Pat King gets 3-month conditional sentence plus time served
Organizer of 2022 convoy protest was convicted of 5 of 9 charges late last year
CBC's Journalistic Standards and Practices344 Comments
Pat King apologizes for role in Freedom Convoy, faces sentencing next month
Fallout from actions in Ottawa left him unable to sleep and fearing safety, King says
UPDATE | On Jan. 24, King's sentencing was moved to Feb. 19.
Freedom Convoy figurehead Pat King has apologized for his role in the 2022 protests, saying the fallout from his actions in Ottawa has left him unable to sleep, fearing for his safety, enduring online harassment, and facing financial ruin.
"I am extremely sorry for what happened to the City of Ottawa, and for that, I absolutely apologize for my actions," he said, adding that he "can relate" to what downtown residents experienced during the weeks-long gridlock and constant horn honking.
King made the comments at the conclusion of sentencing submissions to determine whether he will go to jail – and for how long – for his role as one of the protest leaders. A decision is expected on Feb. 7.
In November, King was convicted in Ontario Superior Court on five criminal charges: mischief, counselling to commit mischief, counselling to obstruct a public or peace officer, and two counts of disobeying a court order.
'Worst kind of mischief'
Crown prosecutor Moiz Karimjee called King's offending of the "worst kind" and asked for a 10-year sentence, the maximum penalty for mischief.
King's defence requested time-served, citing the days he spent behind bars after his February 2022 arrest.
Victim impact statements, a pre-sentencing report on King's history, letters from supporters, and a jailhouse interview he gave in July 2022 were included as part of the sentencing submissions.
Superior Court Justice Charles Hackland previously wrote that King's "moral culpability" was "significant" as an "organizer and leader who aimed to gridlock, or bear hug the capital."
Near the end of Friday's court proceedings, Hackland indicated he was likely to consider a sentence ranging from time-served to two years in jail.
King's sentence will set precedent as the first convicted leader of the Freedom Convoy to face significant punishment. Others, including Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, are awaiting the outcomes of their trials.
Freedom
Convoy organizer Pat King is surrounded by supporters as he leaves
court in Ottawa on Friday, Nov. 22, 2024. King, one of the most
prominent figures of the 2022 convoy in Ottawa, has been found guilty on
five counts including mischief and disobeying a court order. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)
Karimjee said King committed the "worst kind of mischief," pointing to the cost to city officials and the impact on the community.
He argued that there is a "concrete" fear King might repeat his law-breaking behaviour and said King promoted a "dangerous idea" of inflicting pain on citizens to bring about societal change.
In a July 2022 interview King gave to a supporter from jail, he credited the Freedom Convoy for ending COVID-19 mandates.
Karimjee asked for a "powerful" and "chilling" sentence, arguing that King's comments in the interview showed he still believed in "extorting political change" through lawbreaking.
Karimjee told the court it was "pure fiction" to suggest the protests simply got out of control, because King orchestrated the occupation of Ottawa from the start.
Convoy protest organizer Pat King outside the Ottawa Courthouse on May 16, 2024. (Spencer Colby/The Canadian Press)
The Crown highlighted comments King made as early as Jan. 12, 2022 – weeks before arriving in Ottawa – where he spoke about bringing "fear" and "scaring" people, which, Karimjee argued revealed King's intentions.
He described King's actions as "an attack on the rule of law and democratic process" because King tried to change government policy by gridlocking the city.
Court pushback against proposed sentence
Hackland repeatedly suggested Karimjee's proposed sentence was too high, flatly stating at one point he "did not agree" that King's conviction met the high threshold for a 10-year sentence, while making clear he was still deliberating.
The judge's comments elicited smiles and looks of encouragement from King and a handful of his supporters.
King's conviction was "not a minor mischief" however, Hackland said, noting that King did not appear to regret his actions.
As the proceedings wrapped up Friday, Hackland said the range he had to consider was between time-served and a jail term of more than two years. "That's my impression," he said.
Defence opposes imprisonment
The defence argues that King has already spent enough time in jail and should serve any sentence in the community.
King's lawyer, Natasha Calvinho, called the prospect of a 10-year sentence "absolutely outrageous", accusing the Crown of seeking to punish King for the "sum total of the result of the Freedom Convoy."
During his statement, King said he now struggles to find employment and spoke about the harsh conditions he faced while in custody, saying he was "threatened" and "constantly under threats of violence."
King says he owes around $250,000 in legal fees.
While King accepted his guilt, he argued that there was no court injunction against parking trucks on residential streets when he helped organize the protests.
He blamed police for deciding where protesters could park and the media for slandering him.
"I don't want to live in a country where I get 10 years for standing up for what I believe in," King said.
Impact on vulnerable communities
During Thursday's sentencing submissions, Hackland acknowledged the impact the protests had on vulnerable communities.
A victim impact statement was read into the record from a representative of a women's shelter, who described the trauma experienced by those affected by the protests.
"The women expressed, often, that it was like experiencing the abuse all over again," said Sarah Davis, the former executive director of Cornerstone Housing for Women.
Ottawa defends use of Emergencies Act during convoy protests before Federal Court of Appeal
Civil liberties group argued Liberals triggered emergency measures without sound statutory grounds
A lawyer for the federal government says a judge mistakenly concluded it was unreasonable for the government to use the Emergencies Act in 2022 to quell protests in the national capital and at key border points.
In his January 2024 ruling, Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley said he revisited the events with the benefit of a more extensive record of the facts and the law than the government had when it proclaimed a public order emergency.
Ultimately, there "was no national emergency justifying the invocation of the Emergencies Act," he wrote.
Lawyer Michael Feder, representing the government, told the Federal Court of Appeal on Thursday it was unfair of the judge to fault federal decision-making using "20/20 hindsight."
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government invoked the Emergencies Act on Feb. 14, 2022, after thousands of protesters angry with the government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including vaccine requirements, gridlocked downtown Ottawa for nearly a month and blocked border points elsewhere across the country.
While many demonstrated against COVID-19 health restrictions, the gathering attracted people with a variety of grievances against Trudeau and the Liberal government.
The act gave law enforcement extraordinary powers to remove and arrest protesters and gave the government the power to freeze the finances of those connected to the protests. The temporary emergency powers also gave authorities the ability to commandeer tow trucks to remove vehicles belonging to protesters.
Inquiry came to a different conclusion
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association and several other groups and individuals argued in Federal Court that Ottawa ushered in the emergency measures without sound statutory grounds.
A mandatory inquiry reviewed the government's use of the Emergencies Act in the fall of 2022 and came to a different conclusion than Mosley.
Commissioner Paul Rouleau concluded the federal government met the "very high" threshold needed to invoke the Emergencies Act, citing "a failure in policing and federalism."
"Lawful protest descended into lawlessness, culminating in a national emergency," he wrote.
With files from CBC News
Geopolitical Updates w/ Eddie Cornell & Michael Yon
The Emergencies Act Appeal & Panama’s Changing Alliances
Date & Time
Tuesday, February 4th
Live at 6 PM MT (8 PM ET)
Livestream
Watch on TheLavigneShow.com, Locals, X, Rumble, Facebook, and more.
The Mosely Decision Appeal
Eddie Cornell, a plaintiff in the ongoing Mosely decision appeal, joins us to share insights from Day 1 of the hearing. At stake is the Canadian government’s justification for invoking emergency powers—particularly whether it was warranted to freeze bank accounts and label peaceful citizens as potential threats. Eddie recounts key exchanges in court, including:
Crown Arguments
How
government lawyers defended using emergency powers by citing
unreasonable paranoia and ignoring contrary evidence from CSIS, RCMP,
and local police.
Judicial Scrutiny
Judges
questioned why the government continued enforcing the Emergencies Act
even after blockades were cleared and whether freezing bank accounts
constituted an unlawful seizure.
Charter & Accountability
The government acknowledges it breached Canadians’ Charter rights yet insists these measures were “demonstrably justified.”
Date: Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 12:16 PM
Subject: Watch us in court TOMORROW
To: <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Good morning David,
I wanted to give you a very quick reminder: we will be in court TOMORROW on February 4th arguing that Justin Trudeau illegally and unconstitutionally used the Emergencies Act.
You can live stream the hearing on Tuesday, February 4, beginning at 9:30 a.m. Here is the link: https://cas-satj.zoom.us/
We are fighting to preserve our victory in this once-in-a-generation civil liberties case. Like so many other Canadians, I know this is a case you care about so I wanted to make sure you can watch us in court tomorrow.
See you there, and wish us luck!
Christine Van Geyn | Litigation Director
Canadian Constitution Foundation
P: 1.888.695.9105 x103
theCCF.ca
PS – For this appeal the Trudeau government hired fancy new lawyers from Vancouver. We have some of the best in the business to go toe-to-toe with them. If you are able, please consider helping us cover some of the costs associated with our fight against the abuse of the Emergencies Act by making a donation at the https://theccf.ca/donate/
|
---------- Original message ---------
Date: Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 5:38 PM
Subject: Watch us in court fighting back against the Emergencies Act abuse
To: <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Dear David,
I am excited to share with you the livestream link so that you can watch our lawyers in the Federal Court of Appeal defending our historic victory against Trudeau’s use of the Emergencies Act against the Freedom Convoy protests in 2022!
You can live stream the hearing on Tuesday, February 4, beginning at 9:30 a.m. Here is the link: https://cas-satj.zoom.us/
This is a case that thousands of Canadians have been watching carefully, because it will have long lasting impacts for civil liberties in Canada. It really is a once-in-a-generation case. We will be arguing in front of a three-judge panel at the Federal Court of Appeal that the lower court was correct in finding Trudeau’s use of the Emergencies Act was illegal and the regulations freezing bank accounts and banning protests on Parliament Hill were unconstitutional.
I know this is an issue you care a lot about, which is why I wanted
to give you this advance notice about the hearing so you can watch. Of
course, if you can’t watch during the day, you can still watch my live
recap of everything that happened that day on our YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/@
The lower court decision held that Trudeau had not met the high threshold to use that extraordinary law in response to the Freedom Convoy. The court found that there was no national emergency, and no threat to the security of Canada. The law exists to deal with wars, terrorist attacks, and massive natural disasters—not Canadians protesting on the steps of Parliament, even if they are especially noisy and stubborn. That just isn’t what this law was created for.
When Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act, he was able to create new criminal laws by executive order. He froze bank accounts and banned protests all across the country. The lower court rightly found that this went too far, and violated those precious rights protected by Canada’s constitution – the supreme law of our country.
This decision is a vital one to protect, because it sets a precedent that will stop governments from abusing this law in the future. But the Trudeau government is trying to set back our civil liberties by having that decision overturned. We are fighting back hard, and we want to make sure you can see how hard we are fighting by sharing the livestream link. I hope you are able to watch, and if you can’t watch live, I hope you can catch my recap on YouTube.
Fighting back against the overreach by the Trudeau government comes at a price. Our generous lawyers have agreed to represent us at a reduced fee, but the fight has still cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars. We think it’s a fight worth paying for. If you do too, please consider making a tax deductible charitable donation at https://theccf.ca/donate/
You can specify that you want your donation to be directed towards the Emergencies Act case.
If you do watch the hearing, please let me know what you think. I’m always interested in hearing from you.
Thanks for everything you do,
Christine Van Geyn | Litigation Director
Canadian Constitution Foundation
P: 1.888.695.9105 x103
theCCF.ca
PS – you can help us cover some of the costs associated with our fight against the abuse of the Emergencies Act by making a donation at the https://theccf.ca/donate/
Canadian Constitution Foundation | 6025 12 Street SE, #215, Calgary, AB T2H 2K1 Canada | |||
|
|||
|
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>> From: "Kulik, John" <john.kulik@mcinnescooper.com>
>>>>> Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 17:37:49 +0000
>>>>> Subject: McInnes Cooper
>>>>> To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com" <motomaniac333@gmail.com>,
>>>>> "david.raymond.amos@gmail.com" <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Mr. Amos:
>>>>>
>>>>> I am General Counsel for McInnes Cooper. If you need to communicate
>>>>> with our firm, please do so through me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>
>>>>> John Kulik
>>>>> [McInnes Cooper]<http://www.mcinnescooper.com/>
>>>>>
>>>>> John Kulik Q.C.
>>>>> Partner & General Counsel
>>>>> McInnes Cooper
>>>>>
>>>>> tel +1 (902) 444 8571 | fax +1 (902) 425 6350
>>>>>
>>>>> 1969 Upper Water Street
>>>>> Suite 1300
>>>>> Purdy's Wharf Tower II Halifax, NS, B3J 2V1
>>>>>
>>>>> asst Cathy Ohlhausen | +1 (902) 455 8215
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Notice This communication, including any attachments, is confidential
>>>>> and may be protected by solicitor/client privilege. It is intended
>>>>> only for the person or persons to whom it is addressed. If you have
>>>>> received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by e-mail or
>>>>> telephone at McInnes Cooper's expense. Avis Les informations contenues
>>>>> dans ce courriel, y compris toute(s) pièce(s) jointe(s), sont
>>>>> confidentielles et peuvent faire l'objet d'un privilège avocat-client.
>>>>> Les informations sont dirigées au(x) destinataire(s) seulement. Si
>>>>> vous avez reçu ce courriel par erreur, veuillez en aviser l'expéditeur
>>>>> par courriel ou par téléphone, aux frais de McInnes Cooper.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
>>>>> Date: Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:35 AM
>>>>> Subject: RE My complaint against the CROWN in Federal Court Attn David
>>>>> Hansen and Peter MacKay If you planning to submit a motion for a
>>>>> publication ban on my complaint trust that you dudes are way past too
>>>> late
>>>>> To: David.Hansen@justice.gc.ca, peter.mackay@justice.gc.ca
>>>>> peacock.kurt@telegraphjournal.com,
>>>> mclaughlin.heather@dailygleaner.com,
>>>>> david.akin@sunmedia.ca, robert.frater@justice.gc.ca,
>>>> paul.riley@ppsc-sppc.gc.ca,
>>>>> greg@gregdelbigio.com, joyce.dewitt-vanoosten@gov.bc.ca,
>>>>> joan.barrett@ontario.ca, jean-vincent.lacroix@gouv.qc.ca,
>>>>> peter.rogers@mcinnescooper.com, mfeder@mccarthy.ca, mjamal@osler.com
>>>>> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, gopublic@cbc.ca,
>>>>> Whistleblower@ctv.ca
>>>>>
>>>>> https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14439/index.do
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/WebDocuments-DocumentsWeb/35072/FM030_Respondent_Attorney-General-of-Canada-on-Behalf-of-the-United-States-of-America.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> http://thedavidamosrant.blogspot.ca/2013/10/re-glen-greenwald-and-brazilian.html
>>>>>
>>>>> I repeat what the Hell do I do with the Yankee wiretapes taps sell
>>>>> them on Ebay or listen to them and argue them with you dudes in
>>>>> Feferal Court?
>>>>>
>>>>> Petey Baby loses all parliamentary privelges in less than a month but
>>>>> he still supposed to be an ethical officer of the Court CORRECT?
>>>>>
>>>>> Veritas Vincit
>>>>> David Raymond Amos
>>>>> 902 800 0369
>>>>>
>>>>>
COURT RECAP: Legal challenge to Trudeau's use of the Emergencies Act against the Freedom convoy
COURT RECAP DAY 2: Legal Challenge to Trudeau's use of Emergencies Act Against the Freedom Convoy
A tale of two convoy trials
Pat King’s courtroom drama differs from Tamara Lich and Chris Barber’s
· CBC News · Posted: May 31, 2024 5:00 AM ADT"One month before the trial was set to begin in August 2023, the lead Crown prosecutor assigned to the case, Moiz Karimjee, recused himself.
