns about a conflict with
him twice during the course of the hearing on May 24, 2017 and Justice Near did not respond. What the
CROWN claims within its submission is not true.
concerns about a conflict of interest he has with judges who were in private practice and all the others who
were employed in government service before being appointed to the Federal Court and the Federal Court
of Appeal. Justice David Near should recall that the AMOS addressed his concerns about a conflict with
him twice during the course of the hearing on May 24, 2017 and Justice Near did not respond. What the
CROWN claims within its submission is not true.
4. On May 24th, 2017, AMOS during the
hearing reminded the Justices at least twice of
rules 5 (4) and
5.1(4) of the Federal Courts Act and did his best to inform the judges of a case management
teleconference of Federal Court on April 3, 2017 and strongly suggested that they confer with Justice
Leblanc before making any decision in this matter. The following information was copied from the
published record of Federal Court
5.1(4) of the Federal Courts Act and did his best to inform the judges of a case management
teleconference of Federal Court on April 3, 2017 and strongly suggested that they confer with Justice
Leblanc before making any decision in this matter. The following information was copied from the
published record of Federal Court
Court Number:T-1557-15
DAVID
RAYMOND AMOS v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
|
Office
Halifax
|
Dated
filed 2017-04-04
|
"Oral
directions received from the presiding judge dated 04-APR-2017 directing that
"Further to the letter from counsel for the Defendant, dated March 30,
2017 and to the case management teleconference held with the parties on April
3, 2017, the Plaintiff's motion, returnable April 10, 2017 in Fredericton, New
Brunswick, seeking an order "affirming or denying the conflict of interest
he has" with a number of judges of the Federal Court, is premature and,
therefore, adjourned sine die as the issue of whether the Plaintiff's Statement
of Claim discloses a reasonable cause of action is currently before the Federal
Court of Appeal and could result in the dismissal of Plaintiff's action. To the
extent that the Plaintiff's motion seeks an order "affirming or denying
the conflict of interest he has" with a number of judges of the Federal
Court of Appeal, the said motion is beyond the jurisdiction of the Federal
Court and will not be entertained." placed on file on 04-APR-2017
Confirmed in writing to the party(ies)"
4. Whereas the CROWN with its submission has provided as an authority a copy of
Committee for Justice and Liberty et al v National Energy Board et al,
[1978] 1 SCR
369, 1976 Can LII2 (SCC), AMOS continues to rely on the
decision of Justice Bell
to support his Appeal of Justice
Southcott's actions and every other judge he has met
in court since January 11th,
2016. The portion of the December 14,
2015 decision of
Justice' Bell that should be
considered by all the judges that the Plaintiff/Respondent
named within the first statement of this
submission is as follows:
"In
the circumstances, given the threat in 2004 to sue me in my personal capacity
and my past and present relationship with many potential witnesses and/or
potential parties to the litigation, I am of the view there would be a
reasonable apprehension of bias should I hear this motion. See 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 the applicable test regarding allegations of bias. In the
circumstances, although neither party has requested I recuse myself, I consider
it appropriate that I do so. "
7. The Plaintiff/Respondent
pleads that the Federal Court of Appeal deny the latest attempt of the
CROWN to have this matter dismissed and to revoke its decision dismissing his appeal of Justice
Southcott's actions.
CROWN to have this matter dismissed and to revoke its decision dismissing his appeal of Justice
Southcott's actions.
8. AMOS states that this matter is not
frivolous or vexatious and that he has every right to see his complaint
against the CROWN to go forward to trial to be judged on its merits and heard by Justices who do not
have a conflict of interest with him.
against the CROWN to go forward to trial to be judged on its merits and heard by Justices who do not
have a conflict of interest with him.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY
SUBMITTED
DATED at Fredericton,
New Brunswick, this the 14th day of July, 2017
___________________________
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
P.O. Box 234
Apohaqui, NB E5P 3G2
Appellant/Respondent on
his own behalf
TO:
Administrator, Federal Court of Appeal
AND TO: NATHALIE G. DROUIN
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
per: JAN JENSEN
Department of
Justice
Suite 1400-Duke Tower
5251 Duke Street
Halifax, NS B3J 1P3
No comments:
Post a Comment