https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Update from Washington State Bar Association
12 views
Join us Wednesday for the WSBA Diversity and Inclusion Celebration –– Where We’ve Been, Where We’re going: five years into the Diversity and Inclusion Plan. http://ow.ly/Pxgs30kky2i
---------- Original message ----------
From: "Hon.Ralph.Goodale (PS/SP)" <Hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 21:45:44 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Attn Sean Davis we just talked about the ethics of
Washington State Bar Association and their friend Patrick Doran
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Merci d'avoir ?crit ? l'honorable Ralph Goodale, ministre de la
S?curit? publique et de la Protection civile.
En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de la correspondance
adress?e au ministre, veuillez prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir un
retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Soyez assur? que votre
message sera examin? avec attention.
Merci!
L'Unit? de la correspondance minist?rielle
S?curit? publique Canada
*********
Thank you for writing to the Honourable Ralph Goodale, Minister of
Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.
Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence
addressed to the Minister, please note there could be a delay in
processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be
carefully reviewed.
Thank you!
Ministerial Correspondence Unit
Public Safety Canada
---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 17:45:21 -0400
Subject: Attn Sean Davis we just talked about the ethics of Washington State Bar Association
and their friend Patrick Doran
To: Seand@wsba.org, Saran@wsba.org, mdcohen212 <mdcohen212@gmail.com>,
douge@wsba.org, "serge.rousselle" <serge.rousselle@gnb.ca>,
mrichard<mrichard@lawsociety-barreau.
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>,
"Boston.Mail" <Boston.Mail@ic.fbi.gov>, "Brenda.Lucki" <Brenda.Lucki@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "hon.ralph.goodale <hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca>
Paula Littlewood
Executive Director
206-733-5950 | paulal@wsba.org
voicemail only
Sean Davis
General Counsel, Director of the Office of General Counsel
206-733-5944 | Seand@wsba.org
Sara Niegowski
Chief Communications & Outreach Officer
206-733-5930 | Saran@wsba.org
Jean McElroy
Chief Regulatory Counsel, Director of Regulatory Services Department
206-727-8277 | jeanm@wsba.org
Doug Ende
Chief Disciplinary Counsel, Director of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel
206-727-8275 | douge@wsba.org
---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 17:16:05 -0400
Subject: Now I have some questions about the ethics of the Washington State Bar Association
and their friend Patrick Doran
To: paulal@wsba.org, Questions@wsba.org, patrick_doran1 <patrick_doran1@hotmail.com>,
cps <cps@calgarypolice.ca>, washington field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>,
ethics-ethique <ethics-ethique@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, pol4982,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Misandry Today Admits To Sharing The Mad Shangi's Dox
1,581 views
Cognitive Thought
Streamed live on Mar 14, 2018
Joining me is VampKandy & Sinatra.
9 Comments
David Amos
2 months ago
The RCMP can bet our thin Canadian dimes to fat Yankee petrodollars
that I saved this video and the FBI know why
David Amos
2 months ago
I hear you people talking about Glen Canning and I dealing with your
pal Patrick Doran you can bet I contacted the cops AGAIN
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Update from Washington State Bar Association
9 views
Mad Shangi
Published on Jun 4, 2018
I got a follow up from the Washington State Bar Association. The
matter is closed, and no further action will be taken. It's
disappointing, but not surprising.
https://encyclopediadramatica.
https://www.wsba.org/about-
Our Mission
The mission of the Washington State Bar Association is to serve the
public and the members of the Bar, to ensure the integrity of the
legal profession, and to champion justice.
The Washington State Bar Association is part of the judicial branch,
exercising a governmental function authorized by the Washington
Supreme Court to license the state’s more than 38,000 legal
professionals. The WSBA both regulates lawyers under the authority of
the Court and serves its members as a professional association — all
without public funding.
As a regulatory agency, the WSBA administers the bar admission
process, including the bar exam; provides record-keeping and licensing
functions; and administers the professional discipline system. As a
professional association, the WSBA also provides continuing legal
education for attorneys, in addition to numerous other educational and
member-services and opportunities to advance professionally.
Governance and Leadership
The Board of Governors is WSBA's governing body charged with
determining the general policies of the Bar and approving its annual
budget. The Board consists of the president, president-elect, and
immediate past president and members elected from each Congressional
District and three at-large positions.
The Board of Governors elects the president-elect of the Bar and
selects the executive director.
Questions? Contact our knowledgeable Service Center representatives or
key support contacts. We are here to assist you 8 a.m.–5 p.m. Monday
through Friday.
Phone
Toll-free: 800-945-9722
Local: 206-443-9722
Email
Questions@wsba.org
Fax
206-727-8316 – Main
206-727-8325 – Office of Disciplinary Counsel
206-727-8313 – Regulatory Services, Licensing and Admissions
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 09:32:09 -0400
> Subject: Attn Integrity Commissioner Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C.,
> To: coi@gnb.ca
> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>
> Good Day Sir
>
> After I heard you speak on CBC I called your office again and managed
> to speak to one of your staff for the first time
>
> Please find attached the documents I promised to send to the lady who
> answered the phone this morning. Please notice that not after the Sgt
> at Arms took the documents destined to your office his pal Tanker
> Malley barred me in writing with an "English" only document.
>
> These are the hearings and the dockets in Federal Court that I
> suggested that you study closely.
>
> This is the docket in Federal Court
>
> http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.
>
> These are digital recordings of the last three hearings
>
> Dec 14th https://archive.org/details/
>
> January 11th, 2016 https://archive.org/details/
>
> April 3rd, 2017
>
> https://archive.org/details/
>
>
> This is the docket in the Federal Court of Appeal
>
> http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.
>
>
> The only hearing thus far
>
> May 24th, 2017
>
> https://archive.org/details/
>
>
> This Judge understnds the meaning of the word Integrity
>
> Date: 20151223
>
> Docket: T-1557-15
>
> Fredericton, New Brunswick, December 23, 2015
>
> PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Bell
>
> BETWEEN:
>
> DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
>
> Plaintiff
>
> and
>
> HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
>
> Defendant
>
> ORDER
>
> (Delivered orally from the Bench in Fredericton, New Brunswick, on
> December 14, 2015)
>
> The Plaintiff seeks an appeal de novo, by way of motion pursuant to
> the Federal Courts Rules (SOR/98-106), from an Order made on November
> 12, 2015, in which Prothonotary Morneau struck the Statement of Claim
> in its entirety.
>
> At the outset of the hearing, the Plaintiff brought to my attention a
> letter dated September 10, 2004, which he sent to me, in my then
> capacity as Past President of the New Brunswick Branch of the Canadian
> Bar Association, and the then President of the Branch, Kathleen Quigg,
> (now a Justice of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal). In that letter
> he stated:
>
> As for your past President, Mr. Bell, may I suggest that you check the
> work of Frank McKenna before I sue your entire law firm including you.
> You are your brother’s keeper.
>
> Frank McKenna is the former Premier of New Brunswick and a former
> colleague of mine at the law firm of McInnes Cooper. In addition to
> expressing an intention to sue me, the Plaintiff refers to a number of
> people in his Motion Record who he appears to contend may be witnesses
> or potential parties to be added. Those individuals who are known to
> me personally, include, but are not limited to the former Prime
> Minister of Canada, The Right Honourable Stephen Harper; former
> Attorney General of Canada and now a Justice of the Manitoba Court of
> Queen’s Bench, Vic Toews; former member of Parliament Rob Moore;
> former Director of Policing Services, the late Grant Garneau; former
> Chief of the Fredericton Police Force, Barry McKnight; former Staff
> Sergeant Danny Copp; my former colleagues on the New Brunswick Court
> of Appeal, Justices Bradley V. Green and Kathleen Quigg, and, retired
> Assistant Commissioner Wayne Lang of the Royal Canadian Mounted
> Police.
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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.
>
> “B. Richard Bell”
> Judge
>
>
> Below after the CBC article about your concerns (I made one comment
> already) you will find the text of just two of many emails I had sent
> to your office over the years since I first visited it in 2006.
>
> I noticed that on July 30, 2009, he was appointed to the the Court
> Martial Appeal Court of Canada Perhaps you should scroll to the
> bottom of this email ASAP and read the entire Paragraph 83 of my
> lawsuit now before the Federal Court of Canada?
>
> "FYI This is the text of the lawsuit that should interest Trudeau the most
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca
> Date: Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:18 PM
> Subject: Réponse automatique : RE My complaint against the CROWN in
> Federal Court Attn David Hansen and Peter MacKay If you planning to
> submit a motion for a publication ban on my complaint trust that you
> dudes are way past too late
> To: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>
> Veuillez noter que j'ai changé de courriel. Vous pouvez me rejoindre à
> lalanthier@hotmail.com
>
> Pour rejoindre le bureau de M. Trudeau veuillez envoyer un courriel à
> tommy.desfosses@parl.gc.ca
>
> Please note that I changed email address, you can reach me at
> lalanthier@hotmail.com
>
> To reach the office of Mr. Trudeau please send an email to
> tommy.desfosses@parl.gc.ca
>
> Thank you,
>
> Merci ,
>
>
> http://davidraymondamos3.
>
>
> 83. The Plaintiff states that now that Canada is involved in more war
> in Iraq again it did not serve Canadian interests and reputation to
> allow Barry Winters to publish the following words three times over
> five years after he began his bragging:
>
> January 13, 2015
> This Is Just AS Relevant Now As When I wrote It During The Debate
>
> December 8, 2014
> Why Canada Stood Tall!
>
> Friday, October 3, 2014
> Little David Amos’ “True History Of War” Canadian Airstrikes And
> Stupid Justin Trudeau
>
> Canada’s and Canadians free ride is over. Canada can no longer hide
> behind Amerka’s and NATO’s skirts.
>
> When I was still in Canadian Forces then Prime Minister Jean Chretien
> actually committed the Canadian Army to deploy in the second campaign
> in Iraq, the Coalition of the Willing. This was against or contrary to
> the wisdom or advice of those of us Canadian officers that were
> involved in the initial planning phases of that operation. There were
> significant concern in our planning cell, and NDHQ about of the dearth
> of concern for operational guidance, direction, and forces for
> operations after the initial occupation of Iraq. At the “last minute”
> Prime Minister Chretien and the Liberal government changed its mind.
> The Canadian government told our amerkan cousins that we would not
> deploy combat troops for the Iraq campaign, but would deploy a
> Canadian Battle Group to Afghanistan, enabling our amerkan cousins to
> redeploy troops from there to Iraq. The PMO’s thinking that it was
> less costly to deploy Canadian Forces to Afghanistan than Iraq. But
> alas no one seems to remind the Liberals of Prime Minister Chretien’s
> then grossly incorrect assumption. Notwithstanding Jean Chretien’s
> incompetence and stupidity, the Canadian Army was heroic,
> professional, punched well above it’s weight, and the PPCLI Battle
> Group, is credited with “saving Afghanistan” during the Panjway
> campaign of 2006.
>
> What Justin Trudeau and the Liberals don’t tell you now, is that then
> Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien committed, and deployed the
> Canadian army to Canada’s longest “war” without the advice, consent,
> support, or vote of the Canadian Parliament.
>
> What David Amos and the rest of the ignorant, uneducated, and babbling
> chattering classes are too addled to understand is the deployment of
> less than 75 special operations troops, and what is known by planners
> as a “six pac cell” of fighter aircraft is NOT the same as a
> deployment of a Battle Group, nor a “war” make.
>
> The Canadian Government or The Crown unlike our amerkan cousins have
> the “constitutional authority” to commit the Canadian nation to war.
> That has been recently clearly articulated to the Canadian public by
> constitutional scholar Phillippe Legasse. What Parliament can do is
> remove “confidence” in The Crown’s Government in a “vote of
> non-confidence.” That could not happen to the Chretien Government
> regarding deployment to Afghanistan, and it won’t happen in this
> instance with the conservative majority in The Commons regarding a
> limited Canadian deployment to the Middle East.
>
> President George Bush was quite correct after 911 and the terror
> attacks in New York; that the Taliban “occupied” and “failed state”
> Afghanistan was the source of logistical support, command and control,
> and training for the Al Quaeda war of terror against the world. The
> initial defeat, and removal from control of Afghanistan was vital and
>
> P.S. Whereas this CBC article is about your opinion of the actions of
> the latest Minister Of Health trust that Mr Boudreau and the CBC have
> had my files for many years and the last thing they are is ethical.
> Ask his friends Mr Murphy and the RCMP if you don't believe me.
>
> Subject:
> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:02:35 -0400
> From: "Murphy, Michael B. \(DH/MS\)" MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca
> To: motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com
>
> January 30, 2007
>
> WITHOUT PREJUDICE
>
> Mr. David Amos
>
> Dear Mr. Amos:
>
> This will acknowledge receipt of a copy of your e-mail of December 29,
> 2006 to Corporal Warren McBeath of the RCMP.
>
> Because of the nature of the allegations made in your message, I have
> taken the measure of forwarding a copy to Assistant Commissioner Steve
> Graham of the RCMP “J” Division in Fredericton.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Honourable Michael B. Murphy
> Minister of Health
>
> CM/cb
>
>
> Warren McBeath warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca wrote:
>
> Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:34:53 -0500
> From: "Warren McBeath" warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
> To: kilgoursite@ca.inter.net, MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca,
> nada.sarkis@gnb.ca, wally.stiles@gnb.ca, dwatch@web.net,
> motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com
> CC: ottawa@chuckstrahl.com, riding@chuckstrahl.com,John.
> Oda.B@parl.gc.ca,"Bev BUSSON" bev.busson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
> "Paul Dube" PAUL.DUBE@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
> Subject: Re: Remember me Kilgour? Landslide Annie McLellan has
> forgotten me but the crooks within the RCMP have not
>
> Dear Mr. Amos,
>
> Thank you for your follow up e-mail to me today. I was on days off
> over the holidays and returned to work this evening. Rest assured I
> was not ignoring or procrastinating to respond to your concerns.
>
> As your attachment sent today refers from Premier Graham, our position
> is clear on your dead calf issue: Our forensic labs do not process
> testing on animals in cases such as yours, they are referred to the
> Atlantic Veterinary College in Charlottetown who can provide these
> services. If you do not choose to utilize their expertise in this
> instance, then that is your decision and nothing more can be done.
>
> As for your other concerns regarding the US Government, false
> imprisonment and Federal Court Dates in the US, etc... it is clear
> that Federal authorities are aware of your concerns both in Canada
> the US. These issues do not fall into the purvue of Detachment
> and policing in Petitcodiac, NB.
>
> It was indeed an interesting and informative conversation we had on
> December 23rd, and I wish you well in all of your future endeavors.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Warren McBeath, Cpl.
> GRC Caledonia RCMP
> Traffic Services NCO
> Ph: (506) 387-2222
> Fax: (506) 387-4622
> E-mail warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>
>
>
> Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C.,
> Office of the Integrity Commissioner
> Edgecombe House, 736 King Street
> Fredericton, N.B. CANADA E3B 5H1
> tel.: 506-457-7890
> fax: 506-444-5224
> e-mail:coi@gnb.ca
>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Justice Website <JUSTWEB@novascotia.ca>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:21:11 +0000
Subject: Emails to Department of Justice and Province of Nova Scotia
To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com" <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Mr. Amos,
We acknowledge receipt of your recent emails to the Deputy Minister of
Justice and lawyers within the Legal Services Division of the
Department of Justice respecting a possible claim against the Province
of Nova Scotia. Service of any documents respecting a legal claim
against the Province of Nova Scotia may be served on the Attorney
General at 1690 Hollis Street, Halifax, NS. Please note that we will
not be responding to further emails on this matter.
Department of Justice
On 8/3/17, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote:
> If want something very serious to download and laugh at as well Please
> Enjoy and share real wiretap tapes of the mob
>
> http://thedavidamosrant.
> ilian.html
>
>> http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/
>>
>> As the CBC etc yap about Yankee wiretaps and whistleblowers I must
>> ask them the obvious question AIN'T THEY FORGETTING SOMETHING????
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?
>>
>> What the hell does the media think my Yankee lawyer served upon the
>> USDOJ right after I ran for and seat in the 39th Parliament baseball
>> cards?
>>
>> http://archive.org/details/
>> 6
>>
>> http://davidamos.blogspot.ca/
>>
>> http://www.archive.org/
>>
>> http://archive.org/details/
>>
>> FEDERAL EXPRES February 7, 2006
>> Senator Arlen Specter
>> United States Senate
>> Committee on the Judiciary
>> 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
>> Washington, DC 20510
>>
>> Dear Mr. Specter:
>>
>> I have been asked to forward the enclosed tapes to you from a man
>> named, David Amos, a Canadian citizen, in connection with the matters
>> raised in the attached letter.
>>
>> Mr. Amos has represented to me that these are illegal FBI wire tap tapes.
>>
>> I believe Mr. Amos has been in contact with you about this previously.
>>
>> Very truly yours,
>> Barry A. Bachrach
>> Direct telephone: (508) 926-3403
>> Direct facsimile: (508) 929-3003
>> Email: bbachrach@bowditch.com
>>
>
http://davidraymondamos3.
Sunday, 19 November 2017
Federal Court of Appeal Finally Makes The BIG Decision And Publishes
It Now The Crooks Cannot Take Back Ticket To Try Put My Matter Before
The Supreme Court
https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Amos v. Canada
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2017-10-30
Neutral citation
2017 FCA 213
File numbers
A-48-16
Date: 20171030
Docket: A-48-16
Citation: 2017 FCA 213
CORAM:
WEBB J.A.