According to materials filed in court, Karimjee did so after reading Lich's memoir for trial preparation, which contained "60 references to Moiz Karimjee by name, some of them defamatory."
If Karimjee prosecuted the case, it could have presented a conflict down the line were he to pursue any legal action against Lich.
Tim Radcliffe and his co-counsel were then handed the file, with a little less than a month to prepare for what would be a highly-publicized trial.
And they would have to face off against two of Ottawa's most formidable defence attorneys.
Lawrence Greenspon and Diane Magas — each with at least one additional lawyer accompanying them in court — are both veterans of Ontario courts with extensive experience across the justice spectrum."
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.c
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 19:13:04 -0300
Subject: Methinks Tamara Lich's lawyers must have known that Moiz
Karimjee was on vacation N'esy Pas?
To: ahelmer@postmedia.com, dan@ottawalife.com, "macpherson.don"
<macpherson.don@brunswicknews.
"david.fraser" <david.fraser@mcinnescooper.co
premier@ontario.ca, stefanos.karatopis@gmail.com,
sheilagunnreid@gmail.com, eric@gghlawyers.ca, "Marco.Mendicino"
<Marco.Mendicino@parl.gc.ca>, mcu <mcu@justice.gc.ca>, pm
<pm@pm.gc.ca>, "Katie.Telford" <Katie.Telford@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>,
"Candice.Bergen" <Candice.Bergen@parl.gc.ca>,
natasha.calvinho@gmail.com, Moiz.Karimjee@ontario.ca, "Brenda.Lucki"
<Brenda.Lucki@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Bill.Hogan" <Bill.Hogan@gnb.ca>,
"Mark.Blakely" <Mark.Blakely@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Mike.Comeau"
<Mike.Comeau@gnb.ca>, Norman Traversy <traversy.n@gmail.com>, Newsroom
<Newsroom@globeandmail.com>, livefromtheshed2022@gmail.com,
meghan.grant@cbc.ca, lexharvey@thestar.ca, darren.major@cbc.ca,
blilley@postmedia.com, brigitte.bureau@radio-canada.c
<kingpatrick278@gmail.com>, "freedomreport.ca"
<freedomreport.ca@gmail.com>, media <media@veterans4freedom.ca>
Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>,
Rolanda.Ahadjitse@ontario.ca, olivia.khalil@ontario.ca, premier
<premier@gov.ab.ca>, Office of the Premier <scott.moe@gov.sk.ca>,
PREMIER <PREMIER@gov.ns.ca>, premier <premier@gov.pe.ca>, premier
<premier@gov.bc.ca>, premier <premier@gov.nl.ca>, "blaine.higgs"
<blaine.higgs@gnb.ca>, "fin.minfinance-financemin.fin
<fin.minfinance-financemin.fin
https://davidraymondamos3.blo
Wednesday, 18 May 2022
Crown trying to put Freedom Convoy leader Tamara Lich back in jail
---------- Original message ----------
From: "Karimjee, Moiz (MAG)" <Moiz.Karimjee@ontario.ca>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2022 03:06:48 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Ed Fast: Freedom? Yeah, right… | Ed Fast:
Liberté? Et oui Hey Bill King what will your boss and legions of Proud
Canadians do if the Crown takes Tamara Lich's Freedom after celebating
the Queen's Birthday???
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.c
I am on vacation until July 8th. For Bail Reviews (including
discussing time estimates), Superior Court, Summary Appeal, Trial,
Hate Crime or any other matter requiring immediate attention please
email Rolanda Ahadjitse at Rolanda.Ahadjitse@ontario.ca and Olivia
Khalil at olivia.khalil@ontario.ca
Moiz Karimjee
Assistant Crown Attorney
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada
Freedom Convoy leader Tamara Lich to remain in custody over Canada Day weekend
Lich was arrested in Alberta on Monday for allegedly breaching her
bail conditions
Dan Taekema · CBC News · Posted: Jun 30, 2022 4:23 PM ET
Freedom Convoy organizer Tamara Lich talks to reporters Feb. 14, 2022
in Ottawa. Lich made a brief video appearance in an Ottawa courtroom
Thursday after being arrested for allegedly breaching her bail
conditions. (Frédéric Pepin/Radio-Canada)
Freedom Convoy leader Tamara Lich will remain in custody over the
Canada Day weekend after she was arrested this week for allegedly
breaching her bail conditions.
Lich was taken into custody in Medicine Hat, Alta., on Monday after
Ottawa police issued a Canada-wide warrant for her arrest. She was
brought back to the nation's capital and made a brief court appearance
Thursday.
Crown prosecutor Moiz Karimjee requested a full day for a bail
hearing, which is scheduled to take place on July 5.
Lich remains in custody as several groups — most of which formed out
of the Freedom Convoy — are planning protests in Ottawa starting on
July 1 and continuing throughout the summer.
She appeared on video from an Ottawa police cell, wearing a grey
sweatshirt with the words "Freedom Over Fear" printed on it.
Tamara Lich admits accepting award is related to Freedom Convoy in
fiery day in court
Freedom Convoy leader Tamara Lich arrested in Alberta, accused of
breaching bail conditions
Eric Granger, Lich's defence lawyer, said July 5 was the earliest date
available.
"The only new charge she's been arrested on is a single charge of
breaching a single bail condition, [she] will be on her ninth day in
custody since her arrest before she even gets the opportunity to
regain her liberty," he wrote in an email to CBC.
Lich faces charges of mischief, counselling mischief, obstructing
police, counselling to obstruct police, counselling intimidation, and
intimidation by blocking and obstructing one or more highways in
relation to the protest.
The anti-COVID-19-mandate protest shut down some areas of Ottawa for
three weeks as participants parked trucks and other vehicles on city
streets, blocking access to neighbourhoods and main arteries around
Parliament Hill.
Released in March
Lich was arrested on Feb. 17 and spent about 18 days at the
Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre before she was released on bail in
March on conditions which include staying off social media.
She was subjected to a bail review last month, but prosecutors were
unsuccessful in trying to have her brought back into custody for
allegedly violating her bail condition that she not support anything
related to the Freedom Convoy.
Lich also cannot organize any kind of protest and is not allowed to
contact several of the other convoy leaders, including Tom Marazzo,
unless in the presence of counsel.
While it's not yet clear which bail conditions she is accused of
breaching, there was speculation online that Lich might be in legal
trouble over a Facebook photo that shows her beside Marazzo at an
awards ceremony in Toronto on June 16 put on by the Justice Centre for
Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF), a legal organization and registered
charity based in Calgary.
Tamara Lich, fourth from the left, was ordered by a judge to have no
contact with fellow convoy organizer Tom Marazzo, second from the
right. This photo shows the group in Toronto after Lich accepted her
freedom award from the JCCF. (Facebook/Stacey Kauder )
Friends of the two convoy organizers speculated on social media that
Lich was allowed to have contact with Marazzo at the event because
lawyers for the JCCF, who also represent Lich in her civil matters,
were present.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Dan Taekema
Reporter
Dan Taekema is a reporter with CBC Ottawa. He has worked for CBC News
in Hamilton, Windsor and Toronto and for newspapers across southern
Ontario. You can reach him by emailing daniel.taekema@cbc.ca.
Follow @DanTaekema on Twitter
With files from Meghan Grant, Kristy Nease and David Fraser
CBC's Journalistic Standards and Practices
On 6/29/22, David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.c
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.c
> Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2022 14:52:46 -0300
> Subject: YO Lawrence Greenspon I called again about your client Madame
> Lich and attempted to speak with Eric Granger Correct?
> To: lawrence@gghlawyers.ca, "david.fraser"
> <david.fraser@mcinnescooper.co
> premier@ontario.ca, stefanos.karatopis@gmail.com,
> sheilagunnreid@gmail.com, eric@gghlawyers.ca, "Marco.Mendicino"
> <Marco.Mendicino@parl.gc.ca>, mcu <mcu@justice.gc.ca>, pm
> <pm@pm.gc.ca>, "Katie.Telford" <Katie.Telford@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>,
> "Candice.Bergen" <Candice.Bergen@parl.gc.ca>,
> natasha.calvinho@gmail.com, Moiz.Karimjee@ontario.ca, "Brenda.Lucki"
> <Brenda.Lucki@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Bill.Hogan" <Bill.Hogan@gnb.ca>,
> "Mark.Blakely" <Mark.Blakely@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Mike.Comeau"
> <Mike.Comeau@gnb.ca>, Norman Traversy <traversy.n@gmail.com>, Newsroom
> <Newsroom@globeandmail.com>
> Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>,
> livefromtheshed2022@gmail.com, meghan.grant@cbc.ca,
> lexharvey@thestar.ca, darren.major@cbc.ca, blilley@postmedia.com,
> brigitte.bureau@radio-canada.c
>
> https://gghlawyers.ca/who-we-a
>
> "Eric Granger is a criminal defence lawyer who focusses on defending
> the little guy against the coercive power of the state. He represents
> clients at all stages of the criminal process, from bail hearings to
> trials to appeals."
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?
>
> Tamara Lich Arrested in Alberta
> 22,817 views
> Streamed live on Jun 28, 2022
> Live From The Shed
> 36.9K subscribers
> Tamara Lich has been arrested again after the RCMP issued a nation
> wide warrant for breaching her release order.
>
>
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada
>
> Freedom convoy leader Tamara Lich arrested in Alberta, accused of
> breaching bail conditions
> Lich told her lawyer she is expecting to be transported to Ontario in
> the next week
>
> Meghan Grant · CBC News · Posted: Jun 27, 2022 7:52 PM MT
>
> Freedom Convoy organizer Tamara Lich has been re-arrested. She is
> accused of breaching her release conditions and has been taken into
> custody in Medicine Hat, Alta., according to one of her lawyers.
> (Frédéric Pepin/Radio-Canada)
>
> Freedom Convoy leader Tamara Lich has been re-arrested in Medicine
> Hat, Alta., for breaching her bail conditions, her lawyers have
> confirmed.
>
> Lich was taken into custody Monday evening, according to Keith Wilson,
> who represents Lich on her non-criminal cases including a lawsuit.
>
> Wilson, who spoke with Lich after her arrest, says she expects to be
> transported back to Ottawa in the next week.
>
> Eric Granger, who is one of Lich's criminal defence lawyers also
> confirmed Lich's arrest.
>
> Granger says he has no reason to believe his client has done anything
> wrong and is "looking to learn more at this stage."
>
> Tamara Lich admits accepting award is related to Freedom Convoy in
> fiery day in court
>
> Governments, police, convoy organizers granted standing on inquiry
> into use of Emergencies Act
>
> "Based on everything we knew, she's been diligently complying with all
> of her bail conditions as was noted by the judge at her recent bail
> review.
>
> While it's not yet clear which bail conditions she is accused of
> breaching, there is speculation on social media that Lich might be in
> legal trouble over a Facebook photo that shows her beside a fellow
> convoy organizer who she was ordered to stay away from by a judge.
> Canada-wide warrant
>
> Lich faces charges of mischief, counselling mischief, obstructing
> police, counselling to obstruct police, counselling intimidation and
> intimidation by blocking and obstructing one or more highways for her
> role as one of the organizers of the protest that shut down much of
> downtown Ottawa earlier this year.
>
> RCMP confirmed Lich was wanted on a Canada-wide warrant for breaching
> her release order but did not have further information as the arrest
> falls within the jurisdiction of the Medicine Hat Police Service
> (MHPS).
>
> The MHPS says it will not release information until Tuesday morning.
> WATCH | Supporters cheer Tamara Lich as she is released from jail last
> winter:
> Convoy organizer Tamara Lich released from jail
> 4 months ago
> Duration 1:11
> Tamara Lich, one of the organizers of the weeks-long occupation in
> downtown Ottawa, was released from jail on Monday with the condition
> that she leave Ottawa. Lich was arrested Feb. 17 and charged with
> counselling to commit mischief.
>
> The anti-COVID-19 restriction blockades gridlocked Ottawa for three
> weeks last winter as protesters parked trucks that blocked
> neighbourhood access and main arteries around Parliament Hill.
>
> After her arrest, Lich was released on bail in March on conditions
> which include staying off social media. She cannot organize any kind
> of protest and she is also not permitted to contact several of the
> other convoy leaders, including Tom Marazzo, an ex-military officer,
> who also had a failed bid as an Ontario MPP candidate.
>
> Lich was subject to a bail review last month where prosecutors
> unsuccessfully sought to have her taken back into custody for
> allegedly violating her bail condition that she not support anything
> related to the Freedom Convoy.
>
> Weeks after she was granted release in March, Lich was notified she'd
> been selected as a recipient of a freedom award, handed out by the
> Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF), a legal
> organization and registered charity based in Calgary.
>
> Tamara Lich, fourth from the left, was ordered by a judge to have no
> contact with fellow convoy organizer Tom Marazzo, who is tagged as
> being second from the right. This photo shows the group in Toronto
> after Lich accepted her freedom award from the JCCF. (Facebook/Stacey
> Kauder )
>
> The awards ceremony took place on June 16 in Toronto.
>
> The Ottawa judge ruled he would not revoke Lich's bail and instead,
> varied her conditions to allow travel to Ontario with a restriction
> that she be banned from entering the capital's downtown core.
>
> Lich's reasoning for wanting to travel back to Ottawa is protected by
> a court-ordered publication ban and cannot be reported.
>
> But on June 17, the day after the freedom awards were presented,
> Stacey Kauder, who describes Lich as a friend, posted a photo to her
> Facebook page showing Lich with her husband and four other attendees
> at the JCCF gala.
>
> To Lich's left is a man identified as Marazzo, a fellow convoy
> organizer, who she was ordered to have no contact with unless her
> lawyer is present.
>
> Friends of the two convoy organizers speculated on social media that
> Lich was allowed to have contact with Marazzo at the event because
> there were lawyers for the JCCF present who also represent Lich in her
> civil matters.
> ABOUT THE AUTHOR
> Meghan Grant
>
> CBC Calgary crime reporter
>
> Meghan Grant is a justice affairs reporter. She has been covering
> courts, crime and stories of police accountability in southern Alberta
> for more than a decade. Send Meghan a story tip at meghan.grant@cbc.ca
> or follow her on Twitter.
> Follow her on Twitter
>
> With files from Paula Duhatschek and David Fraser
> CBC's Journalistic Standards and Practices
>
>
>
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politi
>
>
> Governments, police, convoy organizers granted standing on inquiry
> into use of Emergencies Act
>
> Individual protesters and federal Conservative party denied standing
> by commissioner
>
> Darren Major · CBC News · Posted: Jun 27, 2022 10:26 PM ET
>
> Police officers push back protesters in front of the Senate of Canada
> Building in February, following the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
> (Evan Mitsui/CBC)
>
> Governments of all three levels, convoy organizers and police have
> been granted standing in the public inquiry looking into the
> invocation of the federal Emergencies Act, but the federal
> Conservative Party and a number of individuals who had their bank
> accounts frozen have been left out.
>
> Granting groups or individuals standing allows them certain privileges
> in the inquiry process, including the ability to suggest witnesses or
> cross-examine them. It also means they are given advance notice on
> documents being submitted into evidence.
