David Raymond Amos @DavidRayAmos
Replying to @DavidRayAmos @alllibertynews and 49 others
Methinks those are a easy things for a Mr Thomas a wealthy dude working for us to say when it ain't his money he is playing with N'esy Pas?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/nb-power-investors-hydrogen-partner-joi-scientific-1.5345389
2 major Japanese investors cool to NB Power's hydrogen partner
Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems and Softbank's Vision Fund want to see more results from Joi Scientific
· CBC News · Posted: Nov 04, 2019 7:00 AM AT
NB Power CEO Gaëtan Thomas, right, and board chair Ed Barrett appeared before the legislature's Crown corporations committee last Friday. (Jacques Poitras/CBC)
Two major Japanese renewable-energy investors have so far taken a pass on putting their money into NB Power's hydrogen-power partner.
The province's publicly owned utility paid Florida-based Joi Scientific $13 million, hoping for a cut of potential profits from its mysterious technology.
But a pair of large-scale potential investors in Japan, Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems and Softbank's Vision Fund, have told Joi they need to see more results before they ante up, according to Joi's CEO in a conference call with investors.
On the same call, CEO Traver Kennedy also poured cold water on an apparent proposal to have Joi work with Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems to power the Olympic flame at next summer's 2020 Games in Tokyo.
Joi was in talks with Mitsubishi, a major Olympic sponsor, about demonstrating its technology during the event, but "so far they have not provided us funding or stepped up to make it a reality," Kennedy said.
The audit was prompted by the company's realization that it was calculating power incorrectly and that the technology's efficiency was poor.
During the call, Kennedy acknowledged results from its new calculations were "disappointing," revealing what he called "poor system efficiencies." CBC News obtained a record of the call, which took place between mid-July and the end of August.
NB Power CEO Gaëtan Thomas said earlier this year that Joi's secret technology could create hydrogen electricity from seawater — and could actually produce more energy than what it took to power the process.
One of the company's patents claimed results as high as 200 per cent.
But a former employee told CBC News that the energy output was only around 20 per cent.
We should be in a position in a few months to determine if we can go forward or not.
- Gaëtan Thomas, NB Power CEOLast Friday, Thomas told a committee of MLAs that only one test had been at the 20 per cent level and others had better results, showing "potential." But he said confidentiality agreements prevented him from naming those figures.
He said the numbers would have to exceed 70 per cent efficiency for the technology to be viable and they're not at that point yet.
Thomas told the legislature's Crown corporations committee that several large players in Europe, North America and Asia are working with NB Power to "scale" the technology to commercial levels.
"There's a number of players working with us on this now, and some pretty strong players," he said, "so we should be in a position in a few months to determine if we can go forward or not."
He refused to name those players.
NB Power paid Joi $13 million for licensing rights to use, market and profit from the technology, hoping it would provide an alternate energy source for its Belledune generating station, which must phase out coal by 2030.
So far NB Power has reported no profits from that licensing fee.
MOU last year
Softbank, owned by Japanese billionaire Masayoshi Son, "told us that once we have a unit built that can demonstrate commercial opportunity, they would be interested in investing," Joi CEO Traver Kennedy told investors during the call.
"Until we get there, and we're not there yet, they're not interested in investing. … We need to get the technology to product stage."
Softbank's recent investment of more than $20 billion in WeWork, a shared-workplace company, has been flagged by financial analysts as risky. The company's renewable energy investments have focused on wind and solar power.
Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems was still looking at Joi at the time of the conference call and visited the company's Florida offices earlier the same month, but hadn't seen enough to inject much-needed capital into the Florida company.
Kennedy told shareholders that Mitsubishi Hitachi signed a memorandum of understanding with Joi in August 2018 but didn't commit to investing.
"Once they complete their diligence, they then will develop a commercial business plan and will decide whether or not to invest in our company."
Joi Scientific, which is housed at the Space Life Sciences Lab in Merritt Island, Fla., received a $13 million licensing fee from NB Power, with $6.7 million from the Regional Development Corporation. (Karissa Donkin/CBC)
Mitsubishi is an enthusiastic promoter of hydrogen energy, though its chief technological officer, Akimasa Muyama, warned last year that hydrogen from renewable sources would be the norm only "in the long term," after technical advances brought costs down.
Mitsubishi is also a major sponsor of the 2020 Olympic Games in Tokyo, and during the summer conference call, Kennedy was asked whether Joi was "still working towards powering the Olympic flame" at those games.
"We remain very interested in this opportunity," Kennedy answered. "Not sure if it's going to be the flame, but MHPS presented the idea of participating in the Tokyo Olympics to do a demonstration along with their partners."
He said Mitsubishi officials "still have interest in this" and discussed it when they visited Joi's Florida labs, but did not commit any money to make it happen.
Mitsubishi and Softbank have not responded to requests for comment.
'Uncertainty' about calculations
Kennedy told the conference call that earlier this year, Joi "decided not to accept new investments" when it realized there was "uncertainty" about its power calculations.
The company launched a technical audit over the summer. Preliminary results were discouraging, forcing Joi to return to "square one," a former Joi employee told CBC News.
That meant "just basic research, reading scientific articles and finding out what the best avenue is from there," said the former employee, who CBC News is referring to as Alex to protect their identity.
According to the conference call, Joi's freeze on investment left the company with only enough cash to operate until the end of August, and the company decided to reopen itself to new investment while acknowledging its lack of a breakthrough.
"We're now seeking new funding based upon our new understanding of the system efficiency, realizing it will have a significant impact on the company's valuation," Kennedy said during that call.
He said Joi was "being very open and candid about where we are as a company and where we are in terms of our development of commercial product."
Company officials have refused to grant any interviews with CBC News about the state of the company and its research.
Despite other large investors holding off, NB Power continues to spend $20,000 per month operating a laboratory at Joi's Florida headquarters. Thomas called that "a minimal investment."
105 Comments
Commenting is now closed for this story.
ScienceEducator GE
So there is a NZ based lab that is producing hydrogen energy at a very high efficiency and based on scale. Their desktop unit is producing @ 400% efficiency as proven with conversion back through a PEM fuel cell. They are not claiming to create energy (1st law) but to convert and combine energy at an ionic level. Very logical. I came across their website with published performance testing - just google H2IL. They have cctv footage of a 7 hour self-sustaining energy generation demo. This is, as they say, a world first. They claim to have the attention of major corps.
David Amos
Reply to @ScienceEducator GE: Check out John Ernst Worrell Keely sometime when you are bored
Fred Sanford
Joi Scientific and it's magic technology has all the hallmarks of a classic snake oil sales pitch. Thomas should be fired and sued for wasting NB Power resources on magic beans.
David Amos
Reply to @Fred
Sanford: Methinks its only fair to chastise someone in a public forum
with a true name unless you are afraid a being sued as well N'esy Pas?
Justin Time
"Despite other large investors holding off, NB Power continues to spend $20,000 per month operating a laboratory at Joi's Florida headquarters." Time to cut that expense . Or maybe wait till the winter tourist season is over so NB Power executives will have a reason for paid trips to Florida. The whole thing stinks.
BruceJack Speculator
Reply to @Justin
Time: One question for which I have not seen any information: Thomas
is a member of the board of directors for JOI but he never commented in
the summer about the report from JOI that their device does not work as
claimed. One would really expect a director to have knowledge of
reports released to shareholders would one not?
David Amos
Reply to @BruceJack Speculator: Howcome you and dudes such as Justin Time don't use you real names as per the rules of this forum?
Justin Time
Reply to @David Amos: Tried that,there's just too many crazies out there that you may not want harassing you or threatening harm. Just remember not to say anything that may not be true or subject to libel, which I do see on here occasionally.
David Amos
Content disabled
Reply to @Justin Time: Are you calling me a liar?
David Amos
Reply
to @Justin Time: Trust that anyone can feel free to sue me if they
think I was say is untrue. However it is you who are breaking the rules
not I Hence how can you dare to give me advice about possible litigation
when I have already been before many courts many times with my true
name as you see it?
Justin Time
Reply to @David Amos: Whoa Big Fella, I wasn't directing my comments at you. And as for you being before many courts many times I say , fill your boots.
Terry Tibbs
"He said the numbers would have to exceed 70 per cent efficiency for the technology to be viable and they're not at that point yet."
Does this guy *think* his name is Trudeau? Put in a dollar and get 70 cents back? Hardly the original claim of put in a dollar and get 2 dollars back is it?
Tell you what. Give me 13 million and I will gladly accept all your dollars and give you 70 cents back for each and every one beyond the initial 13 million, AND because I like you, no animals will be harmed, I guarantee it!
David Amos
Reply to @Terry Tibbs: Methinks this is a easy thing for a wealthy dude working for us to say when it ain't his money he is playing with N'esy Pas?
"Despite other large investors holding off, NB Power continues to spend $20,000 per month operating a laboratory at Joi's Florida headquarters. Thomas called that "a minimal investment."
Fred Brewer
Well our Premier finally weighed in on the Joi fiasco and I must say I am extremely disappointed in his response. At a time when we need solid leadership, Mr. Higgs appears to be walking on eggshells when it comes to NB Power. At a time when heads should roll, Mr. Higgs was wishy-washy and made no such suggestions. Here is the question: Has the utility become more powerful than our government?
Paul Bourgoin
Reply to @Fred Brewer: Or Could Higgs have been Influenced by his Supporter?
Fred Brewer
Reply to @Paul Bourgoin: Supporter? Do you mean his supreme commander?
Al Clark
Reply to @Fred
Brewer: Wishy washy? Like CHARLIE BROWN perhaps. If they want to make a
movie with human actors he's a shoe in! Hope he's GONE by christmas.
David Peters
Reply to @Fred Brewer:
Imo, it's the public unions that are calling the shots.
Imo, it's the public unions that are calling the shots.
David Amos
Reply to @Al Clark: Cry me a river
David Amos
Reply to @Fred
Brewer: "Well our Premier finally weighed in on the Joi fiasco and I
must say I am extremely disappointed in his response."
Methinks you must have heard something I did not because I see nothing in the news for the folks to read about what he said yet N'esy Pas?
Methinks you must have heard something I did not because I see nothing in the news for the folks to read about what he said yet N'esy Pas?
Al Clark
Reply to @David Amos: You and chucky in the same class (hallway) in school?
Wilson Rose
These fools got taken to the cleaners.
David
Peters
Reply to @Wilson Rose:
Imo, that's being generous. Only a full scale, public audit/investigation would reveal what really happened. Follow the $.
Imo, that's being generous. Only a full scale, public audit/investigation would reveal what really happened. Follow the $.
David Amos
Reply to @Wilson Rose: Methinks the fools who are paying the cleaner's bill are we the people who own NB Power N'esy Pas?
David Amos
Reply to @David
Peters: Methinks if you wish to recall I have been saying that for years
within the public record of the EUB and within these comment sections
as well N'esy Pas?
Steve Cohen
Power measurement is basic science and engineering. Falsifying the value is fraud and investors can sue for that, and board members can sometimes be held responsible. Interestingly, NB Power won't sue as Gaetan could be suing himself. Higgs should appoint a new CEO immediately whose first role is to launch legal proceedings against JOI to recover our money. Early in the venture NB Power was told the process had been vetted by scientists from Oxford and MIT. Again, can those reports be seen? Do they exist, or are those claims also false (read: fraudulent)?
Steve Cohen
Reply to @Steve Cohen: correction: not Oxford but Cambridge. Sir David King.
David Amos
Reply to @Steve Cohen: Dream on
Fred Brewer
Reply to @Steve Cohen: Anyone who was hired by NB Power to provide advice on Joi, can and should be sued if that advice lead to the NB Power investment.
Fred
Brewer
Reply to @Steve
Cohen: "Power measurement is basic science and engineering." Exactly!
And this is something that NB Power should be an expert in. Why did NB
Power not spot the "errror" in how Joi was measuring their power?
Steve Cohen
Reply to @Fred
Brewer: maybe because Mr. Thomas' Doctorate of Science is only an
honourary degree. This is what happens when you send a wannabe
scientist to do real science.
David Amos
Reply to @Fred
Brewer: Methinks everybody heard the Chair Mr Barrett tell the
questionable committee that it was Norm Betts who knew somebody who knew
somebody who knew somebody N'esy Pas?
David Amos
Reply to @Steve Cohen: How much do you think Norm Betts knows about the investment industry?
Steve Cohen
Reply
to @David Amos: word is NB Power board member Michael Sellman first
heard about JOI and initiated the first meeting between JOI and NBP CEO
Thomas and Chairman Barrett. David Amos
Reply to @David Amos: Do you know when I first crossed paths with the CEO David Hay and a Chairman of NB Power and their Yankee lawyers?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/nb-power-severance-david-hay-1.4357625
$1.7M in severance paid to former NB Power CEO David Hay
Robert Jones · Posted: Oct 17, 2017 6:00 AM AT
Eddy Watts
(Florida-based Joi Scientific $13 million, hoping for a cut of potential profits from its mysterious technology.) "Mysterious Technology". I think NB should take some cues from the Japanese...remember Malcolm Bricklin and mysterious millions the taxpayer lost!!??
David Amos
Reply to @eddy watts:
Methinks the idea of producing a vehicle on our own was a good idea but
it should have been a pickup truck with a chevy engine instead of a
sports car with dumb doors and a so so ford motor N'esy Pas?
BruceJack Speculator
Reply
to @David Amos: once NB Power gets this joi thing working it can be
powered by an electric motor with a big gas bag to hold the hydrogen ! !
! (bad joke)
Eddy Watts
Reply to @David Amos: ?
David Amos
Methinks NB Power is having a hard time staying out of the news lately N'esy Pas?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/identity-theft-fraud-bank-account-credit-hologram-identification-1.5344530
Roy Kirk
"Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems was still looking at Joi at the time of the conference call and visited the company's Florida offices earlier the same month, but hadn't seen enough to inject much-needed capital into the Florida company."
===
And we are to believe that our utility executives have better judgement in the matter than such well-informed investors? This type of purely speculative investment has no place in the business of a Crown electric utility, or any single electric utility for that matter.
Contrast this boondoggle with the work NB Power did to develop the Eel River converter station in the late '60's. There they did something in their wheelhouse -- using proven technology in a new and innovative way to meet clear requirements of their business.
In contrast. current mgmt seems to think taking a flyer on a penny stock is what they're about. They should be disabused of the notion, by firings if necessary.
David Amos
Reply to @Roy Kirk:
Methinks nobody would ever dare to say that the Mitsubishi dudes are
dumb. They were clever enough to produce Mitsubishi A6M2 amongst many
other things since. The Yankees claim the aircraft was based on the
Howard Hughes H-1 racer but the credit for the design of the fighter
called the "Zero" by our forefathers who tangled with them goes to
Jiro Horikoshi N'esy Pas?
Fred Brewer
Mr. Thomas as CEO was recently quoted as saying he would have put his own money into Joi if he could. Well, lets relieve him of his position as CEO of NB Power, which would then allow him to invest in Joi. I am quite certain he would not put a single penny of his own money into Joi but at least we would have someone else at the helm of NB Power.
David Amos
Reply to @Fred
Brewer: Methinks Mr Thomas likely has all his not so hard earned cash
sunk in a swamp not far from Trump's new abode N'esy Pas?
Ben Haroldson
Reply to @Fred Brewer: He probably did. Ever heard of selling short?
Steve Cohen
To Jacques Poitras and Karissa Donkin: NB Power's CEO has indicated he cannot name those who may have vetted the JOI process as the media might hound them. Suggestion: contact Sir David King of Cambridge University, England, to see if he can speak to any involvement with vetting JOI's process. Additionally, the US Department of Energy and someone at MIT were also named as having viewed the process, and favourably.
David Amos
Reply to @Steve Cohen: Good luck with that
James Johnstone
The message from the New Brunswick taxpayers and government to Gaëtan Thomas and the Board of Directors of NB Power should be, "No Pay, No Severance, No Pension, No Pity, here is the door, use it." Why do we allow these so called "executives", hired by the government, to make us look like we have no idea about anything while at the same time bankrupting this province. Perhaps we are wrong for allowing this to continue as nobody ever seems to be held accountable.
David Amos
Reply to @James
Johnstone: Methinks the ghosts of my Father and KC Irving who have to
admit that it has been that way in New Brunswick since I was a child and
everybody knows that I am collecting my old age pension now N'esy Pas?
Ben Haroldson:
Gotta make you real nervous about this cutting edge nuclear tech he has been talking about..
David Amos
Reply to @Ben Haroldson: Me Too Anybody other to check our investments with the mini nuke dudes lately?
David Amos
Reply to @Ben Haroldson: A little Deja Vu for you
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/lepreau-nuclear-energy-climate-change-spent-fuel-1.5063225
"According to Plummer, the $20 million the province and companies currently have on the table is enough to cover only the vendor design-review process with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission."
I said
"Methinks NB Power's mandate is to provide us with enough electricity to meet our needs rather than venture into questionable business schemes dreamt up by their overpaid Yankee vice president Brett Plummer.
