Fraser slams protesters who picket his riding office
Immigration Minister and Central Nova MP Sean Fraser has excoriated those who protested at his riding office in New Glasgow last Friday.
Automatic reply: Re Families feeling 'let down' by inquiry into Nova Scotia mass shooting
Fraser, Sean - M.P.<Sean.Fraser@parl.gc.ca> | Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 8:42 PM |
| To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> | |
Thank you for your message. This is an automated reply.
Toll free: 1-844-641-5886 Please be advised that this account is for matters related to Central Nova. If you live outside of Central Nova and your issue pertains to immigration, please contact Minister@cic.gc.ca I am currently receiving an extremely high number of emails. If you are inquiring about Canada’s commitment to welcome vulnerable Afghan refugees, you can find more information on Canada’s response to the situation in Afghanistan here. The Government of Canada remains firm in its commitment to welcome Afghan refugees to Canada, and will be working to increase the number of eligible refugees to 40,000. This will be done through 2 programs: 1. A special immigration program for Afghan nationals, and their families, who assisted the Government of Canada. You don’t need to currently be in Afghanistan or return to Afghanistan to be eligible or to have your application processed once you’re able to apply. Find out more about this special immigration program 2. A special humanitarian program focused on resettling Afghan nationals who · are outside of Afghanistan · don’t have a durable solution in a third country · are part of one of the following groups: · women leaders · persecuted religious or ethnic minorities · LGBTI individuals · journalists and people who helped Canadian journalists How to reach us Contact us using our web form.Please don’t send photos or other attachments until we ask you to. By phone at +1-613-321-4243 · Available both inside Canada and abroad · Monday to Friday, 6:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. (ET) · Saturday and Sunday, 6:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. (ET) · We’ll accept charges for collect calls or calls with reverse charges If you or a loved one are a Canadian citizen or PR currently in Afghanistan, contact Global Affairs Canada’s 24/7 Emergency Watch and Response Centre ASAP by phone (+1-613-996-8885), email (sos@international.gc.ca) or text (+1-613-686-3658). If you would like to immigrate to Canada, please click here to learn more.
To inquire about the status of an immigration case,click here. You
can also contact your local Member of Parliament for further assistance.
If you don’t know who your Member of Parliament is, you can find out
here, https://www.ourcommons. If you have been the victim of fraud or want to report fraudulent activity, please call the Canada Border Services Agency’s fraud hotline at 1-888-502-9060. For other general questions about Canadian immigration, click here. Thank you. ///// Veuillez noter que je reçois actuellement un nombre extrêmement élevé de courriels. Si vous vous renseignez sur l'engagement du Canada à accueillir les réfugiés afghans vulnérables, vous pouvez trouver plus d'information sur la réponse du Canada à la situation en Afghanistan ici. Le gouvernement du Canada reste ferme dans son engagement à accueillir des réfugiés afghans au Canada, et s'efforcera d'augmenter le nombre de réfugiés admissibles à 40 000. Cela se fera par le biais de deux programmes : Un programme d'immigration spécial pour les ressortissants afghans, et leurs familles, qui ont aidé le gouvernement du Canada. Vous n'avez pas besoin d'être actuellement en Afghanistan ou d'y retourner pour être admissible ou pour que votre demande soit traitée, une fois que vous serez en mesure de présenter une demande. Pour en savoir plus sur ce programme d'immigration spécial 2. Un programme humanitaire spécial axé sur la réinstallation des ressortissants afghans qui · se trouvent à l'extérieur de l'Afghanistan · n’ont pas de solution durable dans un pays tiers · font partie de l'un des groupes suivants : · femmes leaders, · défenseurs des droits de la personne, · minorités religieuses ou ethniques persécutées, · personnes LGBTI, · journalistes et personnes ayant aidé des journalistes canadiens. Comment nous joindre Veuillez communiquer avec nous en utilisant notre formulaire Web. Veuillez ne pas envoyer de photos ou d'autres pièces jointes jusqu'à ce que nous vous le demandions. Par téléphone au +1-613-321-4243. · Disponible au Canada et à l’étranger. · Du lundi au vendredi, de 6 h 30 à 19 h (HE). · Samedi et dimanche, de 6 h 30 à 15 h 30 (HE). · Nous acceptons les frais pour les appels à frais virés ou les appels avec inversion des frais. Si vous ou un de vos proches êtes un citoyen canadien ou un RP actuellement en Afghanistan, communiquez dès que possible avec le Centre de veille et d'intervention d'urgence 24/7 d'Affaires mondiales Canada par téléphone (+1-613-996-8885), par courriel (sos@international.gc.ca) ou par texto (+1-613-686-3658). Si vous souhaitez immigrer au Canada, veuillez cliquer ici pour en savoir plus.
Pour vous renseigner sur l'état d'un dossier d'immigration, cliquez
ici. Vous pouvez également
contacter votre député local pour obtenir une assistance supplémentaire.
Si vous ne savez pas qui est votre député, vous pouvez le découvrir
ici,
https://www.noscommunes.ca/ Si vous avez été victime d'une fraude ou si vous voulez signaler une activité frauduleuse, veuillez appeler la ligne d'assistance téléphonique de l'Agence des services frontaliers du Canada au 1-888-502-9060. Pour d'autres questions générales sur l'immigration canadienne, cliquez ici. Merci.
---------- Original message ---------- Deja Vu Anyone??? http://davidraymondamos3. Wednesday, 29 July 2020 Federal and provincial governments to hold public inquiry into Nova Scotia mass shootings ---------- Original message ---------- From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail. Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 00:47:00 -0400 Subject: Re: 13 deadly hours Methinks somebody in CBC should say hey to your old buddies Landslide Annie and Big Bad Billy Blair for me N'esy Pas Mr Prime Minister Trudeau The Younger??? To: prmibullrun <prmibullrun@gmail.com>, Norman Traversy < traversy.n@gmail.com>, CabalCookies <cabalcookies@protonmail.com>, El.Jones@msvu.ca, tim@halifaxexaminer.ca, "steve.murphy" < steve.murphy@ctv.ca>, kevin.leahy@pps-spp.gc.ca, Charles.Murray@gnb.ca, JUSTWEB <JUSTWEB@novascotia.ca>, AgentMargaritaville@ < Bill.Blair@parl.gc.ca>, "kevin.leahy" < kevin.leahy@pps-spp.parl.gc.ca mlaritcey@bellaliant.com, mla@esmithmccrossinmla.com, toryrushtonmla@bellaliant.com, kelly@kellyregan.ca, mla_assistant@alanapaon.com, stephenmcneil@ns.aliantzinc.ca < PREMIER@gov.ns.ca>, info@hughmackay.ca, pictoueastamanda@gmail.com, markfurey.mla@eastlink.ca, claudiachendermla@gmail.com, FinanceMinister@novascotia.ca, kevin.leahy@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, pm < pm@pm.gc.ca>, istayhealthy8@gmail.com, prmi@eastlink.ca, "Katie.Telford" <Katie.Telford@pmo-cpm.gc.ca> Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>, elizabeth.mcmillan@cbc.ca, lisa.mayor@cbc.ca, RPineo@pattersonlaw.ca, smcculloch@pattersonlaw.ca ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Pineo, Robert" <RPineo@pattersonlaw.ca> Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 04:40:12 +0000 Subject: Automatic reply: 13 deadly hours Perhaps Elizabeth McMillan and Lisa Mayor should have another talk with the lawyers Sean.Fraser and Robert Pineo EH? To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail. Thank you for your email. I will be attending outside meetings during the week of November 16, 2020 and will not have access to my telephone or email. I will return your messages during the evenings. Thank you and have a nice day. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Bill.Blair@parl.gc.ca Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 04:40:10 +0000 Subject: Automatic reply: 13 deadly hours Perhaps Elizabeth McMillan and Lisa Mayor should have another talk with the lawyers Sean.Fraser and Robert Pineo EH? To: david.raymond.amos333@gmail. Thank you very much for reaching out to the Office of the Hon. Bill Blair, Member of Parliament for Scarborough Southwest. Please be advised that as a health and safety precaution, our constituency office will not be holding in-person meetings until further notice. We will continue to provide service during our regular office hours, both over the phone and via email. Due to the high volume of emails and calls we are receiving, our office prioritizes requests on the basis of urgency and in relation to our role in serving the constituents of Scarborough Southwest. If you are not a constituent of Scarborough Southwest, please reach out to your local of Member of Parliament for assistance. To find your local MP, visit: https://www.ourcommons.ca/ Moreover, at this time, we ask that you please only call our office if your case is extremely urgent. We are experiencing an extremely high volume of calls, and will better be able to serve you through email. Should you have any questions related to COVID-19, please see: www.canada.ca/coronavirus<http Thank you again for your message, and we will get back to you as soon as possible. Best, MP Staff to the Hon. Bill Blair Parliament Hill: 613-995-0284 Constituency Office: 416-261-8613 bill.blair@parl.gc.ca<mailto:b ** Merci beaucoup d'avoir pris contact avec le bureau de l'Honorable Bill Blair, D?put? de Scarborough-Sud-Ouest. Veuillez noter que par mesure de pr?caution en mati?re de sant? et de s?curit?, notre bureau de circonscription ne tiendra pas de r?unions en personne jusqu'? nouvel ordre. Nous continuerons ? fournir des services pendant nos heures de bureau habituelles, tant par t?l?phone que par courrier ?lectronique. En raison du volume ?lev? de courriels que nous recevons, notre bureau classe les demandes par ordre de priorit? en fonction de leur urgence et de notre r?le dans le service aux ?lecteurs de Scarborough Sud-Ouest. Si vous n'?tes pas un ?lecteur de Scarborough Sud-Ouest, veuillez contacter votre d?put? local pour obtenir de l'aide. Pour trouver votre d?put? local, visitez le site:https://www.noscommunes. En outre, nous vous demandons de ne t?l?phoner ? notre bureau que si votre cas est extr?mement urgent. Nous recevons un volume d'appels extr?mement ?lev? et nous serons mieux ? m?me de vous servir par courrier ?lectronique. Si vous avez des questions concernant COVID-19, veuillez consulter le site : http://www.canada.ca/le- Merci encore pour votre message, et nous vous r?pondrons d?s que possible. Cordialement, Personnel du D?put? de l'Honorable Bill Blair Colline du Parlement : 613-995-0284 Bureau de Circonscription : 416-261-8613 bill.blair@parl.gc.ca<mailto:b < mailto:bill.blair@parl.gc.ca> On 11/23/20, David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail. > https://newsinteractives.cbc. > > > 13 deadly hours > > November 22, 2020 > > Over 13 hours, a man disguised as a Mountie travelled nearly 200 > kilometres through Nova Scotia, killing 22 people. The Fifth Estate > explores what the RCMP knew about the gunman that night, how they > remained one step behind and why the public was left in the dark. > > Text by Elizabeth McMillan and Lisa Mayor > > Editing by Janet Davison > > "It seems to me that the RCMP are not wanting the entire story to come > out about how the response to this tragedy took place," Rob Pineo, a > lawyer representing the families of the victims in a lawsuit against > the shooter's estate, told The Fifth Estate. "To be frank, [their > response] seems to be quite embarrassing [for the RCMP]." > Families feeling 'let down' by inquiry into Nova Scotia mass shootingLaw firm says it shares in families' 'deep discouragement' regarding Mass Casualty Commission probeThe
lawyers representing many families of people killed during the Nova
Scotia mass shooting in April 2020 say they fear that long-awaited
public hearings into the tragedy will fail to adequately explore
evidence and fall short of the thorough inquiry for which their clients
pushed. In July 2020, the federal and provincial governments announced there would be an external review — a less extensive process than a public inquiry and one that wouldn't have the ability to subpoena witnesses. The resulting public outcry prompted a quick reversal.
Lawyers representing 23 participants, including many families, fear that long-awaited public hearings into the mass shooting will fail to adequately explore evidence and fall short of the thorough inquiry for which their clients pushed.
Here is the release from Patterson Law:
Now some of the
families who advocated for the inquiry that became the Mass Casualty
Commission say it resembles the process they wanted to avoid. So
far, the Mass Casualty Commission has cost taxpayers more than $13
million and most of the work has happened behind the scenes.
Family and friends of victim Joey Webber attend a march demanding an inquiry into the mass shooting in Nova Scotia that killed 22 people, in Bible Hill, N.S. on July 22, 2020. (Andrew Vaughan/The Canadian Press) Nearly a month ago, the lawyers at Patterson Law representing families called for the public inquiry to avoid any further delays and to provide more clarity on what to expect during the proceedings. Lawyer Sandra McCulloch said her clients are "troubled at the outset" by not knowing who will be called as a witness. She said one of their priorities is hearing from people who were on the ground in Portapique, since so little is known about what happened in the early hours and what police did when they arrived. "We have some indications of a name or two that will in fact not be called before the public inquiry, which is deeply troubling for our clients," she said. "But certainly not having the opportunity to examine them is a problem as well, because, you know, as much as commission counsel may do a fine job of what they believe they want to do, there are participants that come to the process with different perspectives. That's why we're here." 'Closer to an observer'Last week, the Mass Casualty Commission said it was still working on a witness list. It also told CBC that counsel for participants will be able to question witnesses, but McCullough said it's still not clear to her team if lawyers will first have to make a case for why or be limited to asking witnesses about certain subjects. For weeks in the fall and into this winter, the commission held meetings with counsel for participants, including those representing families, and it said it's been collaborating with them to get feedback on information commission staff have gathered and are compiling into documents. The
commission is planning to release more than 30 documents that summarize
its findings starting Feb. 28. But McCulloch said after giving input on
draft versions, they've only seen three revised documents.
Close to 300 people participated in the march demanding a full public inquiry into the mass killing that left 22 people dead in rural Nova Scotia. (Andrew Vaughan/The Canadian Press) McCulloch said her legal team believes it's important to have the opportunity cross-examine information presented, including foundational documents, at the upcoming hearings. "And frankly, to test some
of the evidence that these people have provided in those documentary
records, as opposed to simply taking them as gospel and that they are
wholly accurate in a way that they are presented," she said.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
---------- Original message ---------- RCMP accused of using ammunition charge to deflect from N.S. mass shooting failuresBrian Brewster one of three people accused of providing ammunition to gunmanThe lawyer for one of three people charged with giving ammunition to the gunman behind Nova Scotia's April 2020 mass shooting is accusing RCMP of using his client as a "scapegoat" in order to deflect attention away from the force's own failings during the 13-hour killing rampage. Court documents filed in the case are shedding new light on how Brian Brewster, the brother-in-law of the gunman's spouse, alleges he was treated by the Mounties following the killings, and accuse police of violating his charter rights when they interviewed him. "The
police used manipulation and trickery to get statements from him that
now they're turning around and attempting to use against him in a
provincial court," Tom Singleton, the Halifax lawyer who represents
Brewster, said in an interview.
Gabriel Wortman murdered 22 people, including a pregnant woman, in several rural communities on April 18-19, 2020, and burned a number of homes, including his cottage in Portapique, N.S. He managed to travel nearly 200 kilometres, most of it in a replica RCMP cruiser while disguised as a Mountie, before police shot and killed him at a gas station. The families of the people who died and members of the public have accused the RCMP of not doing enough to stop the gunman and of failing to adequately warn the public about the danger as the shooter continued to kill both acquaintances and strangers. The Crown disputes the suggestion investigators were obligated to tell Brewster he could consult a lawyer during an interview, and it will be up to a judge to decide if a statement Brewster gave to RCMP in June 2020 will be admissible when his trial starts next summer.
The Crown is proceeding summarily, which means a conviction carries a maximum fine of $5,000 and a maximum jail term of less than two years. Singleton said if his client is found guilty, he's more likely to be sentenced to a brief period of probation than to jail. But although the charge is relatively minor, the case is unusual, the lawyer said. "The amount of resources that are being thrown into this by the RCMP and the Public Prosecution Service is unlike any other summary conviction case I've done in my 30-odd years practising law," he said. "My personal belief is this is not any more than an effort to distract attention away from the incompetence of the RCMP. …. I think the RCMP just love the idea of having a scapegoat that they can deflect attention to away from themselves." Here are the victims of Nova Scotia's mass shooting
The RCMP said it would be inappropriate to comment as the matter is before the courts. It's not surprising the RCMP would put a great deal of effort into the case given the scrutiny the force faced in the wake of the shootings, said Wayne MacKay, a professor emeritus at Dalhousie University's Schulich School of Law. "The RCMP received a lot of negative publicity out of the handling of the Portapique tragedy and that they would no doubt be motivated to try to deal with any aspect, even a fairly minor one like this, in a way that allowed them to appear as both an effective and fair police force," he told CBC. RCMP investigation into weapons, possible assistanceEven though the gunman was dead, the Mounties launched an investigation. Police said they were looking into how Wortman obtained the weapons he used and whether anyone assisted him in any way. More than seven months later, the force announced three people — the gunman's partner of 19 years, Lisa Banfield, her brother, James Banfield, and brother-in-law Brewster — were being charged with transferring of ammunition. The RCMP said investigators did not believe they had any prior knowledge of the attacks. James Banfield pleaded guilty in January and is awaiting sentencing on June 1. His lawyer, Michelle James, did not respond to requests for comment. Hearings starting, witnesses unknownThe criminal cases won't be resolved by next week when the Mass Casualty Commission begins long-awaited public proceedings into the rampage. It's still unclear what role, if any, the three people accused of providing the shooter with ammunition will have in upcoming hearings. The inquiry's mandate includes examining what happened on April 18-19, 2020, and how people were treated in the aftermath, as well as the role of intimate partner violence and the gunman's access to firearms. The inquiry's mandate is broad, but it does not allow the commission to make recommendations or conclusions related to criminal or civil liability. Lisa Banfield, who Wortman shot at and physically assaulted at the onset of the violence in Portapique, is a participant in the inquiry. Her Toronto-based lawyer, James Lockyer, who is best known for advocating in high-profile wrongful conviction cases, told CBC he could not comment until her trial has concluded.
The Mass Casualty Commission did not respond to questions about whether Banfield would be called as a witness, saying in a statement last week that staff were still working on a list of the people who would give testimony. During press conferences the week following the attacks, RCMP called Banfield a "significant, key witness." When asked in an interview with CBC in June 2020 whether Banfield was under investigation, RCMP Supt. Darren Campbell said witnesses can fall into many categories. "She's been very co-operative with us and we do very much appreciate her co-operation and she certainly is a surviving victim of what had transpired," he said. Never contacted by public inquiryBrewster, however, has no plans to participate in the inquiry nor has the commission ever contacted him, Singleton said. The lawyer said he didn't know enough about the inquiry's work to say whether his client would have any information relevant to its mandate. He also said he would discourage his client from making any statements to the commission and would try to adjourn until after the trial in the event he was subpoenaed. "On my advice, he would not have any interaction with them. If he became a participant at the inquiry, he could end up being forced to answer questions under oath, which could further damage his rights at a trial," said Singleton. Brewster's trial is scheduled to continue into November, which means it won't be over before the commission's final report is expected Nov. 1. Search warrants ready to goBrewster spoke to RCMP twice at his home in 2020: first on April 19, hours after he and other relatives left Halifax Regional Police protective custody, and then again on June 30. Singleton said his client was not aware he was under investigation until police produced a search warrant and seized Brewster's phone at the end of the second interview. Unbeknownst to Brewster, the courts had already granted police authorization to search his bank records. "They decided they're not going to tell him about [the warrant] until after the interview, because telling him about that might cause him to call a lawyer," said Singleton.
It's not unusual for defence lawyers to make charter challenges and question the admissibility of evidence. In this case, Singleton has filed an application to the court saying Brewster's second statement to police was a violation because the Mounties "intentionally undermined" his client's right to be advised he could consult a lawyer. He said although two officers, Const. Colin Shaw and Sgt. Fraser Firth, told his client they were speaking with him about the trafficking of guns and ammunition and whether anyone helped Wortman, they did not specify that he was under investigation. Singleton said his client spoke to police because he was horrified by what happened and wanted to help. Crown says interview voluntaryMeanwhile, the Crown is arguing the charter section doesn't apply because although Brewster was a suspect on June 30, he wasn't detained or arrested and always had the option of ending the meeting or not answering questions. Crown attorneys Shauna MacDonald and Mark Heerma declined an interview request. MacKay, the law professor, said the legal test the judge will have to apply is whether a reasonable person would feel they were detained if they were in the same circumstances as the defendant. "Did they feel that they were free to leave? Did they feel that they were being investigated in some way? Or did they feel that they were doing this on a voluntary basis?" he said.
The Crown included in its filings an "interview objectives" document outlining that the RCMP's plan was to seize Brewster's cellphone at the end of the interview. A transcript of the actual police interview is not part of the court record. Singleton said his client has no prior criminal record or interactions with the justice system and the charges have created an "absolute nightmare" as the public now links him to the massacre. The criminal case won't be the end of Brewster's legal woes. He, along with James and Lisa Banfield, are also defendants in a civil case launched by the families of people killed. ABOUT THE AUTHORWith files from Angela MacIvor
---------- Original message ----------
| |
After retiring as from his position as Premier of Nova Scotia, the Hon. Stephen McNeil joined Cox & Palmer in the role of Strategic Business Advisor to the Halifax office. His national and international insights and experience help our clients and our lawyers, recognize and participate in new opportunities throughout Atlantic Canada and beyond.
Until his resignation in Spring 2021, Stephen was the dean of Canadian premiers, having held the office since 2013. In total, he served for 18 years in the Nova Scotia Legislature and was re-elected five times by the voters of Annapolis.
During his time in provincial government, Stephen served as Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Minister of Planning and Priorities, Minister of Regulatory Affairs and Service Effectiveness, Minister responsible for Military Relations, Minister responsible for Social Innovation and Integrative Approaches, and Minister responsible for Youth. He was Leader of the Official Opposition in the Nova Scotia House of Assembly from 2009 until 2013.
Statement on the Mass Casualty Inquiry
NOTE: The following is a statement from Premier Tim Houston on the Mass Casualty Inquiry.
This week marks the beginning of the inquiry into the April 18 and 19, 2020, mass casualty that took the lives of 22 Nova Scotians and an unborn child.
We must never lose sight of the reason for this public inquiry, to seek answers that lead to change and improve public safety.
Over the course of the last few weeks, I have heard family members express frustration and concern about the structure of the inquiry. They feel left in the dark. This is not only disrespectful, it should cause us all to pause and ask, if the families don’t have confidence in the process, how can the public?
The reason Nova Scotians pulled together and pushed for an inquiry as opposed to a review was to ensure that it was honest, comprehensive, detailed and most importantly, designed to answer questions. Yet, it is still not even known if key witnesses have been subpoenaed to testify, if there will be an opportunity to cross-examine them or if it will be a comprehensive list of witnesses. This uncertainty is causing further, unnecessary trauma.
For these reasons, the commission should meet with the families and their counsel to listen to their concerns and provide them with a plan that gives them confidence in the process.
To the families of:
- Tom Bagley
- Kristen Beaton
- Baby Beaton
- Greg Blair
- Jamie Blair
- Joy Bond
- Peter Bond
- Lillian Campbell
- Corrie Ellison
- Gina Goulet
- Frank Gulenchyn
- Dawn Gulenchyn
- Alanna Jenkins
- Sean McLeod
- Lisa McCully
- Heather O'Brien
- Const. Heidi Stevenson
- Elizabeth Joanne Thomas
- Aaron Tuck
- Emily Tuck
- Jolene Oliver
- Joey Webber
- John Zahl
As Premier, I stand with you.
Together, we will continue to push for answers.
---------- Original message ----------
From: Premier <PREMIER@novascotia.ca>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2022 23:17:00 +0000
Subject: Thank you for your email
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Thank you for your email to Premier Houston. This is an automatic
confirmation your message has been received.
As we are currently experiencing higher than normal volumes of
correspondence, there may be delays in the response time for
correspondence identified as requiring a response.
Premier’s Correspondence Team
Automatic reply: RE Lawyers, cops, polticians and journalists etc playig dumb about my calls and emails about Federal and provincial governments plan to hold public inquiry into Nova Scotia mass shootings
| ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
Newsroom<newsroom@globeandmail.com> | Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 7:18 PM |
| To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> | |
Thank you for contacting The Globe and Mail. If your matter pertains to newspaper delivery or you require technical support, please contact our Customer Service department
at 1-800-387-5400 or send an email to customerservice@globeandmail. If you are reporting a factual error please forward your email to publiceditor@globeandmail.com Letters to the Editor can be sent to letters@globeandmail.com This is the correct email address for requests for news coverage and press releases. | |
From: "Higgs, Premier Blaine (PO/CPM)" <Blaine.Higgs@gnb.ca>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2022 23:18:49 +0000
Subject: RE: RE Lawyers, cops, polticians and journalists etc playig
dumb about my calls and emails about Federal and provincial
governments plan to hold public inquiry into Nova Scotia mass shootings
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Hello,
Thank you for taking the time to write.
Due to the volume of incoming messages, this is an automated response
to let you know that your email has been received and will be reviewed
at the earliest opportunity.
If your inquiry more appropriately falls within the mandate of a
Ministry or other area of government, staff will refer your email for
review and consideration.
Merci d'avoir pris le temps de nous écrire.
En raison du volume des messages reçus, cette réponse automatique vous
informe que votre courriel a été reçu et sera examiné dans les
meilleurs délais.
Si votre demande relève plutôt du mandat d'un ministère ou d'un autre
secteur du gouvernement, le personnel vous renverra votre courriel
pour examen et considération.
If this is a Media Request, please contact the Premier’s office at
(506) 453-2144 or by email
media-medias@gnb.ca<mailto:med
S’il s’agit d’une demande des médias, veuillez communiquer avec le
Cabinet du premier ministre au 506-453-2144.
Office of the Premier/Cabinet du premier ministre
P.O Box/C. P. 6000 Fredericton New-Brunswick/Nouveau-
Tel./Tel. : (506) 453-2144
Email/Courriel:
premier@gnb.ca/premier.
---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2022 19:16:50 -0400
Subject: RE Lawyers, cops, polticians and journalists etc playig dumb
about my calls and emails about Federal and provincial governments
plan to hold public inquiry into Nova Scotia mass shootings
To: Roger.Burrill@
josh@chesterlaw.ca, RPineo@pattersonlaw.ca,
smcculloch@pattersonlaw.ca, "Michelle.Boutin"
<Michelle.Boutin@rcmp-grc.gc.