>
> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau invoked the act on Feb. 14 — for the
> first time in Canada's history — during the Freedom Convoy. The act
> gave the federal government temporary powers to deal with the
> anti-COVID-19 restriction blockades that gridlocked Ottawa for three
> weeks last winter as protesters parked trucks that blocked
> neighbourhood access and main arteries around Parliament Hill.
>
> Freedom Convoy leader Tamara Lich arrested in Alberta, accused of
> breaching bail conditions
>
> Trudeau calls public inquiry into use of Emergencies Act during
> convoy protests
>
> Paul Rouleau, the commissioner heading the inquiry, wrote in his
> decision that the deadline to submit the inquiry report weighed on his
> final determination.
>
> "I must keep in mind the practical realities facing the commission,
> including the strict timeline in which to complete the Inquiry,"
> Rouleau wrote.
>
> The federal government, the governments of Saskatchewan and Alberta
> have been granted full standing, while the government of Manitoba will
> be allowed to enter written submissions.
>
> Key convoy organizers including Tamara Lich, Tom Marazzo, Chris Barber
> and Daniel Bulford have been granted full standing.
>
> "Their contributions to the work of the commission are necessary, as
> they are uniquely situated to offer information to the commission and
> give firsthand evidence as to the goals and organization of the
> convoy," Rouleau wrote of the organizers.
>
> The Ottawa Police Service has been granted full standing, while its
> former chief Peter Sloly will be allowed to produce documents and
> examine witnesses.
>
> The cities of Ottawa and Windsor have also been granted standing.
>
> Protesters form a blockade in front of the Ambassador Bridge in
> Windsor, Ont., which links the city to Michigan. (Darrin Di Carlo/CBC)
> Conservatives, individual participants denied
>
> The federal Conservative Party and individual protesters are some
> notable exclusions in Rouleau's decision.
>
> In his dismissal of the Conservatives, Rouleau pointed to the
> parliamentary committee reviewing the use of the act and said the
> inquiry needs to remain above the political fray.
>
> "The political process that involves elected representatives from the
> various parties has a role to play in how the use of the Emergencies
> Act is reviewed and assessed," Rouleau said.
>
> "There is also an important role for an independent non-partisan
> process. Both ought to operate independently from one another."
>
> A number of individual protesters, including some who had their bank
> accounts frozen, were also denied standing in the inquiry.
>
> Rouleau reasoned that individual protesters would have limited
> perspective on what unfolded earlier this year.
>
> "By and large, their contribution would be limited to what they saw,
> heard or experienced from their particular vantage point as a
> participant or supporter of the convoy," Rouleau said, adding that
> individuals will be able to have their voices heard during public
> hearings.
>
> The commission's final report must be submitted by February 2023.
> ABOUT THE AUTHOR
> Darren Major
>
> CBC journalist
>
> Darren Major can be reached via email darren.major@cbc.ca or by
> tweeting him @DMajJourno.
> CBC's Journalistic Standards and Practices
>
>
>
> https://www.thestar.com/news/c
>
>
> ‘Freedom Convoy’ organizer Tamara Lich to appear in Ottawa court
> Wednesday after arrest in Alberta
> Lich has been arrested in Alberta in relation to her court conditions,
> Ottawa police said Tuesday
> Lex Harvey
> By Lex Harvey
> Politics Reporter
> Tue., June 28, 2022
>
> Tamara Lich delivers a statement during a February news conference in
> Ottawa.
>
> Tamara Lich, one of the best-known faces of the so-called Freedom
> Convoy, will appear before a judge in Ottawa on Wednesday after being
> arrested in Alberta for allegedly breaching her bail conditions.
>
> Medicine Hat police say they arrested Lich in her hometown Monday on
> the basis of a search warrant that originated in Ontario for one count
> of failure to comply with a release order.
>
> Lich appeared in Medicine Hat court Tuesday morning and will be
> transported to Ottawa, police said.
>
> Lich has, along with fellow protest organizer Chris Barber, been
> facing charges of mischief, obstructing police, counselling others to
> commit mischief and intimidation, for her role in organizing the
> massive protest that paralyzed downtown Ottawa for more than three
> weeks in February.
>
> After a judge initially denied her bail, Lich was released in March
> with a long list of conditions, including a ban from all social media
> and an order not to “support anything related to the Freedom Convoy.”
>
> In an email to the Star, Eric Granger, Lich’s criminal lawyer, said
> Tuesday, “Only very limited information is available” on the arrest.
>
> “Given that Ms. Lich continues to have no criminal record and her
> strong performance on bail was noted by the judge at her recent bail
> review where the judge removed some of the conditions that had been
> previously imposed, we look forward to learning more as information
> becomes available so that we can determine the appropriate next steps
> to be taken in Ms. Lich’s defence.”
>
> In May, an Ontario judge ruled Lich could remain on bail until her
> trial after a Crown prosecutor argued she’d violated one of her bail
> conditions by agreeing to accept a “freedom” award handed out by
> Calgary-based organization the Justice Centre for Constitutional
> Freedoms.
>
> Ontario Superior Court Justice Kevin Phillips said Lich had followed
> her bail conditions and already had a “taste of jail,” which made her
> less likely to reoffend.
>
> Phillips changed Lich’s release conditions to allow her to visit
> Ottawa, but not the downtown core. He kept the ban on Lich’s access to
> social media.
>
> With files from Omar Mosleh, Alex Boyd
>
>
>
> https://torontosun.com/opinion
>
>
> LILLEY: Tamara Lich nabbed for breach of bail while repeat violent
> offenders use revolving door of court system
> Author of the article:
> Brian Lilley
> Publishing date:
> Jun 28, 2022
>
> Accused Freedom Convoy organizer Tamara Lich is retaining the services
> of high-powered Ottawa lawyer Lawrence Greenspon. Accused Freedom
> Convoy organizer Tamara Lich is retaining the services of high-powered
> Ottawa lawyer Lawrence Greenspon. jpg
>
> We can’t have dangerous people like her taking photographs with other
> dangerous people and posting them online.
>
> If we let that keep happening, chaos might ensue.
>
> Lich was arrested again on Monday in Medicine Hat, Alberta, and is
> expected to be transported to Ottawa within the next week for
> violating her bail conditions. On Feb. 17, Lich was arrested and
> charged with mischief, obstructing police, counselling others to
> commit mischief and intimidation.
>
> Without downplaying the impact of the freedom convoy on residents of
> Ottawa’s downtown core, those are hardly charges that would normally
> see this kind of action by police and prosecutors. Lich has no prior
> criminal record and has not been convicted of the charges she now
> faces.
>
> Freedom Convoy organizer Tamara Lich is arrested by Ottawa Police on
> Thursday, Feb. 17, 2022. SUPPLIED PHOTO
>
> Freedom Convoy organizer Tamara Lich is arrested by Ottawa Police on
> Thursday, Feb. 17, 2022. SUPPLIED PHOTO
>
> Yet depending on who you listen to, police have either arrested her
> for being critical of the government – not something that should get
> anyone arrested – or for being photographed at an event in Toronto
> with another convoy organizer.
>
> At this point, forgive me for laughing at the idea that either of
> these are considered bail violations. If we had a justice system in
> Canada that picked up everyone who broke bail conditions, then I might
> be prone to saying, that as a law-and-order kind of guy, I could
> support Lich being detained.
>
> That’s not who we are though, and our system continues to release
> violent repeat offenders on bail with no regard for community safety.
> On Monday, I was at a news conference with Ontario Premier Doug Ford
> and Toronto Mayor John Tory where they lamented repeat offenders for
> gun crimes being out on bail to reoffend.
>
> “Chief Ramer, or before him Chief Saunders, could tell you of many
> instances, not just one, where people are getting out on bail for
> example, over and over and over again, when they’re charged with
> firearms offenses, and that simply has to be changed,” Tory said when
> discussing the recent spate of shootings in Toronto.
>
> Our paper has been full of such stories and will have more to come in
> the future I’m sure, but police and prosecutors are worried about Lich
> taking a photo with someone more than 400 kilometres away from
> Parliament Hill.
>
> Just this week, Toronto Police were looking for a man in an assault
> investigation saying the man was wanted on six counts of assault, two
> counts of assault with a weapon, six counts of choking and six counts
> of breach of probation among other charges. In another incident, two
> men were charged in a robbery with robbery with a weapon, disguise
> with intent, conspiracy to commit an indictable offence and fail to
> comply recognizance, which is police code for out on bail.
>
> Those are just two cases police revealed on Monday.
>
> One of the worst cases I’ve covered involved two men, both with bail
> and court conditions upon them, accused of shooting up a child’s
> birthday party last summer. Three children were injured from bullets
> flying in that incident.
>
> Yet Tamara Lich is the real threat to society, not hardened, repeat
> offenders who shoot up streets, commit robberies or repeatedly assault
> people over several months. Our justice system is not supposed to be
> political, but whether we’re talking about the Lich case or the recent
> revelations that Justin Trudeau’s government interfered in the
> investigation into the Nova Scotia mass shooting, it’s clear we have a
> government intent on making justice political.
>
> Seems Lady Justice is peeking out from under her blind to see who is
> before her before deciding whether to enforce bail conditions.
>
> blilley@postmedia.com
>
>
>
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada
>
>
> 'It's intimidation': Judge faces threats after Freedom Convoy hearings
> 'You feel vulnerable in your house, in your own home,' judge tells
> Radio-Canada
>
> Brigitte Bureau · CBC News · Posted: Jun 29, 2022 4:00 AM ET
>
>
> Protesters gather on Parliament Hill on Jan. 29, 2022, during the
> 'Freedom Convoy' and three-week occupation of downtown Ottawa. (Adrian
> Wyld/Canadian Press)
>
> One of the judges who presided over the court hearings of Freedom
> Convoy organizers is speaking out after receiving threats considered
> serious enough to require police intervention, according to
> information obtained by Radio-Canada and CBC.
>
> The judge in question confirmed that supporters of the convoy from
> Canada and the United States sent several offensive messages, but the
> message that prompted police to react threatened their physical
> safety, the judge said.
>
> It's intimidation. It's trying to influence a court decision, and
> that's serious.
>
> - Judge who is not being identified due to safety concerns
>
> CBC has agreed to withhold the judge's identity to protect their safety.
>
> "I thought, should I tell my children not to come home for a while?"
> the judge said.
>
> "I changed my alarm system. I was advised not to take the same route
> every day," the judge added. "You feel vulnerable in your house, in
> your own home."
>
> Police enforce an injunction against protesters on Parliament Hill on
> Feb. 19, 2022. (Evan Mitsui/CBC)
>
> The judge believes most Canadians respect the justice system, but said
> a vocal minority is seeking to undermine it.
>
> "It's intimidation. It's trying to influence a court decision, and
> that's serious," the judge said.
>
> Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Richard Wagner expressed similar
> concerns in a recent speech in Montreal.
>
> Tamara Lich isn't going back to jail and is now allowed to visit Ottawa
>
> In jail for more than 100 days, Pat King 'beat down,' says supporter
>
> "The pandemic has forced many people to live online during lockdowns.
> And it is at times like these that lies and conspiracies spread like
> wildfire," Wagner said in French on June 9.
>
> "As we have seen around the world, disinformation poses a real threat
> to democratic institutions."
>
> The demonstrations that took place in Ottawa this winter stemmed in
> part from this disinformation, Wagner said. He encouraged people to
> "inform, instruct and educate" their fellow citizens.
>
> Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada Richard Wagner, pictured
> here at a news conference in 2021, warned in a recent speech that
> 'disinformation poses a real threat to democratic institutions.'
> (Justin Tang/Canadian Press)
> Ministry silent on further threats
>
> Ontario's Ministry of the Attorney General would not say if any other
> judges have received threats from Freedom Convoy supporters.
>
> "It would be inappropriate for the ministry to comment on a potential
> or ongoing police investigation," wrote ministry spokesperson Brian
> Gray in an email to Radio-Canada.
>
> MPs describe threats, safety fears as they're issued panic buttons
>
> Ottawa police say they're ready to shut down Canada Day occupation
> attempts
>
> CPC MPs meet with Freedom Convoy organizers
>
> He wrote that the ministry "takes court security and the safety of all
> those in our courthouses ... very seriously," and that local police or
> Ontario Provincial Police provide security "to ensure the highest
> level of protection."
>
> The Ontario Court of Justice and the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
> both declined to comment, saying it would be inappropriate to do so.
>
> CBC News reached out to a number of key figures of the weeks-long
> demonstration in Ottawa, but requests for comment were either declined
> or went unanswered.
>
> No charges have been laid in this matter. It's not known whether the
> investigation is ongoing at this time, and police would not comment.
>
> ABOUT THE AUTHOR
> Brigitte Bureau
>
> Brigitte Bureau is an award-winning investigative reporter with
> Radio-Canada.
>
> With files from Joseph Tunney
>
> CBC's Journalistic Standards and Practices
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 15:54:33 -0300
> Subject: YO Lawrence Greenspon I just called again and your assistant
> told me that you were not working for Madame Lich for free Correct?
> To: lawrence@gghlawyers.ca, "david.fraser"
> <david.fraser@mcinnescooper.co
> Cc: david.raymond.amos333@gmail.co
> stefanos.karatopis@gmail.com, sheilagunnreid@gmail.com
>
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada
> Lawrence Greenspon won't say if he is being paid to represent Lich
> 'Everybody has a right to be represented under the law,' Lawrence Greenspon
> says
>
> David Fraser · CBC News · Posted: Apr 12, 2022 5:20 PM ET
>
>
> Tamara Lich appears at her bail hearing in Ottawa March 7, 2022, as
> Justice John Johnston looks on. (Alexandra Newbould/The Canadian
> Press)
>
> The lawyer representing convoy leader Tamara Lich says his latest
> high-profile client deserves to be well-represented, but Lawrence
> Greenspon won't disclose whether he is being paid or took the case for
> free.
>
> Lich, who was behind fundraising efforts that raised more than $10
> million to support the Freedom Convoy protests in Ottawa, is charged
> jointly with Chris Barber with mischief, counselling mischief,
> obstructing police, counselling to obstruct police, counselling
> intimidation, and intimidation by blocking and obstructing one or more
> highways.
>
> She joins a handful of high-profile Greenspon clients. He has
> previously represented Mohammad Momin Khawaja, the first Canadian
> charged under Canada's Anti-terrorism Act, as well as former senator
> Mike Duffy.
>
> "Some of the people that have contacted me are well aware of the fact
> that in the past I've represented alleged terrorists and murderers and
> people charged with sexual assault. That, I guess, in their minds is
> OK," Greenspon said.
>
> 'The reaction from strangers has been — I'm disappointed because you
> were this, that and the other in our community and I don't put that
> together with you representing Tamara Lich,' says Lawrence Greenspon.
> (Alistair Steele/CBC)
>
> "But representing Tamara Lich who has no criminal record, is not
> charged with any violent offence, there's no weapons involved, there's
> no sexual assault — they seem to have a problem with that."
>
> He said he swore an oath to zealously defend a person whose liberty is at
> stake.
>
> "I don't have any difficulty at all in representing Tamara Lich. It
> doesn't mean that I agree with anything she did or didn't do. But it
> does mean that she's entitled to representation when her liberty's at
> stake," he said.
>
> Lich was arrested Feb. 17, denied bail, but then released on March 7
> on the condition she leave Ottawa within 24 hours, refrain from using
> social media and have no contact with certain co-organizers.
>
> Everybody has a right to be represented under the law.
>
> — Lawrence Greenspon
>
> Diane Magas had been representing Barber and Lich, but is now just
> representing Barber.