NEAR J.A.
GLEASON J.A.
BETWEEN:
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
Respondent on the cross-appeal
(and formally Appellant)
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Appellant on the cross-appeal
(and formerly Respondent)
Heard at Fredericton, New Brunswick, on May 24, 2017.
Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 30, 2017.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:
THE COURT
Date: 20171030
Docket: A-48-16
Citation: 2017 FCA 213
CORAM:
WEBB J.A.
NEAR J.A.
GLEASON J.A.
BETWEEN:
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
Respondent on the cross-appeal
(and formally Appellant)
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Appellant on the cross-appeal
(and formerly Respondent)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY THE COURT
I. Introduction
[1] On September 16, 2015, David Raymond Amos (Mr. Amos)
filed a 53-page Statement of Claim (the Claim) in Federal Court
against Her Majesty the Queen (the Crown). Mr. Amos claims $11 million
in damages and a public apology from the Prime Minister and Provincial
Premiers for being illegally barred from accessing parliamentary
properties and seeks a declaration from the Minister of Public Safety
that the Canadian Government will no longer allow the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police (RCMP) and Canadian Forces to harass him and his clan
(Claim at para. 96).
[2] On November 12, 2015 (Docket T-1557-15), by way of a
motion brought by the Crown, a prothonotary of the Federal Court (the
Prothonotary) struck the Claim in its entirety, without leave to
amend, on the basis that it was plain and obvious that the Claim
disclosed no reasonable claim, the Claim was fundamentally vexatious,
and the Claim could not be salvaged by way of further amendment (the
Prothontary’s Order).
[3] On January 25, 2016 (2016 FC 93), by way of Mr.
Amos’ appeal from the Prothonotary’s Order, a judge of the Federal
Court (the Judge), reviewing the matter de novo, struck all of Mr.
Amos’ claims for relief with the exception of the claim for damages
for being barred by the RCMP from the New Brunswick legislature in
2004 (the Federal Court Judgment).
[4] Mr. Amos appealed and the Crown cross-appealed the
Federal Court Judgment. Further to the issuance of a Notice of Status
Review, Mr. Amos’ appeal was dismissed for delay on December 19, 2016.
As such, the only matter before this Court is the Crown’s
cross-appeal.
II. Preliminary Matter
[5] Mr. Amos, in his memorandum of fact and law in
relation to the cross-appeal that was filed with this Court on March
6, 2017, indicated that several judges of this Court, including two of
the judges of this panel, had a conflict of interest in this appeal.
This was the first time that he identified the judges whom he believed
had a conflict of interest in a document that was filed with this
Court. In his notice of appeal he had alluded to a conflict with
several judges but did not name those judges.
[6] Mr. Amos was of the view that he did not have to
identify the judges in any document filed with this Court because he
had identified the judges in various documents that had been filed
with the Federal Court. In his view the Federal Court and the Federal
Court of Appeal are the same court and therefore any document filed in
the Federal Court would be filed in this Court. This view is based on
subsections 5(4) and 5.1(4) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985,
c. F-7:
5(4) Every judge of the Federal Court is, by virtue of his or her
office, a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal and has all the
jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Federal Court of
Appeal.
[…]
5(4) Les juges de la Cour fédérale sont d’office juges de la Cour
d’appel fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs que
les juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale.
[…]
5.1(4) Every judge of the Federal Court of Appeal is, by virtue of
that office, a judge of the Federal Court and has all the
jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Federal Court.
5.1(4) Les juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale sont d’office juges de la
Cour fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs que les
juges de la Cour fédérale.
[7] However, these subsections only provide that the
judges of the Federal Court are also judges of this Court (and vice
versa). It does not mean that there is only one court. If the Federal
Court and this Court were one Court, there would be no need for this
section.
[8] Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Courts Act provide that:
3 The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the Federal Court
— Appeal Division is continued under the name “Federal Court of
Appeal” in English and “Cour d’appel fédérale” in French. It is
continued as an additional court of law, equity and admiralty in and
for Canada, for the better administration of the laws of Canada and as
a superior court of record having civil and criminal jurisdiction.
3 La Section d’appel, aussi appelée la Cour d’appel ou la Cour d’appel
fédérale, est maintenue et dénommée « Cour d’appel fédérale » en
français et « Federal Court of Appeal » en anglais. Elle est maintenue
à titre de tribunal additionnel de droit, d’equity et d’amirauté du
Canada, propre à améliorer l’application du droit canadien, et
continue d’être une cour supérieure d’archives ayant compétence en
matière civile et pénale.
4 The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the Federal Court
— Trial Division is continued under the name “Federal Court” in
English and “Cour fédérale” in French. It is continued as an
additional court of law, equity and admiralty in and for Canada, for
the better administration of the laws of Canada and as a superior
court of record having civil and criminal jurisdiction.
4 La section de la Cour fédérale du Canada, appelée la Section de
première instance de la Cour fédérale, est maintenue et dénommée «
Cour fédérale » en français et « Federal Court » en anglais. Elle est
maintenue à titre de tribunal additionnel de droit, d’equity et
d’amirauté du Canada, propre à améliorer l’application du droit
canadien, et continue d’être une cour supérieure d’archives ayant
compétence en matière civile et pénale.
[9] Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Courts Act create
two separate courts – this Court (section 3) and the Federal Court
(section 4). If, as Mr. Amos suggests, documents filed in the Federal
Court were automatically also filed in this Court, then there would no
need for the parties to prepare and file appeal books as required by
Rules 343 to 345 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 in relation
to any appeal from a decision of the Federal Court. The requirement to
file an appeal book with this Court in relation to an appeal from a
decision of the Federal Court makes it clear that the only documents
that will be before this Court are the documents that are part of that
appeal book.
[10] Therefore, the memorandum of fact and law filed on
March 6, 2017 is the first document, filed with this Court, in which
Mr. Amos identified the particular judges that he submits have a
conflict in any matter related to him.
[11] On April 3, 2017, Mr. Amos attempted to bring a motion
before the Federal Court seeking an order “affirming or denying the
conflict of interest he has” with a number of judges of the Federal
Court. A judge of the Federal Court issued a direction noting that if
Mr. Amos was seeking this order in relation to judges of the Federal
Court of Appeal, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Federal Court.
Mr. Amos raised the Federal Court motion at the hearing of this
cross-appeal. The Federal Court motion is not a motion before this
Court and, as such, the submissions filed before the Federal Court
will not be entertained. As well, since this was a motion brought
before the Federal Court (and not this Court), any documents filed in
relation to that motion are not part of the record of this Court.
[12] During the hearing of the appeal Mr. Amos alleged that
the third member of this panel also had a conflict of interest and
submitted some documents that, in his view, supported his claim of a
conflict. Mr. Amos, following the hearing of his appeal, was also
afforded the opportunity to provide a brief summary of the conflict
that he was alleging and to file additional documents that, in his
view, supported his allegations. Mr. Amos submitted several pages of
documents in relation to the alleged conflicts. He organized the
documents by submitting a copy of the biography of the particular
judge and then, immediately following that biography, by including
copies of the documents that, in his view, supported his claim that
such judge had a conflict.
[13] The nature of the alleged conflict of Justice Webb is
that before he was appointed as a Judge of the Tax Court of Canada in
2006, he was a partner with the law firm Patterson Law, and before
that with Patterson Palmer in Nova Scotia. Mr. Amos submitted that he
had a number of disputes with Patterson Palmer and Patterson Law and
therefore Justice Webb has a conflict simply because he was a partner
of these firms. Mr. Amos is not alleging that Justice Webb was
personally involved in or had any knowledge of any matter in which Mr.
Amos was involved with Justice Webb’s former law firm – only that he
was a member of such firm.
[14] During his oral submissions at the hearing of his
appeal Mr. Amos, in relation to the alleged conflict for Justice Webb,
focused on dealings between himself and a particular lawyer at
Patterson Law. However, none of the documents submitted by Mr. Amos at
the hearing or subsequently related to any dealings with this
particular lawyer nor is it clear when Mr. Amos was dealing with this
lawyer. In particular, it is far from clear whether such dealings were
after the time that Justice Webb was appointed as a Judge of the Tax
Court of Canada over 10 years ago.
[15] The documents that he submitted in relation to the
alleged conflict for Justice Webb largely relate to dealings between
Byron Prior and the St. John’s Newfoundland and Labrador office of
Patterson Palmer, which is not in the same province where Justice Webb
practiced law. The only document that indicates any dealing between
Mr. Amos and Patterson Palmer is a copy of an affidavit of Stephen May
who was a partner in the St. John’s NL office of Patterson Palmer. The
affidavit is dated January 24, 2005 and refers to a number of e-mails
that were sent by Mr. Amos to Stephen May. Mr. Amos also included a
letter that is addressed to four individuals, one of whom is John
Crosbie who was counsel to the St. John’s NL office of Patterson
Palmer. The letter is dated September 2, 2004 and is addressed to
“John Crosbie, c/o Greg G. Byrne, Suite 502, 570 Queen Street,
Fredericton, NB E3B 5E3”. In this letter Mr. Amos alludes to a
possible lawsuit against Patterson Palmer.
[16] Mr. Amos’ position is that simply because Justice Webb
was a lawyer with Patterson Palmer, he now has a conflict. In Wewaykum
Indian Band v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2003 SCC 45, [2003] 2 S.C.R.
259, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that disqualification of a
judge is to be determined based on whether there is a reasonable
apprehension of bias:
60 In Canadian law, one standard has now emerged as the
criterion for disqualification. The criterion, as expressed by de
Grandpré J. in Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy
Board, …[[1978] 1 S.C.R. 369, 68 D.L.R. (3d) 716], at p. 394, is the
reasonable apprehension of bias:
… the apprehension of bias must be a reasonable one, held by
reasonable and right minded persons, applying themselves to the
question and obtaining thereon the required information. In the words
of the Court of Appeal, that test is "what would an informed person,
viewing the matter realistically and practically -- and having thought
the matter through -- conclude. Would he think that it is more likely
than not that [the decision-maker], whether consciously or
unconsciously, would not decide fairly."
[17] The issue to be determined is whether an informed
person, viewing the matter realistically and practically, and having
thought the matter through, would conclude that Mr. Amos’ allegations
give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. As this Court has
previously remarked, “there is a strong presumption that judges will
administer justice impartially” and this presumption will not be
rebutted in the absence of “convincing evidence” of bias (Collins v.
Canada, 2011 FCA 140 at para. 7, [2011] 4 C.T.C. 157 [Collins]. See
also R. v. S. (R.D.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484 at para. 32, 151 D.L.R.
(4th) 193).
[18] The Ontario Court of Appeal in Rando Drugs Ltd. v.
Scott, 2007 ONCA 553, 86 O.R. (3d) 653 (leave to appeal to the Supreme
Court of Canada refused, 32285 (August 1, 2007)), addressed the
particular issue of whether a judge is disqualified from hearing a
case simply because he had been a member of a law firm that was
involved in the litigation that was now before that judge. The Ontario
Court of Appeal determined that the judge was not disqualified if the
judge had no involvement with the person or the matter when he was a
lawyer. The Ontario Court of Appeal also explained that the rules for
determining whether a judge is disqualified are different from the
rules to determine whether a lawyer has a conflict:
27 Thus, disqualification is not the natural corollary to a
finding that a trial judge has had some involvement in a case over
which he or she is now presiding. Where the judge had no involvement,
as here, it cannot be said that the judge is disqualified.
28 The point can rightly be made that had Mr. Patterson been
asked to represent the appellant as counsel before his appointment to
the bench, the conflict rules would likely have prevented him from
taking the case because his firm had formerly represented one of the
defendants in the case. Thus, it is argued how is it that as a trial
judge Patterson J. can hear the case? This issue was considered by the
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) in Locabail (U.K.) Ltd. v. Bayfield
Properties Ltd., [2000] Q.B. 451. The court held, at para. 58, that
there is no inflexible rule governing the disqualification of a judge
and that, "[e]verything depends on the circumstances."
29 It seems to me that what appears at first sight to be an
inconsistency in application of rules can be explained by the
different contexts and in particular, the strong presumption of
judicial impartiality that applies in the context of disqualification
of a judge. There is no such presumption in cases of allegations of
conflict of interest against a lawyer because of a firm's previous
involvement in the case. To the contrary, as explained by Sopinka J.
in MacDonald Estate v. Martin (1990), 77 D.L.R. (4th) 249 (S.C.C.),
for sound policy reasons there is a presumption of a disqualifying
interest that can rarely be overcome. In particular, a conclusory
statement from the lawyer that he or she had no confidential
information about the case will never be sufficient. The case is the
opposite where the allegation of bias is made against a trial judge.
His or her statement that he or she knew nothing about the case and
had no involvement in it will ordinarily be accepted at face value
unless there is good reason to doubt it: see Locabail, at para. 19.
30 That brings me then to consider the particular circumstances
of this case and whether there are serious grounds to find a
disqualifying conflict of interest in this case. In my view, there are
two significant factors that justify the trial judge's decision not to
recuse himself. The first is his statement, which all parties accept,
that he knew nothing of the case when it was in his former firm and
that he had nothing to do with it. The second is the long passage of
time. As was said in Wewaykum, at para. 85:
To us, one significant factor stands out, and must inform
the perspective of the reasonable person assessing the impact of this
involvement on Binnie J.'s impartiality in the appeals. That factor is
the passage of time. Most arguments for disqualification rest on
circumstances that are either contemporaneous to the decision-making,
or that occurred within a short time prior to the decision-making.
31 There are other factors that inform the issue. The Wilson
Walker firm no longer acted for any of the parties by the time of
trial. More importantly, at the time of the motion, Patterson J. had
been a judge for six years and thus had not had a relationship with
his former firm for a considerable period of time.
32 In my view, a reasonable person, viewing the matter
realistically would conclude that the trial judge could deal fairly
and impartially with this case. I take this view principally because
of the long passage of time and the trial judge's lack of involvement
in or knowledge of the case when the Wilson Walker firm had carriage.
In these circumstances it cannot be reasonably contended that the
trial judge could not remain impartial in the case. The mere fact that
his name appears on the letterhead of some correspondence from over a
decade ago would not lead a reasonable person to believe that he would
either consciously or unconsciously favour his former firm's former
client. It is simply not realistic to think that a judge would throw
off his mantle of impartiality, ignore his oath of office and favour a
client - about whom he knew nothing - of a firm that he left six years
earlier and that no longer acts for the client, in a case involving
events from over a decade ago.
(emphasis added)
[19] Justice Webb had no involvement with any matter
involving Mr. Amos while he was a member of Patterson Palmer or
Patterson Law, nor does Mr. Amos suggest that he did. Mr. Amos made it
clear during the hearing of this matter that the only reason for the
alleged conflict for Justice Webb was that he was a member of
Patterson Law and Patterson Palmer. This is simply not enough for
Justice Webb to be disqualified. Any involvement of Mr. Amos with
Patterson Law while Justice Webb was a member of that firm would have
had to occur over 10 years ago and even longer for the time when he
was a member of Patterson Palmer. In addition to the lack of any
involvement on his part with any matter or dispute that Mr. Amos had
with Patterson Law or Patterson Palmer (which in and of itself is
sufficient to dispose of this matter), the length of time since
Justice Webb was a member of Patterson Law or Patterson Palmer would
also result in the same finding – that there is no conflict in Justice
Webb hearing this appeal.
[20] Similarly in R. v. Bagot, 2000 MBCA 30, 145 Man. R.
(2d) 260, the Manitoba Court of Appeal found that there was no
reasonable apprehension of bias when a judge, who had been a member of
the law firm that had been retained by the accused, had no involvement
with the accused while he was a lawyer with that firm.
[21] In Del Zotto v. Minister of National Revenue, [2000] 4
F.C. 321, 257 N.R. 96, this court did find that there would be a
reasonable apprehension of bias where a judge, who while he was a
lawyer, had recorded time on a matter involving the same person who
was before that judge. However, this case can be distinguished as
Justice Webb did not have any time recorded on any files involving Mr.
Amos while he was a lawyer with Patterson Palmer or Patterson Law.
[22] Mr. Amos also included with his submissions a CD. He
stated in his affidavit dated June 26, 2017 that there is a “true copy
of an American police surveillance wiretap entitled 139” on this CD.
He has also indicated that he has “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”. Since he has indicated that this is an “American
police surveillance wiretap”, this is a matter for the American law
enforcement authorities and cannot create, as Mr. Amos suggests, a
conflict of interest for any judge to whom he provides a copy.
[23] As a result, there is no conflict or reasonable
apprehension of bias for Justice Webb and therefore, no reason for him
to recuse himself.
[24] Mr. Amos alleged that Justice Near’s past professional
experience with the government created a “quasi-conflict” in deciding
the cross-appeal. Mr. Amos provided no details and Justice Near
confirmed that he had no prior knowledge of the matters alleged in the
Claim. Justice Near sees no reason to recuse himself.
[25] Insofar as it is possible to glean the basis for Mr.
Amos’ allegations against Justice Gleason, it appears that he alleges
that she is incapable of hearing this appeal because he says he wrote
a letter to Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien in 2004. At that time,
both Justice Gleason and Mr. Mulroney were partners in the law firm
Ogilvy Renault, LLP. The letter in question, which is rude and angry,
begins with “Hey you two Evil Old Smiling Bastards” and “Re: me suing
you and your little dogs too”. There is no indication that the letter
was ever responded to or that a law suit was ever commenced by Mr.