That said my hero Mr Tesla proved long ago that lots of power could be sourced from fast moving water I have not seen a better plan since particularly since we have lots of water. Why our government want to spend big bucks to take down the Musquash Dam instead of putting it back on line with modern generators etc is very strange in deed N'esy Pas?"
Ben Haroldson:
Reply to @David Amos: I'm sure we'll hear all about it.
David Amos
Methinks I should remind the folks that the EUB hearing for NB Power making another stab at borrowing a 100 million bucks or so for Not So Smart Meters will soon be underway Everybody knows Mr Higgs or Mr Holland could easily stop it with a mere phone call or if necessary a simple stroke the pen N'esy Pas?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/smart-meters-nb-power-energy-utilities-board-1.5245288
NB Power asks EUB to reconsider smart meters
Hadeel Ibrahim · CBC News · Posted: Aug 13, 2019 2:57 PM AT
Helen Gorne
The problem that JOI face. Trying to prove a new law of physics. An example. Connect a 12v to 110V inverter to your car battery. Then plug a battery charger into the 110V outlet on the inverter. Now connect the battery charger to the aforementioned car battery. Result.. the battery will continue to discharge faster than the battery charger can charge it up.The battery eventually reaches a low point and the inverter shuts down because it doesn't have enough input from the battery, with the inverter shut down, the the battery charger doesn't work. At present this is a basic law of physics, technology has improved such things as batteries and electric motors as seen in the latest range of Brushless power tools. Want JOI are saying is that their system produces enough hydrogen to provide the energy to run the system which produces the hydrogen plus has some left over. Such a system is world changing, there is no limit to the money and resources that countries and industry would make available. Having to seek a mere $13million from one of Canada's poorest areas contradicts what JOI say they have. They would have the world hammering at their door, they would need security greater than Fort Knox or the Pentagon... What do they have, less than a handful of people. a few hundred square feet of rented/shared office space and the ability to become invisible.
David Amos
Reply to @Helen Gorne: Trust that nobody cares
ScienceEducator GE
So there is a NZ based lab that is producing hydrogen energy at a very high efficiency and based on scale. Their desktop unit is producing @ 400% efficiency as proven with conversion back through a PEM fuel cell. They are not claiming to create energy (1st law) but to convert and combine energy at an ionic level. Very logical. I came across their website with published performance testing - just google H2IL. They have cctv footage of a 7 hour self-sustaining energy generation demo. This is, as they say, a world first. They claim to have the attention of major corps.
David Amos
Reply to @ScienceEducator GE: Check out John Ernst Worrell Keely sometime when you are bored
---------- Original message ----------
From: Newsroom <newsroom@globeandmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 17:11:12 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Re Joi Scientific, David Coon and NB Power
We just talked Correct Ms Harris?
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://twitter.com/DavidRayAmos/with_replies
David Raymond Amos @DavidRayAmos
Replying to @DavidRayAmos @Kathryn98967631 and 49 others
Methinks the Joi Scientific CEO Traver Kennedy could use a friend perhaps he and should talk N'esy Pas?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/nb-power-florida-start-up-1.5037917
Stop NB Power deal with mysterious Florida startup, Green leader says
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this story.
Commenting is now closed for this story.
David Amos
Methinks the Joi Scientific CEO Traver Kennedy could use a friend perhaps he and should talk N'esy Pas?
David Amos
Methinks if one were to ask
the University of Moncton professor Olivier Clarisse or the NB Power CEO
Gaetan Thomas who invented the AC induction motor I bet they would
claim it was George Westinghouse However the students of Nikola Tesla
know different N'esy Pas?
David Amos
Methinks It ain't rocket science to understand what Thomas and Kennedy are alluding to in this "News' item. Any student of John Ernst Worrell Keely will tell you that separating water is easily done byway of sonic frequencies That fact is no secret It is just not taught in Universities merely because the "Powers That Be" don't want folks to have free energy That why they smeared Tesla's reputation long ago N'esy Pas?
"Joi Scientific CEO Traver Kennedy says the agreement will lead to "the ending of net new carbon emissions in the province." "Every once in a while, there's a major innovation that resets a whole new area of inquiry, and we believe that our discovery will prove to be something that creates a whole new area," he said. But to avoid revealing too much to potential competitors, "we need to keep it secret for a little bit longer."
Thomas said that Joi Scientific's process is not electrolysis.
"I can't tell you what it is, but it's not electrolysis," he said. "What we're saying is that it is much more efficient than electrolysis."
Roy Nicholl
@David Amos
It is rather unlikely that is the process being used.
It is rather unlikely that is the process being used.
David Amos
@Roy Nicholl Of that I have no doubt
Shawn McShane
@David Amos And Joi Scientific Director Gaetan Thomas aka CEO of NB Power says what?
David Amos
@Shawn McShane Methinks you
should ask his lawyers Madame Harrison and Mr Furey they are the ones I
emailed because they work for you N'esy Pas?
Stop NB Power deal with mysterious Florida startup, Green leader says
Clean-energy company says its 'major' technology has to stay secret for now
The leader of the Green Party is
calling on Premier Blaine Higgs to halt NB Power's dalliance with a
Florida startup and its mysterious, unproven clean-energy technology.
Earlier this week, NB Power confirmed it has struck a deal with Joi Scientific, a Florida-based clean-energy startup, to develop power stations that would convert seawater to hydrogen electricity.
Joi Scientific CEO Traver Kennedy says the agreement will lead to "the ending of net new carbon emissions in the province."
"Every once in a while, there's a major innovation that resets a whole new area of inquiry, and we believe that our discovery will prove to be something that creates a whole new area," he said.
But to avoid revealing too much to potential competitors, "we need to keep it secret for a little bit longer."
CEO Gaetan Thomas said the technology is "proven at the laboratory level. … The issue will be scaling up" to an industrial-level generation of electricity.
Thomas wouldn't say how much money the utility has committed to the project, though the newspaper L'Acadie Nouvelle quoted Kennedy saying it's $13 million. Kennedy wouldn't repeat that in an interview with CBC News.
NB Power's payment includes a licence fee for exclusive rights to build Joi-designed hydrogen power stations and then help market the technology to other utilities while sharing in the profits.
Green Leader David Coon said the venture goes beyond the utility's legislated role.
"It has no mandate as a public entity to be spending ratepayers' money on [research and development], to be acting like an angel investor in someone's project in Florida. It's not their mandate.
"They're way beyond the bounds of their mandate. The premier needs to have a discussion with the board of NB Power."
Thomas said the utility is not an investor and does not own a stake in the company.
Green
leader David Coon says NB Power has "no mandate as a public entity to
be spending ratepayers' money on [research and development], to be
acting like an angel investor in someone's project in Florida." (James West/Canadian Press)
He said NB Power is looking at two options for plants that would convert abundant seawater to hydrogen energy.
One would see a large plant alongside an existing gas plant to keep the gas plant's emissions below federal regulatory limits.
Besides a share of the profit from selling the technology to other utilities, Thomas said it would reduce NB Power's carbon-tax bill.
"It has zero carbon," he said.
But Coon questions whether the technology is viable.
"It still remains a mystery," he said. "No one in the hydrogen world is talking about this.
"There's no buzz that I can see about it, mainly because the company has yet to reveal exactly what it is. This remains in the realm of mystery, and it's still at the level of laboratory prototypes."
"The
proof of concept is not available to anybody. We want some proof. Just
because you say something, it's not necessarily true," said Olivier
Clarisse, a chemistry and bio chemistry professor at the University of
Moncton. (Tori Weldon/CBC)
University
of Moncton chemist Olivier Clarisse said he and his colleagues scoured
scientific journals for evidence that the company's method is viable and
could not find anything.
"We were expecting to see some papers from the scientific world about this major discovery, but we didn't see that," he said.
"The proof of concept is not available to anybody. We want some proof. Just because you say something, it's not necessarily true."
In a joint news release, NB Power and Joi Scientific said that their agreement comes after "successful third-party verifications … by scientific institutions and experts."
Kennedy said the company is looking forward to releasing peer-reviewed studies eventually.
Water is split into hydrogen and oxygen through a process called electrolysis, but Clarisse said so far no one has found a way to do that without burning more energy than what is produced.
"It's not workable to produce hydrogen in an economic sense," he said. "You receive less energy than what you have used to produce it."
Thomas said that Joi Scientific's process is not electrolysis.
"I can't tell you what it is, but it's not electrolysis," he said. "What we're saying is that it is much more efficient than electrolysis."
"I can't tell you what it is, but it's not electrolysis," said NB Power CEO Gaetan Thomas. (CBC)
Thomas said NB Power hopes to have a prototype ready in two or three years, with commercial operations five years from now.
He said the utility will eventually have to provide more detail when it appears before the Energy and Utilities Board.
NB Power has been unlucky with major investments in new ventures in the past.
It spent $700 million refurbishing its Coleson Cove station to burn Orimulsion, only to see its supply agreement with a Venezuelan state-owned fuel company fall apart. The utility's lawsuit was eventually settled for $338 million.
And the refurbishment of the Point Lepreau nuclear station, the first upgrade of its kind, went $1 billion over budget and was three years late.
Earlier this week, NB Power confirmed it has struck a deal with Joi Scientific, a Florida-based clean-energy startup, to develop power stations that would convert seawater to hydrogen electricity.
Joi Scientific CEO Traver Kennedy says the agreement will lead to "the ending of net new carbon emissions in the province."
"Every once in a while, there's a major innovation that resets a whole new area of inquiry, and we believe that our discovery will prove to be something that creates a whole new area," he said.
But to avoid revealing too much to potential competitors, "we need to keep it secret for a little bit longer."
CEO Gaetan Thomas said the technology is "proven at the laboratory level. … The issue will be scaling up" to an industrial-level generation of electricity.
Thomas wouldn't say how much money the utility has committed to the project, though the newspaper L'Acadie Nouvelle quoted Kennedy saying it's $13 million. Kennedy wouldn't repeat that in an interview with CBC News.
NB Power's payment includes a licence fee for exclusive rights to build Joi-designed hydrogen power stations and then help market the technology to other utilities while sharing in the profits.
'No mandate'
Green Leader David Coon said the venture goes beyond the utility's legislated role.
"It has no mandate as a public entity to be spending ratepayers' money on [research and development], to be acting like an angel investor in someone's project in Florida. It's not their mandate.
"They're way beyond the bounds of their mandate. The premier needs to have a discussion with the board of NB Power."
Thomas said the utility is not an investor and does not own a stake in the company.
One would see a large plant alongside an existing gas plant to keep the gas plant's emissions below federal regulatory limits.
We want some proof. Just because you say something, it's not necessarily true. - Olivier Clarisse, University of MonctonAnother is a network of up to 30 smaller "mini-plants" around the province that would reduce the cost of transmitting the electricity.
Besides a share of the profit from selling the technology to other utilities, Thomas said it would reduce NB Power's carbon-tax bill.
"It has zero carbon," he said.
Mystery technology
But Coon questions whether the technology is viable.
"It still remains a mystery," he said. "No one in the hydrogen world is talking about this.
"There's no buzz that I can see about it, mainly because the company has yet to reveal exactly what it is. This remains in the realm of mystery, and it's still at the level of laboratory prototypes."
"We were expecting to see some papers from the scientific world about this major discovery, but we didn't see that," he said.
"The proof of concept is not available to anybody. We want some proof. Just because you say something, it's not necessarily true."
In a joint news release, NB Power and Joi Scientific said that their agreement comes after "successful third-party verifications … by scientific institutions and experts."
Studies will be released ... eventually
Kennedy said the company is looking forward to releasing peer-reviewed studies eventually.
Water is split into hydrogen and oxygen through a process called electrolysis, but Clarisse said so far no one has found a way to do that without burning more energy than what is produced.
"It's not workable to produce hydrogen in an economic sense," he said. "You receive less energy than what you have used to produce it."
Thomas said that Joi Scientific's process is not electrolysis.
"I can't tell you what it is, but it's not electrolysis," he said. "What we're saying is that it is much more efficient than electrolysis."
He said the utility will eventually have to provide more detail when it appears before the Energy and Utilities Board.
NB Power has been unlucky with major investments in new ventures in the past.
It spent $700 million refurbishing its Coleson Cove station to burn Orimulsion, only to see its supply agreement with a Venezuelan state-owned fuel company fall apart. The utility's lawsuit was eventually settled for $338 million.
And the refurbishment of the Point Lepreau nuclear station, the first upgrade of its kind, went $1 billion over budget and was three years late.
About the Author
---------- Original message ----------
From: Newsroom <newsroom@globeandmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 17:11:12 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Re Joi Scientific, David Coon and NB Power
We just talked Correct Ms Harris?
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, 1 Mar 2019 13:11:05 -0400
Subject: Re Joi Scientific, David Coon and NB Power We just talked
Correct Ms Harris?
To: vicky@joiscientific.com, wharrison@nbpower.com,
mike.holland@gnb.ca>, David.Coon@gnb.ca
Cc: david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Jacques.Poitras@cbc.ca, David.Akin@globalnews.ca,
news@kingscorecord.com, Newsroom@globeandmail.com,
steve.murphy@ctv.ca, oldmaison@yahoo.com, andre@jafaust.com,
kris.austin@gnb.ca, brian.gallant@gnb.ca, blaine.higgs@gnb.ca,
pm@pm.gc.ca
https://www.cbc.ca/news/
Stop NB Power deal with mysterious Florida startup, Green leader says
Clean-energy company says its 'major' technology has to stay secret for now
Jacques Poitras · CBC News · Posted: Mar 01, 2019 6:00 AM AT
40 Comments
David Amos
Methinks the Joi Scientific CEO Traver Kennedy could use a friend
perhaps he and should talk N'esy Pas?
https://www.joiscientific.com/
Joi Scientific and New Brunswick Power to Develop World’s First
Hydrogen-Powered Distributed Electricity Grid
New Brunswick could see up to 30 distributed Hydrogen 2.0 production
stations deployed for zero-carbon baseload generation
KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, FL & FREDERICTON, NB ― February 26, 2019 ― Joi
Scientific,™ whose mission is to make clean and affordable hydrogen
energy available to all, is to co-develop with New Brunswick Power a
hydrogen production system to enable the world’s first electricity
grid that uses hydrogen as a baseload.
The major electric utility in Canada’s Eastern Maritime province, NB
Power is re-architecting its operations to create a highly efficient
and green electricity grid. The collaboration envisages the deployment
of Joi Scientific’s proprietary Hydrogen 2.0™ production system at
multiple distributed stations alongside wind turbines, hydro, and
nuclear power to create a net-zero carbon-generating power operation
while maintaining low and stable rates in a jurisdiction that does not
benefit from large storage hydro capacity. The joint commercial
development between Joi Scientific and NB Power foresees the utility
offering its emissions-free grid architecture, which combines
distributed Hydrogen 2.0 baseload generation with smart grid
management, to other utility operators across North America and
beyond.
Joi Scientific’s Hydrogen 2.0 technology uses a high efficiency, high
throughput system to liberate hydrogen from untreated seawater.
Hydrogen 2.0 will enable the localized production of hydrogen on-site,
on-demand, meaning that it can be generated when and where it is
needed closer to where customers are located. In the province of New
Brunswick ― where significant progress has already been made towards
contributing to Canada’s 2030 goal of cutting emissions by at least 56
percent below 2005 levels ― Hydrogen 2.0 has the potential to
transform the transmission and distribution of electricity with a
feedstock generated from readily available coastal seawater.
“NB Power has long been committed to investing in the sustainability
of our province’s energy future. We are encouraged with the progress
made to date on Hydrogen 2.0 and are looking forward to the next phase
of co-development,” explained Gaëtan Thomas, President and CEO, NB
Power. “Hydrogen 2.0 has the potential to provide a localized,
on-demand hydrogen production capability which, when mixed with other
renewable sources such as wind and hydro, gets us closer to our
customers by delivering zero-carbon loads at lower cost and greater
efficiency.”
This new development phase follows successful third-party
verifications of Hydrogen 2.0 technology efficiency and throughput by
scientific institutions and experts. Both companies are planning to
work closely together to co-develop and test a commercial prototype
unit at Joi Scientific’s labs at the Kennedy Space Center. This
development phase follows an initial license agreement that was signed
in 2016, granting NB Power the rights to develop, manufacture, use,
and sell hydrogen and hydrogen generation systems for large and small
electric utility applications using Joi Scientific’s Hydrogen 2.0
technology.
“This historic agreement with NB Power signals the transition of our
Hydrogen 2.0 technology from the laboratory into full-scale
development and commercialization,” said Traver Kennedy, CEO, Joi
Scientific. “New Brunswick is a prime example of what can be achieved
by a far-sighted, ecologically-minded institution. Their innovative
approach for realizing a new zero-carbon distributed grid architecture
could provide the blueprint for the way the world generates and
consumes electricity going forward.”