>
> Greenspon is expected to challenge the conditions of Lich's bail,
> particularly as it applies to her use of social media.
>
> "The reaction from friends has been, 'I'm not surprised, she's going
> to be well represented.' The reaction from strangers has been, 'I'm
> disappointed because you were this, that and the other in our
> community and I don't put that together with you representing Tamara
> Lich,'" he said.
>
> "It's those individuals that really need to understand what the role
> of defence counsel is and how important it is that everybody has a
> right to be represented under the law."
> Worked in oil and gas
>
> Lich worked in the oil and gas sector in Alberta from 2017 until she
> was laid off in March 2020 "due to closures related to COVID-19,"
> according to a sworn affidavit made by her March 2.
>
> She and her husband moved to Harrison Park, Man., for work after he
> was laid off, but by November 2021 they were back in Alberta and
> working again.
>
> She used five weeks of vacation time to come to Ottawa, where she was
> considered a key figure in the protests against COVID-19 health
> measures, according to the affidavit.
>
> In her affidavit, she said she would return to work following her
> release on bail.
> Raised millions for convoy
>
> In a separate affidavit filed in court related to a proposed class
> action suit against her and others, Lich said she was involved in the
> creation of the crowdfunding campaign for the Freedom Convoy on the
> GoFundMe platform.
>
> Lich delivers a statement during a news conference in Ottawa,
> Thursday, Feb. 3, 2022. (Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press)
>
> She said she used a personal TD bank account, which had no balance, as
> the designated account to hold donated funds.
>
> An email address was set up to accept donations, which also went into
> a personal account belonging to her. At the time, she was the only
> person with access to the donations.
>
> When GoFundMe released $1 million of donated funds on Feb. 2, it did
> so into Lich's personal account she designated for the protest.
>
> Two days after sending her $1 million, GoFundMe said it closed the
> campaign, citing violations of its rules on violence and harassment,
> with all remaining donations being returned directly to individual
> donors.
>
> Lich said that the same day she received the GoFundMe money, a "hold"
> was placed on her account associated with the Freedom Convoy. She said
> the bank didn't prevent money from being deposited into the account,
> but funds could not be withdrawn.
>
> While she had access to the money provided by GoFundMe, Lich said she
> completed approximately $26,000 in transactions.
>
> She spent $13,000 on bulk fuel purchases and another $13,000 was
> "withdrawn in cash and utilized for various purposes," she said in her
> affidavit.
>
> With files from Ashley Burke
> CBC's Journalistic Standards and Practices
>
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: "Higgs, Premier Blaine (PO/CPM)" <Blaine.Higgs@gnb.ca>
> Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 15:09:50 +0000
> Subject: RE: YO George Soule So the Ottawa lawyer Lawrence Greenspon
> is incredibly insulted??? ME TOO
> To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.c
>
> 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-
> Brunswick E3B 5H1 Canada
> Tel./Tel. : (506) 453-2144
> Email/Courriel:
> premier@gnb.ca/premier.ministr
>
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: Premier of Ontario | Premier ministre de l’Ontario
> <Premier@ontario.ca>
> Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 15:06:27 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: YO George Soule So the Ottawa lawyer
> Lawrence Greenspon is incredibly insulted??? ME TOO
> To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.c
>
> Thank you for your email. Your thoughts, comments and input are greatly
> valued.
>
> You can be assured that all emails and letters are carefully read,
> reviewed and taken into consideration.
>
> There may be occasions when, given the issues you have raised and the
> need to address them effectively, we will forward a copy of your
> correspondence to the appropriate government official. Accordingly, a
> response may take several business days.
>
> Thanks again for your email.
> ______
>
> Merci pour votre courriel. Nous vous sommes très reconnaissants de
> nous avoir fait part de vos idées, commentaires et observations.
>
> Nous tenons à vous assurer que nous lisons attentivement et prenons en
> considération tous les courriels et lettres que nous recevons.
>
> Dans certains cas, nous transmettrons votre message au ministère
> responsable afin que les questions soulevées puissent être traitées de
> la manière la plus efficace possible. En conséquence, plusieurs jours
> ouvrables pourraient s’écouler avant que nous puissions vous répondre.
>
> Merci encore pour votre courriel.
>
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: Newsroom <newsroom@globeandmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 15:08:14 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: YO George Soule So the Ottawa lawyer
> Lawrence Greenspon is incredibly insulted??? ME TOO
> To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.c
>
> 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.c
>
> If you are reporting a factual error please forward your email to
> publiceditor@globeandmail.com<
>
> Letters to the Editor can be sent to letters@globeandmail.com
>
> This is the correct email address for requests for news coverage and
> press releases.
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.c
> Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 12:06:21 -0300
> Subject: YO George Soule So the Ottawa lawyer Lawrence Greenspon is
> incredibly insulted??? ME TOO
> To: george.soule@parl.gc.ca, lawrence@gghlawyers.ca, pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>,
> "Katie.Telford" <Katie.Telford@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>,
> "Bill.Blair"<Bill.Blair@parl.g
> Viva Frei <david@vivafrei.com>, "fin.minfinance-financemin.fin
> <fin.minfinance-financemin.fin
> <Newsroom@globeandmail.com>, "blaine.higgs" <blaine.higgs@gnb.ca>,
> premier <premier@ontario.ca>
> Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>, Alistair.Steele@cbc.ca,
> "catharine.tunney" <catharine.tunney@cbc.ca>, sheilagunnreid
> <sheilagunnreid@gmail.com>, "steve.murphy" <steve.murphy@ctv.ca>,
> "stefanos.karatopis" <stefanos.karatopis@gmail.com>
>
> George Soule, Senior Press Secretary, 613-850-3448 or
> george.soule@parl.gc.ca
>
>
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politi
>
> 2 NDP candidates resign following 'unacceptable' online comments
> Candidates were running in Ontario, Nova Scotia ridings
>
> Catharine Tunney · CBC News · Posted: Sep 15, 2021 8:17 AM ET
>
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.c
> Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 12:06:21 -0300
> Subject: YO George Soule So the Ottawa lawyer Lawrence Greenspon is
> incredibly insulted??? ME TOO
> To: george.soule@parl.gc.ca, lawrence@gghlawyers.ca, pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>,
> "Katie.Telford" <Katie.Telford@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>, "Bill.Blair"
> <Bill.Blair@parl.gc.ca>, Viva Frei <david@vivafrei.com>,
> "fin.minfinance-financemin.fin
> <fin.minfinance-financemin.fin
> <Newsroom@globeandmail.com>, "blaine.higgs" <blaine.higgs@gnb.ca>,
> premier <premier@ontario.ca>
> Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>, Alistair.Steele@cbc.ca,
> "catharine.tunney" <catharine.tunney@cbc.ca>, sheilagunnreid
> <sheilagunnreid@gmail.com>, "steve.murphy" <steve.murphy@ctv.ca>,
> "stefanos.karatopis" <stefanos.karatopis@gmail.com>
>
> George Soule, Senior Press Secretary, 613-850-3448 or
> george.soule@parl.gc.ca
>
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politi
>
> 2 NDP candidates resign following 'unacceptable' online comments
>
> Candidates were running in Ontario, Nova Scotia ridings
> Catharine Tunney · CBC News · Posted: Sep 15, 2021 8:17 AM ET
>
>
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada
>
> Disgust growing over vaccine protesters' Holocaust comparisons
>
>
> Demonstrators seen wearing yellow stars, holding pictures of Anne Frank
> Alistair Steele · CBC News · Posted: Sep 15, 2021 4:00 AM ET
>
A convoy tale
The 2022 Freedom Convoy, led by Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, left a permanent mark on Ottawa. But their long-tow through the courts is far from over.
Tamara Lich still remembers the day a stranger accosted her in an elevator in downtown Ottawa.
“He said, ‘Oh, you tortured my daughter,’” the 52-year-old recalled. “He said, ‘My daughter was sick and you guys tortured her with your horns for three days.’”
Soon after, Lich said police officers showed up to check on her. She believes the man, who ended last year’s brief encounter by telling her to “f--k off,” was responsible for making the call.
Another time, while shopping for her grandson at the Halifax airport, a woman called her “a piece of shit,” Lich said.
Strangers walk up to Lich all the time. She never knows what to expect.
But around her hometown they tend to approach the polarizing figure, who remains the face of the 2022 Freedom Convoy, with a smile and a handshake.

Boxes of thank-you notes
At Trukker’s Restaurant in Medicine Hat, Alta., recently, a 74-year-old retired truck driver named Ira dropped $100 in cash on her table.
“They're fighting for our rights,” the man told CBC News.
Lich’s fans don’t just donate money. They send gifts and letters of support, too. In the basement of Lich’s five-bedroom rental home, the former oil and gas administrator keeps several boxes stuffed with thank you cards, T-shirts, flags, quilts and knick-knacks.
More than a few hand-written notes end with the phrase “God bless you” in cursive.
“Every single day, people would tell us that they were planning their suicides until the convoy started,” Lich said, referring to the effects of the COVID-19 health mandates that shut down schools, churches and businesses.

For Lich, who spent 49 days in jail and around the same length of time alongside trucker Chris Barber in court over criminal charges related to their roles in the protest, the boxes represent the rights of ordinary Canadians — an assertion that continues to attract both praise and ire, even as their lengthy court case has come to a close.
“I do feel like I am representing a large portion of Canadians,” Lich said. “The Canadians that are in those boxes — the Canadians that I talked to on the road.”
It’s a sentiment echoed by a stranger in a Tim Hortons parking lot where Lich once staged Wexit protests in pre-convoy times. Spotting Lich being interviewed by CBC, the man approached with glee.

“Tamara Lich stands up for us Canadians that do not agree with Liberal decisions,” said Henry Ankkowiak, who explained that his long-standing distrust of Justin Trudeau dates back to when the prime minister’s father — “Old Man Trudeau” — was in office.
“She is on the right side. She's a right winger and I love that,” Ankkowiak added.
Legal ordeal drags on
On Sept. 13., Lich and Barber’s trial for committing mischief, obstructing police, counselling others to commit mischief and intimidation ended. It will be at least 2025 before their guilt or innocence is decided.
But the legal saga that began with their arrests more than two years ago is hardly over. It’s expected the judge will take care to make the decision “appeal proof,” but few will be surprised if the case ultimately ends up in a higher court.

Then there are the ongoing civil lawsuits.
Ottawa lawyer Paul Champ is mounting a $300-million class-action case against Lich, Barber and 21 other parties for causing damage and harm to residents and businesses when thousands of protesters descended on the Canadian capital, gridlocking downtown for nearly four weeks.
“For a city that sure doesn't want me to be here — would like to get rid of me forever — they can't seem to let me go,” Lich joked. “Like, they won't let me leave.”
Champ previously told CBC that a group of agitators can’t just shut down a community, make life miserable for residents, then go home without facing any consequences or showing any contrition.
“These cases will wrestle with those issues, and will wrestle with the boundaries of protests,” he said.
In recent months, Champ has retreated from commenting further — in part, to avoid attracting harassment. Seen by many as a vocal critic of the convoy, he’s received a barrage of hate mail and threats over the years. Champ said he’s removed his name from the lobby of his office building.
But the civil suit remains, and even Lich’s criminal defence lawyer Lawrence Greenspon agrees that’s where residents should look for accountability.
“That's the place for those individuals to be made whole,” Greenspon said, noting that during Lich and Barber’s criminal trial, the two admitted the 2022 protests did at times interfere with the daily lives of people in the downtown core.
“We don't seek to minimize it,” Greenspon said.

Ottawa residents seek accountability
Efforts to hold convoy protesters accountable have the backing of a group of local counter-activists who continue to convene regularly online and in person, sometimes outside the Ottawa Courthouse on Elgin Street where Lich and Barber were tried.
51-year-old Ottawa resident Joe Morin, one of Lich and Barber’s loudest detractors, concedes “there is humanity” in both of them, but maintains “there are some lines that they crossed that I have a problem with.”
“There has to be a way for them to have a path of reconciliation, because if there's no path … then there's no incentive for them to get better,” he said.
Another lifelong activist, Deana Sherif, 47, co-hosts a podcast with Morin that regularly denounces the so-called freedom movement.
Like many residents, including those who testified before a 2023 citizen-run review of the convoy protests, Sherif saw the movement as hurtful, divisive and violent.
“I won't allow it to go unanswered, especially in my own city or in my own province,” she said about the need for accountability.
The outspoken critic, who herself has been in and out of jail over clashes with pro-Israel protesters, has become a constant nuisance to a lingering group of convoy supporters known around Ottawa as the “Wellington Street regulars.”
The two sides often square off from opposite sides of the street in front of Parliament Hill, exchanging insults over loudspeakers on issues ranging from gender identity to the carbon tax.

On days when Barber and Lich were on trial, both groups stood outside the courthouse with signs and taunted each other.
“I don't believe their minds can be changed,” Sherif concluded.
Meanwhile in civil court, the two convoy leaders appear to be doubling down.
In their own civil suit, Barber and Lich are suing the federal government for using the Emergencies Act to freeze their bank accounts, arguing they were the ones whose rights were trampled during the convoy.
In a separate suit against the Ontario government, Barber is seeking $300,000 in general damages. He alleges the thousands of pages of information taken from his cell phone — information that was made public as part of his bail proceedings, and again as evidence during his joint criminal trial with Lich — violated his rights.
“Somebody needs to be held accountable,” Barber said. “I want recognition. I want them to acknowledge that wrongdoing was done.”
Both expect they’ll be returning to Ottawa regularly in the months — and likely years — to come.
Defence costs approaching $1M
Speaking to CBC ahead of their trial’s conclusion, Lich and Barber pegged their combined defence costs at close to $1 million.
Neither Lich’s high-profile lawyer Greenspon nor Barber’s chief counsel Diane Magas have publicly disclosed their earnings from the criminal case, attracting considerable suspicion and a few conspiracy theories.
“I've heard that I've bought property in Mexico,” Lich said. “I've heard that I have a Swiss bank account or offshore accounts. I've heard that I've had breast augmentation surgery… I've heard it all, basically. But you know that none of that has actually happened.”
Some of the more personal accusations include a rumour that Lich used donated funds to “reinvent” her image with breast implants.
“I did have augmentation surgery done in 2010 — after I'd had three children,” Lich told CBC. “I get a big kick out of seeing on social media that I've got $8-million boobs, like Bionic Woman breasts, essentially.”
Speaking from his rural home near Swift Current, Sask., Barber called his legal costs “extraordinary” in terms of both dollars and time spent. For him, it’s been an eye-opening experience.
“I've never been in custody, never had handcuffs on in my life until 2022,” said the 48-year-old. “So to watch just how slow the wheels of justice are…. It’s cost a ton of money.”
Where’s the money coming from?
Barber, who owns a trucking business with eight employees on payroll, said he’s been relying on his 20-year-old son to run their seven-vehicle fleet. The constant disruptions from his legal obligations in Ottawa have forced the longtime trucker to step away from driving for the first time since he was 18.
Fundraising has become a fact of life for both Lich and Barber. Besides holding events and selling convoy-related merchandise to collect money for their own defence, the two have also helped fellow convoy organizers including Pat King with their legal bills.
Last year, Lich wrote a memoir called Hold the Line, detailing her experience from “the heart” of the convoy, with support from Rebel News. So far, she said she’s received more than $64,000 in royalties.
Her connection to the far-right media company comes with some obligations and commitments.
