https://twitter.com/DavidRayAmos/with_replies
http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.com/2018/10/everybody-know-saint-john-harbour-is.html
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/election-recount-saint-john-harbour-ogden-lowe-1.4846068
---------- Original message ----------
From: "Gallant, Premier Brian (PO/CPM)" <Brian.Gallant@gnb.ca>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 11:03:40 +0000
Subject: RE: Why would the Bankster Frank McKenna ask Gerry Lowe a
former union rep to run in the Harbour that is the heart of the Irving
Empire?
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Thank you for writing to the Premier of New Brunswick. Please be
assured that your email will be reviewed.
If this is a media request, please forward your email to
media-medias@gnb.camed
>.
Thank you!From: "Gallant, Premier Brian (PO/CPM)" <Brian.Gallant@gnb.ca>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 11:03:40 +0000
Subject: RE: Why would the Bankster Frank McKenna ask Gerry Lowe a
former union rep to run in the Harbour that is the heart of the Irving
Empire?
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Thank you for writing to the Premier of New Brunswick. Please be
assured that your email will be reviewed.
If this is a media request, please forward your email to
media-medias@gnb.ca
******************************
Nous vous remercions d’avoir communiqué avec le premier ministre du
Nouveau-Brunswick. Soyez assuré(e) que votre courriel sera examiné.
Si ceci est une demande médiatique, prière de la transmettre à
media-medias@gnb.ca
---------- Original message ----------
From: Brian Gallant <briangallant10@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 04:03:38 -0700
Subject: Merci / Thank you Re: Why would the Bankster Frank McKenna
ask Gerry Lowe a former union rep to run in the Harbour that is the
heart of the Irving Empire?
To: motomaniac333@gmail.com
(Français à suivre)
If your email is pertaining to the Government of New Brunswick, please
email me at brian.gallant@gnb.ca
If your matter is urgent, please email Greg Byrne at greg.byrne@gnb.ca
Thank you.
Si votre courriel s'addresse au Gouvernement du Nouveau-Brunswick,
svp m'envoyez un courriel à brian.gallant@gnb.ca
Pour les urgences, veuillez contacter Greg Byrne à greg.byrne@gnb.ca
Merci.
---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 07:03:36 -0400
Subject: Why would the Bankster Frank McKenna ask Gerry Lowe a former
union rep to run in the Harbour that is the heart of the Irving Empire?
To: "Frank.McKenna" <Frank.McKenna@td.com>, "darrow.macintyre"
<darrow.macintyre@cbc.ca>, "brian.gallant" <brian.gallant@gnb.ca>,
ddale <ddale@thestar.ca>, Newsroom <Newsroom@globeandmail.com>,
sugarhil@nb.sympatico.ca, "Bill.Oliver" <Bill.Oliver@gnb.ca>,
"blaine.higgs" <blaine.higgs@gnb.ca>, "terry.seguin" <terry.seguin@cbc.ca>,
rjspeer555@gmail.com, "Ross.Wetmore" <Ross.Wetmore@gnb.ca>,
shoreviewholsteins@gmail.com, "hance.colburne" <hance.colburne@cbc.ca>, BrianThomasMacdonald <BrianThomasMacdonald@gmail.
oldmaison <oldmaison@yahoo.com>, andre <andre@jafaust.com>,
jbosnitch <jbosnitch@gmail.com>, washington field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, "Robert.E.Lighthizer" <Robert.E.Lighthizer@ustr.eop.
"Chrystia.Freeland" <Chrystia.Freeland@parl.gc.ca>
Cc: "Gerald.Butts" <Gerald.Butts@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>, "Catherine.Tait" <Catherine.Tait@cbc.ca>, "sylvie.gadoury" <sylvie.gadoury@radio-canada.
"Chuck.Thompson" <Chuck.Thompson@cbc.ca>, "dean.buzza" <dean.buzza@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>,
"maxime.bernier" <maxime.bernier@parl.gc.ca>, "elizabeth.may" <elizabeth.may@parl.gc.ca>,
David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, "andrew.scheer" <andrew.scheer@parl.gc.ca>, "David.Akin" <David.Akin@globalnews.ca>, correspondence@ustr.eop.gov,
bjanovitz@ustr.eop.gov,
jgreer@ustr.eop.gov,
svaughn@ustr.eop.gov,
rlighthizer@ustr.eop.gov, jrvanoord@gmail.com, gdaley@nbnet.nb.ca,
bwwoodslane@gmail.com, dykfarm@nbnet.nb.ca, dejongfons@gmail.com,
kayepeter10@gmail.com, deniscyr10@rogers.com
http://davidraymondamos3.
If the election in New Brunswick ain't important why would CBC just
block my comment about Trump, Wllbur Ross and I? Why would the
Bankster Frank McKenna ask Gerry Lowe a former union rep to run in the
Harbour that is the heart of the Irving Empire?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/
"A city councillor for five years, he played a key role in
successfully persuading council to ask the province to repeal the
city's longstanding tax deal with Irving Oil on the Canaport LNG
terminal.
He decided to run provincially for the Liberals at the request of
Brian Gallant and former premier Frank McKenna.
"There are so many things that have to be changed and they all exist
in Fredericton," Lowe said.
His major concerns include affordable housing and fair taxation —
especially greater control for the municipality over taxes and
assessments and phasing out double taxation."
rlighthizer@ustr.eop.gov, jrvanoord@gmail.com, gdaley@nbnet.nb.ca,
bwwoodslane@gmail.com, dykfarm@nbnet.nb.ca, dejongfons@gmail.com,
kayepeter10@gmail.com, deniscyr10@rogers.com
http://davidraymondamos3.
If the election in New Brunswick ain't important why would CBC just
block my comment about Trump, Wllbur Ross and I? Why would the
Bankster Frank McKenna ask Gerry Lowe a former union rep to run in the
Harbour that is the heart of the Irving Empire?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/
"A city councillor for five years, he played a key role in
successfully persuading council to ask the province to repeal the
city's longstanding tax deal with Irving Oil on the Canaport LNG
terminal.
He decided to run provincially for the Liberals at the request of
Brian Gallant and former premier Frank McKenna.
"There are so many things that have to be changed and they all exist
in Fredericton," Lowe said.
His major concerns include affordable housing and fair taxation —
especially greater control for the municipality over taxes and
assessments and phasing out double taxation."
---------- Original message ----------
From: Newsroom <newsroom@globeandmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2018 04:13:48 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: YO Franky Boy McKenna Perhaps Artie Watson,
Independent Candidate for Portland - Simonds or the Union dude
interviewing him will understand thia email N'esy Pas?
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.
From: Newsroom <newsroom@globeandmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2018 04:13:48 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: YO Franky Boy McKenna Perhaps Artie Watson,
Independent Candidate for Portland - Simonds or the Union dude
interviewing him will understand thia email N'esy Pas?
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.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/election-recount-saint-john-harbour-ogden-lowe-1.4846068
Saint John Harbour Progressive Conservatives allege at least 40 voters recorded twice
PC request to set election of Liberal Gerry Lowe aside is withdrawn for now
A vote recount
for the close riding of Saint John Harbour will be held Wednesday, but a
court application by the Progressive Conservatives to have the election
of Liberal candidate Gerry Lowe thrown out based on allegations that at
least 40 people were documented as voting more than once has been put
on hold.
Matthew Letson, one of the lawyers representing Progressive Conservative candidate Barry Ogden and riding association president Peter Josselyn, advised the court Tuesday afternoon the application "may have been brought prematurely."
Counsel for the chief electoral officer pointed out such an application must be filed within 30 days of the return of the writ, which only occurs after any and all recounts have been completed, he said.
So
Letson amended the application, withdrawing that portion for now and
requesting only the recount, which had already been granted on Monday.
"That's a significant change," remarked Court of Queen's Bench Justice Hugh McLellan, who had described the notice of application as "unusual."
"It's a significant change, for the time being," said Letson.
"We expect to bring the issue of irregularities in the voting process back to court once the results of the recount are known," he said later in an emailed statement.
Ogden, a retired teacher, lost the riding to Lowe, a city councillor, by 10 votes on Sept. 24, according to Elections New Brunswick results.
Progressive
Conservative Leader Blaine Higgs, left, won more seats in the Sept. 24
election, but Liberal Leader Brian Gallant still hopes to form
government. (CBC)
It was the closest
race in the province and depending on the recount findings could have a
major impact on the balance of power in the province, as the PCs and
Liberals both hope to form government.
Blaine Higgs's Progressive Conservatives won 22 seats in the 49-seat legislature, three short of a majority.
Brian Gallant's Liberals won 21 seats, but as the incumbent government, they can try to win the confidence of the legislature when it reconvenes Oct. 23.
On Monday, Ogden and Josselyn filed a notice of application with the court seeking an order setting aside the election of Lowe and declaring the seat vacant.
"The electoral procedures set out in the Elections Act and the applicable regulations were not properly followed in a manner that may have altered the outcome of the election" in the riding, the notice of application alleges.
It's unclear whether they're alleging people actually voted twice or that they were only documented twice.
Other grounds to be argued include that an election officer or a vote tabulation machine "improperly counted or made an incorrect statement of the number of votes cast for a candidate or the returning officer improperly tabulated the votes."
Lowe, who said he learned of the PC application and hearing from CBC News on Monday night, seemed to know little more on Tuesday.
"I don't know who voted 40 times twice," said Lowe, who was in Fredericton and did not attend the hearing in Saint John court. "I mean, I'm totally, what we did, we just did what we did. I think we violated absolutely nothing.
"I have no idea. I thought it was about machinery counts and stuff like that, so I don't know."
Asked whether he is confident about holding on to his seat, Lowe replied: "I am, as far as I know. I don't know what's going on. It is what it is."
Elections New Brunswick spokesperson Paul Harpelle could not immediately be reached for comment.
In a sworn affidavit filed in support of the application, Josselyn said he reviewed the statement of elector forms in his possession and "on some occasions, more than one vote was cast under the same unique combined poll number and elector number."
Each voter is assigned a unique combined poll number and elector number and once they vote, they are supposed to be struck from the list of electors.
"Accordingly, in completing the statement of electors, a given elector's combined poll number and elector number should appear only one time," the affidavit states.
But of the forms he has reviewed, Josselyn contends there are "approximately 40 instances in which a unique combined poll number and elector number appears twice."
Saint
John Harbour PC candidate Barry Ogden, left, and riding association
president Peter Josselyn, right, both declined to comment following
Tuesday's hearing. (Bobbi-Jean MacKinnon/CBC)
He
believes the statement of elector forms that he hasn't reviewed would
represent 1,000 additional voters, but does not estimate how many, if
any, might involve irregularities.
The approximately 40 alleged instances he does detail involve eight of 11 polling stations across the riding, which stretches from Mount Pleasant, where billionaires Arthur and John Irving live, to the subsidized apartments in the north end, to the working-class lower west side, and the south end.
The stations include the Carleton Community Centre, Carleton Kirk United Church, St. Luke's Church Hall, Wright Street Housing Community Hall, Market Square Senior Complex, Saint John Boys & Girls Club, Vineyard Christian Fellowship and InterAction Theatre, he contends.
Some of the alleged instances occurred during advance polls, while others occurred on election night, according to Josselyn's affidavit.
In some cases, an elector number was recorded twice within hours, he contends.
Ogden and Josselyn also requested a judicial recount in their application, citing the closeness of the vote results.
Recounts are granted in any race decided by 25 votes or less, upon request.
The judge issued notice Monday to all Saint John Harbour candidates of the recount, to be held Wednesday at 10:30 a.m.
"Likely [the recount will] run a couple of days or so," McLellan said Tuesday.
Lowe said he doesn't plan to attend the recount.
NDP Leader Jennifer McKenzie, who placed a distant third in the riding, said she doubts she'll attend either, but she was at Tuesday's hearing.
Matthew Letson, one of the lawyers representing Progressive Conservative candidate Barry Ogden and riding association president Peter Josselyn, advised the court Tuesday afternoon the application "may have been brought prematurely."
Counsel for the chief electoral officer pointed out such an application must be filed within 30 days of the return of the writ, which only occurs after any and all recounts have been completed, he said.
"That's a significant change," remarked Court of Queen's Bench Justice Hugh McLellan, who had described the notice of application as "unusual."
"It's a significant change, for the time being," said Letson.
"We expect to bring the issue of irregularities in the voting process back to court once the results of the recount are known," he said later in an emailed statement.
Ogden, a retired teacher, lost the riding to Lowe, a city councillor, by 10 votes on Sept. 24, according to Elections New Brunswick results.
Blaine Higgs's Progressive Conservatives won 22 seats in the 49-seat legislature, three short of a majority.
Brian Gallant's Liberals won 21 seats, but as the incumbent government, they can try to win the confidence of the legislature when it reconvenes Oct. 23.
Procedures 'not properly followed'
On Monday, Ogden and Josselyn filed a notice of application with the court seeking an order setting aside the election of Lowe and declaring the seat vacant.
"The electoral procedures set out in the Elections Act and the applicable regulations were not properly followed in a manner that may have altered the outcome of the election" in the riding, the notice of application alleges.
It's unclear whether they're alleging people actually voted twice or that they were only documented twice.
Other grounds to be argued include that an election officer or a vote tabulation machine "improperly counted or made an incorrect statement of the number of votes cast for a candidate or the returning officer improperly tabulated the votes."
I think we violated absolutely nothing.- Gerry Lowe, Liberal candidateNone of the allegations have been proven in court.
Lowe, who said he learned of the PC application and hearing from CBC News on Monday night, seemed to know little more on Tuesday.
"I don't know who voted 40 times twice," said Lowe, who was in Fredericton and did not attend the hearing in Saint John court. "I mean, I'm totally, what we did, we just did what we did. I think we violated absolutely nothing.
"I have no idea. I thought it was about machinery counts and stuff like that, so I don't know."
Asked whether he is confident about holding on to his seat, Lowe replied: "I am, as far as I know. I don't know what's going on. It is what it is."
Elections New Brunswick spokesperson Paul Harpelle could not immediately be reached for comment.
Involves 8 of 11 polling stations
In a sworn affidavit filed in support of the application, Josselyn said he reviewed the statement of elector forms in his possession and "on some occasions, more than one vote was cast under the same unique combined poll number and elector number."
Each voter is assigned a unique combined poll number and elector number and once they vote, they are supposed to be struck from the list of electors.
"Accordingly, in completing the statement of electors, a given elector's combined poll number and elector number should appear only one time," the affidavit states.
But of the forms he has reviewed, Josselyn contends there are "approximately 40 instances in which a unique combined poll number and elector number appears twice."
The approximately 40 alleged instances he does detail involve eight of 11 polling stations across the riding, which stretches from Mount Pleasant, where billionaires Arthur and John Irving live, to the subsidized apartments in the north end, to the working-class lower west side, and the south end.
The stations include the Carleton Community Centre, Carleton Kirk United Church, St. Luke's Church Hall, Wright Street Housing Community Hall, Market Square Senior Complex, Saint John Boys & Girls Club, Vineyard Christian Fellowship and InterAction Theatre, he contends.
Some of the alleged instances occurred during advance polls, while others occurred on election night, according to Josselyn's affidavit.
In some cases, an elector number was recorded twice within hours, he contends.
Requested recount
Ogden and Josselyn also requested a judicial recount in their application, citing the closeness of the vote results.
Recounts are granted in any race decided by 25 votes or less, upon request.
The judge issued notice Monday to all Saint John Harbour candidates of the recount, to be held Wednesday at 10:30 a.m.
"Likely [the recount will] run a couple of days or so," McLellan said Tuesday.
Lowe said he doesn't plan to attend the recount.
NDP Leader Jennifer McKenzie, who placed a distant third in the riding, said she doubts she'll attend either, but she was at Tuesday's hearing.
CBC News
Jennifer McKenzie on Saint John Harbour vote recount
PC Barry Ogden lost the riding to Liberal Gerry Lowe by 10 votes on Sept. 24, according to Elections New Brunswick results. 0:50
"I think every seat counts, every vote counts, and that's what we're seeing here today is that, you know, everybody should exercise their right to vote because it can make a real difference — not just to a riding's result, but to a provincial result."
The judge also issued summonses to the returning officer and election clerk for the riding, who must produce the envelopes or ballot transfer boxes containing the counted ballots, the rejected ballots and the spoiled ballot papers and the statements of votes cast signed by the appropriate poll officials, according to the court document.