Amos against Mr. Mulroney. In the circumstances, there is no reason
for Justice Gleason to recuse herself as the letter in question does
not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.
III. Issue
[26] The issue on the cross-appeal is as follows: Did the
Judge err in setting aside the Prothonotary’s Order striking the Claim
in its entirety without leave to amend and in determining that Mr.
Amos’ allegation that the RCMP barred him from the New Brunswick
legislature in 2004 was capable of supporting a cause of action?
IV. Analysis
A. Standard of Review
[27] Following the Judge’s decision to set aside the
Prothonotary’s Order, this Court revisited the standard of review to
be applied to discretionary decisions of prothonotaries and decisions
made by judges on appeals of prothonotaries’ decisions in Hospira
Healthcare Corp. v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, 2016 FCA 215,
402 D.L.R. (4th) 497 [Hospira]. In Hospira, a five-member panel of
this Court replaced the Aqua-Gem standard of review with that
articulated in Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235
[Housen]. As a result, it is no longer appropriate for the Federal
Court to conduct a de novo review of a discretionary order made by a
prothonotary in regard to questions vital to the final issue of the
case. Rather, a Federal Court judge can only intervene on appeal if
the prothonotary made an error of law or a palpable and overriding
error in determining a question of fact or question of mixed fact and
law (Hospira at para. 79). Further, this Court can only interfere with
a Federal Court judge’s review of a prothonotary’s discretionary order
if the judge made an error of law or palpable and overriding error in
determining a question of fact or question of mixed fact and law
(Hospira at paras. 82-83).
[28] In the case at bar, the Judge substituted his own
assessment of Mr. Amos’ Claim for that of the Prothonotary. This Court
must look to the Prothonotary’s Order to determine whether the Judge
erred in law or made a palpable and overriding error in choosing to
interfere.
B. Did the Judge err in interfering with the
Prothonotary’s Order?
[29] The Prothontoary’s Order accepted the following
paragraphs from the Crown’s submissions as the basis for striking the
Claim in its entirety without leave to amend:
17. Within the 96 paragraph Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff
addresses his complaint in paragraphs 14-24, inclusive. All but four
of those paragraphs are dedicated to an incident that occurred in 2006
in and around the legislature in New Brunswick. The jurisdiction of
the Federal Court does not extend to Her Majesty the Queen in right of
the Provinces. In any event, the Plaintiff hasn’t named the Province
or provincial actors as parties to this action. The incident alleged
does not give rise to a justiciable cause of action in this Court.
(…)
21. The few paragraphs that directly address the Defendant
provide no details as to the individuals involved or the location of
the alleged incidents or other details sufficient to allow the
Defendant to respond. As a result, it is difficult or impossible to
determine the causes of action the Plaintiff is attempting to advance.
A generous reading of the Statement of Claim allows the Defendant to
only speculate as to the true and/or intended cause of action. At
best, the Plaintiff’s action may possibly be summarized as: he
suspects he is barred from the House of Commons.
[footnotes omitted].
[30] The Judge determined that he could not strike the Claim
on the same jurisdictional basis as the Prothonotary. The Judge noted
that the Federal Court has jurisdiction over claims based on the
liability of Federal Crown servants like the RCMP and that the actors
who barred Mr. Amos from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004
included the RCMP (Federal Court Judgment at para. 23). In considering
the viability of these allegations de novo, the Judge identified
paragraph 14 of the Claim as containing “some precision” as it
identifies the date of the event and a RCMP officer acting as
Aide-de-Camp to the Lieutenant Governor (Federal Court Judgment at
para. 27).
[31] The Judge noted that the 2004 event could support a
cause of action in the tort of misfeasance in public office and
identified the elements of the tort as excerpted from Meigs v. Canada,
2013 FC 389, 431 F.T.R. 111:
[13] As in both the cases of Odhavji Estate v Woodhouse, 2003 SCC
69 [Odhavji] and Lewis v Canada, 2012 FC 1514 [Lewis], I must
determine whether the plaintiffs’ statement of claim pleads each
element of the alleged tort of misfeasance in public office:
a) The public officer must have engaged in deliberate and unlawful
conduct in his or her capacity as public officer;
b) The public officer must have been aware both that his or her
conduct was unlawful and that it was likely to harm the plaintiff; and
c) There must be an element of bad faith or dishonesty by the public
officer and knowledge of harm alone is insufficient to conclude that a
public officer acted in bad faith or dishonestly.
Odhavji, above, at paras 23, 24 and 28
(Federal Court Judgment at para. 28).
[32] The Judge determined that Mr. Amos disclosed sufficient
material facts to meet the elements of the tort of misfeasance in
public office because the actors, who barred him from the New
Brunswick legislature in 2004, including the RCMP, did so for
“political reasons” (Federal Court Judgment at para. 29).
[33] This Court’s discussion of the sufficiency of pleadings
in Merchant Law Group v. Canada (Revenue Agency), 2010 FCA 184, 321
D.L.R (4th) 301 is particularly apt:
…When pleading bad faith or abuse of power, it is not enough to
assert, baldly, conclusory phrases such as “deliberately or
negligently,” “callous disregard,” or “by fraud and theft did steal”.
“The bare assertion of a conclusion upon which the court is called
upon to pronounce is not an allegation of material fact”. Making bald,
conclusory allegations without any evidentiary foundation is an abuse
of process…
To this, I would add that the tort of misfeasance in public office
requires a particular state of mind of a public officer in carrying
out the impunged action, i.e., deliberate conduct which the public
officer knows to be inconsistent with the obligations of his or her
office. For this tort, particularization of the allegations is
mandatory. Rule 181 specifically requires particularization of
allegations of “breach of trust,” “wilful default,” “state of mind of
a person,” “malice” or “fraudulent intention.”
(at paras. 34-35, citations omitted).
[34] Applying the Housen standard of review to the
Prothonotary’s Order, we are of the view that the Judge interfered
absent a legal or palpable and overriding error.
[35] The Prothonotary determined that Mr. Amos’ Claim
disclosed no reasonable claim and was fundamentally vexatious on the
basis of jurisdictional concerns and the absence of material facts to
ground a cause of action. Paragraph 14 of the Claim, which addresses
the 2004 event, pleads no material facts as to how the RCMP officer
engaged in deliberate and unlawful conduct, knew that his or her
conduct was unlawful and likely to harm Mr. Amos, and acted in bad
faith. While the Claim alleges elsewhere that Mr. Amos was barred from
the New Brunswick legislature for political and/or malicious reasons,
these allegations are not particularized and are directed against
non-federal actors, such as the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Legislative
Assembly of New Brunswick and the Fredericton Police Force. As such,
the Judge erred in determining that Mr. Amos’ allegation that the RCMP
barred him from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004 was capable of
supporting a cause of action.
[36] In our view, the Claim is made up entirely of bare
allegations, devoid of any detail, such that it discloses no
reasonable cause of action within the jurisdiction of the Federal
Courts. Therefore, the Judge erred in interfering to set aside the
Prothonotary’s Order striking the claim in its entirety. Further, we
find that the Prothonotary made no error in denying leave to amend.
The deficiencies in Mr. Amos’ pleadings are so extensive such that
amendment could not cure them (see Collins at para. 26).
V. Conclusion
[37] For the foregoing reasons, we would allow the Crown’s
cross-appeal, with costs, setting aside the Federal Court Judgment,
dated January 25, 2016 and restoring the Prothonotary’s Order, dated
November 12, 2015, which struck Mr. Amos’ Claim in its entirety
without leave to amend.
"Wyman W. Webb"
J.A.
"David G. Near"
J.A.
"Mary J.L. Gleason"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
A CROSS-APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SOUTHCOTT DATED
JANUARY 25, 2016; DOCKET NUMBER T-1557-15.
DOCKET:
A-48-16
STYLE OF CAUSE:
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
PLACE OF HEARING:
Fredericton,
New Brunswick
DATE OF HEARING:
May 24, 2017
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:
WEBB J.A.
NEAR J.A.
GLEASON J.A.
DATED:
October 30, 2017
APPEARANCES:
David Raymond Amos
For The Appellant / respondent on cross-appeal
(on his own behalf)
Jan Jensen
For The Respondent / appELLANT ON CROSS-APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Nathalie G. Drouin
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For The Respondent / APPELLANT ON CROSS-APPEAL
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 17:25:46 -0400
Subject: YO "Misandry Today" your pal "Thomas" or anyone else can go
to the 52 minute mark of this hearing held about 2 weeks before Barry
Winters was finally arrested and listen to me mention Patrick Doran's
malicous work within Encylopedia Dramatic
To: Misandry Today <misandry.happens@gmail.com>, patrick_doran1
<patrick_doran1@hotmail.com>, thomas <thomas@1000notes.com>
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
<cps@calgarypolice.ca>, pol7163 <pol7163@calgarypolice.ca>, themayor
<themayor@calgary.ca>
https://archive.org/details/
Then his fellow Trolls should check Doran's work in ED
https://encyclopediadramatica.
Nobody can deny that he provides the entire text of my lawsuit srcoll
down to Paragraph 75 to reqd the following statement AGAIN Do you not
see Doran and Wnters named???
75. The Plaintiff states that the RCMP is well aware of the libel,
sexual harassment, and death threats practiced against his family that
have been published on the Internet since 2005 by fans (Trolls) who
supported Byron Prior. Four Trolls who live in Alberta are Barry
Winters, Dean Roger Ray, Eddy Achtem and Patrick Doran They have many
“Anonymous” cohorts throughout Canada, the USA and the United Kingdom.
The actions of these Trolls created an important example of
cyberbullying. Law enforcement officials have ignored these Trolls
because of the Plaintiff’s standing as a whistleblower exposing
corruption within the justice system. The Plaintiff is aware that
several people complained about their actions over the years. In fact
the mother of Dean Roger Ray recently her indignation in Barry
Winter’s blog. Complaints about Barry Winters can be seen on the
Internet by Glen Canning and Professor Kris Wells, two politically
well-connected people who complain of cyberbullying often. Proof the
Edmonton Police Force (EPS), RCMP, FBI and police in the UK have been
ignoring the Plaintiff’s complaints about these Trolls can also viewed
on the Internet. The Plaintiff fought fire with fire but did so in a
legal fashion and kept the police fully informed of his actions. The
Plaintiff was successful in causing numerous egregious videos and
several blogs to be taken down after doing his best to find out who
the “Anonymous” people were and reporting them. He saved all the blogs
and videos published about his family before the malice was removed
from public view. Three Trolls who continue to attack his family and
others are Dean Roger Ray, Barry Winters and one government employee.
A member of the legal dept. of Edmonton tried to claim that the
Plaintiff was Barry Winters then complained to the EPS about the
Plaintiff’s questions about her incompetence. Professor Kris Wells,
who was associated with the Police Commission of Edmonton and Glen
Canning, who lost his daughter to cyberbullying, said nothing. They
were content that the Plaintiff managed to convince Google’s lawyers
to remove one of Barry Winters’s blogs on October 23, 2014 and say
nothing about his blog within WordPress that the Troll uses to
continue his libel of them and their friends. Instead Glen Canning
slandered the Plaintiff within Twitter after Kris Wells sent the
Plaintiff an email stating his lawyer had advised him to ignore Barry
Winters and his blogs.
BTW the DavidRayAmos Troll attacking using my name is not me. I was
not aware of Doran in ED until Barry Winters blogged about it
I suspect it was the same Troll who created the ED webpage that you
used to source your bullshit about me from
The reason I CC'd the universe and many cops in particular is because
I am filing a lawsuit about the shit.
In a nutshell Doran is a shill for the Calgary cops Get it yet?
On 3/31/18, Misandry Today <misandry.happens@gmail.com> wrote:
> David,
>
> Thank you for directing your email to me specifically so I can respond.
>
> Please do not take my lack of response to your prior emails as a form of
> disrespect, its not. However, after reading your prior emails, I was unable
> to decipher who your message was specifically directed it.
>
> Was there something specific you wanted to discuss? Or were you just
> notifying me on the links and info included in this most recent email?
>
> Also, is there a reason the known universe is CC'd?
>
> Again, I'm not being disrespectful, but I know very little about you and
> your history with Patrick Doran, other than there was some sort of feud.
>
> Can you provide me some history and context?
>
> Respectfully,
> DDJ
>
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 7:37 AM, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> http://davidraymondamos3.
>> email-suit.html
>>
>>
>> Saturday, 31 March 2018
>> Yo "Misandry Today" does this email suit a noname Yankee paralegal's
>> demand of me that he quickly deleted?
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?
>>
>>
>> LEGALLY PWNED: MISANDRY TODAY (DDJ)
>> 99 views
>> 15 1 Share
>>
>> Mad Shangi
>> Published on Mar 29, 2018
>>
>>
>> ---------- Original message ----------
>> From: Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.
>> Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 13:32:01 +0000
>> Subject: Automatic reply: A Neo-Nazi estate dispute being overseen by
>> two Jewish groups Perhaps Shimon Fogel should talk to his lawyer or
>> the Attorney General Blais or his Number # fan Mr Baconfat???
>> To: motomaniac333@gmail.com
>>
>> Thank you for writing to the Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, Member
>> of Parliament for Vancouver Granville.
>>
>> This message is to acknowledge that we are in receipt of your email.
>> Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence, there
>> may be a delay in processing your email. Rest assured that your
>> message will be carefully reviewed.
>>
>> To help us address your concerns more quickly, please include within
>> the body of your email your full name, address, and postal code.
>>
>> Please note that your message will be forwarded to the Department of
>> Justice if it concerns topics pertaining to the member's role as the
>> Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. For all future
>> correspondence addressed to the Minister of Justice, please write
>> directly to the Department of Justice at
>> mcu@justice.gc.camcu@
>
or call 613-957-4222.From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 17:16:05 -0400
Subject: Now I have some questions about the ethics of the Washington State Bar Association
and their friend Patrick Doran
To: paulal@wsba.org, Questions@wsba.org, patrick_doran1 <patrick_doran1@hotmail.com>,
cps <cps@calgarypolice.ca>, washington field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>,
ethics-ethique <ethics-ethique@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, pol4982
pol7163
<pol7163@calgarypolice.ca>,
Newsroom <Newsroom@globeandmail.com>
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
"misandry.happens" <misandry.happens@gmail.com>,
David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
http://davidraymondamos3.
Monday, 4 June 2018
Now I have some questions about the ethics of the Washington State Bar
Association and their friend Patrick Doran
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
"misandry.happens" <misandry.happens@gmail.com>,
David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
http://davidraymondamos3.
Monday, 4 June 2018
Now I have some questions about the ethics of the Washington State Bar
Association and their friend Patrick Doran
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Misandry Today Admits To Sharing The Mad Shangi's Dox
1,581 views
Cognitive Thought
Streamed live on Mar 14, 2018
Joining me is VampKandy & Sinatra.
9 Comments
David Amos
2 months ago
The RCMP can bet our thin Canadian dimes to fat Yankee petrodollars
that I saved this video and the FBI know why
David Amos
2 months ago
I hear you people talking about Glen Canning and I dealing with your
pal Patrick Doran you can bet I contacted the cops AGAIN
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Update from Washington State Bar Association
9 views
Mad Shangi
Published on Jun 4, 2018
I got a follow up from the Washington State Bar Association. The
matter is closed, and no further action will be taken. It's
disappointing, but not surprising.
https://encyclopediadramatica.
https://www.wsba.org/about-
Our Mission
The mission of the Washington State Bar Association is to serve the
public and the members of the Bar, to ensure the integrity of the
legal profession, and to champion justice.
The Washington State Bar Association is part of the judicial branch,
exercising a governmental function authorized by the Washington
Supreme Court to license the state’s more than 38,000 legal
professionals. The WSBA both regulates lawyers under the authority of
the Court and serves its members as a professional association — all
without public funding.
As a regulatory agency, the WSBA administers the bar admission
process, including the bar exam; provides record-keeping and licensing
functions; and administers the professional discipline system. As a
professional association, the WSBA also provides continuing legal
education for attorneys, in addition to numerous other educational and
member-services and opportunities to advance professionally.
Governance and Leadership
The Board of Governors is WSBA's governing body charged with
determining the general policies of the Bar and approving its annual
budget. The Board consists of the president, president-elect, and
immediate past president and members elected from each Congressional
District and three at-large positions.
The Board of Governors elects the president-elect of the Bar and
selects the executive director.
Questions? Contact our knowledgeable Service Center representatives or
key support contacts. We are here to assist you 8 a.m.–5 p.m. Monday
through Friday.
Phone
Toll-free: 800-945-9722
Local: 206-443-9722
Questions@wsba.org
Fax
206-727-8316 – Main
206-727-8325 – Office of Disciplinary Counsel
206-727-8313 – Regulatory Services, Licensing and Admissions
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 09:32:09 -0400
> Subject: Attn Integrity Commissioner Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C.,
> To: coi@gnb.ca
> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>
> Good Day Sir
>
> After I heard you speak on CBC I called your office again and managed
> to speak to one of your staff for the first time
>
> Please find attached the documents I promised to send to the lady who
> answered the phone this morning. Please notice that not after the Sgt
> at Arms took the documents destined to your office his pal Tanker
> Malley barred me in writing with an "English" only document.
>
> These are the hearings and the dockets in Federal Court that I
> suggested that you study closely.