Last year, Greenspon kiboshed plans for Lich to participate in a “Rebel Cruise” as a featured guest alongside infamous provocateur Ezra Levant and other right-wing personalities, predicting the optics of her soaking up the sun abroad during a break in the trial could be detrimental.
Levant, who owns Rebel News, sporadically appeared at the trial, sitting in the front row among journalists and filming hot-take videos outside for his legion of paid subscribers.

The rest of Lich and Barber’s legal funding, which has amounted to hundreds of thousands of dollars, appears to come from two main sources: the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) and the Democracy Fund (TDF).
Both registered charities espouse values rooted in protecting civil liberties and constitutional rights. Over the years, they have amassed support from prominent libertarians and some evangelical churches.
More recently, the two entities helped fund lawyers defending participants of the Freedom Convoy and its adjacent movements in various judicial settings.
The Calgary-based JCCF, which reported receiving more than $7 million in donations in its 2022 tax filings, has a history of wading into controversial debates.
Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the JCCF has challenged numerous government measures including vaccine mandates and social distancing rules. Barber said this group has largely footed his bill.
In a statement, the organization revealed it has spent more than $200,000 defending Barber and $120,000 defending Lich before the other group, TDF, took over her case.
The Toronto-based TDF, which reported around $2.4 million in gifts in 2022, is still fighting the legality of pandemic-era lockdown measures in various courts and has the backing of former media baron Conrad Black as its historian in residence.
In a statement TDF confirmed its support for Lich but said the amount it has spent on her defence is “privileged and confidential.”
“The total amount spent defending the accused was a small fraction of the resources spent by the police, prosecutors and courts on what has turned into the longest mischief trial in Canadian history,” the statement read.
‘Get back to a normal life’
Both Lich and Barber expressed a desire to return to the life they knew before the convoy and its fallout.
“I would like to get back to a normal life,” said Lich, who has plans to spend more time with her band and train for a powerlifting competition.
“I think those are the only two things that I still have that feel completely normal,” she said about music and fitness.
For Barber, the Freedom Convoy has always been about ending cross-border travel restrictions for unvaccinated truck drivers, even though he himself is double-vaccinated.
He said he’s not interested in getting too involved in culture wars and other issues that have followed fellow convoy organizers.
In some ways, the once self-proclaimed “online troll” has mellowed out. For example, in response to criticism on social media, Barber took down Confederate flags that once adorned his garage.
“Those came down when I realized just how offended some people can be by it,” he said about the flags, which were flown historically by the Confederate Army and remain widely associated with white supremacy.
“I was raised in the '80s, when we used to watch Dukes of Hazzard, in high school back in the day when people had your Confederate stickers on your back window of your pickups or your licence plates,” he explained. “So now the sentiments have changed towards the symbol … I respectfully took the flags down a number of years ago.”
Also gone from the garage is the once-ubiquitous “F--k Trudeau” sign that accompanied him with his truck “Big Red” to Ottawa in 2022.
“I just don't even want to acknowledge his name anymore,” Barber said of the prime minister.
In its place on the giant red truck is a new sign that declares: “Proud member of a small, fringe minority.”
Despite his desire to distance from politics, Barber revealed he’s been courted to get involved in some capacity in a provincial conservative party in Saskatchewan, but has so far declined.
“I don’t want to be a politician,” he said, not wanting to reveal which party.
He is, however, still seeking justice — and not just from the federal government.

“Regardless of whether we win or lose, we're winning anyway,” he said of the various legal sagas. “I know I didn't do anything wrong.”
Now, Barber longs for quieter days on his farm fixing antique tractors and tending to his hobby farm with family.
Sorry, not sorry
Neither of the two convoy leaders intends to let their star fade.
Lich ultimately sees their actions as unifying, despite what the critics say.
“I don’t mean I’m not sorry,” she said in response to the lingering resentment among many Ottawa residents.
“I'm sorry that they felt that way and I'm sorry that they have so much negative energy in their hearts about it.”
Calling the protests a “beautiful experience,” Lich said she’d welcome sitting down with any of her detractors.
“I can just try and be a good person,” she said. “Hopefully over time, people will come to see that and come to know some things about me and realize that I am just a human being. And hopefully they will be able to find some forgiveness in their hearts.”
For his part, Barber said while he didn’t witness any incidents of hate or harassment perpetrated by protesters during the convoy, he is sorry for any that may have occurred.
“There were bad actors — meatheads, as we called them — involved with everything,” he said. “I didn’t stand with those people.”
For Barber, it's all a symptom of our growing polarization as a society.
“We’re almost desensitized to everyone else’s feelings out there,” he said. “Everybody’s about making the next person angry or humiliated.”
Nevertheless, both Lich and Barber continue to make activism a part of their lives.
Both have travelled to Europe and elsewhere to meet with like-minded activists. They’ve launched a new organization together to raise awareness about vaccine injuries, and they continue to participate in speaking circuits and right-wing media circles.
Like Lich, Barber knows he’s forever linked to a political movement that has inspired multiple narratives about who’s right, who’s wrong, and who should be held accountable for what happened in 2022. His own version of the story is now mapped out in a sleeve tattoo, an indelible reminder of his life-changing journey, even if the final destination remains far down the road.
Pat King apologizes for role in Freedom Convoy, faces sentencing next month
Fallout from actions in Ottawa left him unable to sleep and fearing safety, King says
UPDATE | On Jan. 24, King's sentencing was moved to Feb. 19.
Freedom Convoy figurehead Pat King has apologized for his role in the 2022 protests, saying the fallout from his actions in Ottawa has left him unable to sleep, fearing for his safety, enduring online harassment, and facing financial ruin.
"I am extremely sorry for what happened to the City of Ottawa, and for that, I absolutely apologize for my actions," he said, adding that he "can relate" to what downtown residents experienced during the weeks-long gridlock and constant horn honking.
King made the comments at the conclusion of sentencing submissions to determine whether he will go to jail – and for how long – for his role as one of the protest leaders. A decision is expected on Feb. 7.
In November, King was convicted in Ontario Superior Court on five criminal charges: mischief, counselling to commit mischief, counselling to obstruct a public or peace officer, and two counts of disobeying a court order.
'Worst kind of mischief'
Crown prosecutor Moiz Karimjee called King's offending of the "worst kind" and asked for a 10-year sentence, the maximum penalty for mischief.
King's defence requested time-served, citing the days he spent behind bars after his February 2022 arrest.
Victim impact statements, a pre-sentencing report on King's history, letters from supporters, and a jailhouse interview he gave in July 2022 were included as part of the sentencing submissions.
Superior Court Justice Charles Hackland previously wrote that King's "moral culpability" was "significant" as an "organizer and leader who aimed to gridlock, or bear hug the capital."
Near the end of Friday's court proceedings, Hackland indicated he was likely to consider a sentence ranging from time-served to two years in jail.
King's sentence will set precedent as the first convicted leader of the Freedom Convoy to face significant punishment. Others, including Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, are awaiting the outcomes of their trials.
Freedom
Convoy organizer Pat King is surrounded by supporters as he leaves
court in Ottawa on Friday, Nov. 22, 2024. King, one of the most
prominent figures of the 2022 convoy in Ottawa, has been found guilty on
five counts including mischief and disobeying a court order. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)
Karimjee said King committed the "worst kind of mischief," pointing to the cost to city officials and the impact on the community.
He argued that there is a "concrete" fear King might repeat his law-breaking behaviour and said King promoted a "dangerous idea" of inflicting pain on citizens to bring about societal change.
In a July 2022 interview King gave to a supporter from jail, he credited the Freedom Convoy for ending COVID-19 mandates.
Karimjee asked for a "powerful" and "chilling" sentence, arguing that King's comments in the interview showed he still believed in "extorting political change" through lawbreaking.
Karimjee told the court it was "pure fiction" to suggest the protests simply got out of control, because King orchestrated the occupation of Ottawa from the start.
Convoy protest organizer Pat King outside the Ottawa Courthouse on May 16, 2024. (Spencer Colby/The Canadian Press)
The Crown highlighted comments King made as early as Jan. 12, 2022 – weeks before arriving in Ottawa – where he spoke about bringing "fear" and "scaring" people, which, Karimjee argued revealed King's intentions.
He described King's actions as "an attack on the rule of law and democratic process" because King tried to change government policy by gridlocking the city.
Court pushback against proposed sentence
Hackland repeatedly suggested Karimjee's proposed sentence was too high, flatly stating at one point he "did not agree" that King's conviction met the high threshold for a 10-year sentence, while making clear he was still deliberating.
The judge's comments elicited smiles and looks of encouragement from King and a handful of his supporters.
King's conviction was "not a minor mischief" however, Hackland said, noting that King did not appear to regret his actions.
As the proceedings wrapped up Friday, Hackland said the range he had to consider was between time-served and a jail term of more than two years. "That's my impression," he said.
Defence opposes imprisonment
The defence argues that King has already spent enough time in jail and should serve any sentence in the community.
King's lawyer, Natasha Calvinho, called the prospect of a 10-year sentence "absolutely outrageous", accusing the Crown of seeking to punish King for the "sum total of the result of the Freedom Convoy."
During his statement, King said he now struggles to find employment and spoke about the harsh conditions he faced while in custody, saying he was "threatened" and "constantly under threats of violence."
King says he owes around $250,000 in legal fees.
While King accepted his guilt, he argued that there was no court injunction against parking trucks on residential streets when he helped organize the protests.
He blamed police for deciding where protesters could park and the media for slandering him.
"I don't want to live in a country where I get 10 years for standing up for what I believe in," King said.
Impact on vulnerable communities
During Thursday's sentencing submissions, Hackland acknowledged the impact the protests had on vulnerable communities.
A victim impact statement was read into the record from a representative of a women's shelter, who described the trauma experienced by those affected by the protests.
"The women expressed, often, that it was like experiencing the abuse all over again," said Sarah Davis, the former executive director of Cornerstone Housing for Women.
Sentencing starts for Freedom Convoy organizer Pat King
King was convicted in November of 5 criminal charges stemming from takeover of Ottawa's downtown in 2022
Deliberations started Thursday over Freedom Convoy organizer Pat King's sentence for his role in the disruptive protest that brought Ottawa's downtown to a standstill for more than three weeks in early 2022
Justice Charles Hackland informed the court Thursday morning he'll decide on when to deliver his decision at a later date.
Victim impact statements, a pre-sentencing report on King's history and a jailhouse interview he did in July 2022 are included as part of the sentencing submissions.
Crown prosecutor Moiz Karimjee is seeking a significant penalty for King, who in November was convicted in Ontario Superior Court of five criminal charges: two counts of disobeying a court order and one each of mischief, counselling to commit mischief and counselling to obstruct a public or peace officer.
A mischief conviction carries a maximum sentence of 10 years.
King,
left, poses for a selfie with a Freedom Convoy participant in front of
Parliament Hill on Feb. 16, 2022. King was convicted in November for his
role in the protest. (Patrick Doyle/Reuters)
Hackland determined King "personally led a large convoy" and used his social media presence to plan and encourage disruptive activities.
The court found King's own social media videos documented his leadership and broadcast his intentions both before and during the protest.
Evidence presented during the trial showed King directed truckers to ignore a court injunction banning the honking of horns in the downtown area. He also organized a "slow roll" near the Ottawa International Airport and assisted in blockading Wellington Street near Parliament Hill.
King was acquitted of three intimidation-related charges, and Hackland noted in his decision that he had not threatened violence or property damage.
King's lawyer Natasha Calvinho previously expressed disappointment with the decision, but pointed to his acquittal on the intimidation charges as a sign that King's intentions were not violent.
King is surrounded by supporters as he leaves the Ottawa Courthouse on Nov. 22, 2024. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)
King's arrest in February 2022, which was livestreamed on social media, made national headlines. Following his arrest, King faced a protracted bail process during which he was kept in custody over concerns he might re-offend.
He was eventually released in July 2022 under strict conditions including limits on his social media use.
In August 2023, King was briefly jailed again for allegedly breaching his bail conditions but was later released under tighter restrictions.
Thursday marks 1,064 days after King's arrest.
Sentencing hearing held for ‘Freedom Convoy’ organizer Pat King
Published:
Pat King walks into the Ottawa Courthouse on Thursday, Jan. 16. (Katie Griffin/CTV News Ottawa)
Supporters wished Pat King “good luck” as he entered the Ottawa courthouse Thursday morning, as one of the organizers of the ‘Freedom Convoy’ attended a sentencing hearing.
In November, King was found guilty on five criminal charges, including mischief, counselling to commit mischief and counselling others to obstruct police. He was found not guilty on three counts of intimidation and one count of obstructing police.
King was expected to be sentenced, but Justice Charles Hackland said sentencing submissions will be presented Thursday, with a decision delivered within a few weeks.
As King walked into court, one person yelled, “freedom.”
The Crown is asking for King to be sentenced to 10 years in prison. The defence is arguing for time served and probation.
Court heard a community impact statement from someone who did not testify during trial about how the convoy affected them—information the Crown said it wanted to present as an aggravating factor to support a lengthy period of incarceration. The defence took issue with that and said the statement shouldn’t be taken as evidence since the person did not testify and therefore was not cross-examined.
In January 2022, thousands of demonstrators attended the “Freedom Convoy” on Parliament Hill and in downtown Ottawa, protesting the federal government, COVID-19 vaccine mandates and public-health restrictions imposed by the government during the pandemic.
The Crown alleged King was a protest leader who was instrumental to the disruption the protest caused in downtown Ottawa for more than three weeks. The Crown alleged King co-ordinated the vehicle honking and told people to “hold the line” when he was aware police and the City of Ottawa had asked the protesters to leave.
King was arrested in Ottawa in February 2022.
With files from The Canadian Press
Pat King guilty of 5 charges for his role in Freedom Convoy
Accused convoy leader stood trial in Ottawa earlier this year
Pat King, a key figure in what became the Freedom Convoy that paralyzed downtown Ottawa in early 2022, has been found guilty of five charges for his role in the protest.
Superior Court Justice Charles Hackland delivered his decision at the Ottawa Courthouse on Friday morning.
King has been found guilty of five charges: two counts of disobeying a court order and one each of mischief, counselling to commit mischief and counselling to obstruct a public or peace officer.
He's been found not guilty of four charges: three of intimidation and counselling to commit intimidation, and one of obstructing a public or peace officer.
King is expected to be sentenced Jan. 16, 2025.
Crown prosecutor Moiz Karimjee told the court he's seeking a significant penalty for King. A mischief conviction carries a maximum sentence of 10 years.
WATCH | Pat King guilty of 5 of 9 charges:
Over three weeks of testimony heard this spring and summer, King argued he was not guilty. The two sides had starkly different views on the role he played during the protests, however.
Central to the case was the question of leadership. While the Crown contended his influence was undeniable, leaning on extensive evidence from social media, King's defence argued he was not in control of the convoy.
In
his decision, Hackland found King "personally led a large convoy" and
was an "active participant" with supporters in disrupting Ottawa
services, bringing the "core of the city to a stand still."
The
court ruled that social media videos posted by King, presented as
evidence, showed his involvement in planning the protests from January
2022 until his arrest on Feb. 18, 2022.
"His participation, and
indeed his organizational and leadership activities are extensively
documented in Mr. King's own social media in the form of videos made
exhibits of this trial," Hackland told the court, saying the
videos provided considerable insight into King's intentions, role and
personal conduct before and after the convoy.
King's presence and purpose at the protests made him liable for his criminal acts, Hackland said.