About NB Power
New Brunswick Power (www.nbpower.com) is the primary electric utility
in New Brunswick, Canada, and was established in 1920. It serves over
400,000 direct and indirect customers with safe, reliable and
efficient electricity. The utility is focused on promoting the
efficient use of energy in customers’ homes and businesses through its
smart grid efforts while enabling and providing new, value-added
energy efficient solutions in order to help reduce carbon, better
integrate renewable energy and stimulate the economy. Based on the
current generation mix, NB Power is well positioned to provide its
customers with electricity generated with consideration for the
environment. Currently, 37 percent of its energy is from renewable
sources and 74 percent is non-emitting when the Point Lepreau Nuclear
Generating Station is added. NB Power is on track to achieve the
provincial target of 40 percent of in-province electricity sales being
provided from clean, renewable energy sources by 2020 and when coupled
with nuclear generation this will result in a 75 percent non-emitting
grid for New Brunswickers.
About Joi Scientific
Joi Scientific (www.joiscientific.com) was founded by a group of
global business leaders, technologists, and social entrepreneurs who
believe that plentiful hydrogen holds the key to giving the world a
viable, no-compromise energy alternative. The company’s Hydrogen 2.0
technology has the potential to be the world’s first hydrogen
production process that is on-demand, economically competitive, and
environmentally neutral. The company is licensing its Hydrogen 2.0
technology to a wide range of major power industries including
electrical generation, heat generation, transportation, and specialty
power. Joi Scientific is headquartered at the Kennedy Space Center in
Florida.
# # #
Joi Scientific™ and Hydrogen 2.0™ are trademarks of Joi Scientific,
Inc. All other trademarks and registered trademarks are property of
their respective owners.
Save
Social Media
Joi Scientific on Twitter
Joi Scientific on Linkedin
Joi Scientific on Facebook
Joi Scientific on Youtube
Media Contacts
Vicky Harris
Joi Scientific
321.506.4592
vicky@joiscientific.com
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 18:18:40 -0400
Subject: Methinks David Lametti should go back to law school too N'esy
Pas Pierre Poilievre?
To: David.Lametti@parl.gc.ca, "Jody.Wilson-Raybould"
<Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.
<pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca>, mcu <mcu@justice.gc.ca>,
"michael.chong" <michael.chong@parl.gc.ca>, "Michael.Wernick"
<Michael.Wernick@pco-bcp.gc.ca
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
<Newsroom@globeandmail.com>, "Jacques.Poitras"
<Jacques.Poitras@cbc.ca>, "serge.rousselle" <serge.rousselle@gnb.ca>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 15:44:16 -0400
Subject: Jagmeet Singh says that maybe Jay Shin should go back to law
school??? Too Too Funny Indeed EH Karen Wang and Laura-Lynn Tyler
Thompson?
To: info@jayshin.ca, jay@lonsdalelaw.ca, karenwang@liberal.ca,
lauralynnlive@gmail.com
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
jmaclellan@burnabynow.com, kgawley@burnabynow.com
Jagmeet Singh on Tory opponent: 'Maybe he should go back to law school'
Conservative candidate Jay Shin said Singh was 'keeping criminals out
of jail' during his days as a criminal defence lawyer
Kelvin Gawley Burnaby Now January 13, 2019 10:27 AM
Julie MacLellan
Assistant editor, and newsroom tip line
jmaclellan@burnabynow.com
Phone: 604 444 3020
Kelvin Gawley
kgawley@burnabynow.com
Phone: 604 444 3024
Jay Shin
Direct: 604-980-5089
Email: jay@lonsdalelaw.ca
By phone: 604-628-0508
By e-mail: info@jayshin.ca
Karen Wang
604.531.1178
karenwang@liberal.ca
Now if Mr Shin scrolls down he will know some of what the fancy NDP
lawyer has known for quite sometime
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Singh - QP, Jagmeet" <JSingh-QP@ndp.on.ca>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 16:39:35 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Re Federal Court File # T-1557-15 and the
upcoming hearing on May 24th I called a lot of your people before High
Noon today Correct Ralph Goodale and Deputy Minister Malcolm Brown?
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
For immediate assistance please contact our Brampton office at
905-799-3939 or jsingh-co@ndp.on.ca
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kennedy.Stewart@parl.gc.ca
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 18:18:35 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Attn Minister Ralph Goodale and Pierre
Paul-Hus Trust that I look forward to arguing the fact that fhe Crown
filed my Sept 4th email to you and your buddies
To: motomaniac333@gmail.com
Many thanks for your message. Your concerns are important to me. If
your matter is urgent, an invitation or an immigration matter please
forward it to burnabysouth.A1@parl.gc.ca or
burnabysouth.C1@parl.gc.ca. This email is no longer being monitored.
The House of Commons of Canada provides for the continuation of
services to the constituents of a Member of Parliament whose seat has
become vacant. The party Whip supervises the staff retained under
these circumstances.
Following the resignation of the Member for the constituency of
Burnaby South, Mr. Kennedy Stewart, the constituency office will
continue to provide services to constituents.
You can reach the Burnaby South constituency office by telephone at
(604) 291-8863 or by mail at the following address: 4940 Kingsway,
Burnaby BC.
Office Hours:
Tuesday - Thursday: 10am - 12pm & 1pm - 4pm
Friday 10am - 12pm
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Michael Cohen <mcohen@trumporg.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 05:54:40 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: ATTN Blair Armitage You acted as the Usher
of the Black Rod twice while Kevin Vickers was the Sergeant-at-Arms
Hence you and the RCMP must know why I sued the Queen Correct?
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: Justice Website <JUSTWEB@novascotia.ca>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:21:11 +0000
Subject: Emails to Department of Justice and Province of Nova Scotia
To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com" <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Mr. Amos,
We acknowledge receipt of your recent emails to the Deputy Minister of
Justice and lawyers within the Legal Services Division of the
Department of Justice respecting a possible claim against the Province
of Nova Scotia. Service of any documents respecting a legal claim
against the Province of Nova Scotia may be served on the Attorney
General at 1690 Hollis Street, Halifax, NS. Please note that we will
not be responding to further emails on this matter.
Department of Justice
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Eidt, David (OAG/CPG)" <David.Eidt@gnb.ca>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 00:33:21 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Yo Mr Lutz howcome your buddy the clerk
would not file this motion and properly witnessed affidavit and why
did she take all four copies?
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
I will be out of the office until Monday, March 13, 2017. I will have
little to no access to email. Please dial 453-2222 for assistance.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Marc Richard <MRichard@lawsociety-barreau.
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 13:16:46 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: RE: The New Brunswick Real Estate
Association and their deliberate ignorance for the bankster's benefit
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
I will be out of the office until August 15, 2016. Je serai absent du
bureau jusqu'au 15 août 2016.
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 09:32:09 -0400
> Subject: Attn Integrity Commissioner Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C.,
> To: coi@gnb.ca
> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>
> Good Day Sir
>
> After I heard you speak on CBC I called your office again and managed
> to speak to one of your staff for the first time
>
> Please find attached the documents I promised to send to the lady who
> answered the phone this morning. Please notice that not after the Sgt
> at Arms took the documents destined to your office his pal Tanker
> Malley barred me in writing with an "English" only document.
>
> These are the hearings and the dockets in Federal Court that I
> suggested that you study closely.
>
> This is the docket in Federal Court
>
> http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.
>
> These are digital recordings of the last three hearings
>
> Dec 14th https://archive.org/details/
>
> January 11th, 2016 https://archive.org/details/
>
> April 3rd, 2017
>
> https://archive.org/details/
>
>
> This is the docket in the Federal Court of Appeal
>
> http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.
>
>
> The only hearing thus far
>
> May 24th, 2017
>
> https://archive.org/details/
>
>
> This Judge understnds the meaning of the word Integrity
>
> Date: 20151223
>
> Docket: T-1557-15
>
> Fredericton, New Brunswick, December 23, 2015
>
> PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Bell
>
> BETWEEN:
>
> DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
>
> Plaintiff
>
> and
>
> HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
>
> Defendant
>
> ORDER
>
> (Delivered orally from the Bench in Fredericton, New Brunswick, on
> December 14, 2015)
>
> The Plaintiff seeks an appeal de novo, by way of motion pursuant to
> the Federal Courts Rules (SOR/98-106), from an Order made on November
> 12, 2015, in which Prothonotary Morneau struck the Statement of Claim
> in its entirety.
>
> At the outset of the hearing, the Plaintiff brought to my attention a
> letter dated September 10, 2004, which he sent to me, in my then
> capacity as Past President of the New Brunswick Branch of the Canadian
> Bar Association, and the then President of the Branch, Kathleen Quigg,
> (now a Justice of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal). In that letter
> he stated:
>
> As for your past President, Mr. Bell, may I suggest that you check the
> work of Frank McKenna before I sue your entire law firm including you.
> You are your brother’s keeper.
>
> Frank McKenna is the former Premier of New Brunswick and a former
> colleague of mine at the law firm of McInnes Cooper. In addition to
> expressing an intention to sue me, the Plaintiff refers to a number of
> people in his Motion Record who he appears to contend may be witnesses
> or potential parties to be added. Those individuals who are known to
> me personally, include, but are not limited to the former Prime
> Minister of Canada, The Right Honourable Stephen Harper; former
> Attorney General of Canada and now a Justice of the Manitoba Court of
> Queen’s Bench, Vic Toews; former member of Parliament Rob Moore;
> former Director of Policing Services, the late Grant Garneau; former
> Chief of the Fredericton Police Force, Barry McKnight; former Staff
> Sergeant Danny Copp; my former colleagues on the New Brunswick Court
> of Appeal, Justices Bradley V. Green and Kathleen Quigg, and, retired
> Assistant Commissioner Wayne Lang of the Royal Canadian Mounted
> Police.
>
> In the circumstances, given the threat in 2004 to sue me in my
> personal capacity and my past and present relationship with many
> potential witnesses and/or potential parties to the litigation, I am
> of the view there would be a reasonable apprehension of bias should I
> hear this motion. See Justice de Grandpré’s dissenting judgment in
> Committee for Justice and Liberty et al v National Energy Board et al,
> [1978] 1 SCR 369 at p 394 for the applicable test regarding
> allegations of bias. In the circumstances, although neither party has
> requested I recuse myself, I consider it appropriate that I do so.
>
>
> AS A RESULT OF MY RECUSAL, THIS COURT ORDERS that the Administrator of
> the Court schedule another date for the hearing of the motion. There
> is no order as to costs.
>
> “B. Richard Bell”
> Judge
>
>
> Below after the CBC article about your concerns (I made one comment
> already) you will find the text of just two of many emails I had sent
> to your office over the years since I first visited it in 2006.
>
> I noticed that on July 30, 2009, he was appointed to the the Court
> Martial Appeal Court of Canada Perhaps you should scroll to the
> bottom of this email ASAP and read the entire Paragraph 83 of my
> lawsuit now before the Federal Court of Canada?
>
> "FYI This is the text of the lawsuit that should interest Trudeau the most
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca
> Date: Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:18 PM
> Subject: Réponse automatique : RE My complaint against the CROWN in
> Federal Court Attn David Hansen and Peter MacKay If you planning to
> submit a motion for a publication ban on my complaint trust that you
> dudes are way past too late
> To: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>
> Veuillez noter que j'ai changé de courriel. Vous pouvez me rejoindre à
> lalanthier@hotmail.com
>
> Pour rejoindre le bureau de M. Trudeau veuillez envoyer un courriel à
> tommy.desfosses@parl.gc.ca
>
> Please note that I changed email address, you can reach me at
> lalanthier@hotmail.com
>
> To reach the office of Mr. Trudeau please send an email to
> tommy.desfosses@parl.gc.ca
>
> Thank you,
>
> Merci ,
>
>
> http://davidraymondamos3.
>
>
> 83. The Plaintiff states that now that Canada is involved in more war
> in Iraq again it did not serve Canadian interests and reputation to
> allow Barry Winters to publish the following words three times over
> five years after he began his bragging:
>
> January 13, 2015
> This Is Just AS Relevant Now As When I wrote It During The Debate
>
> December 8, 2014
> Why Canada Stood Tall!
>
> Friday, October 3, 2014
> Little David Amos’ “True History Of War” Canadian Airstrikes And
> Stupid Justin Trudeau
>
> Canada’s and Canadians free ride is over. Canada can no longer hide
> behind Amerka’s and NATO’s skirts.
>
> When I was still in Canadian Forces then Prime Minister Jean Chretien
> actually committed the Canadian Army to deploy in the second campaign
> in Iraq, the Coalition of the Willing. This was against or contrary to
> the wisdom or advice of those of us Canadian officers that were
> involved in the initial planning phases of that operation. There were
> significant concern in our planning cell, and NDHQ about of the dearth
> of concern for operational guidance, direction, and forces for
> operations after the initial occupation of Iraq. At the “last minute”
> Prime Minister Chretien and the Liberal government changed its mind.
> The Canadian government told our amerkan cousins that we would not
> deploy combat troops for the Iraq campaign, but would deploy a
> Canadian Battle Group to Afghanistan, enabling our amerkan cousins to
> redeploy troops from there to Iraq. The PMO’s thinking that it was
> less costly to deploy Canadian Forces to Afghanistan than Iraq. But
> alas no one seems to remind the Liberals of Prime Minister Chretien’s
> then grossly incorrect assumption. Notwithstanding Jean Chretien’s
> incompetence and stupidity, the Canadian Army was heroic,
> professional, punched well above it’s weight, and the PPCLI Battle
> Group, is credited with “saving Afghanistan” during the Panjway
> campaign of 2006.
>
> What Justin Trudeau and the Liberals don’t tell you now, is that then
> Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien committed, and deployed the
> Canadian army to Canada’s longest “war” without the advice, consent,
> support, or vote of the Canadian Parliament.
>
> What David Amos and the rest of the ignorant, uneducated, and babbling
> chattering classes are too addled to understand is the deployment of
> less than 75 special operations troops, and what is known by planners
> as a “six pac cell” of fighter aircraft is NOT the same as a
> deployment of a Battle Group, nor a “war” make.
>
> The Canadian Government or The Crown unlike our amerkan cousins have
> the “constitutional authority” to commit the Canadian nation to war.
> That has been recently clearly articulated to the Canadian public by
> constitutional scholar Phillippe Legasse. What Parliament can do is
> remove “confidence” in The Crown’s Government in a “vote of
> non-confidence.” That could not happen to the Chretien Government
> regarding deployment to Afghanistan, and it won’t happen in this
> instance with the conservative majority in The Commons regarding a
> limited Canadian deployment to the Middle East.
>
> President George Bush was quite correct after 911 and the terror
> attacks in New York; that the Taliban “occupied” and “failed state”
> Afghanistan was the source of logistical support, command and control,
> and training for the Al Quaeda war of terror against the world. The
> initial defeat, and removal from control of Afghanistan was vital and
>
> P.S. Whereas this CBC article is about your opinion of the actions of
> the latest Minister Of Health trust that Mr Boudreau and the CBC have
> had my files for many years and the last thing they are is ethical.
> Ask his friends Mr Murphy and the RCMP if you don't believe me.
>
> Subject:
> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:02:35 -0400
> From: "Murphy, Michael B. \(DH/MS\)" MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca
> To: motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com
>
> January 30, 2007
>
> WITHOUT PREJUDICE
>
> Mr. David Amos
>
> Dear Mr. Amos:
>
> This will acknowledge receipt of a copy of your e-mail of December 29,
> 2006 to Corporal Warren McBeath of the RCMP.
>
> Because of the nature of the allegations made in your message, I have
> taken the measure of forwarding a copy to Assistant Commissioner Steve
> Graham of the RCMP “J” Division in Fredericton.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Honourable Michael B. Murphy
> Minister of Health
>
> CM/cb
>
>
> Warren McBeath warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca wrote:
>
> Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:34:53 -0500
> From: "Warren McBeath" warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
> To: kilgoursite@ca.inter.net, MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca,
> nada.sarkis@gnb.ca, wally.stiles@gnb.ca, dwatch@web.net,
> motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com
> CC: ottawa@chuckstrahl.com, riding@chuckstrahl.com,John.
> Oda.B@parl.gc.ca,"Bev BUSSON" bev.busson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
> "Paul Dube" PAUL.DUBE@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
> Subject: Re: Remember me Kilgour? Landslide Annie McLellan has
> forgotten me but the crooks within the RCMP have not
>
> Dear Mr. Amos,
>
> Thank you for your follow up e-mail to me today. I was on days off
> over the holidays and returned to work this evening. Rest assured I
> was not ignoring or procrastinating to respond to your concerns.
>
> As your attachment sent today refers from Premier Graham, our position
> is clear on your dead calf issue: Our forensic labs do not process
> testing on animals in cases such as yours, they are referred to the
> Atlantic Veterinary College in Charlottetown who can provide these
> services. If you do not choose to utilize their expertise in this
> instance, then that is your decision and nothing more can be done.
>
> As for your other concerns regarding the US Government, false
> imprisonment and Federal Court Dates in the US, etc... it is clear
> that Federal authorities are aware of your concerns both in Canada
> the US. These issues do not fall into the purvue of Detachment
> and policing in Petitcodiac, NB.
>
> It was indeed an interesting and informative conversation we had on
> December 23rd, and I wish you well in all of your future endeavors.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Warren McBeath, Cpl.