<blaine.higgs@gnb.ca>, "hugh.flemming" <hugh.flemming@gnb.ca>,
"Roger.Brown" <Roger.Brown@fredericton.ca>, "Mark.Blakely"
<Mark.Blakely@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Marco.Mendicino"
<Marco.Mendicino@parl.gc.ca>, "martin.gaudet"
<martin.gaudet@fredericton.ca>
<oldmaison@yahoo.com>, Emily.Hill@
Nick.Carleton@uregina.ca, tara@mdwlaw.ca, mscott@pattersonlaw.ca,
comlaw <comlaw@uottawa.ca>, eratushn@uottawa.ca
Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>, "steve.murphy"
<steve.murphy@ctv.ca>, sheilagunnreid <sheilagunnreid@gmail.com>,
Newsroom <Newsroom@globeandmail.com>, PREMIER <PREMIER@gov.ns.ca>,
haley.ryan@cbc.ca
Deja Vu Anyone???
http://davidraymondamos3.
Wednesday, 29 July 2020
Federal and provincial governments to hold public inquiry into Nova
Scotia mass shootings
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: "Pineo, Robert" <RPineo@pattersonlaw.ca>
> Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 15:25:26 +0000
> Subject: Re: RE Families of Shooting Victims Disappointed by
> “Independent Review” I just called Correct?
> To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
> < smcculloch@pattersonlaw.ca>
> Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
> Why are you quoting my statement back to me?
>
> Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
>
> ______________________________
> From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2020 9:53 AM
> To: smcculloch@pattersonlaw.ca; rpineo@pattersonlaw.ca
> Cc: motomaniac333
> Subject: RE Families of Shooting Victims Disappointed by “Independent
> Review” I just called Correct?
>
> http://www.pattersonlaw.ca/
>
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: "McCulloch, Sandra" <smcculloch@pattersonlaw.ca>
> Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 12:53:30 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: RE Families of Shooting Victims Disappointed
> by “Independent Review” I just called Correct?
> To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
>
>
> Thank you for your email. I will be away from my office conducting
> discovery examinations on July 27th through 29th. I will respond to
> your e-mail as soon as possible. Please contact 902.897.2000 if your
> matter requires more urgent
> attention.https://
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
> Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 09:53:20 -0300
> Subject: RE Families of Shooting Victims Disappointed by “Independent
> Review” I just called Correct?
> To: smcculloch@pattersonlaw.ca, rpineo@pattersonlaw.ca
> Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
> http://www.pattersonlaw.ca/
>
>
> Families of Shooting Victims Disappointed by “Independent Review”
>
> The “Independent Review” announced by Ministers Furey and Blair is
> wholly insufficient to meet the objectives of providing full and
> transparent answers to the families and the public, identifying
> deficiencies in responses, and providing meaningful lessons to be
> learned to avoid similar future tragedies.
>
> The choices of commissioners, and in particular Former Chief Justice
> Michael MacDonald, were thoughtful and appropriate for an inquiry.
> Former Chief Justice MacDonald is of the highest rank in judicial
> capabilities and is of unassailable integrity. That said, any
> decision- maker can only render decisions based on the information and
> evidence presented to them.
>
> The announced “independent review” model, to be conducted in a
> so-called “non- traumatic” and “restorative” way, will prejudice the
> panel by restricting the evidence and information being presented.
>
> In a public inquiry setting, such as was employed in the Marshall and
> Westray public inquiries, interested parties had the opportunity to
> question the witnesses. It is a very well- held maxim in our common
> law legal tradition, that cross-examination is the most effective
> truth-finding mechanism available. Without proper and thorough
> questioning, the panel will be left with incomplete and untested
> evidence upon which to base its decision. This is completely contrary
> to our Canadian notions of fair and transparent justice.
>
> Most disappointingly, Ministers Furey and Blair have hidden behind
> their contrived notion of a “trauma-free” process to exclude the full
> participation of the families under the guise of protecting them from
> further trauma. This is not how the families wish to be treated.
> Minister Furey has spoken with the families, so he must know that they
> want to participate, not to be “protected” by an incomplete process.
>
> The families want a full and transparent public inquiry. Why will
> Minister Furey not give them this? Why will he not give the citizens
> of Nova Scotia this? “We are all in this together” has been the slogan
> throughout 2020 - the families simply want us all, the public, to be
> in this together now to figure out a better tomorrow for families and
> the Province.
>
> For further inquiries, please contact:
>
> Robert H. Pineo
> 902-405-8177
> rpineo@pattersonlaw.ca
>
>
> Sandra L. McCulloch
> 902-896-6114
> smcculloch@pattersonlaw.ca
>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 15:11:37 -0400
Subject: Fwd: RE My calls and emails about Federal and provincial
governments plan to hold public inquiry into Nova Scotia mass
shootings
To: Dwayne.King@
Ronda.Bessner@
Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2021 14:32:30 -0300
Subject: RE My calls and emails about Federal and provincial
governments plan to hold public inquiry into Nova Scotia mass shootings
To: "barbara.massey" <barbara.massey@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
<barb.whitenect@gnb.ca>, "Brenda.Lucki" <Brenda.Lucki@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>,
"hugh.flemming" <hugh.flemming@gnb.ca>, "Bill.Blair"
<Bill.Blair@parl.gc.ca>, jpink@pinklarkin.com, andrew
<andrew@frankmagazine.ca>, andrewjdouglas <andrewjdouglas@gmail.com>,
jesse <jesse@viafoura.com>, jesse <jesse@jessebrown.ca>,
"steve.murphy" <steve.murphy@ctv.ca>,
Joel.Kulmatycki@
Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>, prmibullrun@gmail.com,
tim <tim@halifaxexaminer.ca>, zane@halifaxexaminer.ca,
media@masscasualtycommission.
https://www.saltwire.com/cape-
N.S. Mass Casualty Commission to announce participants in Portapique probe
Chris Lambie · Posted: April 30, 2021, 4:43 p.m.
Investigators want to hear from anyone who can shed light on the
events of April 18-19, 2020, says the release. “If you or someone you
know wants to get in touch with the investigations team, please
contact Joel.Kulmatycki at 902-394-3501 or
Joel.Kulmatycki@
https://www.saltwire.com/cape-
'I have no idea who to trust anymore': card raises independence
questions about Nova Scotia's Mass Casualty Commission
Chris Lambie · Posted: May 5, 2021, 6:46 p.m.
https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/
'We have got to have someplace to put our trust': High expectations
for the Mass Casualty Commission
Heidi Petracek 2016
Heidi Petracek
CTV News Atlantic Reporter
Published Friday, June 4, 2021 7:28PM ADT
Friday, 4 June 2021
Public inquiry calls for removal of 'highly sensitive' 911 calls from N.S. mass shooting
https://www.canadaland.com/CANADALAND
#372 The RCMP’s Portapique Narrative Is Falling Apart
Frank Magazine publisher Andrew Douglas and reporter Paul Palango
discuss their bombshell story, and what the RCMP may still be hiding
about Gabriel Wortman.
http://davidraymondamos3.
Wednesday, 29 July 2020
Federal and provincial governments to hold public inquiry into Nova
Scotia mass shootings
https://twitter.com/
David Raymond Amos @DavidRayAmos
Replying to @DavidRayAmos
Methinks lots of folks may enjoy what Peter Mac Issac and his cohorts
said while the RCMP and a lot of LIEbranos were stuttering and
doubletalking bigtime N'esy Pas?
https://davidraymondamos3.
#nbpoli #cdnpoli
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Citizens Rise Against Corruption in Trudeau Government
58,732 views
Streamed live on Jul 27, 2020
Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson
Citizens Rise Against Corruption in Trudeau Government - Peter Mac Issac
----------Origiinal message ----------
From: Peter Mac Isaac <prmibullrun@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 21:42:20 -0300
Subject: Re: RE The "Strike back: Demand an inquiry Event." Methinks
it interesting that Martha Paynter is supported by the Pierre Elliott
Trudeau Foundation N'esy Pas?
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
A lot of info to chew on - every now and then we win one - Today we
won a partial victory when the provincial liberals threw the federal
liberals under the bus forcing their hand . Now the spin will be to
get a judge they can control.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Police Corruption? Nova Scotia Shooter - Behind The Scenes
86,369 views
Streamed live on Jul 28, 2020
Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson
Nova Scotia Shooter Behind The Scenes with Paul Palango a former
senior editor at The Globe and Mail and author of three books on the
RCMP, the most recent being Dispersing the Fog, Inside the Secret
World of Ottawa and the RCMP. His work on the Nova Scotia massacre has
been published in MacLeans and the Halifax Examiner.
---------- Original message ----------
From: Timothy Bousquet <tim@halifaxexaminer.ca>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 05:41:36 -0300
Subject: Re: fea3
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Hello, I’m taking a much-needed vacation and will not be responding to
email until August 4. If this is urgent Halifax Examiner business,
please email zane@halifaxexaminer.ca.
Thanks,
Tim Bousquet
Editor
Halifax Examiner
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Newsroom <newsroom@globeandmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2021 15:43:14 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Re My calls today about Federal Court File #
T-1557-15 Need I say that CBC lawyers such as Sylvie Gadoury and
Judith Harvie will need lawyers to argue me in Federal Court?
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.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ministerial Correspondence Unit - Justice Canada <mcu@justice.gc.ca>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2021 15:42:21 +0000
Subject: Automatic Reply
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Thank you for writing to the Honourable David Lametti, Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada.
Due to the volume of correspondence addressed to the Minister, please
note that there may be a delay in processing your email. Rest assured
that your message will be carefully reviewed.
We do not respond to correspondence that contains offensive language.
-------------------
Merci d'avoir écrit à l'honorable David Lametti, ministre de la
Justice et procureur général du Canada.
En raison du volume de correspondance adressée au ministre, veuillez
prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de
votre courriel. Nous tenons à vous assurer que votre message sera lu
avec soin.
Nous ne répondons pas à la correspondance contenant un langage offensant.
http://davidraymondamos3.
Portapique inquiry hears why key RCMP officers need to testify in person
Lawyers for victims' families say public must hear for themselves what happened
The Mass Casualty Commission heard arguments Thursday from lawyers on both sides of the issue of RCMP live testimony as part of its work looking into what happened during the April 2020 massacre.
The National Police Federation, which represents regular and reservist RCMP members below the rank of inspector, has argued the 18 officers being asked to testify by lawyers for the victims' families could be re-traumatized by doing so.
But lawyers for the families have said there are many gaps in the evidence of what happened on April 18-19, 2020, that have to be filled, and testifying about violent crimes is part of an officer's job.
"We are extremely frustrated at the prospect of having to justify seeking facts in a fact-finding process," said Michael Scott of Patterson Law, whose firm represents more than a dozen families.
Michael Scott is a lawyer with Patterson Law, whose firm represents more than a dozen families of Portapique victims. (CBC)
He said lawyers have spoken with their own clients about testifying and almost every one of them is willing to appear before the commission.
"It will be hard, it will be difficult, but they'll do it. Because it's important," said Scott.
"We're not looking to attack officers or subject them to any further trauma — we're looking to have an inquiry."
The commission presented documents this week summarizing what it believes happened in Portapique. They state Gabriel Wortman attacked his longtime partner and proceeded to kill 13 neighbours after she escaped and hid in the woods.
The gunman killed nine more people while disguised as a Mountie the following morning and drove nearly 200 kilometres through rural Nova Scotia, most of it in a decommissioned police cruiser he'd adapted to look like a real one.
An RCMP officer talks with a local resident before escorting
them home at a roadblock in Portapique, N.S., on April 22, 2021.
(Andrew Vaughan/The Canadian Press)
Scott said it's especially important to hear from the initial team of three officers, led by Const. Stuart Beselt, who walked into Portapique after encountering a man who'd been shot by the gunman in his mock police car.
For example, Scott said he wants to know more about why Beselt did not directly head to the Blair family's home, where the original 911 call had come from and two people had been shot.
The inquiry heard that these front-line officers may be called on to participate in a witness circle later in the process to share what they experienced, but multiple family lawyers said that is simply not enough.
On its website, the commission describes a witness circle as "a discussion-based format that is used not to determine facts, but to provide important context to understand what happened." A facilitator does not ask direct questions and the witness circle is not a chance to test evidence.
Joshua Bryson, counsel for the family of victims Joy and Peter Bond, said such an exercise would not be the "best use of the commission's time."
Tara Miller, lawyer for relatives of Kristen Beaton and Aaron Tuck, said the inquiry can be creative in how it supports RCMP officers as they testify in a way that is trauma-informed, but still allows for sworn, live testimony.
"How does one have an inquiry with a mandate to inquire into what happened and make findings of fact on the responses of the RCMP officers without hearing from a single officer under oath about what happened?" Miller said.
Other lawyers pointed out they'd like to know why Cobequid Court in the south area of Portapique, where other victims were, was never examined by RCMP until more than 12 hours later.
Nasha Nijhawan, lawyer for the police union, said Thursday there are only a few specific circumstances where the inquiry can subpoena officers to testify. Those include a gap or conflict in evidence, or an area where necessary context is missing.
She said the gaps identified by family lawyers Thursday are already in the evidence from 911 calls, radio logs, and interviews with police and commission investigators.
But Ed Ratushny, professor emeritus in the faculty of law at the University of Ottawa, said the live testimony segments of public inquiries are fundamental to the process. However, he said they can be sometimes overlooked by "people who are trying to do the right thing."
While Ratushny said he sympathizes with the officers who responded to the events in Portapique, police often have to investigate traumatic incidents like sexual assaults and the murder of children, and then testify before a jury.
"In this particular situation, I believe that it is equally important that they do the same — not to a jury in a criminal case, but to the public in this horrible, terrible thing that has happened to this part of our country," said Ratushny, who has also worked with inquiries as legal counsel and is the author of The Conduct of Public Inquiries: Law, Policy, and Practice.
"This is all about what the police officers were doing that particular night; it's a very important aspect of this. And I believe the public should see them and hear them."
A memorial at a Nova Scotia church grew in the months after the mass
killing that began in Portapique, N.S. (Robert Short/CBC)
Ratushny pointed to comments by Peter Cory, a former Supreme Court of Canada justice, regarding the Westray tragedy.
Governments and policing organizations like the RCMP prefer to have their business confidential, Ratushny said, which is often necessary. But, he said the whole point of a public inquiry is to restore faith in the institutions that have failed in some way.
Nijhawan had also proposed entering an expert report from a psychologist on what requiring live testimony might mean for RCMP officers.
However, commissioner Michael MacDonald said Thursday that the report would not be necessary for their decision.
The inquiry does not sit on Fridays. The commission will reconvene Monday when lawyers will continue arguments on why certain RCMP officers should be allowed to testify.
Police union says inquiry should not call on front-line RCMP officers involved in Portapique
Union lawyer says expert report will show Mounties could be re-traumatized when testifying
Nasha Nijhawan, a lawyer with the National Police Federation, told the Mass Casualty Commission there's a real risk the 18 officers being asked to testify by lawyers for the victims' families could be re-traumatized by testifying.
"Of course it would be best if everybody could explain in their own first-person voice what they experienced, but at what cost?" Nijhawan said Wednesday.
A lawyer for the commission said last week that senior RCMP officers will be called as witnesses, but Emily Hill did not confirm specific names. The inquiry has not released a witness list for the weeks ahead.
Lee Bergerman, who was the commanding officer of the Nova Scotia RCMP in April 2020, has since retired and the commission previously said that would not impact her ability to testify.
Debate over expert's qualifications
The federation represents regular and reservist RCMP members below the rank of inspector.
Nijhawan said the union planned to enter two pieces of evidence to support its argument.
On Thursday morning the commission heard about the qualifications of Nick Carlton, a professor at the University of Regina and a registered doctoral clinical psychologist in Saskatchewan. He is also the scientific director of the Canadian Institute for Public Safety Research and Treatment.
The union hoped to introduce one of his reports as evidence. Lawyers for the families would have the opportunity to ask him questions about his work and research.
Nasha Nijhawan is a lawyer representing the National Police Federation. (CBC)
Nijhawan said Carlton's report provides necessary information about the potential impact of the original events on the RCMP officers, how they may be dealing with the fallout of that trauma, and what requiring live testimony might mean for them.
But after hearing the submissions, Chief Commission Michael MacDonald said Carlton's research was not needed to determine whether individual officers should be called.
The Mass Casualty Commission presented documents this week summarizing what it believes happened in Portapique. They state Gabriel Wortman attacked his longtime partner and proceeded to kill 13 neighbours after she escaped and hid in the woods.
The gunman killed nine more people while disguised as a Mountie the following morning and drove nearly 200 kilometres through rural Nova Scotia, most of it in a decommissioned police cruiser he'd adapted to look like a real one.
Officers interviewed by RCMP, commission
The inquiry already has access to a great deal of evidence from the officers who responded, Nijhawan said, including 911 calls, radio logs, and interviews with police and commission investigators.
The union is very aware its members want to serve the inquiry as much as they can, Nijhawan said.
"In fact, they wish so much to be helpful that they may be willing to extend themselves beyond what is appropriate for their own wellness," she said.
"It would be our submission that you should not ask them to do too much."
The union is also looking to table results from an internal union survey of the members who have been engaged in the commission interview process over the past several months.
Nijhawan said this report will show the "actual impact" of Portapique on the RCMP members who responded, and make clear the "potential re-traumatization" of officers by going through the inquiry's process.
On Thursday, lawyers representing families began giving submissions on why individual officers should be called, specifically Const. Stuart Beselt and Const. Vicki Colford.
Beselt was the first officer on scene and spoke to a gunshot victim shortly after he pulled into Portapique. Colford spoke to the man's wife about a back exit from the community.
The commission said they had no plans to call Beselt and Colford as witnesses to clarify any gaps in evidence in the portion of the inquiry devoted to determining what happened, but had planned to include them later in a witness circle about policing.
Tara Miller, who represents relatives of victims Aaron Tuck and Kristen Beaton, said sworn evidence and being able to test it is the "core foundation of our legal system," and that includes hearing from first responders under oath.
"How does one have an inquiry with a mandate to inquire into what happened and make findings of fact on the responses of the RCMP officers, without hearing from a single officer?" she said.
Joshua Bryson, counsel for the family of victims Joy and Peter Bond, had a similar take on Wednesday. He said police have a very difficult job, but part of that job requires testifying about violent crimes in court.
"In our view, it acts as a bar for this commission to fulfil its mandate, which is to understand what happened," Bryson said.
Banning officers would see public lose faith: lawyer
Rob Pineo of Patterson Law, whose firm represents most of the other families, said the ability to call RCMP officers should be taken on an individual basis.
The commission can consider their medical records and evidence before deciding on the best way to support them in testifying, Pineo said, arguing that an overall ban is not in the public interest.
"I'm not sure that there would be a lot of faith in the ultimate findings and recommendations of this commission if a blanket expert report was used to block critical evidence," Pineo said.
On Wednesday, lawyers representing the victims' families also argued that Lisa Banfield, the gunman's spouse, must be a witness in the inquiry. The commission has based its preliminary findings on lengthy interviews Banfield gave to the RCMP.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
With files from Elizabeth McMillan
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/portapique-rcmp-response-radio-logs-1.6368886
Frantic radio logs reveal confusion, fear as Mounties responded to N.S. shootings
WARNING: This story contains distressing details
When the first RCMP officer arrived in Portapique, N.S, he encountered a man bleeding from a head wound who said he had been shot by his neighbour, "Gabe," who was driving what looked like a police car. At that moment, the shooter was less than 200 metres away.
Const. Stuart Beselt and the two other officers who were first to arrive on scene late on April 18, 2020, knew their suspect had shot at numerous people and feared he could be lurking in the darkness of heavily wooded lots. They decided to approach on foot.
The details of the chaotic scene that the three Mounties encountered at the beginning of a 13-hour rampage during which Gabriel Wortman killed 22 people, including a pregnant woman, are included in a document put together by the Mass Casualty Commission examining the tragedy.
At one point, the officers thought they were on the verge of catching their suspect and prepared to shoot, only to realize hours later that the flashlight they saw disappearing into darkness was a frightened man horrified by finding his brother's body. He, too, thought he was being pursued by the gunman.
Audio of radio transmissions played during a public hearing Tuesday reflect out-of-breath officers frantically trying to communicate they were hearing gunfire or explosions, impaired by the darkness that was only broken by flames from multiple fires.
All three officers — the only ones to enter the subdivision for 90 minutes — had already changed into their hard body armour and had their carbines ready. They decided to leave their police cruisers about 170 metres from the entrance where Portapique Beach Road connects to Highway 2, a quiet two-lane rural road along the Minas Basin.
Const. Aaron Patton, who was sprinting down Portapique Beach Road to meet Beselt and Const. Adam Merchant, the first two officers on scene, radioed at 10:40 p.m.:
"Lots of gunshots in here. Three gunshots… two more gunshots," said Patton
Beselt confirmed they were "hearing numerous gunshots" and warned:
"Patton, be very careful to avoid bringing your car down here to avoid ambush."
'Officers die in their cars'
Beselt, with 24 years experience, was the acting team leader that evening, according to the Mass Casualty Commission, which has conducted its own interviews with the officers and reviewed statements they made to RCMP days after the shootings.
Beselt told the commission that he had no doubts it was an active shooter situation. He said a crucial lesson learned after a gunman killed three RCMP officers and injured two others in Moncton in 2014 was that cruisers could be "billboards" that could draw fire.
"Police officers die in their cars," he said, adding that the only way to get any advantage was to move "stealthily" on foot.
"I think it kept me alive, to be honest with you," Beselt said.
An
aerial map of Portapique from May 2020 with street names added by the
Mass Casualty Commission. Officers went down Portapique Beach Road on
foot while other Mounties created a checkpoint at the intersection with
Highway 2. (Mass Casualty Commission)
Roger Burrill, the senior lawyer presenting the commission's report Tuesday afternoon, said not driving "was a clear tactical decision" informed by officers' training.
"Clearly it would've been a slower process but as Const. Beselt says, in order to respond to the complaint, you have to be alive in order to do that," said Burrill.
"I would submit this was a very intense situation."
Multiple fires
After the three officers connected on Portapique Beach Road, they passed the gunman's burning cottage and noticed a white Taurus — not yet on fire — in the driveway. But Beselt said on the radio they weren't stopping because they heard gunshots in another direction.
The commission says at that point, the trio headed through the woods toward the gunfire, which turned out to be the gunman's garage, also in flames. Beselt reported that "things are blowing up or they're shooting. I'm not sure."
Burrill said the constable's tone gave a "sense of the urgency and the lack of information the officers have… you hear the tension. You hear the uncertainty."
Bullet holes in Greg and Jamie Blair's home were still visible in the fall of 2020. (Steve Lawrence/CBC)
Not far from the burning garage the officers soon discovered the bodies later identified as Corrie Ellison, who'd gone out to get a closer look at the fire, and Lisa McCully, who was killed on her front lawn.
Meanwhile, the RCMP's Operational Communications Centre was sending them updates from four kids that were hiding together in McCully's home.
The closest the three officers came to firing occurred when they saw a flashlight approaching and assumed it was the gunman. They got into position and warned colleagues they were ready to shoot but the light disappeared before anyone fired, according to the radio logs.
"We saw somebody with a flashlight that went dark. We have no idea where he went. We're going to go back to the red house, we're going to set up there to make sure those children are safe, unless we hear more gunfire, we're sitting still," Beselt reported back.
They later realized the person with the flashlight was Clinton Ellison, who was terrified after seeing his brother's body and thought the gunman was chasing him.
Question about 'emergency broadcast'
But the calls didn't stop. About 45 minutes after arriving in Portapique, Beselt, Patton and Merchant thought they heard more gunfire and were sent to help a woman who called 911 because she thought her house was about to catch fire.
Beselt asked on the radio about the possibility of warning people still in their homes.
"Is there some sort of emergency broadcast we can make that make people go into their basement and not go outside?" he asked at 11:16 p.m.
Staff Sgt. Brian Rehill, the risk manager who was in charge of directing officers, replied that the RCMP Operational Communication Centre was trying to contact residents using a 911 map.
This
tweet, posted at 11:32 p.m. AT was the only public communication Nova
Scotia RCMP issued about the mass shooting on April 18, 2020. The next
update wouldn't be until the following morning. (CBC)
At 11:32 p.m., the Nova Scotia RCMP sent out their first and only public communication on April 18, 2020 about the situation via Twitter. The written post stated that officers were responding to a firearms complaint in Portapique, asking people to lock doors and stay inside.
It's not clear from the commission documents released to date if Beselt's comment had any bearing on the decision to send the tweet
Many concerns about ambush
The three Mounties that first entered the community were not the only ones on guard for an ambush. At the intersection of Portapique Beach Road and Highway 2, Const. Vicki Colford and Cpl. Natasha Jamieson, the fourth and sixth officers on scene, were trying to provide each other with cover — Colford with a shotgun and Jamieson with her service pistol — as they waited at the entrance and checked cars leaving the community.
Colford, who RCMP interviewed on April 23, 2020, said she was on edge hearing sounds from the nearby woods and felt like they were an easy target.
RCMP
officers were stationed at the intersection of Highway 2 and Portapique
Beach Road on April 18, 2020 and in the days that followed. (Jonathan Villeneuve/Radio-Canada)
At one point, Cpl. Dion Sutton, a police dog handler, arrived and retreated to the woods to provide the pair with cover. Unlike the female officers, he had night vision goggles, something Colford said would have been helpful.
Neither Jamieson or Colford were trained to use a carbine rifle, another recommendation that came in the wake of the Moncton shootings. Jamieson later said in an interview with the commission that was no fault of the RCMP as she'd had to postpone training due to a surgery. Colford has since retired.
Hoped gunman was dead
Many of the officers who arrived on scene Saturday evening were relieved of their duties early Sunday morning.
After the four children in McCully's house were driven to safety, the first three officers on scene stayed in the house and were eventually picked up by the Emergency Response Team in its tactical vehicle.
When Patton spoke to RCMP a few days later, he said he debriefed at the makeshift command post at the Great Village Fire Hall and drove home with Beselt. They talked about how the gunman was likely dead in the woods.