>
> This is the docket in Federal Court
>
> http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.
>
> These are digital recordings of the last three hearings
>
> Dec 14th https://archive.org/details/
>
> January 11th, 2016 https://archive.org/details/
>
> April 3rd, 2017
>
> https://archive.org/details/
>
>
> This is the docket in the Federal Court of Appeal
>
> http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.
>
>
> The only hearing thus far
>
> May 24th, 2017
>
> https://archive.org/details/
>
>
> This Judge understnds the meaning of the word Integrity
>
> Date: 20151223
>
> Docket: T-1557-15
>
> Fredericton, New Brunswick, December 23, 2015
>
> PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Bell
>
> BETWEEN:
>
> DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
>
> Plaintiff
>
> and
>
> HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
>
> Defendant
>
> ORDER
>
> (Delivered orally from the Bench in Fredericton, New Brunswick, on
> December 14, 2015)
>
> The Plaintiff seeks an appeal de novo, by way of motion pursuant to
> the Federal Courts Rules (SOR/98-106), from an Order made on November
> 12, 2015, in which Prothonotary Morneau struck the Statement of Claim
> in its entirety.
>
> At the outset of the hearing, the Plaintiff brought to my attention a
> letter dated September 10, 2004, which he sent to me, in my then
> capacity as Past President of the New Brunswick Branch of the Canadian
> Bar Association, and the then President of the Branch, Kathleen Quigg,
> (now a Justice of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal). In that letter
> he stated:
>
> As for your past President, Mr. Bell, may I suggest that you check the
> work of Frank McKenna before I sue your entire law firm including you.
> You are your brother’s keeper.
>
> Frank McKenna is the former Premier of New Brunswick and a former
> colleague of mine at the law firm of McInnes Cooper. In addition to
> expressing an intention to sue me, the Plaintiff refers to a number of
> people in his Motion Record who he appears to contend may be witnesses
> or potential parties to be added. Those individuals who are known to
> me personally, include, but are not limited to the former Prime
> Minister of Canada, The Right Honourable Stephen Harper; former
> Attorney General of Canada and now a Justice of the Manitoba Court of
> Queen’s Bench, Vic Toews; former member of Parliament Rob Moore;
> former Director of Policing Services, the late Grant Garneau; former
> Chief of the Fredericton Police Force, Barry McKnight; former Staff
> Sergeant Danny Copp; my former colleagues on the New Brunswick Court
> of Appeal, Justices Bradley V. Green and Kathleen Quigg, and, retired
> Assistant Commissioner Wayne Lang of the Royal Canadian Mounted
> Police.
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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.
>
> “B. Richard Bell”
> Judge
>
>
> Below after the CBC article about your concerns (I made one comment
> already) you will find the text of just two of many emails I had sent
> to your office over the years since I first visited it in 2006.
>
> I noticed that on July 30, 2009, he was appointed to the the Court
> Martial Appeal Court of Canada Perhaps you should scroll to the
> bottom of this email ASAP and read the entire Paragraph 83 of my
> lawsuit now before the Federal Court of Canada?
>
> "FYI This is the text of the lawsuit that should interest Trudeau the most
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca
> Date: Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:18 PM
> Subject: Réponse automatique : RE My complaint against the CROWN in
> Federal Court Attn David Hansen and Peter MacKay If you planning to
> submit a motion for a publication ban on my complaint trust that you
> dudes are way past too late
> To: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>
> Veuillez noter que j'ai changé de courriel. Vous pouvez me rejoindre à
> lalanthier@hotmail.com
>
> Pour rejoindre le bureau de M. Trudeau veuillez envoyer un courriel à
> tommy.desfosses@parl.gc.ca
>
> Please note that I changed email address, you can reach me at
> lalanthier@hotmail.com
>
> To reach the office of Mr. Trudeau please send an email to
> tommy.desfosses@parl.gc.ca
>
> Thank you,
>
> Merci ,
>
>
> http://davidraymondamos3.
>
>
> 83. The Plaintiff states that now that Canada is involved in more war
> in Iraq again it did not serve Canadian interests and reputation to
> allow Barry Winters to publish the following words three times over
> five years after he began his bragging:
>
> January 13, 2015
> This Is Just AS Relevant Now As When I wrote It During The Debate
>
> December 8, 2014
> Why Canada Stood Tall!
>
> Friday, October 3, 2014
> Little David Amos’ “True History Of War” Canadian Airstrikes And
> Stupid Justin Trudeau
>
> Canada’s and Canadians free ride is over. Canada can no longer hide
> behind Amerka’s and NATO’s skirts.
>
> When I was still in Canadian Forces then Prime Minister Jean Chretien
> actually committed the Canadian Army to deploy in the second campaign
> in Iraq, the Coalition of the Willing. This was against or contrary to
> the wisdom or advice of those of us Canadian officers that were
> involved in the initial planning phases of that operation. There were
> significant concern in our planning cell, and NDHQ about of the dearth
> of concern for operational guidance, direction, and forces for
> operations after the initial occupation of Iraq. At the “last minute”
> Prime Minister Chretien and the Liberal government changed its mind.
> The Canadian government told our amerkan cousins that we would not
> deploy combat troops for the Iraq campaign, but would deploy a
> Canadian Battle Group to Afghanistan, enabling our amerkan cousins to
> redeploy troops from there to Iraq. The PMO’s thinking that it was
> less costly to deploy Canadian Forces to Afghanistan than Iraq. But
> alas no one seems to remind the Liberals of Prime Minister Chretien’s
> then grossly incorrect assumption. Notwithstanding Jean Chretien’s
> incompetence and stupidity, the Canadian Army was heroic,
> professional, punched well above it’s weight, and the PPCLI Battle
> Group, is credited with “saving Afghanistan” during the Panjway
> campaign of 2006.
>
> What Justin Trudeau and the Liberals don’t tell you now, is that then
> Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien committed, and deployed the
> Canadian army to Canada’s longest “war” without the advice, consent,
> support, or vote of the Canadian Parliament.
>
> What David Amos and the rest of the ignorant, uneducated, and babbling
> chattering classes are too addled to understand is the deployment of
> less than 75 special operations troops, and what is known by planners
> as a “six pac cell” of fighter aircraft is NOT the same as a
> deployment of a Battle Group, nor a “war” make.
>
> The Canadian Government or The Crown unlike our amerkan cousins have
> the “constitutional authority” to commit the Canadian nation to war.
> That has been recently clearly articulated to the Canadian public by
> constitutional scholar Phillippe Legasse. What Parliament can do is
> remove “confidence” in The Crown’s Government in a “vote of
> non-confidence.” That could not happen to the Chretien Government
> regarding deployment to Afghanistan, and it won’t happen in this
> instance with the conservative majority in The Commons regarding a
> limited Canadian deployment to the Middle East.
>
> President George Bush was quite correct after 911 and the terror
> attacks in New York; that the Taliban “occupied” and “failed state”
> Afghanistan was the source of logistical support, command and control,
> and training for the Al Quaeda war of terror against the world. The
> initial defeat, and removal from control of Afghanistan was vital and
>
> P.S. Whereas this CBC article is about your opinion of the actions of
> the latest Minister Of Health trust that Mr Boudreau and the CBC have
> had my files for many years and the last thing they are is ethical.
> Ask his friends Mr Murphy and the RCMP if you don't believe me.
>
> Subject:
> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:02:35 -0400
> From: "Murphy, Michael B. \(DH/MS\)" MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca
> To: motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com
>
> January 30, 2007
>
> WITHOUT PREJUDICE
>
> Mr. David Amos
>
> Dear Mr. Amos:
>
> This will acknowledge receipt of a copy of your e-mail of December 29,
> 2006 to Corporal Warren McBeath of the RCMP.
>
> Because of the nature of the allegations made in your message, I have
> taken the measure of forwarding a copy to Assistant Commissioner Steve
> Graham of the RCMP “J” Division in Fredericton.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Honourable Michael B. Murphy
> Minister of Health
>
> CM/cb
>
>
> Warren McBeath warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca wrote:
>
> Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:34:53 -0500
> From: "Warren McBeath" warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
> To: kilgoursite@ca.inter.net, MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca,
> nada.sarkis@gnb.ca, wally.stiles@gnb.ca, dwatch@web.net,
> motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com
> CC: ottawa@chuckstrahl.com, riding@chuckstrahl.com,John.
> Oda.B@parl.gc.ca,"Bev BUSSON" bev.busson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
> "Paul Dube" PAUL.DUBE@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
> Subject: Re: Remember me Kilgour? Landslide Annie McLellan has
> forgotten me but the crooks within the RCMP have not
>
> Dear Mr. Amos,
>
> Thank you for your follow up e-mail to me today. I was on days off
> over the holidays and returned to work this evening. Rest assured I
> was not ignoring or procrastinating to respond to your concerns.
>
> As your attachment sent today refers from Premier Graham, our position
> is clear on your dead calf issue: Our forensic labs do not process
> testing on animals in cases such as yours, they are referred to the
> Atlantic Veterinary College in Charlottetown who can provide these
> services. If you do not choose to utilize their expertise in this
> instance, then that is your decision and nothing more can be done.
>
> As for your other concerns regarding the US Government, false
> imprisonment and Federal Court Dates in the US, etc... it is clear
> that Federal authorities are aware of your concerns both in Canada
> the US. These issues do not fall into the purvue of Detachment
> and policing in Petitcodiac, NB.
>
> It was indeed an interesting and informative conversation we had on
> December 23rd, and I wish you well in all of your future endeavors.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Warren McBeath, Cpl.
> GRC Caledonia RCMP
> Traffic Services NCO
> Ph: (506) 387-2222
> Fax: (506) 387-4622
> E-mail warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>
>
>
> Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C.,
> Office of the Integrity Commissioner
> Edgecombe House, 736 King Street
> Fredericton, N.B. CANADA E3B 5H1
> tel.: 506-457-7890
> fax: 506-444-5224
> e-mail:coi@gnb.ca
>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Justice Website <JUSTWEB@novascotia.ca>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:21:11 +0000
Subject: Emails to Department of Justice and Province of Nova Scotia
To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com" <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Mr. Amos,
We acknowledge receipt of your recent emails to the Deputy Minister of
Justice and lawyers within the Legal Services Division of the
Department of Justice respecting a possible claim against the Province
of Nova Scotia. Service of any documents respecting a legal claim
against the Province of Nova Scotia may be served on the Attorney
General at 1690 Hollis Street, Halifax, NS. Please note that we will
not be responding to further emails on this matter.
Department of Justice
On 8/3/17, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote:
> If want something very serious to download and laugh at as well Please
> Enjoy and share real wiretap tapes of the mob
>
> http://thedavidamosrant.
> ilian.html
>
>> http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/
>>
>> As the CBC etc yap about Yankee wiretaps and whistleblowers I must
>> ask them the obvious question AIN'T THEY FORGETTING SOMETHING????
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?
>>
>> What the hell does the media think my Yankee lawyer served upon the
>> USDOJ right after I ran for and seat in the 39th Parliament baseball
>> cards?
>>
>> http://archive.org/details/
>> 6
>>
>> http://davidamos.blogspot.ca/
>>
>> http://www.archive.org/
>>
>> http://archive.org/details/
>>
>> FEDERAL EXPRES February 7, 2006
>> Senator Arlen Specter
>> United States Senate
>> Committee on the Judiciary
>> 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
>> Washington, DC 20510
>>
>> Dear Mr. Specter:
>>
>> I have been asked to forward the enclosed tapes to you from a man
>> named, David Amos, a Canadian citizen, in connection with the matters
>> raised in the attached letter.
>>
>> Mr. Amos has represented to me that these are illegal FBI wire tap tapes.
>>
>> I believe Mr. Amos has been in contact with you about this previously.
>>
>> Very truly yours,
>> Barry A. Bachrach
>> Direct telephone: (508) 926-3403
>> Direct facsimile: (508) 929-3003
>> Email: bbachrach@bowditch.com
>>
>
http://davidraymondamos3.
Sunday, 19 November 2017
Federal Court of Appeal Finally Makes The BIG Decision And Publishes
It Now The Crooks Cannot Take Back Ticket To Try Put My Matter Before
The Supreme Court
https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Amos v. Canada
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2017-10-30
Neutral citation
2017 FCA 213
File numbers
A-48-16
Date: 20171030
Docket: A-48-16
Citation: 2017 FCA 213
CORAM:
WEBB J.A.
NEAR J.A.
GLEASON J.A.
BETWEEN:
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
Respondent on the cross-appeal
(and formally Appellant)
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Appellant on the cross-appeal
(and formerly Respondent)
Heard at Fredericton, New Brunswick, on May 24, 2017.
Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 30, 2017.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:
THE COURT
Date: 20171030
Docket: A-48-16
Citation: 2017 FCA 213
CORAM:
WEBB J.A.
NEAR J.A.
GLEASON J.A.
BETWEEN:
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
Respondent on the cross-appeal
(and formally Appellant)
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Appellant on the cross-appeal
(and formerly Respondent)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY THE COURT
I. Introduction
[1] On September 16, 2015, David Raymond Amos (Mr. Amos)
filed a 53-page Statement of Claim (the Claim) in Federal Court
against Her Majesty the Queen (the Crown). Mr. Amos claims $11 million
in damages and a public apology from the Prime Minister and Provincial
Premiers for being illegally barred from accessing parliamentary
properties and seeks a declaration from the Minister of Public Safety
that the Canadian Government will no longer allow the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police (RCMP) and Canadian Forces to harass him and his clan
(Claim at para. 96).
[2] On November 12, 2015 (Docket T-1557-15), by way of a
motion brought by the Crown, a prothonotary of the Federal Court (the
Prothonotary) struck the Claim in its entirety, without leave to
amend, on the basis that it was plain and obvious that the Claim
disclosed no reasonable claim, the Claim was fundamentally vexatious,
and the Claim could not be salvaged by way of further amendment (the
Prothontary’s Order).
[3] On January 25, 2016 (2016 FC 93), by way of Mr.
Amos’ appeal from the Prothonotary’s Order, a judge of the Federal
Court (the Judge), reviewing the matter de novo, struck all of Mr.
Amos’ claims for relief with the exception of the claim for damages
for being barred by the RCMP from the New Brunswick legislature in
2004 (the Federal Court Judgment).
[4] Mr. Amos appealed and the Crown cross-appealed the
Federal Court Judgment. Further to the issuance of a Notice of Status
Review, Mr. Amos’ appeal was dismissed for delay on December 19, 2016.
As such, the only matter before this Court is the Crown’s
cross-appeal.
II. Preliminary Matter
[5] Mr. Amos, in his memorandum of fact and law in
relation to the cross-appeal that was filed with this Court on March
6, 2017, indicated that several judges of this Court, including two of
the judges of this panel, had a conflict of interest in this appeal.
This was the first time that he identified the judges whom he believed
had a conflict of interest in a document that was filed with this
Court. In his notice of appeal he had alluded to a conflict with
several judges but did not name those judges.
[6] Mr. Amos was of the view that he did not have to
identify the judges in any document filed with this Court because he
had identified the judges in various documents that had been filed
with the Federal Court. In his view the Federal Court and the Federal
Court of Appeal are the same court and therefore any document filed in
the Federal Court would be filed in this Court. This view is based on
subsections 5(4) and 5.1(4) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985,
c. F-7:
5(4) Every judge of the Federal Court is, by virtue of his or her
office, a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal and has all the
jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Federal Court of
Appeal.
[…]
5(4) Les juges de la Cour fédérale sont d’office juges de la Cour
d’appel fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs que
les juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale.
[…]
5.1(4) Every judge of the Federal Court of Appeal is, by virtue of
that office, a judge of the Federal Court and has all the
jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Federal Court.
5.1(4) Les juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale sont d’office juges de la
Cour fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs que les
juges de la Cour fédérale.
[7] However, these subsections only provide that the
judges of the Federal Court are also judges of this Court (and vice
versa). It does not mean that there is only one court. If the Federal
Court and this Court were one Court, there would be no need for this
section.
[8] Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Courts Act provide that:
3 The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the Federal Court
— Appeal Division is continued under the name “Federal Court of
Appeal” in English and “Cour d’appel fédérale” in French. It is
continued as an additional court of law, equity and admiralty in and
for Canada, for the better administration of the laws of Canada and as
a superior court of record having civil and criminal jurisdiction.
3 La Section d’appel, aussi appelée la Cour d’appel ou la Cour d’appel
fédérale, est maintenue et dénommée « Cour d’appel fédérale » en
français et « Federal Court of Appeal » en anglais. Elle est maintenue
à titre de tribunal additionnel de droit, d’equity et d’amirauté du
Canada, propre à améliorer l’application du droit canadien, et
continue d’être une cour supérieure d’archives ayant compétence en
matière civile et pénale.
4 The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the Federal Court
— Trial Division is continued under the name “Federal Court” in
English and “Cour fédérale” in French. It is continued as an
additional court of law, equity and admiralty in and for Canada, for
the better administration of the laws of Canada and as a superior
court of record having civil and criminal jurisdiction.
4 La section de la Cour fédérale du Canada, appelée la Section de
première instance de la Cour fédérale, est maintenue et dénommée «
Cour fédérale » en français et « Federal Court » en anglais. Elle est
maintenue à titre de tribunal additionnel de droit, d’equity et
d’amirauté du Canada, propre à améliorer l’application du droit
canadien, et continue d’être une cour supérieure d’archives ayant
compétence en matière civile et pénale.