On Tuesday, Craig Astle, director of operations for Elections New Brunswick, transported sealed boxes of ballots into the courthouse for Wednesday's recount under escort by sheriff's deputies.
2014 recount found few errors
Lowe won the Saint John Harbour race with 1,865 votes, 10 more than Ogden, according to Elections New Brunswick results.
NDP Leader Jennifer McKenzie earned 836 votes, followed by Green Party candidate Wayne Dryer with 721 votes and People's Alliance candidate Margot Brideau with 393 votes.
Independent candidate Adam Salesse campaigned in the critically close riding but wasn't listed on the ballot when voters went to the polls because he only submitted part of the required paperwork.
But few actual errors were discovered when counts were redone by hand over several days by an assortment of New Brunswick judges.
In four of the ridings, vote differences recorded between the two leading candidates on election night stayed the same following the recount. In two ridings it changed by one vote and in one riding it changed by two votes.
The Greens and People's Alliance each won three seats.
On Monday, Higgs suggested an agreement between the B.C. NDP and Greens could serve as a template for a possible partnership with the Green Party's three MLAs, which would allow the PCs to pass legislation.
Last Friday, People's Alliance Kris Austin agreed to provide stability for a Progressive Conservative minority government on a "bill-by-bill basis" for 18 months. Higgs said he spoke to Austin about stabilizing the government but made no formal agreement.
Gallant has ruled out any deal with the People's Alliance.
With files from Catherine Harrop
---------- Original message
----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2018 23:09:44 -0400
Subject: YO Franky Boy McKenna Perhaps Artie Watson, Independent
Candidate for Portland - Simonds or the Union dude interviewing him
will understand thia email N'esy Pas?
To: artie.independent@gmail.com
Cc: david.young@mcinnescooper.com, snb@nb.aibn.com,
devans@coxandpalmer.com, markandcaroline <markandcaroline@gmail.com>,
Newsroom <Newsroom@globeandmail.com>, news <news@kingscorecord.com>,nbfwo@nb.aibn.com, news <news@dailygleaner.com>, "steve.murphy"
<steve.murphy@ctv.ca>, "brian.gallant" <brian.gallant@gnb.ca>,
"Davidc.Coon" <Davidc.Coon@gmail.com>, davidcoon
<davidcoon@greenpartynb.ca>, leader <leader@greenparty.ca>, leader
<leader@greenparty.pe.ca>, leader <leader@greenparty.bc.ca>,
"serge.rousselle" <serge.rousselle@gnb.ca>, "len.hoyt"
<len.hoyt@mcinnescooper.com>, "Frank.McKenna" <Frank.McKenna@td.com>
We all know the bigtime bullshitter Donny Baby Bowser never will EH?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Don Bowser, President of I.M.P.A.C.T. (Business)
The Dennis Report
Published on Sep 1, 2018
Mr. Bowser has a great line in our conversation, "It is hard for me to
find work in New Brunswick, so I have to travel the world instead. It
seems there is no interest in corruption in New Brunswick." It was
said with tongue-in-cheek … to a degree. Corruption is a major problem
and challenge in New Brunswick, and Mr. Bowser walks us through some
key perspectives and shares some stories of his work. At the heart of
each is a central theme … we can be doing so much better in New
Brunswick. What are your thoughts?
Mr. Bowser website: www.goodgov.ca
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Artie Watson, Independent Candidate for Portland - Simonds (Politics)
25 views
The Dennis Report
Published on Aug 28, 2018
During elections, mainstream media pay little or no attention to
independent candidates. In the election narrative they are treated as
an afterthought. Yet, the foundation of parliamentary democracy in New
Brunswick is based on independent candidates. Much has been lost it
seems.
Mr. Watson offers powerful insights and reasons for his second run at
being the Member of the Legislative Assembly for Portland Simonds.
There is much frustration, even betrayal, when it comes to how
politics have been played in his community.
So this begs the question … will voters who claim they want change
continue to behave in the same old way?
Mr. Watson's Facebook page is Artie Watson, and email is
Artie.independent@gmail.com
https://www.facebook.com/pg/
Call (506) 639.8594
m.me/ThePeoplesIndependent
artie.independent@gmail.com
MORE INFO
Hometown
Saint John, NB
Affiliation
Indepenedent
About
I believe that the interests of the people must come first. When we
put profits before people, we've lost our way. We've allowed those
we've entrusted with our voice, a free pass. Time for accountability!
#BeAuthentic #BeIndependent #Vote4ArtieWatson
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Newsroom <newsroom@globeandmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2018 02:36:31 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: YO Franky Boy McKenna Methinks your pals the
sneaky lawyers Lenny Hoyt and Davey Young will enjoy a little Deja Vu
byway of your buddies Premier Gallant and Chucky Leblanc
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
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.
On 9/6/18, David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
> https://www2.gnb.ca/content/
>
> Executive Council Office, September 25, 2014 - Fredericton
>
> Transition team announced
> Premier-designate Brian Gallant announced a three-member transition
> team to liaise with the civil service in the period leading to the
> swearing-in of the new cabinet. From left: Len Hoyt; Ellen Creighton;
> Gallant and Don Ferguson.
>
>
> http://
>
> Saturday, 27 May 2017
>
> Lawyers Leonard Hoyt and David Duncan Young should be investigated by
> the media!!!! HUGH CONFLICT????
>
> https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?
>
> Lawyers Leonard Hoyt and David Duncan Young should be investigated by the
> media!
> 211 views
> Charles Leblanc
> Published on May 27, 2017
>
> Posted by Charles Leblanc at 11:52 am
>
> Trust that I will make certain that their buddies Johnny "Never Been
> Good Sabine and Chrissy Spencer of SNB will never foget who they
> pissed off last night N'esy Pas?
>
> http://davidraymondamos3.
>
>
> Wednesday, 5 September 2018
> ATTN David Duncan Young I just met your nasty little buddy Chris
> Spencer of SNB tonight
> Thanks to the Green Meanies from Fat Fred City anyone can view the
> circus last night in Fundy
>
> N'esy Pas Premier Gallant?
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?
>
> Political Debate on Forestry Related Concerns / Solutions (Video 1/2)
> No views
> Stop Spraying in NB SSNB
> Published on Sep 6, 2018
> All-Party debate September 5, 2018 Hosted by New Brunswick Federation
> of Woodlot Owners Location: Sussex, NB Hosts: SNB
>
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?
>
> Political Debate on Forestry Related Concerns / Solutions (Video 2/2)
> No views
> Stop Spraying in NB SSNB
> Published on Sep 6, 2018
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: Newsroom
> Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2018 01:18:39 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: Re:Whereas some of you were blocked I
> blogged it ATTN David Duncan Young I just met your nasty little buddy
> Chris Spencer of SNB tonight
> To: David Amos
>
> 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.
>
>
> Your message wasn't delivered to david.young@mcinnescooper.com because
> the address couldn't be found, or is unable to receive mail.
>
> Your message wasn't delivered to devans@coxandpalmer.com because the
> address couldn't be found, or is unable to receive mail.
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Kulik, John" <john.kulik@mcinnescooper.com>
> Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 18:29:07 +0000
> Subject: McInnes Cooper
> To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com" <motomaniac333@gmail.com>,
> "david.raymond.amos@gmail.com" <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
>
> Dear Mr. Amos:
>
> I have tried to call you back a number of times at 902-800-0369 but
> each time I get a busy signal.
>
> John Kulik
> [McInnes Cooper]<http://www.
>
> John Kulik Q.C.
> Partner & General Counsel
> McInnes Cooper
>
> tel +1 (902) 444 8571 | fax +1 (902) 425 6350
>
> 1969 Upper Water Street
> Suite 1300
> Purdy's Wharf Tower II Halifax, NS, B3J 2V1
>
> asst Cathy Ohlhausen | +1 (902) 455 8215
>
>
>
> From: Kulik, John
> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 2:38 PM
> To: 'motomaniac333@gmail.com'; 'david.raymond.amos@gmail.com'
> Subject: McInnes Cooper
>
> Dear Mr. Amos:
>
> I am General Counsel for McInnes Cooper. If you need to communicate
> with our firm, please do so through me.
>
> Thank you.
>
> John Kulik
> [McInnes Cooper]<http://www.
>
> John Kulik Q.C.
> Partner & General Counsel
> McInnes Cooper
>
> tel +1 (902) 444 8571 | fax +1 (902) 425 6350
>
> 1969 Upper Water Street
> Suite 1300
> Purdy's Wharf Tower II Halifax, NS, B3J 2V1
>
> asst Cathy Ohlhausen | +1 (902) 455 8215
>
>
>
> Notice This communication, including any attachments, is confidential
> and may be protected by solicitor/client privilege. It is intended
> only for the person or persons to whom it is addressed. If you have
> received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by e-mail or
> telephone at McInnes Cooper's expense. Avis Les informations contenues
> dans ce courriel, y compris toute(s) pièce(s) jointe(s), sont
> confidentielles et peuvent faire l'objet d'un privilège avocat-client.
> Les informations sont dirigées au(x) destinataire(s) seulement. Si
> vous avez reçu ce courriel par erreur, veuillez en aviser l'expéditeur
> par courriel ou par téléphone, aux frais de McInnes Cooper.
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2018 12:03:46 -0400
> Subject: The corrupt ex cop John Sabine
> To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
>
> Date:
> November 28 2005
> id:
> p06opolc4wf8y
> Cited as:
> 2005 NBQB 425, (2005), 290 N.B.R.(2d) 338 (TD)
> Judge:
> McLellan, J.
> Court:
> Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick
> Jurisdiction:
> New Brunswick
> Case cited by: one case
>
> B.B. v. Saint John (2005), 290 N.B.R.(2d) 338 (TD);
>
> 290 R.N.-B.(2e) 338; 755 A.P.R. 338
>
> MLB headnote and full text
>
> Sommaire et texte intégral
>
> [English language version only]
>
> [Version en langue anglaise seulement]
>
> Temp. Cite: [2005] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. DE.001
>
> Renvoi temp.: [2005] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. DE.001
>
> B.B., by S.B., his Litigation Guardian (plaintiff) v. The City of
> Saint John, a municipal corporation, and Dwayne Hussey, Robert M.
> Young, Stacey Humphrey and John Sabine (defendants)
>
> (S/C/674/04; 2005 NBQB 425; 2005 NBBR 425)
>
> Indexed As: B.B. v. Saint John (City) et al.
>
> Répertorié: B.B. v. Saint John (City) et al.
>
> New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench
>
> Trial Division
>
> Judicial District of Saint John
>
> McLellan, J.
>
> November 29, 2005.
>
> Summary:
>
> Résumé:
>
> The plaintiff sued municipal police officers and the municipality for
> damages for injuries suffered when he was arrested. The plaintiff also
> claimed exemplary damages for violation of his Charter rights.
>
> The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, allowed the
> action in respect of the injuries suffered but not in respect of the
> alleged Charter rights violations.
>
> Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been
> initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of
> identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's
> editorial policy or otherwise.
>
> Damage Awards - Topic 229
>
> Injury and death - Eye injuries - Black eye - [See Police - Topic 5145 ].
>
> Police - Topic 5003
>
> Actions against police - General - Actions against municipality for
> actions by police officer - [See Police - Topic 5145 ].
>
> Police - Topic 5145
>
> Actions against police - For assault and battery - Excessive force -
> Municipal police officers went to an apartment building, looking for
> the then 16 year-old plaintiff and a friend in respect of a broken
> window incident - The officers "forcefully" gained access to a room
> where the plaintiff and his friend were hiding under a bed with their
> feet sticking out - Arms were pointed but were not used - "Loud and
> aggressive" commands were made - The plaintiff was pulled out kicking
> and screaming from under the bed and was handcuffed - An officer
> attempted to squeeze pressure points on the plaintiff but failed - The
> plaintiff suffered a black eye and other minor injuries - The New
> Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, ruled that the
> officers should have been able to arrest and handcuff the plaintiff
> without him getting a black eye - They were negligent - The court
> found them jointly and severally liable for the plaintiff's injuries -
> The municipality was also found liable by virtue of the Police Act
> (N.B.) - The court awarded $2,500.
>
> Évaluation des dommages-intérêts - Cote 229
>
> Blessures et décès - Blessures à l'oeil - Oeil au beurre noir - [Voir
> Damage Awards - Topic 229 ].
>
> Police - Cote 5003
>
> Actions contre la police - Généralités - Actions contre la
> municipalité pour les gestes d'un agent de police - [Voir Police -
> Topic 5003 ].
>
> Police - Cote 5145
>
> Actions contre la police - Pour voies de fait et batterie - Force
> excessive - [Voir Police - Topic 5145 ].
>
> Cases Noticed:
>
> R. v. Rossignol (J.G.A.) (1994), 147 N.B.R.(2d) 287; 375 A.P.R. 287
> (T.D.), consd. [para. 26].
>
> Green v. Lawrence et al. (1998), 129 Man.R.(2d) 291; 180 W.A.C. 291;
> 127 C.C.C.(3d) 416; 163 D.L.R.(4th) 115 (C.A.), consd. [para. 27].
>
> Authors and Works Noticed:
>
> Saul, John Ralston, Voltaire's Bastards (1993), Preface [para. 11].
>
> Counsel:
>
> Eric L. Teed, Q.C., for the plaintiff;
>
> Donald V. Keenan, for the defendants.
>
> McLellan, J., of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial
> Division, Judicial District of Saint John, heard this action on
> November 14 and 15, 2005, and delivered the following decision on
> November 29, 2005.
>
> [sommaire terminé]
>
> [1] McLellan, J. : The plaintiff sues for damages for alleged
> excessive use of force by police officers employed by the City of
> Saint John when the plaintiff was arrested on August 15, 2004. At that
> time the plaintiff was 16 years of age. The plaintiff wants
> compensation for alleged personal injuries for an assault he claims he
> suffered at the hands of the defendant Cst. Robert M. Young, as well
> as for unlawful confinement, conspiracy to injure and failure to
> prevent injury. Also he asks for punitive and exemplary damages with
> an appropriate remedy for the violation of his rights under the
> Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , sections 7, 9, 10, 11(a),
> 11(c) and 12. The defendant police officers and the City deny any
> liability to the plaintiff.
>
> [2] During the evening of August 15, 2004 Cst. Young responded three
> times to different telephone calls from a woman from Coronation Court.
> She lived in a second floor apartment with her two young children. Her
> apartment had its own front door on the ground floor. Coronation Court
> is a neighbourhood of apartments in two-storey buildings. It is part
> of the McLaren Boulevard low-income public housing project in the
> North End of Saint John managed by New Brunswick Housing.
>
> [3] That woman was calling to complain about things being thrown at
> her apartment. The first time Cst. Young went to that address he found
> that the window in the front door of the apartment had been broken.
> The second time Cst. Young went there he found that second-floor
> windows of the apartment had been broken. A bottle of relish had
> splattered against an inside wall of the apartment. During that second
> visit an employee of NB Housing replaced the broken window in the
> front door. Both times Cst. Young suspected that the plaintiff and
> some other young people nearby were responsible.
>
> [4] Attempts by Cst. Young and other officers to encourage the
> plaintiff and his friends to keep the peace were met with rude words
> and invitations to take off their gunbelts and fight. A female officer
> who tried to defuse the situation was told to "go fuck herself".
> Unidentified people threw things, including a can of soup, at a police
> car.
>
> [5] A witness who was watching from her front steps describes the
> plaintiff and his friends as "a group of boys, teenagers" who "had
> been drinking" and were "egging on" the police "calling them pigs" and
> other remarks. The plaintiff says that he had been smoking marijuana
> that evening. There is also evidence that some of his friends had been
> consuming pills and alcohol.
>
> [6] A few minutes after the police left Coronation Court the second
> time, the woman called again. Cst. Young understood that her complaint
> was that people had: "basically, just blitzkrieged [her] house ...
> windows and doors all kicked in". More windows on the second floor of
> her apartment had been broken by rocks. The window in the front door
> had been broken out again. As well, that door had been attacked with
> an axe and knocked off its hinges. The woman and her children were
> terrified.
>
> [7] The plaintiff now admits that he was involved in breaking the
> windows of that apartment and that he was present when his friend
> broke in the front door. The plaintiff's friend says that the reason
> for the attacks on that woman's apartment was that she had "ratted" on
> a friend.