It was only when he woke up and called a colleague that he realized how wrong that assumption was. The shooter killed nine more people on Sunday morning, most of them strangers.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Rural realities, Moncton shooting played into early police response in Portapique: expert
Criminologist says the few officers had to do what they thought best in chaotic scene
A policing expert says the stark reality of understaffed police forces in rural communities, combined with the "frenetic and unprecedented" first hours of the Portapique killings, were major contributing factors in the reactions of the first officers on the ground.
Michael Arntfield, a professor and criminologist at Western University, weighed in on police movements and response for the night of April 18 and the early hours of April 19, as outlined in a document released by the Mass Casualty Commission on Monday.
The document examines the April 2020 rampage by a man disguised as a Mountie that left 22 people dead, injured others and traumatized many more people in rural Nova Scotia.
The document includes statements and descriptions of conversations between various witnesses and 911 dispatchers and police. It also contains excerpts from 911 transcripts of calls from four children who reported gunshots, saw the shooter driving outside and heard footsteps in the house during a harrowing two hours when they hid and relayed information to dispatchers about the man who killed their parents.
Criminologist
Michael Arntfield says the handful of officers on the ground in the
first hours of the Portapique killings had to make their own decisions
in many situations, including what was best for children hiding in a
home. (CBC)
Arntfield said while there likely will be plenty of "quarterbacking" from the public around how four children were left in a house for two hours, a decision had to be made on the fly.
"I think this really underscores just how frenetic and unprecedented this situation was," Arntfield said Monday.
Tyler Blair, the older brother of two of the children, has questioned why it took so long to get the kids to safety. Arntfield agreed that questions will rightfully arise about what other safeguards should have been put in place.
The three RCMP officers who entered the subdivision on foot did check on them three times — urging them to stay in the basement and only open the door to someone with the safeword "pineapple."
While this "loose" surveillance of the children was not perfect, Arntfield said it might have been all that was possible with only three officers in the area.
"Are you going to walk the children with an active shooter through the woods to a car?" Arntfield said.
"I mean, it's not an ideal situation, but they're comparatively safe where they are."
The document describes how RCMP Const. Chris Grund arrived later and struggled waiting for the go-ahead to help the children. His decision to eventually walk in, rather than taking a cruiser, was partially motivated by his recollection of how RCMP vehicles had been targets in the 2014 Moncton shootings.
Arntfield said it's clear that all RCMP officers on the ground that night would have been very familiar with the Moncton shootings in which three officers were killed and two wounded in ambush situations.
That would have factored into their tactical decisions to stay concealed and not drive a vehicle where they could be picked off. Arntfield said there may not be an operational plan to do so, but these are decisions made at the discretion of each officer.
More officers requested
Over those two hours, the officers also kept getting called away as more fires and explosions were reported and they were asked to clear other scenes.
Grund asked the risk manager working at the RCMP operational communications centre twice if another team should go in to help out, given that several officers arrived and were stationed at the entrance to the small community. But Sgt. Andy O'Brien said he was worried about sending in a second team if there was a possibility they'd be caught in crossfire.
Arntfield said the personnel challenges of the early hours — having only three officers on the scene — highlight the difference between policing in cities and rural parts of the country, to which "your average citizen is completely oblivious."
No matter the province or territory, Arntfield said there is just no police infrastructure comparable to major cities. In rural areas, they have to essentially "poach" officers from one county or unit to another, just to maintain adequacy standards.
Commission not here to 'point fingers'
In a press conference with reporters Monday afternoon, the commission team members said they're aware emerging details will bring up more questions for the public and victims' families about what happened.
"The commission's role is not to lay blame or to point fingers, but to look at what are the facts and what can we learn from them, and what recommendations can we make to keep people safer in the future," said senior commission counsel Emily Hill.
This is only the "very beginning" of that process, Hill said, so the work this week is about building a common foundation of facts. Then, other conversations can be had about why and how decisions were made, and what can be learned.
Risk managers act as 'ad hoc' incident commanders: expert
The inquiry heard more about the role of risk manager through a presentation Tuesday by technical witness Darryl Macdonald.
Macdonald works with the Operational Communications Centre commander in P.E.I., and is familiar with the centre in Truro where dispatchers handled calls for Portapique and co-ordinated with the RCMP, fire and Emergency Health Services.
Risk managers are police officers at the staff-sergeant level working in the Truro centre but in a separate room from dispatchers, Macdonald said. They provide help to officers on the road and are trained to be an "ad hoc incident commander" for any significant incident that's underway until one can be sent to the scene.
If there's a resource that's needed, such as a dog handler or backup from another unit, the risk manager co-ordinates with the dispatcher to authorize that, he said.
With files from Kayla Hounsell
‘It’s not a police officer’: Portapique inquiry’s timeline shows how bloody night unfolded
The government inquiry into the worst mass killing in Canadian history has revealed its timeline of gunman Gabriel Wortman’s first spate of murders — and shows several witnesses informing police of the killer’s fake RCMP car.
Warning: this story contains graphic material.
HALIFAX—It began with an anniversary, and then an assault.
And then, in a stretch of about 45 minutes on the night of April 18, 2020, 13 lives were lost — the start of the worst mass killing in Canadian history.
By the time it ended, 13 hours later, another nine lives would be taken in northern Nova Scotia before police gunned down the killer in a gas station nearly 100 kilometres away.
Police knew that night the killer was using a replica police car — one of the first victims warned officers before being killed in front of her children — yet it took 10 hours to warn the public.
On Monday, the third day of the Mass Casualty Commission (MCC) inquiry into the mass killing, commission counsel Roger Burrill laid out the results of the MCC investigation into the events that night in Portapique.
What follows is a timeline of those events, as near as can be reconstructed from witness testimony, 911 transcripts, forensic reports, police records and other evidence.
The picture that emerges is of a ruthless gunman, killing without hesitation, taking those 13 lives and then disappearing into the dark just as police begin to arrive. That last fact raises one of the most significant questions hanging over the inquiry.
By 10:30 p.m. on April 18, at least six police — three 911 operators and three RCMP officers — had been given, by at least four different people, the perpetrator’s name and the fact that he was driving a replica RCMP car. It wasn’t until 8 a.m. the next day that the Mounties shared that information with the public — and when they did, it was on the force’s Twitter feed, rather than the provincial emergency alert system.
Why?
That’s the question Nick Beaton would most like to have answered. He’s the widower of Kristen Beaton, and the father of the unborn child she was carrying when Gabriel Wortman shot and killed her in her car on April 19.
Beaton has repeatedly said that, had he known the gunman was driving a replica RCMP car, he would never have let his wife leave the house that Sunday.
That information might also have saved the life of Heather O’Brien; she and Beaton were both shot dead in their cars on Plains Road in Debert. It might also have saved Lillian Hyslop, who was gunned down on the side of Highway 4 in Wentworth during her daily walk.
Jamie Blair told a 911 operator about the car shortly before she was killed on April 18. Minutes later, her son told another 911 operator that the killer was in a police car. Andrew MacDonald, who was wounded by Wortman, told a 911 operator and at least two RCMP officers on the scene about the cop car. MacDonald’s wife gave the same detail to an RCMP sergeant over the phone.
Yet it was not until Lisa Banfield, the killer’s common-law wife, told police the same thing at some point after 6:30 the next morning that the wheels started to turn.
Before 10 p.m.
Wortman and Banfield are celebrating their 19th anniversary with drinks in the evening at his warehouse at 136 Orchard Beach Dr. in Portapique. The exact timing of the subsequent events is uncertain, but before 10 p.m., Wortman assaults Banfield, sets his home at 200 Portapique Beach Rd. on fire, then does the same to the warehouse.
Banfield, whom Wortman locked in the back of the replica RCMP car in the warehouse, manages to escape and runs into the woods surrounding the warehouse, where she will hide until the morning.
About 10:00 to 10:05 p.m.
Wortman goes to the house of the Blair family, across the street from and slightly north of his warehouse. There he shoots Greg Blair on his front deck.
Jamie Blair calls 911 at 10:01 and says that Greg has been shot, that the gunman was her neighbour Gabriel and that he’s driving a police car.
“My neighbour … I think he just shot my husband … he’s lying on the deck … there’s a police car in the f---ing driveway.
“There’s an RCMP … it’s decked and labelled RCMP … (inaudible) … but it’s not a police officer,” she says.
Still on the phone with 911, she hides her two children in her bedroom, out of sight between the bed and the wall, and barricades the door with her body.
The gunman enters the house, shoots the family’s cat and dog, then shoots Jamie Blair multiple times through the bedroom door. When she falls to the floor, he opens the door and shoots her again, fatally. He apparently does not see the children in their hiding place.
He leaves the house, but not before attempting to set it on fire — turning the gas on and pulling logs out of the fire onto the floor.
The children flee, running over to Lisa McCully’s house next door, where McCully’s children let them in. The children call 911 and will stay on the phone with the operator for the next two hours.
About 10:05 to 10:20 p.m.
The sequence of events is again uncertain here.
In this period the gunman kills Jolene Oliver, Aaron Tuck and Emily Tuck in one house, Peter and Joy Bond in another house 60 metres away, and Lisa McCully outside her home next to the Blairs’.
In the most plausible scenario, according to the MCC investigation, the gunman drives about 900 metres to Cobequid Court, at the southern foot of Orchard Beach Drive, and there kills the Tuck family and the Bond family, though in what order is unclear.
Peter Bond is shot in the doorway of his house; Joy Bond’s body was found in the living room. Their television was on.
Aaron Tuck’s body was also found in the doorway of his house. The bodies of Jolene Oliver and Emily Tuck were found just down the hallway. Their television was on, too.
It’s possible that the gunman killed McCully outside her house — across the road from the gunman’s now-blazing warehouse — before he drove down to Cobequid Court. However, based on data obtained from her cellphone, it’s more plausible that he encounters McCully between 10:13 p.m. and 10:15 p.m. after returning from the Cobequid Court killings and shoots her on the road in front of her house.
Inside the house, her children and the Blairs’ children are on the phone with 911, telling the operator that the gunman is their neighbour Gabriel and that he’s driving a replica police car.
The 911 operator asks the Blairs’ son to confirm that.
“Yes, it was,” he says. “Just like the, um, the — like a police car.”
Later the operator asks, “Did it have lights stuff on it, or?”
/https://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/news/canada/2022/02/28/its-not-a-police-officer-portapique-inquirys-timeline-shows-how-bloody-night-unfolded/portapique_aerial.jpg)
“Yeah and it — and it has the cop symbol on it, like, and he owns a cop car … He owns like seven Ford, like, white Ford cars. They’re all identical,” says the boy.
They tell 911 that McCully left the house and that she hasn’t come back.
About 10:20 to 10:28 p.m.
The gunman heads further north on Orchard Beach Drive, parks his car in the U-shaped driveway of Frank and Dawn Gulenchyn. It seems likely, based on available information, that he shoots them and then sets the house on fire. It burns to the ground.
Meanwhile, Andrew and Kate MacDonald are driving south on the same road, with Andrew in the driver’s seat. From their home further north on Portapique Beach Road, they have seen the glow of the warehouse fire, and are going to investigate.
As they pass the Gulenchyns’ house, they see the replica RCMP car in the driveway. Reaching the gunman’s blazing warehouse, Andrew calls 911 at 10:25 p.m. to report it.
As he talks to 911, Andrew turns the car around and heads north. As they again pass the Gulenchyns’ house, they can see flames inside. Andrew reports the second fire to 911 and tells the operator that there’s a police car in the Gulenchyns’ driveway.
The gunman, back in the replica car, spots the MacDonalds’ car and begins to drive toward them.
“He’s coming around,” says MacDonald to the 911 operator. “I don’t know if he’s going to talk to me or what.”
The police car pulls up alongside the MacDonalds, its front passenger door about two feet from Andrew’s driver-side door. He points a gun equipped with a laser sight through the window, and at 10:27 p.m. fires two shots; one hits Andrew in the shoulder, the other grazes his head.
“It’s our neighbour, Gabe. He just shot me in the arm!” he says to the operator.
MacDonald stomps on the gas and his car races north, with the gunman’s car in pursuit. Further up, where Orchard Beach intersects with Portapique Beach Road, MacDonald bears right, heading for Highway 2.
The gunman gives up pursuit, instead turning left on Portapique Beach Road.
“It’s not a cop. It’s not the cops,” Kate MacDonald tells the 911 operator. “It was somebody else.”
Before they reach the highway, the MacDonalds come across two Mountie constables who have just arrived on the scene, Stuart Beselt and Aaron Patton. Andrew knows Beselt personally, and stops to tell them what’s happened.
He tells both officers that he was shot by his neighbour Gabe, and that he is driving a replica police car.
Kate, meanwhile, has been transferred by 911 to the RCMP risk manager, Staff Sgt. Brian Rehill. She confirms the detail about the replica car and the shooter’s name.
About 10:28 to 10:39 p.m.
While the evidence is somewhat circumstantial, it appears plausible that the killer turns his replica RCMP car south down Portapique Beach Road, past his own burning house, to that of Joanne Thomas and John Zahl, which neighbours another piece of property Wortman owns.
At some point prior to 10:39 p.m. he shoots both of them and sets their house on fire.
The MCC investigations hypothesize that the gunman then drives on a trail through the woods between Portapique Beach Road and Orchard Beach Drive — they run parallel to each other at this point — emerging at the back of the property of his still-flaming warehouse.
Across the street, in the McCully house, the Blair and McCully children, still on the phone with 911, tell the operator at 10:39 p.m. there is a car emerging from the driveway of the warehouse.
They say they can hear talking and then … gunshots.
About 10:39 to 10:40 p.m.
/https://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/news/canada/2022/02/28/its-not-a-police-officer-portapique-inquirys-timeline-shows-how-bloody-night-unfolded/portapique_aerial_2.jpg)
Corrie Ellison has walked up the road from his father’s place, which he and his brother Clinton are visiting, to investigate the warehouse fire.
He encounters the gunman, who fires at him, first from the replica police car, then again at close range after exiting the car. In all he shoots Ellison five times. (A forensic investigation hypothesizes that Ellison might have been leaning into a vehicle when first shot.)
About 10:40 to 10:51 p.m.
With police arriving on the scene, the gunman leaves.
While the details are uncertain, investigators hypothesize that he turns south again down Orchard Beach Drive, toward Cobequid Court. There he turns left, heading east to where Cobequid Court intersects with a private dirt road which runs alongside a berry field.
Some time around 10:45 p.m., the Zimmerman family, whose house on Portapique Crescent overlooks that road, see headlights moving quickly, heading up what locals call “blueberry field road.”
Patricia Zimmerman tells police of “a set of lights, moving like a bat out of hell, zipping down a road that nobody ever really uses.”
The road gets near the highway, but terminates at Brown Loop, an unpaved 670-metre road that connects to Highway 2 at two points.
At this point, the only police checkpoint is at Portapique Beach Road further to the west.
The gunman likely uses Brown Loop to access the highway and drive east.
At 10:51 p.m. a surveillance camera at Wilsons Gas Stops in Great Village, nine kilometres away, seems to show an RCMP car travelling east on Highway 2, away from Portapique, with no lightbar or tail lights activated.
The gunman would spend the night in a parking lot in an industrial park in Debert.
On Tuesday — still summarizing the events of April 18 in Portapique — the MCC is scheduled to present the results of its investigation into the movements of first responders that evening.
N.S. premier, federal minister criticize mass shooting inquiry on first day
Premier Tim Houston says families feel 'left in the dark,' questions if public can have confidence in process
In a news release issued before hearings began on Tuesday morning, Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston said he has heard from family members who have expressed "frustration and concern about the structure of the inquiry."
"They feel left in the dark. This is not only disrespectful, it should cause us all to pause and ask, if the families don't have confidence in the process, how can the public?" Houston said.
The premier's remarks echo the concerns of a number of people whose loved ones were killed on April 18-19, 2020, including Darcy Dobson, who lost her mother, Heather O'Brien, and Charlene Bagley, who lost her father, Tom Bagley.
The Mass Casualty Commission is a joint federal-provincial inquiry examining the deaths of 22 people, including a pregnant woman, who were killed by a gunman over a 13-hour period in the rural Nova Scotia communities of Portapique, Wentworth, Debert and Shubenacadie.
Both levels of government initially announced a review of the mass shooting, but quickly backtracked in July 2020 after families lobbied for an independent, public inquiry.
"The reason Nova Scotians pulled together and pushed for an inquiry as opposed to a review was to ensure that it was honest, comprehensive, detailed and most importantly, designed to answer questions," Houston said.
"Yet, it is still not even known if key witnesses have been subpoenaed to testify, if there will be an opportunity to cross-examine them or if it will be a comprehensive list of witnesses."
He said the uncertainty is causing further, unnecessary trauma. Houston is urging the Mass Casualty Commission to meet with families and their counsel to listen to their concerns and provide a "plan that gives them confidence in the process."
Houston told reporters he raised concerns directly with the commission two weeks ago, but became more "anxious" this week when he didn't see changes.
Federal cabinet minister and Central Nova MP Sean Fraser is also weighing in on how the inquiry is treating those most affected.
"After speaking to certain victims' family members directly to discuss their concerns, I called a meeting with the premier of Nova Scotia and the federal minister of public safety. We are united in our view that the families' confidence in this process remains a paramount consideration," Fraser wrote in a social media post on Tuesday morning.
Fraser said he will work to ensure that federal and provincial leaders are aware of "each and every concern" going forward.
Thirteen Deadly Hours: The Nova Scotia Shooting
At the end of the first day, Barbara McLean, the inquiry's investigations director, said the commission was aware of Houston's comments.
"Frankly, we are surprised and disappointed. The Mass Casualty Commission is an independent inquiry and must remain free from interference, or external direction," McLean said, adding she hopes Houston will keep an open mind when it comes to any recommendations in the final report for how the province can improve public safety.
McLean said the commission needs to "remain free" of the two levels of governments that established it as well as institutions and people, including the 61 participants in the inquiry "who have divergent views on [its] work."
In his opening remarks, chief commissioner Michael MacDonald also addressed concerns about the perceived lack of transparency.
"Some people are concerned about the commission's independence, believing we may be susceptible to covering up for either the RCMP or government. Let me assure you, nothing could be further from the truth," MacDonald said.
He added that "independence is the backbone, the be-all-and-end-all, of inquiries."
Inquiry 'can't drag on'
MacDonald said the process the commission has developed to organize the roughly 40,000 pages of records, as well as information from more than 150 interviews, into documents will save time and money.
The alternative, he said, would be to spend years working through testimony and cross-examination of hundreds of witnesses.
"This approach will provide the public with as much information as we can at the earliest opportunity," he said. "We developed a process that is just as, if not more, effective than calling witness after witness — [it's] a process that will not drag on and on.
"That will result in a lot less trauma."
Michael
MacDonald, the chief commissioner of the Mass Casualty Commission,
speaks on Tuesday at the opening day of public hearings in Halifax. (Brett Ruskin/CBC)
But he said the approach will still be thorough and that commission will "be robust in its response if witnesses try to be misleading." He also said lawyers for participants will be able to cross-examine witnesses, something counsel for some of the families had asked for in the lead up to hearings.
The former Nova Scotia chief justice said the commissioners have a responsibility to get to the truth without causing more pain.
"Too often, I have seen the emotional toll of processes that can go on and on, lives waiting in the balance," he said. "This process cannot drag on for five years."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/mass-casualty-commission-proceedings-1.6356891
Here's what to watch for during the N.S. mass shooting hearings
Mass Casualty Commission proceedings will run 3 to 4 days most weeks until end of May
The long-awaited public phase of the inquiry into the mass shootings of April 2020 that left 22 dead in Nova Scotia is beginning in Halifax on Tuesday morning, but the proceedings will be a far cry from a trial.
The goal of the joint federal and provincial inquiry is to make communities safer. Its mandate extends beyond looking at the 13 hours that a gunman disguised as a Mountie travelled freely through rural parts of the province, killing neighbours in Portapique and acquaintances and strangers in Wentworth, Debert and Shubenacadie.
Only a handful of people survived encounters with 51-year-old denturist Gabriel Wortman who torched homes, used guns he obtained illegally, and who police later described as paranoid and fixated on the end of the world.
The Mass Casualty Commission is responsible for examining how policing and government agencies responded to the tragedy, the role intimate partner violence played, the shooter's access to firearms and any other past dealings he had with police.
Charlene Bagley's father, Tom Bagley was a retired firefighter and navy veteran. He was killed when he stopped by his neighbours' home in Wentworth to check on them. The gunman was a stranger.
"The fact that my father was taken really does challenge the grieving process…. I can't fully heal until I know," she said. "I want answers."
Charlene
Bagley walks at a march in downtown Halifax on July 29, 2020, in
connection with the announcement of a public inquiry into the mass
killing. Her father, Tom Bagley, was one of the 22 victims. (Shaina Luck/CBC)
When Tom Bagley left home for his usual morning walk on April 19, 2020, police had not yet publicly identified their suspect. It would be another hour before they shared on Twitter that he was in a mock cruiser.
"I want to know why an [emergency] alert wasn't called. Mainly because I know for certain that would have saved his life," said Charlene Bagley, who lives in the Halifax area.
Bagley is among a number of people directly impacted who say they've lost faith in the inquiry process they demanded and doubt it will actually bring answers to questions that have haunted them since April 2020.
She wrote a letter to the commission last week in which she said she wanted to hear testimony under oath from the officers who fired at the Onslow fire hall as well as the gunman's partner, Lisa Banfield.
"She knew him more than anybody. She lived with him," Bagley said in an interview, adding she's also skeptical of the accounts presented by the RCMP.
Banfield's lawyer said he was unable to comment on his client's involvement in the commission until after her trial that starts in late March. Banfield has pleaded not guilty to giving the gunman the ammunition he used in the shootings, although police say she didn't know his plans.
Hearings not all witnesses
This week's proceedings at the Halifax Convention Centre will be livestreamed and won't involve the introduction of any new evidence until next Monday. On Tuesday, the commissioners are scheduled to give opening remarks and there will be a panel on mental health and wellness.
The inquiry has cost $13 million so far and until this point, its work has happened behind the scenes. A team of investigators has been combing through tens of thousands of pages of documents — including notes and files subpoenaed from the RCMP — as well as conducting their own interviews with front-line officers and other first responders.
But it's uncertain how many of them will be called upon to testify.
Emily Hill, senior counsel for the Mass Casualty Commission, said some days the hearings won't have any witnesses. Instead, lawyers for the commission will be presenting summaries of their investigation, compiled in "foundational documents" that will be posted publicly as they're introduced.
Next week the plan is to start with documents outlining what happened in Portapique.
Inquiry into Nova Scotia mass shooting opens amid criticism
"So part of the question around how witnesses will deliver evidence will depend on what questions do we need answers to. What are we trying to understand from this witness?" she said.
"Public inquiries are not aimed at finding fault. They're not aimed at finding civil or criminal responsibility. They're aimed at understanding what happened and learning from that and thinking about what can we do differently in the future."
Questions about cross examination
Along the way, the commission will be consulting with the dozens of groups and individuals participating in the inquiry — there are 61 in total — about who to call as witnesses. It will be up to the commissioners to decide on a case-by-case basis whether counsel for the participants will be able to cross-examine those witnesses, Hill said.
Patterson Law, a Nova Scotia law firm that represents 23 participants, including more than half the families, has been critical of that format. The firm has said it needs more clarity on who will be called and what their own role will be in order to prepare and represent the families.
From left, the three commissioners overseeing the Mass
Casualty Commission are: Leanne Fitch, Kim Stanton and Michael
MacDonald. (Maria Jose Burgos/CBC, Kim Stanton/LEAF, Andrew Vaughan/The
Canadian Press)
Hill said "everything is not mapped out" for the hearings that will run three or four days most weeks until the end of May. But she said the public is getting a full, independent inquiry.
"We have confidence in the information that we've collected, how this process has evolved to the place where we can move now into public proceedings and begin to have these conversations with the public and continue to learn from them," she said.
Investigation not over
Barbara McLean, leader of the commission's investigative team, said even as the hearings present its findings, it will still continue the process of gathering information and interviewing people if needed.
"The public proceedings are just the next step in our inquiry. And that's really where a public inquiry is different than a civil or a court process where it goes to court and it's done," she said.
"The sooner we know things, the sooner people do come forward, the better for us that we can see where it fits and that it can influence our work. But there's still a lot of work left to do and still a lot of people to speak to."
A memorial sits at the top of Portapique Beach Road in Portapique on April 21, 2020. (Craig Paisley/CBC)
The commission's interim report is due in May and the final report is due in November. In between, there will be a third phase of hearings focused on findings and recommendations, likely starting at the end of the summer. Hill said they are "on track" to meet those deadlines.
Meanwhile, the RCMP said in a news release that it has been co-operating with the commission and hopes it provides a "full accounting of what happened."
Keys to successful inquiry
Ed Ratushny, an emeritus professor of law at the University of Ottawa who has worked with inquiries as counsel and author of The Conduct of Public Inquiries: Law, Policy, and Practice, said in his experience, inquiries have the best outcomes when the people under scrutiny — whether they be police, judges or public servants — "recognize that mistakes have been made."
"They feel a responsibility for them and they want to make changes to ensure that it doesn't happen again," he told CBC in an interview last month.
"They all say, 'Yeah, we've got to do something about this and … we're not afraid to say that we contributed to that, to the problem. And because we're sorry that it happened and we really want to prevent it from happening again.'"
RCMP
investigators search for evidence on April 23, 2020, at the location
where Const. Heidi Stevenson was killed along the highway in
Shubenacadie, N.S. (Andrew Vaughan/The Canadian Press)
That type of acknowledgement is what Nick Beaton wants to hear. His pregnant wife, Kristen, was killed the morning of April 19.
"Putting my son to bed every night alone and asking where mommy is, you know, this is supposed to put forth steps to prevent this from happening again and show the RCMP this is where your faults were, this is where it could've went different, this is where the government could have went different ... even us, as citizens, if this happens again this is what you should or shouldn't do," he said.
WATCH | The Fifth Estate chronicles 13 hours of mayhem that constitute one of Canada's deadliest events:
Thirteen Deadly Hours: The Nova Scotia Shooting
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
With files from Angela MacIvor and Kayla Hounsell
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/stephen-mcneil-liberal-leader-politics-1.6061028
Former premier Stephen McNeil joining Halifax law firm
'There's definitely no lobbying or government relations. I'm strictly giving them strategic advice'
Reached at home in Granville Ferry, the 56-year-old McNeil, who once was a small business owner, said he was excited at the prospect of helping the firm "grow their operations, not only within our own local community but nationally and internationally."