[9] Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Courts Act create
two separate courts – this Court (section 3) and the Federal Court
(section 4). If, as Mr. Amos suggests, documents filed in the Federal
Court were automatically also filed in this Court, then there would no
need for the parties to prepare and file appeal books as required by
Rules 343 to 345 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 in relation
to any appeal from a decision of the Federal Court. The requirement to
file an appeal book with this Court in relation to an appeal from a
decision of the Federal Court makes it clear that the only documents
that will be before this Court are the documents that are part of that
appeal book.
[10] Therefore, the memorandum of fact and law filed on
March 6, 2017 is the first document, filed with this Court, in which
Mr. Amos identified the particular judges that he submits have a
conflict in any matter related to him.
[11] On April 3, 2017, Mr. Amos attempted to bring a motion
before the Federal Court seeking an order “affirming or denying the
conflict of interest he has” with a number of judges of the Federal
Court. A judge of the Federal Court issued a direction noting that if
Mr. Amos was seeking this order in relation to judges of the Federal
Court of Appeal, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Federal Court.
Mr. Amos raised the Federal Court motion at the hearing of this
cross-appeal. The Federal Court motion is not a motion before this
Court and, as such, the submissions filed before the Federal Court
will not be entertained. As well, since this was a motion brought
before the Federal Court (and not this Court), any documents filed in
relation to that motion are not part of the record of this Court.
[12] During the hearing of the appeal Mr. Amos alleged that
the third member of this panel also had a conflict of interest and
submitted some documents that, in his view, supported his claim of a
conflict. Mr. Amos, following the hearing of his appeal, was also
afforded the opportunity to provide a brief summary of the conflict
that he was alleging and to file additional documents that, in his
view, supported his allegations. Mr. Amos submitted several pages of
documents in relation to the alleged conflicts. He organized the
documents by submitting a copy of the biography of the particular
judge and then, immediately following that biography, by including
copies of the documents that, in his view, supported his claim that
such judge had a conflict.
[13] The nature of the alleged conflict of Justice Webb is
that before he was appointed as a Judge of the Tax Court of Canada in
2006, he was a partner with the law firm Patterson Law, and before
that with Patterson Palmer in Nova Scotia. Mr. Amos submitted that he
had a number of disputes with Patterson Palmer and Patterson Law and
therefore Justice Webb has a conflict simply because he was a partner
of these firms. Mr. Amos is not alleging that Justice Webb was
personally involved in or had any knowledge of any matter in which Mr.
Amos was involved with Justice Webb’s former law firm – only that he
was a member of such firm.
[14] During his oral submissions at the hearing of his
appeal Mr. Amos, in relation to the alleged conflict for Justice Webb,
focused on dealings between himself and a particular lawyer at
Patterson Law. However, none of the documents submitted by Mr. Amos at
the hearing or subsequently related to any dealings with this
particular lawyer nor is it clear when Mr. Amos was dealing with this
lawyer. In particular, it is far from clear whether such dealings were
after the time that Justice Webb was appointed as a Judge of the Tax
Court of Canada over 10 years ago.
[15] The documents that he submitted in relation to the
alleged conflict for Justice Webb largely relate to dealings between
Byron Prior and the St. John’s Newfoundland and Labrador office of
Patterson Palmer, which is not in the same province where Justice Webb
practiced law. The only document that indicates any dealing between
Mr. Amos and Patterson Palmer is a copy of an affidavit of Stephen May
who was a partner in the St. John’s NL office of Patterson Palmer. The
affidavit is dated January 24, 2005 and refers to a number of e-mails
that were sent by Mr. Amos to Stephen May. Mr. Amos also included a
letter that is addressed to four individuals, one of whom is John
Crosbie who was counsel to the St. John’s NL office of Patterson
Palmer. The letter is dated September 2, 2004 and is addressed to
“John Crosbie, c/o Greg G. Byrne, Suite 502, 570 Queen Street,
Fredericton, NB E3B 5E3”. In this letter Mr. Amos alludes to a
possible lawsuit against Patterson Palmer.
[16] Mr. Amos’ position is that simply because Justice Webb
was a lawyer with Patterson Palmer, he now has a conflict. In Wewaykum
Indian Band v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2003 SCC 45, [2003] 2 S.C.R.
259, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that disqualification of a
judge is to be determined based on whether there is a reasonable
apprehension of bias:
60 In Canadian law, one standard has now emerged as the
criterion for disqualification. The criterion, as expressed by de
Grandpré J. in Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy
Board, …[[1978] 1 S.C.R. 369, 68 D.L.R. (3d) 716], at p. 394, is the
reasonable apprehension of bias:
… the apprehension of bias must be a reasonable one, held by
reasonable and right minded persons, applying themselves to the
question and obtaining thereon the required information. In the words
of the Court of Appeal, that test is "what would an informed person,
viewing the matter realistically and practically -- and having thought
the matter through -- conclude. Would he think that it is more likely
than not that [the decision-maker], whether consciously or
unconsciously, would not decide fairly."
[17] The issue to be determined is whether an informed
person, viewing the matter realistically and practically, and having
thought the matter through, would conclude that Mr. Amos’ allegations
give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. As this Court has
previously remarked, “there is a strong presumption that judges will
administer justice impartially” and this presumption will not be
rebutted in the absence of “convincing evidence” of bias (Collins v.
Canada, 2011 FCA 140 at para. 7, [2011] 4 C.T.C. 157 [Collins]. See
also R. v. S. (R.D.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484 at para. 32, 151 D.L.R.
(4th) 193).
[18] The Ontario Court of Appeal in Rando Drugs Ltd. v.
Scott, 2007 ONCA 553, 86 O.R. (3d) 653 (leave to appeal to the Supreme
Court of Canada refused, 32285 (August 1, 2007)), addressed the
particular issue of whether a judge is disqualified from hearing a
case simply because he had been a member of a law firm that was
involved in the litigation that was now before that judge. The Ontario
Court of Appeal determined that the judge was not disqualified if the
judge had no involvement with the person or the matter when he was a
lawyer. The Ontario Court of Appeal also explained that the rules for
determining whether a judge is disqualified are different from the
rules to determine whether a lawyer has a conflict:
27 Thus, disqualification is not the natural corollary to a
finding that a trial judge has had some involvement in a case over
which he or she is now presiding. Where the judge had no involvement,
as here, it cannot be said that the judge is disqualified.
28 The point can rightly be made that had Mr. Patterson been
asked to represent the appellant as counsel before his appointment to
the bench, the conflict rules would likely have prevented him from
taking the case because his firm had formerly represented one of the
defendants in the case. Thus, it is argued how is it that as a trial
judge Patterson J. can hear the case? This issue was considered by the
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) in Locabail (U.K.) Ltd. v. Bayfield
Properties Ltd., [2000] Q.B. 451. The court held, at para. 58, that
there is no inflexible rule governing the disqualification of a judge
and that, "[e]verything depends on the circumstances."
29 It seems to me that what appears at first sight to be an
inconsistency in application of rules can be explained by the
different contexts and in particular, the strong presumption of
judicial impartiality that applies in the context of disqualification
of a judge. There is no such presumption in cases of allegations of
conflict of interest against a lawyer because of a firm's previous
involvement in the case. To the contrary, as explained by Sopinka J.
in MacDonald Estate v. Martin (1990), 77 D.L.R. (4th) 249 (S.C.C.),
for sound policy reasons there is a presumption of a disqualifying
interest that can rarely be overcome. In particular, a conclusory
statement from the lawyer that he or she had no confidential
information about the case will never be sufficient. The case is the
opposite where the allegation of bias is made against a trial judge.
His or her statement that he or she knew nothing about the case and
had no involvement in it will ordinarily be accepted at face value
unless there is good reason to doubt it: see Locabail, at para. 19.
30 That brings me then to consider the particular circumstances
of this case and whether there are serious grounds to find a
disqualifying conflict of interest in this case. In my view, there are
two significant factors that justify the trial judge's decision not to
recuse himself. The first is his statement, which all parties accept,
that he knew nothing of the case when it was in his former firm and
that he had nothing to do with it. The second is the long passage of
time. As was said in Wewaykum, at para. 85:
To us, one significant factor stands out, and must inform
the perspective of the reasonable person assessing the impact of this
involvement on Binnie J.'s impartiality in the appeals. That factor is
the passage of time. Most arguments for disqualification rest on
circumstances that are either contemporaneous to the decision-making,
or that occurred within a short time prior to the decision-making.
31 There are other factors that inform the issue. The Wilson
Walker firm no longer acted for any of the parties by the time of
trial. More importantly, at the time of the motion, Patterson J. had
been a judge for six years and thus had not had a relationship with
his former firm for a considerable period of time.
32 In my view, a reasonable person, viewing the matter
realistically would conclude that the trial judge could deal fairly
and impartially with this case. I take this view principally because
of the long passage of time and the trial judge's lack of involvement
in or knowledge of the case when the Wilson Walker firm had carriage.
In these circumstances it cannot be reasonably contended that the
trial judge could not remain impartial in the case. The mere fact that
his name appears on the letterhead of some correspondence from over a
decade ago would not lead a reasonable person to believe that he would
either consciously or unconsciously favour his former firm's former
client. It is simply not realistic to think that a judge would throw
off his mantle of impartiality, ignore his oath of office and favour a
client - about whom he knew nothing - of a firm that he left six years
earlier and that no longer acts for the client, in a case involving
events from over a decade ago.
(emphasis added)
[19] Justice Webb had no involvement with any matter
involving Mr. Amos while he was a member of Patterson Palmer or
Patterson Law, nor does Mr. Amos suggest that he did. Mr. Amos made it
clear during the hearing of this matter that the only reason for the
alleged conflict for Justice Webb was that he was a member of
Patterson Law and Patterson Palmer. This is simply not enough for
Justice Webb to be disqualified. Any involvement of Mr. Amos with
Patterson Law while Justice Webb was a member of that firm would have
had to occur over 10 years ago and even longer for the time when he
was a member of Patterson Palmer. In addition to the lack of any
involvement on his part with any matter or dispute that Mr. Amos had
with Patterson Law or Patterson Palmer (which in and of itself is
sufficient to dispose of this matter), the length of time since
Justice Webb was a member of Patterson Law or Patterson Palmer would
also result in the same finding – that there is no conflict in Justice
Webb hearing this appeal.
[20] Similarly in R. v. Bagot, 2000 MBCA 30, 145 Man. R.
(2d) 260, the Manitoba Court of Appeal found that there was no
reasonable apprehension of bias when a judge, who had been a member of
the law firm that had been retained by the accused, had no involvement
with the accused while he was a lawyer with that firm.
[21] In Del Zotto v. Minister of National Revenue, [2000] 4
F.C. 321, 257 N.R. 96, this court did find that there would be a
reasonable apprehension of bias where a judge, who while he was a
lawyer, had recorded time on a matter involving the same person who
was before that judge. However, this case can be distinguished as
Justice Webb did not have any time recorded on any files involving Mr.
Amos while he was a lawyer with Patterson Palmer or Patterson Law.
[22] Mr. Amos also included with his submissions a CD. He
stated in his affidavit dated June 26, 2017 that there is a “true copy
of an American police surveillance wiretap entitled 139” on this CD.
He has also indicated that he has “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”. Since he has indicated that this is an “American
police surveillance wiretap”, this is a matter for the American law
enforcement authorities and cannot create, as Mr. Amos suggests, a
conflict of interest for any judge to whom he provides a copy.
[23] As a result, there is no conflict or reasonable
apprehension of bias for Justice Webb and therefore, no reason for him
to recuse himself.
[24] Mr. Amos alleged that Justice Near’s past professional
experience with the government created a “quasi-conflict” in deciding
the cross-appeal. Mr. Amos provided no details and Justice Near
confirmed that he had no prior knowledge of the matters alleged in the
Claim. Justice Near sees no reason to recuse himself.
[25] Insofar as it is possible to glean the basis for Mr.
Amos’ allegations against Justice Gleason, it appears that he alleges
that she is incapable of hearing this appeal because he says he wrote
a letter to Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien in 2004. At that time,
both Justice Gleason and Mr. Mulroney were partners in the law firm
Ogilvy Renault, LLP. The letter in question, which is rude and angry,
begins with “Hey you two Evil Old Smiling Bastards” and “Re: me suing
you and your little dogs too”. There is no indication that the letter
was ever responded to or that a law suit was ever commenced by Mr.
Amos against Mr. Mulroney. In the circumstances, there is no reason
for Justice Gleason to recuse herself as the letter in question does
not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.
III. Issue
[26] The issue on the cross-appeal is as follows: Did the
Judge err in setting aside the Prothonotary’s Order striking the Claim
in its entirety without leave to amend and in determining that Mr.
Amos’ allegation that the RCMP barred him from the New Brunswick
legislature in 2004 was capable of supporting a cause of action?
IV. Analysis
A. Standard of Review
[27] Following the Judge’s decision to set aside the
Prothonotary’s Order, this Court revisited the standard of review to
be applied to discretionary decisions of prothonotaries and decisions
made by judges on appeals of prothonotaries’ decisions in Hospira
Healthcare Corp. v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, 2016 FCA 215,
402 D.L.R. (4th) 497 [Hospira]. In Hospira, a five-member panel of
this Court replaced the Aqua-Gem standard of review with that
articulated in Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235
[Housen]. As a result, it is no longer appropriate for the Federal
Court to conduct a de novo review of a discretionary order made by a
prothonotary in regard to questions vital to the final issue of the
case. Rather, a Federal Court judge can only intervene on appeal if
the prothonotary made an error of law or a palpable and overriding
error in determining a question of fact or question of mixed fact and
law (Hospira at para. 79). Further, this Court can only interfere with
a Federal Court judge’s review of a prothonotary’s discretionary order
if the judge made an error of law or palpable and overriding error in
determining a question of fact or question of mixed fact and law
(Hospira at paras. 82-83).
[28] In the case at bar, the Judge substituted his own
assessment of Mr. Amos’ Claim for that of the Prothonotary. This Court
must look to the Prothonotary’s Order to determine whether the Judge
erred in law or made a palpable and overriding error in choosing to
interfere.
B. Did the Judge err in interfering with the
Prothonotary’s Order?
[29] The Prothontoary’s Order accepted the following
paragraphs from the Crown’s submissions as the basis for striking the
Claim in its entirety without leave to amend:
17. Within the 96 paragraph Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff
addresses his complaint in paragraphs 14-24, inclusive. All but four
of those paragraphs are dedicated to an incident that occurred in 2006
in and around the legislature in New Brunswick. The jurisdiction of
the Federal Court does not extend to Her Majesty the Queen in right of
the Provinces. In any event, the Plaintiff hasn’t named the Province
or provincial actors as parties to this action. The incident alleged
does not give rise to a justiciable cause of action in this Court.
(…)
21. The few paragraphs that directly address the Defendant
provide no details as to the individuals involved or the location of
the alleged incidents or other details sufficient to allow the
Defendant to respond. As a result, it is difficult or impossible to
determine the causes of action the Plaintiff is attempting to advance.
A generous reading of the Statement of Claim allows the Defendant to
only speculate as to the true and/or intended cause of action. At
best, the Plaintiff’s action may possibly be summarized as: he
suspects he is barred from the House of Commons.
[footnotes omitted].
[30] The Judge determined that he could not strike the Claim
on the same jurisdictional basis as the Prothonotary. The Judge noted
that the Federal Court has jurisdiction over claims based on the
liability of Federal Crown servants like the RCMP and that the actors
who barred Mr. Amos from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004
included the RCMP (Federal Court Judgment at para. 23). In considering
the viability of these allegations de novo, the Judge identified
paragraph 14 of the Claim as containing “some precision” as it
identifies the date of the event and a RCMP officer acting as
Aide-de-Camp to the Lieutenant Governor (Federal Court Judgment at
para. 27).
[31] The Judge noted that the 2004 event could support a
cause of action in the tort of misfeasance in public office and
identified the elements of the tort as excerpted from Meigs v. Canada,
2013 FC 389, 431 F.T.R. 111:
[13] As in both the cases of Odhavji Estate v Woodhouse, 2003 SCC
69 [Odhavji] and Lewis v Canada, 2012 FC 1514 [Lewis], I must
determine whether the plaintiffs’ statement of claim pleads each
element of the alleged tort of misfeasance in public office:
a) The public officer must have engaged in deliberate and unlawful
conduct in his or her capacity as public officer;
b) The public officer must have been aware both that his or her
conduct was unlawful and that it was likely to harm the plaintiff; and
c) There must be an element of bad faith or dishonesty by the public
officer and knowledge of harm alone is insufficient to conclude that a
public officer acted in bad faith or dishonestly.
Odhavji, above, at paras 23, 24 and 28
(Federal Court Judgment at para. 28).
[32] The Judge determined that Mr. Amos disclosed sufficient
material facts to meet the elements of the tort of misfeasance in
public office because the actors, who barred him from the New
Brunswick legislature in 2004, including the RCMP, did so for
“political reasons” (Federal Court Judgment at para. 29).
[33] This Court’s discussion of the sufficiency of pleadings
in Merchant Law Group v. Canada (Revenue Agency), 2010 FCA 184, 321
D.L.R (4th) 301 is particularly apt:
…When pleading bad faith or abuse of power, it is not enough to
assert, baldly, conclusory phrases such as “deliberately or
negligently,” “callous disregard,” or “by fraud and theft did steal”.