>
> [8] As part of the third police response to that location that
> evening, Sgt. John Sabine deployed Cst. Young and another "tactical"
> officer to make their way on foot down an embankment and through a
> rocky wooded area in the dark "undetected ... to set up position in a
> treeline". At the same time, Sgt. Sabine and another officer went to
> Coronation Court in a Durango SUV police vehicle to interview the
> woman whose apartment had just been attacked. In explaining how the
> tactical officers approached the scene, Cst. Young says they were:
>
> "... conditions that we were used to working in, as we train, we train
> continuously in during our tactical training."
>
> [9] In his direct evidence Cst. Young described his training after
> graduation from the Atlantic Police Academy as follows:
>
> "I'm a member of the emergency tactical service in which I received my
> basic tactical course ... [in] Toronto - five week course. Also,
> hostage rescue rapid deployment course through Peel Regional Service.
> Also, active shooter instructor course through the National Tactical
> Officers Association. Also, explosive forced entry, explosive
> handler's course through tactical explosive entry school - Dallas,
> National Tactical Officers Association." (An American organization,
> http://www.ntoa.org)
>
> [10] Such SWAT training could lead to the misunderstanding that police
> are soldiers and members of an occupying army entitled to take severe
> measures for fear of remote and theoretical threats to "officer
> safety". Some people call that misunderstanding "the militarization of
> the police.
>
> [11] As well, the use by the police of weapon-based military-style
> tactics may not "reinforce respect for societal values", "rehabilitate
> young persons" or "address the developmental challenges and the needs
> of young persons" as those words are used in the Youth Criminal
> Justice Act , section 3 and preamble. Also SWAT policing may reduce a
> young person's respect for the police, increase his or her alienation
> from positive influences and damage years of effort to build a spirit
> of trust and community between the police and the public. Ironically,
> there is also a possibility that the SWAT approach to policing then
> "presents itself as the solution to the problems it has created", to
> use a phrase in the preface to Voltaire's Bastards by John Ralston
> Saul, Penguin, Toronto, 1993.
>
> [12] Tactical explosive entry training in Dallas and similar activity
> may distort a police officer's memory of his oath of office and other
> traditional training. That oath emphasizes the duty of a police
> officer in New Brunswick to:
>
> "... cause the peace to be kept and preserved ... according to the law
> ...". N.B. Reg. 81-18, s. 2.
>
> [13] Against that background, while Cst. Young and the other tactical
> officer watched from their positions on foot that night, the plaintiff
> with a friend approached the police Durango SUV vehicle. It was parked
> and appeared to be unattended. Those officers recognized both the
> plaintiff and his friend.
>
> [14] The plaintiff says that he then smashed the rear window of that
> police vehicle with a baseball bat. Both tactical officers then chased
> the plaintiff and his friend.
>
> [15] The plaintiff and his friend ran into an apartment and the door
> locked behind them. Sgt. Sabine and the other officer with him then
> joined the tactical officers there. After Cst. Young banged and kicked
> on the front door of that apartment, the woman who lived there allowed
> Cst. Young and another officer in to search that apartment. She says
> that she had been sleeping after working 12 hour shifts on two days.
> Sgt. Sabine then also entered that apartment without express
> permission and opened the back door for a fourth officer. That woman
> is not a party to this action. Accordingly I cannot consider arguments
> relating to the legality of the police entrance and occupation of her
> apartment.
>
> [16] In the apartment the two tactical officers "cleared" each room as
> if they expected a violent and armed individual around each corner.
> That included forcefully opening doors as the officers pointed taser
> weapons with laser sights at each side of each room from the doorways.
> They found the plaintiff with his friend, hiding under a bed with
> their feet sticking out from it. The officers continued to act as if
> they expected those boys to start shooting at them or to otherwise
> attack them. While pointing their tasers and flashlights the officers
> gave various commands to the boys. The officers say that the boys did
> not do as they were told. One of the other officers says that Cst.
> Hussey, a few minutes later while arresting another young person in
> the basement, was heard through the floor "giving, uh, screaming some
> police demands".
>
> [17] That police approach of loud and aggressive commands while
> pointing a potentially lethal weapon at boys who are cornered under a
> bed or in a basement strikes me as questionable. It might make those
> boys think that the police were acting like bullies with guns, hoping
> to provoke a reaction that would justify tasing or shooting.
> Fortunately neither of the officers shot or tased anyone that night.
> Thus it is not necessary to rule on whether they used their weapons
> legally. The absence of a ruling on that point is not to be
> interpreted as approval of their methods.
>
> [18] The plaintiff's friend came out from under the bed first and was
> handcuffed. Then the two tactical officers were faced with the problem
> of handcuffing the plaintiff. Cst. Young pulled him out from under the
> bed and then both officers held him down. Those officers say he
> squirmed and kicked. The room was poorly lit. Cst. Young says he
> applied "pressure points" below the plaintiff's ears and nose in an
> attempt to force him to stop resisting and that the plaintiff was
> saying things like "fuck-you pig". One officer says that he used
> "politically incorrect" language; the other says that he used the
> "f-word" numerous times. The plaintiff and his friend say that an
> officer called them "boulevard trash".
>
> [19] Police hearsay to the effect that some doctor somewhere may have
> approved the squeezing of pressure points is not admissible as
> evidence of the truth of that opinion or of the legality of that
> method. Use of pressure points when two officers are arresting a boy
> hiding under a bed for breaking a window strikes me as questionable.
> Because Cst. Young appears to have been unsuccessful in actually
> squeezing those pressure points in my opinion it is not necessary to
> rule on the legality of that approach. The absence of a ruling on that
> point is not to be interpreted as approval of that method.
>
> [20] The plaintiff and his friend say that they did not resist. The
> other tactical officer had control of the plaintiff's legs in the
> badly lit room while Cst. Young was at the plaintiff's upper body.
> That other officer says regarding Cst. Young: "I can't say exactly
> what he did" as Cst. Young handcuffed the plaintiff. Cst. Young says
> he forced the plaintiff's arms apart and handcuffed him. The
> plaintiff's friend says that one of the officers said "you kids need
> to be taught a lesson". Then the plaintiff's friend says that while
> the plaintiff was in handcuffs he saw Cst. Young punch the plaintiff
> in the face and "stomp" him. The officers deny striking the plaintiff.
>
> [21] The plaintiff did not offer any evidence to support the
> allegation in his Statement of Claim that one of the officers "pushed
> an object against the Plaintiff's head and indicated that if he moved
> he would be 'blown away'".
>
> [22] A few minutes later the plaintiff and his friend say that when
> the plaintiff was handcuffed on his knees against a wall repeatedly
> asking for a sweater and trying to get up, Cst. Young forcefully
> shoved the plaintiff's head against the wall, denting the gyproc. Cst.
> Young says that as the plaintiff started to get up from his knees "I
> placed my hand on his shoulder to drive him down to his knees" and "he
> was told to shut-up" but denies shoving his head into the wall. The
> dent in the gyproc was just below a hole that had been made on another
> occasion by the friend. If the plaintiff's head had made that dent, I
> would expect the photograph to show a similar-sized bruise on his
> forehead and for the woman who lived in that apartment and who was
> seated in that room to have noticed the incident. I am not satisfied
> that Cst. Young dented the gyproc with the plaintiff's head.
>
> [23] That woman also says that after the boys were handcuffed Cst.
> Young told her that he would make sure she was evicted from that
> apartment. In his evidence Cst. Young denies using those words. He
> says he sits on a committee once a month with NB Housing "and have
> information sharing with what goes on in the area" and that he
> explained to the woman that "there may be a possibility that you will
> be looking at eviction for what happened today". That suggests that
> Cst. Young and other police officers are regularly providing police
> information about individuals to a landlord. Because she is not a
> party to this action, I cannot consider in this action any legal
> issues that may exist about that "information sharing".
>
> [24] Several hours after the arrest it was apparent that the plaintiff
> had a black eye and other minor injuries. There is no evidence that he
> had any of those injuries before his arrest. Cst. Young suggests that
> perhaps the plaintiff injured himself. Approximately 12 hours later a
> Judge of the Provincial Court saw the plaintiff in court on the
> afternoon of August 16 and directed that he be taken to the hospital.
> There the triage nurse noted that he complained of "rib pain -abrasion
> noted, pain right hand, right eye swollen and bruised".
>
> [25] In my view the police had adequate legal grounds to arrest the
> plaintiff without a warrant. I think there was some resistance by the
> plaintiff, at least to the extent of not wanting to have his hands
> cuffed behind him.
>
> [26] The police have a very difficult and challenging role in our
> society. Much is expected of them. In R. v. Rossignol (J.G.A.) (1994),
> 147 N.B.R.(2d) 287; 375 A.P.R. 287 (T.D.), at paras. 5 and 6 the point
> was made that late at night:
>
> "... a uniformed police officer embodies and personifies and is the
> law. All the rest of the legal system, all the higher authorities of
> the police, of the Attorney General's Department, of the courts, the
> legislature or parliament are effectively off duty ...
>
> "All of the law and to a certain extent civilization is represented by
> a uniformed police officer."
>
> [27] In our democracy the actions of the police are subject to
> supervision and review. As required by their oath of office, they must
> act "according to the law". The law is clear that police officers are
> not exempt from liability for negligent conduct. There are many cases
> to that effect including Green v. Lawrence et al. (1998), 129
> Man.R.(2d) 291; 180 W.A.C. 291; 127 C.C.C.(3d) 416; 163 D.L.R.(4th)
> 115 (C.A.).
>
> [28] In this case I find that the police should have been able to
> arrest and handcuff the plaintiff that night without him getting a
> black eye. In my view Cst. Young was under a duty of care regarding
> the plaintiff's safety as the plaintiff squirmed during his arrest. As
> well, I find that Sgt. Sabine was also under a duty of care to take
> reasonable steps to ensure that an officer like Cst. Young did not
> injure the plaintiff.
>
> [29] I find that Cst. Young and Sgt. Sabine breached the duties of
> care they owed the plaintiff and were negligent. Their negligence
> resulted in the plaintiff suffering an injury, namely the swollen and
> bruised eye. I find that Cst. Young and Sgt. Sabine are jointly and
> severally liable to the plaintiff for his reasonable damages arising
> from that black eye. The City of Saint John is also liable to the
> plaintiff for that black eye under the Police Act , S.N.B. 1977, c.
> P-9.2, as amended.
>
> [30] The evidence does not persuade me that the any of the defendants
> are liable to the plaintiff for anything else or that the plaintiff is
> entitled to any other relief under the Charter . In particular, the
> evidence is not strong enough to reach a finding that Cst. Young
> "stomped" the plaintiff or punched him in the face after he was
> handcuffed.
>
> [31] Having regard to the assessment of damages in other similar cases
> of minor personal injury, I assess damages for the plaintiff's swollen
> and bruised eye in the amount of $2,500.00. There will be judgment for
> the plaintiff against the defendants Robert M. Young, John Sabine and
> The City of Saint John for $2,500.00 with costs on scale 5 of $862.00,
> for a total of $3,362.00 and reasonable disbursements.
>
> Action allowed in part.
>
> Editor: Giovanni A. Merlini/pdk
>
> [End of document/fin du document]
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2018 10:00:34 -0400
> Subject: Attn Mark Zaid Re you talk about whistleblowers on CBC this
> morning I am on the phone from 902 800 0369
> To: Mark@markzaid.com, "sylvie.gadoury" <sylvie.gadoury@radio-canada.
> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
>
> https://twitter.com/
>
>
> David Raymond Amos @DavidRayAmos
> 2 hours ago
> Replying to @MarkSZaidEsq
>
> I am listening to you talk on @CBCPolitics right now Perhaps you
> should ask @realDonaldTrump and @FBIWFO about this old file of mine
> ASAP EH?
>
> https://www.scribd.com/
>
> https://markzaid.com/contact/
>
> Mark S. Zaid, P.C.
> 1250 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
> Suite 700
> Washington, DC 20036
> Phone: 202.454.2809
> Fax: 202.330.5610
> E-mail: Mark@markzaid.com
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Forsætisráðuneytið <for@for.is>
> Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 19:49:54 +0000
> Subject: Forsætisráðuneytið hefur móttekið tölvupóst þinn / Prime
> Minister's Office hereby confirms the receipt of your email.
> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
> Forsætisráðuneytið hefur móttekið tölvupóst þinn / Prime Minister's
> Office hereby confirms the receipt of your email.
>
>
>
> Vinsamlega ekki svara þessum tölvupósti, hafið samband í gegnum
> for@for.is / Do not reply to this email. Contact us with any queries
> via for@for.is
>
>
>
> Með bestu kveðju / Best regards
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Forsætisráðuneytið / Prime Minister's Office
>
> Stjórnarráðshúsinu, IS - 101 Reykjavík, Sími/Tel. +354 545 8400
>
> www.stjornarradid.is<http://
> Fyrirvari/Disclaimer<http://
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 08:16:19 -0400
> Subject: Attn Helen Lodge I just called you from 902 800 0369 below is
> the email I promised to forward to you that Boris Johnson got
> To: Helen.Lodge@ericrobinson.co.uk
> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Helen Lodge <Helen.Lodge@ericrobinson.co.
> Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 09:57:37 +0000
> Subject: Call back
> To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com" <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
> Good morning,
>
> You asked for a call back from our office but we don't seem to have
> the correct telephone number for you.
>
> Would you please contact our office on 01962 790553.
>
> Thank you,
>
>
> Helen Lodge
> Receptionist
> Administration Department
> Tel: 01962 670553│Address: Regency House, 2-4 Southgate Street,
> Winchester, SO23 9EF│DX: 2518 Winchester
> EASIER AT THE WEEKEND? WE’LL SEE YOU ON SATURDAY!
> Now open on Saturdays 9am-12.30pm
>
>
> We are excited to announce the relocation of our Southampton office
> to a brand new flagship office at Vanbrugh House, Botleigh Grange. We
> will be closing the office at 4 Carlton Crescent, Southampton on 9th
> August and staff will be relocating to our new office at Vanbrugh
> House on the 3rd of September. All staff will be fully contactable on
> their usual direct dial number and email during the interim period,
> which are shown on their email footer.
>
>
> To see the full range of services we offer to individuals and
> businesses, visit our website: www.ericrobinson.co.uk
>
> IMPORTANT - The information contained in this e-mail, including any
> attachments, is confidential and intended only for the personal
> attention of the addressee. This message contains information which is
> privileged at law. If you have received it in error you must not copy,
> distribute or take any action in reliance on it. Please notify Eric
> Robinson Solicitors at once on (023) 8042 5000.
>
> Cybercriminals and fraudsters are now targeting law firms in order
> an attempt to divert payments to alternative bank accounts. As such;
> Eric Robinson will not update payment details via email. Should you
> receive an email attempting to amend payment details, please contact
> the individual dealing with your matter by telephone as Eric Robinson
> cannot accept responsibility for losses arising from mis-transfer of
> funds.
>
> ERIC ROBINSON SOLICITORS
> A list of Partners is open to inspection at the above address.
> This firm is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation
> Authority under practice number 00054381.
>
> ..............................
> Visit our Web Site at http://www.ericrobinson.co.uk
> Attachments are in Microsoft Office or PDF format. Documents can be
> opened and read using Microsoft Word, although they may not include a
> .doc file extension.
>
> IMPORTANT - The information contained in this e-mail, including any
> attachments, is confidential and intended only for the personal
> attention of the addressee. This message contains information which is
> privileged at law. If you have received it in error you must not copy,
> distribute or take any action in reliance on it. Please notify Eric
> Robinson Solicitors at once on (023) 8042 5000.
>
> ERIC ROBINSON SOLICITORS
> A list of Partners is open to inspection at the above address.
> This firm is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation
> Authority under practice number 00054381.
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2018 10:27:54 -0400
> Subject: Fwd: While the people in the newsroom of the Telegraph in the
> UK were updating the Brits in what was happpeneing just a few miles
> from me they deemed me not worth talking to
> To: iyad@el-baghdadi.com, "Chuck.Thompson" <Chuck.Thompson@cbc.ca>,
> "Gerald.Butts" <Gerald.Butts@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>, Newsroom
> <Newsroom@globeandmail.com>, news <news@kingscorecord.com>, news
> <news@hilltimes.com>, "sylvie.gadoury"
> <sylvie.gadoury@radio-canada.
> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
> <chrystia.freeland@
> <Chrystia.Freeland@parl.gc.ca>
> <boris.johnson.mp@parliament.