McNeil said he was approached near the end of January, while he was still premier, about the possibility of joining the law firm.
"I made it very clear I wasn't interested in being a lobbyist or a government relations person," said McNeil. "What I was looking to do would be more strategic, and providing advice."
No law training
Although McNeil has no formal law training, he thinks he can bring other skills to his new job.
"This is really about business development," he said. "This is about ensuring that their clients continue to compete in the global community, looking for opportunities both nationally and internationally."
Dan Ingersoll, the firm's managing partner in Halifax, said it was senior partner Danny Gallivan who pitched the idea of pursuing McNeil, partly on the strength of what he saw while attending several trade missions with the former premier.
He echoed McNeil's comments that the former premier would not be doing lobbying work.
"Our clients, holistically, they have legal service needs but they also have strategic objectives," Ingersoll said in an interview.
"Insight into how certain other markets work, other opportunities. So we're really hoping that Stephen can provide that insight, can make some connections for us and our clients."
McNeil said he was proud of his government's record when it came to economic and population growth. He thinks his new job could entail similar efforts.
"And I believe this opportunity will give me a chance to continue to build on that work here in the province," he said.
He was most specific about what was not part of his new job.
'I will promote Nova Scotia'
"There's definitely no lobbying or government relations. I'm strictly giving them strategic advice, and I will promote Nova Scotia through their firm with their clients and hopefully be able to attract outside clients that will come and use their services as a law firm," said McNeil.
Even if McNeil wanted to be a lobbyist, provincial regulations mandate a one-year cooling off period for members of executive council after they leave government.
As premier, McNeil travelled to China eight times trying to promote stronger ties with the government there. During his time in office, seafood exports to China grew in value to $1 billion.
It's that kind of work his successor, Iain Rankin, seems ready to continue.
"They do have some work in China," McNeil said of his new employer, but said that would not be his focus.
Affirmation for Cox & Palmer
Ingersoll agreed that McNeil is well-travelled, but said his experience with China was not the motivation for pursuing him.
"From my perspective, China is sort of emblematic of the range of experiences that Stephen brings to us," he said.
Having the former premier, who rose to national prominence during the pandemic, working for them is "a real affirmation for the firm," said Ingersoll.
"We're thrilled that he had the confidence that we were the right next step for him in his new life and I think that all firms are working hard at broadening their base and broadening their approach and their service offerings," he said. "We're doing exactly what we should be doing and I hope that's recognized in the market."
According to the House of Assembly pensions web page, McNeil was eligible in 2019 to receive an annual pension of $123,123. Ingersoll declined to discuss the terms of McNeil's arrangement with the firm.
McNeil was the MLA for Annapolis for 18 years.
He led the Liberals in opposition and later won back-to-back majority governments.
Ingersoll said McNeil's new job does not prevent him from campaigning for the Liberals in future elections.
CBC's Journalistic Standards and Practices
N.S. refused to pay for RCMP team created to respond to mass shootings inquiry
Commanding officer Lee Bergerman's husband works on RCMP team for which she requested funding
The Nova Scotia government twice refused to pay for a special RCMP team established to respond to the public inquiry into the mass shootings that killed 22 people in April 2020, newly released documents show.
CBC News obtained correspondence between Mark Furey, who was the province's justice minister at the time, and Assistant Commissioner Lee Bergerman, the commanding officer of the RCMP in Nova Scotia, through freedom of information laws.
The records show that in the summer and fall of 2020, Bergerman wrote to Furey asking for financial support to help pay for an "issues management team" being set up in the wake of the mass shootings.
"As you may appreciate, public perception of the province fully funding the RCMP to respond to inquiry demands would not be favourable," Furey wrote in a Dec. 11 letter to Bergerman.
In April 2020, a gunman disguised as a Mountie killed neighbours, acquaintances and strangers, including a pregnant woman and an RCMP officer. He travelled nearly 200 kilometres through rural Nova Scotia before being shot and killed by police at a gas station in Enfield, N.S., about 13 hours after the violence started in Portapique, N.S.
Work on a joint federal and provincial inquiry is now underway. The mass casualty commission is examining the cause, context and circumstances of the massacre, including how police and various federal and provincial agencies responded.
The RCMP has set up a team of officers, headed by Chief Supt. John Robin, tasked with collecting and passing along information required by the commission, said Cpl. Chris Marshall in a statement. He said part of the team's role will involve supporting members of the RCMP who are called as witnesses.
"The third objective is to identify areas within the police response to this tragedy that may require further examination and possible action by the RCMP, whether from a training, policy, procedural, resourcing or equipment perspective. All of these objectives are a work in progress," Marshall said.
2 team members married to top Mounties
Robin is married to the head of the Halifax District RCMP, Janis Gray. Another member of the team is Bergerman's husband, Mike Butcher, a retired RCMP officer who is now contracted by the force. Both connections were first reported by Frank Magazine.
Butcher has been contracted as a public servant by the RCMP since 2009, said Cpl. Lisa Croteau.
"He was seconded from the B.C. RCMP to the Nova Scotia RCMP project team in May 2021 because of his expertise in disclosure and policing," said Croteau in a statement.
The provincial Justice Department confirmed Thursday to CBC News that the province has not committed any funding for the team. The Mounties said it is paid for jointly by the Nova Scotia RCMP and RCMP headquarters.
Mark
Furey, Nova Scotia's former justice minister, is shown on Jan 21, 2020.
He announced the following month that he would not reoffer in the next
provincial election. (Craig Paisley/CBC)
The records obtained by CBC News show that initially Bergerman hoped the province would help pay for the additional staff.
Over the summer, she sent a business case to Furey laying out the plans. But Furey felt the July 21 request veered too closely to asking for help paying for additional legal services.
After seeking his own legal advice, Furey wrote to Bergerman that he determined there was "no contractual obligation for the province to financially support this proposal" given it already contributes to such services, according to an Oct. 28 letter.
He advised Bergerman that should the team go ahead, "costs must be absorbed within your existing funding."
Collecting documents for inquiry
When Bergerman responded Dec. 1, the commanding officer disputed that the issues management team would be providing any legal services.
She said the plan was for it to be made up of three RCMP officers, including a senior commissioned officer, and two public servants who would help organize information on the mass shooting investigation and documentation for the public inquiry, and liaise with the federal Department of Justice.
This did not sway Furey. He declined, for a second time, to provide any funding in his Dec. 11 response.
Marshall said since Bergerman's requests, the name of the issues management team was changed to the "RCMP project team responsible for the response to the mass casualty commission" and that the number of people working with it in Ottawa and Nova Scotia will fluctuate depending on the workload.
Questions about independence
Robin, the leader of the new RCMP team, prompted the commission to reiterate in early May that it is independent and that no Mounties are working for the public inquiry itself.
The chief superintendent was handing business cards listing his role as being with the mass casualty commission to some people who were impacted by the mass shootings.
In response, Emily Hill, a lawyer who works for the commission, issued a public statement clarifying that its role included "reviewing the RCMP's activities with respect to the mass casualty events and their aftermath."
"We do not take any instructions from the RCMP. We are asking the RCMP to remove the card to avoid further confusion," Hill's statement said.
A
memorial pays tribute to RCMP Const. Heidi Stevenson, a 23-year member
of the force and mother of two, along the highway in Shubenacadie, N.S.,
on April 21, 2020. (Andrew Vaughan/The Canadian Press)
Marshall told CBC News at the time that Robin's business cards were being reprinted.
Croteau said Robin is also conducting an internal workplace safety investigation and was talking to community members as part of that.
Families calling for answers
Work on the commission examining the mass shootings started last fall and public hearings are expected to be held this coming fall, though no dates have been set.
The inquiry came about after family members of the victims called for answers about how such a tragedy could occur. Many families have been critical of the amount of information the RCMP has shared with them and with the public.
There was immense public outcry last July when the federal government announced it was launching an independent review. Within days, the public safety minister announced a public inquiry would go ahead after all.
Unlike a review, a public inquiry has the power to summon witnesses and require them to give evidence under oath.
Paid millions extra for RCMP in 2020
Bergerman's requests for funding for the team responding to the public inquiry were not the only letters she sent to the provincial government asking for financial help.
Nova Scotia contracts the RCMP for policing in many rural areas and under the provincial funding agreement, the minister of justice has the ability to approve additional spending in emergencies.
Shortly after the mass shootings and through the summer, Furey agreed to pay for out-of-province officers to fill in for the 70 Mounties who took leave. In all, he approved $3.7 million to cover costs associated with bringing in those officers, but he declined to continue to approve the extra spending beyond the end of August.
He also approved spending an additional $5.1 million on policing during the fisheries dispute in southwestern Nova Scotia between Oct. 14, 2020, and Dec. 19, 2020.
Furey, a former RCMP officer, left his post as justice minister in February after announcing he wouldn't be reoffering in the next election.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Justice Minister Mark Furey will not reoffer in next provincial election
Furey was first elected in Lunenburg West in 2013 and was re-elected in 2017
Another Liberal cabinet minister will not reoffer in the next provincial election.
Justice Minister Mark Furey added his name to a list Friday that includes four other ministers, two Liberal MLAs and outgoing Premier Stephen McNeil.
Iain Rankin is scheduled to be sworn in as premier, along with his cabinet, on Tuesday.
"I have been fortunate to be part of a transformative government, and I am incredibly proud of the many accomplishments we have achieved together through hard work and perseverance," Furey said in a statement.
A spokesperson for the Liberal caucus said Furey will not be a part of Rankin's cabinet, a decision the minister conveyed to the premier-designate after deciding he would not reoffer. He'll serve out the rest of his term as a private member.
The former RCMP officer was first elected as MLA for Lunenburg West in 2013 as part of the Liberal surge to power. He was re-elected in 2017.
Furey's most prominent roles in cabinet during that time have been as justice minister and minister of labour relations.
They have not come without challenges.
As justice minister, Furey was the target of scorn from the families of victims of last year's mass shooting until the provincial and federal governments ultimately called a public inquiry. On the labour relations file, he helped oversee several contract negotiations that — as was custom of McNeil's government — were tense and acrimonious, perhaps none more so than talks with Crown attorneys.
More recently, Furey called for a review of policing services in the province. Although that decision coincided with several high-profile incidents that drew criticism of the RCMP, the minister said the review was motivated by growing concerns about the cost municipalities face for the RCMP contract.
Business Minister Geoff MacLellan, Finance Minister Karen Casey, Environment Minister Gordon Wilson and Health Minister Leo Glavine have also announced their intentions to retire from politics. So, too, have Liberal MLAs Margaret Miller and Bill Horne.
N.S. justice minister not in conflict in shooting inquiry, says commissioner
Conflict czar rejects opposition claim that Mark Furey's RCMP career taints hearing
The
conflict commissioner says it is premature to suggest Mark Furey's
involvement in the massacre inquiry would be compromised by his prior
years of service with the Mounties. (Craig Paisley/CBC)Nova Scotia's conflicts commissioner says Justice Minister Mark Furey is not in a conflict of interest for his involvement in the public inquiry into April's shooting and arson rampage that left 22 people dead.
In a letter dated Nov. 30, Justice Joseph P. Kennedy said he was not convinced that Furey — a former Mountie of 32 years — is in violation or is perceived to be in violation of the provincial Conflict of Interest Act.
The RCMP has come under scrutiny for its handling of the tragedy — like the decision to tweet about the shooter's whereabouts instead of issuing an emergency alert — and issues around transparency when it comes to releasing details about the case.
Nova Scotia Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Houston requested that the conflict commissioner's office review Furey's involvement in the shooting inquiry, saying "the public has raised several concerns related to this perceived conflict."
The PC leader had pointed to Furey's employment history, as well as the fact that there is a class-action application by the families of the shooting victims that names both the RCMP and the province as defendants.
Tory
Leader Tim Houston says Furey could be perceived to be in a conflict of
interest because he will potentially be a compellable witness during
the inquiry. (Pat Callaghan/CBC)
Houston also said that Furey could be perceived to be in a conflict of interest because he will potentially be a compellable witness during the inquiry and he is responsible for the actions of the RCMP in Nova Scotia.
But in his letter, Kennedy said Furey dismissed Houston's affidavit as "opinion and speculation, devoid of actual knowledge and factual evidence."
The commissioner also said that it is premature to suggest Furey's involvement in the inquiry would be compromised by his prior years of service with the Mounties.
"I acknowledge that there has been public concern expressed as to minister Furey's participation in the process that created the inquiry based largely because of his former association with the RCMP," Kennedy wrote.
The commissioner concluded: "The evidence produced does not satisfy me that there is any contravention or perceived contravention of the [Conflict of Interest] Act."
In the minister's rebuttal, which was cited in Kennedy's decision, Furey says Houston's affidavit shows a misunderstanding of his previous role in the RCMP and his current responsibilities as minister of justice.
He says the minister is not responsible for the functioning of the police in the province but rather the administration of justice under the Police Act.
In a statement on Wednesday, Houston said unanswered questions remain.
"We know that the government wanted a review and not a public inquiry, but we may never know why," said Houston.
"What's clear is that minister Furey's involvement with the file has eroded public trust at a difficult time for Nova Scotians. We're disappointed in the commissioner's ruling as it's evident to most Canadians that, at minimum, the perception of a conflict of interest exists."
Nova Scotia Premier Stephen McNeil to step down after 17 years in politics
Decided to resign before COVID-19 pandemic, but 'all of those plans were put on hold'
Nova Scotia Premier Stephen McNeil announced Thursday he will step down.
McNeil was first elected in 2003 as MLA for Annapolis and has been premier since 2013.
"Seventeen years is a long time," he said at a media availability that was broadcast live following a cabinet meeting, "and it's long enough."
McNeil said he had made the decision to resign prior to the coronavirus pandemic, but he reconsidered when the virus arrived in Nova Scotia in March.
"All of those plans were put on hold, and I gave this my all. I spent five weeks here without ever getting home to my own property and my own home. [I was] away from my family because I was working with Public Health and with our team to try to get control of it."
McNeil said he will continue to act as premier and Liberal Party leader until the party chooses a replacement. He said he expected a leadership campaign to take months. Nova Scotia does not have fixed election dates but is due for an election by 2022.
"We're at a position right now where I felt the window for me to — I either had to say I was going, or I was too late."
The long-serving politician is in his second term of a majority government. He said he feels two terms is a long time for one person to hold that responsibility and for the province to have the same leader.
McNeil makes a campaign stop at a farmers' market in Bedford, N.S., in May 2017. (The Canadian Press)
'This is not a lifelong career'
Before announcing his resignation, McNeil gave a seven-minute speech rounding up his time in office and took questions from reporters for more than 30 minutes.
McNeil said he didn't pursue politics with the ambition to become party leader or premier.
"I ran in the first case wanting to change the community and help support the community I live in, one that I was raised in and one where our kids were raised," he said.
Before being elected as MLA for his rural community, McNeil owned and operated a small appliance repair business.
When he was first elected, the Liberals were the third-ranking party in the province behind the governing Progressive Conservatives and opposition NDP.
McNeil was leader when the party became the Official Opposition in 2009, and then defeated the governing New Democrats in 2013 to form a majority government.
McNeil
at his campaign headquarters in Bridgetown, N.S., on election night in
2013 after winning the provincial election. McNeil is joined by his
children, Colleen and Jeffrey, and his wife Andrea. (Mike Dembeck/The Canadian Press)
"I spent the last six years doing what I think is in the best interest of all Nova Scotians," he said Thursday.
McNeil touched on some of the polarizing decisions he and his government have made, including imposing contracts on several public-sector unions.
"Of course we all remember the unions rallying around Province House. That wasn't an easy time. We asked our public-sector unions to take less — not take nothing, just take less."
He connected those spending decisions to his government's track record for balancing the budget, which is a point of pride often touted by McNeil. His government's latest budget, passed in March, was balanced at the time before being blown apart by COVID-19.
Health care was a hot-button issue in Nova Scotia even before the pandemic, with constant criticism from opposition parties about McNeil's handling of a shortage of physicians and scrutiny of plans to redevelop the province's largest hospital system.
In his remarks Thursday, McNeil highlighted that his government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on the hospital project.
McNeil said he celebrated his 17th anniversary in elected office on Wednesday.
"I love this job. I've enjoyed every day of it, and every day I'm inspired by the people of this province. But this is not a lifelong career."
McNeil said he doesn't have any plans lined up for when he steps away from public office.
McNeil at a recent COVID-19 press briefing. (Communications Nova Scotia)
A 'historic day'
Leaders from both of the province's opposition parties offered well wishes to McNeil in statements after his announcement.
"The premier and his family deserve thanks for their sacrifices during a life dedicated to public service. Seventeen years is a long time at any job. Seventeen years as an elected official serving our province is a remarkable accomplishment," said Tim Houston, leader of the Official Opposition Progressive Conservatives.
NDP Leader Gary Burrill said Thursday marked a "historic day."
"I have valued the opportunity to debate Premier McNeil on the issues that matter most to people in our communities. Although we have frequently differed over the path forward for our province, we have enjoyed a relationship of mutual respect."
Once McNeil officially steps down, the 55-year-old will immediately qualify for a $120,000-a-year pension.
McNeil gets a kiss from a supporter at his election night
celebration in Bridgetown, N.S., in 2017. (Andrew Vaughan/The Canadian
Press)
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
---------- Original message ----------
From: "MinFinance / FinanceMin (FIN)" <fin.minfinance-financemin.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 12:04:25 +0000
Subject: RE: YO Bill.Blair Now that a full Public Inquiry is in order
Methinks people such as Anne McLellan, Ralph Goodale Leanne Fitch,
Allan Carroll, Mark Furey and YOU should testify under oath N'esy Pas?
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
The Department of Finance acknowledges receipt of your electronic
correspondence. Please be assured that we appreciate receiving your
comments.
Due to the evolving COVID-19 situation, we apologize in advance for
any delay in responding to your enquiry. In the meantime, information
on Canada's COVID-19 Economic Response Plan is available on the
Government of Canada website at
www.canada.ca/coronavirus<http
calling 1-800 O Canada (1-800-622-6232) or 1-833-784-4397.
Le ministère des Finances Canada accuse réception de votre courriel.
Nous vous assurons que vos commentaires sont les bienvenus.
En raison de la fluidité de la crise de la COVID-19, il est possible
que nous retardions à vous répondre et nous nous en excusons.
Entre-temps, les informations au sujet du Plan d'intervention
économique du Canada pour répondre à la COVID-19 sont disponibles dans
le site Web du gouvernement du Canada au
www.canada.ca/coronavirus<http
composant le
1-800 O Canada (1-800-622-6232) ou le 1-833-784-4397.
---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 09:04:13 -0300
Subject: YO Bill.Blair Now that a full Public Inquiry is in order
Methinks people such as Anne McLellan, Ralph Goodale Leanne Fitch,
Allan Carroll, Mark Furey and YOU should testify under oath N'esy Pas?
To: Norman Traversy <traversy.n@gmail.com>, CabalCookies
<cabalcookies@protonmail.com>, El.Jones@msvu.ca,
tim@halifaxexaminer.ca, "steve.murphy" <steve.murphy@ctv.ca>,
kevin.leahy@pps-spp.gc.ca, Charles.Murray@gnb.ca, JUSTWEB
<JUSTWEB@novascotia.ca>, AgentMargaritaville@
"Bill.Blair" <Bill.Blair@parl.gc.ca>, "kevin.leahy"
<kevin.leahy@pps-spp.parl.gc.
mlaritcey@bellaliant.com, mla@esmithmccrossinmla.com,
toryrushtonmla@bellaliant.com, kelly@kellyregan.ca,
mla_assistant@alanapaon.com, stephenmcneil@ns.aliantzinc.ca, PREMIER
markfurey.mla@eastlink.ca, claudiachendermla@gmail.com,
FinanceMinister@novascotia.ca, "Bill.Morneau" <Bill.Morneau@canada.ca>
Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>,
kevin.leahy@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>, istayhealthy8@gmail.com,
prmi@eastlink.ca, "PETER.MACKAY" <PETER.MACKAY@bakermckenzie.
"Katie.Telford" <Katie.Telford@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>
---------- Original message ----------
From: Bill.Blair@parl.gc.ca
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 21:48:08 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: RE The "Strike back: Demand an inquiry
Event." Methinks it interesting that Martha Paynter is supported by
the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation N'esy Pas?
To: david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Thank you very much for reaching out to the Office of the Hon. Bill
Blair, Member of Parliament for Scarborough Southwest.
Please be advised that as a health and safety precaution, our
constituency office will not be holding in-person meetings until
further notice. We will continue to provide service during our regular
office hours, both over the phone and via email.
Due to the high volume of emails and calls we are receiving, our
office prioritizes requests on the basis of urgency and in relation to
our role in serving the constituents of Scarborough Southwest. If you
are not a constituent of Scarborough Southwest, please reach out to
your local of Member of Parliament for assistance. To find your local
MP, visit: https://www.ourcommons.ca/
Moreover, at this time, we ask that you please only call our office if
your case is extremely urgent. We are experiencing an extremely high
volume of calls, and will better be able to serve you through email.
Should you have any questions related to COVID-19, please see:
www.canada.ca/coronavirus<http
Thank you again for your message, and we will get back to you as soon
as possible.
Best,
MP Staff to the Hon. Bill Blair
Parliament Hill: 613-995-0284
Constituency Office: 416-261-8613
bill.blair@parl.gc.ca<mailto:b
**
Merci beaucoup d'avoir pris contact avec le bureau de l'Honorable Bill
Blair, D?put? de Scarborough-Sud-Ouest.
Veuillez noter que par mesure de pr?caution en mati?re de sant? et de
s?curit?, notre bureau de circonscription ne tiendra pas de r?unions
en personne jusqu'? nouvel ordre. Nous continuerons ? fournir des
services pendant nos heures de bureau habituelles, tant par t?l?phone
que par courrier ?lectronique.
En raison du volume ?lev? de courriels que nous recevons, notre bureau
classe les demandes par ordre de priorit? en fonction de leur urgence
et de notre r?le dans le service aux ?lecteurs de Scarborough
Sud-Ouest. Si vous n'?tes pas un ?lecteur de Scarborough Sud-Ouest,
veuillez contacter votre d?put? local pour obtenir de l'aide. Pour
trouver votre d?put? local, visitez le
site:https://www.noscommunes.
En outre, nous vous demandons de ne t?l?phoner ? notre bureau que si
votre cas est extr?mement urgent. Nous recevons un volume d'appels
extr?mement ?lev? et nous serons mieux ? m?me de vous servir par
courrier ?lectronique.
Si vous avez des questions concernant COVID-19, veuillez consulter le
site : http://www.canada.ca/le-
Merci encore pour votre message, et nous vous r?pondrons d?s que possible.
Cordialement,
Personnel du D?put? de l'Honorable Bill Blair
Colline du Parlement : 613-995-0284
Bureau de Circonscription : 416-261-8613
bill.blair@parl.gc.ca<mailto:b
< mailto:bill.blair@parl.gc.ca>
After backlash, governments agree to hold public inquiry into Nova
Scotia shooting
By Alexander Quon & Elizabeth McSheffrey Global News
Posted July 28, 2020 10:42 am
WATCH: The federal government is now proceeding with a public inquiry
into the Nova Scotia massacre that left 22 innocent people dead in
April. Elizabeth McSheffrey looks at why Ottawa is changing paths now,
and what the inquiry has the power to do.
The decision to hold a review into the mass killing in April that
resulted in the deaths of 22 people in Nova Scotia took three months
to arrange. In less than a week the decision has been undone after a
massive wave of public backlash.
Federal Public Safety Minister Bill Blair announced on Tuesday a
public inquiry will be held into the mass shooting that began in
Portapique, N.S. on April 18 and came to an end nearly 100 km away, 13
hours later.
“The Government of Canada is now proceeding with a full Public
Inquiry, under the authority of the Inquiries Act,” said Blair in a
statement.
---------- Original message ----------
From: Allan Carroll <allan.carroll@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 18:14:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Trust that Murray Segal's appointment to whitewash the
Rehteah Parsons matter did not surprise me after the meail I sent this
weekend (AOL)
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
I will be AOL commencing July 27, 2013 and returning on August 13,
2013. Cpl David Baldwin of Amherst Det will be assuming my duties
during my absence. Should you require immediate assistance, please
contact the main Amherst office number at 902-667-3859.
For inquiries about the Crisis Negotiation Team, please contact
Sgt.Royce MacRae at 902-720-5426 (w) or 902-471-8776 (c)
---------- Original message ----------
From: "Fitch, Leanne" <leanne.fitch@fredericton.ca>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 14:05:24 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Re Federal Court file no T-1557-15 Now this
is interesting As soon as Brad Wall got reelected as Premier he began
blocking my email Go Figure EH David Drummond???
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Due to a very high volume of incoming email to this account there is
an unusual backlog of pending responses. Your query may not be repleid
to in a timely fashion. If you require a formal response please send
your query in writing to my attention c/o Fredericton Police Force,
311 Queen St, Fredericton, NB E3B 1B1 or phone (506) 460-2300.
This e-mail communication (including any or all attachments) is
intended only for the use of the person or entity to which it is
addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If
you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, any use, review,
retransmission, distribution, dissemination, copying, printing, or
other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this e-mail, is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
contact the sender and delete the original and any copy of this e-mail
and any printout thereof, immediately. Your co-operation is
appreciated.
Any correspondence with elected officials, employees, or other agents
of the City of Fredericton may be subject to disclosure under the
provisions of the Province of New Brunswick Right to Information and
Protection of Privacy Act.
Le présent courriel (y compris toute pièce jointe) s'adresse
uniquement à son destinataire, qu'il soit une personne ou un
organisme, et pourrait comporter des renseignements privilégiés ou
confidentiels. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire du courriel, il est
interdit d'utiliser, de revoir, de retransmettre, de distribuer, de
disséminer, de copier ou d'imprimer ce courriel, d'agir en vous y
fiant ou de vous en servir de toute autre façon. Si vous avez reçu le
présent courriel par erreur, prière de communiquer avec l'expéditeur
et d'éliminer l'original du courriel, ainsi que toute copie
électronique ou imprimée de celui-ci, immédiatement. Nous sommes
reconnaissants de votre collaboration.