“The bare assertion of a conclusion upon which the court is called
upon to pronounce is not an allegation of material fact”. Making bald,
conclusory allegations without any evidentiary foundation is an abuse
of process…
To this, I would add that the tort of misfeasance in public office
requires a particular state of mind of a public officer in carrying
out the impunged action, i.e., deliberate conduct which the public
officer knows to be inconsistent with the obligations of his or her
office. For this tort, particularization of the allegations is
mandatory. Rule 181 specifically requires particularization of
allegations of “breach of trust,” “wilful default,” “state of mind of
a person,” “malice” or “fraudulent intention.”
(at paras. 34-35, citations omitted).
[34] Applying the Housen standard of review to the
Prothonotary’s Order, we are of the view that the Judge interfered
absent a legal or palpable and overriding error.
[35] The Prothonotary determined that Mr. Amos’ Claim
disclosed no reasonable claim and was fundamentally vexatious on the
basis of jurisdictional concerns and the absence of material facts to
ground a cause of action. Paragraph 14 of the Claim, which addresses
the 2004 event, pleads no material facts as to how the RCMP officer
engaged in deliberate and unlawful conduct, knew that his or her
conduct was unlawful and likely to harm Mr. Amos, and acted in bad
faith. While the Claim alleges elsewhere that Mr. Amos was barred from
the New Brunswick legislature for political and/or malicious reasons,
these allegations are not particularized and are directed against
non-federal actors, such as the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Legislative
Assembly of New Brunswick and the Fredericton Police Force. As such,
the Judge erred in determining that Mr. Amos’ allegation that the RCMP
barred him from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004 was capable of
supporting a cause of action.
[36] In our view, the Claim is made up entirely of bare
allegations, devoid of any detail, such that it discloses no
reasonable cause of action within the jurisdiction of the Federal
Courts. Therefore, the Judge erred in interfering to set aside the
Prothonotary’s Order striking the claim in its entirety. Further, we
find that the Prothonotary made no error in denying leave to amend.
The deficiencies in Mr. Amos’ pleadings are so extensive such that
amendment could not cure them (see Collins at para. 26).
V. Conclusion
[37] For the foregoing reasons, we would allow the Crown’s
cross-appeal, with costs, setting aside the Federal Court Judgment,
dated January 25, 2016 and restoring the Prothonotary’s Order, dated
November 12, 2015, which struck Mr. Amos’ Claim in its entirety
without leave to amend.
"Wyman W. Webb"
J.A.
"David G. Near"
J.A.
"Mary J.L. Gleason"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
A CROSS-APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SOUTHCOTT DATED
JANUARY 25, 2016; DOCKET NUMBER T-1557-15.
DOCKET:
A-48-16
STYLE OF CAUSE:
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
PLACE OF HEARING:
Fredericton,
New Brunswick
DATE OF HEARING:
May 24, 2017
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:
WEBB J.A.
NEAR J.A.
GLEASON J.A.
DATED:
October 30, 2017
APPEARANCES:
David Raymond Amos
For The Appellant / respondent on cross-appeal
(on his own behalf)
Jan Jensen
For The Respondent / appELLANT ON CROSS-APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Nathalie G. Drouin
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For The Respondent / APPELLANT ON CROSS-APPEAL
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 17:25:46 -0400
Subject: YO "Misandry Today" your pal "Thomas" or anyone else can go
to the 52 minute mark of this hearing held about 2 weeks before Barry
Winters was finally arrested and listen to me mention Patrick Doran's
malicous work within Encylopedia Dramatic
To: Misandry Today <misandry.happens@gmail.com>, patrick_doran1
<patrick_doran1@hotmail.com>, thomas <thomas@1000notes.com>
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
<cps@calgarypolice.ca>, pol7163 <pol7163@calgarypolice.ca>, themayor
<themayor@calgary.ca>
https://archive.org/details/
Then his fellow Trolls should check Doran's work in ED
https://encyclopediadramatica.
Nobody can deny that he provides the entire text of my lawsuit srcoll
down to Paragraph 75 to reqd the following statement AGAIN Do you not
see Doran and Wnters named???
75. The Plaintiff states that the RCMP is well aware of the libel,
sexual harassment, and death threats practiced against his family that
have been published on the Internet since 2005 by fans (Trolls) who
supported Byron Prior. Four Trolls who live in Alberta are Barry
Winters, Dean Roger Ray, Eddy Achtem and Patrick Doran They have many
“Anonymous” cohorts throughout Canada, the USA and the United Kingdom.
The actions of these Trolls created an important example of
cyberbullying. Law enforcement officials have ignored these Trolls
because of the Plaintiff’s standing as a whistleblower exposing
corruption within the justice system. The Plaintiff is aware that
several people complained about their actions over the years. In fact
the mother of Dean Roger Ray recently her indignation in Barry
Winter’s blog. Complaints about Barry Winters can be seen on the
Internet by Glen Canning and Professor Kris Wells, two politically
well-connected people who complain of cyberbullying often. Proof the
Edmonton Police Force (EPS), RCMP, FBI and police in the UK have been
ignoring the Plaintiff’s complaints about these Trolls can also viewed
on the Internet. The Plaintiff fought fire with fire but did so in a
legal fashion and kept the police fully informed of his actions. The
Plaintiff was successful in causing numerous egregious videos and
several blogs to be taken down after doing his best to find out who
the “Anonymous” people were and reporting them. He saved all the blogs
and videos published about his family before the malice was removed
from public view. Three Trolls who continue to attack his family and
others are Dean Roger Ray, Barry Winters and one government employee.
A member of the legal dept. of Edmonton tried to claim that the
Plaintiff was Barry Winters then complained to the EPS about the
Plaintiff’s questions about her incompetence. Professor Kris Wells,
who was associated with the Police Commission of Edmonton and Glen
Canning, who lost his daughter to cyberbullying, said nothing. They
were content that the Plaintiff managed to convince Google’s lawyers
to remove one of Barry Winters’s blogs on October 23, 2014 and say
nothing about his blog within WordPress that the Troll uses to
continue his libel of them and their friends. Instead Glen Canning
slandered the Plaintiff within Twitter after Kris Wells sent the
Plaintiff an email stating his lawyer had advised him to ignore Barry
Winters and his blogs.
BTW the DavidRayAmos Troll attacking using my name is not me. I was
not aware of Doran in ED until Barry Winters blogged about it
I suspect it was the same Troll who created the ED webpage that you
used to source your bullshit about me from
The reason I CC'd the universe and many cops in particular is because
I am filing a lawsuit about the shit.
In a nutshell Doran is a shill for the Calgary cops Get it yet?
On 3/31/18, Misandry Today <misandry.happens@gmail.com> wrote:
> David,
>
> Thank you for directing your email to me specifically so I can respond.
>
> Please do not take my lack of response to your prior emails as a form of
> disrespect, its not. However, after reading your prior emails, I was unable
> to decipher who your message was specifically directed it.
>
> Was there something specific you wanted to discuss? Or were you just
> notifying me on the links and info included in this most recent email?
>
> Also, is there a reason the known universe is CC'd?
>
> Again, I'm not being disrespectful, but I know very little about you and
> your history with Patrick Doran, other than there was some sort of feud.
>
> Can you provide me some history and context?
>
> Respectfully,
> DDJ
>
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 7:37 AM, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> http://davidraymondamos3.
>> email-suit.html
>>
>>
>> Saturday, 31 March 2018
>> Yo "Misandry Today" does this email suit a noname Yankee paralegal's
>> demand of me that he quickly deleted?
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?
>>
>>
>> LEGALLY PWNED: MISANDRY TODAY (DDJ)
>> 99 views
>> 15 1 Share
>>
>> Mad Shangi
>> Published on Mar 29, 2018
>>
>>
>> ---------- Original message ----------
>> From: Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.
>> Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 13:32:01 +0000
>> Subject: Automatic reply: A Neo-Nazi estate dispute being overseen by
>> two Jewish groups Perhaps Shimon Fogel should talk to his lawyer or
>> the Attorney General Blais or his Number # fan Mr Baconfat???
>> To: motomaniac333@gmail.com
>>
>> Thank you for writing to the Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, Member
>> of Parliament for Vancouver Granville.
>>
>> This message is to acknowledge that we are in receipt of your email.
>> Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence, there
>> may be a delay in processing your email. Rest assured that your
>> message will be carefully reviewed.
>>
>> To help us address your concerns more quickly, please include within
>> the body of your email your full name, address, and postal code.
>>
>> Please note that your message will be forwarded to the Department of
>> Justice if it concerns topics pertaining to the member's role as the
>> Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. For all future
>> correspondence addressed to the Minister of Justice, please write
>> directly to the Department of Justice at
>> mcu@justice.gc.ca
>>
>> Thank you
>>
>> -------------------
>>
>> Merci d'?crire ? l'honorable Jody Wilson-Raybould, d?put?e de
>> Vancouver Granville.
>>
>> Le pr?sent message vise ? vous informer que nous avons re?u votre
>> courriel. En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de
>> correspondance, il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de
>> votre courriel. Sachez que votre message sera examin? attentivement.
>>
>> Pour nous aider ? r?pondre ? vos pr?occupations plus rapidement,
>> veuillez inclure dans le corps de votre courriel votre nom complet,
>> votre adresse et votre code postal.
>>
>> Veuillez prendre note que votre message sera transmis au minist?re de
>> la Justice s'il porte sur des sujets qui rel?vent du r?le de la
>> d?put?e en tant que ministre de la Justice et procureure g?n?rale du
>> Canada. Pour toute correspondance future adress?e ? la ministre de la
>> Justice, veuillez ?crire directement au minist?re de la Justice ?
>> mcu@justice.gc.ca ou appelez au 613-957-4222.
>>
>> Merci
>>
>>
>> ---------- Original message ----------
>> From: Newsroom <newsroom@globeandmail.com>
>> Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 13:32:13 +0000
>> Subject: Automatic reply: A Neo-Nazi estate dispute being overseen by
>> two Jewish groups Perhaps Shimon Fogel should talk to his lawyer or
>> the Attorney General Blais or his Number # fan Mr Baconfat???
>> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>
>> Thank you for contacting The Globe and Mail.
>>
>> If your matter pertains to newspaper delivery or you require technical
>> support, please contact our Customer Service department at
>> 1-800-387-5400 or send an email to customerservice@globeandmail.
>>
>> If you are reporting a factual error please forward your email to
>> publiceditor@globeandmail.com<
>>
>> Letters to the Editor can be sent to letters@globeandmail.com
>>
>> This is the correct email address for requests for news coverage and
>> press releases.
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------- Original message ----------
>> From: "Hon.Ralph.Goodale (PS/SP)" <Hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca>
>> Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 13:32:08 +0000
>> Subject: Automatic reply: A Neo-Nazi estate dispute being overseen by
>> two Jewish groups Perhaps Shimon Fogel should talk to his lawyer or
>> the Attorney General Blais or his Number # fan Mr Baconfat???
>> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>
>> Merci d'avoir ?crit ? l'honorable Ralph Goodale, ministre de la
>> S?curit? publique et de la Protection civile.
>> En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de la correspondance
>> adress?e au ministre, veuillez prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir un
>> retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Soyez assur? que votre
>> message sera examin? avec attention.
>> Merci!
>> L'Unit? de la correspondance minist?rielle
>> S?curit? publique Canada
>> *********
>>
>> Thank you for writing to the Honourable Ralph Goodale, Minister of
>> Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.
>> Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence
>> addressed to the Minister, please note there could be a delay in
>> processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be
>> carefully reviewed.
>> Thank you!
>> Ministerial Correspondence Unit
>> Public Safety Canada
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------- Original message ----------
>> From: "DIXON, MICHAEL" <michael.dixon@blakes.com>
>> Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 13:32:07 +0000
>> Subject: Automatic reply: A Neo-Nazi estate dispute being overseen by
>> two Jewish groups Perhaps Shimon Fogel should talk to his lawyer or
>> the Attorney General Blais or his Number # fan Mr Baconfat???
>> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>
>> I am out of the office, returning Monday, April 9th, and will have
>> limited access to email.
>>
>> I will respond to your message as soon as I am able to.
>>
>> If you require immediate assistance, please contact my assistant,
>> Renee Dubeau, at 403-663-2261.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Michael Dixon
>> Partner
>> michael.dixon@blakes.com<
>> Dir: 403-260-9786
>> Cell: 403-978-8880
>>
>>
>> ____________
>>
>> [cid:image68665e.GIF@d39c98cd.
>>
>>
>>
>> Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
>> 855 - 2nd Street S.W., Suite 3500, Calgary AB T2P 4J8
>> Tel: 403-260-9600 Fax: 403-260-9700
>> blakes.com<http://blakes.com> | Twitter<http://twitter.com/
>> | Unsubscribe<http://www.blakes.
>> Bulletins/Pages/unsubscribe.
>>
>>
>> Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP | Barristers & Solicitors | Patent &
>> Trade-mark Agents
>> This email communication is CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. If
>> you are not the intended recipient, please notify me at the telephone
>> number shown above or by return email and delete this communication
>> and any copy immediately. Thank you.
>>
>>
>> L'information paraissant dans ce message électronique est
>> CONFIDENTIELLE. Si ce message vous est parvenu par erreur, veuillez
>> immédiatement m’en aviser par téléphone ou par courriel et en détruire
>> toute copie. Merci.
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------- Original message ----------
>> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>> Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 09:31:52 -0400
>> Subject: Fwd: A Neo-Nazi estate dispute being overseen by two Jewish
>> groups Perhaps Shimon Fogel should talk to his lawyer or the Attorney
>> General Blais or his Number # fan Mr Baconfat???
>> To: misandry.happens@gmail.com, thomas <thomas@1000notes.com>,
>> washington field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, "Boston.Mail"
>> <Boston.Mail@ic.fbi.gov>, "Kevin.leahy" <Kevin.leahy@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>,
>> patrick_doran1 <patrick_doran1@hotmail.com>, "Paul.Lynch"
>> <Paul.Lynch@edmontonpolice.ca>
>> cps <cps@calgarypolice.ca>, eps <eps@edmontonpolice.ca>, jkee
>> <jkee@google.com>, DDrummond <DDrummond@google.com>,
>> brenda.lucki@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, "hon.ralph.goodale"
>> <hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca>, "Roshan.Pinto"
>> <Roshan.Pinto@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, ethics-ethique
>> <ethics-ethique@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>> <Liliana.Longo@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>
>> <jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca>, "bill.pentney"
>> <bill.pentney@justice.gc.ca>, "Nathalie.Drouin"
>> <Nathalie.Drouin@justice.gc.ca
>> <brian.gallant@gnb.ca>, "serge.rousselle" <serge.rousselle@gnb.ca>,
>> "Dominic.Cardy" <Dominic.Cardy@gnb.ca>, "David.Coon"
>> <David.Coon@gnb.ca>, oldmaison <oldmaison@yahoo.com>, andre
>> <andre@jafaust.com>, jbosnitch <jbosnitch@gmail.com>, newsroom
>> <newsroom@globeandmail.ca>, gopublic <gopublic@cbc.ca>, nmoore
>> <nmoore@bellmedia.ca>, "David.Akin" <David.Akin@globalnews.ca>,
>> "steve.murphy" <steve.murphy@ctv.ca>, "martin.gaudet"
>> <martin.gaudet@fredericton.ca>
>> <martine.turcotte@bell.ca>, "leanne.murray"
>> <leanne.murray@mcinnescooper.
>> "Jody.Wilson-Raybould" <Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.
>> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
>> Mark.Potok@splcenter.org, PAUL.SCHABAS@blakes.com, "Furey, John"
>> <jfurey@nbpower.com>, IRIS.FISCHER@blakes.com,
>> michael.dixon@blakes.com
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Mark Potok <Mark.Potok@splcenter.org>
>> Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 13:16:31 +0000
>> Subject: Re: Hey Arty Baby if you use another man's words you really
>> should say his name or are you just like your blogging butt buddy Mr
>> Baconfat?
>> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>
>> Take me off your list now, David, or I'll be forced to take some action.
>> Thank you.
>>
>>
>> On 9/3/13 6:25 PM, "David Amos" <motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > No Way José! You zionist must have figured out by now that I want to
>> > argue your lawyers in my stomping grounds.
>> >
>> > There is noway in Hell a mindless provincial Attorney General and two
>> > sets of questionable Jewhish grooups have any sort of mandate to set
>> > public policy in Canada for the benefit of sneaky Yankees in the Deep
>> > South
>> >
>> > Furthermore Your buddy Fogel already threathened litigation against me
>> > before talking the the former BLOC MP who is now his General Counsel.
>> > He and his buddy Irwin Cotler should have reviewed the stuff I sent
>> > them before we all ran in the election of the el38th Parliament while
>> > the Attorney General of New Brunswick and cohorts were busy illegally
>> > banishing me from Legislative properties
>> >
>> > Are we clear?
>> >
>> > If not read the pdf files you already have that Fogel and the boys
>> > admitted receiving and found so offensive
>> >
>> > Veritas Vincit
>> > David Raymond Amos
>> > 902 800 0369
>> >
>> > On 9/3/13, Mark Potok <Mark.Potok@splcenter.org> wrote:
>> >> Unsubscribe me from your emails, please.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 9/2/13 9:17 PM, "David Amos" <motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Tut Tut Tut
>> >>>
>> >>> http://www.radicalpress.com/?
>> >>>
>> >>> See how easy it is to be ethical? And this ain't even my blog
>> >>>
>> >>> http://thedavidamosrant.