> GRC Caledonia RCMP
> Traffic Services NCO
> Ph: (506) 387-2222
> Fax: (506) 387-4622
> E-mail warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>
>
>
> Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C.,
> Office of the Integrity Commissioner
> Edgecombe House, 736 King Street
> Fredericton, N.B. CANADA E3B 5H1
> tel.: 506-457-7890
> fax: 506-444-5224
> e-mail:coi@gnb.ca
>
On 8/3/17, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote:
> If want something very serious to download and laugh at as well Please
> Enjoy and share real wiretap tapes of the mob
>
> http://thedavidamosrant.
> ilian.html
>
>> http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/
>>
>> As the CBC etc yap about Yankee wiretaps and whistleblowers I must
>> ask them the obvious question AIN'T THEY FORGETTING SOMETHING????
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?
>>
>> What the hell does the media think my Yankee lawyer served upon the
>> USDOJ right after I ran for and seat in the 39th Parliament baseball
>> cards?
>>
>> http://archive.org/details/
>> 6
>>
>> http://davidamos.blogspot.ca/
>>
>> http://www.archive.org/
>>
>> http://archive.org/details/
>>
>> FEDERAL EXPRES February 7, 2006
>> Senator Arlen Specter
>> United States Senate
>> Committee on the Judiciary
>> 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
>> Washington, DC 20510
>>
>> Dear Mr. Specter:
>>
>> I have been asked to forward the enclosed tapes to you from a man
>> named, David Amos, a Canadian citizen, in connection with the matters
>> raised in the attached letter.
>>
>> Mr. Amos has represented to me that these are illegal FBI wire tap tapes.
>>
>> I believe Mr. Amos has been in contact with you about this previously.
>>
>> Very truly yours,
>> Barry A. Bachrach
>> Direct telephone: (508) 926-3403
>> Direct facsimile: (508) 929-3003
>> Email: bbachrach@bowditch.com
>>
>
http://davidraymondamos3.
Sunday, 19 November 2017
Federal Court of Appeal Finally Makes The BIG Decision And Publishes
It Now The Crooks Cannot Take Back Ticket To Try Put My Matter Before
The Supreme Court
https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Amos v. Canada
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2017-10-30
Neutral citation
2017 FCA 213
File numbers
A-48-16
Date: 20171030
Docket: A-48-16
Citation: 2017 FCA 213
CORAM:
WEBB J.A.
NEAR J.A.
GLEASON J.A.
BETWEEN:
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
Respondent on the cross-appeal
(and formally Appellant)
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Appellant on the cross-appeal
(and formerly Respondent)
Heard at Fredericton, New Brunswick, on May 24, 2017.
Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 30, 2017.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:
THE COURT
Date: 20171030
Docket: A-48-16
Citation: 2017 FCA 213
CORAM:
WEBB J.A.
NEAR J.A.
GLEASON J.A.
BETWEEN:
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
Respondent on the cross-appeal
(and formally Appellant)
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Appellant on the cross-appeal
(and formerly Respondent)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY THE COURT
I. Introduction
[1] On September 16, 2015, David Raymond Amos (Mr. Amos)
filed a 53-page Statement of Claim (the Claim) in Federal Court
against Her Majesty the Queen (the Crown). Mr. Amos claims $11 million
in damages and a public apology from the Prime Minister and Provincial
Premiers for being illegally barred from accessing parliamentary
properties and seeks a declaration from the Minister of Public Safety
that the Canadian Government will no longer allow the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police (RCMP) and Canadian Forces to harass him and his clan
(Claim at para. 96).
[2] On November 12, 2015 (Docket T-1557-15), by way of a
motion brought by the Crown, a prothonotary of the Federal Court (the
Prothonotary) struck the Claim in its entirety, without leave to
amend, on the basis that it was plain and obvious that the Claim
disclosed no reasonable claim, the Claim was fundamentally vexatious,
and the Claim could not be salvaged by way of further amendment (the
Prothontary’s Order).
[3] On January 25, 2016 (2016 FC 93), by way of Mr.
Amos’ appeal from the Prothonotary’s Order, a judge of the Federal
Court (the Judge), reviewing the matter de novo, struck all of Mr.
Amos’ claims for relief with the exception of the claim for damages
for being barred by the RCMP from the New Brunswick legislature in
2004 (the Federal Court Judgment).
[4] Mr. Amos appealed and the Crown cross-appealed the
Federal Court Judgment. Further to the issuance of a Notice of Status
Review, Mr. Amos’ appeal was dismissed for delay on December 19, 2016.
As such, the only matter before this Court is the Crown’s
cross-appeal.
II. Preliminary Matter
[5] Mr. Amos, in his memorandum of fact and law in
relation to the cross-appeal that was filed with this Court on March
6, 2017, indicated that several judges of this Court, including two of
the judges of this panel, had a conflict of interest in this appeal.
This was the first time that he identified the judges whom he believed
had a conflict of interest in a document that was filed with this
Court. In his notice of appeal he had alluded to a conflict with
several judges but did not name those judges.
[6] Mr. Amos was of the view that he did not have to
identify the judges in any document filed with this Court because he
had identified the judges in various documents that had been filed
with the Federal Court. In his view the Federal Court and the Federal
Court of Appeal are the same court and therefore any document filed in
the Federal Court would be filed in this Court. This view is based on
subsections 5(4) and 5.1(4) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985,
c. F-7:
5(4) Every judge of the Federal Court is, by virtue of his or her
office, a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal and has all the
jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Federal Court of
Appeal.
[…]
5(4) Les juges de la Cour fédérale sont d’office juges de la Cour
d’appel fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs que
les juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale.
[…]
5.1(4) Every judge of the Federal Court of Appeal is, by virtue of
that office, a judge of the Federal Court and has all the
jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Federal Court.
5.1(4) Les juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale sont d’office juges de la
Cour fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs que les
juges de la Cour fédérale.
[7] However, these subsections only provide that the
judges of the Federal Court are also judges of this Court (and vice
versa). It does not mean that there is only one court. If the Federal
Court and this Court were one Court, there would be no need for this
section.
[8] Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Courts Act provide that:
3 The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the Federal Court
— Appeal Division is continued under the name “Federal Court of
Appeal” in English and “Cour d’appel fédérale” in French. It is
continued as an additional court of law, equity and admiralty in and
for Canada, for the better administration of the laws of Canada and as
a superior court of record having civil and criminal jurisdiction.
3 La Section d’appel, aussi appelée la Cour d’appel ou la Cour d’appel
fédérale, est maintenue et dénommée « Cour d’appel fédérale » en
français et « Federal Court of Appeal » en anglais. Elle est maintenue
à titre de tribunal additionnel de droit, d’equity et d’amirauté du
Canada, propre à améliorer l’application du droit canadien, et
continue d’être une cour supérieure d’archives ayant compétence en
matière civile et pénale.
4 The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the Federal Court
— Trial Division is continued under the name “Federal Court” in
English and “Cour fédérale” in French. It is continued as an
additional court of law, equity and admiralty in and for Canada, for
the better administration of the laws of Canada and as a superior
court of record having civil and criminal jurisdiction.
4 La section de la Cour fédérale du Canada, appelée la Section de
première instance de la Cour fédérale, est maintenue et dénommée «
Cour fédérale » en français et « Federal Court » en anglais. Elle est
maintenue à titre de tribunal additionnel de droit, d’equity et
d’amirauté du Canada, propre à améliorer l’application du droit
canadien, et continue d’être une cour supérieure d’archives ayant
compétence en matière civile et pénale.
[9] Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Courts Act create
two separate courts – this Court (section 3) and the Federal Court
(section 4). If, as Mr. Amos suggests, documents filed in the Federal
Court were automatically also filed in this Court, then there would no
need for the parties to prepare and file appeal books as required by
Rules 343 to 345 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 in relation
to any appeal from a decision of the Federal Court. The requirement to
file an appeal book with this Court in relation to an appeal from a
decision of the Federal Court makes it clear that the only documents
that will be before this Court are the documents that are part of that
appeal book.
[10] Therefore, the memorandum of fact and law filed on
March 6, 2017 is the first document, filed with this Court, in which
Mr. Amos identified the particular judges that he submits have a
conflict in any matter related to him.
[11] On April 3, 2017, Mr. Amos attempted to bring a motion
before the Federal Court seeking an order “affirming or denying the
conflict of interest he has” with a number of judges of the Federal
Court. A judge of the Federal Court issued a direction noting that if
Mr. Amos was seeking this order in relation to judges of the Federal
Court of Appeal, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Federal Court.
Mr. Amos raised the Federal Court motion at the hearing of this
cross-appeal. The Federal Court motion is not a motion before this
Court and, as such, the submissions filed before the Federal Court
will not be entertained. As well, since this was a motion brought
before the Federal Court (and not this Court), any documents filed in
relation to that motion are not part of the record of this Court.
[12] During the hearing of the appeal Mr. Amos alleged that
the third member of this panel also had a conflict of interest and
submitted some documents that, in his view, supported his claim of a
conflict. Mr. Amos, following the hearing of his appeal, was also
afforded the opportunity to provide a brief summary of the conflict
that he was alleging and to file additional documents that, in his
view, supported his allegations. Mr. Amos submitted several pages of
documents in relation to the alleged conflicts. He organized the
documents by submitting a copy of the biography of the particular
judge and then, immediately following that biography, by including
copies of the documents that, in his view, supported his claim that
such judge had a conflict.
[13] The nature of the alleged conflict of Justice Webb is
that before he was appointed as a Judge of the Tax Court of Canada in
2006, he was a partner with the law firm Patterson Law, and before
that with Patterson Palmer in Nova Scotia. Mr. Amos submitted that he
had a number of disputes with Patterson Palmer and Patterson Law and
therefore Justice Webb has a conflict simply because he was a partner
of these firms. Mr. Amos is not alleging that Justice Webb was
personally involved in or had any knowledge of any matter in which Mr.
Amos was involved with Justice Webb’s former law firm – only that he
was a member of such firm.
[14] During his oral submissions at the hearing of his
appeal Mr. Amos, in relation to the alleged conflict for Justice Webb,
focused on dealings between himself and a particular lawyer at
Patterson Law. However, none of the documents submitted by Mr. Amos at
the hearing or subsequently related to any dealings with this
particular lawyer nor is it clear when Mr. Amos was dealing with this
lawyer. In particular, it is far from clear whether such dealings were
after the time that Justice Webb was appointed as a Judge of the Tax
Court of Canada over 10 years ago.
[15] The documents that he submitted in relation to the
alleged conflict for Justice Webb largely relate to dealings between
Byron Prior and the St. John’s Newfoundland and Labrador office of
Patterson Palmer, which is not in the same province where Justice Webb
practiced law. The only document that indicates any dealing between
Mr. Amos and Patterson Palmer is a copy of an affidavit of Stephen May
who was a partner in the St. John’s NL office of Patterson Palmer. The
affidavit is dated January 24, 2005 and refers to a number of e-mails
that were sent by Mr. Amos to Stephen May. Mr. Amos also included a
letter that is addressed to four individuals, one of whom is John
Crosbie who was counsel to the St. John’s NL office of Patterson
Palmer. The letter is dated September 2, 2004 and is addressed to
“John Crosbie, c/o Greg G. Byrne, Suite 502, 570 Queen Street,
Fredericton, NB E3B 5E3”. In this letter Mr. Amos alludes to a
possible lawsuit against Patterson Palmer.
[16] Mr. Amos’ position is that simply because Justice Webb
was a lawyer with Patterson Palmer, he now has a conflict. In Wewaykum
Indian Band v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2003 SCC 45, [2003] 2 S.C.R.
259, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that disqualification of a
judge is to be determined based on whether there is a reasonable
apprehension of bias:
60 In Canadian law, one standard has now emerged as the
criterion for disqualification. The criterion, as expressed by de
Grandpré J. in Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy
Board, …[[1978] 1 S.C.R. 369, 68 D.L.R. (3d) 716], at p. 394, is the
reasonable apprehension of bias:
… the apprehension of bias must be a reasonable one, held by
reasonable and right minded persons, applying themselves to the
question and obtaining thereon the required information. In the words
of the Court of Appeal, that test is "what would an informed person,
viewing the matter realistically and practically -- and having thought
the matter through -- conclude. Would he think that it is more likely
than not that [the decision-maker], whether consciously or
unconsciously, would not decide fairly."
[17] The issue to be determined is whether an informed
person, viewing the matter realistically and practically, and having
thought the matter through, would conclude that Mr. Amos’ allegations
give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. As this Court has
previously remarked, “there is a strong presumption that judges will
administer justice impartially” and this presumption will not be
rebutted in the absence of “convincing evidence” of bias (Collins v.
Canada, 2011 FCA 140 at para. 7, [2011] 4 C.T.C. 157 [Collins]. See
also R. v. S. (R.D.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484 at para. 32, 151 D.L.R.
(4th) 193).
[18] The Ontario Court of Appeal in Rando Drugs Ltd. v.
Scott, 2007 ONCA 553, 86 O.R. (3d) 653 (leave to appeal to the Supreme
Court of Canada refused, 32285 (August 1, 2007)), addressed the
particular issue of whether a judge is disqualified from hearing a
case simply because he had been a member of a law firm that was
involved in the litigation that was now before that judge. The Ontario
Court of Appeal determined that the judge was not disqualified if the
judge had no involvement with the person or the matter when he was a
lawyer. The Ontario Court of Appeal also explained that the rules for
determining whether a judge is disqualified are different from the
rules to determine whether a lawyer has a conflict:
27 Thus, disqualification is not the natural corollary to a
finding that a trial judge has had some involvement in a case over
which he or she is now presiding. Where the judge had no involvement,
as here, it cannot be said that the judge is disqualified.
28 The point can rightly be made that had Mr. Patterson been
asked to represent the appellant as counsel before his appointment to
the bench, the conflict rules would likely have prevented him from
taking the case because his firm had formerly represented one of the
defendants in the case. Thus, it is argued how is it that as a trial
judge Patterson J. can hear the case? This issue was considered by the
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) in Locabail (U.K.) Ltd. v. Bayfield
Properties Ltd., [2000] Q.B. 451. The court held, at para. 58, that
there is no inflexible rule governing the disqualification of a judge
and that, "[e]verything depends on the circumstances."
29 It seems to me that what appears at first sight to be an
inconsistency in application of rules can be explained by the
different contexts and in particular, the strong presumption of
judicial impartiality that applies in the context of disqualification
of a judge. There is no such presumption in cases of allegations of
conflict of interest against a lawyer because of a firm's previous
involvement in the case. To the contrary, as explained by Sopinka J.
in MacDonald Estate v. Martin (1990), 77 D.L.R. (4th) 249 (S.C.C.),
for sound policy reasons there is a presumption of a disqualifying
interest that can rarely be overcome. In particular, a conclusory
statement from the lawyer that he or she had no confidential
information about the case will never be sufficient. The case is the
opposite where the allegation of bias is made against a trial judge.
His or her statement that he or she knew nothing about the case and
had no involvement in it will ordinarily be accepted at face value
unless there is good reason to doubt it: see Locabail, at para. 19.
30 That brings me then to consider the particular circumstances
of this case and whether there are serious grounds to find a
disqualifying conflict of interest in this case. In my view, there are
two significant factors that justify the trial judge's decision not to
recuse himself. The first is his statement, which all parties accept,
that he knew nothing of the case when it was in his former firm and
that he had nothing to do with it. The second is the long passage of
time. As was said in Wewaykum, at para. 85:
To us, one significant factor stands out, and must inform
the perspective of the reasonable person assessing the impact of this
involvement on Binnie J.'s impartiality in the appeals. That factor is
the passage of time. Most arguments for disqualification rest on
circumstances that are either contemporaneous to the decision-making,
or that occurred within a short time prior to the decision-making.
31 There are other factors that inform the issue. The Wilson
Walker firm no longer acted for any of the parties by the time of
trial. More importantly, at the time of the motion, Patterson J. had
been a judge for six years and thus had not had a relationship with
his former firm for a considerable period of time.
32 In my view, a reasonable person, viewing the matter
realistically would conclude that the trial judge could deal fairly
and impartially with this case. I take this view principally because
of the long passage of time and the trial judge's lack of involvement
in or knowledge of the case when the Wilson Walker firm had carriage.
In these circumstances it cannot be reasonably contended that the
trial judge could not remain impartial in the case. The mere fact that
his name appears on the letterhead of some correspondence from over a
decade ago would not lead a reasonable person to believe that he would
either consciously or unconsciously favour his former firm's former
client. It is simply not realistic to think that a judge would throw
off his mantle of impartiality, ignore his oath of office and favour a
client - about whom he knew nothing - of a firm that he left six years
earlier and that no longer acts for the client, in a case involving
events from over a decade ago.
(emphasis added)
[19] Justice Webb had no involvement with any matter
involving Mr. Amos while he was a member of Patterson Palmer or
Patterson Law, nor does Mr. Amos suggest that he did. Mr. Amos made it
clear during the hearing of this matter that the only reason for the
alleged conflict for Justice Webb was that he was a member of
Patterson Law and Patterson Palmer. This is simply not enough for
Justice Webb to be disqualified. Any involvement of Mr. Amos with
Patterson Law while Justice Webb was a member of that firm would have
had to occur over 10 years ago and even longer for the time when he
was a member of Patterson Palmer. In addition to the lack of any
involvement on his part with any matter or dispute that Mr. Amos had
with Patterson Law or Patterson Palmer (which in and of itself is
sufficient to dispose of this matter), the length of time since
Justice Webb was a member of Patterson Law or Patterson Palmer would
also result in the same finding – that there is no conflict in Justice
Webb hearing this appeal.