Toute correspondance entre ou avec les employés ou les élus de la
Ville de Fredericton pourrait être divulguée conformément aux
dispositions de la Loi sur le droit à l’information et la protection
de la vie privée.
GOV-OP-073
---------- Original message ----------
From: "Hon.Ralph.Goodale (PS/SP)" <Hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 16:39:00 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Methinks this afternoon Harjit Sajjan and
his minions should go to Federal Court pull my file (T-1557-15) from
the docket then read statement 83 real slow N'esy Pas?
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Merci d'avoir ?crit ? l'honorable Ralph Goodale, ministre de la
S?curit? publique et de la Protection civile.
En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de la correspondance
adress?e au ministre, veuillez prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir un
retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Soyez assur? que votre
message sera examin? avec attention.
Merci!
L'Unit? de la correspondance minist?rielle
S?curit? publique Canada
*********
Thank you for writing to the Honourable Ralph Goodale, Minister of
Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.
Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence
addressed to the Minister, please note there could be a delay in
processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be
carefully reviewed.
Thank you!
Ministerial Correspondence Unit
Public Safety Canada
---------- Original message ----------
From: "Fitch, Leanne" <leanne.fitch@fredericton.ca>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 16:38:59 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Methinks this afternoon Harjit Sajjan and
his minions should go to Federal Court pull my file (T-1557-15) from
the docket then read statement 83 real slow N'esy Pas?
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Due to a very high volume of incoming email to this account there is
an unusual backlog of pending responses. Your message may not be
responded to in a timely fashion. If you require a formal response
please send your query in writing to my attention c/o Fredericton
Police Force, 311 Queen St, Fredericton, NB E3B 1B1 or phone (506)
460-2300. If this is an emergency related to public safety please call
911.
En raison du grand nombre de courriels que reçoit cette messagerie, il
se peut qu’une réponse tarde un peu à venir. Si vous avez besoin d'une
réponse officielle, veuillez envoyer votre demande par écrit à mon
attention aux soins (a/s) de la Force policière de Fredericton 311,
rue Queen, Fredericton, NB E3B 1B1, ou composer le 506 460-2300.
S'il s'agit d'une urgence de sécurité publique, faites le 911.
This e-mail communication (including any or all attachments) is
intended only for the use of the person or entity to which it is
addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If
you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, any use, review,
retransmission, distribution, dissemination, copying, printing, or
other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this e-mail, is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
contact the sender and delete the original and any copy of this e-mail
and any printout thereof, immediately. Your co-operation is
appreciated.
Any correspondence with elected officials, employees, or other agents
of the City of Fredericton may be subject to disclosure under the
provisions of the Province of New Brunswick Right to Information and
Protection of Privacy Act.
Le présent courriel (y compris toute pièce jointe) s'adresse
uniquement à son destinataire, qu'il soit une personne ou un
organisme, et pourrait comporter des renseignements privilégiés ou
confidentiels. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire du courriel, il est
interdit d'utiliser, de revoir, de retransmettre, de distribuer, de
disséminer, de copier ou d'imprimer ce courriel, d'agir en vous y
fiant ou de vous en servir de toute autre façon. Si vous avez reçu le
présent courriel par erreur, prière de communiquer avec l'expéditeur
et d'éliminer l'original du courriel, ainsi que toute copie
électronique ou imprimée de celui-ci, immédiatement. Nous sommes
reconnaissants de votre collaboration.
Toute correspondance entre ou avec les employés ou les élus de la
Ville de Fredericton pourrait être divulguée conformément aux
dispositions de la Loi sur le droit à l’information et la protection
de la vie privée.
GOV-OP-073
https://davidraymondamos3.
Friday, 18 September 2015
David Raymond Amos Versus The Crown T-1557-15
Court File No. T-1557-15
FEDERAL COURT
BETWEEN:
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
Plaintiff
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
The Parties
1. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crown) is Elizabeth II, the Queen of
England, the Protector of the Faith of the Church of England, the
longest reigning monarch of the United Kingdom and one of the
wealthiest persons in the world. Canada pays homage to the Queen
because she remained the Head of State and the Chief Executive Officer
of Canada after the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.) 1982, c. 11 came into force
on April 17, 1982. The standing of the Queen in Canada was explained
within the 2002 Annual Report FORM 18-K filed by Canada with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). It states as
follows:
“The executive power of the federal Government is vested in the
Queen, represented by the Governor General, whose powers are exercised
on the advice of the federal Cabinet, which is responsible to the
House of Commons. The legislative branch at the federal level,
Parliament, consists of the Crown, the Senate and the House of
Commons.”
“The executive power in each province is vested in the Lieutenant
Governor, appointed by the Governor General on the advice of the
federal Cabinet. The Lieutenant Governor’s powers are exercised on the
advice of the provincial cabinet, which is responsible to the
legislative assembly. Each provincial legislature is composed of a
Lieutenant Governor and a legislative assembly made up of members
elected for a period of five years.”
2. Her Majesty the Queen is the named defendant pursuant to
sections 23(1) and 36 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act. Some
of the state actors whose duties and actions are at issue in this
action are the Prime Minister, Premiers, Governor General, Lieutenant
Governors, members of the Canadian Forces (CF), and Royal Canadian
Mounted Police (RCMP), federal and provincial Ministers of Public
Safety, Ministers of Justice, Ministers of Finance, Speakers, Clerks,
Sergeants-at-Arms and any other person acting as Aide-de-Camp
providing security within and around the House of Commons, the
legislative assemblies or acting as security for other federal,
provincial and municipal properties.
3. Her Majesty the Queen’s servants the RCMP whose mandate is to
serve and protect Canadian citizens and assist in the security of
parliamentary properties and the protection of public officials should
not deny a correspondence from a former Deputy Prime Minister who was
appointed to be Canada’s first Minister of Public Safety in order to
oversee the RCMP and their cohorts. The letter that helped to raise
the ire of a fellow Canadian citizen who had never voted in his life
to run for public office four times thus far is quoted as follows:
“Mr. David R. Amos
Jan 3rd, 2004
153Alvin Avenue
Milton, MA U.S.A. 02186
Dear Mr. Amos
Thank you for your letter of November 19th, 2003, addressed to
my predecessor, the Honourble Wayne Easter, regarding
your safety.
I apologize for the delay in responding.
If you have any concerns about your personal safety, I can only
suggest that you contact the police of local
jurisdiction. In addition, any
evidence of criminal activity should be brought to
their attention since the
police are in the best position to evaluate the
information and take action
as deemed appropriate.
I trust that this information is satisfactory.
Yours sincerely
A. Anne McLellan”
4. DAVID RAYMOND AMOS (Plaintiff), a Canadian Citizen and the
first Chief of the Amos Clan, was born in Sackville, New Brunswick
(NB) on July 17th, 1952.
5. The Plaintiff claims standing in this action as a citizen
whose human rights and democratic interests are to be protected by due
performance of the obligations of Canada’s public officials who are
either elected or appointed and all servants of the Crown whose
mandate is to secure the public safety, protect public interests and
to uphold and enforce the rule of law. The Crown affirms his right to
seek relief for offences to his rights under section 24(1) of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter). Paragraphs 6 to 13
explain the delay in bringing this action before Federal Court and
paragraphs 25 to 88 explain this matter.
6. The Plaintiff states that pursuant to the democratic rights
found in Section 3 of the Charter he was a candidate in the elections
of the membership of the 38th and 39th Parliaments in the House of
Commons and a candidate in the elections of the memberships of the
legislative assemblies in Nova Scotia (NS) and NB in 2006.
7. The Plaintiff states that if he is successful in finding a
Chartered Accountant to audit his records as per the rules of
Elections Canada, he will attempt to become a candidate in the
election of the membership of the 42nd Parliament.
8. The Plaintiff states that beginning in January of 2002, he
made many members of the RCMP and many members of the corporate media
including employees of a Crown Corporation, the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation (CBC) well aware of the reason why he planned to return to
Canada and become a candidate in the next federal election. In May of
2004, all members seated in the 37th Parliament before the writ was
dropped for the election of the 38th Parliament and several members of
the legislative assemblies of NB and Newfoundland and Labrador (NL)
knew the reason is the ongoing rampant public corruption. Evidence of
the Plaintiff’s concerns can be found within his documents that the
Office of the Governor General acknowledged were in its possession ten
years ago before the Speech from the Throne in 2004. The Governor
General’s letter is as follows:
“September 11th, 2004
Dear Mr. Amos,
On behalf of Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne
Clarkson,
I acknowledge receipt of two sets of documents and CD
regarding corruption,
one received from you directly, and the other forwarded to
us by the Office of
the Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick.
I regret to inform you that the Governor
General cannot intervene in
matters that are the responsibility of elected officials
and courts of Justice of
Canada. You already contacted the various provincial
authorities regarding
your concerns, and these were the appropriate steps to take.
Yours sincerely.
Renee
Blanchet
Office
of the Secretary
to the
Governor General”
9. The Plaintiff states that the documents contain proof that the
Crown by way of the RCMP and the Minister of Public Safety/Deputy
Prime Minister knew that he was the whistleblower offering his
assistance to Maher Arar and his lawyers in the USA. The Governor
General acknowledged his concerns about the subject of this complaint
and affirmed that the proper provincial authorities were contacted but
ignored the Plaintiff’s faxes and email to the RCMP and the Solicitor
General in November of 2003 and his tracked US Mail to the Solicitor
General and the Commissioner of the RCMP by way of the Department of
Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) in December of 2003
and the response he received from the Minister of Public Safety/Deputy
Prime Minister in early 2004. One document was irrefutable proof that
there was no need whatsoever to create a Commission of Inquiry into
Maher Arar concerns at about the same point in time. That document is
a letter from the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office
Inspector General (OIG complaint no. C04-01448) admitting contact with
his office on November 21, 2003 within days of the Plaintiff talking
to the office of Canada’s Solicitor General while he met with the US
Attorney General and one day after the former Attorney General of New
York (NY) and the former General Counsel of the SEC testified at a
public hearing before the US Senate Banking Committee about
investigations of the mutual fund industry.
10. The Plaintiff states that another document that the Plaintiff
received during the election of the 39th Parliament further supported
the fact he was a whistleblower about financial crimes. In December of
2006 a member of the RCMP was ethical enough to admit that he
understood the Plaintiff’s concerns and forwarded his response to the
acting Commissioner of the RCMP and others including a NB Cabinet
Minister Michael B. Murphy QC. The Crown is well aware that any member
sitting in the last days of the 37th Parliament through to the end of
the 41st Parliament could have stood in the House of Commons and asked
the Speaker if the Crown was aware of the Plaintiff’s actions. All
parliamentarians should have wondered why his concerns and that of Mr.
Arar’s were not heard by a committee within the House of Commons in
early 2004. Instead, the Crown created an expensive Commission to
delay the Arar matter while he sued the governments of Canada and the
USA and his wife ran in the election of the 38th Parliament. In 2007,
Arar received a $10-million settlement from the Crown and the Prime
Minister gave him an official apology yet the US government has never
admitted fault. A month after the writ was dropped for the election of
the 42nd Parliament and CBC is reporting Syrian concerns constantly,
Mr. Arar’s lawyer announced that the RCMP will attempt to extradite a
Syrian intelligence officer because it had laid a charge in absentia
and a Canada-wide warrant and Interpol notice were issued. The
Plaintiff considers such news to be politicking practiced by the
Minister of Public Safety. He noticed the usually outspoken Mr. Arar
made no comment but his politically active wife had lots to say on
CBC. Meanwhile, the RCMP continues to bar a fellow citizen from
parliamentary properties because he exercised the same democratic
rights after he had offered his support to Arar by way of his American
lawyers. The aforementioned letter about financial crimes was from the
Inspector General for Tax Administration in the US Department of the
Treasury. Mr Arar’s lawyers, the RCMP, the Canadian Revenue Agency and
the US Internal Revenue Service still refuse to even admit TIGTA
complaint no. 071-0512-0055-C exists. However, the Commissioner of
Federal Court, the Queen’s Privy Council Office and other agencies
were made well aware of it before the Speech from the Throne in 2006.
11. The Plaintiff states that from June 24, 2004 until the day he
signed this complaint he has diligently tried to resolve the breach of
his rights under the Charter that are the subject of this complaint
with any public official in Canada whom he believed had the mandate or
the ability to request that the Crown investigate and correct the
malicious actions and inactions of the RCMP, Sergeants-at-Arms and
Aides-de-Camp in all jurisdictions. Until June 16, 2006 the Plaintiff
did not have irrefutable proof to support this complaint. Time did not
permit him to address it immediately in Federal Court in 2006 because
his slate was full. For instance on June 16, 2006 while dealing with
deeply troubling private family matters, he was running against the
Attorney General for his seat in the NS provincial election while
arguing members of the RCMP about strange calls he got from someone in
Ottawa who claimed the Department of Public Safety as her client,
dealing with many liberal party members who were about to witness in
Moncton NB the first debate of all those who wished to become their
new leader, assisting a farmer in his attempt to get some authority to
properly investigate the demise of his cattle and discussing with
members of the Saint John NB City Council the actions of a sergeant in
the Saint John Police Force who was calling friends of the Plaintiff
and claiming that he was drug dealing member of a bike gang that they
should stay away from while he was preparing to intervene in pipeline
matter that was about to heard by the National Energy Board in Saint
John .
12. The Plaintiff states that in April of 2007 he wrote a complaint
about this matter and returned to the Capital District of NB in order
to file it and argue the Crown before the Federal Court if it did not
wish to settle. A clerk of this court informed him that his complaint
was not composed correctly, so he began to rewrite this complaint.
However, as soon as it was known what the Plaintiff was about to file
he was subject to further police harassment and his family began to
suffer from constant slander, sexual harassment and death threats on
the Internet and on the telephone that continues to this very day
while the RCMP, the FBI and many other law enforcement authorities
continue to ignored the obvious evidence of cybercrime practiced
against many people including his minor children.
13. The Plaintiff states that the Crown’s only response has been
further harassment by the RCMP including false arrest and imprisonment
and theft of his property by the Fredericton Police Force supported by
other law enforcement authorities in Canada and the USA. The Governor
General has had the Plaintiff’s documents for over ten years to study.
The Crown now has one of the complaints that the RCMP has been
delaying since 2003. It is as follows:
The Complaint
14. The Plaintiff states that on June 24, 2004 during the election of
the membership of the 38th Parliament the Crown breached his right to
peaceful assembly and association under Section 2(c) and (d) of the
Charter. The Sergeant-at-Arms of the Legislative Assembly of NB (a
former member of the RCMP) supported by the Fredericton Police Force
(FPF), the Corps of Commissionaires (COC) and at least one RCMP
officer acting as Aide-de-Camp to the NB Lieutenant Governor barred
the Plaintiff under threat of arrest from the legislative properties
in NB.
15. The Plaintiff states that whereas the Crown refused to put
anything in writing to either confirm or deny that he was in fact
barred from the legislative properties in NB, he returned to the
public property whenever he deemed it necessary to do so as he ran for
public office three more times. For example, when the Plaintiff was a
candidate in the election of the 39th Parliament for the riding of
Fredericton, he was asked to come into the legislative building of NB
to record a live interview for an Atlantic Television (ATV) news cast
shortly before polling day. On that occasion, the Sergeant-at-Arms and
his Aides-de-Camp did not attempt to bar the Plaintiff from access to
legislative property quite possibly because they did not wish their
actions to be recorded by ATV. However, the Crown made matters worse
in short order. CBC barred the Plaintiff from an all-candidates’
debate on the University of New Brunswick (UNB) campus and on polling
day two District Returning Officers on the UNB campus after viewing
identification threatened to have the Plaintiff arrested stating that
they did not believe he was on the ballot.
16. The Plaintiff states that the NB Sergeant-at-Arms continued with
his threat of arrest after the election 39th Parliament. In response,
the Plaintiff challenged the Sergeant-at-Arms to either put his threat
in writing or arrest him so he could at least argue the Crown about
the offences against his rights under the Charter.
17. The Plaintiff states that on June 16th, 2006 he was on a sidewalk
on Queen Street in Fredericton NB waiting for a friend who was meeting
with the Premier of NB and others inside the legislative assembly
building. Within minutes of his arrival the Sergeant-at-Arms and two
members of the FPF marched out of the building and served a signed
document barring him from public places overseen by the Crown because
some unnamed parties found him in ”Contempt of the House”. The
Sergeant-at-Arms then ordered the Plaintiff off legislative property.
When the Plaintiff pointed out that he was not on legislative property
but on a sidewalk on Queen Street, the Sergeant-at-Arms claimed that
his jurisdiction extended to the middle of the street. The two members
of the FPF identified themselves and agreed that if the Plaintiff did
not cross the street they would arrest him.
18. The Plaintiff states that after he crossed Queen Street he took a
photograph of the Sergeant-at-Arms and the FPF marching back into the
building to prove date and time of their malice. He sent a photograph
of their barring notice to many people particularly liberal party
members gathering in Moncton, NB that day to hear a debate by those
who wished to replace the former Prime Minister as their party leader.
It was important to do so because a liberal mandate created the
Charter in 1982 compelling all New Brunswickers including the
Sergeant-at-Arms and the police to abide the law within Canada’s only
bilingual province. Any citizen or public official who understands the
Charter and received a copy of the barring notice should have noticed
the Crown had barred a citizen from the legislative properties in NB
in only one official language. No police officer or politician or
Language Commissioner at either a federal or provincial level ever
responded to any inquiry about that fact. The Sergeant-at-Arms of NB
did acknowledge the receipt of a copy of his barring notice years
later but he did so in French only.
19. The Plaintiff states that the NB Sergeant-at-Arms and his cohorts
in the FPF, RCMP and the COC are well aware that as soon as the
Plaintiff’s friend came out of legislative building on June 16, 2006,
he was given the barring notice to take back inside in order to
inquire about it and the reasons behind it. The COC are clearly named
at the bottom of the document yet the Commissionaires and all the
politicians he encountered that day claimed that they were not allowed
to discuss the barring notice and never would ever since. The
Plaintiff finds that the police, politicians and bureaucrats etc. are
maintaining their oath to the Crown rather than uphold the law and
Sections 2(c) (d), 16(2), 18(2) and 20(2) of the Charter and are
relying on the Crown’s legal counsel to stop him from seeking relief.
20. The Plaintiff states that the RCMP and the members of the FPF who
harassed the Plaintiff in September of 2006 while he was a candidate
in the NB provincial election would not explain why the NB
Sergeant-at-Arms and the COC had barred him with a document written in
English only or why it was not published in the Royal Gazette. Members
of the FPF who violated the Plaintiff’s privacy trying to read an
email that he was composing on a laptop within his car parked on
private property refused to explain why they thought they had the
right do so as they attempted to interrogate him without a warrant or
due process of law. Members of the FPF refused to take the same
documents the RCMP had so that their major crimes unit could finally
investigate after they demanded that the Plaintiff identify himself so
they could check for warrants for his arrest. The FPF would not
discuss what they would do if he returned to the UNB campus or if he
parked a vehicle and put money in a parking meter on the side of Queen
Street claimed by the Sergeant-at-Arms. In February of 2007 after a
Cabinet Minister of NB acknowledged his concerns with the RCMP, his
children took pictures of the Plaintiff standing on the legislative
property and the Sergeant-at-Arms and the FPF did nothing that day.
However, the police harassment got worse afterwards. The FPF tried to
call him a criminal while the Plaintiff waited for answers before he
argued the Crown in court about his property that the FPF had
illegally seized. The text of two emails that the Crown and the FPF
sent in 2007 are as follows:
“Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:02:35 -0400
From: "Murphy, Michael B. \(DH/MS\)" MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca
To: motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com
Subject:
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”
AND
“From: “Lafleur, Lou” lou.lafleur@fredericton.ca
To: motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com,
Subject: Fredericton Police Force
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:21:13 -0300
Dear Mr. Amos
My Name is Lou LaFleur and I am a Detective with the
Fredericton Police Major Crime Unit. I would like to talk to you
regarding files that I am investigating and that you are alleged to
have involvement in.
Please call me at your earliest convenience and leave a
message and a phone number on my secure and confidential line if I am
not in my office.
yours truly,
Cpl. Lou LaFleur
Fredericton Police Force
311 Queen St.
Fredericton, NB
506-460-2332
21. The Plaintiff states that by September of 2007, he was told by
police officers and others that he was barred from the town of
Woodstock, the House of Commons, the National Capital District
including Rideau Hall and the University of Ottawa, the Capital
District of NB including the Lieutenant Governor’s residence and the
University of NB, all other legislative properties in Canada and that
a photograph of him was posted inside the NB legislative building, the
Fredericton airport and at least one mining property guarded by the
Corps of Commissionaires.
22. The Plaintiff states that on or about September 13, 2007 during a
conversation with the office of the Speaker of the House of Commons he
was referred to the Sergeant-at-Arms in order to find out if the
Plaintiff was truly barred from the House of Commons and if he had
been sent an answer to the documentation the Speaker and the
government of Iceland received in May of 2006. The Sergeant-at-Arms
was apparently well aware of his concerns because he said he knew the
Plaintiff from a past life and quickly hung up the telephone. The
Sergeant-at-Arms never did answer the Plaintiff and ignored all his
contacts ever since.
23. The Plaintiff states that the odd response from Sergeant-at-Arms
of the House of Commons caused him to research how they knew each
other. The public record states that in June of 2005 the RCMP officer
acting as Aide-de-Camp to the NB Lieutenant Governor retired and
joined the House of Commons as Director of Security Operations. On
September 1, 2006, he became the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of
Commons. Therefore, because of all three of his positions from June of
2004 to December of 2014, the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Commons
must have agreed and seconded his fellow Sergeant-at-Arms in NB and
his threats to arrest Plaintiff if he reappeared on parliamentary
property.
24. The Plaintiff states that with regards to this complaint about
being illegally barred from parliamentary properties, the most recent
contact from the Crown was the three members of the RCMP who harassed
the Plaintiff at 1:30 AM on December 16, 2014 not long after he had
received an email from a former CSIS agent who is the current
Sergeant-at-Arms of the legislative assembly of Alberta.
The Facts of this Matter
25. The Plaintiff states that on June 24, 2004 within minutes of his
being barred, the Sergeant-at-Arms, two members of the FPF and one
Commissionaire witnessed him deliver a large number of documents to
the attention of two lawyers in the office of the opposition next
door. He suspects that the Sergeant-at-Arms read at least the cover
letter when his documents were in his care because to support his
right to bar a citizen in front two members of the FPF he falsely
accused the Plaintiff of attempting to serve documents while in the
legislative building.
26. The Plaintiff states that within the hour of being barred, the
Plaintiff visited the headquarters of the FPF and attempted to meet
with its Chief in order to discuss the false allegations and the
threat of arrest. Whereas a Corporal denied access to his Chief, the
Plaintiff contacted the City Solicitor of Fredericton because he knew
him personally in younger days. After waiting one week for someone to
get back to him, the Plaintiff visited the constituency office of the
Premier and the law office of a former Premier of NB and gave them
many documents with the same cover letter addressing his concern about
being barred from the legislative properties amongst other issues. One
month later the Attorney General of NB sent an answer similar to what
the Deputy Prime Minister sent eight months earlier telling him to
take up his concerns with the police and ignored the issue of a
citizen being barred and threatened by the police. A lawyer acting as
the NB Ombudsman did not wish deal with the government on his behalf
suggested that the Plaintiff take up his concerns with the New
Brunswick Police Commission (NBPC) and introduced them. The Plaintiff,
his wife and a lawyer met with the NBPC. The NBPC acknowledged the
complaint and asked the FPF to investigate their questionable actions.
In the eleven years since the NBPC never responded and the Plaintiff
knows why. The NBPC and Governor General have many of his documents
and one is a letter to the Commissioner of the RCMP. The Plaintiff is
well aware the Chair of the NBPC in 2004 was also the Chief Coroner
whom he testified before on July 15, 1982 and he clearly informed the
Crown he assisted in a successful civil lawsuit against the RCMP about
a wrongful death.
27. The Plaintiff states that the Sergeant-at-Arms, two
Commissionaires, a librarian, and two members of the FPF knew that the
Plaintiff was in legislative assembly on June 24, 2004 looking for the
“blogger” Charles Leblanc. While the Plaintiff was waiting for
Charles Leblanc to arrive that day he exercised his democratic right
to witness the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly from the
gallery.
28. The Plaintiff states that apparently a friend of the Crown put a
new spin on this matter the following day. The Crown’s corporate media
has never said anything about the Crown’s malicious actions barring
him it has had lots to say about the barring the blogger Charles
Leblanc two years later and it has made the arrests and prosecutions
of him well known. On June 25, 2004 Charles Leblanc a well-known
friend of the MLAs, the Sergeant-at-Arms, the Commissionaires, the
RCMP and the Fredericton Police Force falsely reported in the social
media that the Plaintiff had been “shown the door” claiming that he
had attempted to interrupt the proceedings in the Legislature by
speaking from the gallery. The Crown knows if that were true it would
have been recorded in the legislative records. The words of Charles
Leblanc an important witness to be called to testify as to what he
knows about this matter are as follows
“IS ELVY ROBICHAID SEEING THE LIGHT????
by Charles LeBlanc Friday, Jun. 25, 2004 at 10:56 AM
Fredericton updates from Charles
“There’s always undercovers cops around but only when the House is in
session. As God as my witness I hope nothing happens but it’s just a
matter of time till someone is push over the edge. I guess a guy name
David Amos was shown the door yesterday at the Legislature. This guy
is running as an Independent candidate in the riding of Fundy Royal. I
met the guy over the net and he has a beef with our political
bureaucrats. I admire people fighting for what they believe in but you
can’t get carried away. I guess in this case? He wanted to speak from
the Gallery and that’s a big faux pas!”
29. The Plaintiff states that he was not surprised that for the
benefit of his political opponents, servants of the Crown would
practice such malice against a citizen seeking public office. Three
weeks before the Plaintiff was barred in 2004 Elections Canada’s
lawyers waited until the very last minute to admit that section 3 of
the Charter existed and that it affirmed his right to run as an
Independent.