>
> https://el-baghdadi.com/
>
> https://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/
>
> Et tu quoque, Trudeau? How Saudi trolls slammed Canada in a diplomatic spat
>
> 'It was a really bizarre case of whataboutism, if you don't even
> know how to do whataboutism right'
> CBC Radio · August 10
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 15:00:56 -0400
> Subject: While the people in the newsroom of the Telegraph in the UK
> were updating the Brits in what was happpeneing just a few miles from
> me they deemed me not worth talking to
> To: "harry.forestell" <harry.forestell@cbc.ca>, "Jacques.Poitras"
> <Jacques.Poitras@cbc.ca>, "darrow.macintyre"
> <darrow.macintyre@cbc.ca>, gopublic <gopublic@cbc.ca>, "steve.murphy"
> <steve.murphy@ctv.ca>, "David.Akin" <David.Akin@globalnews.ca>,
> oldmaison <oldmaison@yahoo.com>, andre <andre@jafaust.com>, jbosnitch
> <jbosnitch@gmail.com>, "Leanne.Fitch" <Leanne.Fitch@fredericton.ca>,
> "brian.gallant" <brian.gallant@gnb.ca>, "David.Coon"
> <David.Coon@gnb.ca>, "blaine.higgs" <blaine.higgs@gnb.ca>,
> "Dominic.Cardy" <Dominic.Cardy@gnb.ca>, "martin.gaudet"
> <martin.gaudet@fredericton.ca>
> <Stephen.Horsman@gnb.ca>, "hon.ralph.goodale"
> <hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca>, "Robert. Jones" <Robert.Jones@cbc.ca>,
> "Larry.Tremblay" <Larry.Tremblay@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
> <Gilles.Blinn@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Mark.Blakely"
> <Mark.Blakely@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>
> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 12:36:15 -0400
> Subject: Fwd: Why does CBC care what the Maritime Master of War Petey
> Baby MacKay thinks about anything?
> To: strobes@private-eye.co.uk
>
> Private Eye
> 6 Carlisle Street, London
> W1D 3BN, United Kingdom
> Tel: +44 (0)20 7437 4017
> Fax: +44 (0)20 7437 0705
> Email: strobes@private-eye.co.uk
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: "Fitch, Leanne" <leanne.fitch@fredericton.ca>
> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 16:04:36 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: Why does CBC care what the Maritime Master
> of War Petey Baby MacKay thinks about anything?
> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
>
> Hello/Bonjour I will be out of the office from August 8 to September
> 2, 2018. Je serai sorti du bureau le 8 aout a 3 septembre, 2018.
>
>
> Due to a very high volume of incoming email to this account there is
> an unusual backlog of pending responses. Your message may not be
> responded to in a timely fashion. If you require a formal response
> please send your query in writing to my attention c/o Fredericton
> Police Force, 311 Queen St, Fredericton, NB E3B 1B1 or phone (506)
> 460-2300. If this is an emergency related to public safety please call
> 911.
>
> En raison du grand nombre de courriels que reçoit cette messagerie, il
> se peut qu’une réponse tarde un peu à venir. Si vous avez besoin d'une
> réponse officielle, veuillez envoyer votre demande par écrit à mon
> attention aux soins (a/s) de la Force policière de Fredericton 311,
> rue Queen, Fredericton, NB E3B 1B1, ou composer le 506 460-2300.
> S'il s'agit d'une urgence de sécurité publique, faites le 911.
>
>
> This e-mail communication (including any or all attachments) is
> intended only for the use of the person or entity to which it is
> addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If
> you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, any use, review,
> retransmission, distribution, dissemination, copying, printing, or
> other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this e-mail, is
> strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
> contact the sender and delete the original and any copy of this e-mail
> and any printout thereof, immediately. Your co-operation is
> appreciated.
>
> Any correspondence with elected officials, employees, or other agents
> of the City of Fredericton may be subject to disclosure under the
> provisions of the Province of New Brunswick Right to Information and
> Protection of Privacy Act.
>
> Le présent courriel (y compris toute pièce jointe) s'adresse
> uniquement à son destinataire, qu'il soit une personne ou un
> organisme, et pourrait comporter des renseignements privilégiés ou
> confidentiels. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire du courriel, il est
> interdit d'utiliser, de revoir, de retransmettre, de distribuer, de
> disséminer, de copier ou d'imprimer ce courriel, d'agir en vous y
> fiant ou de vous en servir de toute autre façon. Si vous avez reçu le
> présent courriel par erreur, prière de communiquer avec l'expéditeur
> et d'éliminer l'original du courriel, ainsi que toute copie
> électronique ou imprimée de celui-ci, immédiatement. Nous sommes
> reconnaissants de votre collaboration.
>
> Toute correspondance entre ou avec les employés ou les élus de la
> Ville de Fredericton pourrait être divulguée conformément aux
> dispositions de la Loi sur le droit à l’information et la protection
> de la vie privée.
>
> GOV-OP-073
>
>
>
>
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/
>
> Canada shooting: several dead and suspect in custody in Fredericton
> By Our Foreign Staff
>
> 10 August 2018 • 1:00pm
>
> Four people, including two police officers, were killed in a shooting
> in the eastern Canadian city of Fredericton and one person was taken
> into custody, police said on Friday.
>
> Police in Fredericton, a city of about 56,000 that is the capital of
> the province of New Brunswick, said in a post on Twitter that the
> incident was under investigation and there were multiple fatalities.
>
> Another police tweet said two of the four people killed were police
> officers but gave no details and did not release the names of the
> victims. The suspect is being treated for serious injuries.
>
> Local media images showed emergency vehicles converging on a
> tree-lined residential street. Nearby facilities were closed and
> authorities told residents to stay locked in their homes.
>
> Canadian Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale said the Royal Canadian
> Mounted Police (RCMP) were assisting Fredericton authorities.
>
> New Brunswick had only three homicide shootings in 2016, according to
> Statistics Canada.
>
> Gun laws in Canada are more strict than in the United States but a
> proliferation of weapons has led to an increase in gun crimes in
> recent years.
>
> "Awful news coming out of Fredericton," Canadian Prime Minister Justin
> Trudeau said on Twitter. "My heart goes out to everyone affected by
> this morning’s shooting. We’re following the situation closely."
>
> Three RCMP officers were killed and two more were wounded in 2014 in
> Moncton, New Brunswick, about 195 km (121 miles) from Fredericton, in
> one of the worst incidents of its kind in Canada.
>
> Last month, a gunman walked down a busy Toronto street, killing two
> people and wounding 13 others before turning his weapon on himself.
>
> Toronto, Canada's largest city, has had 241 shooting incidents this
> year, resulting in 30 deaths, a 30 percent increase in fatalities.
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: Media Enquiries <Media.Enquiries+noreply@
> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 15:47:15 +0000
> Subject: Re: Fwd: Why does CBC care what the Maritime Master of War
> Petey Baby MacKay thinks about anything?
> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
> Thank you for your enquiry.
>
> Please note - this inbox is monitored regularly but is for
> MEDIA-RELATED ENQUIRIES ONLY e.g. Telegraph press office issues,
> including media requests for Telegraph writers.
>
> If you have a READER ENQUIRY, please re-direct your email to:
> telegraphenquiries@telegraph.
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: Newsroom <newsroom@globeandmail.com>
> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 15:48:44 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: Why does CBC care what the Maritime Master
> of War Petey Baby MacKay thinks about anything?
> 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: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 11:22:26 -0400
> Subject: Fwd: Why does CBC care what the Maritime Master of War Petey
> Baby MacKay thinks about anything?
> To: media.enquiries@telegraph.co.
> <boris.johnson.mp@parliament.
> Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
> <Newsroom@globeandmail.com>, news <news@hilltimes.com>, news
> <news@kingscorecord.com>, news <news@thetelegraph.com.au>, news
> <news@dailygleaner.com>, news919 <news919@rogers.com>
> Cc: dtnews@telegraph.co.uk
>
> The Telegraph
> 111 Buckingham Palace Road
> London
> SW1W 0DT
>
> + 44 (0) 20 7931 2000
> Press Office
> + 44 (0) 20 7931 2000
> media.enquiries@telegraph.co.
> Editorial
> + 44 (0) 20 7931 2000
> dtnews@telegraph.co.uk
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2018 09:09:20 -0400
> Subject: Why does CBC care what the Maritime Master of War Petey Baby
> MacKay thinks about anything?
> To: Omar.Alghabra@parl.gc.ca, Peter.MacKay@bakermckenzie.com
> <pm@pm.gc.ca>, "Gerald.Butts" <Gerald.Butts@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>,
> "maxime.bernier" <maxime.bernier@parl.gc.ca>, "andrew.scheer"
> <andrew.scheer@parl.gc.ca>, mdcohen212@gmail.com, djtjr
> <djtjr@trumporg.com>, fgraves@ekos.com, "Dominic.Cardy"
> <Dominic.Cardy@gnb.ca>, "David.Coon" <David.Coon@gnb.ca>, "David.Akin"
> <David.Akin@globalnews.ca>, "Jonathan.Vance"
> <Jonathan.Vance@forces.gc.ca>, "hon.ralph.goodale"
> <hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca>, "Larry.Tremblay"
> <Larry.Tremblay@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
> washington field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>
> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
> <Catherine.Tait@cbc.ca>, "Chuck.Thompson" <Chuck.Thompson@cbc.ca>,
> "sylvie.gadoury" <sylvie.gadoury@radio-canada.
> <Melanie.Joly@parl.gc.ca>, "Bill.Morneau" <Bill.Morneau@parl.gc.ca>
>
> Peter MacKay on Halifax Forum, US-Canada Relations & Political Future
> 104 views
> Defense & Aerospace Report
> Published on Nov 28, 2017
>
> Peter MacKay, Canada's former foreign affairs, defense and justice
> minister and founder of the Halifax International Security Forum who
> is now with the Baker McKenzie law firms, discusses the importance of
> the forum, US-Canada relations, causes he's championing and his
> political future. MacKay spoke with the Defense & Aerospace Report at
> the 2017 Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia, Canada.
> Check out our website: http://www.defaeroreport.com
>
> https://defaeroreport.com/
>
> Vago Muradian
> Founder & Editor
> Defense & Aerospace Report, LLC
> +1 (202) 607-4711
> +1 (571) 221-0990
> vmuradian@DefAeroReport.com
>
>
> http://davidraymondamos3.
>
> Thursday, 9 August 2018
>
> Why does CBC care what Petey Baby MacKay thinks about anything?
>
> https://twitter.com/
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "MacKay, Peter" <Peter.MacKay@bakermckenzie.
> Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 14:39:17 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: YO Minister Jean-Yves.Duclos Once again you
> are welcome Now how about the RCMP, the LIEbranos and all the other
> parliamentarians start acting with some semblance of Integrity after
> all these years?
> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
> Thank you for your email. I am currently out of the office attending
> meetings and have limited access to email and voicemail. If your
> matter is urgent, or if you require assistance, please contact my
> assistant, Nicole Bruni at nicole.bruni@bakermckenzie.com or at (416)
> 865-3861.
>
>
> This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If
> it has been sent to you in error, please reply to advise the sender of
> the error and then immediately delete this message. Please visit
> www.bakermckenzie.com/
> concerning this message.
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2018 15:24:42 -0400
> Subject: Re "At the Crossroads of Hope and Fear" Yo Mr Graves we just
> talked say Hey to your buddy Petey Baby MacKay and Trump/s lawyer
> Mikey Cohen for me will ya?
> To: fgraves@ekos.com, "PETER.MACKAY" <PETER.MACKAY@bakermckenzie.
> mdcohen212 <mdcohen212@gmail.com>, david@policyalternatives.ca
> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
> alyssa@policyalternatives.ca, ccpans@policyalternatives.ca,
> Don.Pittis@cbc.ca, premier <premier@ontario.ca>, caroline
> <caroline@carolinemulroney.ca>
> <Gerald.Butts@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>
>
> Wednesday, 1 August 2018
>
> The confusion of the CCPA and the CBC is well known when it comes to
> matters of money N'esy Pas?
>
> "Ekos founder and president Frank Graves says the rejection of
> inheritance tax is just one part of a wider phenomenon demonstrated in
> his polling. He pointed to the election of Doug Ford as premier in
> Ontario as an example of its impact. Most of Ford's supporters
> declared themselves to be working class."
>
> http://www.ekospolitics.com/
>
> At the Crossroads of Hope and Fear
> THE NEW AXIS OF SOCIETAL TENSION
>
> Frank Graves
> President EKOS Research
> t: 613.235-7215
> fgraves@ekos.com
>
>
>
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/
>
> An attempt to understand Canada's inheritance tax backlash: Don Pittis
> Roar of objections to imposing death duties on Canadians may have complex
> roots
>
> Don Pittis · CBC News · Posted: Aug 07, 2018 4:00 AM ET
>
> 291 Comments
>
> Steve Timmins
> My blood, sweat and tears were for MY family not the government. I've
> already paid my taxes on income. What's left is mine to decide what to
> do with not some socialist who drools over it.
>
>
> David Amos
> @Steve Timmins "Anyone who thinks the CBC does not serve
> conservative-leaning Canadians should look at the comments for a
> recent online story about inheritance taxes."
>
> Methinks the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives think-tank should
> have red my comments by now N'esy Pas?
>
>
>
> http://davidraymondamos3.
>
> Tuesday, 14 February 2017
>
> RE FATCA, NAFTA & TPP etc ATTN President Donald J. Trump I just got
> off the phone with your lawyer Mr Cohen (646-853-0114) Why does he lie
> to me after all this time???
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Michael Cohen <mcohen@trumporg.com>
> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:15:14 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: RE FATCA ATTN Pierre-Luc.Dusseault I just
> called and left a message for you
> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
> Effective January 20, 2017, I have accepted the role as personal
> counsel to President Donald J. Trump. All future emails should be
> directed to mdcohen212@gmail.com and all future calls should be
> directed to 646-853-0114.
> ______________________________
> This communication is from The Trump Organization or an affiliate
> thereof and is not sent on behalf of any other individual or entity.
> This email may contain information that is confidential and/or
> proprietary. Such information may not be read, disclosed, used,
> copied, distributed or disseminated except (1) for use by the intended
> recipient or (2) as expressly authorized by the sender. If you have
> received this communication in error, please immediately delete it and
> promptly notify the sender. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed
> to be received, secure or error-free as emails could be intercepted,
> corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late, incomplete, contain viruses
> or otherwise. The Trump Organization and its affiliates do not
> guarantee that all emails will be read and do not accept liability for
> any errors or omissions in emails. Any views or opinions presented in
> any email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
> represent those of The Trump Organization or any of its
> affiliates.Nothing in this communication is intended to operate as an
> electronic signature under applicable law.
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 18:22:21 -0400
> Subject: Yo Bill Morneau before Trump causes the markets to crash
> Methinks I should remind folks of the Bank of Canadas long lost
> mandate, Harper's Bankster bail out 10 years ago and Trudeau The
> Younger's recent Bankster Bail-In plan
> To: "Bill.Morneau" <Bill.Morneau@canada.ca>, "Andrew.Bailey"
> <Andrew.Bailey@fca.org.uk>, postur <postur@for.is>, postur
> <postur@dmr.is>, postur <postur@irr.is>, smari <smari@immi.is>,
> david@policyalternatives.ca, info@ipolitics.ca,
> elizabeth.thompson@cbc.ca, michaelharris@ipolitics.ca,
> KadyOMalley@ipolitics.ca, StephenMaher@ipolitics.ca,
> info@canadachristiancollege.
> <zach.dubinsky@cbc.ca>
> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
> <press@bankofengland.co.uk>, "boris.johnson.mp"
> <boris.johnson.mp@parliament.
> <herb.wiseman@gmail.com>, paul.slansky@bellnet.ca,
> stuart@policyalternatives.ca, ccpa@policyalternatives.ca,
> steve.silva@globalnews.ca, steve@stevesilva.ca, "David.Akin"
> <David.Akin@globalnews.ca>
>
> Whereas nobody listens to me I will attempt to do so byway of other
> people's words and videos.
>
> Does anyone recall this nonsense on Youtube 5 years ago when young
> Justin was charging big bucks for speeches but having fun yapping it
> up bigtime in malls for free? Obviously even bald mall guards loved
> Trudeau "The Younger" back then Nesy Pas?
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?
>
> Justin Trudeau: Fluoride/Bilderberg/Bank of Canada Are Conspiracy Theories
> Terry Wilson
> Published on Feb 8, 2013
>
>
> However this far important stuff was also put up on YouTube after it
> appears CBC had aired it first and nobody seemed to care.