[20] Similarly in R. v. Bagot, 2000 MBCA 30, 145 Man. R.
(2d) 260, the Manitoba Court of Appeal found that there was no
reasonable apprehension of bias when a judge, who had been a member of
the law firm that had been retained by the accused, had no involvement
with the accused while he was a lawyer with that firm.
[21] In Del Zotto v. Minister of National Revenue, [2000] 4
F.C. 321, 257 N.R. 96, this court did find that there would be a
reasonable apprehension of bias where a judge, who while he was a
lawyer, had recorded time on a matter involving the same person who
was before that judge. However, this case can be distinguished as
Justice Webb did not have any time recorded on any files involving Mr.
Amos while he was a lawyer with Patterson Palmer or Patterson Law.
[22] Mr. Amos also included with his submissions a CD. He
stated in his affidavit dated June 26, 2017 that there is a “true copy
of an American police surveillance wiretap entitled 139” on this CD.
He has also indicated that he has “provided a true copy of the CD
entitled 139 to many American and Canadian law enforcement authorities
and not one of the police forces or officers of the court are willing
to investigate it”. Since he has indicated that this is an “American
police surveillance wiretap”, this is a matter for the American law
enforcement authorities and cannot create, as Mr. Amos suggests, a
conflict of interest for any judge to whom he provides a copy.
[23] As a result, there is no conflict or reasonable
apprehension of bias for Justice Webb and therefore, no reason for him
to recuse himself.
[24] Mr. Amos alleged that Justice Near’s past professional
experience with the government created a “quasi-conflict” in deciding
the cross-appeal. Mr. Amos provided no details and Justice Near
confirmed that he had no prior knowledge of the matters alleged in the
Claim. Justice Near sees no reason to recuse himself.
[25] Insofar as it is possible to glean the basis for Mr.
Amos’ allegations against Justice Gleason, it appears that he alleges
that she is incapable of hearing this appeal because he says he wrote
a letter to Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien in 2004. At that time,
both Justice Gleason and Mr. Mulroney were partners in the law firm
Ogilvy Renault, LLP. The letter in question, which is rude and angry,
begins with “Hey you two Evil Old Smiling Bastards” and “Re: me suing
you and your little dogs too”. There is no indication that the letter
was ever responded to or that a law suit was ever commenced by Mr.
Amos against Mr. Mulroney. In the circumstances, there is no reason
for Justice Gleason to recuse herself as the letter in question does
not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.
III. Issue
[26] The issue on the cross-appeal is as follows: Did the
Judge err in setting aside the Prothonotary’s Order striking the Claim
in its entirety without leave to amend and in determining that Mr.
Amos’ allegation that the RCMP barred him from the New Brunswick
legislature in 2004 was capable of supporting a cause of action?
IV. Analysis
A. Standard of Review
[27] Following the Judge’s decision to set aside the
Prothonotary’s Order, this Court revisited the standard of review to
be applied to discretionary decisions of prothonotaries and decisions
made by judges on appeals of prothonotaries’ decisions in Hospira
Healthcare Corp. v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, 2016 FCA 215,
402 D.L.R. (4th) 497 [Hospira]. In Hospira, a five-member panel of
this Court replaced the Aqua-Gem standard of review with that
articulated in Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235
[Housen]. As a result, it is no longer appropriate for the Federal
Court to conduct a de novo review of a discretionary order made by a
prothonotary in regard to questions vital to the final issue of the
case. Rather, a Federal Court judge can only intervene on appeal if
the prothonotary made an error of law or a palpable and overriding
error in determining a question of fact or question of mixed fact and
law (Hospira at para. 79). Further, this Court can only interfere with
a Federal Court judge’s review of a prothonotary’s discretionary order
if the judge made an error of law or palpable and overriding error in
determining a question of fact or question of mixed fact and law
(Hospira at paras. 82-83).
[28] In the case at bar, the Judge substituted his own
assessment of Mr. Amos’ Claim for that of the Prothonotary. This Court
must look to the Prothonotary’s Order to determine whether the Judge
erred in law or made a palpable and overriding error in choosing to
interfere.
B. Did the Judge err in interfering with the
Prothonotary’s Order?
[29] The Prothontoary’s Order accepted the following
paragraphs from the Crown’s submissions as the basis for striking the
Claim in its entirety without leave to amend:
17. Within the 96 paragraph Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff
addresses his complaint in paragraphs 14-24, inclusive. All but four
of those paragraphs are dedicated to an incident that occurred in 2006
in and around the legislature in New Brunswick. The jurisdiction of
the Federal Court does not extend to Her Majesty the Queen in right of
the Provinces. In any event, the Plaintiff hasn’t named the Province
or provincial actors as parties to this action. The incident alleged
does not give rise to a justiciable cause of action in this Court.
(…)
21. The few paragraphs that directly address the Defendant
provide no details as to the individuals involved or the location of
the alleged incidents or other details sufficient to allow the
Defendant to respond. As a result, it is difficult or impossible to
determine the causes of action the Plaintiff is attempting to advance.
A generous reading of the Statement of Claim allows the Defendant to
only speculate as to the true and/or intended cause of action. At
best, the Plaintiff’s action may possibly be summarized as: he
suspects he is barred from the House of Commons.
[footnotes omitted].
[30] The Judge determined that he could not strike the Claim
on the same jurisdictional basis as the Prothonotary. The Judge noted
that the Federal Court has jurisdiction over claims based on the
liability of Federal Crown servants like the RCMP and that the actors
who barred Mr. Amos from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004
included the RCMP (Federal Court Judgment at para. 23). In considering
the viability of these allegations de novo, the Judge identified
paragraph 14 of the Claim as containing “some precision” as it
identifies the date of the event and a RCMP officer acting as
Aide-de-Camp to the Lieutenant Governor (Federal Court Judgment at
para. 27).
[31] The Judge noted that the 2004 event could support a
cause of action in the tort of misfeasance in public office and
identified the elements of the tort as excerpted from Meigs v. Canada,
2013 FC 389, 431 F.T.R. 111:
[13] As in both the cases of Odhavji Estate v Woodhouse, 2003 SCC
69 [Odhavji] and Lewis v Canada, 2012 FC 1514 [Lewis], I must
determine whether the plaintiffs’ statement of claim pleads each
element of the alleged tort of misfeasance in public office:
a) The public officer must have engaged in deliberate and unlawful
conduct in his or her capacity as public officer;
b) The public officer must have been aware both that his or her
conduct was unlawful and that it was likely to harm the plaintiff; and
c) There must be an element of bad faith or dishonesty by the public
officer and knowledge of harm alone is insufficient to conclude that a
public officer acted in bad faith or dishonestly.
Odhavji, above, at paras 23, 24 and 28
(Federal Court Judgment at para. 28).
[32] The Judge determined that Mr. Amos disclosed sufficient
material facts to meet the elements of the tort of misfeasance in
public office because the actors, who barred him from the New
Brunswick legislature in 2004, including the RCMP, did so for
“political reasons” (Federal Court Judgment at para. 29).
[33] This Court’s discussion of the sufficiency of pleadings
in Merchant Law Group v. Canada (Revenue Agency), 2010 FCA 184, 321
D.L.R (4th) 301 is particularly apt:
…When pleading bad faith or abuse of power, it is not enough to
assert, baldly, conclusory phrases such as “deliberately or
negligently,” “callous disregard,” or “by fraud and theft did steal”.
“The bare assertion of a conclusion upon which the court is called
upon to pronounce is not an allegation of material fact”. Making bald,
conclusory allegations without any evidentiary foundation is an abuse
of process…
To this, I would add that the tort of misfeasance in public office
requires a particular state of mind of a public officer in carrying
out the impunged action, i.e., deliberate conduct which the public
officer knows to be inconsistent with the obligations of his or her
office. For this tort, particularization of the allegations is
mandatory. Rule 181 specifically requires particularization of
allegations of “breach of trust,” “wilful default,” “state of mind of
a person,” “malice” or “fraudulent intention.”
(at paras. 34-35, citations omitted).
[34] Applying the Housen standard of review to the
Prothonotary’s Order, we are of the view that the Judge interfered
absent a legal or palpable and overriding error.
[35] The Prothonotary determined that Mr. Amos’ Claim
disclosed no reasonable claim and was fundamentally vexatious on the
basis of jurisdictional concerns and the absence of material facts to
ground a cause of action. Paragraph 14 of the Claim, which addresses
the 2004 event, pleads no material facts as to how the RCMP officer
engaged in deliberate and unlawful conduct, knew that his or her
conduct was unlawful and likely to harm Mr. Amos, and acted in bad
faith. While the Claim alleges elsewhere that Mr. Amos was barred from
the New Brunswick legislature for political and/or malicious reasons,
these allegations are not particularized and are directed against
non-federal actors, such as the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Legislative
Assembly of New Brunswick and the Fredericton Police Force. As such,
the Judge erred in determining that Mr. Amos’ allegation that the RCMP
barred him from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004 was capable of
supporting a cause of action.
[36] In our view, the Claim is made up entirely of bare
allegations, devoid of any detail, such that it discloses no
reasonable cause of action within the jurisdiction of the Federal
Courts. Therefore, the Judge erred in interfering to set aside the
Prothonotary’s Order striking the claim in its entirety. Further, we
find that the Prothonotary made no error in denying leave to amend.
The deficiencies in Mr. Amos’ pleadings are so extensive such that
amendment could not cure them (see Collins at para. 26).
V. Conclusion
[37] For the foregoing reasons, we would allow the Crown’s
cross-appeal, with costs, setting aside the Federal Court Judgment,
dated January 25, 2016 and restoring the Prothonotary’s Order, dated
November 12, 2015, which struck Mr. Amos’ Claim in its entirety
without leave to amend.
"Wyman W. Webb"
J.A.
"David G. Near"
J.A.
"Mary J.L. Gleason"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
A CROSS-APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SOUTHCOTT DATED
JANUARY 25, 2016; DOCKET NUMBER T-1557-15.
DOCKET:
A-48-16
STYLE OF CAUSE:
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
PLACE OF HEARING:
Fredericton,
New Brunswick
DATE OF HEARING:
May 24, 2017
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:
WEBB J.A.
NEAR J.A.
GLEASON J.A.
DATED:
October 30, 2017
APPEARANCES:
David Raymond Amos
For The Appellant / respondent on cross-appeal
(on his own behalf)
Jan Jensen
For The Respondent / appELLANT ON CROSS-APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Nathalie G. Drouin
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For The Respondent / APPELLANT ON CROSS-APPEAL
From: Newsroom <newsroom@globeandmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 17:11:12 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Re Joi Scientific, David Coon and NB Power
We just talked Correct Ms Harris?
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, 1 Mar 2019 13:11:05 -0400
Subject: Re Joi Scientific, David Coon and NB Power We just talked
Correct Ms Harris?
To: vicky@joiscientific.com, wharrison@nbpower.com,
mike.holland@gnb.ca>, David.Coon@gnb.ca
Cc: david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Jacques.Poitras@cbc.ca, David.Akin@globalnews.ca,
news@kingscorecord.com, Newsroom@globeandmail.com,
steve.murphy@ctv.ca, oldmaison@yahoo.com, andre@jafaust.com,
kris.austin@gnb.ca, brian.gallant@gnb.ca, blaine.higgs@gnb.ca,
pm@pm.gc.ca
https://www.cbc.ca/news/
Stop NB Power deal with mysterious Florida startup, Green leader says
Clean-energy company says its 'major' technology has to stay secret for now
Jacques Poitras · CBC News · Posted: Mar 01, 2019 6:00 AM AT
40 Comments
David Amos
Methinks the Joi Scientific CEO Traver Kennedy could use a friend
perhaps he and should talk N'esy Pas?
https://www.joiscientific.com/
Joi Scientific and New Brunswick Power to Develop World’s First
Hydrogen-Powered Distributed Electricity Grid
New Brunswick could see up to 30 distributed Hydrogen 2.0 production
stations deployed for zero-carbon baseload generation
KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, FL & FREDERICTON, NB ― February 26, 2019 ― Joi
Scientific,™ whose mission is to make clean and affordable hydrogen
energy available to all, is to co-develop with New Brunswick Power a
hydrogen production system to enable the world’s first electricity
grid that uses hydrogen as a baseload.
The major electric utility in Canada’s Eastern Maritime province, NB
Power is re-architecting its operations to create a highly efficient
and green electricity grid. The collaboration envisages the deployment
of Joi Scientific’s proprietary Hydrogen 2.0™ production system at
multiple distributed stations alongside wind turbines, hydro, and
nuclear power to create a net-zero carbon-generating power operation
while maintaining low and stable rates in a jurisdiction that does not
benefit from large storage hydro capacity. The joint commercial
development between Joi Scientific and NB Power foresees the utility
offering its emissions-free grid architecture, which combines
distributed Hydrogen 2.0 baseload generation with smart grid
management, to other utility operators across North America and
beyond.
Joi Scientific’s Hydrogen 2.0 technology uses a high efficiency, high
throughput system to liberate hydrogen from untreated seawater.
Hydrogen 2.0 will enable the localized production of hydrogen on-site,
on-demand, meaning that it can be generated when and where it is
needed closer to where customers are located. In the province of New
Brunswick ― where significant progress has already been made towards
contributing to Canada’s 2030 goal of cutting emissions by at least 56
percent below 2005 levels ― Hydrogen 2.0 has the potential to
transform the transmission and distribution of electricity with a
feedstock generated from readily available coastal seawater.
“NB Power has long been committed to investing in the sustainability
of our province’s energy future. We are encouraged with the progress
made to date on Hydrogen 2.0 and are looking forward to the next phase
of co-development,” explained Gaëtan Thomas, President and CEO, NB
Power. “Hydrogen 2.0 has the potential to provide a localized,
on-demand hydrogen production capability which, when mixed with other
renewable sources such as wind and hydro, gets us closer to our
customers by delivering zero-carbon loads at lower cost and greater
efficiency.”
This new development phase follows successful third-party
verifications of Hydrogen 2.0 technology efficiency and throughput by
scientific institutions and experts. Both companies are planning to
work closely together to co-develop and test a commercial prototype
unit at Joi Scientific’s labs at the Kennedy Space Center. This
development phase follows an initial license agreement that was signed
in 2016, granting NB Power the rights to develop, manufacture, use,
and sell hydrogen and hydrogen generation systems for large and small
electric utility applications using Joi Scientific’s Hydrogen 2.0
technology.
“This historic agreement with NB Power signals the transition of our
Hydrogen 2.0 technology from the laboratory into full-scale
development and commercialization,” said Traver Kennedy, CEO, Joi
Scientific. “New Brunswick is a prime example of what can be achieved
by a far-sighted, ecologically-minded institution. Their innovative
approach for realizing a new zero-carbon distributed grid architecture
could provide the blueprint for the way the world generates and
consumes electricity going forward.”
About NB Power
New Brunswick Power (www.nbpower.com) is the primary electric utility
in New Brunswick, Canada, and was established in 1920. It serves over
400,000 direct and indirect customers with safe, reliable and
efficient electricity. The utility is focused on promoting the
efficient use of energy in customers’ homes and businesses through its
smart grid efforts while enabling and providing new, value-added
energy efficient solutions in order to help reduce carbon, better
integrate renewable energy and stimulate the economy. Based on the
current generation mix, NB Power is well positioned to provide its
customers with electricity generated with consideration for the
environment. Currently, 37 percent of its energy is from renewable
sources and 74 percent is non-emitting when the Point Lepreau Nuclear
Generating Station is added. NB Power is on track to achieve the
provincial target of 40 percent of in-province electricity sales being
provided from clean, renewable energy sources by 2020 and when coupled
with nuclear generation this will result in a 75 percent non-emitting
grid for New Brunswickers.
About Joi Scientific
Joi Scientific (www.joiscientific.com) was founded by a group of
global business leaders, technologists, and social entrepreneurs who
believe that plentiful hydrogen holds the key to giving the world a
viable, no-compromise energy alternative. The company’s Hydrogen 2.0
technology has the potential to be the world’s first hydrogen
production process that is on-demand, economically competitive, and
environmentally neutral. The company is licensing its Hydrogen 2.0
technology to a wide range of major power industries including
electrical generation, heat generation, transportation, and specialty
power. Joi Scientific is headquartered at the Kennedy Space Center in
Florida.
# # #
Joi Scientific™ and Hydrogen 2.0™ are trademarks of Joi Scientific,
Inc. All other trademarks and registered trademarks are property of
their respective owners.
Save
Social Media
Joi Scientific on Twitter
Joi Scientific on Linkedin
Joi Scientific on Facebook
Joi Scientific on Youtube
Media Contacts
Vicky Harris
Joi Scientific
321.506.4592
vicky@joiscientific.com
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 18:18:40 -0400
Subject: Methinks David Lametti should go back to law school too N'esy
Pas Pierre Poilievre?