30. The Plaintiff states that he has studied the actions of
journalists, politicians and their lawyers for many years and has
argued many. He has no doubt that during the time of a federal
election the Crown would not have barred any member of a wealthy well
known political party from any parliamentary property in Canada
without dealing with a Charter argument in court and a host of
journalists almost immediately. With that in mind the Plaintiff
gathered the evidence to support this claim and waited until the CBC
reported that the Prime Minister had asked the Governor General to
drop a writ. Now history tells us all that the writ has been dropped
early in order for the Prime Minister to cause the most expensive and
one of the longest federal elections in the history of Canada on a
date mandated by a law that his wealthy political party created for
its benefit. Now that the stock markets are in a turmoil again the
Office of the Inspector General of the SEC is acknowledging the
Plaintiff’s emails but only after they were made aware that he
received an ethical answer from a global organization that oversees
auditors. Recent events have proven to the Plaintiff that it is
important that he file this action in Federal Court as soon as
possible in order see if the Harer government wishes to continue
barring him from parliamentary property before polling day.
31. The Plaintiff states that during the election of the 38th
Parliament not one of the employees of the CBC denied the fact that it
had acted in a deliberate partisan fashion and ignored the Crown
Corporation’s mandate. CBC reported that there were five candidates on
the ballot in Fundy but failed to name the Plaintiff in their website
or on the television and the radio. Nothing surprised the Plaintiff
about the actions of the CBC but they should not have laughed at him
when he pointed out other citizens should be afforded equal
opportunity to hear of him.
32. The Plaintiff states that many politicians knew that the CBC had
hard copy of two lawsuits of his since 2002 and their journalists had
been laughing at him for two years. It was a profound mistake for CBC
to ignore his candidacy now that he did as he promised in a statement
of one lawsuit and was running for public office in Canada. As CBC
continued serving the interests of the politicians who provided the
funding sourced from the Canadian taxpayer other citizens noticed that
the CBC was ignoring his candidacy. One journalist who had laughed at
him called back and tried to make a deal after the Plaintiff had
called the Ombudsman for CBC complaining of him and his associates
only to be laughed at some more and invited to sue CBC. CBC continued
to ignore the Plaintiff even though the popular former CBC reporter
Mike Duffy was now employed by their largest corporate competitor, CTV
and they claimed Fundy was a riding to watch and at least three
newspapers and even the CBC’s blogger friend Charles Leblanc had
chosen to put his strange spin the actions and words of the Plaintiff
while calling him a Hells Angel. However, the aforementioned CBC
journalist did not keep his job very long after his boss and three
directors of CBC received the very same documents and CD that the
Plaintiff’s political opponents had in their possession. (The former
CBC journalist did get a job with the government of NB and has
continued with his obvious malice ever since)
33. The Plaintiff states that the CBC would not have ignored its
mandate and the standing of a candidate if he or she were a member of
the Liberal Party or the newly merged Conservative parties or the Bloc
Quebecois Party or the Green Party or the New Democratic Party without
expecting to deal with legions of lawyers. CBC had no legal right
whatsoever to ignore the Plaintiff merely because he was an
Independent. In fact the mandate of CBC as a publicly owned
broadcaster dictates that he must not be ignored whether he be a
member of a powerful political party or not. With regards to this
complaint, on June 24, 2004 there were many journalists inside the
legislative properties of NB not just CBC. They published nothing
about the Plaintiff of his running for public office or his being
barred or even after their blogger friend, Charles Leblanc certainly
did.
34. The Plaintiff states that in June of 2006 Charles Leblanc was
also barred from the same legislative properties but not the Public
Documents Building on the UNB campus. More importantly the
Sergeant-at-Arms was clever enough not to sign or date the English
only document this time. Thus Charles Leblanc who usually demands
things in French from the government when he is in trouble was never
barred at all. The CBC immediately reported the barring of Charles
Leblanc falsely claiming that the Sergeant-at-Arms had signed the
Barring Notice. CBC wrote the Sergeant-at-Arms admitted that he had
barred about six others but did not disclose as to who they were. CBC
did not ask who who the other citizens were because they knew they
would have to name the Plaintiff as well. Many people have protested
the barring of Charles Leblanc and a petition to have it revoked was
placed in the public record of the legislative assembly to no avail.
In 2006 Charles Leblanc was arrested in Saint John and in 2011 in
Fredericton. In 2009 and 2012 the FPF arrested their blogging friend
Charles Leblanc on the legislative properties. The CBC reported each
time but failed to follow up and investigate and report why the Crown
refused to charge Charles Leblanc in both instances. The CBC knows
that as soon as the Plaintiff contacted the politicians and police to
remind them that he would appreciate being called to testify at
Charles Leblanc’s trial as a hostile but ethical witness about the
barring actions of the Crown it would never go forward with the
charges. Leblanc was arrested by the FPF two other times in recent
years and he is on trial right now. The CBC knows the Plaintiff has
talked to members of the RCMP, the FPF, the Saint John Police Force,
the Miramichi Police Force and the Edmundston Police Force who were
investigating Leblanc for various reasons since 2006. The police
usually denied knowing who the Plaintiff was as they refused to answer
his emails. The Plaintiff knows the reason why Charles Leblanc was
barred from legislative property. He agrees with the Crown doing so
but it failed to allow the nasty blogger the right to due process of
law just like it did with and several others. He has never understood
why the Crown has not charged Leblanc under sections 300 and 319 of
the Criminal Code in lieu of arresting him for protesting too loudly
or possible child porn or trespass or punching an equally nasty poetic
beggar.
35. The Plaintiff states that by the end of November of 2004 a lawyer
in the employ of the Attorney General of NB had answered him in
writing and the FPF, two lawyers, the Mayor and a city councilor of
Fredericton had some very serious email exchanges with the Plaintiff.
The only responses to the Plaintiff about the breach of his right to
peaceful assembly came from the (NBPC) on September 14, 2004
acknowledging his complaint (File no 2110-04-11) and two letters byway
of email from the FPF. On September 30, 2004 a Staff Sergeant of the
FPF wrote that he was in possession of the complaint and requested
evidence to support the Plaintiff’s statement that he had been barred
from the legislative properties for “political reasons not legal
reasons” The Plaintiff responded and suggested that the FPF listen to
the tape of the interview he had with the NBPC and study all the
evidence he gave to the NBPC in the presence of a lawyer as a witness.
The Staff Sergeant responded on October 29, 2004 stating that he had
detailed reports from fellow members of the FPF and he had interviewed
the Sergeant-at-Arms. He claimed that his fellow police officers acted
appropriately and he would inform the Chief of the FPF that he did not
have sufficient cause under the Police Act to investigate the
complaint the Plaintiff registered with the NBPC against the FPF. The
Plaintiff pointed out that the conflict of interest but grateful the
FPF acknowledged the incident. The Mayor of Fredericton found no
humour in that fact and sent the Plaintiff many emails within minutes
no doubt in an effort to overload his email account. In 2003 the
Plaintiff had demanded the Crown investigate the actions of RCMP now
the RCMP should do the same with the Crown because that para-military
police force has jurisdiction everywhere in Canada including all
public and private property controlled by the Crown even military
bases. The words of the Sergeant-at-Arms, Commissionaires and police
were witnessed by only the Plaintiff. A legal action about their
offences against his rights under the Charter would boil down to their
word against his. Evidence was required because he was outnumbered and
attacked by people the Crown employed to understand the law. It was
doubtful they would act ethically and until June 16, 2006 the Crown
refused to put anything in writing to prove this claim about the fact
that the Plaintiff is barred from parliamentary properties.
36. The Plaintiff states that the Crown is aware that far greater
offences have been practiced within the Capital District of NB by the
FPF and the RCMP against the Plaintiff. Many servants of the Crown
have challenged him to seek relief in a Canadian provincial court. The
Plaintiff will not oblige Crown attorneys of thier desires he will
file in a court of a country at a time he chooses. Time is on the
Plaintiff’s side even though he getting old and was finally allowed to
collect his Canada Pension. His children and grandchildren are still
very young. Whatever was done against the Plaintiff was done against
his Clan as well. All of the Plaintiff’s heirs are Canadian citizens
and two of them are American citizens as well. The Crown, INTERPOL and
the American law enforcement authorities cannot deny that there is no
statute of limitations on certain crimes. The problem the Plaintiff is
finding an ethical journalist to report about the legal actions that
he and the Crown have already been involved in since 1982.
37. The Plaintiff states that in October of 2004 if the Staff
Sergeant of the FPF had listened to the tape of his interview with the
NBPC and studied the documents they have in their possession he would
not have been so quick to dismiss the Plaintiff and his concerns in
such a fashion. Their many lawyers hardly ever allow corrupt police
officers to admit that the Plaintiff exists or put their malice
towards him in writing. The Plaintiff had explained to the NBPC what
transpired on June 24th, 2004. To explain briefly the police should
have known instantly the Sergeant-at-Arms actions were for political
reasons as soon as he turned in the guest pass and picked up his
documents as he stepped outside the building. While the Plaintiff was
inside the legislative building he spoke to only three employees two
Commissionaires and the librarian. He did not interfere with the
proceedings in the House as he watched the MLAs and their assistants
from the gallery, some of whom he knew personally. He did notice
political pundits in the building. One Cabinet Minister’s assistant
had been following him for a couple of days. His political foes wanted
him off the property immediately but they knew that he was not shy of
litigation if the Crown attempted to place a malicious charge against
him. Therefore they elected the Sergeant-at-Arms to try bully the
Plaintiff.
38. The Plaintiff states that he satisfied himself as to the reasons
behind the blatant malice once he asked Sergeant-at-Arms and the
police three questions as follows:
(1) The Plaintiff first asked was why he was being barred from the
legislative property. The Sergeant-at-Arms falsely claimed in front of
the police that the Plaintiff had tried to serve documents on somebody
inside the parliamentary building. The Commissionaires and police knew
that was untrue because they all witnessed the fact that the Plaintiff
had left all the documents in his possession with the Commissionaire
at the entrance before he was allowed into the building and they all
watched him pick up the same documents as he turned in a visitor’s
pass after he was asked to step outside of the building.
(2) The second question was to the police to see if they agreed to
the false claim of the Sergeant-at-Arms and if they would identify
themselves. After the Sergeant-at-Arms said something quickly in
French and both police officers stated that they agreed with him but
only one would state his name and rank.
(3) The Plaintiff then asked the Sergeant-at-Arms and the police
if they thought they had jurisdiction over him. They all said yes but
refused to take any documents from the Plaintiff just as the Deputy
Prime Minister suggested.
39. The Plaintiff states that three people who were mentioned during
the aforesaid meeting with the NBPC were Charles Leblanc, Byron Prior
and the most wanted American gangster Whitey Bulger. All three were
well aware of the Plaintiff and his actions. More importantly the NBPC
were made well aware of the RCMP’s knowledge of his possession of many
American police surveillance wiretap tapes. The NBPC were shown the
very same tapes that he had promised to give to the Suffolk County
District Attorney in the Dorchester District Court of Boston
Massachusetts before a hearing to discuss an illegal summons to answer
a malicious unsigned criminal complaint (Docket no. 0407CR004623).
When the Plaintiff did so he was falsely imprisoned under the charges
of “other”.
40. The Plaintiff states that an NBPC Commissioner did ask if they
should take the original wiretap tapes. The Plaintiff said no and that
the RCMP already had some but the NBPC could make copies of the ones
before them. The NBPC declined and said they did not have jurisdiction
over the RCMP and that they only wished to investigate why the FPF had
threatened to arrest him on June 24th, 2004.
41. The Plaintiff states that read a few legal actions involving the
NBPC. He truly believes that NBPC has a mandate to oversee the actions
of the RCMP in the employ of municipalities and the government of NB.
On April 12, 2013 an employee denied that the NBPC it has any concerns
with the RCMP, so he forwarded the NBPC a judgment with an important
statement. Whenever he called the NBPC afterwards she did not allow
him to speak to anyone and denied receiving any emails even though
several were published on the Internet. The judgment pertains to
Miramichi Agricultural Exhibition Association Ltd. v. Chatham (Town)
1995 CanLII 3862 (NB QB). The statement reads as follows:
“Section 20 of the Police Act authorizes the Police Commission to
assess the adequacy of each police force and the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police and determine whether each municipality and the
Province is discharging its responsibility for the maintenance of an
adequate level of policing.”
42. The Plaintiff states that in 2014 a confidential letter from the
lawyer who is now the chair of the NBPC was published by Charles
Leblanc. Within the aforesaid letter by a lawyer who was an officer in
the Canadian Forces when the Plaintiff was illegally barred in 2004
explained why he and some other unnamed lawyers claimed that the Chief
of the FPF and the NBPC did not have jurisdiction over the legislative
properties in order to investigate the wrongs of the members of FPF
under the Police Act. The lawyers claimed that whereas the police were
acting under the orders of the Sergeant-at-Arms the immunity afforded
them by parliamentary privilege would be undermined if the Chief of
the FPF and the NBPC upheld the law and the Charter.
43. The Plaintiff states that as soon as he read the aforesaid letter
he had a deeper understanding as to why the NBPC and the FPF had
ignored his concerns for ten years and have refused to answer hard
copy or an email or even come to the phone or return a call for ten
years. He did manage to talk the lawyer who wrote the letter. The
lawyer just like another lawyer who was the Chair of the NBPC since
2004 was offended that the Plaintiff would dare to call his law office
instead of the NBPC. They both knew the reason was because every time
he called the NBPC, the Commissioners and their executive directors
were never available. They definitely did not return calls or answer
emails from the Plaintiff. The assistant who had denied receiving any
emails during his last conversation with her in May of 2015 said that
NBPC was never going to talk to him again. It appears the NBPC believe
that parliamentary privileges extend to them as well. Whether or not
that is true the NBPC must agree that the RCMP have no civilian
oversight whatsoever and that it is the only police force that has
jurisdiction to investigate the actions of the Crown on parliamentary
properties, the Canadian Forces and their semi-retired cohorts within
the Corps of Commissionaires. It appears to the Plaintiff that the
NBPC will not investigate the RCMP and in return the RCMP will not
investigate them. However, they do report to the Crown and the Crown
answers to the citizens it purportedly serves and protects.
44. The Plaintiff states that claimed parliamentary privileges of
public officials are not above the rule of law just because some
unnamed lawyers deem it to be so. Some of the privileges
parliamentarians lay claim to cannot be found in the Constitution or
any other Act. They are implied by longstanding parliamentary
traditions and seldom challenged in a court of law.
45. The Plaintiff states that claimed parliamentary privileges must
not be exercised secretly by the Crown against a citizen of an open
and just democracy because he visited parliamentary properties while
exercising his rights under the Charter and attempting to unseat its
political friends. He vividly recalls the last encounter with the
Sergeant-at-Arms that caused the Crown to create a “Barring Notice”.
46. The Plaintiff states that on or about March 24th, 2006 he went to
the Office of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner of NB to give him
the same documents he had promised the Commissioner of Federal
Judicial Affairs, the Clerk of the Privy Council, Independent MP Andre
Arthur, Independent MLA Tanker O’Malley and many others. The
Commissionaire guarding door would not allow him in the building or
take the documents. The Sergeant-at-Arms must have been notified
because he was soon to appear and threatened to have the Plaintiff
arrested again. He asked why this time. The Sergeant-at-Arms said he
had already been warned to stay off legislative property. The
Plaintiff pointed out the fact that he was not on the legislative
property across the street but if the Crown wished to press false
charges against him the police should be called then he would look
forward to arguing the Sergeant-at-Arms in a court of law. The
Sergeant-at-Arms claimed that they were standing on parliamentary
property but did not call the police.
47. The Plaintiff states that he then informed the Sergeant-at-Arms
if he thought he had a legal right to bar a citizen from parliamentary
properties he should have the Crown put the reasons to do so in
writing just like the NBPC had demanded of him when he complained of
the Sergeant-at-Arms and the FPF about their malevolent actions
against him two years before. There was no response from the
Sergeant-at-Arms to that simple statement.
48. The Plaintiff states that he then asked the Sergeant-at-Arms in
front of witnesses if he still thought he had jurisdiction over him on
King Street and the response was yes. So the Plaintiff gave him the
documents and a CD destined for the Conflict of Interest Commissioner
and demanded an answer in writing. The Sergeant-at-Arms took the
documents but refused to sign a receipt for them. He tried to take
picture but the Sergeant-at-Arms crossed King Street and around the
corner too quickly. The Plaintiff received no answer from Conflict of
Interest Commissioner about his concerns. He called and emailed a copy
of the cover letter to the Commissioner’s office to see if it received
his documents and was ignored. The Commissionaire watching that day
knows who took the documents.
49. The Plaintiff states that whereas there was no federal oversight
of the securities exchange business and no civilian oversight of the
RCMP, he took his concerns to the highest officials of each province
who represented their governments and the Crown. By the end of July in
2005, he emailed and called the offices of the Premiers and Lieutenant
Governors eight provinces. The Premier of Alberta did speak to the
Plaintiff after he staged a parade on Wall Street in order to promote
his province and that conversation did not go well. In early August
2005 he met the Alberta Premier’s challenge and included all provinces
in their argument. The Premiers and Lieutenant Governors received by
way of their Attorney General hard copy of many documents and a CD
similar to those acknowledged by the Governor General and the
Lieutenant Governors of NB and NL in 2004. They were sent by
registered US mail (signature required). Since that time not one
Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General or Premier has responded to the
Plaintiff other than the occasional insulting email. Over the past ten
years the offices of the Attorney Generals for Nova Scotia, Manitoba,
Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and Newfoundland admitted on
the telephone that his documents are in their files. However, not one
would person was willing to explain why and who had determined his
communication and evidence did not deserve an answer. The offices of
the Attorney Generals for Canada, Ontario, Quebec and Prince Edward
Island denied having anything from the Plaintiff. Those offices could
not explain how registered mail sent signature required to their boss
could get lost. Ten years later several provinces are attempting to
join with the other provinces to oversee the securities exchange
business through one corporation. The Crown must admit that corruption
can be the only reason why all the Attorney Generals in Canada would
continue to ignore a Canadian whistleblower’s documents that employees
and Inspector Generals of the US Treasury Dept. and agents of the
Crown in the United Kingdom have acknowledged beginning in January of
2002. All of the Attorney Generals of Canada should have noticed that
the Plaintiff was capable of creating and arguing lawsuits against the
Attorney General of Massachusetts and embarrassing the US Attorney
when he attempted to make the complaints illegally evaporate “Ex
Parte”. This complaint proves this statement is true.
50. The Plaintiff states that he has had many conversations with many
Canadian law enforcement authorities etc. about his documentation etc.
and he was usually the one to make first contact. However, in 2008 he
was rather surprised when the office of the Auditor General of Canada
called him on their own accord not long after he had received a
response from the Commission of Public Sector Integrity to a complaint
he made in 2007. The person who called was very elusive about the
reason the Auditor General was contacting him but he gathered from the
brief conversation someone was talking to the Commission of Public
Sector Integrity. So he called the lawyer who just sent him the very
strange response to see if she had changed her mind. She recognized
the Plaintiff voice even though it had been six months since they had
talked and asked him to hold the line. Thus the Plaintiff surmised she
was expecting his call. Apparently she was because the Plaintiff was
surprised once again when a man who would not identify himself came on
the line claiming to be corporate security and threatened to have him
arrested if the Plaintiff ever called their Commission again. The
Plaintiff was not surprised to hear in late 2010 that the Auditor
General had been auditing the Commission of Public Sector Integrity.
The Plaintiff contacted the person in charge of the Freedom of
Information to see if the Auditor General had his complaint. He was
not surprised to see the Office of Auditor General claim that they did
not have his file. What surprised him was the fact that Auditor
General dared to deny it in writing.
51. The Plaintiff states that the Crown is well aware that the last
responses that he received from the Office of the Auditor General, the
Privy Council Office, the Commission of Public Complaints Against the
RCMP, the Commission of Public Sector Integrity and actions of the
RCMP against the Plaintiff in 2014 and 2015 have caused him quit
looking for ethical conduct to come from anyone employed in the public
service of Canada. In March of 2015 byway of an ethical lawyer in
British Columbia the Plaintiff, the Commissioner of the RCMP and his
legal department that whereas the RCMP has refused to investigate
itself then it should at least stop harassing his family and wait to
this lawsuit and his next one.
52. The Plaintiff states that from July of 1982 until July of 2008
the wrongful actions of the Crown and its cohorts against him were
usually covert and very difficult to prove because it typically
involved the word of the several police officers against his alone.
The Crown should have noticed that amongst the documents that the
Plaintiff provided it in 2004 there are two documents from the
Attorney General of NY. One document was labeled “Re corruption”
(reference no. 04/000233). The Plaintiff forwarded the Attorney
General of Canada amongst others emails containing his recent
communications in 2015 with the Attorney General of NY about that
file. The Crown should be aware that the Attorney General of NY in
2004 became the Governor of NY and that he was arrested by the FBI in
2008 while he was outside of his jurisdiction in the US Capital but
never prosecuted for any offence. The RCMP falsely arrested the
Plaintiff when he returned to the Capital District of NB shortly
afterwards. The RCMP practiced their wrongs on private property
without a warrant or due process of law and never placed any charges
against the Plaintiff as well. The downturn of the stock market in NY
within months of both arrests caused a major worldwide recession. On
October 8, 2008 the Plaintiff finally received an answer from the
Prime Minister of Iceland whose Canadian Ambassador received exactly
the same documents the Speaker in the House of Commons received in May
of 2006 that his Sergeant-At- Arms refused to answer. In December of
2008 Bernie Madoff was arrested by the FBI in NY and by March of 2008
the US Attorney in NY and the SEC in Washington admitted in writing
that the Plaintiff was involved in the Madoff matter and that his
documents had been filed under seal and against the Plaintiff’s
wishes. On September 8, 2015, the Office of the Inspector General of
the SEC sent the Plaintiff and email suggesting that the Plaintiff
file a new complaint within their website. The Plaintiff was quick to
inform the SEC and many law enforcement authorities in Canada of his
indignation as the news broke about the possible criminal actions of
KPMG, the very auditors he was complaining of with regards to his
family’s interests and the Madoff matter. The Plaintiff as usual has
been ignored as of this date. However the Plaintiff has noticed a
sudden upturn in visits to websites where his words and work are
published. It is no coincidence.
53. The Plaintiff states that the Crown cannot deny that the Arar
matter proved that the Canadian and American law enforcement
authorities have had an agreement to share their questionable
information and that Canadians do suffer from their unconfirmed
suspicions. The very same law enforcement authorities attacked a
whistleblower when he gave them irrefutable evidence to cause an
investigation of their wrongs. A recent judgment of the Supreme Court
of Canada (SCC), Wakeling v United States of America, 2014 SCC 72,
allows the RCMP to share their surveillance wiretap tapes of Canadian
citizens with Americans. However, the RCMP and the FBI etc. do not
wish to deal with American wiretap tapes of a mob that definitely
practices its crimes across many borders. The lawyer working for the
Plaintiff’s wife in a sincere effort to see justice served sent
several of the original wiretap tapes to a US Senator who was a chair
of the US Judiciary Committee after polling day for the election of
the 39th Parliament. The lawyer did so on or about day the Governor
General witnessed the first Conservative Cabinet Ministers of the
current Canadian government swear an oath to the Crown. The Plaintiff
sent proof of this statement to many members of the 39th Parliament
before a confidence vote on its first budget. An opposition member
acknowledged it but ignored it and only answered in a fashion that his
opinions about sending the Canadian Forces into combat agreed with the
Plaintiff’s.
54. The Plaintiff states that the Crown is well aware that until July
15th, 1982 the Plaintiff held a great respect for her servants in the
RCMP. The Crown cannot deny that he explained the reasons for his
change of mind with regards to the RCMP in his communications to the
Commissioner of the RCMP, the FBI, the US Treasury Department and the
Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT)
amongst many others byway of fax and certified US Mail in November and
December of 2003. As the Plaintiff stated in paragraph 3 his ire was
raised when the Deputy Prime Minister chose to acknowledge his
concerns only after he received acknowledgment of a complaint on file
with the US Department of Homeland Security.
55. The Plaintiff states that he knew in September of 2004 that the
Crown and the Americans were never going to uphold the law in regards
to his concerns as he saw his tracked US Mail to DFAIT being forwarded
elsewhere and his tracked mail to the RCMP evaporated from the Canada
Post records. Furthermore his home phone line was cut right after
Byron Prior notified him he was being much harassed and his American
lawyer Barry Bachrach called to say that recent actions of the FBI and
others had frightened him and that for the benefit of his family he
was staying away from the Plaintiff and not going to court with on
October 1, 2004. The Plaintiff expecting foul play prepared his wife
to notify his Septs who held his Durable Power of Attorney and to
visit Josie Maguire, the same person in the Canadian Consulate in
Boston whom he sent his documents to on December 16, 2003. On October
1, 2004 a judge acted ethically and recused himself after witnessing
the Plaintiff sign an affidavit and file it in the docket of the court
along with hundreds of supporting documents proving the malicious
prosecution by a layman clerk with no mandate to create a criminal
prosecution. On September 3, 2003, the Plaintiff gave the police
surveillance wiretap tapes that he had shown to the NBPC to the
Suffolk County District Attorney before he stood before a sub
municipal court to demand that it prove jurisdiction to hear a
criminal prosecution involving a prison term and what right did a
clerk have to summon a Canadian citizen across an international border
to answer unknown criminal charges after the Boston Police would not
discuss anything with him and the District Attorney claimed in writing
that they were not involved in the matter. The court then changed its
plan and he was called before another judge who read the affidavit and
immediately sent the Plaintiff to jail held under the charges of
“other” in solitary confinement with no chance of bail. The actions of
the Plaintiff’s wife in Boston and his Septs in Canada caused a member
of the RCMP and Josie Maguire to meet with him inside the American
jail to advise him that they could not help him and because he must
obey the laws of other countries he visits and then gave him an
amazing document signed by a judge that had been faxed to them by the
very clerk who had him falsely imprisoned.
56. The Plaintiff states that in response he thanked the Crown’s
representatives in the USA for the proof of malice and showed them a
faxed copy of the letter from the Governor General dated September 11,
2004 that he had received just before his home phone line was cut. He
informed them that perhaps the Crown should expect a few lawsuits
against it in Canada and the USA then dismissed them.