>
> Please note I truly do appreciate David MacDonald's work. However I am
> very tired of his old buddies such as the turncoat NDP?Conservative
> Dominic Cardy laughing at me while sending me butter tarts and talking
> mindlessly of ardvarrks, puffins and pussy cats etc.
>
>
> Study Reveals Secret Bailouts to Canadian Banks
> 31,067 views
>
> LeakSourceCanada
> Published on Apr 30, 2012
> 04/30/2012
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?
>
> "Our politicians are on the global stage touting the soundness of
> Canada's banking system, where at the same time three of Canada's
> banks were at some point underwater."
>
> David Macdonald of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
> explains the think tank's report that found Canadian banks received
> secret bailouts during the 2008-2010 financial crisis.
>
> (PDF) The Big Banks' Big Secret: Estimating Government Support for
> Canadian Banks During the Financial Crisis
> http://www.policyalternatives.
>
> http://LeakSource.wordpress.
>
>
>
> Need I say that I contacted these NDP/union/beancounter/
> ago?
>
> https://www.
>
> https://www.
>
> “Canada’s corporate executives were among the loudest critics of a new
> fifteen dollar minimum wage in provinces like Ontario and Alberta,
> meanwhile the highest paid among them were raking in record-breaking
> earnings,” says the report’s author, CCPA Senior Economist David
> Macdonald."
>
> Climbing Up and Kicking Down: Executive pay in Canada is available on
> the CCPA website. For more information contact Alyssa O’Dell, CCPA
> Media and Public Relations: 613-563-1341 x307,
> alyssa@policyalternatives.ca or cell 343-998-7575.
>
> Here is a little proof of an email of mine from 2012 that the CCPA,
> the NDP, the Conservatives, Dizzy Lizzy May, Trudeau "The Younger",
> his many mindless minions and even YOU should recall N'esy Pas David
> Akin?
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 13:09:54 -0400
> Subject: Fwd: RE Potash Corp, The NEB, Nexen, Pipelines and MP Nathan
> Cullen
> To: ccpa@policyalternatives.ca, "justin.trudeau.a1"
> <justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca>
> <marc.garneau.a1@parl.gc.ca>
> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
> <dean.delmastro.c1@parl.gc.ca>
> <leader@greenparty.bc.ca>, "adrian.dix.mla" <adrian.dix.mla@leg.bc.ca>
>
>
> That said
>
>
> Does anyone remember what this crooked Bankster had to say to CBC the
> following year before he split for a far fancier job in Not So Merry
> Old England???
>
> Bank 'bail-in' plan shouldn't worry Canadians, Carney says
> Bank of Canada head says it's 'hard to fathom' Canadian deposits would
> be touched
> The Canadian Press Posted: Apr 18, 2013 5:03 PM ET
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/
>
>
>
> Since then the Liebranos put the Bankster 'bail-in' plan in the books.
> While CBC has played dumb lawyers and many others have had an opinion
> about it. I for one particularly enjoy the ones I view on YouTube.
>
> So who is the liar of these two? an unnamed lawyer on the CBA website
> who does not offer a name to back up its opinion or a biblepounder
> that claims to be a "Dr" or both?
>
> FAQ: What is a “bail-in regime” and are my bank deposits safe?
>
> https://cba.ca/faq-what-is-a-
>
>
>
> Trudeau's Bail-In Now Law to Allow Banks to Confiscate Your Deposits
> 23,777 views
> Canadian Times NEWS
> Published on Aug 11, 2016
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?
>
>
> Perhaps both the lawyer and the "Dr" may enjoy the email found within this
> blog
> I published today for their benefit
>
> Sunday, 21 January 2018
>
> As soon as Mark Carney is appointed Govenor of the Bank of England I
> get a call from the SEC (202 551 2000)
>
> http://davidraymondamos3.
>
>
>
> As far as the Bank of Canada lawsuit goes this stuff was published by CBC
>
> Rocco Galati and the lawsuit against the Bank of Canada
> 40,691 views
> CBC News
> Published on May 8, 2015
> Colourful and controversial. Rocco Galati isn't your average advocate.
> He's a kind of legal David, known for tangling with Goliath-sized
> courtroom opponents. His peers seem to approve. Electing him to the
> bench that oversees them. His latest case may his most contentious of
> his career.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?
>
>
>
>
> However I see no mention of the outcome this year except on YouTube.
>
> COMER VS BOC Final press conference
> 1,564 views
> Lawrence McCurry
> Published on Jun 6, 2017
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?
>
>
>
> The Most Important Canadian Litigation Of The XXI Century: COMER vs
> The Government Of Canada
> 2,217 views
> CounterBalanceToday
> Published on Jun 7, 2017
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?
>
> Recorded on June 3, 2017 at the COMER Press Conference in Rocco
> Galati's Law Offices
>
> In my opinion this is one of the most important cases of the XXI
> century in Canada about one of the biggest issues the world is facing
> since the XX Century and that is the central banking control over
> nations and the issue of money.
>
> "After nearly 5 ½ years of contentious litigation between the
> Committee On Monetary and Economic Reform (COMER) and the Government
> of Canada involving three separate Federal Court and two additional
> Federal Court of Appeal hearings resulting in contrary decisions, on
> May 4th, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed COMER’s “leave”
> (permission to appeal) application from the second judgment of the
> Federal Court of Appeal. Following established practice, the federal
> Supreme Court does NOT issue reasons when it dismisses a leave
> application.
>
> The dismissal by the Supreme Court of the Leave application, means
> only that the Court does not want to hear the appeal. The
> jurisprudence on this is clear: it does not mean that the lower court
> decisions are correct in law. The possible reasons for the Supreme
> Court not wanting to hear the case are many and various, including the
> washing of their hands or “deference” to the political process –
> hence, this is why reasons are not issued by the Supreme Court in
> leave dismissals.
>
> We believe that the case has ample legal merit, and should have
> proceeded to trial. It is not uncommon for the Supreme Court to refuse
> leave on a given issue multiple times, finally to grant leave, hear
> the appeal and the case then succeeds. The Supreme Court controls its
> own agenda, both in its timing and on the merits of issues it will or
> will not hear. (Annually, fewer than 8 - 10% of all cases filed are
> granted permission and heard at the Supreme Court of Canada.)
>
> It should be noted that throughout this arduous and expensive legal
> process, the substance of this lawsuit initiated in the public
> interest has not been addressed. (The matters raised by the lawsuit
> are summarized in the attached original news release issued on
> December 19, 2011.)"
>
> Source: http://mailchi.mp/
>
> For more information about COMER and the brave people behind this
> organization:
> http://www.comer.org/
>
> https://www.facebook.com/
>
> Other related project worth to check by Paul Heller:
> http://www.
>
> Recorded and edited by:
> https://www.facebook.com/
> Apologies for my amateur recording and editing I had a limitation in
> my old photographic camera, the video stops after a few minutes so I
> missed a few milliseconds of audio in between the multiple videos that
> I consolidated here.
>
> Feel Free to distribute share and download this important information.
> Category
> News & Politics
>
> Then lastly for comic relief there was the wicked LIEbrano Motion
> M-103.and its purported attack on Free Speech. Lots of people had
> their opinion on that topic so there is not much need of adding my two
> bits worth particularly after Kellie Leitch, Brad Trost, Pierre
> Lemieux, Chris Alexander, Faith Goldy, Ezzy Levant and their Christian
> Zionist "Dr." McVety pal made a big splash in Toronto. It did no good
> whatsoever. The motion passed easily by a vote of 201–91. However it
> was non-binding so what was all the noice about anyway other than to
> make Trudueau "The Younger" look like some kind of hero???
>
>
>
> https://ipolitics.ca/2017/02/
>
> Conservatives may pay a price for M-103 hysteria
> By Stephen Maher. Published on Feb 17, 2017 5:08pm
>
>
> https://
>
>
> 1,500 People Gather at Canada Christian College to Defend Free Speech
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?
>
> Furthermore everybody knows most folks don't read anymore and all my
> words only fall on deaf ears anyway. However at least I was correct
> about the Pirate Party and the ERRE Committee in 2016 N'esy Pas Mr
> Prime Minister Trudeau "The Younger"?
>
>
> All that said need I remind folks I am about to mak an application to
> the Supreme Court becaue of this wicked decision? Please enjoy
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> http://davidraymondamos3.
>
>
> Thursday, 21 December 2017
>
> Attn Simon Fish of the BMO and Robert Kennedy of Dentons I just called
> from 902 800 0369 Play dumb all you wish The BMO has had my documents
> for years
>
> https://www.scribd.com/
>
> https://www.scribd.com/doc/
>
>
> While I was publishing this in my blog the lawyer Bobby Baby Kennedy called
> back from (416) 846-6598 and played as dumb. Hell he even claimed that he
> did not know who Frank McKenna was No partner even a lowly collection
> dude within Dentons is allowed to be THAT stupid.
>
>
>> ---------- 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/
>>
>>
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2018 23:09:44 -0400
Subject: YO Franky Boy McKenna Perhaps Artie Watson, Independent
Candidate for Portland - Simonds or the Union dude interviewing him
will understand thia email N'esy Pas?
To: artie.independent@gmail.com
Cc: david.young@mcinnescooper.com, snb@nb.aibn.com,
devans@coxandpalmer.com, markandcaroline <markandcaroline@gmail.com>,
Newsroom <Newsroom@globeandmail.com>, news <news@kingscorecord.com>,nbfwo@nb.aibn.com, news <news@dailygleaner.com>, "steve.murphy"
<steve.murphy@ctv.ca>, "brian.gallant" <brian.gallant@gnb.ca>,
"Davidc.Coon" <Davidc.Coon@gmail.com>, davidcoon
<davidcoon@greenpartynb.ca>, leader <leader@greenparty.ca>, leader
<leader@greenparty.pe.ca>, leader <leader@greenparty.bc.ca>,
"serge.rousselle" <serge.rousselle@gnb.ca>, "len.hoyt"
<len.hoyt@mcinnescooper.com>, "Frank.McKenna" <Frank.McKenna@td.com>
We all know the bigtime bullshitter Donny Baby Bowser never will EH?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Don Bowser, President of I.M.P.A.C.T. (Business)
The Dennis Report
Published on Sep 1, 2018
Mr. Bowser has a great line in our conversation, "It is hard for me to
find work in New Brunswick, so I have to travel the world instead. It
seems there is no interest in corruption in New Brunswick." It was
said with tongue-in-cheek … to a degree. Corruption is a major problem
and challenge in New Brunswick, and Mr. Bowser walks us through some
key perspectives and shares some stories of his work. At the heart of
each is a central theme … we can be doing so much better in New
Brunswick. What are your thoughts?
Mr. Bowser website: www.goodgov.ca
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Artie Watson, Independent Candidate for Portland - Simonds (Politics)
25 views
The Dennis Report
Published on Aug 28, 2018
During elections, mainstream media pay little or no attention to
independent candidates. In the election narrative they are treated as
an afterthought. Yet, the foundation of parliamentary democracy in New
Brunswick is based on independent candidates. Much has been lost it
seems.
Mr. Watson offers powerful insights and reasons for his second run at
being the Member of the Legislative Assembly for Portland Simonds.
There is much frustration, even betrayal, when it comes to how
politics have been played in his community.
So this begs the question … will voters who claim they want change
continue to behave in the same old way?
Mr. Watson's Facebook page is Artie Watson, and email is
Artie.independent@gmail.com
https://www.facebook.com/pg/
Call (506) 639.8594
m.me/ThePeoplesIndependent
artie.independent@gmail.com
MORE INFO
Hometown
Saint John, NB
Affiliation
Indepenedent
About
I believe that the interests of the people must come first. When we
put profits before people, we've lost our way. We've allowed those
we've entrusted with our voice, a free pass. Time for accountability!
#BeAuthentic #BeIndependent #Vote4ArtieWatson
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Newsroom <newsroom@globeandmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2018 02:36:31 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: YO Franky Boy McKenna Methinks your pals the
sneaky lawyers Lenny Hoyt and Davey Young will enjoy a little Deja Vu
byway of your buddies Premier Gallant and Chucky Leblanc
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
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.
On 9/6/18, David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
> https://www2.gnb.ca/content/
>
> Executive Council Office, September 25, 2014 - Fredericton
>
> Transition team announced
> Premier-designate Brian Gallant announced a three-member transition
> team to liaise with the civil service in the period leading to the
> swearing-in of the new cabinet. From left: Len Hoyt; Ellen Creighton;
> Gallant and Don Ferguson.
>
>
> http://
>
> Saturday, 27 May 2017
>
> Lawyers Leonard Hoyt and David Duncan Young should be investigated by
> the media!!!! HUGH CONFLICT????
>
> https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?
>
> Lawyers Leonard Hoyt and David Duncan Young should be investigated by the
> media!
> 211 views
> Charles Leblanc
> Published on May 27, 2017
>
> Posted by Charles Leblanc at 11:52 am
>
> Trust that I will make certain that their buddies Johnny "Never Been
> Good Sabine and Chrissy Spencer of SNB will never foget who they
> pissed off last night N'esy Pas?
>
> http://davidraymondamos3.
>
>
> Wednesday, 5 September 2018
> ATTN David Duncan Young I just met your nasty little buddy Chris
> Spencer of SNB tonight
> Thanks to the Green Meanies from Fat Fred City anyone can view the
> circus last night in Fundy
>
> N'esy Pas Premier Gallant?
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?
>
> Political Debate on Forestry Related Concerns / Solutions (Video 1/2)
> No views
> Stop Spraying in NB SSNB
> Published on Sep 6, 2018
> All-Party debate September 5, 2018 Hosted by New Brunswick Federation
> of Woodlot Owners Location: Sussex, NB Hosts: SNB
>
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?
>
> Political Debate on Forestry Related Concerns / Solutions (Video 2/2)
> No views
> Stop Spraying in NB SSNB
> Published on Sep 6, 2018
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: Newsroom
> Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2018 01:18:39 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: Re:Whereas some of you were blocked I
> blogged it ATTN David Duncan Young I just met your nasty little buddy
> Chris Spencer of SNB tonight
> To: David Amos
>
> 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.
>
>
> Your message wasn't delivered to david.young@mcinnescooper.com because
> the address couldn't be found, or is unable to receive mail.
>
> Your message wasn't delivered to devans@coxandpalmer.com because the
> address couldn't be found, or is unable to receive mail.
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Kulik, John" <john.kulik@mcinnescooper.com>
> Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 18:29:07 +0000
> Subject: McInnes Cooper
> To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com" <motomaniac333@gmail.com>,
> "david.raymond.amos@gmail.com" <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
>
> Dear Mr. Amos:
>
> I have tried to call you back a number of times at 902-800-0369 but
> each time I get a busy signal.
>
> John Kulik
> [McInnes Cooper]<http://www.
>
> John Kulik Q.C.
> Partner & General Counsel
> McInnes Cooper
>
> tel +1 (902) 444 8571 | fax +1 (902) 425 6350
>
> 1969 Upper Water Street
> Suite 1300
> Purdy's Wharf Tower II Halifax, NS, B3J 2V1
>
> asst Cathy Ohlhausen | +1 (902) 455 8215
>
>
>
> From: Kulik, John
> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 2:38 PM
> To: 'motomaniac333@gmail.com'; 'david.raymond.amos@gmail.com'
> Subject: McInnes Cooper
>
> Dear Mr. Amos:
>
> I am General Counsel for McInnes Cooper. If you need to communicate
> with our firm, please do so through me.
>
> Thank you.
>
> John Kulik
> [McInnes Cooper]<http://www.
>
> John Kulik Q.C.
> Partner & General Counsel
> McInnes Cooper
>
> tel +1 (902) 444 8571 | fax +1 (902) 425 6350
>
> 1969 Upper Water Street
> Suite 1300
> Purdy's Wharf Tower II Halifax, NS, B3J 2V1
>
> asst Cathy Ohlhausen | +1 (902) 455 8215
>
>
>
> Notice This communication, including any attachments, is confidential
> and may be protected by solicitor/client privilege. It is intended
> only for the person or persons to whom it is addressed. If you have
> received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by e-mail or
> telephone at McInnes Cooper's expense. Avis Les informations contenues
> dans ce courriel, y compris toute(s) pièce(s) jointe(s), sont
> confidentielles et peuvent faire l'objet d'un privilège avocat-client.