"Mr. King's status as a recognized Freedom Convoy organizer and leader
increased the risk that he would be listened to," he added.
The
court found King distributed cash to truckers in Ottawa who requested
it and "as the days wore on he [King] adopted more aggressive rhetoric."
- Crown, defence spar over takeaways from Pat King videos
- Crown lays out arguments as Pat King goes to trial on conduct during 2022 convoy protest
Posts
shown in court featured King directing truckers to blare their horns
despite a court injunction banning it in Ottawa's downtown.
Another video showed King helping trucks block Wellington Street and telling supporters to sit down if police tried to move in.
His lawyer Natasha Calvinho argued police and government "barricaded"
protesters in downtown Ottawa, preventing them from leaving the city.
She also pointed to moments when King told supporters to remain peaceful
and co-operate with authorities.
The judge did not convict King on three intimidation-related charges, finding that King "did not make threats of violence or threats of property damage to anyone."
Calvinho said her and King were "obviously
disappointed" and they would be preparing for sentencing. She pointed to
the acquittal of the intimidation charges as a "good takeaway" because
it demonstrated her client's intentions were peaceful, not violent.
"He was convicted of a couple counts of mischief for his social media
posts, as the judge found, and we'll continue to fight another day," she
said.
King's arrest in February 2022 made headlines when he was taken into custody live on social media. His bail process was also contentious.
After being kept in jail over concerns he would re-offend or violate his conditions, King was eventually released in July 2022 under strict terms including bans on using social media and organizing protests.
King's bail conditions again came into focus in August 2023 when he was briefly jailed for allegedly violating them. He denied the accusations, but was ordered back into custody before being released a week later under tighter restrictions. He has another trial scheduled for charges of perjury and obstruction of justice picked up during one of those bail proceedings.
The convictions mark a pivotal moment in the legal aftermath of the Freedom Convoy, which drew international attention and led to the unprecedented invocation of the Emergencies Act by the federal government.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/pat-king-convoy-bail-1.7290898
Freedom Convoy's Pat King out on bail under strict conditions
King is facing a new charge of breaching his bail conditions
Pat King danced out of the Ottawa courthouse Friday after being given bail with stricter social media rules and a new charge for breaching his original conditions — and having forfeited $25,000 to the court.
The controversial organizer behind what became known as the Freedom Convoy protests was jailed for one week.
His bail was revoked following allegations he violated court-imposed rules on his social media use.
King is unable to afford his legal defence and was granted permission by an Ontario court to raise funds online to pay his lawyer — but only for that purpose.
Throughout his trial, which lasted three weeks, King used social media broadcasts to discuss the media's reporting on his case and his opinions about the judge, criticize Crown prosecutors and discuss COVID-19 mandates and a "UN migrant compact."
As CBC has reported previously, King also discussed in those broadcasts the people overseeing him while on bail and his plans to sue the government following a possible victory in the courts.
The Crown says his online activity extended beyond what was allowed between July 10 and 29.
Further details of Friday's bail hearing are subject to a publication ban.
Pat
King, facing nine charges for his role in what became known as the
Freedom Convoy, arrives at court for the start of his criminal trial in
Ottawa on May 13, 2024. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)
King's new bail conditions come with much more strict rules on his social media use.
He is not allowed to have other people post on his behalf and must limit his online communications to fundraising.
The court also has imposed limits on the items he can auction off to fund his defence. King can't sell any items related to the Freedom Convoy and is allowed only to describe the items up for sale.
Several hours of court time Friday were spent going over King's alleged breach and prior use of social media.
After an extended lunch break, Crown prosecutor Moiz Karimjee and King's lawyer Natasha Calvinho agreed on new bail terms for King.
He was ordered by the court to leave Ottawa within 48 hours.
Pat King is greeted by supporters as he exits the courthouse after being released on bail on Aug. 9, 2024. (David Fraser/CBC)
King also forfeited $25,000 to the court because of the alleged breach.
During court proceedings Friday, King wore the same black sweatshirt he was arrested in a week prior and made faces throughout the proceedings, signalling to reporters, supporters and detractors in the room.
Convoy charges to be decided in October
The Red Deer, Alta. man, who turned 47 last Friday, pleaded not guilty to mischief, intimidation and other charges for his role in the anti-vaccine mandate protests that brought thousands of individuals and their vehicles into downtown Ottawa for almost a month in 2022.
He is expected back in the city in October for a decision on his original charges, and to appear on his new bail violation charge.
In April, King was also charged with perjury and obstruction of justice related to testimony he gave in another, separate bail hearing.
Dates for that trial have not yet been set.
Freedom Convoy's Pat King banned from festival he promoted
King urged followers to buy tickets for the event — but organizers say he won't be welcome on-site
Freedom Convoy organizer Pat King has been banned from a music festival in central Alberta which he had been promoting for weeks, alongside other fundraisers for his legal defence in Ottawa.
King has been urging his 336,000 online followers to buy tickets for the "Rock the Track" music festival, which features Nazareth, the Headstones, Bif Naked, the Northern Pikes and other rock acts.
"Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to show you, don't forget August 8th, 9th and 10th. We are putting on Rock the Track 2024," King announced in June during a livestream event.
"Give it a shot guys, really want to see everybody out there. It is going to a great cause."
But organizers of the three-day event in Rimbey, Alta., which kicks off today, say King will not be permitted on-site.
"It appears Pat knows somebody that is in our volunteer group and was planning to volunteer himself," promoter Courtney Yuchtman wrote in an email to CBC News on behalf of Rock the Track.
Pat King at the courthouse in Ottawa on July 31, 2024. (Anne-Charlotte Carignan/CBC)
"He was using this connection to promote the event and give the impression that he was more involved than just a volunteer. It seems he was using this to increase his popularity, potentially. I don't know for sure."
King promoted event during trial
King is currently jailed in Ottawa for violating his bail conditions while awaiting judgment in a recent criminal trial that ended in July.
The Red Deer, Alta. man, who turned 47 last Friday, pleaded not guilty to mischief, intimidation and other charges related to what became known as the Freedom Convoy in early 2022, when thousands of individuals took their vehicles into downtown Ottawa and protested for nearly a month against government vaccine mandates.
King was unable to afford his legal defence after being abandoned by the broader anti-mandate movement, which is now backed by libertarian and other groups. King was granted permission by an Ontario court to raise funds online to pay his lawyer.
In his videos and posts, King never explicitly stated the Rock the Track event was meant to raise money for him. But he often cited fundraisers of his own while discussing the Rimbey event, used "we" to describe the event and thanked people for their "support."
One of Pat King's many social media statements about the Rock the Track festival. (Facebook)
"You guys know that we do have coming up in t-minus two weeks Rock the Track 2024, ladies and gentlemen. We have Nazareth, we have Headstones, we have Bif Naked," he said in one such video.
"And you can purchase your tickets there," King added in the video, listing the event's web addresses. He then immediately pointed out he's still soliciting funds for his court case.
"My bank accounts are still frozen ... This is for fundraising purposes. All donations can be made to my lawyer," he said in the video.
King's lawyer did not return a request for comment.
Nazareth member never heard of 'this guy King'
When reached by CBC, Pete Agnew, a founding member of the Scottish band Nazareth, said that as far as the band is concerned, this is "just another gig on our coast-to-coast tour."
Agnew said in an email he had just come offstage in Chilliwack, B.C. and was caught off-guard.
"None of us have ever heard of either this Freedom Convoy or this guy King," Agnew wrote.
The official website of the festival makes no mention of King, but he is affiliated with at least one of the event's sponsors — a company whose founder has appeared on King's livestreams and written music in support of the 2022 protests.
King is expected in court on Friday and will appear before a judge in an attempt to be released on bail.
A decision in his trial is scheduled for Oct. 4.
Convoy leader Pat King back behind bars
King turned himself in on Wednesday, intends to fight allegations he breached his bail
Pat King's trial may have ended last week, but the prominent figure in the 2022 convoy protests is back behind bars after turning himself in to police amid allegations he breached his bail conditions.
King has pleaded not guilty to mischief, intimidation and other charges for his role in what became known as the Freedom Convoy.
During a brief court appearance on Wednesday, the Crown confirmed there was an "ongoing investigation" and additional charges were anticipated.
After his trial ended, King has broadcast online — something he had done occasionally since being released from custody in July 2022.
He was given specific permission to do this in order to raise funds for his legal expenses, but is not allowed to comment on the case.
In those broadcasts, King discussed the status of his sureties and his plans to sue the government following a possible victory in the courts.
He's also spoken at length about his trial, which is expected to return Oct. 4 for a decision.
King to 'vigorously defend' himself
King arrived at the Ottawa Courthouse at just past 2 p.m. on Wednesday and shortly afterward was led away in handcuffs.
King didn't make any comment as he entered the courthouse, but his lawyer, Natasha Calvinho, released a statement following his appearance.
She said there were allegations King had breached his bail conditions.
"Mr. King will be seeking a bail hearing at the earliest opportunity and intends to vigorously defend against any allegations that he breached his previous bail conditions," Calvinho's statement said.
One of the people responsible for monitoring King while he is out on bail also informed the court they no longer wanted to do so.
Convoy
protest organizer Pat King is seen outside the courthouse in May.
King's lawyer says he will 'vigorously defend' himself over the new
allegations. (Spencer Colby/The Canadian Press)
Has been in Alberta
King had been in Alberta and was appearing by video conference for the final days of his trial.
By Sunday, word had spread online among King's supporters and followers that he would be turning himself in.
On Monday night, King told his supporters he would be travelling to Ottawa and "surrendering" to police because of "allegations of a breach."
It's expected King will seek to be released on bail the first opportunity — which likely isn't until next week.
Closing arguments wrap up at Pat King convoy protest trial
King has pleaded not guilty to charges for his role in the 2022 demonstrations
Closing arguments have wrapped up in the criminal trial for one of the leaders of what became known as the Freedom Convoy, and a decision is now expected in October.
Pat King has pleaded not guilty to charges of mischief, intimidation, counselling and other charges for his role in the 2022 protests, which led to large swaths of the city's core being gridlocked by trucks and other vehicles for nearly three weeks.
Throughout his trial in Ottawa, the Crown used evidence from social media, police and residents to show King played a key role in bringing protesters to the city and then encouraged them to stay after authorities ordered them to leave in February 2022.
Prosecutors say the Freedom Convoy as a whole was a "group mischief" and argue King played an active role in it, significantly impacting citizens' lawful use and enjoyment of property.
"This case is about Mr. King's conduct and how he chose to express his views — which he's entitled to have — about the COVID-19 mandates, and how that manner of expression consisted of intimidation and mischief," said Crown prosecutor Emma Loignon-Giroux during closing submissions.
King's defence counsel, Natasha Calvinho, has argued the Crown's case lacked context, that the trial was not about the protests themselves and that King can't be held liable for the actions of others.
In
February 2022, the provincial government declared a state of emergency
due to the protest. Shortly after, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau invoked
the Emergencies Act. Police arrested protesters and cleared city
streets. (CBC/Radio-Canada)
She pointed to instances where King followed police directions and encouraged viewers of his popular social media feed to stay peaceful, while minimizing the overall role he had in the protests.
Calvinho said the protests were a "failure" of all levels of government and suggested any guilt on King's part would only be the result of him getting "erroneous advice" from officials, whom she accused of "barricading" protesters in the city and preventing them from leaving.
Superior Court Justice Charles Hackland will now weigh the nuances of the overall circumstances in Ottawa during the protests against King's own actions to decide whether the law was broken.
Role of King's leadership a central question
Central questions at the trial included what role King played during the three-week protests to what extent he could be considered a "leader."
The court never saw evidence of King honking a horn himself or driving a truck. Prosecutors said they didn't need that, because King's other behaviour showed he was actively taking part in mischief and other crimes.
On his social media, King posted videos that prosecutors used as evidence. They showed him directing supporters to honk horns after a court injunction banned the act, leading a "slow roll" of trucks by the Ottawa International Airport and talking about sneaking trucks downtown.
Other videos, including some made after the federal government invoked the Emergencies Act, showed King helping trucks block Wellington Street near Parliament Hill and encouraging supporters to "sit on the ground" if police begin enforcement.
Police
enforce an injunction against protesters, some of whom were camped in
their trucks near Parliament Hill for weeks, on Feb. 19, 2022. Several
police officers were called to testify at King's trial. (Evan Mitsui/CBC)
Officers who testified said efforts to contact King were made because he was considered a "leader" or "person of influence."
One protester from western Canada told court how King was the "guide" for truckers coming from Alberta and was "there to make sure everybody was safe."
Another said he felt rebellion was his "duty" and King was a "prominent figure" in that rebellion.
King was also listed as a contact on the website of one of the main groups organizing the protests.
King points to others, blames authorities
Other protest participants said they had no idea who King was until they got to the city or until the protest was over.
Calvinho also pointed to other people, some who were never charged, who played key roles. She suggested King was targeted only because he was a "valuable personality" as he had some 354,000 online followers at the time of the protests.
She questioned the role authorities played when it came to mitigating the risk of having so many people and vehicles in the downtown core.
"Knowing that, and the volume of persons, [authorities] not only invited them, they told them where to park, where to stage, where to set up, where to remain, where to overflow," Calvinho said.
Dozens testified, hours of video evidence entered
The trial started in May and endured starts and stops before both parties finished calling evidence Friday and made closing arguments.
Hours of video evidence, much of it sourced from King's own social media, were entered into evidence by both sides. Other evidence included decibel maps that showed noise levels, as well as descriptions of how services like transit routes were disrupted.
During closing arguments, King appeared on a video screen from Red Deer, Alta., where he lives.
King's trial was highly anticipated by supporters and followers of the 2022 protests. He is one of the key convoy figures going through Ottawa courts.
If found guilty, any potential jail time for King is a moving target — but prosecutors have made clear he could face up to ten years in prison.
Hackland is planning to deliver his decision on Oct. 4, 2024, and has ordered King to be there in person.
Trial of Ottawa convoy protest participant Pat King heads to closing arguments
King's trial will hear closing arguments Friday
Closing arguments in the trial of a prominent figure in what became known as the Freedom Convoy will be heard in an Ottawa courtroom Friday.
Pat King's trial on charges of mischief and intimidation, and seven other criminal offences related to his participation in the weeks-long protest, started in May but only finished hearing evidence on Tuesday.
Natasha Calvinho, King's lawyer, has argued there was a failure at "all levels of government" responsible for responding to the protests and pointed to instances when King and others were following directions from authorities.
She also accused police of "barricading" protesters in, preventing them from leaving the city, and argued any guilt on the shoulders of King was a result of "erroneous advice" from officials.
Defence calls police, convoy supporters
Calvinho called on the testimony of police officers who were dealing with protesters during the 2022 convoy, which came to the city to protest against COVID-19 vaccine mandates and other grievances.
King's defence has suggested there were confusing and conflicting messages from authorities.
Calvinho has argued the police never had a plan to have the trucks exit, and accused them of preventing people from leaving the city.
Throughout their testimony, Ottawa Police Service (OPS) officers told court they were expecting and encouraging the protesters to leave throughout the weeks-long event.
In
February 2022, the provincial government declared a state of emergency
due to the protest. Shortly after, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau invoked
the Emergencies Act. Police arrested protesters and cleared city
streets. (Ivanoh Demers/Radio-Canada)
Court heard that police and city officials felt they had lost control of an occupied downtown core and were unable to enforce laws or effectively respond to emergency situations. The federal government eventually deployed the Emergencies Act to regain control of the city.