>> sheds-bankers-shackles-b
>> >>> y.
>> >>> html
>> >>>
>> >>> Tuesday, 27 August 2013
>> >>> Hungary Sheds Bankers' Shackles | By Ronald L. Ray
>> >>>
>> >>> http://americanfreepress.net/?
>> >>>
>> >>> Hungary Sheds Bankers' Shackles
>> >>> August 23, 2013 AFP
>> >>>
>> >>> • International Monetary Fund told to vacate the country; nation now
>> >>> issuing debt-free money
>> >>>
>> >>> By Ronald L. Ray
>> >>>
>> >>> Hungary is making history of the first order.
>> >>>
>> >>> Not since the 1930s in Germany has a major European country dared to
>> >>> escape from the clutches of the Rothschild-controlled international
>> >>> banking cartels. This is stupendous news that should encourage
>> >>> nationalist patriots worldwide to increase the fight for freedom from
>> >>> financial tyranny.
>> >>>
>> >>> Already in 2011, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán promised to
>> >>> serve justice on his socialist predecessors, who sold the nation's
>> >>> people into unending debt slavery under the lash of the International
>> >>> Monetary Fund (IMF) and the terrorist state of Israel. Those earlier
>> >>> administrations were riddled with Israelis in high places, to the
>> >>> fury
>> >>> of the masses, who finally elected Orbán's Fidesz party in response.
>> >>>
>> >>> According to a report on the German-language website "National
>> >>> Journal," Orbán has now moved to unseat the usurers from their
>> >>> throne.
>> >>> The popular, nationalistic prime minister told the IMF that Hungary
>> >>> neither wants nor needs further "assistance" from that proxy of the
>> >>> Rothschild-owned Federal Reserve Bank. No longer will Hungarians be
>> >>> forced to pay usurious interest to private, unaccountable central
>> >>> bankers.
>> >>>
>> >>> Instead, the Hungarian government has assumed sovereignty over its
>> >>> own
>> >>> currency and now issues money debt free, as it is needed. The results
>> >>> have been nothing short of remarkable. The nation's economy, formerly
>> >>> staggering under deep indebtedness, has recovered rapidly and by
>> >>> means
>> >>> not seen since National Socialist Germany.
>> >>>
>> >>> The Hungarian Economic Ministry announced that it has, thanks to a
>> >>> "disciplined budget policy," repaid on August 12, 2013, the remaining
>> >>> €2.2B owed to the IMF—well before the March 2014 due date. Orbán
>> >>> declared: "Hungary enjoys the trust of investors," by which is not
>> >>> meant the IMF, the Fed or any other tentacle of the Rothschild
>> >>> financial empire. Rather, he was referring to investors who produce
>> >>> something in Hungary for Hungarians and cause true economic growth.
>> >>> This is not the "paper prosperity" of plutocratic pirates, but the
>> >>> sort of production that actually employs people and improves their
>> >>> lives.
>> >>>
>> >>> With Hungary now free from the shackles of servitude to debt slavers,
>> >>> it is no wonder that the president of the Hungarian central bank,
>> >>> operated by the government for the public welfare and not private
>> >>> enrichment, has demanded that the IMF close its offices in that
>> >>> ancient European land. In addition, the state attorney general,
>> >>> echoing Iceland's efforts, has brought charges against the last three
>> >>> previous prime ministers because of the criminal amount of debt into
>> >>> which they plunged the nation.
>> >>>
>> >>> The only step remaining, which would completely destroy the power of
>> >>> the banksters in Hungary, is for that country to implement a barter
>> >>> system for foreign exchange, as existed in Germany under the National
>> >>> Socialists and exists today in the Brazil, Russia, India, China and
>> >>> South Africa, or BRICS, international economic coalition. And if the
>> >>> United States would follow the lead of Hungary, Americans could be
>> >>> freed from the usurers' tyranny and likewise hope for a return to
>> >>> peaceful prosperity.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Ronald L. Ray is a freelance author residing in the free state of
>> >>> Kansas. He is a descendant of several patriots of the American War
>> >>> for
>> >>> Independence.
>> >>>
>> >>> Posted by Contributing Advocate at 17:56
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: "Bell, Stewart (National Post)" <sbell@nationalpost.com>
>> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 19:09:50 -0500
>> Subject: Re: A Neo-Nazi estate dispute being overseen by two Jewish
>> groups Perhaps Shimon Fogel should talk to his lawyer or the Attorney
>> General Blais or his Number # fan Mr Baconfat???
>> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>
>> Unsubscribe
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: "SCHABAS, PAUL" <PAUL.SCHABAS@blakes.com>
>> Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 09:53:29 -0400
>> Subject: RE: A Neo-Nazi estate dispute being overseen by two Jewish
>> groups Perhaps Shimon Fogel should talk to his lawyer or the Attorney
>> General Blais or his Number # fan Mr Baconfat???
>> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>
>> Please remove me from your list.
>>
>> Paul Schabas
>> paul.schabas@blakes.com
>> 416.863.4274
>> 416.648.3396 (mobile)
>>
>>
>> Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
>> 199 Bay Street, Suite 4000, Toronto ON M5L 1A9
>> Tel: 416-863-2400 Fax: 416-863-2653
>> http://www.blakes.com | http://twitter.com/BlakesLaw
>>
>> Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP | Barristers & Solicitors | Patent &
>> Trade-mark Agents
>> This email communication is CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. If
>> you are not the intended recipient, please notify me at the telephone
>> number shown above or by return email and delete this communication
>> and any copy immediately. Thank you.
>>
>> L'information paraissant dans ce message électronique est
>> CONFIDENTIELLE. Si ce message vous est parvenu par erreur, veuillez
>> immédiatement m’en aviser par téléphone ou par courriel et en détruire
>> toute copie. Merci.
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: "FISCHER, IRIS" <IRIS.FISCHER@blakes.com>
>> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:01:35 -0400
>> Subject: Out of Office: The RCMP, CYBERTIP, UNICF, Beyond Borders care
>> about children??? Yea Right tell me another one EH Brian Murphy?
>> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>
>> Thank you for your message. I am currently on maternity leave. For
>> assistance, please contact my assistant Denelle Mohammed at
>> 416.863.2569 or denelle.mohammed@blakes.com, or my colleagues Ryder
>> Gilliland (ryder.gilliland@blakes.com) or Adam Lazier
>> (adam.lazier@blakes.com).
>>
>>
>>
>> Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP | Toronto
>> Tel: 416-863-2400 Fax: 416-863-2653
>> http://www.blakes.com/ | http://twitter.com/BlakesLaw/
>>
>> Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP | Barristers & Solicitors | Patent &
>> Trade-mark Agents
>> This email communication is CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. If
>> you are not the intended recipient, please notify me at the telephone
>> number shown above or by return email and delete this communication
>> and any copy immediately. Thank you.
>>
>> L'information paraissant dans ce message électronique est
>> CONFIDENTIELLE. Si ce message vous est parvenu par erreur, veuillez
>> immédiatement m’en aviser par téléphone ou par courriel et en détruire
>> toute copie. Merci.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David Amos [mailto:motomaniac333@gmail.
>> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 7:32 PM
>> To: Robert D. Holmes
>> Cc: Ivan Whitehall; Lauren Gazzola; johnhugheslawoffice@nb.aibn.
>> gleblanc; cleblond@smss.com; Maria LaHood; Marissam;
>> ezra.levant@sunmedia.ca; radical; t.wilson; sdllaw@gmail.com; Aliya
>> Hana Hussain; pastorscott; Michael Ratner; Fred.Wyshak;
>> justin.trudeau.a1; marco.morency; marc; marc.garneau.a1;
>> gregory.craig; gregor.robertson; George.Soros; sbell;
>> Mark.Potok@splcenter.org; sfogel@cija.ca; pgladman@bnaibrith.ca;
>> ABromberg@bnaibrith.ca; rmarceau@cija.ca; pam.maceachern@nelligan.ca;
>> BROOKS, NANCY; SCHABAS, PAUL; echerniak@lerners.ca;
>> richard.cohen@splcenter.org; henry.brown@gowlings.com;
>> staleyr@bennettjones.ca; dodged; phoward; paul@paulfromm.com;
>> Morris.Dees@splcenter.org; Jeff Saikaley; michael.coren; Robert.
>> Jones; David Amos; bernadine.chapman; john.warr; roger.l.brown;
>> Ian.Shardlow; oldmaison; andre; danny.copp; Leanne.Fitch
>> Subject: Re: A Neo-Nazi estate dispute being overseen by two Jewish
>> groups Perhaps Shimon Fogel should talk to his lawyer or the Attorney
>> General Blais or his Number # fan Mr Baconfat???
>>
>> Ditto to you too Holmes Remember the documents I sent you in the
>> Conrad Blck VS Breedon and the Boyz matter? Well MURDER IS A CAPITAL
>> CRIME CORRECT?
>>
>> On 8/22/13, Robert D. Holmes <rdholmes@mhklaw.com> wrote:
>> > Ditto -- Please remove me from all of this.
>> >
>> > HOLMES & KING
>> > per:
>> > Robert D. Holmes, Q.C.
>> > 1300 - 1111 West Georgia Street
>> > Vancouver BC Canada V6E 4M3
>> > Telephone 604-681-1310
>> > Fax 604-681-1307
>> > *******************
>> > The information contained in this transmission is privileged and/or
>> > confidential information intended for the use of the individual or
>> > entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended
>> > recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
>> > distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
>> >
>> > *******************
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Ivan Whitehall [mailto:IWhitehall@plaideurs.
>> > Sent: August 22, 2013 4:00 PM
>> > To: Lauren Gazzola
>> > Cc: David Amos; johnhugheslawoffice@nb.aibn.
>> > cleblond@smss.com; Maria LaHood; Marissam; ezra.levant@sunmedia.ca;
>> > radical; t.wilson; sdllaw@gmail.com; Aliya Hana Hussain; pastorscott;
>> > Michael Ratner; Fred.Wyshak; justin.trudeau.a1; marco.morency; marc;
>> > marc.garneau.a1; gregory.craig; gregor.robertson; George.Soros; sbell;
>> > Mark.Potok@splcenter.org; sfogel@cija.ca; pgladman@bnaibrith.ca;
>> > ABromberg@bnaibrith.ca; rmarceau@cija.ca; pam.maceachern@nelligan.ca;
>> > Robert D. Holmes; Nancy.brooks@blakes.com; paul.schabas@blakes.com;
>> > echerniak@lerners.ca; richard.cohen@splcenter.org;
>> > henry.brown@gowlings.com; staleyr@bennettjones.ca; dodged; phoward;
>> > paul@paulfromm.com; Morris.Dees@splcenter.org; Jeff Saikaley;
>> > michael.coren; Robert. Jones; David Amos; bernadine.chapman;
>> > john.warr; roger.l.brown; Ian.Shardlow; oldmaison; andre; danny.copp;
>> > Leanne.Fitch
>> > Subject: Re: A Neo-Nazi estate dispute being overseen by two Jewish
>> > groups Perhaps Shimon Fogel should talk to his lawyer or the Attorney
>> > General Blais or his Number # fan Mr Baconfat???
>> >
>> > Please remove me from the chain. Thank you.
>> >
>> > from the I Phone of
>> > I. G. Whitehall, QC, JD
>> >
>> >
>> > This e-mail may contain confidential or privileged information. If you
>> > are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately. Thank
>> > you.
>> > Ce courriel pourrait contenir des renseignements confidentiels ou
>> > privilégiés. Si vous n'êtes pas le véritable destinataire, veuillez
>> > nous en aviser immédiatement. Merci.
>> >
>> > On 2013-08-22, at 17:25, "Lauren Gazzola" <LGazzola@ccrjustice.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Ditto - please remove me immediately
>> >
>> > Lauren Gazzola | Communications Associate - Publications Center for
>> > Constitutional Rights
>> > 666 Broadway, 7th Floor
>> > New York, NY 10012
>> > p 212-614-6480 | e LGazzola@ccrjustice.org www.ccrjustice.org Follow
>> > @theCCR on Twitter and "Center for Constitutional Rights" on Facebook
>> >
>> > "Animals matter. Animals matter because they not only live, but have
>> > lives-lives that we have every reason to believe are filled with joy
>> > and pain." - Jonathan Safran Foer
>> >
>> > It's not food. It's violence.
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: David Amos [mailto:motomaniac333@gmail.
>> > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 5:21 PM
>> > To: johnhugheslawoffice@nb.aibn.
>> > Maria LaHood; Marissam; ezra.levant@sunmedia.ca; radical; t.wilson;
>> > sdllaw@gmail.com; Aliya Hana Hussain; Lauren Gazzola; pastorscott;
>> > Michael Ratner; Fred.Wyshak; justin.trudeau.a1; marco.morency; marc;
>> > marc.garneau.a1; gregory.craig; gregor.robertson; George.Soros; sbell;
>> > Mark.Potok@splcenter.org; sfogel@cija.ca; iwhitehall@plaideurs.ca;
>> > pgladman@bnaibrith.ca; ABromberg@bnaibrith.ca; rmarceau@cija.ca;
>> > pam.maceachern@nelligan.ca; rdholmes@mhklaw.com;
>> > Nancy.brooks@blakes.com; paul.schabas@blakes.com;
>> > echerniak@lerners.ca; richard.cohen@splcenter.org;
>> > henry.brown@gowlings.com; staleyr@bennettjones.ca; dodged; phoward;
>> > paul@paulfromm.com; Morris.Dees@splcenter.org; jsaikaley@plaideurs.ca;
>> > michael.coren
>> > Cc: Robert. Jones; David Amos; bernadine.chapman; john.warr;
>> > roger.l.brown; Ian.Shardlow; oldmaison; andre; danny.copp;
>> > Leanne.Fitch
>> > Subject: Re: A Neo-Nazi estate dispute being overseen by two Jewish
>> > groups Perhaps Shimon Fogel should talk to his lawyer or the Attorney
>> > General Blais or his Number # fan Mr Baconfat???
>> >
>> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> > From: Shimon Fogel <sfogel@cija.ca>
>> > Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 07:20:39 -0500
>> > Subject: Re: CBC says A Neo-Nazi estate dispute will be overseen by
>> > two Jewish groups and a very corrupt Attorney General???
>> > To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>> >
>> > I have no idea who you are or why you have decided to add me to your
>> > list of individuals receiving you messages. Please remove my name from
>> > your list-serve.
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> >
>> > SKF
>> >
>> > Shimon Koffler Fogel
>> > Centre for Israel & Jewish Affairs
>> > 613.234.8271 ext.240
>> >
>> > The Centre has a new look online. Visit cija.ca and let us know what
>> > you think!
>> >
>> > WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THIS ZIONIST'S MANY EVIL WORDS MR FOGEL???
>> >
>> > http://baconfat53.blogspot.ca/
>> >
>> > Monday, May 27, 2013
>> > Zionism,The David Amos Rant, and the Pederast!
>> > David Amos is a garden variety coward and anti-Semite. He hates
>> > Zionists. He proudly trumpets his hatred, vitriol, venom, and insane
>> > animus against Jews and Zionists. He proclaims his insane ideas that
>> > "Jewish bankers are trying to blow up the world's economy," on
>> "conspiracy theory computer web sites."
>> >
>> > Yes David Amos, I am a Zionist! I served in IDF as an exchange
>> > officer. I am in good company. Arik Sharon was a Zionist. Theodor
>> > Hertzl
>> was a Zionist.
>> > David Ben Gurion was a Zionist. British Foreign Secretary Harold
>> > Balfour was a Zionist. Sir Winston Churchill was a Zionist. Canadian
>> > Prime Minister Lester Pearson was a Zionist. United States President
>> > Harry Truman, was a Zionist.
>> >
>> > Diaspora Jews may, or may not be Zionists, but true Jews are Zionists.
>> >
>> > Ilikenewman, or young Owen from the UK, had David Amos pegged as a
>> > little man, a bigot, and called him out as the anti-Semite he is. He
>> > was
>> "outted"
>> > on You Tube as an insane little man, for the entire planet to see, and
>> > disdain. David then tried to call young Owen's school in the UK. Just
>> > like he called the Dean of my daughter's law school.
>> >
>> > Those people of Fredericton who see David Amos in their community now
>> > see him as the evil, pederast, anti-Semite hater, that he really is.
>> > The people of New Brunswick when the see his children or his daughter
>> > Laura, will see the racist pigs that David Amos raised them to be.
>> >
>> > Zionists risk their lives for a greater good. Zionists fight and die
>> > for a home for the world's Jewry, a bolt hole if you will, from evil
>> > anti-Semites of the planet like David Amos.
>> >
>> > Yes David I am a Zionist! You are a pedophile and your children racist
>> > animals like yourself. David who claim a past with Alberta, but the
>> > reality is that you couldn't find Alberta on a map of Canada, on the
>> > best day you ever had.
>> >
>> > David, my lad, how is that for some "criminal malice?"
>> >
>> > Posted by Seren at 8:50 PM
>> >
>> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> > From: "Murray, Leanne" <leanne.murray@mcinnescooper.
>> > Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 21:28:56 -0300
>> > Subject: Out of Office: CBC says A Neo-Nazi estate dispute will be
>> > overseen by two Jewish groups and a very corrupt Attorney General???
>> > To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>> >
>> > I will be out of the office on vacation from August 5 to 21, 2013,
>> > inclusive, and will have limited access to email during this time
>> > period.