> Les informations sont dirigées au(x) destinataire(s) seulement. Si
> vous avez reçu ce courriel par erreur, veuillez en aviser l'expéditeur
> par courriel ou par téléphone, aux frais de McInnes Cooper.
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2018 12:03:46 -0400
> Subject: The corrupt ex cop John Sabine
> To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
>
> Date:
> November 28 2005
> id:
> p06opolc4wf8y
> Cited as:
> 2005 NBQB 425, (2005), 290 N.B.R.(2d) 338 (TD)
> Judge:
> McLellan, J.
> Court:
> Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick
> Jurisdiction:
> New Brunswick
> Case cited by: one case
>
> B.B. v. Saint John (2005), 290 N.B.R.(2d) 338 (TD);
>
> 290 R.N.-B.(2e) 338; 755 A.P.R. 338
>
> MLB headnote and full text
>
> Sommaire et texte intégral
>
> [English language version only]
>
> [Version en langue anglaise seulement]
>
> Temp. Cite: [2005] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. DE.001
>
> Renvoi temp.: [2005] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. DE.001
>
> B.B., by S.B., his Litigation Guardian (plaintiff) v. The City of
> Saint John, a municipal corporation, and Dwayne Hussey, Robert M.
> Young, Stacey Humphrey and John Sabine (defendants)
>
> (S/C/674/04; 2005 NBQB 425; 2005 NBBR 425)
>
> Indexed As: B.B. v. Saint John (City) et al.
>
> Répertorié: B.B. v. Saint John (City) et al.
>
> New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench
>
> Trial Division
>
> Judicial District of Saint John
>
> McLellan, J.
>
> November 29, 2005.
>
> Summary:
>
> Résumé:
>
> The plaintiff sued municipal police officers and the municipality for
> damages for injuries suffered when he was arrested. The plaintiff also
> claimed exemplary damages for violation of his Charter rights.
>
> The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, allowed the
> action in respect of the injuries suffered but not in respect of the
> alleged Charter rights violations.
>
> Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been
> initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of
> identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's
> editorial policy or otherwise.
>
> Damage Awards - Topic 229
>
> Injury and death - Eye injuries - Black eye - [See Police - Topic 5145 ].
>
> Police - Topic 5003
>
> Actions against police - General - Actions against municipality for
> actions by police officer - [See Police - Topic 5145 ].
>
> Police - Topic 5145
>
> Actions against police - For assault and battery - Excessive force -
> Municipal police officers went to an apartment building, looking for
> the then 16 year-old plaintiff and a friend in respect of a broken
> window incident - The officers "forcefully" gained access to a room
> where the plaintiff and his friend were hiding under a bed with their
> feet sticking out - Arms were pointed but were not used - "Loud and
> aggressive" commands were made - The plaintiff was pulled out kicking
> and screaming from under the bed and was handcuffed - An officer
> attempted to squeeze pressure points on the plaintiff but failed - The
> plaintiff suffered a black eye and other minor injuries - The New
> Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, ruled that the
> officers should have been able to arrest and handcuff the plaintiff
> without him getting a black eye - They were negligent - The court
> found them jointly and severally liable for the plaintiff's injuries -
> The municipality was also found liable by virtue of the Police Act
> (N.B.) - The court awarded $2,500.
>
> Évaluation des dommages-intérêts - Cote 229
>
> Blessures et décès - Blessures à l'oeil - Oeil au beurre noir - [Voir
> Damage Awards - Topic 229 ].
>
> Police - Cote 5003
>
> Actions contre la police - Généralités - Actions contre la
> municipalité pour les gestes d'un agent de police - [Voir Police -
> Topic 5003 ].
>
> Police - Cote 5145
>
> Actions contre la police - Pour voies de fait et batterie - Force
> excessive - [Voir Police - Topic 5145 ].
>
> Cases Noticed:
>
> R. v. Rossignol (J.G.A.) (1994), 147 N.B.R.(2d) 287; 375 A.P.R. 287
> (T.D.), consd. [para. 26].
>
> Green v. Lawrence et al. (1998), 129 Man.R.(2d) 291; 180 W.A.C. 291;
> 127 C.C.C.(3d) 416; 163 D.L.R.(4th) 115 (C.A.), consd. [para. 27].
>
> Authors and Works Noticed:
>
> Saul, John Ralston, Voltaire's Bastards (1993), Preface [para. 11].
>
> Counsel:
>
> Eric L. Teed, Q.C., for the plaintiff;
>
> Donald V. Keenan, for the defendants.
>
> McLellan, J., of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial
> Division, Judicial District of Saint John, heard this action on
> November 14 and 15, 2005, and delivered the following decision on
> November 29, 2005.
>
> [sommaire terminé]
>
> [1] McLellan, J. : The plaintiff sues for damages for alleged
> excessive use of force by police officers employed by the City of
> Saint John when the plaintiff was arrested on August 15, 2004. At that
> time the plaintiff was 16 years of age. The plaintiff wants
> compensation for alleged personal injuries for an assault he claims he
> suffered at the hands of the defendant Cst. Robert M. Young, as well
> as for unlawful confinement, conspiracy to injure and failure to
> prevent injury. Also he asks for punitive and exemplary damages with
> an appropriate remedy for the violation of his rights under the
> Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , sections 7, 9, 10, 11(a),
> 11(c) and 12. The defendant police officers and the City deny any
> liability to the plaintiff.
>
> [2] During the evening of August 15, 2004 Cst. Young responded three
> times to different telephone calls from a woman from Coronation Court.
> She lived in a second floor apartment with her two young children. Her
> apartment had its own front door on the ground floor. Coronation Court
> is a neighbourhood of apartments in two-storey buildings. It is part
> of the McLaren Boulevard low-income public housing project in the
> North End of Saint John managed by New Brunswick Housing.
>
> [3] That woman was calling to complain about things being thrown at
> her apartment. The first time Cst. Young went to that address he found
> that the window in the front door of the apartment had been broken.
> The second time Cst. Young went there he found that second-floor
> windows of the apartment had been broken. A bottle of relish had
> splattered against an inside wall of the apartment. During that second
> visit an employee of NB Housing replaced the broken window in the
> front door. Both times Cst. Young suspected that the plaintiff and
> some other young people nearby were responsible.
>
> [4] Attempts by Cst. Young and other officers to encourage the
> plaintiff and his friends to keep the peace were met with rude words
> and invitations to take off their gunbelts and fight. A female officer
> who tried to defuse the situation was told to "go fuck herself".
> Unidentified people threw things, including a can of soup, at a police
> car.
>
> [5] A witness who was watching from her front steps describes the
> plaintiff and his friends as "a group of boys, teenagers" who "had
> been drinking" and were "egging on" the police "calling them pigs" and
> other remarks. The plaintiff says that he had been smoking marijuana
> that evening. There is also evidence that some of his friends had been
> consuming pills and alcohol.
>
> [6] A few minutes after the police left Coronation Court the second
> time, the woman called again. Cst. Young understood that her complaint
> was that people had: "basically, just blitzkrieged [her] house ...
> windows and doors all kicked in". More windows on the second floor of
> her apartment had been broken by rocks. The window in the front door
> had been broken out again. As well, that door had been attacked with
> an axe and knocked off its hinges. The woman and her children were
> terrified.
>
> [7] The plaintiff now admits that he was involved in breaking the
> windows of that apartment and that he was present when his friend
> broke in the front door. The plaintiff's friend says that the reason
> for the attacks on that woman's apartment was that she had "ratted" on
> a friend.
>
> [8] As part of the third police response to that location that
> evening, Sgt. John Sabine deployed Cst. Young and another "tactical"
> officer to make their way on foot down an embankment and through a
> rocky wooded area in the dark "undetected ... to set up position in a
> treeline". At the same time, Sgt. Sabine and another officer went to
> Coronation Court in a Durango SUV police vehicle to interview the
> woman whose apartment had just been attacked. In explaining how the
> tactical officers approached the scene, Cst. Young says they were:
>
> "... conditions that we were used to working in, as we train, we train
> continuously in during our tactical training."
>
> [9] In his direct evidence Cst. Young described his training after
> graduation from the Atlantic Police Academy as follows:
>
> "I'm a member of the emergency tactical service in which I received my
> basic tactical course ... [in] Toronto - five week course. Also,
> hostage rescue rapid deployment course through Peel Regional Service.
> Also, active shooter instructor course through the National Tactical
> Officers Association. Also, explosive forced entry, explosive
> handler's course through tactical explosive entry school - Dallas,
> National Tactical Officers Association." (An American organization,
> http://www.ntoa.org)
>
> [10] Such SWAT training could lead to the misunderstanding that police
> are soldiers and members of an occupying army entitled to take severe
> measures for fear of remote and theoretical threats to "officer
> safety". Some people call that misunderstanding "the militarization of
> the police.
>
> [11] As well, the use by the police of weapon-based military-style
> tactics may not "reinforce respect for societal values", "rehabilitate
> young persons" or "address the developmental challenges and the needs
> of young persons" as those words are used in the Youth Criminal
> Justice Act , section 3 and preamble. Also SWAT policing may reduce a
> young person's respect for the police, increase his or her alienation
> from positive influences and damage years of effort to build a spirit
> of trust and community between the police and the public. Ironically,
> there is also a possibility that the SWAT approach to policing then
> "presents itself as the solution to the problems it has created", to
> use a phrase in the preface to Voltaire's Bastards by John Ralston
> Saul, Penguin, Toronto, 1993.
>
> [12] Tactical explosive entry training in Dallas and similar activity
> may distort a police officer's memory of his oath of office and other
> traditional training. That oath emphasizes the duty of a police
> officer in New Brunswick to:
>
> "... cause the peace to be kept and preserved ... according to the law
> ...". N.B. Reg. 81-18, s. 2.
>
> [13] Against that background, while Cst. Young and the other tactical
> officer watched from their positions on foot that night, the plaintiff
> with a friend approached the police Durango SUV vehicle. It was parked
> and appeared to be unattended. Those officers recognized both the
> plaintiff and his friend.
>
> [14] The plaintiff says that he then smashed the rear window of that
> police vehicle with a baseball bat. Both tactical officers then chased
> the plaintiff and his friend.
>
> [15] The plaintiff and his friend ran into an apartment and the door
> locked behind them. Sgt. Sabine and the other officer with him then
> joined the tactical officers there. After Cst. Young banged and kicked
> on the front door of that apartment, the woman who lived there allowed
> Cst. Young and another officer in to search that apartment. She says
> that she had been sleeping after working 12 hour shifts on two days.
> Sgt. Sabine then also entered that apartment without express
> permission and opened the back door for a fourth officer. That woman
> is not a party to this action. Accordingly I cannot consider arguments
> relating to the legality of the police entrance and occupation of her
> apartment.
>
> [16] In the apartment the two tactical officers "cleared" each room as
> if they expected a violent and armed individual around each corner.
> That included forcefully opening doors as the officers pointed taser
> weapons with laser sights at each side of each room from the doorways.
> They found the plaintiff with his friend, hiding under a bed with
> their feet sticking out from it. The officers continued to act as if
> they expected those boys to start shooting at them or to otherwise
> attack them. While pointing their tasers and flashlights the officers
> gave various commands to the boys. The officers say that the boys did
> not do as they were told. One of the other officers says that Cst.
> Hussey, a few minutes later while arresting another young person in
> the basement, was heard through the floor "giving, uh, screaming some
> police demands".
>
> [17] That police approach of loud and aggressive commands while
> pointing a potentially lethal weapon at boys who are cornered under a
> bed or in a basement strikes me as questionable. It might make those
> boys think that the police were acting like bullies with guns, hoping
> to provoke a reaction that would justify tasing or shooting.
> Fortunately neither of the officers shot or tased anyone that night.
> Thus it is not necessary to rule on whether they used their weapons
> legally. The absence of a ruling on that point is not to be
> interpreted as approval of their methods.
>
> [18] The plaintiff's friend came out from under the bed first and was
> handcuffed. Then the two tactical officers were faced with the problem
> of handcuffing the plaintiff. Cst. Young pulled him out from under the
> bed and then both officers held him down. Those officers say he
> squirmed and kicked. The room was poorly lit. Cst. Young says he
> applied "pressure points" below the plaintiff's ears and nose in an
> attempt to force him to stop resisting and that the plaintiff was
> saying things like "fuck-you pig". One officer says that he used
> "politically incorrect" language; the other says that he used the
> "f-word" numerous times. The plaintiff and his friend say that an
> officer called them "boulevard trash".
>
> [19] Police hearsay to the effect that some doctor somewhere may have
> approved the squeezing of pressure points is not admissible as
> evidence of the truth of that opinion or of the legality of that
> method. Use of pressure points when two officers are arresting a boy
> hiding under a bed for breaking a window strikes me as questionable.
> Because Cst. Young appears to have been unsuccessful in actually
> squeezing those pressure points in my opinion it is not necessary to
> rule on the legality of that approach. The absence of a ruling on that
> point is not to be interpreted as approval of that method.
>
> [20] The plaintiff and his friend say that they did not resist. The
> other tactical officer had control of the plaintiff's legs in the
> badly lit room while Cst. Young was at the plaintiff's upper body.
> That other officer says regarding Cst. Young: "I can't say exactly
> what he did" as Cst. Young handcuffed the plaintiff. Cst. Young says
> he forced the plaintiff's arms apart and handcuffed him. The
> plaintiff's friend says that one of the officers said "you kids need
> to be taught a lesson". Then the plaintiff's friend says that while
> the plaintiff was in handcuffs he saw Cst. Young punch the plaintiff
> in the face and "stomp" him. The officers deny striking the plaintiff.
>
> [21] The plaintiff did not offer any evidence to support the
> allegation in his Statement of Claim that one of the officers "pushed
> an object against the Plaintiff's head and indicated that if he moved
> he would be 'blown away'".
>
> [22] A few minutes later the plaintiff and his friend say that when
> the plaintiff was handcuffed on his knees against a wall repeatedly
> asking for a sweater and trying to get up, Cst. Young forcefully
> shoved the plaintiff's head against the wall, denting the gyproc. Cst.
> Young says that as the plaintiff started to get up from his knees "I
> placed my hand on his shoulder to drive him down to his knees" and "he
> was told to shut-up" but denies shoving his head into the wall. The
> dent in the gyproc was just below a hole that had been made on another
> occasion by the friend. If the plaintiff's head had made that dent, I
> would expect the photograph to show a similar-sized bruise on his
> forehead and for the woman who lived in that apartment and who was
> seated in that room to have noticed the incident. I am not satisfied
> that Cst. Young dented the gyproc with the plaintiff's head.
>
> [23] That woman also says that after the boys were handcuffed Cst.
> Young told her that he would make sure she was evicted from that
> apartment. In his evidence Cst. Young denies using those words. He
> says he sits on a committee once a month with NB Housing "and have
> information sharing with what goes on in the area" and that he
> explained to the woman that "there may be a possibility that you will
> be looking at eviction for what happened today". That suggests that
> Cst. Young and other police officers are regularly providing police
> information about individuals to a landlord. Because she is not a
> party to this action, I cannot consider in this action any legal
> issues that may exist about that "information sharing".
>
> [24] Several hours after the arrest it was apparent that the plaintiff
> had a black eye and other minor injuries. There is no evidence that he
> had any of those injuries before his arrest. Cst. Young suggests that
> perhaps the plaintiff injured himself. Approximately 12 hours later a
> Judge of the Provincial Court saw the plaintiff in court on the
> afternoon of August 16 and directed that he be taken to the hospital.
> There the triage nurse noted that he complained of "rib pain -abrasion
> noted, pain right hand, right eye swollen and bruised".
>
> [25] In my view the police had adequate legal grounds to arrest the
> plaintiff without a warrant. I think there was some resistance by the
> plaintiff, at least to the extent of not wanting to have his hands
> cuffed behind him.
>
> [26] The police have a very difficult and challenging role in our
> society. Much is expected of them. In R. v. Rossignol (J.G.A.) (1994),
> 147 N.B.R.(2d) 287; 375 A.P.R. 287 (T.D.), at paras. 5 and 6 the point
> was made that late at night:
>
> "... a uniformed police officer embodies and personifies and is the
> law. All the rest of the legal system, all the higher authorities of
> the police, of the Attorney General's Department, of the courts, the
> legislature or parliament are effectively off duty ...
>
> "All of the law and to a certain extent civilization is represented by
> a uniformed police officer."