To: David.Lametti@parl.gc.ca, "Jody.Wilson-Raybould"
<Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.
<pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca>, mcu <mcu@justice.gc.ca>,
"michael.chong" <michael.chong@parl.gc.ca>, "Michael.Wernick"
<Michael.Wernick@pco-bcp.gc.ca
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
<Newsroom@globeandmail.com>, "Jacques.Poitras"
<Jacques.Poitras@cbc.ca>, "serge.rousselle" <serge.rousselle@gnb.ca>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 15:44:16 -0400
Subject: Jagmeet Singh says that maybe Jay Shin should go back to law
school??? Too Too Funny Indeed EH Karen Wang and Laura-Lynn Tyler
Thompson?
To: info@jayshin.ca, jay@lonsdalelaw.ca, karenwang@liberal.ca,
lauralynnlive@gmail.com
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
jmaclellan@burnabynow.com, kgawley@burnabynow.com
Jagmeet Singh on Tory opponent: 'Maybe he should go back to law school'
Conservative candidate Jay Shin said Singh was 'keeping criminals out
of jail' during his days as a criminal defence lawyer
Kelvin Gawley Burnaby Now January 13, 2019 10:27 AM
Julie MacLellan
Assistant editor, and newsroom tip line
jmaclellan@burnabynow.com
Phone: 604 444 3020
Kelvin Gawley
kgawley@burnabynow.com
Phone: 604 444 3024
Jay Shin
Direct: 604-980-5089
Email: jay@lonsdalelaw.ca
By phone: 604-628-0508
By e-mail: info@jayshin.ca
Karen Wang
604.531.1178
karenwang@liberal.ca
Now if Mr Shin scrolls down he will know some of what the fancy NDP
lawyer has known for quite sometime
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Singh - QP, Jagmeet" <JSingh-QP@ndp.on.ca>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 16:39:35 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Re Federal Court File # T-1557-15 and the
upcoming hearing on May 24th I called a lot of your people before High
Noon today Correct Ralph Goodale and Deputy Minister Malcolm Brown?
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
For immediate assistance please contact our Brampton office at
905-799-3939 or jsingh-co@ndp.on.ca
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kennedy.Stewart@parl.gc.ca
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 18:18:35 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Attn Minister Ralph Goodale and Pierre
Paul-Hus Trust that I look forward to arguing the fact that fhe Crown
filed my Sept 4th email to you and your buddies
To: motomaniac333@gmail.com
Many thanks for your message. Your concerns are important to me. If
your matter is urgent, an invitation or an immigration matter please
forward it to burnabysouth.A1@parl.gc.ca or
burnabysouth.C1@parl.gc.ca. This email is no longer being monitored.
The House of Commons of Canada provides for the continuation of
services to the constituents of a Member of Parliament whose seat has
become vacant. The party Whip supervises the staff retained under
these circumstances.
Following the resignation of the Member for the constituency of
Burnaby South, Mr. Kennedy Stewart, the constituency office will
continue to provide services to constituents.
You can reach the Burnaby South constituency office by telephone at
(604) 291-8863 or by mail at the following address: 4940 Kingsway,
Burnaby BC.
Office Hours:
Tuesday - Thursday: 10am - 12pm & 1pm - 4pm
Friday 10am - 12pm
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Michael Cohen <mcohen@trumporg.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 05:54:40 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: ATTN Blair Armitage You acted as the Usher
of the Black Rod twice while Kevin Vickers was the Sergeant-at-Arms
Hence you and the RCMP must know why I sued the Queen Correct?
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: Justice Website <JUSTWEB@novascotia.ca>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:21:11 +0000
Subject: Emails to Department of Justice and Province of Nova Scotia
To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com" <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Mr. Amos,
We acknowledge receipt of your recent emails to the Deputy Minister of
Justice and lawyers within the Legal Services Division of the
Department of Justice respecting a possible claim against the Province
of Nova Scotia. Service of any documents respecting a legal claim
against the Province of Nova Scotia may be served on the Attorney
General at 1690 Hollis Street, Halifax, NS. Please note that we will
not be responding to further emails on this matter.
Department of Justice
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Eidt, David (OAG/CPG)" <David.Eidt@gnb.ca>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 00:33:21 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Yo Mr Lutz howcome your buddy the clerk
would not file this motion and properly witnessed affidavit and why
did she take all four copies?
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
I will be out of the office until Monday, March 13, 2017. I will have
little to no access to email. Please dial 453-2222 for assistance.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Marc Richard <MRichard@lawsociety-barreau.
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 13:16:46 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: RE: The New Brunswick Real Estate
Association and their deliberate ignorance for the bankster's benefit
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
I will be out of the office until August 15, 2016. Je serai absent du
bureau jusqu'au 15 août 2016.
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 09:32:09 -0400
> Subject: Attn Integrity Commissioner Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C.,
> To: coi@gnb.ca
> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>
> Good Day Sir
>
> After I heard you speak on CBC I called your office again and managed
> to speak to one of your staff for the first time
>
> Please find attached the documents I promised to send to the lady who
> answered the phone this morning. Please notice that not after the Sgt
> at Arms took the documents destined to your office his pal Tanker
> Malley barred me in writing with an "English" only document.
>
> These are the hearings and the dockets in Federal Court that I
> suggested that you study closely.
>
> This is the docket in Federal Court
>
> http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.
>
> These are digital recordings of the last three hearings
>
> Dec 14th https://archive.org/details/
>
> January 11th, 2016 https://archive.org/details/
>
> April 3rd, 2017
>
> https://archive.org/details/
>
>
> This is the docket in the Federal Court of Appeal
>
> http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.
>
>
> The only hearing thus far
>
> May 24th, 2017
>
> https://archive.org/details/
>
>
> This Judge understnds the meaning of the word Integrity
>
> Date: 20151223
>
> Docket: T-1557-15
>
> Fredericton, New Brunswick, December 23, 2015
>
> PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Bell
>
> BETWEEN:
>
> DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
>
> Plaintiff
>
> and
>
> HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
>
> Defendant
>
> ORDER
>
> (Delivered orally from the Bench in Fredericton, New Brunswick, on
> December 14, 2015)
>
> The Plaintiff seeks an appeal de novo, by way of motion pursuant to
> the Federal Courts Rules (SOR/98-106), from an Order made on November
> 12, 2015, in which Prothonotary Morneau struck the Statement of Claim
> in its entirety.
>
> At the outset of the hearing, the Plaintiff brought to my attention a
> letter dated September 10, 2004, which he sent to me, in my then
> capacity as Past President of the New Brunswick Branch of the Canadian
> Bar Association, and the then President of the Branch, Kathleen Quigg,
> (now a Justice of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal). In that letter
> he stated:
>
> As for your past President, Mr. Bell, may I suggest that you check the
> work of Frank McKenna before I sue your entire law firm including you.
> You are your brother’s keeper.
>
> Frank McKenna is the former Premier of New Brunswick and a former
> colleague of mine at the law firm of McInnes Cooper. In addition to
> expressing an intention to sue me, the Plaintiff refers to a number of
> people in his Motion Record who he appears to contend may be witnesses
> or potential parties to be added. Those individuals who are known to
> me personally, include, but are not limited to the former Prime
> Minister of Canada, The Right Honourable Stephen Harper; former
> Attorney General of Canada and now a Justice of the Manitoba Court of
> Queen’s Bench, Vic Toews; former member of Parliament Rob Moore;
> former Director of Policing Services, the late Grant Garneau; former
> Chief of the Fredericton Police Force, Barry McKnight; former Staff
> Sergeant Danny Copp; my former colleagues on the New Brunswick Court
> of Appeal, Justices Bradley V. Green and Kathleen Quigg, and, retired
> Assistant Commissioner Wayne Lang of the Royal Canadian Mounted
> Police.
>
> In the circumstances, given the threat in 2004 to sue me in my
> personal capacity and my past and present relationship with many
> potential witnesses and/or potential parties to the litigation, I am
> of the view there would be a reasonable apprehension of bias should I
> hear this motion. See Justice de Grandpré’s dissenting judgment in
> Committee for Justice and Liberty et al v National Energy Board et al,
> [1978] 1 SCR 369 at p 394 for the applicable test regarding
> allegations of bias. In the circumstances, although neither party has
> requested I recuse myself, I consider it appropriate that I do so.
>
>
> AS A RESULT OF MY RECUSAL, THIS COURT ORDERS that the Administrator of
> the Court schedule another date for the hearing of the motion. There
> is no order as to costs.
>
> “B. Richard Bell”
> Judge
>
>
> Below after the CBC article about your concerns (I made one comment
> already) you will find the text of just two of many emails I had sent
> to your office over the years since I first visited it in 2006.
>
> I noticed that on July 30, 2009, he was appointed to the the Court
> Martial Appeal Court of Canada Perhaps you should scroll to the
> bottom of this email ASAP and read the entire Paragraph 83 of my
> lawsuit now before the Federal Court of Canada?
>
> "FYI This is the text of the lawsuit that should interest Trudeau the most
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca
> Date: Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:18 PM
> Subject: Réponse automatique : RE My complaint against the CROWN in
> Federal Court Attn David Hansen and Peter MacKay If you planning to
> submit a motion for a publication ban on my complaint trust that you
> dudes are way past too late
> To: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>
> Veuillez noter que j'ai changé de courriel. Vous pouvez me rejoindre à
> lalanthier@hotmail.com
>
> Pour rejoindre le bureau de M. Trudeau veuillez envoyer un courriel à
> tommy.desfosses@parl.gc.ca
>
> Please note that I changed email address, you can reach me at
> lalanthier@hotmail.com
>
> To reach the office of Mr. Trudeau please send an email to
> tommy.desfosses@parl.gc.ca
>
> Thank you,
>
> Merci ,
>
>
> http://davidraymondamos3.
>
>
> 83. The Plaintiff states that now that Canada is involved in more war
> in Iraq again it did not serve Canadian interests and reputation to
> allow Barry Winters to publish the following words three times over
> five years after he began his bragging:
>
> January 13, 2015
> This Is Just AS Relevant Now As When I wrote It During The Debate
>
> December 8, 2014
> Why Canada Stood Tall!
>
> Friday, October 3, 2014
> Little David Amos’ “True History Of War” Canadian Airstrikes And
> Stupid Justin Trudeau
>
> Canada’s and Canadians free ride is over. Canada can no longer hide
> behind Amerka’s and NATO’s skirts.
>
> When I was still in Canadian Forces then Prime Minister Jean Chretien
> actually committed the Canadian Army to deploy in the second campaign
> in Iraq, the Coalition of the Willing. This was against or contrary to
> the wisdom or advice of those of us Canadian officers that were
> involved in the initial planning phases of that operation. There were
> significant concern in our planning cell, and NDHQ about of the dearth
> of concern for operational guidance, direction, and forces for
> operations after the initial occupation of Iraq. At the “last minute”
> Prime Minister Chretien and the Liberal government changed its mind.
> The Canadian government told our amerkan cousins that we would not
> deploy combat troops for the Iraq campaign, but would deploy a
> Canadian Battle Group to Afghanistan, enabling our amerkan cousins to
> redeploy troops from there to Iraq. The PMO’s thinking that it was
> less costly to deploy Canadian Forces to Afghanistan than Iraq. But
> alas no one seems to remind the Liberals of Prime Minister Chretien’s
> then grossly incorrect assumption. Notwithstanding Jean Chretien’s
> incompetence and stupidity, the Canadian Army was heroic,
> professional, punched well above it’s weight, and the PPCLI Battle
> Group, is credited with “saving Afghanistan” during the Panjway
> campaign of 2006.
>
> What Justin Trudeau and the Liberals don’t tell you now, is that then
> Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien committed, and deployed the
> Canadian army to Canada’s longest “war” without the advice, consent,
> support, or vote of the Canadian Parliament.
>
> What David Amos and the rest of the ignorant, uneducated, and babbling
> chattering classes are too addled to understand is the deployment of
> less than 75 special operations troops, and what is known by planners
> as a “six pac cell” of fighter aircraft is NOT the same as a
> deployment of a Battle Group, nor a “war” make.
>
> The Canadian Government or The Crown unlike our amerkan cousins have
> the “constitutional authority” to commit the Canadian nation to war.
> That has been recently clearly articulated to the Canadian public by
> constitutional scholar Phillippe Legasse. What Parliament can do is
> remove “confidence” in The Crown’s Government in a “vote of
> non-confidence.” That could not happen to the Chretien Government
> regarding deployment to Afghanistan, and it won’t happen in this
> instance with the conservative majority in The Commons regarding a
> limited Canadian deployment to the Middle East.
>
> President George Bush was quite correct after 911 and the terror
> attacks in New York; that the Taliban “occupied” and “failed state”
> Afghanistan was the source of logistical support, command and control,
> and training for the Al Quaeda war of terror against the world. The
> initial defeat, and removal from control of Afghanistan was vital and
>
> P.S. Whereas this CBC article is about your opinion of the actions of
> the latest Minister Of Health trust that Mr Boudreau and the CBC have
> had my files for many years and the last thing they are is ethical.
> Ask his friends Mr Murphy and the RCMP if you don't believe me.
>
> Subject:
> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:02:35 -0400
> From: "Murphy, Michael B. \(DH/MS\)" MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca
> To: motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com
>
> January 30, 2007
>
> WITHOUT PREJUDICE
>
> Mr. David Amos
>
> Dear Mr. Amos:
>
> This will acknowledge receipt of a copy of your e-mail of December 29,
> 2006 to Corporal Warren McBeath of the RCMP.
>
> Because of the nature of the allegations made in your message, I have
> taken the measure of forwarding a copy to Assistant Commissioner Steve
> Graham of the RCMP “J” Division in Fredericton.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Honourable Michael B. Murphy
> Minister of Health
>
> CM/cb
>
>
> Warren McBeath warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca wrote:
>
> Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:34:53 -0500
> From: "Warren McBeath" warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
> To: kilgoursite@ca.inter.net, MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca,
> nada.sarkis@gnb.ca, wally.stiles@gnb.ca, dwatch@web.net,
> motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com
> CC: ottawa@chuckstrahl.com, riding@chuckstrahl.com,John.
> Oda.B@parl.gc.ca,"Bev BUSSON" bev.busson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
> "Paul Dube" PAUL.DUBE@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
> Subject: Re: Remember me Kilgour? Landslide Annie McLellan has
> forgotten me but the crooks within the RCMP have not
>
> Dear Mr. Amos,
>
> Thank you for your follow up e-mail to me today. I was on days off
> over the holidays and returned to work this evening. Rest assured I
> was not ignoring or procrastinating to respond to your concerns.
>
> As your attachment sent today refers from Premier Graham, our position
> is clear on your dead calf issue: Our forensic labs do not process
> testing on animals in cases such as yours, they are referred to the
> Atlantic Veterinary College in Charlottetown who can provide these
> services. If you do not choose to utilize their expertise in this
> instance, then that is your decision and nothing more can be done.
>
> As for your other concerns regarding the US Government, false
> imprisonment and Federal Court Dates in the US, etc... it is clear
> that Federal authorities are aware of your concerns both in Canada
> the US. These issues do not fall into the purvue of Detachment
> and policing in Petitcodiac, NB.
>
> It was indeed an interesting and informative conversation we had on
> December 23rd, and I wish you well in all of your future endeavors.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Warren McBeath, Cpl.
> GRC Caledonia RCMP
> Traffic Services NCO
> Ph: (506) 387-2222
> Fax: (506) 387-4622
> E-mail warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>
>
>
> Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C.,
> Office of the Integrity Commissioner
> Edgecombe House, 736 King Street
> Fredericton, N.B. CANADA E3B 5H1
> tel.: 506-457-7890
> fax: 506-444-5224
> e-mail:coi@gnb.ca
>
On 8/3/17, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote:
> If want something very serious to download and laugh at as well Please
> Enjoy and share real wiretap tapes of the mob
>
> http://thedavidamosrant.
> ilian.html
>
>> http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/
>>
>> As the CBC etc yap about Yankee wiretaps and whistleblowers I must
>> ask them the obvious question AIN'T THEY FORGETTING SOMETHING????
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?
>>
>> What the hell does the media think my Yankee lawyer served upon the
>> USDOJ right after I ran for and seat in the 39th Parliament baseball
>> cards?
>>
>> http://archive.org/details/
>> 6
>>
>> http://davidamos.blogspot.ca/
>>
>> http://www.archive.org/
>>
>> http://archive.org/details/
>>
>> FEDERAL EXPRES February 7, 2006
>> Senator Arlen Specter
>> United States Senate
>> Committee on the Judiciary
>> 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
>> Washington, DC 20510
>>
>> Dear Mr. Specter:
>>
>> I have been asked to forward the enclosed tapes to you from a man
>> named, David Amos, a Canadian citizen, in connection with the matters
>> raised in the attached letter.
>>
>> Mr. Amos has represented to me that these are illegal FBI wire tap tapes.
>>
>> I believe Mr. Amos has been in contact with you about this previously.