57. The Plaintiff states that the Crown and the Americans have always
demanded that the Plaintiff keep his interactions in confidence with
the RCMP, the FBI, the US Treasury Dept. and other secretive law
enforcement authorities. The Plaintiff as a whistleblower about
financial crimes proved that he did keep his concerns with the federal
agents in Canada and the USA in confidence until Canada Day 2002 when
he began filing his exhibits supporting two lawsuits in an American
court. He continued to keep in confidence with the FBI the fact that
he was in possession of hundreds of police surveillance wiretap tapes
until April 1, 2003 when the US Secret Service and the Milton Police
Department appeared at his door in the middle of the night with false
allegations of a presidential threat and threatening extraordinary
rendition because the Plaintiff was a foreign national just like Maher
Arar. The Plaintiff called the RCMP headquarters the following day to
inquire if they were informed about the visit the night before by the
Secret Service. Some lady who claimed she was a lawyer said the RCMP
knew all about the Plaintiff. She hung the phone when she was asked if
the RCMP had listened to the police surveillance wiretap tapes he had
given to the FBI. The conversation with the RCMP lawyer caused the
Plaintiff to begin sharing a true copy of only one wiretap tape with
hundreds of members of the bar and other law enforcement authorities
in Canada and the USA. He has received an incredible number of
incompetent responses. He only sent a few of the responses with the
Crown thus far. There are many more.
58. The Plaintiff states that it is important to inform the Federal
Court what is on the CD that the Governor General’s office
acknowledged having two copies of in paragraph 8. It is a true copy of
an American police surveillance wiretap tape.
59. The Plaintiff states that in his opinion he sees no harm in it
being heard in public in Federal Court. He published copies of it in
two American Internet domains in 2008 after the RCMP falsely arrested
him and attempted to have him certified as mentally ill. The actions
of the RCMP caused the Crown to have the problem the American’s have
had since 2004 when they tried the same malicious trick rather than
uphold the law. The problem is that the Plaintiff’s health has no
bearing on irrefutable hard evidence. He should not be in possession
of police surveillance wiretap tapes that offend the civil rights of
many American citizens. With regards to this complaint about being
illegally barred from parliamentary properties, the plaintiff must
point out that the Commissioner of the RCMP and the Minister of Public
Safety knew of the American police surveillance wiretap tapes in 2003.
Furthermore in 2004 the RCMP and a catholic priest had several
original wiretap tapes and the FPF, the NBPC, many members of the bar
and public officials received a true copy of CDs the Governor General
acknowledged before the Plaintiff was falsely imprisoned in the USA.
The aforesaid problem is getting worse because every day more people
around the world are aware of the wiretap tapes and two of the tapes
have been downloaded a number of times by unknown parties. The
Plaintiff cannot take them back even if he wanted to. The public has
always taken far more interest about what is recorded on the wiretap
tapes than his whistleblowing efforts about financial crimes but that
could change anytime. Sooner or later someone will recognize who the
people recorded on the tapes are and it may generate many lawsuits in
the USA without involving the Plaintiff but has many more he has yet
to reveal. The Plaintiff still has a number of wiretap tapes in his
possession and several were stolen by the FPF along with his
motorcycle. Other tapes are scattered about in Canada and the USA with
people he trusts far more than any member of the RCMP or the FBI.
Others tapes are hidden. Many of the wiretap tapes were no longer in
the Plaintiff’s possession for over ten years. He made certain no one
gave him any idea as to where most of the wiretap tapes are hidden but
he secured the proof of the wiretap tapes he had given to the RCMP and
various law enforcement authorities placed in the public record of
American courts and that his former lawyer sent to a US Senator.
60. The Plaintiff states that before he left the USA, the Plaintiff
made the people he trusts far more than any other Yankee promise that
the tapes would surface if his American family were in jeopardy. It
was no longer safe for a family to live with its father in the USA or
Canada, too many corrupt law enforcement authorities and lawyers
working for mobsters knew he had the wiretap tapes. It was not his
fault that his family lost their interests because of the illegal
actions of family lawyers and their friends within the justice system.
The Plaintiff did the best he could in his Clan’s defence of their
homes and interests. He will die with a clear conscience about that
fact. However, he knew if his Clan suffered in any fashion because of
his actions trying to compel the RCMP and FBI to act ethically it
would be his fault because he knew the federal agents in Canada and
the USA were infinitely corrupt since 1982 when they began to call him
a drug dealer etc.
61. The Plaintiff states that he and his wife agree that they should
have moved to Canada as they planned when they wed in 1991 but it was
a common decision to stay put in the USA. Simply put, the wiretap
tapes that put his Clan in jeopardy also offered the only way that a
proud but bankrupt father could protect his Clan in his forced absence
from the people he loves far more than life itself. Eleven years later
quite a number of the Yankee mobsters and their lawyers are now dead
or imprisoned. More importantly, the Plaintiff’s children are now
adults and live separately. The Plaintiff sees no need to keep any of
the wiretap tapes in confidence anymore. After the election of the
42nd Parliament, he will begin publishing more wiretap tapes in the
public domain. He will copyright them and consider them a form of
entertainment about true history of the mob and offer them for sale.
Any settlement of any future lawsuit about his knowledge of financial
crimes and his Clan’s stolen assets will be for their benefit and that
of their children. Their lawyers will need their father’s records in
order to assist them to that end. The Crown must understand that this
complaint is one many actions that are part of his records. The
wiretap tapes insure that there will be no statute of limitations.
With regards to this complaint, the Plaintiff reminds the Crown of
paragraph 48 and the Sergeant-at-Arms took a CD and documents.
62. The Plaintiff states that the Clerk of Federal Court in the
Capital District of NB for reasons he will never understand mailed the
documents back to him instead of mailing them to the Commissioner of
Federal Judicial Affairs who was expecting them. So the Plaintiff
called that Commissioner’s office and then emailed a digital copy of
the cover letter and the clerk’s response and was ignored as well.
63. The Plaintiff states that with regards to this complaint the
Crown should obey Section 18(2) of the Charter and serve the document
in two official languages. The “Barring Notice” should state who, when
and why he was found to be in “Contempt of the House”. The Crown
should not try to intimidate a citizen with a threat of arrest for an
implied breach of a contract about trespass on public property not
agreed to by him. The Crown should have published a proper “Barring
Notice” in the Royal Gazette so that all Canadians could read it
before attempting to arrest and charge any citizen for exercising his
right to freedom of assembly in and around the most important public
properties of all Canada.
64. The Plaintiff states that in 2004 during his research of the
Crown barring citizens from parliamentary property, he found mention
of Louis Riel being barred from the House of Commons despite the fact
he had been democratically elected to the membership therein. However,
the Plaintiff could not find anything within the Charter or the
Constitution Act, 1967 or the Parliament of Canada Act, or the
Criminal Code about how the Crown could take such an action against a
citizen who had not been charged and found guilty with breaking an
applicable law first. He recorded his opinion of the Crown barring
citizens within the cover letters accompanying the documents sent to
the Governor General, the Prime Minister, a Canadian Senator, the Arar
Inquiry, the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, the Premier, Attorney
General, Speaker of the House and Lieutenant Governor of NB, and the
Premier and Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland and Labrador (NL) and
many others. All the public officials ignored the subject of barring.
65. The Plaintiff states that in the summer of 2004 Byron Prior a
Canadian citizen told the Plaintiff that he too was barred under
threat of arrest from the legislative building of NL. Many
parliamentarians knew that the Plaintiff supported Byron Prior’s
pursuit of justice but he did not share his support of two newly
merged federal Conservative parties. In return Byron Prior did not
support his candidacy in the election of the 38th Parliament. They
remained friends until April of 2005. They did not consider Byron
Prior’s barring a coincidence so they decided to include Byron Prior
in the Plaintiff’s matters in order to show their support of each
other’s concerns about justice for their families. The Plaintiff has
monitored Byron Prior’s actions ever since although they are no longer
friends. Byron Prior enjoyed receiving a copy of one response in
particular and he and his associates used copies of some the
Plaintiff’s documents within at least five legal actions.
66. The Plaintiff states that the response from the Lieutenant
Governor of NL is contrary to the opinions of the Deputy Prime
Minister of Canada and the Attorney General of NB. Clearly he believed
that the Attorney General of his province had the power to have crimes
investigated. The text of the letter Crown’s vice regal representative
in NL is as follows:
GOVERNMENT HOUSE
Newfoundland and Labrador
“September 10th, 2004
Dear Mr. Amos:
The Lieutenant Governor has asked me to acknowledge receipt of
your letter dated 2 September, addressed directly to him, the
Honourable Danny Williams, the Honourable John Crosbie and Mr. Brian
Furey. He has asked me to tell you that he has neither the authority
nor the responsibility over matters such as those raised in your
letter and the associated material.
Accordingly at his instructions, I have sent the material to the
Honourable Thomas Marshall, QC, the Attorney General and Minister of
Justice for Newfoundland and Labrador, with the request that he take
whatever further action he considers necessary and appropriate to deal
with it.
Sincerely yours,
Leona Harvey
Secretary to Lieutenant Governor”
67. The Plaintiff states that in 2004 the 37th Parliament and many
others in NB and NL were informed that he knew of Byron Prior and
Charles Leblanc and that he supported their pursuit of justice byway
of the social media. He called his fellow Maritimers after reading
their words about politicians and listened to the reasons why they
were collecting social assistance and could not afford computers. They
did not care about his concerns with politicians but he believed them
and offered his assistance by giving them computers. The Plaintiff
asked that they publish the truth about his actions and to serve
politicians copies of his documents. Leblanc publicly insulted the
Plaintiff after receiving his computer and stole documents he promised
to give to the Attorney General of NB and gave them to his activist
friends instead. Leblanc was asked why behaved in such a fashion and
he wrote back that he thought he was being funny and stated that he
was not a sheriff then sent an email asking if the Plaintiff was a
fair comparison to his dog. That email convinced the Plaintiff that
Leblanc was a Conservative insider because he had apparently read a
letter sent to the Attorney General. It did not take the Plaintiff
long to figure out who his activist friends were because Leblanc had
forwarded their email address along with pictures of his dog. Prior
was difficult to deal with but he was true to his word. It was he who
delivered the documents to the parties named in paragraph 53. In 2005
Prior was sued for libel within his website. The Plaintiff wrote his
defence and counterclaim and it remained on the Internet until 2010.
Prior’s one website had more visitors than all the blogs of Leblanc
until late 2006 when the New York Times reported that a judge found
Leblanc not guilty in a criminal trial and considered him to be a
legitimate journalist. As the readership of his blog soared, Leblanc
and all politicians became much better friends. In 2007 the Irving
media empire complained of the Plaintiff and Leblanc to Google and
Yahoo. In response the Plaintiff’s blog, two email accounts and all
his legal documents stored within Yahoo’s domain were deleted.
Leblanc’s blog was deleted then restored. The FPF arrested Leblanc
again in 2012. The Plaintiff reminded the Crown of a judgment of Byron
Prior finding Section 301 of the Criminal Code unconstitutional and
law professors came to Leblanc’s aid. The Plaintiff caused Leblanc’s
“other personality” blog to be deleted not the FPF.
68. The Plaintiff states that the Crown is well aware of three legal
actions against Byron Prior. One action is a civil lawsuit for libel
filed in Supreme Court of NL in January of 2005 against Byron Prior by
a MP and that a publication ban was placed on the matter immediately.
Two are criminal prosecutions of Byron Prior for libel. One
prosecution under section 301 of the Criminal Code was found to be
unconstitutional in 2008. The Plaintiff was falsely imprisoned by the
RCMP in a mental ward of a hospital after he spread the word that the
Crown had lost. The Plaintiff does not know the judgment in the second
trial under section 300. He does know that in 2009 Byron Prior filed
some of the Plaintiff’s documents in the docket before he was
imprisoned in a mental hospital until early 2010.
69. The Plaintiff states that it was not logical that Crown
considered Byron Prior’s actions on the legislative properties in NL
criminal. The Crown was arresting and prosecuting him in NL while the
RCMP were issuing him permits to do exactly the same thing in front of
the House of Commons for months at a time from the spring of 2006 to
at least the spring 2011. The Crown prosecutes and defends all
criminal actions at a provincial and federal level. If the Crown was
sincere in its prosecution of Byron Prior it should have arrested him
on the grounds of the House of Commons in the spring of 2006. Instead
the Crown had the RCMP and a lawyer whom the Plaintiff ran against in
the election of the 38th Parliament investigate Byron Prior’s concerns
at the request of his MP (Later appointed a Senator) and the Minister
of Justice (Who his left seat in the 41st Parliament midterm as
Minister of Public Safety and was appointed to be a judge).
70. The Plaintiff states that with regards to this complaint he knows
for certain that because of his association with Byron Prior in early
2004 the Crown has had a conflict of interest that affects the
interests of nearly all the federal and provincial political parties
of Canada. The Crown is well aware that a law firm of a former Premier
and a MP of NL represented Byron Prior in the past. The Prime Minister
and his current Attorney General are well aware the Plaintiff
published copies of letters from them to Byron Prior as they sat in
opposition of the 37th Parliament.
71. The Plaintiff states that in his opinion banning the publication
of legal documents after a public official sues a citizen for libel or
when the Crown decides to prosecute the same citizen twice for libel
does not serve the public interest and raises many questions about the
actions of the Crown. Whereas the Plaintiff truly believes such
actions only serve to protect the Crown and public officials from
being embarrassed by their words and deeds since 2002 he has published
on the Internet every document involving him that he has deemed
necessary to expose the public corruption just like Byron Prior did
beginning in 2002. That was how Byron Prior discovered the Plaintiff
and contacted him in early 2004 and the Plaintiff discovered and
contacted Charles Leblanc in Fredericton NB and later introduced them
to Werner Bock of NB and his concerns. The Plaintiff believes that is
why the Crown bars and imprisons its opponents who are adept with the
social media. Corporate media protects privacy and never mentions the
malice because like Louis Riel the Crown has deemed the poor souls to
be mentally ill.
72. The Plaintiff states that in early 2006 Saga Books of Calgary,
Alberta published a book about Byron Prior and the MP whom the
Plaintiff ran against in 2004 and hopefully again in 2014 had
researched Byron Prior’s matters. His report to the Minister of
Justice in late 2006 has not been made public. More importantly the
lawyer who has been the MP representing Fundy Royal for the past
eleven years and that the former Minister of Public Safety
acknowledged an email from the Plaintiff about Byron Prior that
contained the entire text of his website before the writ was dropped
for the election of the 38th Parliament. The aforesaid email exchange
has been published in the Internet for eleven years. Everything on the
Internet published by Byron Prior beginning in 2002 has been removed.
The last comments of Byron Prior that the Plaintiff could find
published on the Internet was within a few videos a “Freeman”
character named Max published within the YouTube domain. It was an
interview of Byron Prior as he was protesting on the grounds of the
House of Commons the day after the Prime Minister was found in
“Contempt of Parliament” and his most contemptuous minority mandate
became a matter of history. His majority mandate is history and the
Plaintiff seeks relief.
73. The Plaintiff states that he did see a comment posted in a public
Facebook of one of Byron Prior’s many associates in British Colombia
claiming that Byron Prior had been arrested in Ottawa in 2012 as had
several other of his associates across Canada for various reasons
during 2012. The whereabouts of Byron Prior are not known to the
Plaintiff but he does know that Charles Leblanc lives one block up the
same street as the Federal Court in Fredericton is located. Leblanc is
being prosecuted by the Crown and suing the FPF at the same time. It
is unlikely he would move far from the city soon. If the Crown wishes
to argue this complaint Byron Prior and Charles Leblanc should be
summoned to testify about what they know of this matter and of their
being illegally barred from parliament properties as well. Failing
that the Plaintiff has collected a large amount of documentation
including documents, videos and webpages etc. He can provide byway of
digital media much evidence for the Crown to review about the concerns
of Byron Prior and Charles Leblanc and their association with the
Plaintiff and many others.
74. The Plaintiff states that in June of 2009 while Byron Prior was
before the court a supporter of his, Robin Reid informed the Plaintiff
that she was barred from the legislative properties of Alberta and
while visiting a constituency office of a MP she had been arrested by
the RCMP and assaulted in a locked cell of a hospital in the St Albert
area of Alberta. Her arrest was after her visits to the constituency
offices of the Prime Minister and an Edmonton MLA. Ms. Reid forwarded
her emails to and from the Prime Minister’s office, the RCMP, a former
Premier and the office of the Sergeant-at-Arms and asked the Plaintiff
to support her. The Plaintiff introduced himself to all the
aforementioned parties in order to assist Robin Reid and they were
ignored for years. In 2012 the Plaintiff discovered he could no longer
assist Ms. Reid because she agreed with the actions of Neo Nazis who
supported Byron Prior and Werner Bock. The RCMP and many other law
enforcement authorities in Canada and the USA are well aware of the
reasons why the Plaintiff is not associated with such people in any
fashion other than to attack them with his written words. Neo Nazis
are not worthy of further mention in this complaint against the Crown
but their Zionist foe, Barry Winters is.
75. The Plaintiff states that the RCMP is well aware of the libel,
sexual harassment, and death threats practiced against his family that
have been published on the Internet since 2005 by fans (Trolls) who
supported Byron Prior. Four Trolls who live in Alberta are Barry
Winters, Dean Roger Ray, Eddy Achtem and Patrick Doran They have many
“Anonymous” cohorts throughout Canada, the USA and the United Kingdom.
The actions of these Trolls created an important example of
cyberbullying. Law enforcement officials have ignored these Trolls
because of the Plaintiff’s standing as a whistleblower exposing
corruption within the justice system. The Plaintiff is aware that
several people complained about their actions over the years. In fact
the mother of Dean Roger Ray recently her indignation in Barry
Winter’s blog. Complaints about Barry Winters can be seen on the
Internet by Glen Canning and Professor Kris Wells, two politically
well-connected people who complain of cyberbullying often. Proof the
Edmonton Police Force (EPS), RCMP, FBI and police in the UK have been
ignoring the Plaintiff’s complaints about these Trolls can also viewed
on the Internet. The Plaintiff fought fire with fire but did so in a
legal fashion and kept the police fully informed of his actions. The
Plaintiff was successful in causing numerous egregious videos and
several blogs to be taken down after doing his best to find out who
the “Anonymous” people were and reporting them. He saved all the blogs
and videos published about his family before the malice was removed
from public view. Three Trolls who continue to attack his family and
others are Dean Roger Ray, Barry Winters and one government employee.
A member of the legal dept. of Edmonton tried to claim that the
Plaintiff was Barry Winters then complained to the EPS about the
Plaintiff’s questions about her incompetence. Professor Kris Wells,
who was associated with the Police Commission of Edmonton and Glen
Canning, who lost his daughter to cyberbullying, said nothing. They
were content that the Plaintiff managed to convince Google’s lawyers
to remove one of Barry Winters’s blogs on October 23, 2014 and say
nothing about his blog within WordPress that the Troll uses to
continue his libel of them and their friends. Instead Glen Canning
slandered the Plaintiff within Twitter after Kris Wells sent the
Plaintiff an email stating his lawyer had advised him to ignore Barry
Winters and his blogs.
76. The Plaintiff states that since the fall of 2014 he has given up
on the notion that any police officer or Glen Canning and Professor
Kris Wells would ever act with any semblance of integrity. All their
actions appear to be for the purposes of self-promotion and personal
gain. Canning and Wells received the same emails that were sent to
politicians and law enforcement authorities and only Barry Winters
responded to all and disputed the Plaintiff’s words. The EPS in June
of 2015 informed the Plaintiff that they intend to prosecute Barry
Winters for sending “False Messages” instead of prosecuting for his
published malice under Sections 300 and 319 of the Criminal Code. That
fact must be true because since June the Plaintiff has not received
any emails from Barry Winters and within his blog he has slandered the
EPS and often mentions the topic of “False Messages”. In the meantime
Canning and Wells ignore the Plaintiff’s common concerns while
continuing to profess of their abundant knowledge of bullying to
university students and anyone else who will listen to them
particularly members of the corporate media. The Plaintiff saves every
word of Canning and Wells that they cause to be published on the topic
cyberbullying and plans to file them as his exhibits to support a
lawsuit to seek relief from the cyberbullying of his Clan. He
considers the blogs of Barry Winters and the videos of his associates
that remain published on the Internet to be important evidence of
cyberbullying that the Crown will be arguing within a provincial court
of his choice after the election of the 42nd Parliament. Therefore
other than remind the Crown and others that he is recording the work
of the Trolls, he has not reported their malice to Google and
WordPress anymore because the RCMP should have done so long ago.
77. The Plaintiff states that in June of 2015 when a member of the
EPS called him four times with an anonymous telephone number asking
him to stop emailing public officials about Barry Winters’s blog and
to file a formal complaint. The Plaintiff was offended by the
anonymous talk of “False Messages”. He refused and stated that if the
questionable public officials found his emails quoting the blog of
Barry Winters upsetting then the EPS and the RCMP should uphold the
law and do something about it in order to protect their reputations.
78. The Plaintiff states that until the EPS member clearly identified
himself with his badge number in the fourth phone call and sent a
follow up email to back up his words, the Plaintiff could not know for
certain that a Troll or the EPS had been calling him. The Plaintiff
has a record of two fraudulent calls to him during the same period of
time, one using an RCMP phone number and the other used the phone
number of Dana Durnford, a well-known Troll and friend of Byron Prior.
The Plaintiff returned the calls. Dana Durnford in a predictable
fashion denied knowing him and hung up but the Plaintiff did discuss
the malice of Trolls with an ethical member of the RCMP. The RCMP and
the FBI know that anyone can access several websites based in the USA
and engage their free services to harass people with. The RCMP know
that some programs allow cyberbullies to pretend to be anyone by
having their telephone numbers (including that of the RCMP or the EPS)
appear on their victims’ phone display. The Crown knows commercial
programs assist in political deceit. Recently, it sent a former
assistant of the MP the Plaintiff ran against Fundy-Royal in 2004 to
jail because of robo calls.
79. The Plaintiff states that he has clearly explained his intentions
to sue the EPS and the RCMP many times because they have been ignoring
his complaints for eight years. It was obvious to him what the EPS was
trying to do with him in June was trick. The RCMP has been trying to
pull the same trick on the Plaintiff since 2003. The Crown knows that
if the EPS managed to secure a complaint with the Plaintiff’s
signature then it would delay his lawsuit because the EPS could claim
that his complaint under investigation and that the EPS could say
nothing about it until the matter had concluded. The Plaintiff
informed the EPS that anyone could use an anonymous phone number and
claim to be anyone if it wished to talk then it should do so from an
identifiable telephone line or put it in writing just like he does. In
fact the Plaintiff’s family have been getting anonymous calls for many
years and the police claimed they could do nothing because the
malicious calls came through the Internet. The RCMP would have acted
ethically if the families of public officials were subject to the
harassment his Clan has suffered instead of assisting in the illegal
barring from the parliamentary properties of Canada.
80. The Plaintiff states that the subject of the Crown and Internet
harassment became incredibly worse in 2007 long before the demise of
two Canadian teenagers caused new cyber laws to be created and
promptly ignored. In 2008 while the Plaintiff’s family and friends
were being much harassed within many YouTube Channels by Trolls, the
RCMP in NB created a YouTube channel of its own to use as tool to
catch a local arsonist. As soon as the Plaintiff made a comment about
eleven incidents of arson on his friend’s farm in the same area the
Plaintiff and his friend were attacked by many Troll’s within the
Crown’s domain within YouTube and the RCMP only laughed at the obvious
malice that they were publishing for a year without attempting to
moderate the comments. In early 2009 the comments within the RCMP
YouTube channel change greatly with the arrest and imprisonment of
members of the Tingley family pertaining to charges of “Organized
Crime”. The libel continued until Werner Bock printed all the comments
within the RCMP YouTube channel and delivered hard copy of it in hand
to a local office of the RCMP. Once the Plaintiff had a conversation
with a member of the RCMP in Moncton NB who was investigating Bock’s
complaint, the RCMP took down their video with all the comments and
said nothing further about it. The Plaintiff did manage to save most
of the comments digitally before they were deleted by the Trolls and
the RCMP. Years later the Crown stayed the “Organized Crime” charges
against the Tingleys and a publication ban was placed on their
concerns about malicious prosecution. The matter was put before the
Supreme Court of Canada Rodney Tingley, et al. v. Her Majesty the
Queen SCC Docket no. 34107 and the Plaintiff had no idea of any
outcome. However in late 2014 he did speak with some of the Tingleys
and they admitted to knowing about him and his common concerns with
the RCMP. One Tingley stated that their lawyers have advised them not
to speak to him because of the publication ban. The same holds true
with his former friend Werner Bock and Hank Temper another German who
moved to NB to farm. They had trouble with the RCMP acting against
them. A search on the Internet with their names and the Plaintiff’s
easily proves his assistance but they will never acknowledge it as
they attack the Crown, Bock byway of social media and Tepper byway of
lawsuit.
81. The Plaintiff states that matters of harassment that the police
refuse to investigate would have entered the realm of ridiculous in
2012 if the reasons behind the suicides of teenagers did not become
well known by the corporate media. In the summer of 2012 a new member
of the FPS who as a former member of the EPS had inspired a lawsuit
for beating a client in Edmonton called the Plaintiff and accused him
of something he could not do even if he wanted to while he was arguing
many lawyers byway of emails about a matter concerning cyber stalking
that was before the SCC. The member of the FPF accused the Plaintiff
of calling the boss of Bullying Canada thirty times. At that time his
MagicJack account had been hacked and although he could receive
incoming calls, the Plaintiff could not call out to anyone. The
Plaintiff freely sent the FPF his telephone logs sourced from
MagicJack after his account restored without the Crown having to issue
a warrant to see his telephone records. He asked the FPF and the RCMP
where did the records of his phone calls to and from the FPF and the
RCMP go if his account had not been hacked. The police never
responded. Years later a Troll sent Dean Roger Ray a message through
YouTube providing info about the Plaintiff’s MagicJack account with
the correct password. Dean Roger Ray promptly posted two videos in
YouTube clearly displaying the blatant violation of privacy likely to
protect himself from the crime. The Plaintiff quickly pointed out the
videos to the RCMP and they refused to investigate as usual. At about
the same point in time the Plaintiff noticed that the CBC had
published a record of a access to information requests. On the list of
requests he saw his name along with several employees of CBC and the
boss of Bullying Canada. The Plaintiff called the CBC to make
inquiries about what he saw published on the Internet. CBC told him it
was none of his business and advised him if he thought his rights had
been offended to file a complaint. It appears the Plaintiff that
employees of CBC like other questionable Crown Corporations such as
the RCMP rely on their attorneys far too much to defend them from
litigation they invite from citizens they purportedly serve. The
employees of CBC named within the aforementioned and the CBC Legal
Dept. are very familiar with the Plaintiff and of the Crown barring
him from legislative properties while he running for public office.