>
> [27] In our democracy the actions of the police are subject to
> supervision and review. As required by their oath of office, they must
> act "according to the law". The law is clear that police officers are
> not exempt from liability for negligent conduct. There are many cases
> to that effect including Green v. Lawrence et al. (1998), 129
> Man.R.(2d) 291; 180 W.A.C. 291; 127 C.C.C.(3d) 416; 163 D.L.R.(4th)
> 115 (C.A.).
>
> [28] In this case I find that the police should have been able to
> arrest and handcuff the plaintiff that night without him getting a
> black eye. In my view Cst. Young was under a duty of care regarding
> the plaintiff's safety as the plaintiff squirmed during his arrest. As
> well, I find that Sgt. Sabine was also under a duty of care to take
> reasonable steps to ensure that an officer like Cst. Young did not
> injure the plaintiff.
>
> [29] I find that Cst. Young and Sgt. Sabine breached the duties of
> care they owed the plaintiff and were negligent. Their negligence
> resulted in the plaintiff suffering an injury, namely the swollen and
> bruised eye. I find that Cst. Young and Sgt. Sabine are jointly and
> severally liable to the plaintiff for his reasonable damages arising
> from that black eye. The City of Saint John is also liable to the
> plaintiff for that black eye under the Police Act , S.N.B. 1977, c.
> P-9.2, as amended.
>
> [30] The evidence does not persuade me that the any of the defendants
> are liable to the plaintiff for anything else or that the plaintiff is
> entitled to any other relief under the Charter . In particular, the
> evidence is not strong enough to reach a finding that Cst. Young
> "stomped" the plaintiff or punched him in the face after he was
> handcuffed.
>
> [31] Having regard to the assessment of damages in other similar cases
> of minor personal injury, I assess damages for the plaintiff's swollen
> and bruised eye in the amount of $2,500.00. There will be judgment for
> the plaintiff against the defendants Robert M. Young, John Sabine and
> The City of Saint John for $2,500.00 with costs on scale 5 of $862.00,
> for a total of $3,362.00 and reasonable disbursements.
>
> Action allowed in part.
>
> Editor: Giovanni A. Merlini/pdk
>
> [End of document/fin du document]
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2018 10:00:34 -0400
> Subject: Attn Mark Zaid Re you talk about whistleblowers on CBC this
> morning I am on the phone from 902 800 0369
> To: Mark@markzaid.com, "sylvie.gadoury" <sylvie.gadoury@radio-canada.
> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
>
> https://twitter.com/
>
>
> David Raymond Amos @DavidRayAmos
> 2 hours ago
> Replying to @MarkSZaidEsq
>
> I am listening to you talk on @CBCPolitics right now Perhaps you
> should ask @realDonaldTrump and @FBIWFO about this old file of mine
> ASAP EH?
>
> https://www.scribd.com/
>
> https://markzaid.com/contact/
>
> Mark S. Zaid, P.C.
> 1250 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
> Suite 700
> Washington, DC 20036
> Phone: 202.454.2809
> Fax: 202.330.5610
> E-mail: Mark@markzaid.com
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Forsætisráðuneytið <for@for.is>
> Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 19:49:54 +0000
> Subject: Forsætisráðuneytið hefur móttekið tölvupóst þinn / Prime
> Minister's Office hereby confirms the receipt of your email.
> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
> Forsætisráðuneytið hefur móttekið tölvupóst þinn / Prime Minister's
> Office hereby confirms the receipt of your email.
>
>
>
> Vinsamlega ekki svara þessum tölvupósti, hafið samband í gegnum
> for@for.is / Do not reply to this email. Contact us with any queries
> via for@for.is
>
>
>
> Með bestu kveðju / Best regards
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Forsætisráðuneytið / Prime Minister's Office
>
> Stjórnarráðshúsinu, IS - 101 Reykjavík, Sími/Tel. +354 545 8400
>
> www.stjornarradid.is<http://
> Fyrirvari/Disclaimer<http://
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 08:16:19 -0400
> Subject: Attn Helen Lodge I just called you from 902 800 0369 below is
> the email I promised to forward to you that Boris Johnson got
> To: Helen.Lodge@ericrobinson.co.uk
> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Helen Lodge <Helen.Lodge@ericrobinson.co.
> Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 09:57:37 +0000
> Subject: Call back
> To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com" <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
> Good morning,
>
> You asked for a call back from our office but we don't seem to have
> the correct telephone number for you.
>
> Would you please contact our office on 01962 790553.
>
> Thank you,
>
>
> Helen Lodge
> Receptionist
> Administration Department
> Tel: 01962 670553│Address: Regency House, 2-4 Southgate Street,
> Winchester, SO23 9EF│DX: 2518 Winchester
> EASIER AT THE WEEKEND? WE’LL SEE YOU ON SATURDAY!
> Now open on Saturdays 9am-12.30pm
>
>
> We are excited to announce the relocation of our Southampton office
> to a brand new flagship office at Vanbrugh House, Botleigh Grange. We
> will be closing the office at 4 Carlton Crescent, Southampton on 9th
> August and staff will be relocating to our new office at Vanbrugh
> House on the 3rd of September. All staff will be fully contactable on
> their usual direct dial number and email during the interim period,
> which are shown on their email footer.
>
>
> To see the full range of services we offer to individuals and
> businesses, visit our website: www.ericrobinson.co.uk
>
> IMPORTANT - The information contained in this e-mail, including any
> attachments, is confidential and intended only for the personal
> attention of the addressee. This message contains information which is
> privileged at law. If you have received it in error you must not copy,
> distribute or take any action in reliance on it. Please notify Eric
> Robinson Solicitors at once on (023) 8042 5000.
>
> Cybercriminals and fraudsters are now targeting law firms in order
> an attempt to divert payments to alternative bank accounts. As such;
> Eric Robinson will not update payment details via email. Should you
> receive an email attempting to amend payment details, please contact
> the individual dealing with your matter by telephone as Eric Robinson
> cannot accept responsibility for losses arising from mis-transfer of
> funds.
>
> ERIC ROBINSON SOLICITORS
> A list of Partners is open to inspection at the above address.
> This firm is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation
> Authority under practice number 00054381.
>
> ..............................
> Visit our Web Site at http://www.ericrobinson.co.uk
> Attachments are in Microsoft Office or PDF format. Documents can be
> opened and read using Microsoft Word, although they may not include a
> .doc file extension.
>
> IMPORTANT - The information contained in this e-mail, including any
> attachments, is confidential and intended only for the personal
> attention of the addressee. This message contains information which is
> privileged at law. If you have received it in error you must not copy,
> distribute or take any action in reliance on it. Please notify Eric
> Robinson Solicitors at once on (023) 8042 5000.
>
> ERIC ROBINSON SOLICITORS
> A list of Partners is open to inspection at the above address.
> This firm is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation
> Authority under practice number 00054381.
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2018 10:27:54 -0400
> Subject: Fwd: While the people in the newsroom of the Telegraph in the
> UK were updating the Brits in what was happpeneing just a few miles
> from me they deemed me not worth talking to
> To: iyad@el-baghdadi.com, "Chuck.Thompson" <Chuck.Thompson@cbc.ca>,
> "Gerald.Butts" <Gerald.Butts@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>, Newsroom
> <Newsroom@globeandmail.com>, news <news@kingscorecord.com>, news
> <news@hilltimes.com>, "sylvie.gadoury"
> <sylvie.gadoury@radio-canada.
> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
> <chrystia.freeland@
> <Chrystia.Freeland@parl.gc.ca>
> <boris.johnson.mp@parliament.
>
> https://el-baghdadi.com/
>
> https://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/
>
> Et tu quoque, Trudeau? How Saudi trolls slammed Canada in a diplomatic spat
>
> 'It was a really bizarre case of whataboutism, if you don't even
> know how to do whataboutism right'
> CBC Radio · August 10
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 15:00:56 -0400
> Subject: While the people in the newsroom of the Telegraph in the UK
> were updating the Brits in what was happpeneing just a few miles from
> me they deemed me not worth talking to
> To: "harry.forestell" <harry.forestell@cbc.ca>, "Jacques.Poitras"
> <Jacques.Poitras@cbc.ca>, "darrow.macintyre"
> <darrow.macintyre@cbc.ca>, gopublic <gopublic@cbc.ca>, "steve.murphy"
> <steve.murphy@ctv.ca>, "David.Akin" <David.Akin@globalnews.ca>,
> oldmaison <oldmaison@yahoo.com>, andre <andre@jafaust.com>, jbosnitch
> <jbosnitch@gmail.com>, "Leanne.Fitch" <Leanne.Fitch@fredericton.ca>,
> "brian.gallant" <brian.gallant@gnb.ca>, "David.Coon"
> <David.Coon@gnb.ca>, "blaine.higgs" <blaine.higgs@gnb.ca>,
> "Dominic.Cardy" <Dominic.Cardy@gnb.ca>, "martin.gaudet"
> <martin.gaudet@fredericton.ca>
> <Stephen.Horsman@gnb.ca>, "hon.ralph.goodale"
> <hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca>, "Robert. Jones" <Robert.Jones@cbc.ca>,
> "Larry.Tremblay" <Larry.Tremblay@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
> <Gilles.Blinn@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Mark.Blakely"
> <Mark.Blakely@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>
> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 12:36:15 -0400
> Subject: Fwd: Why does CBC care what the Maritime Master of War Petey
> Baby MacKay thinks about anything?
> To: strobes@private-eye.co.uk
>
> Private Eye
> 6 Carlisle Street, London
> W1D 3BN, United Kingdom
> Tel: +44 (0)20 7437 4017
> Fax: +44 (0)20 7437 0705
> Email: strobes@private-eye.co.uk
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: "Fitch, Leanne" <leanne.fitch@fredericton.ca>
> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 16:04:36 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: Why does CBC care what the Maritime Master
> of War Petey Baby MacKay thinks about anything?
> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
>
> Hello/Bonjour I will be out of the office from August 8 to September
> 2, 2018. Je serai sorti du bureau le 8 aout a 3 septembre, 2018.
>
>
> Due to a very high volume of incoming email to this account there is
> an unusual backlog of pending responses. Your message may not be
> responded to in a timely fashion. If you require a formal response
> please send your query in writing to my attention c/o Fredericton
> Police Force, 311 Queen St, Fredericton, NB E3B 1B1 or phone (506)
> 460-2300. If this is an emergency related to public safety please call
> 911.
>
> En raison du grand nombre de courriels que reçoit cette messagerie, il
> se peut qu’une réponse tarde un peu à venir. Si vous avez besoin d'une
> réponse officielle, veuillez envoyer votre demande par écrit à mon
> attention aux soins (a/s) de la Force policière de Fredericton 311,
> rue Queen, Fredericton, NB E3B 1B1, ou composer le 506 460-2300.
> S'il s'agit d'une urgence de sécurité publique, faites le 911.
>
>
> This e-mail communication (including any or all attachments) is
> intended only for the use of the person or entity to which it is
> addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If
> you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, any use, review,
> retransmission, distribution, dissemination, copying, printing, or
> other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this e-mail, is
> strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
> contact the sender and delete the original and any copy of this e-mail
> and any printout thereof, immediately. Your co-operation is
> appreciated.
>
> Any correspondence with elected officials, employees, or other agents
> of the City of Fredericton may be subject to disclosure under the
> provisions of the Province of New Brunswick Right to Information and
> Protection of Privacy Act.
>
> Le présent courriel (y compris toute pièce jointe) s'adresse
> uniquement à son destinataire, qu'il soit une personne ou un
> organisme, et pourrait comporter des renseignements privilégiés ou
> confidentiels. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire du courriel, il est
> interdit d'utiliser, de revoir, de retransmettre, de distribuer, de
> disséminer, de copier ou d'imprimer ce courriel, d'agir en vous y
> fiant ou de vous en servir de toute autre façon. Si vous avez reçu le
> présent courriel par erreur, prière de communiquer avec l'expéditeur
> et d'éliminer l'original du courriel, ainsi que toute copie
> électronique ou imprimée de celui-ci, immédiatement. Nous sommes
> reconnaissants de votre collaboration.
>
> Toute correspondance entre ou avec les employés ou les élus de la
> Ville de Fredericton pourrait être divulguée conformément aux
> dispositions de la Loi sur le droit à l’information et la protection
> de la vie privée.
>
> GOV-OP-073
>
>
>
>
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/
>
> Canada shooting: several dead and suspect in custody in Fredericton
> By Our Foreign Staff
>
> 10 August 2018 • 1:00pm
>
> Four people, including two police officers, were killed in a shooting
> in the eastern Canadian city of Fredericton and one person was taken
> into custody, police said on Friday.
>
> Police in Fredericton, a city of about 56,000 that is the capital of
> the province of New Brunswick, said in a post on Twitter that the
> incident was under investigation and there were multiple fatalities.
>
> Another police tweet said two of the four people killed were police
> officers but gave no details and did not release the names of the
> victims. The suspect is being treated for serious injuries.
>
> Local media images showed emergency vehicles converging on a
> tree-lined residential street. Nearby facilities were closed and
> authorities told residents to stay locked in their homes.
>
> Canadian Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale said the Royal Canadian
> Mounted Police (RCMP) were assisting Fredericton authorities.
>
> New Brunswick had only three homicide shootings in 2016, according to
> Statistics Canada.
>
> Gun laws in Canada are more strict than in the United States but a
> proliferation of weapons has led to an increase in gun crimes in
> recent years.
>
> "Awful news coming out of Fredericton," Canadian Prime Minister Justin
> Trudeau said on Twitter. "My heart goes out to everyone affected by
> this morning’s shooting. We’re following the situation closely."
>
> Three RCMP officers were killed and two more were wounded in 2014 in
> Moncton, New Brunswick, about 195 km (121 miles) from Fredericton, in
> one of the worst incidents of its kind in Canada.
>
> Last month, a gunman walked down a busy Toronto street, killing two
> people and wounding 13 others before turning his weapon on himself.
>
> Toronto, Canada's largest city, has had 241 shooting incidents this
> year, resulting in 30 deaths, a 30 percent increase in fatalities.
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: Media Enquiries <Media.Enquiries+noreply@
> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 15:47:15 +0000
> Subject: Re: Fwd: Why does CBC care what the Maritime Master of War
> Petey Baby MacKay thinks about anything?
> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
> Thank you for your enquiry.
>
> Please note - this inbox is monitored regularly but is for
> MEDIA-RELATED ENQUIRIES ONLY e.g. Telegraph press office issues,
> including media requests for Telegraph writers.
>
> If you have a READER ENQUIRY, please re-direct your email to:
> telegraphenquiries@telegraph.
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: Newsroom <newsroom@globeandmail.com>
> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 15:48:44 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: Why does CBC care what the Maritime Master
> of War Petey Baby MacKay thinks about anything?
> 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: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 11:22:26 -0400
> Subject: Fwd: Why does CBC care what the Maritime Master of War Petey
> Baby MacKay thinks about anything?
> To: media.enquiries@telegraph.co.
> <boris.johnson.mp@parliament.
> Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
> <Newsroom@globeandmail.com>, news <news@hilltimes.com>, news
> <news@kingscorecord.com>, news <news@thetelegraph.com.au>, news
> <news@dailygleaner.com>, news919 <news919@rogers.com>
> Cc: dtnews@telegraph.co.uk
>
> The Telegraph
> 111 Buckingham Palace Road
> London
> SW1W 0DT
>
> + 44 (0) 20 7931 2000
> Press Office
> + 44 (0) 20 7931 2000
> media.enquiries@telegraph.co.
> Editorial
> + 44 (0) 20 7931 2000
> dtnews@telegraph.co.uk
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2018 09:09:20 -0400
> Subject: Why does CBC care what the Maritime Master of War Petey Baby
> MacKay thinks about anything?
> To: Omar.Alghabra@parl.gc.ca, Peter.MacKay@bakermckenzie.com
> <pm@pm.gc.ca>, "Gerald.Butts" <Gerald.Butts@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>,
> "maxime.bernier" <maxime.bernier@parl.gc.ca>, "andrew.scheer"
> <andrew.scheer@parl.gc.ca>, mdcohen212@gmail.com, djtjr
> <djtjr@trumporg.com>, fgraves@ekos.com, "Dominic.Cardy"
> <Dominic.Cardy@gnb.ca>, "David.Coon" <David.Coon@gnb.ca>, "David.Akin"
> <David.Akin@globalnews.ca>, "Jonathan.Vance"
> <Jonathan.Vance@forces.gc.ca>, "hon.ralph.goodale"
> <hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca>, "Larry.Tremblay"
> <Larry.Tremblay@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
> washington field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>
> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
> <Catherine.Tait@cbc.ca>, "Chuck.Thompson" <Chuck.Thompson@cbc.ca>,
> "sylvie.gadoury" <sylvie.gadoury@radio-canada.