Calvinho also called convoy supporters and participants to testify.
One participant, a 45-year-old Nepean resident, said he attended the Freedom Convoy because of the "draconian measures" being taken by a "tyrannical government."
Dylan Dumsday said King's actions didn't influence his actions, which included going downtown as police moved in to end the protests.
He said "extreme measures" were called for but he stopped short of being arrested and left the area after being pushed west by police along Wellington Street on Feb. 19.
King's level of involvement in, and influence over, the Freedom Convoy is a central question in the trial.
Calvinho has pointed to other people, some of whom were never charged, who were playing key roles throughout the protests.
Court heard evidence of how others helped raise money, communicate with authorities and manage logistics.
Dumsday said he felt rebellion was his "duty" and he saw King, as well as other supporters, as part of the rebellion. He also described King as a "prominent figure."
Other protest participants said they had no knowledge of King until after arriving in the city, or after police had cleared the streets.
To establish his leadership role, prosecutors have pointed to videos taken from King's own social media. In them, King is seen directing supporters to honk horns after a court injunction banned the act, leading a "slow-roll" of trucks by the Ottawa International Airport and talking about sneaking trucks downtown.
The Freedom Convoy demonstration in Ottawa before police moved in on Feb. 20, 2022. (CBC/Radio-Canada)
Many of the officers who testified said efforts were made by OPS to contact King because he was considered a "leader" and a "person of influence" for the protesters.
During cross-examination, the defence's final witness, Dale Zuccato, told the court he traveled from Alberta to Ottawa as part of King's group and participated in the "slow roll" at the airport.
He agreed with prosecutors that King helped "guide" the protesters to the city, was listed online as a contact and passed instructions to others on the road while travelling.
"He was there to make sure everybody was safe," said Zuccato.
At the onset of her defence, Calvinho suggested that if King was guilty of the crimes of which he is accused, it was only because he had received "erroneous advice" from officials — but it never became clear what that advice was, or which official might have given it.
King pleading not guilty
King lives in Red Deer, Alta., and attended the final days of his trial by video conference.
He has pleaded not guilty to all the charges against him.
King has been in custody for five months. Crown prosecutor Moiz Karimjee has suggested he'll seek a sentence of up to ten years if he is found guilty.
After closing arguments are heard Friday, the judge overseeing the matter will have up to six months to render a judgment.
Pat King relying on defence that he got 'erroneous advice'
King's lawyer says he partly accepts guilt, but should not be held accountable
The lawyer for one of the key figures in the 2022 convoy protests says her client now accepts his guilt has partly been proven — but he should still not be held accountable because he got bad advice from the authorities.
Pat King helped organize logistics and promoted the protests that became known as the Freedom Convoy on social media.
He has pleaded not guilty to mischief, intimidation and several counselling charges.
King's lawyer, Natasha Calvinho, has been arguing at his trial there was an officially induced error — meaning that although King partly acknowledges his guilt, he should not be convicted because he obtained "erroneous advice" from an official and relied on that advice when he committed the offences he's accused of.
It remains unclear what that advice was, however, or who the official giving it could have been.
Police
enforce an injunction against the convoy protesters in February 2022.
Several police officers have been called to testify at King's trial. (Evan Mitsui/CBC)
Calvinho has called witnesses that include a City of Ottawa official, supporters of the protests and police officers tasked with reaching out to protesters both leading up to and during the events that resulted in swaths of downtown being blocked.
Beyond trying to prove an official error and a failure of "all levels of government," Calvinho has suggested protesters were "barricaded" in the city and prevented from leaving by police.
'We weren't trying to keep people there'
During testimony this week, police officers told the court none of the protesters showed any willingness to leave.
One of those officers, Ottawa Police Service Const. Mathew Bickford, said he realized it would take a "collective effort" to remove the trucks that had clogged up the area near Parliament Hill.
But Bickford also testified that nobody was asking to leave the area — despite being told by authorities to do so.
"We weren't trying to keep people there," said Bickford. "It was actually the opposite."
Bickford testified there were instances when protesters would leave on their own free will overnight without police help. The court also saw evidence showing the number of vehicles in the downtown core was regularly fluctuating.
Like in other high-profile trials of key protest figures, police officers testified to instances of feeling unsafe and being "swarmed" by the crowds.
Kim Ayotte, seen here last fall, testified under cross-examination Friday that King was recognized as a leader of the protests. (Justin Tang/The Canadian Press)
Crown prosecutors have entered social media posts and other evidence to show King used his influence to direct protesters to Ottawa's downtown after authorities had told people to stay away.
That evidence included a video taken during the protest by King and posted to his social media, in which he brags about "sneaking" trucks into the city's core.
Prosecutors also accuse him of organizing a "slow roll" protest involving vehicles driving by the Ottawa International Airport.
Retired city GM testifies
After a morning of testimony from Kim Ayotte, the city's recently retired general manager of emergency and protective services, there was a lengthy discussion between prosecutors, Calvinho and Justice Charles Hackland about its relevance.
Ayotte agreed with Calvinho it was Ottawa Police Service's responsibility to keep the peace and handle crowd management on behalf of the city.
-
City officials negotiated moving trucks to Wellington, trial of convoy leaders hears
-
Convoy trial defence lawyer argues police directed protesters into downtown Ottawa
But the Crown argued there was little relevance of the testimony to either the criminal trial or King's defence that someone in authority committed an "officially induced error."
Pat King has pleaded not guilty to nine charges stemming from the 2022 demonstrations. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)
King identified as leader
After an extended lunch break, Calvinho returned and focused her questions for Ayotte.
She pointed to evidence that police and Ayotte had little or no knowledge of King's role in the protests — in fact, very few witnesses called by either party had significant direct interactions with King.
But under cross-examination, Ayotte said King was recognized as a leader of the protests.
Ayotte told the court the "red zone" designated by police was done to manage traffic flow in and out of the downtown core, and barriers were put on certain roads to maintain emergency routes or to prevent trucks from parking.
He said he'd originally proposed the city and police prevent trucks from entering the city altogether, but was told by legal counsel that wasn't an option because it would be unconstitutional. The city has since changed its opinion on this.
Calvinho has signaled she is likely to call more police officers to testify, but told court her arguments should be done by Tuesday. King is not expected to enter the witness box.
Closing submissions are scheduled for Friday.
Verdicts expected March 12 in criminal trial of 'Freedom Convoy' organizers
Published:
Freedom Convoy organizers Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, right, make their way with counsel to the Public Order Emergency Commission in Ottawa on November 1, 2022. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld
OTTAWA — An Ontario judge is slated to deliver verdicts March 12 in the criminal trial of ‘Freedom Convoy’ organizers Chris Barber and Tamara Lich.
Barber and Lich are co-accused of mischief, intimidation and counselling people to break the law for their roles in a 2022 demonstration that blocked Ottawa streets and infuriated residents.
The complex trial featured a huge body of evidence related to the three-week protest.
The Crown aimed to prove the two conspired to essentially hold residents hostage to the noise and blockades to pressure the government to change its COVID-19 public health policies.
The defence argued the two accused simply exercised their fundamental rights to assembly and expression as part of a legal protest.
The trial, which stretched out over the course of a year, wrapped up in September.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Jan. 6, 2025.
The Canadian Press staff
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 12:04 PM
Subject: Methinks I should take up my concerns with the wannabe lawyer Stefanos Karatopis in Federal Court Correct David A. Hansen?
To: Kevin.leahy <Kevin.leahy@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, <warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, <stefanos.karatopis@gmail.com>, <jayward0111@gmail.com>, <allen.libertarian@gmail.com>, <libertywatchman9@gmail.com>, David Amos <David.Raymond.Amos333@gmail.com>, <premier@ontario.ca>, warren <warren@daisygroup.ca>, <andrew.scheer@parl.gc.ca>, <George.Soros@opensocietyfoundations.org>, <briangallant10@gmail.com>, <john.e.kelly@tsa.dhs.gov>, <David.Hansen@justice.gc.ca>, <robert.frater@justice.gc.ca>, <paul.riley@ppsc-sppc.gc.ca>, <greg@gregdelbigio.com>, <joyce.dewitt-vanoosten@gov.bc.ca>, <joan.barrett@ontario.ca>, <jean-vincent.lacroix@gouv.qc.ca>, <peter.rogers@mcinnescooper.com>, <mfeder@mccarthy.ca>, <mjamal@osler.com>, <gopublic@cbc.ca>, <Whistleblower@ctv.ca>, <gregory.craig@skadden.com>, <boston@ic.fbi.gov>, <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, <Brian.Kelly@usdoj.gov>, <us.marshals@usdoj.gov>, <Fred.Wyshak@usdoj.gov>, <jcarney@carneybassil.com>, <bbachrach@bachrachlaw.net>, <PATRICK.MURPHY@dhs.gov>
Cc: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>, ethics-ethique <ethics-ethique@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, <ombuds@uottawa.ca>, <recteur@uottawa.ca>, <pm@pm.gc.ca>, <president@uottawa.ca>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stefanos Karatopis <stefanos.karatopis@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 18:10:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Methinks I should take up my concerns with its Attorney
General after it is Yasir Naqvi or his replacement I will argue in
Federal Court Correct?
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Cc: libertywatchman9@gmail.com, jayward0111@gmail.com,
allen.libertarian@gmail.com, David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Take notice.
Any further defamatory statements, harassment and intrusion upon seclusion
in emails showing my email address and about myself will be brought to the
courts in a claim against all in this email.
Remove my email address immediately.
Cease and desist immediately.
Govern yourself accordingly.
On Tue, 8 May 2018 at 21:27, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote:
> https://libertarian.on.ca/Char
>
> https://libertarian.on.ca/Stef
>
> https://libertarian.on.ca/Jay_
>
> http://www.allensmall.yolasite
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 18:03:58 -0400
> Subject: Fwd: Methinks I should take up my concerns with its Attorney
> General after it is Yasir Naqvi or his replacement I will argue in
> Federal Court Correct?
> To: info@nota.ca, doug <doug@fordnation.ca>, premier
> <premier@ontario.ca>, warren <warren@daisygroup.ca>
> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
>
> Email info@nota.ca
> Facebook Facebook.com/NoneOfTheAboveX
> Twitter Twitter.com/NoneOfTheAboveX
> YouTube YouTube.com/NoneOfTheAboveX
> Phone (905) 501-0010
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 15:36:02 -0400
> Subject: Fwd: Methinks I should take up my concerns with its Attorney
> General after it is Yasir Naqvi or his replacement I will argue in
> Federal Court Correct?
> To: yasir.naqvi@ontario.ca, ethics-ethique <ethics-ethique@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.c
> Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 19:18:48 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: Methinks I should take up my concerns with
> its Attorney General after it is Yasir Naqvi or his replacement I will
> argue in Federal Court Correct?
> To: motomaniac333@gmail.com
>
> Thank you for writing to the Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, Member
> of Parliament for Vancouver Granville.
>
> This message is to acknowledge that we are in receipt of your email.
> Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence, there
> may be a delay in processing your email. Rest assured that your
> message will be carefully reviewed.
>
> To help us address your concerns more quickly, please include within
> the body of your email your full name, address, and postal code.
>
> Please note that your message will be forwarded to the Department of
> Justice if it concerns topics pertaining to the member's role as the
> Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. For all future
> correspondence addressed to the Minister of Justice, please write
> directly to the Department of Justice at
> mcu@justice.gc.ca<mailto:mcu@j
>
> Thank you
>
> -------------------
>
> Merci d'?crire ? l'honorable Jody Wilson-Raybould, d?put?e de
> Vancouver Granville.
>
> Le pr?sent message vise ? vous informer que nous avons re?u votre
> courriel. En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de
> correspondance, il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de
> votre courriel. Sachez que votre message sera examin? attentivement.
>
> Pour nous aider ? r?pondre ? vos pr?occupations plus rapidement,
> veuillez inclure dans le corps de votre courriel votre nom complet,
> votre adresse et votre code postal.
>
> Veuillez prendre note que votre message sera transmis au minist?re de
> la Justice s'il porte sur des sujets qui rel?vent du r?le de la
> d?put?e en tant que ministre de la Justice et procureure g?n?rale du
> Canada. Pour toute correspondance future adress?e ? la ministre de la
> Justice, veuillez ?crire directement au minist?re de la Justice ?
> mcu@justice.gc.ca ou appelez au 613-957-4222.
>
> Merci
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 15:18:27 -0400
> Subject: Methinks I should take up my concerns with its Attorney
> General after it is Yasir Naqvi or his replacement I will argue in
> Federal Court Correct?
> To: ynaqvi.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org, "Jody.Wilson-Raybould"
> <Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.
> recteur@uottawa.ca, pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>, "Gerald.Butts"
> <Gerald.Butts@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>, "andrew.scheer"
> <andrew.scheer@parl.gc.ca>
> Cc: David Amos <myson333@yahoo.com>, "serge.rousselle" <
> serge.rousselle@gnb.ca>
>
> Yasir Naqvi
> 109 Catherine Street
> Ottawa, ON
> K2P 0P4
> Email: ynaqvi.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
> Phone: 613-722-6414
> Fax: 613-722-6703
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Ombudsman - Ombudsperson <ombuds@uottawa.ca>
> Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 18:46:47 +0000
> Subject: RE: You cannot deny that I am a taxpayer who is compelled to
> support "Canada's University" Correct?
> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
> Dear Mr. Amos,
>
> I have no doubt that you are a citizen. The mandate of my office does
> not extend to people outside the university community. If you think
> your question may be under the jurisdiction of an ombudsman, you may
> contact the Ontario ombudsman office to see whether they can help with
> your inquiry.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Martine Conway, Ombudsman / Ombudsperson
>
> Bureau de l'Ombudsman / Office of the Ombudsperson
> Université d'Ottawa/ University of Ottawa
> (613) 562-5342 [ext. 5342]
> 85 Université (Centre Universitaire) pièce 307/ 85 University
> (University Centre) Room 307
> Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6N5
> www.uottawa.ca/ombudsman
>
> Veuillez prendre note que nous ne pouvons assurer la confidentialité
> des courriels. Il est nécessaire de téléphoner si vous souhaitez
> communiquer avec nous de manière confidentielle.
> Please note that we cannot guarantee the confidentiality of the
> content of email messages. In order to communicate with us on a
> confidential basis, you must phone us.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Amos [mailto:motomaniac333@gmail.co
> Sent: May-07-18 5:36 PM
> To: Ombudsman - Ombudsperson <ombuds@uottawa.ca>
> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
> Office of the President <recteur@uottawa.ca>; pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>;
> Gerald.Butts <Gerald.Butts@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>; andrew.scheer
> <andrew.scheer@parl.gc.ca>
> Subject: You cannot deny that I am a taxpayer who is compelled to
> support "Canada's University" Correct?
>
> On 5/7/18, Ombudsman - Ombudsperson <ombuds@uottawa.ca> wrote:
> > Dear Mr. Amos,
> >
> > Thank you for your email and attached documentation. Please note that my
> > Office has a mandate to receive university-related inquiries and
> complaints
> > from members of the university community (i.e. staff, students,
> > post-doctoral fellows, affiliated researchers, professors and
> administrators
> > at the University of Ottawa). More specifically, I review complaints to
> > ensure fair treatment of university community members.
> >
> > You did not indicate that you were a university community member, and
> while
> > I note the concerns you express about a connection between the current
> > president and the foundation you mentioned, this is not an issue under
> the
> > mandate of my office. I also note that the documentation you attached
> > relates to issues outside the university.