82. The Plaintiff states that any politician or police officer should
have seen enough of Barry Winter’s WordPress blog by June 22, 2015
particularly after the very unnecessary demise of two men in Alberta
because of the incompetence of the EPS. Barry Winters was blogging
about the EPS using battering ram in order to execute a warrant for a
250 dollar bylaw offence at the same time Professor Kris Wells
revealed in a televised interview that the EPS member who was killed
was the one investigating the cyber harassment of him. It was obvious
why the police and politicians ignored all the death threats, sexual
harassment, cyberbullying and hate speech of a proud Zionist who
claimed to be a former CF officer who now working for the Department
of National Defence (DND). It is well known that no politician in
Canada is allowed to sit in Parliament as a member of the major
parties unless they support Israel. Since 2002 the Plaintiff made it
well known that he does not support Israeli actions and was against
the American plan to make war on Iraq. On Aril 1, 2003 within two
weeks of the beginning of the War on Iraq, the US Secret Service
threatened to practice extraordinary rendition because false
allegations of a Presidential threat were made against him by an
American court. However, the Americans and the Crown cannot deny that
what he said in two courts on April 1, 2003 because he published the
recordings of what was truly said as soon as he got the court tapes.
The RCMP knows those words can still be heard on the Internet today.
In 2009, the Plaintiff began to complain of Barry Winters about
something far more important to Canada as nation because of Winters’
bragging of being one of 24 CF officers who assisted the Americans in
the planning the War on Iraq in 2002. In the Plaintiff’s humble
opinion the mandate of the DND is Defence not Attack. He is not so
naive to think that such plans of war do not occur but if Barry
Winters was in fact one of the CF officers who did so then he broke
his oath to the Crown the instant he bragged of it in his blog. If
Winters was never an officer in the CF then he broke the law by
impersonating an officer. The Plaintiff downloaded the emails of the
Privy Council about Wikileaks. The bragging of Barry Winters should
have been investigated in 2009 before CBC reported that documents
released by WikiLeaks supported his information about Canadian
involvement in the War on Iraq.
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
essential for the security and tranquility of the developed world. An
ISIS “caliphate,” in the Middle East, no matter how small, is a clear
and present danger to the entire world. This “occupied state,”
or“failed state” will prosecute an unending Islamic inspired war of
terror against not only the “western world,” but Arab states
“moderate” or not, as well. The security, safety, and tranquility of
Canada and Canadians are just at risk now with the emergence of an
ISIS“caliphate” no matter how large or small, as it was with the
Taliban and Al Quaeda “marriage” in Afghanistan.
One of the everlasting “legacies” of the “Trudeau the Elder’s dynasty
was Canada and successive Liberal governments cowering behind the
amerkan’s nuclear and conventional military shield, at the same time
denigrating, insulting them, opposing them, and at the same time
self-aggrandizing ourselves as “peace keepers,” and progenitors of
“world peace.” Canada failed. The United States of Amerka, NATO, the
G7 and or G20 will no longer permit that sort of sanctimonious
behavior from Canada or its government any longer. And Prime Minister
Stephen Harper, Foreign Minister John Baird , and Cabinet are fully
cognizant of that reality. Even if some editorial boards, and pundits
are not.
Justin, Trudeau “the younger” is reprising the time “honoured” liberal
mantra, and tradition of expecting the amerkans or the rest of the
world to do “the heavy lifting.” Justin Trudeau and his “butt buddy”
David Amos are telling Canadians that we can guarantee our security
and safety by expecting other nations to fight for us. That Canada can
and should attempt to guarantee Canadians safety by providing
“humanitarian aid” somewhere, and call a sitting US president a “war
criminal.” This morning Australia announced they too, were sending
tactical aircraft to eliminate the menace of an ISIS “caliphate.”
In one sense Prime Minister Harper is every bit the scoundrel Trudeau
“the elder” and Jean ‘the crook” Chretien was. Just As Trudeau, and
successive Liberal governments delighted in diminishing,
marginalizing, under funding Canadian Forces, and sending Canadian
military men and women to die with inadequate kit and modern
equipment; so too is Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Canada’s F-18s are
antiquated, poorly equipped, and ought to have been replaced five
years ago. But alas, there won’t be single RCAF fighter jock that
won’t go, or won’t want to go, to make Canada safe or safer.
My Grandfather served this country. My father served this country. My
Uncle served this country. And I have served this country. Justin
Trudeau has not served Canada in any way. Thomas Mulcair has not
served this country in any way. Liberals and so called social
democrats haven’t served this country in any way. David Amos, and
other drooling fools have not served this great nation in any way. Yet
these fools are more than prepared to ensure their, our safety to
other nations, and then criticize them for doing so.
Canada must again, now, “do our bit” to guarantee our own security,
and tranquility, but also that of the world. Canada has never before
shirked its responsibility to its citizens and that of the world.
Prime Minister Harper will not permit this country to do so now
From: dnd_mdn@forces.gc.ca
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 14:17:17 -0400
Subject: RE: Re Greg Weston, The CBC , Wikileaks, USSOCOM, Canada and
the War in Iraq (I just called SOCOM and let them know I was still
alive
To: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
This is to confirm that the Minister of National Defence has received
your email and it will be reviewed in due course. Please do not reply
to this message: it is an automatic acknowledgement.
>>>>
---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 13:55:30 -0300
Subject: Re Greg Weston, The CBC , Wikileaks, USSOCOM, Canada and the
War in Iraq (I just called SOCOM and let them know I was still alive
To: DECPR@forces.gc.ca, Public.Affairs@socom.mil,
Raymonde.Cleroux@mpcc-cppm.gc.ca, john.adams@cse-cst.gc.ca,
william.elliott@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, stoffp1 <stoffp1@parl.gc.ca>,
dnd_mdn@forces.gc.ca, media@drdc-rddc.gc.ca, information@forces.gc.ca,
milner@unb.ca, charters@unb.ca, lwindsor@unb.ca,
sarah.weir@mpcc-cppm.gc.ca, birgir <birgir@althingi.is>, smari
<smari@immi.is>, greg.weston@cbc.ca, pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>,
susan@blueskystrategygroup.com, Don@blueskystrategygroup.com,
eugene@blueskystrategygroup.com, americas@aljazeera.net
Cc: "Edith. Cody-Rice" <Edith.Cody-Rice@cbc.ca>, "terry.seguin"
<terry.seguin@cbc.ca>, acampbell <acampbell@ctv.ca>, whistleblower
<whistleblower@ctv.ca>
I talked to Don Newman earlier this week before the beancounters David
Dodge and Don Drummond now of Queen's gave their spin about Canada's
Health Care system yesterday and Sheila Fraser yapped on and on on
CAPAC during her last days in office as if she were oh so ethical.. To
be fair to him I just called Greg Weston (613-288-6938) I suggested
that he should at least Google SOUCOM and David Amos It would be wise
if he check ALL of CBC's sources before he publishes something else
about the DND EH Don Newman? Lets just say that the fact that your
old CBC buddy, Tony Burman is now in charge of Al Jazeera English
never impressed me. The fact that he set up a Canadian office is
interesting though
http://www.blueskystrategygroup.com/index.php/team/don-newman/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/media/story/2010/05/04/al-jazeera-english-launch.html
Anyone can call me back and stress test my integrity after they read
this simple pdf file. BTW what you Blue Sky dudes pubished about
Potash Corp and BHP is truly funny. Perhaps Stevey Boy Harper or Brad
Wall will fill ya in if you are to shy to call mean old me.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2718120/Integrity-Yea-Right
The Governor General, the PMO and the PCO offices know that I am not a
shy political animal
Veritas Vincit
David Raymond Amos
902 800 0369
Enjoy Mr Weston
http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/2011/05/15/weston-iraq-invasion-wikileaks.html
"But Lang, defence minister McCallum's chief of staff, says military
brass were not entirely forthcoming on the issue. For instance, he
says, even McCallum initially didn't know those soldiers were helping
to plan the invasion of Iraq up to the highest levels of command,
including a Canadian general.
That general is Walt Natynczyk, now Canada's chief of defence staff,
who eight months after the invasion became deputy commander of 35,000
U.S. soldiers and other allied forces in Iraq. Lang says Natynczyk was
also part of the team of mainly senior U.S. military brass that helped
prepare for the invasion from a mobile command in Kuwait."
http://baconfat53.blogspot.com/2010/06/canada-and-united-states.html
"I remember years ago when the debate was on in Canada, about there
being weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Our American 'friends"
demanded that Canada join into "the Coalition of the Willing. American
"veterans" and sportscasters loudly denounced Canada for NOT buying
into the US policy.
At the time I was serving as a planner at NDHQ and with 24 other of my
colleagues we went to Tampa SOUCOM HQ to be involved in the planning
in the planning stages of the op....and to report to NDHQ, that would
report to the PMO upon the merits of the proposed operation. There was
never at anytime an existing target list of verified sites where there
were deployed WMD.
Coalition assets were more than sufficient for the initial strike and
invasion phase but even at that point in the planning, we were
concerned about the number of "boots on the ground" for the occupation
(and end game) stage of an operation in Iraq. We were also concerned
about the American plans for occupation plans of Iraq because they at
that stage included no contingency for a handing over of civil
authority to a vetted Iraqi government and bureaucracy.
There was no detailed plan for Iraq being "liberated" and returned to
its people...nor a thought to an eventual exit plan. This was contrary
to the lessons of Vietnam but also to current military thought, that
folks like Colin Powell and "Stuffy" Leighton and others elucidated
upon. "What's the mission" how long is the mission, what conditions
are to met before US troop can redeploy? Prime Minister Jean Chretien
and the PMO were even at the very preliminary planning stages wary of
Canadian involvement in an Iraq operation....History would prove them
correct. The political pressure being applied on the PMO from the
George W Bush administration was onerous
American military assets were extremely overstretched, and Canadian
military assets even more so It was proposed by the PMO that Canadian
naval platforms would deploy to assist in naval quarantine operations
in the Gulf and that Canadian army assets would deploy in Afghanistan
thus permitting US army assets to redeploy for an Iraqi
operation....The PMO thought that "compromise would save Canadian
lives and liberal political capital.. and the priority of which
....not necessarily in that order. "
You can bet that I called these sneaky Yankees again today EH John
Adams? of the CSE within the DND?
http://www.socom.mil/SOCOMHome/Pages/ContactUSSOCOM.aspx
84. The Plaintiff states that the RCMP is well aware that he went to
western Canada in 2104 at the invitation of a fellow Maritimer in
order to assist in his attempt to investigate the murders of many
people in Northern BC. The Plaintiff has good reasons to doubt his
fellow Maritimer’s motives. The fact that he did not tell the
Plaintiff until he had arrived in BC that he had invited a Neo Nazi he
knew the Plaintiff strongly disliked to the same protest that he was
staging in front of the court house in Prince George on August 21,
2014. The Plaintiff was looking forward to meeting Lonnie Landrud so
he ignored the Neo Nazi. Several months after their one and only
meeting, Lonnie Landrud contacted the Plaintiff and asked him to
publish a statement of his on the Internet and to forward it to anyone
he wished. The Plaintiff obliged Landrud and did an investigation of
his own as well. He has informed the RCMP of his opinion of their
actions and has done nothing further except monitor the criminal
proceedings the Crown has placed against the Neo Nazi in BC and save
his videos and webpages and that of his associates. The words the
Plaintiff stated in public in Prince George BC on August 21, 2014 were
recorded by the Neo Nazi and published on the Internet and the RCMP
knows the Plaintiff stands by every word. For the public record the
Plaintiff truly believes what Lonnie Landrud told him despite the fact
that he does not trust his Neo Nazi associates. Therefore the
Plaintiff had no ethical dilemma whatsoever in publishing the
statement Lonnie Landrud mailed to him in a sincere effort to assist
Lonnie Landrud’s pursuit of justice. The Crown is well aware that
Plaintiff’s former lawyer, Barry Bachrach once had a leader of the
American Indian Movement for a client and that is why he ran against
the former Minister of Indian Affairs for his seat in the 39th
Parliament.
85. The Plaintiff states that while he was out west he visited
Edmonton AB several times and met many people. He visited the home of
Barry Winters and all his favourite haunts in the hope of meeting in
person the evil person who had been sexually harassing and threatening
to kill him and his children for many years. The Crown cannot deny
that Winters invited him many times. On June 13, 2015 Barry Winters
admitted the EPS warned him the Plaintiff was looking for him.
86. The Plaintiff states that on December 15th, 2014 the Crown in
Alberta contacted him byway of an email account he seldom uses since
his last communications with the Sergeant-at-Arms and Robin Reid. The
Sergeant-at-Arms wanted to know about a contact he had that day with
the constituency office of a recently appointed Cabinet Minister. All
the other statements in this complaint should prove that the Plaintiff
knew why a political lawyer from NB was ignoring a new constituent’s
contacts all summer after answering a message in Twitter promising to
meet with him. It was obvious to the Plaintiff that as soon as the
lawyer was a Cabinet Minister he was attempting to use his influence
to intimidate the Plaintiff byway of the Sergeant-at-Arms like his
political associates in NB did in 2004.
87. The Plaintiff states that before he had a chance to respond to
the email from the Sergeant-at-Arms of Alberta, three members of the
RCMP members in plain clothes were pounding on the basement entrance
of a condo at 1:30 AM. They did not identify themselves as being the
police as they attempted to harass the Plaintiff on private property
in the middle of the night without a warrant. The Plaintiff was twice
the age of the oldest one and considered them to be tough talking kids
who were trying to enter a home in the middle of the night so as he
closed the door he told them he was calling the cops. They hollered on
the other side of the door that they were the cops as the Plaintiff
called their headquarters and was immediately patched through to them.
The Plaintiff refused their request when RCMP tried to con him into
coming outside in freezing temperatures in the middle of the night so
they could supposedly speak with him instead of saying what they
needed to say over the telephone. If what the RCMP was saying was
remotely true then they should have identified themselves and asked
for him instead of someone else when he answered the door. The
Plaintiff’s response to the RCMP’s trickery was that it was best that
they communicate in writing and that he would be contacting their
lawyers in the morning. The Crown received its very justifiable
responses and the law was not upheld. The Plaintiff was ignored as the
RCMP continued to harass his family deep into the New Year as he
headed for the BC coast then back to the Maritimes to run for public
office again.
88. The Plaintiff states that in regards to this complaint the
actions and inactions of the Sergeant-at-Arms and the RCMP in Alberta
affirmed to the Plaintiff that he is still barred under threat of
arrest from all parliamentary properties in Canada because they did
not deny it. The RCMP does not have the integrity to talk to or email
him about anything because they know he tries to record everything
just like they do. Instead of acting ethically the standard operating
procedure of the RCMP since 2004 is to intimidate his friends and
family in a malicious effort to impeach his character and separate
them. That is the reason the Plaintiff stays away from most people
most of the time. The actions of the RCMP towards the Plaintiff and
many others and his experiences in the USA served to convince him that
the Crown acts just like corrupt Americans. In order to cover up
wrongs it would prefer to injure and imprison ethical citizens in
mental wards rather than uphold the law or argue them publicly in a
court of law. In 2002 the Plaintiff explained why he would seek public
office in Canada to American lawyers he was suing within statements of
a lawsuit about legal malpractice. Now he is doing the same to
Canadian lawyers in the employ of the government whose wages are once
again being paid by his fellow taxpayer. As the Plaintiff prepares to
deal with a predicable motion to dismiss and a motion for a
publication ban to delay and conceal this matter before polling day
perhaps the lawyers working for the Crown should study the Plaintiff’s
work found within documents in the Governor General’s office. Trust
that he will look forward to talking to the first lawyer to answer
this complaint because it has been years since he could get any lawyer
in Canada to discuss anything with him. There is no ethical dilemma to
be found in this statement, the Crown counsels should just do their
job according to the law of the land, seek the documents in the
possession of the lawyer who is the Governor General of Canada and let
the political cards fall where they may. In closing the Plaintiff must
remind the Crown that two members of the Canadian Forces acting as
security for the Highland Games held on the grounds of the Lieutenant
Governor’s residence in NB approached the Chief of the Amos Clan
claiming that an unnamed party found him “overbearing”. He gave them a
copy of the Governors General’s letter and freely left the
parliamentary property.
Jurisdiction and Venue
89. The Plaintiff states that Federal Court has jurisdiction in this
claim against the Crown pursuant to section 17 (1) of the Federal
Courts Act and he proposes that this action be tried at Fredericton,
New Brunswick.
90. The Plaintiff prays that the Federal Court does not strike this
complaint against the Crown. It is not without merit nor is it abusing
of the process of this Court. This claim is definitely not frivolous
or vexatious or immaterial or redundant.
91. The Plaintiff states he is not a lawyer or studied law at any law
school. This is a Pro Se complaint composed by him to the best of his
ability as a layman after studying Canadian laws on his own for ten
years. He is compelled to act Pro Se because not one lawyer of the
many whom he has approached in Canada and the USA over the course of
the past fifteen years would assist him in any complaint that would
impeach the character of an auditor or a fellow member of the bar or
embarrass a justice system in which they practice law for a fee.
However, many lawyers have been paid from the Plaintiff’s interests as
they worked diligently to cover up many wrongs practiced against his
family for many years. The Plaintiff considers two of the most
offensive to him are the lawyers who are the current Governor General
and Attorney General of Canada. The Plaintiff is acting upon a
suggestion of a former Governor General after diligently attempting to
settle this matter with all the Attorney Generals of Canada and the
RCMP for twelve years.
92. The Plaintiff states that must restate the simple truth of this
matter. It still is as he explained to the NBPC in 2004. The
Sergeant-at-Arms in NB illegally barred the Plaintiff for political
reasons. His actions as a whistleblower the RCMP and the liberal
federal government were the reasons. The Plaintiff met former Premiers
Bernard Lord and David Alward (Consular in Boston) On October 3, 2006,
Premier Lord studied the “Barring Notice” after being thanked for
putting the Crown’s malice in writing. Alward and a RCMP member heard
Lord claim he knew nothing about it and suggest that the Plaintiff sue
the Sergeant-at-Arms.
93. The Plaintiff states that on October 3, 2006 he quickly proved
what the political lawyer Bernard Lord had claimed in front of his
former Cabinet Minister was not true by presenting him with a document
signed by his former Attorney General. Bernard Lord quickly responded
that the Plaintiff should sue him too. The former Premier had nothing
further to say when he was shown a copy of the Plaintiff’s cover
letter that came with the documents and CD given to his constituency
office in Moncton NB in early July of 2004. The Plaintiff complained
of Premier Lord expelling him from the legislature building for
political reasons not legal within the first paragraph of the
aforesaid cover letter. The Attorney General had answered the
Plaintiff on the Crown’s behalf after admitting he had received the
documents given to Premier Lord and another former Premier Frank
McKenna the year before his was appointed to be the Canadian
Ambassador to the USA.
94. The Plaintiff states that on October 30, 2006, after he had read
the news and discussed Justice Dennis O’Connor’s report on the Arar
matter with many people that he knew Wayne Easter and Commissioner
Giuliano Zacardelli were profound liars he received a call from Sgt.
Vaillancourt of J Division of the RCMP. The Plaintiff refused to make
a deal with the RCMP and his reasons were published on the Internet
for years. Wayne Easter’s words quoted by CBC were the reason the RCMP
called. They are as follows:
“Wayne Easter, the former solicitor-general who presided during the
Arar ordeal, appeared to contradict earlier testimony from RCMP head
Giuliano Zacardelli today when he answered questions at a commons
committee. Responding to Justice Dennis O’Connor’s report on the Arar
case at the public safety and national security committee, Easter said
he was never told the RCMP had passed on false information to the
United States and was never told the RCMP tried to correct it, as
claimed by Zacardelli.
“I was not informed that the RCMP had provided inaccurate information
to the U.S.,” Easter told the MPs.”
95. The Plaintiff states that whereas the Prime Minister apologized
to Maher Arar on behalf of Canada and made $10-million settlement
after the government wasted several years and squandered an incredible
amount of taxpayer funds on legal fees generating Justice Dennis
O’Connor’s report, the Plaintiff deserves at least the same sort of
settlement in this matter.
96. The Plaintiff states that whereas he has been barred from access
to parliamentary properties for a period of eleven years and that the
aforesaid properties include ten provinces and the Nation’s Capital
District the apologies and amount he seeks in settlement is very
reasonable and certainly justified.
The plaintiff therefore asks this court for the following relief:
(a) A public apology by the Prime Minister and each Premier for the
illegal barring of a citizen from access to parliamentary properties.
(b) A declaration signed by the Minister of Public Safety and
witnessed by the Governor General stating that the Canadian government
will no longer allow the RCMP and the Canadian Forces to harass the
Plaintiff and his Clan.
(c) A settlement of eleven million dollars ($11,000,000.00) in the
form of relief and punitive damages for being barred from eleven
parliamentary properties for eleven years.
(d) Costs to the Plaintiff in bringing this matter before the court
Dated at Fredericton, NB the 15th day of September 2015
_________________________________
Plaintiff David Raymond Amos
P.O. Box 234
Apohaqui, NB, E5P 3G2
Telephone no.: (902) 800-0369
Fax no.: (506) 432-6089
Email : David.Raymond.Amos@gmail.com
Nova Scotia mass shooting inquiry more about covering up than finding answers, says author Palango
It won’t be the unvarnished truth about what caused the deadliest mass shooting in the country’s history. What Nova Scotians will get, says the longtime investigative reporter, is a comfortable truth that suits both provincial and federal governments but especially the RCMP.
“What has happened is that we’re two years down the road and they’re still playing hide the pea,” said Palango. “It’s an organized coverup.”
Palango has been reporting on the April 18 and 19, 2020, tragedy for nearly two years and has a book due out in April from Penguin Random House. The title is 22 Murders; the subtitle includes the word coverup.
The boiled-down truth, he says, is that the RCMP were completely overwhelmed as the tragedy unfolded. Overwhelmed and negligent, but just how so is a “secret that needs to be pried out of the grasp of the Mounties and two levels of government.”
The public inquiry that’s tasked with getting to the bottom of the tragedy is set to get underway Tuesday. Last week, the law firm representing the families of the victims in the inquiry came out publicly with serious concerns about how the process has unfolded thus far. Patterson Law issued a statement saying it did not know who will be called as witnesses, how they will be asked to give evidence and whether lawyers representing the families will be allowed to question them or make any kind of submissions at the proceedings.
Those concerns mirrored Palango’s. The former Globe and Mail editor, who has written lately for Frank Magazine, references the commission group sessions where family members sit with Crown prosecutors and get to see the evidence that will come out in the inquiry. That evidence, known as the foundational documents, included tens of thousands of pages of information related to the RCMP’s response to the April 2020 mass shooting.
“Each foundation paper is a subject: the replica police car, etc.,” explains Palango, who has an inside source at these sessions. “Hours are spent going paragraph by paragraph around the table. Everyone who is invited gets to put in their two cents on everything.
The most comfortable truth
Palango argues this isn’t so much a search for the truth but rather a consensus about what might be the most comfortable truth.
Summaries of the foundational papers will be released to the media during the inquiry. Palango predicts a “three-day splash of horrible headlines and then the families can say whatever they want.”
That will essentially be the end of it, he argues.
“Once the families signed off on the completed foundation papers, there is little to no room for further debate. No second thoughts. The families have been snookered. Whatever comes out, for better or worse, they have agreed to.”
Palango has written three previous books about RCMP corruption and along the way has developed a solid list of inside RCMP sources. Evidence of a coverup in this case is clear to see, he argues. He points to: the federal and provincial governments’ initial plan to hold a closed-door review (until public backlash forced a joint inquiry); the investigations conducted by the province’s police watchdog Serious Incident Response Team; and the reported cases of conflict of interest among senior RCMP officials involved in the inquiry.
He says SIRT should have tried to get to the bottom of why it took the RCMP 12 hours to request a public alert of a shooter at large. Instead, the Mounties conducted an internal investigation in the matter. The two incidents SIRT did investigate were flawed, he said. The first involved the circumstances of the gunman’s death and the other probed the RCMP misidentifying the gunman and opening fire on a person at a fire hall in Onslow.
More to the story
Video obtained by Palango shows there’s more to the story than the details released in SIRT’s investigation into the gunman’s death. Like the RCMP version of events, the police watchdog reported that officers happened on the gunman at the Irving Big Stop gas station in Enfield where he was shot and killed April 19. The report makes no mention of the video capturing the gunman earlier in the morning at a Petro Canada in nearby Elmsdale, where he had attempted to get gas and fled. A tactical van and several officers are on the opposite side of the pump at the same station.
Last June, it came to light that there were serious conflicts of interest among senior members of an internal team tasked with providing information to the mass shooting inquiry. The man in charge of the team was Chief Supt. John Robin, who’s married to Halifax RCMP Chief Supt. Janis Gray. Another member was retired RCMP Staff Sgt. Mike Butcher, the husband of Nova Scotia assistant commissioner Lee Bergerman. They’ve since been replaced. Both Gray and Bergerman have retired.
Opportunity to raise concerns
Palango’s also concerned about the inquiry’s focus on restorative principles and commitment to being “trauma-informed in everything we do,” to quote the commission website. The commission has said that this does not mean it will avoid disagreement or difficult questions and answers, but rather it’s committed to providing support to the people who may need it.
But Palango’s convinced it’s a sign that information will be hidden.
“The families have been snookered. Whatever comes out, for better or worse, they have agreed to.” - Paul Palango, author of 22 Murders
Commission senior counsel Emily Hill sent a statement to The Chronicle Herald last week saying that throughout the hearings, there will be opportunities for the families and other participants to raise their concerns with gaps in the record and suggest witnesses to be interviewed.
“A public inquiry is not a trial, nor is it about assigning blame,” Hill wrote.
“Public inquiries are about change. The commission’s work is to determine what happened and why and how it happened in order to make recommendations that will help make sure it does not happen again.”
Palango says that doesn’t cut it.
“Twenty-two months down the road, there is possible evidence of gross, if not criminal, negligence by the RCMP, yet there has been no investigation.”
No comments:
Post a Comment