> <Melanie.Joly@parl.gc.ca>, "Bill.Morneau" <Bill.Morneau@parl.gc.ca>
>
> Peter MacKay on Halifax Forum, US-Canada Relations & Political Future
> 104 views
> Defense & Aerospace Report
> Published on Nov 28, 2017
>
> Peter MacKay, Canada's former foreign affairs, defense and justice
> minister and founder of the Halifax International Security Forum who
> is now with the Baker McKenzie law firms, discusses the importance of
> the forum, US-Canada relations, causes he's championing and his
> political future. MacKay spoke with the Defense & Aerospace Report at
> the 2017 Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia, Canada.
> Check out our website: http://www.defaeroreport.com
>
> https://defaeroreport.com/
>
> Vago Muradian
> Founder & Editor
> Defense & Aerospace Report, LLC
> +1 (202) 607-4711
> +1 (571) 221-0990
> vmuradian@DefAeroReport.com
>
>
> http://davidraymondamos3.
>
> Thursday, 9 August 2018
>
> Why does CBC care what Petey Baby MacKay thinks about anything?
>
> https://twitter.com/
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "MacKay, Peter" <Peter.MacKay@bakermckenzie.
> Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 14:39:17 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: YO Minister Jean-Yves.Duclos Once again you
> are welcome Now how about the RCMP, the LIEbranos and all the other
> parliamentarians start acting with some semblance of Integrity after
> all these years?
> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
> Thank you for your email. I am currently out of the office attending
> meetings and have limited access to email and voicemail. If your
> matter is urgent, or if you require assistance, please contact my
> assistant, Nicole Bruni at nicole.bruni@bakermckenzie.com or at (416)
> 865-3861.
>
>
> This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If
> it has been sent to you in error, please reply to advise the sender of
> the error and then immediately delete this message. Please visit
> www.bakermckenzie.com/
> concerning this message.
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2018 15:24:42 -0400
> Subject: Re "At the Crossroads of Hope and Fear" Yo Mr Graves we just
> talked say Hey to your buddy Petey Baby MacKay and Trump/s lawyer
> Mikey Cohen for me will ya?
> To: fgraves@ekos.com, "PETER.MACKAY" <PETER.MACKAY@bakermckenzie.
> mdcohen212 <mdcohen212@gmail.com>, david@policyalternatives.ca
> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
> alyssa@policyalternatives.ca, ccpans@policyalternatives.ca,
> Don.Pittis@cbc.ca, premier <premier@ontario.ca>, caroline
> <caroline@carolinemulroney.ca>
> <Gerald.Butts@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>
>
> Wednesday, 1 August 2018
>
> The confusion of the CCPA and the CBC is well known when it comes to
> matters of money N'esy Pas?
>
> "Ekos founder and president Frank Graves says the rejection of
> inheritance tax is just one part of a wider phenomenon demonstrated in
> his polling. He pointed to the election of Doug Ford as premier in
> Ontario as an example of its impact. Most of Ford's supporters
> declared themselves to be working class."
>
> http://www.ekospolitics.com/
>
> At the Crossroads of Hope and Fear
> THE NEW AXIS OF SOCIETAL TENSION
>
> Frank Graves
> President EKOS Research
> t: 613.235-7215
> fgraves@ekos.com
>
>
>
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/
>
> An attempt to understand Canada's inheritance tax backlash: Don Pittis
> Roar of objections to imposing death duties on Canadians may have complex
> roots
>
> Don Pittis · CBC News · Posted: Aug 07, 2018 4:00 AM ET
>
> 291 Comments
>
> Steve Timmins
> My blood, sweat and tears were for MY family not the government. I've
> already paid my taxes on income. What's left is mine to decide what to
> do with not some socialist who drools over it.
>
>
> David Amos
> @Steve Timmins "Anyone who thinks the CBC does not serve
> conservative-leaning Canadians should look at the comments for a
> recent online story about inheritance taxes."
>
> Methinks the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives think-tank should
> have red my comments by now N'esy Pas?
>
>
>
> http://davidraymondamos3.
>
> Tuesday, 14 February 2017
>
> RE FATCA, NAFTA & TPP etc ATTN President Donald J. Trump I just got
> off the phone with your lawyer Mr Cohen (646-853-0114) Why does he lie
> to me after all this time???
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Michael Cohen <mcohen@trumporg.com>
> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:15:14 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: RE FATCA ATTN Pierre-Luc.Dusseault I just
> called and left a message for you
> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
> Effective January 20, 2017, I have accepted the role as personal
> counsel to President Donald J. Trump. All future emails should be
> directed to mdcohen212@gmail.com and all future calls should be
> directed to 646-853-0114.
> ______________________________
> This communication is from The Trump Organization or an affiliate
> thereof and is not sent on behalf of any other individual or entity.
> This email may contain information that is confidential and/or
> proprietary. Such information may not be read, disclosed, used,
> copied, distributed or disseminated except (1) for use by the intended
> recipient or (2) as expressly authorized by the sender. If you have
> received this communication in error, please immediately delete it and
> promptly notify the sender. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed
> to be received, secure or error-free as emails could be intercepted,
> corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late, incomplete, contain viruses
> or otherwise. The Trump Organization and its affiliates do not
> guarantee that all emails will be read and do not accept liability for
> any errors or omissions in emails. Any views or opinions presented in
> any email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
> represent those of The Trump Organization or any of its
> affiliates.Nothing in this communication is intended to operate as an
> electronic signature under applicable law.
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 18:22:21 -0400
> Subject: Yo Bill Morneau before Trump causes the markets to crash
> Methinks I should remind folks of the Bank of Canadas long lost
> mandate, Harper's Bankster bail out 10 years ago and Trudeau The
> Younger's recent Bankster Bail-In plan
> To: "Bill.Morneau" <Bill.Morneau@canada.ca>, "Andrew.Bailey"
> <Andrew.Bailey@fca.org.uk>, postur <postur@for.is>, postur
> <postur@dmr.is>, postur <postur@irr.is>, smari <smari@immi.is>,
> david@policyalternatives.ca, info@ipolitics.ca,
> elizabeth.thompson@cbc.ca, michaelharris@ipolitics.ca,
> KadyOMalley@ipolitics.ca, StephenMaher@ipolitics.ca,
> info@canadachristiancollege.
> <zach.dubinsky@cbc.ca>
> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
> <press@bankofengland.co.uk>, "boris.johnson.mp"
> <boris.johnson.mp@parliament.
> <herb.wiseman@gmail.com>, paul.slansky@bellnet.ca,
> stuart@policyalternatives.ca, ccpa@policyalternatives.ca,
> steve.silva@globalnews.ca, steve@stevesilva.ca, "David.Akin"
> <David.Akin@globalnews.ca>
>
> Whereas nobody listens to me I will attempt to do so byway of other
> people's words and videos.
>
> Does anyone recall this nonsense on Youtube 5 years ago when young
> Justin was charging big bucks for speeches but having fun yapping it
> up bigtime in malls for free? Obviously even bald mall guards loved
> Trudeau "The Younger" back then Nesy Pas?
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?
>
> Justin Trudeau: Fluoride/Bilderberg/Bank of Canada Are Conspiracy Theories
> Terry Wilson
> Published on Feb 8, 2013
>
>
> However this far important stuff was also put up on YouTube after it
> appears CBC had aired it first and nobody seemed to care.
>
> Please note I truly do appreciate David MacDonald's work. However I am
> very tired of his old buddies such as the turncoat NDP?Conservative
> Dominic Cardy laughing at me while sending me butter tarts and talking
> mindlessly of ardvarrks, puffins and pussy cats etc.
>
>
> Study Reveals Secret Bailouts to Canadian Banks
> 31,067 views
>
> LeakSourceCanada
> Published on Apr 30, 2012
> 04/30/2012
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?
>
> "Our politicians are on the global stage touting the soundness of
> Canada's banking system, where at the same time three of Canada's
> banks were at some point underwater."
>
> David Macdonald of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
> explains the think tank's report that found Canadian banks received
> secret bailouts during the 2008-2010 financial crisis.
>
> (PDF) The Big Banks' Big Secret: Estimating Government Support for
> Canadian Banks During the Financial Crisis
> http://www.policyalternatives.
>
> http://LeakSource.wordpress.
>
>
>
> Need I say that I contacted these NDP/union/beancounter/
> ago?
>
> https://www.
>
> https://www.
>
> “Canada’s corporate executives were among the loudest critics of a new
> fifteen dollar minimum wage in provinces like Ontario and Alberta,
> meanwhile the highest paid among them were raking in record-breaking
> earnings,” says the report’s author, CCPA Senior Economist David
> Macdonald."
>
> Climbing Up and Kicking Down: Executive pay in Canada is available on
> the CCPA website. For more information contact Alyssa O’Dell, CCPA
> Media and Public Relations: 613-563-1341 x307,
> alyssa@policyalternatives.ca or cell 343-998-7575.
>
> Here is a little proof of an email of mine from 2012 that the CCPA,
> the NDP, the Conservatives, Dizzy Lizzy May, Trudeau "The Younger",
> his many mindless minions and even YOU should recall N'esy Pas David
> Akin?
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 13:09:54 -0400
> Subject: Fwd: RE Potash Corp, The NEB, Nexen, Pipelines and MP Nathan
> Cullen
> To: ccpa@policyalternatives.ca, "justin.trudeau.a1"
> <justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca>
> <marc.garneau.a1@parl.gc.ca>
> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
> <dean.delmastro.c1@parl.gc.ca>
> <leader@greenparty.bc.ca>, "adrian.dix.mla" <adrian.dix.mla@leg.bc.ca>
>
>
> That said
>
>
> Does anyone remember what this crooked Bankster had to say to CBC the
> following year before he split for a far fancier job in Not So Merry
> Old England???
>
> Bank 'bail-in' plan shouldn't worry Canadians, Carney says
> Bank of Canada head says it's 'hard to fathom' Canadian deposits would
> be touched
> The Canadian Press Posted: Apr 18, 2013 5:03 PM ET
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/
>
>
>
> Since then the Liebranos put the Bankster 'bail-in' plan in the books.
> While CBC has played dumb lawyers and many others have had an opinion
> about it. I for one particularly enjoy the ones I view on YouTube.
>
> So who is the liar of these two? an unnamed lawyer on the CBA website
> who does not offer a name to back up its opinion or a biblepounder
> that claims to be a "Dr" or both?
>
> FAQ: What is a “bail-in regime” and are my bank deposits safe?
>
> https://cba.ca/faq-what-is-a-
>
>
>
> Trudeau's Bail-In Now Law to Allow Banks to Confiscate Your Deposits
> 23,777 views
> Canadian Times NEWS
> Published on Aug 11, 2016
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?
>
>
> Perhaps both the lawyer and the "Dr" may enjoy the email found within this
> blog
> I published today for their benefit
>
> Sunday, 21 January 2018
>
> As soon as Mark Carney is appointed Govenor of the Bank of England I
> get a call from the SEC (202 551 2000)
>
> http://davidraymondamos3.
>
>
>
> As far as the Bank of Canada lawsuit goes this stuff was published by CBC
>
> Rocco Galati and the lawsuit against the Bank of Canada
> 40,691 views
> CBC News
> Published on May 8, 2015
> Colourful and controversial. Rocco Galati isn't your average advocate.
> He's a kind of legal David, known for tangling with Goliath-sized
> courtroom opponents. His peers seem to approve. Electing him to the
> bench that oversees them. His latest case may his most contentious of
> his career.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?
>
>
>
>
> However I see no mention of the outcome this year except on YouTube.
>
> COMER VS BOC Final press conference
> 1,564 views
> Lawrence McCurry
> Published on Jun 6, 2017
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?
>
>
>
> The Most Important Canadian Litigation Of The XXI Century: COMER vs
> The Government Of Canada
> 2,217 views
> CounterBalanceToday
> Published on Jun 7, 2017
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?
>
> Recorded on June 3, 2017 at the COMER Press Conference in Rocco
> Galati's Law Offices
>
> In my opinion this is one of the most important cases of the XXI
> century in Canada about one of the biggest issues the world is facing
> since the XX Century and that is the central banking control over
> nations and the issue of money.
>
> "After nearly 5 ½ years of contentious litigation between the
> Committee On Monetary and Economic Reform (COMER) and the Government
> of Canada involving three separate Federal Court and two additional
> Federal Court of Appeal hearings resulting in contrary decisions, on
> May 4th, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed COMER’s “leave”
> (permission to appeal) application from the second judgment of the
> Federal Court of Appeal. Following established practice, the federal
> Supreme Court does NOT issue reasons when it dismisses a leave
> application.
>
> The dismissal by the Supreme Court of the Leave application, means
> only that the Court does not want to hear the appeal. The
> jurisprudence on this is clear: it does not mean that the lower court
> decisions are correct in law. The possible reasons for the Supreme
> Court not wanting to hear the case are many and various, including the
> washing of their hands or “deference” to the political process –
> hence, this is why reasons are not issued by the Supreme Court in
> leave dismissals.
>
> We believe that the case has ample legal merit, and should have
> proceeded to trial. It is not uncommon for the Supreme Court to refuse
> leave on a given issue multiple times, finally to grant leave, hear
> the appeal and the case then succeeds. The Supreme Court controls its
> own agenda, both in its timing and on the merits of issues it will or
> will not hear. (Annually, fewer than 8 - 10% of all cases filed are
> granted permission and heard at the Supreme Court of Canada.)
>
> It should be noted that throughout this arduous and expensive legal
> process, the substance of this lawsuit initiated in the public
> interest has not been addressed. (The matters raised by the lawsuit
> are summarized in the attached original news release issued on
> December 19, 2011.)"
>
> Source: http://mailchi.mp/
>
> For more information about COMER and the brave people behind this
> organization:
> http://www.comer.org/
>
> https://www.facebook.com/
>
> Other related project worth to check by Paul Heller:
> http://www.
>
> Recorded and edited by:
> https://www.facebook.com/
> Apologies for my amateur recording and editing I had a limitation in
> my old photographic camera, the video stops after a few minutes so I
> missed a few milliseconds of audio in between the multiple videos that
> I consolidated here.
>
> Feel Free to distribute share and download this important information.
> Category
> News & Politics
>
> Then lastly for comic relief there was the wicked LIEbrano Motion
> M-103.and its purported attack on Free Speech. Lots of people had
> their opinion on that topic so there is not much need of adding my two
> bits worth particularly after Kellie Leitch, Brad Trost, Pierre
> Lemieux, Chris Alexander, Faith Goldy, Ezzy Levant and their Christian
> Zionist "Dr." McVety pal made a big splash in Toronto. It did no good
> whatsoever. The motion passed easily by a vote of 201–91. However it
> was non-binding so what was all the noice about anyway other than to
> make Trudueau "The Younger" look like some kind of hero???
>
>
>
> https://ipolitics.ca/2017/02/
>
> Conservatives may pay a price for M-103 hysteria
> By Stephen Maher. Published on Feb 17, 2017 5:08pm
>
>
> https://
>
>
> 1,500 People Gather at Canada Christian College to Defend Free Speech
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?
>
> Furthermore everybody knows most folks don't read anymore and all my
> words only fall on deaf ears anyway. However at least I was correct
> about the Pirate Party and the ERRE Committee in 2016 N'esy Pas Mr
> Prime Minister Trudeau "The Younger"?
>
>
> All that said need I remind folks I am about to mak an application to
> the Supreme Court becaue of this wicked decision? Please enjoy
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> http://davidraymondamos3.
>
>
> Thursday, 21 December 2017
>
> Attn Simon Fish of the BMO and Robert Kennedy of Dentons I just called
> from 902 800 0369 Play dumb all you wish The BMO has had my documents
> for years
>
> https://www.scribd.com/
>
> https://www.scribd.com/doc/
>
>
> While I was publishing this in my blog the lawyer Bobby Baby Kennedy called
> back from (416) 846-6598 and played as dumb. Hell he even claimed that he
> did not know who Frank McKenna was No partner even a lowly collection
> dude within Dentons is allowed to be THAT stupid.
>
>
>> ---------- 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/
>>
>>
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