>> >
>> > For immediate assistance from August 5 to 9, 2013, please contact Lynn
>> > Davidson at 453-0929 or by email at lynn.davidson@mcinnescooper.
>> > For immediate assistance from August 12 to 21, 2013, please contact
>> > Margie Loisel at 458-1034 or by email at
>> > margie.loisel@mcinnescooper.
>> soon as possible upon my return.
>> >
>> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> > From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>> > Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 21:28:42 -0300
>> > Subject: CBC says A Neo-Nazi estate dispute will be overseen by two
>> > Jewish groups and a very corrupt Attorney General???
>> > To: cdmacausland@stewartmckelvey.
>> > <Marc.Leger@gnb.ca>, "Marc.Litt" <Marc.Litt@bakermckenzie.com>,
>> > "marc.chiasson" <marc.chiasson@mcinnescooper.
>> > <marco.morency@petitcodiac.org
>> > rmarceau <rmarceau@cija.ca>
>> > Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
>> > <oldmaison@yahoo.com>, andre <andre@jafaust.com>, woodsideb
>> > <woodsideb@fredericton.ca>, "Leanne.Fitch"
>> > <Leanne.Fitch@fredericton.ca>, "leanne.murray"
>> > <leanne.murray@mcinnescooper.
>> >
>> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> > From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>> > Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 21:21:07 -0300
>> > Subject: CBC says A Neo-Nazi estate dispute will be overseen by two
>> > Jewish groups and a very corrupt Attorney General???
>> > To: tlsoontiens@stewartmckelvey.
>> > <bdysart@stewartmckelvey.com>, bdysart <bdysart@smss.com>, nrubin
>> > <nrubin@stewartmckelvey.com>
>> > Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
>> > <marie-claude.blais@gnb.ca>, "richard.cohen"
>> > <richard.cohen@splcenter.org>, "Richard.Williams"
>> > <Richard.Williams@gnb.ca>
>> >
>> > http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/case-
>> >
>> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> > From: Britt Dysart <bdysart@stewartmckelvey.com>
>> > Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 00:21:17 +0000
>> > Subject: Automatic reply: CBC says A Neo-Nazi estate dispute will be
>> > overseen by two Jewish groups and a very corrupt Attorney General???
>> > To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>> >
>> > I am out of the office in meetings much of today, and will not have
>> > regular access to my email or voicemail during this time. Please
>> > contact my assistant,Sonja at 506-443-9942 and she will direct your
>> > inquiry. Otherwise, I will contact you upon my return .
>> >
>> >
>> > ******************************
>> > This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is confidential
>> > and may be privileged. Any unauthorized distribution or disclosure is
>> prohibited.
>> > Disclosure to anyone other than the intended recipient does not
>> > constitute waiver of privilege. If you have received this e-mail in
>> > error, please notify us and delete it and any attachments from your
>> > computer system and records.
>> > ------------------------------
>> > Ce courriel (y compris les pièces jointes) est confidentiel et peut
>> > être privilégié. La distribution ou la divulgation non autorisée de
>> > ce courriel est interdite. Sa divulgation à toute personne autre que
>> > son destinataire ne constitue pas une renonciation de privilège. Si
>> > vous avez reçu ce courriel par erreur, veuillez nous aviser et
>> > éliminer ce courriel, ainsi que les pièces jointes, de votre système
>> informatique et de vos dossiers.
>> >
>> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> > From: Teri Soontiens <tlsoontiens@stewartmckelvey.
>> > Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 00:21:23 +0000
>> > Subject: Automatic reply: CBC says A Neo-Nazi estate dispute will be
>> > overseen by two Jewish groups and a very corrupt Attorney General???
>> > To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>> >
>> > I will be out of the office the afternoon of Wednesday, August 21,
>> > 2013. If your matter is urgent, please contact Chantal MacAusland at
>> > cdmacausland@stewartmckelvey.
>> >
>> >
>> > ******************************
>> > This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is confidential
>> > and may be privileged. Any unauthorized distribution or disclosure is
>> prohibited.
>> > Disclosure to anyone other than the intended recipient does not
>> > constitute waiver of privilege. If you have received this e-mail in
>> > error, please notify us and delete it and any attachments from your
>> > computer system and records.
>> > ------------------------------
>> > Ce courriel (y compris les pièces jointes) est confidentiel et peut
>> > être privilégié. La distribution ou la divulgation non autorisée de
>> > ce courriel est interdite. Sa divulgation à toute personne autre que
>> > son destinataire ne constitue pas une renonciation de privilège. Si
>> > vous avez reçu ce courriel par erreur, veuillez nous aviser et
>> > éliminer ce courriel, ainsi que les pièces jointes, de votre système
>> informatique et de vos dossiers.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: Charles LeBlond <cleblond@stewartmckelvey.com>
>> > Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 00:10:39 +0000
>> > Subject: Automatic reply: CBC says A Neo-Nazi estate dispute will be
>> > overseen by two Jewish groups and a very corrupt Attorney General???
>> > To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>> >
>> > I will be out of the office until Monday, August 26, 2013. I will
>> > have limted acess to emails. For immediate assistance, please contact
>> > my assistant Teri at tlsoontiens@stewartmckelvey.
>> > Je serai absent du bureau jusqu'au 26 août, 2013. J'aurai un accès
>> > limité à mes courriels. Pour une aide immédiate, communiquez avec mon
>> > assistante Teri à tlsoontiens@stewartmckelvey.
>> > .
>> >
>> >
>> > ******************************
>> > This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is confidential
>> > and may be privileged. Any unauthorized distribution or disclosure is
>> prohibited.
>> > Disclosure to anyone other than the intended recipient does not
>> > constitute waiver of privilege. If you have received this e-mail in
>> > error, please notify us and delete it and any attachments from your
>> > computer system and records.
>> > ------------------------------
>> > Ce courriel (y compris les pièces jointes) est confidentiel et peut
>> > être privilégié. La distribution ou la divulgation non autorisée de
>> > ce courriel est interdite. Sa divulgation à toute personne autre que
>> > son destinataire ne constitue pas une renonciation de privilège. Si
>> > vous avez reçu ce courriel par erreur, veuillez nous aviser et
>> > éliminer ce courriel, ainsi que les pièces jointes, de votre système
>> informatique et de vos dossiers.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> > From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <mailer-daemon@googlemail.com>
>> > Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 00:10:30 +0000
>> > Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
>> > To: motomaniac333@gmail.com
>> >
>> > Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:
>> >
>> > johnhugheslawoffice@nb.aibn.
>> >
>> > Technical details of permanent failure:
>> > Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the
>> > server for the recipient domain nb.aibn.com by mx.bellaliant.com.
>> > [4.59.182.109].
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 8/21/13, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Well who gets to oversee the malicious actions of the Attorney
>> >> General?
>> >>
>> >> Methinks it must be mean old me. Its a dirty job but soembody has to
>> >> do it. What say you? Please check the pdf file hereto attached and
>> >> argue me in writing if ya dare.
>> >>
>> >> The Chaisson lawyer is a partner in McInnes and Cooper thus he and
>> >> his partners have had Hard Copy of some of my concerns about illegal
>> >> probate actions practiced against the courts by lawyers for many
>> >> years. According to the CROWN Corp known as the CBC(They would not
>> >> conceal awful truths would they?) Chaisson dismissed Hughes'
>> >> suggestion that the Southern Poverty Law Centre is pulling strings as
>> >> "a conspiracy theory." "Where is the evidence? You can't just come to
>> >> court and throw wild accusations like that without any shred of
>> >> evidence," said Chiasson.
>> >>
>> >> Well trust that I have LOTS of evidence of conspiriacies practiced by
>> >> the Southern Poverty Law Center and legions of others that Chaisson
>> >> and his fellow lawyers should have disclosed to John Hughes by now.
>> >> Perhaps John Hughes should ignore his golfing buddies and finally
>> >> call me back. He and I should bury the hachet and he should simply
>> >> quit bullshitting me and ask me nicely for an affidavit and invite me
>> >> to court on September 10th. The amount being argued within the
>> >> McCorkell estate is chump change to me. However the Free Speech
>> >> issues and the right to privacy without state intervening on behalf
>> >> of unethicial "civil rights" groups certainly is not.
>> >>
>> >> The awful truth is the Attorney General is an elected public official.
>> >> The Blais lawyer from Moncton was appointed by her mindless party
>> >> leader David Alward to uphold the law not to break it for the benefit
>> >> of greedy Yankees. The self appointed Jewish Groups who claim to be
>> >> the gusrfians of our civil rights are no such thing that task belongs
>> >> to our Justice officials. The Jewish groups should have had no
>> >> standing in the mcCorkell matter whatsoever.Hell even Canadian Jewish
>> >> lawyers such as Ezzy Baby Levant and Karen Selick agreed with me very
>> >> publicly. To watch a corrupt Attorney General and her mindless
>> >> minions side with a couple of sneaky Yankee lawyers was truly comical
>> >> indeed but to see the Court of the Queen's Bench allow the nonsense
>> >> of it all was way beyond ridiculous.
>> >>
>> >> How will the ordinary folk of New Brunswick have any idea what joke
>> >> the province may become over this frivolous action if the CBC and
>> >> their media buddies do not duly inform them of all sides of the
>> >> matter instead of merely slandering people. How many taxpayers
>> >> dollars have been spent already on secretive ex RCMP private
>> >> investigators and the less that useles litigation team? It had not
>> >> escaped my notice that many bloggers etc are not so easily fooled by
>> >> the Corporate Media. Try Googling mccorkell new brunswick sometime to
>> >> see how much of a joke Maritimers have already become no thanks to
>> >> Attorney General Blais and her minions.
>> >>
>> >> Moncton's former city solicitor John Hughes should not have ignored
>> >> me years ago so I am not surprised that he ignored once again
>> >> recently.
>> >>
>> >> The amount of money he wants to argue before the Supreme Court is the
>> >> smallest that I have ever seen.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/case-
>> >>
>> >> Trust that the pdf file hereto attached proves that I could make
>> >> Hughes a very wealthy man if he were even remotely ethical and his
>> >> friend Attorney General Blais and her boss Stephen Harper know it.
>> >>
>> >> Its just like I hinted in an email to the Yankee lawyer/preacher
>> >> Scotty Baby Lively who is also battling the same SPLC dudes that I
>> >> published early this morning before I heard the news today. In my
>> >> humble opinion Mr Streed should use his rights in the US of A and sue
>> >> everyone of the nastyCanadian bastards ASAP in a US District Court
>> >> pursuant to US Title 42 Section 1982. If they wish to attack him he
>> >> should at least get to pick the turf.
>> >>
>> >> http://thedavidamosrant.
>> >> -
>> >> scotty-lively.html
>> >>
>> >> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/
>> >> a
>> >> zi-mccorkell-estate.html
>> >>
>> >> Hughes contends the Southern Poverty Law Centre is behind the whole
>> >> matter and recruited her.
>> >>
>> >> This is "a skillful operation by people who have done this many
>> >> times, not only to bankrupt their opponents, but to enrich their own
>> >> organization," he said.
>> >>
>> >> But her lawyer dismissed Hughes's suggestion that the Southern
>> >> Poverty Law Centre is pulling strings as "a conspiracy theory."
>> >>
>> >> "Where is the evidence? You can't just come to court and throw wild
>> >> accusations like that without any shred of evidence," said Chiasson.
>> >>
>> >> How his client pays her legal bills is a matter of client-attorney
>> >> privilege, he said.
>> >>
>> >> Judge ruled against cross-examination Justice Peter Glennie ruled
>> >> against allowing the cross-examination.
>> >>
>> >> "Cross examination under these circumstances should not become an
>> >> application for discovery," he said.
>> >>
>> >> The judge also ruled the temporary injunction should continue until
>> >> the hearing on Sept. 10.
>> >>
>> >> "I can't see any good coming out of this," said Chiasson, referring
>> >> to the estate going to the National Alliance. "Only evil would come
>> >> from that."
>> >>
>> >> Just in case folks think I don't understand the scene laid out above
>> >> pehaps they should checkout a letter an evil Special Agent of the US
>> >> Treasury Dept wrote me long ago.
>> >>
>> >> http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_
>> >> 8
>> >> YMU/s1600-h/IRS.jpg
>> >>
>> >> Or find some fun in reading illegal ex parte documents filed by the
>> >> US Attorney in Beantown in order to try to protect his beloved
>> >> Cardinal Bernard Francis Law's evil arse.
>> >> They begin around page 100 of this file.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.checktheevidence.
>> >>
>> >> (Wanna see more? Trust that I have lots more All ya gotta do is surf
>> >> the
>> >> web)
>> >>
>> >> How about how I used US Title 42 to defend my dumb arse agains the
>> >> Janet Reno's pal the VERY VERY EVIL Yankee lesbian Judge Sidney
>> >> Hanlon in 2004? Everything Hanlon did against me was ex parte and
>> >> VERY ILLEGAL.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.law.cornell.edu/
>> >>
>> >> 42 USC § 1982 - Property rights of citizens
>> >>
>> >> US CodeNotesUpdatesAuthorities (CFR)Current through Pub. L. 113-21.
>> >> (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
>> >>
>> >> All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every
>> >> State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to
>> >> inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal
>> >> property.
>> >>
>> >> Source
>> >>
>> >> (R.S. § 1978.)
>> >> Codification
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> R.S. § 1978 derived from act Apr. 9, 1866, ch. 31, § 1,14 Stat. 27.
>> >> Section was formerly classified to section 42 of Title 8, Aliens and
>> >> Nationality.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> http://thedavidamosrant.
>> >> l
>> >> k-text-of.html
>> >>
>> >> THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
>> >> THE TRIAL COURT
>> >> DORCHESTER, SS.
>> >> DISTRICT COURT DEPARTMENT
>> >> THE COMMONWEALTH OF )
>> >> MASSACHUSETTS )
>> >> CRIMINAL ACTION
>> >> )
>> >> DOCKET NO. 0407CR004623
>> >> v . )
>> >> )
>> >> DAVID R. AMOS )
>> >> )
>> >> AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID R. AMOS
>> >> Now comes, David R. Amos, a Citizen of Canada and a Legal Permanent
>> >> Resident of the USA and asserts his Constitutional Rights pursuant to
>> >> Title 42 Sections 1981, 1982, 1985 and 1986 of the Federal Code and
>> >> freely swears under the penalties of perjury that the following
>> >> statements are true and to the best of his knowledge.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.thefreelibrary.com/
>> >> o
>> >> rchester+Domestic+Violence...-
>> >>
>> >> United States Attorney General Janet Reno came to Boston today to
>> >> announce the opening of the new Dorchester District Court Domestic
>> >> Violence Session, under a Department of Justice grant given to Boston.
>> >> The Judicial Oversight Demonstration Initiative (JOD) grant is for $7
>> >> million over five years, contingent on continued Congressional
>> >> appropriations.
>> >>
>> >> Judge Sydney Hanlon, presiding judge of the Dorchester District
>> >> Court, will run the new domestic violence session. The domestic
>> >> violence court session will conduct arraignments, bail hearings,
>> >> probation surrenders, and probation reviews. It will also hear all ex
>> >> parte and contested civil restraining orders.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.mass.gov/courts/
>> >>
>> >> http://wikiworldbook.com/
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> BTW lots of people hate lots of other people it is not illegal in
>> >> most places that are blessed with common sense. However with the
>> >> right to Free Speech come responsibility. Freedom has its limits in a
>> >> purportedly "Just" Society. Free Speech does not give one the licence
>> >> to injure others with your mouth or pen.
>> >>
>> >> R. v. Lucas, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 439 is the leading Supreme Court of
>> >> Canada decision on defamatory libel. The Court held that the freedom
>> >> of expression under Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights
>> >> and Freedoms is subject to the "reasonable limits prescribed by law"
>> >> set out in Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Hell some offences come with quite a price tag in the British
>> >> Commonwealth. For instance libel and hate speech are illegal under
>> >> the Canadian Criminal Code Check Sections 300 and 319 if you don't
>> >> believe mean old me.
>> >>
>> >> http://laws-lois.justice.gc.
>> >>
>> >> http://laws-lois.justice.gc.
>> >>
>> >> For instance the Jewish lawyer Ezzy Baby Levant can have fun
>> >> preaching hate on Corporate TV against fools as Arty Topham and
>> >> legions of mindless anarchists but just like all of you Ezzy dares
>> >> not to even breathe my name over the public airwaves if he wishes to
>> keep his job.
>> >> This is a comical video.
>> >>
>> >> http://
>> >> ...
[Message clipped] View entire message
I'm Dr Ogudugu, a real and genuine spell caster/Spiritual healer with years of experience in spell casting and an expert in all spells, i specialize exclusively in LOVE SPELL/GET REUNITE WITH EX LOVER, MONEY SPELL, POWERFUL MAGIC RING, ANY COURT CASES, FRUIT OF THE WOMB, HIV CURE, CURE FOR CANCER, HERPES, DIABETE, HERPERTITIS B, PARKINSON’S HERBAL CURE, BECOMING A MERMAID, BECOMING A VAMPIRE, SAVE CHILD BIRTH. They are all %100 Guaranteed QUICK Results, it most work. If you have any problem and you need a real and genuine spell caster to solve your problems, contact me now through my personal Email Address with problem case...Note-you can also Text/Call on WhatsApp.
ReplyDeleteContact me -
Email: greatogudugu@gmail.com
WhatsApp No: +27663492930