>>
>> Very truly yours,
>> Barry A. Bachrach
>> Direct telephone: (508) 926-3403
>> Direct facsimile: (508) 929-3003
>> Email: bbachrach@bowditch.com
>>
>
http://davidraymondamos3.
Sunday, 19 November 2017
Federal Court of Appeal Finally Makes The BIG Decision And Publishes
It Now The Crooks Cannot Take Back Ticket To Try Put My Matter Before
The Supreme Court
https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Amos v. Canada
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2017-10-30
Neutral citation
2017 FCA 213
File numbers
A-48-16
Date: 20171030
Docket: A-48-16
Citation: 2017 FCA 213
CORAM:
WEBB J.A.
NEAR J.A.
GLEASON J.A.
BETWEEN:
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
Respondent on the cross-appeal
(and formally Appellant)
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Appellant on the cross-appeal
(and formerly Respondent)
Heard at Fredericton, New Brunswick, on May 24, 2017.
Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 30, 2017.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:
THE COURT
Date: 20171030
Docket: A-48-16
Citation: 2017 FCA 213
CORAM:
WEBB J.A.
NEAR J.A.
GLEASON J.A.
BETWEEN:
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
Respondent on the cross-appeal
(and formally Appellant)
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Appellant on the cross-appeal
(and formerly Respondent)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY THE COURT
I. Introduction
[1] On September 16, 2015, David Raymond Amos (Mr. Amos)
filed a 53-page Statement of Claim (the Claim) in Federal Court
against Her Majesty the Queen (the Crown). Mr. Amos claims $11 million
in damages and a public apology from the Prime Minister and Provincial
Premiers for being illegally barred from accessing parliamentary
properties and seeks a declaration from the Minister of Public Safety
that the Canadian Government will no longer allow the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police (RCMP) and Canadian Forces to harass him and his clan
(Claim at para. 96).
[2] On November 12, 2015 (Docket T-1557-15), by way of a
motion brought by the Crown, a prothonotary of the Federal Court (the
Prothonotary) struck the Claim in its entirety, without leave to
amend, on the basis that it was plain and obvious that the Claim
disclosed no reasonable claim, the Claim was fundamentally vexatious,
and the Claim could not be salvaged by way of further amendment (the
Prothontary’s Order).
[3] On January 25, 2016 (2016 FC 93), by way of Mr.
Amos’ appeal from the Prothonotary’s Order, a judge of the Federal
Court (the Judge), reviewing the matter de novo, struck all of Mr.
Amos’ claims for relief with the exception of the claim for damages
for being barred by the RCMP from the New Brunswick legislature in
2004 (the Federal Court Judgment).
[4] Mr. Amos appealed and the Crown cross-appealed the
Federal Court Judgment. Further to the issuance of a Notice of Status
Review, Mr. Amos’ appeal was dismissed for delay on December 19, 2016.
As such, the only matter before this Court is the Crown’s
cross-appeal.
II. Preliminary Matter
[5] Mr. Amos, in his memorandum of fact and law in
relation to the cross-appeal that was filed with this Court on March
6, 2017, indicated that several judges of this Court, including two of
the judges of this panel, had a conflict of interest in this appeal.
This was the first time that he identified the judges whom he believed
had a conflict of interest in a document that was filed with this
Court. In his notice of appeal he had alluded to a conflict with
several judges but did not name those judges.
[6] Mr. Amos was of the view that he did not have to
identify the judges in any document filed with this Court because he
had identified the judges in various documents that had been filed
with the Federal Court. In his view the Federal Court and the Federal
Court of Appeal are the same court and therefore any document filed in
the Federal Court would be filed in this Court. This view is based on
subsections 5(4) and 5.1(4) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985,
c. F-7:
5(4) Every judge of the Federal Court is, by virtue of his or her
office, a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal and has all the
jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Federal Court of
Appeal.
[…]
5(4) Les juges de la Cour fédérale sont d’office juges de la Cour
d’appel fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs que
les juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale.
[…]
5.1(4) Every judge of the Federal Court of Appeal is, by virtue of
that office, a judge of the Federal Court and has all the
jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Federal Court.
5.1(4) Les juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale sont d’office juges de la
Cour fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs que les
juges de la Cour fédérale.
[7] However, these subsections only provide that the
judges of the Federal Court are also judges of this Court (and vice
versa). It does not mean that there is only one court. If the Federal
Court and this Court were one Court, there would be no need for this
section.
[8] Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Courts Act provide that:
3 The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the Federal Court
— Appeal Division is continued under the name “Federal Court of
Appeal” in English and “Cour d’appel fédérale” in French. It is
continued as an additional court of law, equity and admiralty in and
for Canada, for the better administration of the laws of Canada and as
a superior court of record having civil and criminal jurisdiction.
3 La Section d’appel, aussi appelée la Cour d’appel ou la Cour d’appel
fédérale, est maintenue et dénommée « Cour d’appel fédérale » en
français et « Federal Court of Appeal » en anglais. Elle est maintenue
à titre de tribunal additionnel de droit, d’equity et d’amirauté du
Canada, propre à améliorer l’application du droit canadien, et
continue d’être une cour supérieure d’archives ayant compétence en
matière civile et pénale.
4 The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the Federal Court
— Trial Division is continued under the name “Federal Court” in
English and “Cour fédérale” in French. It is continued as an
additional court of law, equity and admiralty in and for Canada, for
the better administration of the laws of Canada and as a superior
court of record having civil and criminal jurisdiction.
4 La section de la Cour fédérale du Canada, appelée la Section de
première instance de la Cour fédérale, est maintenue et dénommée «
Cour fédérale » en français et « Federal Court » en anglais. Elle est
maintenue à titre de tribunal additionnel de droit, d’equity et
d’amirauté du Canada, propre à améliorer l’application du droit
canadien, et continue d’être une cour supérieure d’archives ayant
compétence en matière civile et pénale.
[9] Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Courts Act create
two separate courts – this Court (section 3) and the Federal Court
(section 4). If, as Mr. Amos suggests, documents filed in the Federal
Court were automatically also filed in this Court, then there would no
need for the parties to prepare and file appeal books as required by
Rules 343 to 345 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 in relation
to any appeal from a decision of the Federal Court. The requirement to
file an appeal book with this Court in relation to an appeal from a
decision of the Federal Court makes it clear that the only documents
that will be before this Court are the documents that are part of that
appeal book.
[10] Therefore, the memorandum of fact and law filed on
March 6, 2017 is the first document, filed with this Court, in which
Mr. Amos identified the particular judges that he submits have a
conflict in any matter related to him.
[11] On April 3, 2017, Mr. Amos attempted to bring a motion
before the Federal Court seeking an order “affirming or denying the
conflict of interest he has” with a number of judges of the Federal
Court. A judge of the Federal Court issued a direction noting that if
Mr. Amos was seeking this order in relation to judges of the Federal
Court of Appeal, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Federal Court.
Mr. Amos raised the Federal Court motion at the hearing of this
cross-appeal. The Federal Court motion is not a motion before this
Court and, as such, the submissions filed before the Federal Court
will not be entertained. As well, since this was a motion brought
before the Federal Court (and not this Court), any documents filed in
relation to that motion are not part of the record of this Court.
[12] During the hearing of the appeal Mr. Amos alleged that
the third member of this panel also had a conflict of interest and
submitted some documents that, in his view, supported his claim of a
conflict. Mr. Amos, following the hearing of his appeal, was also
afforded the opportunity to provide a brief summary of the conflict
that he was alleging and to file additional documents that, in his
view, supported his allegations. Mr. Amos submitted several pages of
documents in relation to the alleged conflicts. He organized the
documents by submitting a copy of the biography of the particular
judge and then, immediately following that biography, by including
copies of the documents that, in his view, supported his claim that
such judge had a conflict.
[13] The nature of the alleged conflict of Justice Webb is
that before he was appointed as a Judge of the Tax Court of Canada in
2006, he was a partner with the law firm Patterson Law, and before
that with Patterson Palmer in Nova Scotia. Mr. Amos submitted that he
had a number of disputes with Patterson Palmer and Patterson Law and
therefore Justice Webb has a conflict simply because he was a partner
of these firms. Mr. Amos is not alleging that Justice Webb was
personally involved in or had any knowledge of any matter in which Mr.
Amos was involved with Justice Webb’s former law firm – only that he
was a member of such firm.
[14] During his oral submissions at the hearing of his
appeal Mr. Amos, in relation to the alleged conflict for Justice Webb,
focused on dealings between himself and a particular lawyer at
Patterson Law. However, none of the documents submitted by Mr. Amos at
the hearing or subsequently related to any dealings with this
particular lawyer nor is it clear when Mr. Amos was dealing with this
lawyer. In particular, it is far from clear whether such dealings were
after the time that Justice Webb was appointed as a Judge of the Tax
Court of Canada over 10 years ago.
[15] The documents that he submitted in relation to the
alleged conflict for Justice Webb largely relate to dealings between
Byron Prior and the St. John’s Newfoundland and Labrador office of
Patterson Palmer, which is not in the same province where Justice Webb
practiced law. The only document that indicates any dealing between
Mr. Amos and Patterson Palmer is a copy of an affidavit of Stephen May
who was a partner in the St. John’s NL office of Patterson Palmer. The
affidavit is dated January 24, 2005 and refers to a number of e-mails
that were sent by Mr. Amos to Stephen May. Mr. Amos also included a
letter that is addressed to four individuals, one of whom is John
Crosbie who was counsel to the St. John’s NL office of Patterson
Palmer. The letter is dated September 2, 2004 and is addressed to
“John Crosbie, c/o Greg G. Byrne, Suite 502, 570 Queen Street,
Fredericton, NB E3B 5E3”. In this letter Mr. Amos alludes to a
possible lawsuit against Patterson Palmer.
[16] Mr. Amos’ position is that simply because Justice Webb
was a lawyer with Patterson Palmer, he now has a conflict. In Wewaykum
Indian Band v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2003 SCC 45, [2003] 2 S.C.R.
259, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that disqualification of a
judge is to be determined based on whether there is a reasonable
apprehension of bias:
60 In Canadian law, one standard has now emerged as the
criterion for disqualification. The criterion, as expressed by de
Grandpré J. in Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy
Board, …[[1978] 1 S.C.R. 369, 68 D.L.R. (3d) 716], at p. 394, is the
reasonable apprehension of bias:
… the apprehension of bias must be a reasonable one, held by
reasonable and right minded persons, applying themselves to the
question and obtaining thereon the required information. In the words
of the Court of Appeal, that test is "what would an informed person,
viewing the matter realistically and practically -- and having thought
the matter through -- conclude. Would he think that it is more likely
than not that [the decision-maker], whether consciously or
unconsciously, would not decide fairly."
[17] The issue to be determined is whether an informed
person, viewing the matter realistically and practically, and having
thought the matter through, would conclude that Mr. Amos’ allegations
give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. As this Court has
previously remarked, “there is a strong presumption that judges will
administer justice impartially” and this presumption will not be
rebutted in the absence of “convincing evidence” of bias (Collins v.
Canada, 2011 FCA 140 at para. 7, [2011] 4 C.T.C. 157 [Collins]. See
also R. v. S. (R.D.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484 at para. 32, 151 D.L.R.
(4th) 193).
[18] The Ontario Court of Appeal in Rando Drugs Ltd. v.
Scott, 2007 ONCA 553, 86 O.R. (3d) 653 (leave to appeal to the Supreme
Court of Canada refused, 32285 (August 1, 2007)), addressed the
particular issue of whether a judge is disqualified from hearing a
case simply because he had been a member of a law firm that was
involved in the litigation that was now before that judge. The Ontario
Court of Appeal determined that the judge was not disqualified if the
judge had no involvement with the person or the matter when he was a
lawyer. The Ontario Court of Appeal also explained that the rules for
determining whether a judge is disqualified are different from the
rules to determine whether a lawyer has a conflict:
27 Thus, disqualification is not the natural corollary to a
finding that a trial judge has had some involvement in a case over
which he or she is now presiding. Where the judge had no involvement,
as here, it cannot be said that the judge is disqualified.
28 The point can rightly be made that had Mr. Patterson been
asked to represent the appellant as counsel before his appointment to
the bench, the conflict rules would likely have prevented him from
taking the case because his firm had formerly represented one of the
defendants in the case. Thus, it is argued how is it that as a trial
judge Patterson J. can hear the case? This issue was considered by the
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) in Locabail (U.K.) Ltd. v. Bayfield
Properties Ltd., [2000] Q.B. 451. The court held, at para. 58, that
there is no inflexible rule governing the disqualification of a judge
and that, "[e]verything depends on the circumstances."
29 It seems to me that what appears at first sight to be an
inconsistency in application of rules can be explained by the
different contexts and in particular, the strong presumption of
judicial impartiality that applies in the context of disqualification
of a judge. There is no such presumption in cases of allegations of
conflict of interest against a lawyer because of a firm's previous
involvement in the case. To the contrary, as explained by Sopinka J.
in MacDonald Estate v. Martin (1990), 77 D.L.R. (4th) 249 (S.C.C.),
for sound policy reasons there is a presumption of a disqualifying
interest that can rarely be overcome. In particular, a conclusory
statement from the lawyer that he or she had no confidential
information about the case will never be sufficient. The case is the
opposite where the allegation of bias is made against a trial judge.
His or her statement that he or she knew nothing about the case and
had no involvement in it will ordinarily be accepted at face value
unless there is good reason to doubt it: see Locabail, at para. 19.
30 That brings me then to consider the particular circumstances
of this case and whether there are serious grounds to find a
disqualifying conflict of interest in this case. In my view, there are
two significant factors that justify the trial judge's decision not to
recuse himself. The first is his statement, which all parties accept,
that he knew nothing of the case when it was in his former firm and
that he had nothing to do with it. The second is the long passage of
time. As was said in Wewaykum, at para. 85:
To us, one significant factor stands out, and must inform
the perspective of the reasonable person assessing the impact of this
involvement on Binnie J.'s impartiality in the appeals. That factor is
the passage of time. Most arguments for disqualification rest on
circumstances that are either contemporaneous to the decision-making,
or that occurred within a short time prior to the decision-making.
31 There are other factors that inform the issue. The Wilson
Walker firm no longer acted for any of the parties by the time of
trial. More importantly, at the time of the motion, Patterson J. had
been a judge for six years and thus had not had a relationship with
his former firm for a considerable period of time.
32 In my view, a reasonable person, viewing the matter
realistically would conclude that the trial judge could deal fairly
and impartially with this case. I take this view principally because
of the long passage of time and the trial judge's lack of involvement
in or knowledge of the case when the Wilson Walker firm had carriage.
In these circumstances it cannot be reasonably contended that the
trial judge could not remain impartial in the case. The mere fact that
his name appears on the letterhead of some correspondence from over a
decade ago would not lead a reasonable person to believe that he would
either consciously or unconsciously favour his former firm's former
client. It is simply not realistic to think that a judge would throw
off his mantle of impartiality, ignore his oath of office and favour a
client - about whom he knew nothing - of a firm that he left six years
earlier and that no longer acts for the client, in a case involving
events from over a decade ago.
(emphasis added)
[19] Justice Webb had no involvement with any matter
involving Mr. Amos while he was a member of Patterson Palmer or
Patterson Law, nor does Mr. Amos suggest that he did. Mr. Amos made it
clear during the hearing of this matter that the only reason for the
alleged conflict for Justice Webb was that he was a member of
Patterson Law and Patterson Palmer. This is simply not enough for
Justice Webb to be disqualified. Any involvement of Mr. Amos with
Patterson Law while Justice Webb was a member of that firm would have
had to occur over 10 years ago and even longer for the time when he
was a member of Patterson Palmer. In addition to the lack of any
involvement on his part with any matter or dispute that Mr. Amos had
with Patterson Law or Patterson Palmer (which in and of itself is
sufficient to dispose of this matter), the length of time since
Justice Webb was a member of Patterson Law or Patterson Palmer would
also result in the same finding – that there is no conflict in Justice
Webb hearing this appeal.
[20] Similarly in R. v. Bagot, 2000 MBCA 30, 145 Man. R.
(2d) 260, the Manitoba Court of Appeal found that there was no
reasonable apprehension of bias when a judge, who had been a member of
the law firm that had been retained by the accused, had no involvement
with the accused while he was a lawyer with that firm.
[21] In Del Zotto v. Minister of National Revenue, [2000] 4
F.C. 321, 257 N.R. 96, this court did find that there would be a
reasonable apprehension of bias where a judge, who while he was a
lawyer, had recorded time on a matter involving the same person who
was before that judge. However, this case can be distinguished as
Justice Webb did not have any time recorded on any files involving Mr.
Amos while he was a lawyer with Patterson Palmer or Patterson Law.
[22] Mr. Amos also included with his submissions a CD. He
stated in his affidavit dated June 26, 2017 that there is a “true copy
of an American police surveillance wiretap entitled 139” on this CD.
He has also indicated that he has “provided a true copy of the CD
entitled 139 to many American and Canadian law enforcement authorities
and not one of the police forces or officers of the court are willing
to investigate it”. Since he has indicated that this is an “American
police surveillance wiretap”, this is a matter for the American law
enforcement authorities and cannot create, as Mr. Amos suggests, a
conflict of interest for any judge to whom he provides a copy.
[23] As a result, there is no conflict or reasonable
apprehension of bias for Justice Webb and therefore, no reason for him
to recuse himself.
[24] Mr. Amos alleged that Justice Near’s past professional
experience with the government created a “quasi-conflict” in deciding
the cross-appeal. Mr. Amos provided no details and Justice Near
confirmed that he had no prior knowledge of the matters alleged in the
Claim. Justice Near sees no reason to recuse himself.
[25] Insofar as it is possible to glean the basis for Mr.
Amos’ allegations against Justice Gleason, it appears that he alleges
that she is incapable of hearing this appeal because he says he wrote
a letter to Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien in 2004. At that time,
both Justice Gleason and Mr. Mulroney were partners in the law firm
Ogilvy Renault, LLP. The letter in question, which is rude and angry,
begins with “Hey you two Evil Old Smiling Bastards” and “Re: me suing
you and your little dogs too”. There is no indication that the letter
was ever responded to or that a law suit was ever commenced by Mr.
Amos against Mr. Mulroney. In the circumstances, there is no reason
for Justice Gleason to recuse herself as the letter in question does
not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.
III. Issue
[26] The issue on the cross-appeal is as follows: Did the
Judge err in setting aside the Prothonotary’s Order striking the Claim
in its entirety without leave to amend and in determining that Mr.
Amos’ allegation that the RCMP barred him from the New Brunswick
legislature in 2004 was capable of supporting a cause of action?
IV. Analysis
A. Standard of Review
[27] Following the Judge’s decision to set aside the
Prothonotary’s Order, this Court revisited the standard of review to
be applied to discretionary decisions of prothonotaries and decisions
made by judges on appeals of prothonotaries’ decisions in Hospira
Healthcare Corp. v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, 2016 FCA 215,
402 D.L.R. (4th) 497 [Hospira]. In Hospira, a five-member panel of
this Court replaced the Aqua-Gem standard of review with that
articulated in Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235
[Housen]. As a result, it is no longer appropriate for the Federal
Court to conduct a de novo review of a discretionary order made by a
prothonotary in regard to questions vital to the final issue of the
case. Rather, a Federal Court judge can only intervene on appeal if
the prothonotary made an error of law or a palpable and overriding
error in determining a question of fact or question of mixed fact and
law (Hospira at para. 79). Further, this Court can only interfere with
a Federal Court judge’s review of a prothonotary’s discretionary order
if the judge made an error of law or palpable and overriding error in
determining a question of fact or question of mixed fact and law
(Hospira at paras. 82-83).
[28] In the case at bar, the Judge substituted his own
assessment of Mr. Amos’ Claim for that of the Prothonotary. This Court
must look to the Prothonotary’s Order to determine whether the Judge
erred in law or made a palpable and overriding error in choosing to
interfere.
B. Did the Judge err in interfering with the
Prothonotary’s Order?
[29] The Prothontoary’s Order accepted the following
paragraphs from the Crown’s submissions as the basis for striking the
Claim in its entirety without leave to amend:
17. Within the 96 paragraph Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff
addresses his complaint in paragraphs 14-24, inclusive. All but four
of those paragraphs are dedicated to an incident that occurred in 2006
in and around the legislature in New Brunswick. The jurisdiction of
the Federal Court does not extend to Her Majesty the Queen in right of
the Provinces. In any event, the Plaintiff hasn’t named the Province
or provincial actors as parties to this action. The incident alleged
does not give rise to a justiciable cause of action in this Court.
(…)
21. The few paragraphs that directly address the Defendant
provide no details as to the individuals involved or the location of
the alleged incidents or other details sufficient to allow the
Defendant to respond. As a result, it is difficult or impossible to
determine the causes of action the Plaintiff is attempting to advance.
A generous reading of the Statement of Claim allows the Defendant to
only speculate as to the true and/or intended cause of action. At
best, the Plaintiff’s action may possibly be summarized as: he
suspects he is barred from the House of Commons.
[footnotes omitted].
[30] The Judge determined that he could not strike the Claim
on the same jurisdictional basis as the Prothonotary. The Judge noted
that the Federal Court has jurisdiction over claims based on the
liability of Federal Crown servants like the RCMP and that the actors
who barred Mr. Amos from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004
included the RCMP (Federal Court Judgment at para. 23). In considering
the viability of these allegations de novo, the Judge identified
paragraph 14 of the Claim as containing “some precision” as it
identifies the date of the event and a RCMP officer acting as
Aide-de-Camp to the Lieutenant Governor (Federal Court Judgment at
para. 27).
[31] The Judge noted that the 2004 event could support a
cause of action in the tort of misfeasance in public office and
identified the elements of the tort as excerpted from Meigs v. Canada,
2013 FC 389, 431 F.T.R. 111:
[13] As in both the cases of Odhavji Estate v Woodhouse, 2003 SCC
69 [Odhavji] and Lewis v Canada, 2012 FC 1514 [Lewis], I must
determine whether the plaintiffs’ statement of claim pleads each
element of the alleged tort of misfeasance in public office:
a) The public officer must have engaged in deliberate and unlawful
conduct in his or her capacity as public officer;
b) The public officer must have been aware both that his or her
conduct was unlawful and that it was likely to harm the plaintiff; and
c) There must be an element of bad faith or dishonesty by the public
officer and knowledge of harm alone is insufficient to conclude that a
public officer acted in bad faith or dishonestly.
Odhavji, above, at paras 23, 24 and 28
(Federal Court Judgment at para. 28).
[32] The Judge determined that Mr. Amos disclosed sufficient
material facts to meet the elements of the tort of misfeasance in
public office because the actors, who barred him from the New
Brunswick legislature in 2004, including the RCMP, did so for
“political reasons” (Federal Court Judgment at para. 29).
[33] This Court’s discussion of the sufficiency of pleadings
in Merchant Law Group v. Canada (Revenue Agency), 2010 FCA 184, 321
D.L.R (4th) 301 is particularly apt:
…When pleading bad faith or abuse of power, it is not enough to
assert, baldly, conclusory phrases such as “deliberately or
negligently,” “callous disregard,” or “by fraud and theft did steal”.
“The bare assertion of a conclusion upon which the court is called
upon to pronounce is not an allegation of material fact”. Making bald,
conclusory allegations without any evidentiary foundation is an abuse
of process…
To this, I would add that the tort of misfeasance in public office
requires a particular state of mind of a public officer in carrying
out the impunged action, i.e., deliberate conduct which the public
officer knows to be inconsistent with the obligations of his or her
office. For this tort, particularization of the allegations is
mandatory. Rule 181 specifically requires particularization of
allegations of “breach of trust,” “wilful default,” “state of mind of
a person,” “malice” or “fraudulent intention.”
(at paras. 34-35, citations omitted).
[34] Applying the Housen standard of review to the
Prothonotary’s Order, we are of the view that the Judge interfered
absent a legal or palpable and overriding error.
[35] The Prothonotary determined that Mr. Amos’ Claim
disclosed no reasonable claim and was fundamentally vexatious on the
basis of jurisdictional concerns and the absence of material facts to
ground a cause of action. Paragraph 14 of the Claim, which addresses
the 2004 event, pleads no material facts as to how the RCMP officer
engaged in deliberate and unlawful conduct, knew that his or her
conduct was unlawful and likely to harm Mr. Amos, and acted in bad
faith. While the Claim alleges elsewhere that Mr. Amos was barred from
the New Brunswick legislature for political and/or malicious reasons,
these allegations are not particularized and are directed against
non-federal actors, such as the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Legislative
Assembly of New Brunswick and the Fredericton Police Force. As such,
the Judge erred in determining that Mr. Amos’ allegation that the RCMP
barred him from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004 was capable of
supporting a cause of action.
[36] In our view, the Claim is made up entirely of bare
allegations, devoid of any detail, such that it discloses no
reasonable cause of action within the jurisdiction of the Federal
Courts. Therefore, the Judge erred in interfering to set aside the
Prothonotary’s Order striking the claim in its entirety. Further, we
find that the Prothonotary made no error in denying leave to amend.
The deficiencies in Mr. Amos’ pleadings are so extensive such that
amendment could not cure them (see Collins at para. 26).
V. Conclusion
[37] For the foregoing reasons, we would allow the Crown’s
cross-appeal, with costs, setting aside the Federal Court Judgment,
dated January 25, 2016 and restoring the Prothonotary’s Order, dated
November 12, 2015, which struck Mr. Amos’ Claim in its entirety
without leave to amend.
"Wyman W. Webb"
J.A.
"David G. Near"
J.A.
"Mary J.L. Gleason"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
A CROSS-APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SOUTHCOTT DATED
JANUARY 25, 2016; DOCKET NUMBER T-1557-15.
DOCKET:
A-48-16
STYLE OF CAUSE:
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
PLACE OF HEARING:
Fredericton,
New Brunswick
DATE OF HEARING:
May 24, 2017
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:
WEBB J.A.
NEAR J.A.
GLEASON J.A.
DATED:
October 30, 2017
APPEARANCES:
David Raymond Amos
For The Appellant / respondent on cross-appeal
(on his own behalf)
Jan Jensen
For The Respondent / appELLANT ON CROSS-APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Nathalie G. Drouin
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For The Respondent / APPELLANT ON CROSS-APPEAL
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/power-promising-untested-belledune-1.4475563
Turning seawater into electricity: NB Power's untested idea for Belledune
Utility with uneven record on innovation puts $7M into researching seawater's potential
NB Power is betting $7 million on
a promising but untested new way to generate electricity without
emitting greenhouse gases: turning seawater from the Bay of Chaleur into
energy.
CEO Gaëtan Thomas talked last month about converting the Belledune generating station to hydrogen power by 2030, after coal is phased out.
But the public utility is tight-lipped so far on its collaboration with Florida-based Joi Scientific, a start-up headquartered at the Kennedy Space Centre.
"Unfortunately, it is too early in the process to be discussing details of this research and development project," said NB Power spokesperson Marie-Andrée Bolduc.
Joi Scientific's vice-president of marketing, Vicky Harris, said in an email statement that the company is "involved in multiple research projects, in many different sectors, but, as I am sure you would understand, we are not sharing details of our proprietary research and development work at this time."
On its website, the company calls hydrogen "the universe's most abundant element and the world's cleanest source of energy."
NB
Power CEO Gaëtan Thomas has suggested a hydrogen-powered Belledune
plant could lead to lower power rates for the utility's customers. (CBC)
Extracting
hydrogen from water and storing and transmitting it has been considered
too difficult and too expensive, but Joi Scientific says in a
promotional video that it "has solved the problems that have kept
hydrogen from being widely used for energy."
The company says on its site that its "hydrogen 2.0" process is "a very efficient extraction technology that will enable the localized production of hydrogen gas from water — safely, affordably and with no carbon emissions."
The $7 million is paying for further research into how Joi's technology would apply at NB Power's Belledune generating station, which sits less than 200 metres from the Bay of Chaleur on New Brunswick's north shore.
Thomas said last month that converting Belledune could cost "hundreds of millions" of dollars, but the eventual fuel supply would be a bargain.
"What's cheaper fuel than seawater?" he said. "There's plenty of it in New Brunswick."
The CEO even suggested a hydrogen-powered Belledune plant could lead to lower power rates for NB Power customers.
He called hydrogen "a very promising new fuel" but acknowledged the technology is still in the research and development phase. But he pointed out NB Power has 12 years to come up with a replacement fuel for Belledune.
The Belledune plant has to phase out its use of coal. (CBC)
The
federal government has set 2030 as the deadline for provinces to phase
out coal-powered electricity under its national climate plan.
CEO Gaëtan Thomas talked last month about converting the Belledune generating station to hydrogen power by 2030, after coal is phased out.
But the public utility is tight-lipped so far on its collaboration with Florida-based Joi Scientific, a start-up headquartered at the Kennedy Space Centre.
"Unfortunately, it is too early in the process to be discussing details of this research and development project," said NB Power spokesperson Marie-Andrée Bolduc.
Joi Scientific's vice-president of marketing, Vicky Harris, said in an email statement that the company is "involved in multiple research projects, in many different sectors, but, as I am sure you would understand, we are not sharing details of our proprietary research and development work at this time."
On its website, the company calls hydrogen "the universe's most abundant element and the world's cleanest source of energy."
Once considered too difficult
The company says on its site that its "hydrogen 2.0" process is "a very efficient extraction technology that will enable the localized production of hydrogen gas from water — safely, affordably and with no carbon emissions."
The $7 million is paying for further research into how Joi's technology would apply at NB Power's Belledune generating station, which sits less than 200 metres from the Bay of Chaleur on New Brunswick's north shore.
Thomas said last month that converting Belledune could cost "hundreds of millions" of dollars, but the eventual fuel supply would be a bargain.
"What's cheaper fuel than seawater?" he said. "There's plenty of it in New Brunswick."
The CEO even suggested a hydrogen-powered Belledune plant could lead to lower power rates for NB Power customers.
He called hydrogen "a very promising new fuel" but acknowledged the technology is still in the research and development phase. But he pointed out NB Power has 12 years to come up with a replacement fuel for Belledune.
What to do with Belledune?
Green Party Leader David Coon said
last month that it was "news to me" that hydrogen power could be
generated affordably enough to use in a power plant.
University of New Brunswick chemical engineering professor Willy Cook says turning hydrogen into energy is simple, but it's not necessarily cost-effective because the process itself requires a lot of electricity.
"You can't get something for nothing," he said. "Using electricity to produce hydrogen to go back to the process to produce electricity--that in itself probably isn't economically viable."
But he said he's not familiar with Joi Scientific's technology and it's possible the company has come up with "a more efficient process."
He also said if NB Power earned carbon credits for reducing emissions, hydrogen technology might become competitive with other energy sources.
"I have faith in the NB Power engineers to come through and do that assessment properly," he said.
The refurbishment of Point Lepreau, the first upgrade of its kind, went $1 billion over budget and was three years late. (CBC)
Thomas
claimed in December there is "a solid history at NB Power of being
leaders in many areas," including the first Candu 6 nuclear generating
station at Point Lepreau and the first-of-its-kind high-voltage
direct-current converter station in Eel River.
But some of the utility's forays into new technologies have been costly.
NB Power spent $700 million refurbishing its Coleson Cove station to burn Orimulsion, only to see its supply agreement with a Venezuelan state-owned fuel company fall apart. The utility's lawsuit was eventually settled for $338 million.
And the refurbishment of Point Lepreau, the first upgrade of its kind, went $1 billion over budget and was three years late.
New Brunswick governments invested $4.7 million in a Saint John company, Atlantic Hydrogen, that went bankrupt in 2015. The company was trying to develop clean-energy technology but wasn't able to make it commercially viable.
Minister favours 'new direction'
Still, investors in the U.S., including Dean Woodman, a wealthy tech investor whose son founded GoPro, have put money into Joi Scientific.
"I was comfortable with my investment over two years ago and am even more so today," he told CBC News in an email.
NB Power's only alternative to converting Belledune would be to sign an equivalency agreement with Ottawa that would let it burn coal past 2030 in exchange for equivalent emissions reductions elsewhere. Nova Scotia signed such a deal in 2016.
But Energy Minister Rick Doucet said last month that the province prefers to "move in a new direction [with] something that's very innovative, and we've got a great opportunity right on our doorstep."
University of New Brunswick chemical engineering professor Willy Cook says turning hydrogen into energy is simple, but it's not necessarily cost-effective because the process itself requires a lot of electricity.
"You can't get something for nothing," he said. "Using electricity to produce hydrogen to go back to the process to produce electricity--that in itself probably isn't economically viable."
But he said he's not familiar with Joi Scientific's technology and it's possible the company has come up with "a more efficient process."
He also said if NB Power earned carbon credits for reducing emissions, hydrogen technology might become competitive with other energy sources.
"I have faith in the NB Power engineers to come through and do that assessment properly," he said.
Some costly efforts
But some of the utility's forays into new technologies have been costly.
NB Power spent $700 million refurbishing its Coleson Cove station to burn Orimulsion, only to see its supply agreement with a Venezuelan state-owned fuel company fall apart. The utility's lawsuit was eventually settled for $338 million.
And the refurbishment of Point Lepreau, the first upgrade of its kind, went $1 billion over budget and was three years late.
New Brunswick governments invested $4.7 million in a Saint John company, Atlantic Hydrogen, that went bankrupt in 2015. The company was trying to develop clean-energy technology but wasn't able to make it commercially viable.
Minister favours 'new direction'
Still, investors in the U.S., including Dean Woodman, a wealthy tech investor whose son founded GoPro, have put money into Joi Scientific.
"I was comfortable with my investment over two years ago and am even more so today," he told CBC News in an email.
NB Power's only alternative to converting Belledune would be to sign an equivalency agreement with Ottawa that would let it burn coal past 2030 in exchange for equivalent emissions reductions elsewhere. Nova Scotia signed such a deal in 2016.
But Energy Minister Rick Doucet said last month that the province prefers to "move in a new direction [with] something that's very innovative, and we've got a great opportunity right on our doorstep."
About the Author
No comments:
Post a Comment