> >
> > I hope this clarifies what I was explaining over the phone. If you are a
> > member of the university community (as described above) with a specific
> > inquiry or complaint about a university process, please feel free to
> contact
> > my office and explain the situation to me.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Martine Conway, Ombudsman / Ombudsperson
> >
> > Bureau de l'Ombudsman / Office of the Ombudsperson
> > Université d'Ottawa/ University of Ottawa
> > (613) 562-5342 [ext. 5342]
> > 85 Université (Centre Universitaire) pièce 307/ 85 University (University
> > Centre) Room 307
> > Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6N5
> > www.uottawa.ca/ombudsman
> >
> > Veuillez prendre note que nous ne pouvons assurer la confidentialité des
> > courriels. Il est nécessaire de téléphoner si vous souhaitez communiquer
> > avec nous de manière confidentielle.
> > Please note that we cannot guarantee the confidentiality of the content
> of
> > email messages. In order to communicate with us on a confidential basis,
> > you must phone us.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Amos [mailto:motomaniac333@gmail.co
> > Sent: May-04-18 2:17 PM
> > To: Ombudsman - Ombudsperson <ombuds@uottawa.ca>
> > Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
> > <George.Soros@opensocietyfound
> of
> > the President <recteur@uottawa.ca>
> > Subject: We just talked I tried to explain to you my concerns about
> Jacques
> > Frémont and his connection with George Soros and the Open Society
> > Foundation
> >
> > University Centre, Room 307
> > 85 University Private, Ottawa ON K1N6N5
> > Tel.: 613-562-5342
> > Toll-free: 1-877-868-8292 ext. 5342
> > Fax: 613-562-5386
> > ombudsperson@uOttawa.ca
> >
> > Jacques Frémont, head of Quebec human rights commission, named next
> > uOttawa president
> > CBC News · Posted: Dec 02, 2015 3:28 PM ET |
> >
> > The current head of Quebec's human rights commission has been named
> > the next president of the University of Ottawa.
> >
> > Jacques Frémont will succeed outgoing president Allan Rock when his
> > term expires at the end of June 2016, the university announced
> > Wednesday afternoon.
> >
> > In addition to becoming the university's 30th president, Frémont will
> > also serve as vice-chancellor, the university said.
> >
> > Frémont, an emeritus professor of law at the University of Montreal,
> > became president of the Commission des droits de la personne et des
> > droits de la jeunesse in 2013.
> >
> > He was appointed unanimously, the university said.
> >
> > Frémont takes over for Rock, who has been the University of Ottawa's
> > president since 2008.
> >
> >
> >
> > Biography
> >
> > Jacques Frémont is President and Vice-Chancellor of the University of
> > Ottawa. In 2013, Quebec’s legislative assembly appointed him to chair
> > the Quebec Human Rights and Youth Rights Commission. Prior to this
> > appointment, he worked at the Open Society Foundations, in New York,
> > as Director of the International Higher Education Support Program.
> >
> > Mr. Frémont was formerly at the University of Montreal, where he was
> > Dean of the School of Law, as well as Provost and Vice-Rector
> > (Academic Affairs) until 2010. He has also been a visiting professor
> > at many Quebec, Canadian, European and Asian universities, and is the
> > author of several books, articles and book chapters on constitutional
> > law and public law. In 2012, he was named professor emeritus of the
> > University of Montreal.
> >
> > Throughout his career, Mr. Frémont has advised various international
> > organizations on issues involving human rights, good governance and
> > democracy, and has directed major international cooperation projects
> > in the fields of human rights and judicial training. He has also been
> > very active in higher education in Canada and abroad.
> >
> > Mr. Frémont is a graduate of Laval University, in Quebec City, and
> > pursued graduate studies at York University in Toronto. He has been
> > awarded prizes and honours, including being named to the Order of the
> > French Academic Palms in 2009 and receiving an honorary doctorate from
> > Paul Cézanne University in Aix-en-Provence in 2010.
> >
> >
> > Office of the President
> > Tabaret Hall (map)
> > 550 Cumberland, Room 212
> > Ottawa ON K1N 6N5
> > Canada
> >
> > Tel.: 613-562-5809
> > Fax: 613-562-5103
> > president@uOttawa.ca
> >
> >
> >
> >
> http://davidraymondamos3.blogs
> >
> >
> > Sunday, 19 November 2017
> > Federal Court of Appeal Finally Makes The BIG Decision And Publishes
> > It Now The Crooks Cannot Take Back Ticket To Try Put My Matter Before
> > The Supreme Court
> >
> > https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca
> >
> >
> > Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
> >
> > Amos v. Canada
> > Court (s) Database
> >
> > Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
> > Date
> >
> > 2017-10-30
> > Neutral citation
> >
> > 2017 FCA 213
> > File numbers
> >
> > A-48-16
> > Date: 20171030
> >
> > Docket: A-48-16
> > Citation: 2017 FCA 213
> > CORAM:
> >
> > WEBB J.A.
> > NEAR J.A.
> > GLEASON J.A.
> >
> >
> > BETWEEN:
> > DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
> > Respondent on the cross-appeal
> > (and formally Appellant)
> > and
> > HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
> > Appellant on the cross-appeal
> > (and formerly Respondent)
> > Heard at Fredericton, New Brunswick, on May 24, 2017.
> > Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 30, 2017.
> > REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:
> >
> > THE COURT
> >
> >
> >
> > Date: 20171030
> >
> > Docket: A-48-16
> > Citation: 2017 FCA 213
> > CORAM:
> >
> > WEBB J.A.
> > NEAR J.A.
> > GLEASON J.A.
> >
> >
> > BETWEEN:
> > DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
> > Respondent on the cross-appeal
> > (and formally Appellant)
> > and
> > HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
> > Appellant on the cross-appeal
> > (and formerly Respondent)
> > REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY THE COURT
> >
> > I. Introduction
> >
> > [1] On September 16, 2015, David Raymond Amos (Mr. Amos)
> > filed a 53-page Statement of Claim (the Claim) in Federal Court
> > against Her Majesty the Queen (the Crown). Mr. Amos claims $11 million
> > in damages and a public apology from the Prime Minister and Provincial
> > Premiers for being illegally barred from accessing parliamentary
> > properties and seeks a declaration from the Minister of Public Safety
> > that the Canadian Government will no longer allow the Royal Canadian
> > Mounted Police (RCMP) and Canadian Forces to harass him and his clan
> > (Claim at para. 96).
> >
> > [2] On November 12, 2015 (Docket T-1557-15), by way of a
> > motion brought by the Crown, a prothonotary of the Federal Court (the
> > Prothonotary) struck the Claim in its entirety, without leave to
> > amend, on the basis that it was plain and obvious that the Claim
> > disclosed no reasonable claim, the Claim was fundamentally vexatious,
> > and the Claim could not be salvaged by way of further amendment (the
> > Prothontary’s Order).
> >
> >
> > [3] On January 25, 2016 (2016 FC 93), by way of Mr.
> > Amos’ appeal from the Prothonotary’s Order, a judge of the Federal
> > Court (the Judge), reviewing the matter de novo, struck all of Mr.
> > Amos’ claims for relief with the exception of the claim for damages
> > for being barred by the RCMP from the New Brunswick legislature in
> > 2004 (the Federal Court Judgment).
> >
> >
> > [4] Mr. Amos appealed and the Crown cross-appealed the
> > Federal Court Judgment. Further to the issuance of a Notice of Status
> > Review, Mr. Amos’ appeal was dismissed for delay on December 19, 2016.
> > As such, the only matter before this Court is the Crown’s
> > cross-appeal.
> >
> >
> > II. Preliminary Matter
> >
> > [5] Mr. Amos, in his memorandum of fact and law in
> > relation to the cross-appeal that was filed with this Court on March
> > 6, 2017, indicated that several judges of this Court, including two of
> > the judges of this panel, had a conflict of interest in this appeal.
> > This was the first time that he identified the judges whom he believed
> > had a conflict of interest in a document that was filed with this
> > Court. In his notice of appeal he had alluded to a conflict with
> > several judges but did not name those judges.
> >
> > [6] Mr. Amos was of the view that he did not have to
> > identify the judges in any document filed with this Court because he
> > had identified the judges in various documents that had been filed
> > with the Federal Court. In his view the Federal Court and the Federal
> > Court of Appeal are the same court and therefore any document filed in
> > the Federal Court would be filed in this Court. This view is based on
> > subsections 5(4) and 5.1(4) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985,
> > c. F-7:
> >
> >
> > 5(4) Every judge of the Federal Court is, by virtue of his or her
> > office, a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal and has all the
> > jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Federal Court of
> > Appeal.
> > […]
> >
> > 5(4) Les juges de la Cour fédérale sont d’office juges de la Cour
> > d’appel fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs que
> > les juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale.
> > […]
> > 5.1(4) Every judge of the Federal Court of Appeal is, by virtue of
> > that office, a judge of the Federal Court and has all the
> > jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Federal Court.
> >
> > 5.1(4) Les juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale sont d’office juges de la
> > Cour fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs que les
> > juges de la Cour fédérale.
> >
> >
> > [7] However, these subsections only provide that the
> > judges of the Federal Court are also judges of this Court (and vice
> > versa). It does not mean that there is only one court. If the Federal
> > Court and this Court were one Court, there would be no need for this
> > section.
> > [8] Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Courts Act provide
> that:
> > 3 The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the Federal Court
> > — Appeal Division is continued under the name “Federal Court of
> > Appeal” in English and “Cour d’appel fédérale” in French. It is
> > continued as an additional court of law, equity and admiralty in and
> > for Canada, for the better administration of the laws of Canada and as
> > a superior court of record having civil and criminal jurisdiction.
> >
> > 3 La Section d’appel, aussi appelée la Cour d’appel ou la Cour d’appel
> > fédérale, est maintenue et dénommée « Cour d’appel fédérale » en
> > français et « Federal Court of Appeal » en anglais. Elle est maintenue
> > à titre de tribunal additionnel de droit, d’equity et d’amirauté du
> > Canada, propre à améliorer l’application du droit canadien, et
> > continue d’être une cour supérieure d’archives ayant compétence en
> > matière civile et pénale.
> > 4 The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the Federal Court
> > — Trial Division is continued under the name “Federal Court” in
> > English and “Cour fédérale” in French. It is continued as an
> > additional court of law, equity and admiralty in and for Canada, for
> > the better administration of the laws of Canada and as a superior
> > court of record having civil and criminal jurisdiction.
> >
> > 4 La section de la Cour fédérale du Canada, appelée la Section de
> > première instance de la Cour fédérale, est maintenue et dénommée «
> > Cour fédérale » en français et « Federal Court » en anglais. Elle est
> > maintenue à titre de tribunal additionnel de droit, d’equity et
> > d’amirauté du Canada, propre à améliorer l’application du droit
> > canadien, et continue d’être une cour supérieure d’archives ayant
> > compétence en matière civile et pénale.
> >
> >
> > [9] Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Courts Act create
> > two separate courts – this Court (section 3) and the Federal Court
> > (section 4). If, as Mr. Amos suggests, documents filed in the Federal
> > Court were automatically also filed in this Court, then there would no
> > need for the parties to prepare and file appeal books as required by
> > Rules 343 to 345 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 in relation
> > to any appeal from a decision of the Federal Court. The requirement to
> > file an appeal book with this Court in relation to an appeal from a
> > decision of the Federal Court makes it clear that the only documents
> > that will be before this Court are the documents that are part of that
> > appeal book.
> >
> >
> > [10] Therefore, the memorandum of fact and law filed on
> > March 6, 2017 is the first document, filed with this Court, in which
> > Mr. Amos identified the particular judges that he submits have a
> > conflict in any matter related to him.
> >
> >
> > [11] On April 3, 2017, Mr. Amos attempted to bring a motion
> > before the Federal Court seeking an order “affirming or denying the
> > conflict of interest he has” with a number of judges of the Federal
> > Court. A judge of the Federal Court issued a direction noting that if
> > Mr. Amos was seeking this order in relation to judges of the Federal
> > Court of Appeal, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Federal Court.
> > Mr. Amos raised the Federal Court motion at the hearing of this
> > cross-appeal. The Federal Court motion is not a motion before this
> > Court and, as such, the submissions filed before the Federal Court
> > will not be entertained. As well, since this was a motion brought
> > before the Federal Court (and not this Court), any documents filed in
> > relation to that motion are not part of the record of this Court.
> >
> >
> > [12] During the hearing of the appeal Mr. Amos alleged that
> > the third member of this panel also had a conflict of interest and
> > submitted some documents that, in his view, supported his claim of a
> > conflict. Mr. Amos, following the hearing of his appeal, was also
> > afforded the opportunity to provide a brief summary of the conflict
> > that he was alleging and to file additional documents that, in his
> > view, supported his allegations. Mr. Amos submitted several pages of
> > documents in relation to the alleged conflicts. He organized the
> > documents by submitting a copy of the biography of the particular
> > judge and then, immediately following that biography, by including
> > copies of the documents that, in his view, supported his claim that
> > such judge had a conflict.
> >
> >
> > [13] The nature of the alleged conflict of Justice Webb is
> > that before he was appointed as a Judge of the Tax Court of Canada in
> > 2006, he was a partner with the law firm Patterson Law, and before
> > that with Patterson Palmer in Nova Scotia. Mr. Amos submitted that he
> > had a number of disputes with Patterson Palmer and Patterson Law and
> > therefore Justice Webb has a conflict simply because he was a partner
> > of these firms. Mr. Amos is not alleging that Justice Webb was
> > personally involved in or had any knowledge of any matter in which Mr.
> > Amos was involved with Justice Webb’s former law firm – only that he
> > was a member of such firm.
> >
> >
> > [14] During his oral submissions at the hearing of his
> > appeal Mr. Amos, in relation to the alleged conflict for Justice Webb,
> > focused on dealings between himself and a particular lawyer at
> > Patterson Law. However, none of the documents submitted by Mr. Amos at
> > the hearing or subsequently related to any dealings with this
> > particular lawyer nor is it clear when Mr. Amos was dealing with this
> > lawyer. In particular, it is far from clear whether such dealings were
> > after the time that Justice Webb was appointed as a Judge of the Tax
> > Court of Canada over 10 years ago.
> >
> >
> > [15] The documents that he submitted in relation to the
> > alleged conflict for Justice Webb largely relate to dealings between
> > Byron Prior and the St. John’s Newfoundland and Labrador office of
> > Patterson Palmer, which is not in the same province where Justice Webb
> > practiced law. The only document that indicates any dealing between
> > Mr. Amos and Patterson Palmer is a copy of an affidavit of Stephen May
> > who was a partner in the St. John’s NL office of Patterson Palmer. The
> > affidavit is dated January 24, 2005 and refers to a number of e-mails
> > that were sent by Mr. Amos to Stephen May. Mr. Amos also included a
> > letter that is addressed to four individuals, one of whom is John
> > Crosbie who was counsel to the St. John’s NL office of Patterson
> > Palmer. The letter is dated September 2, 2004 and is addressed to
> > “John Crosbie, c/o Greg G. Byrne, Suite 502, 570 Queen Street,
> > Fredericton, NB E3B 5E3”. In this letter Mr. Amos alludes to a
> > possible lawsuit against Patterson Palmer.
> > [16] Mr. Amos’ position is that simply because Justice Webb
> > was a lawyer with Patterson Palmer, he now has a conflict. In Wewaykum
> > Indian Band v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2003 SCC 45, [2003] 2 S.C.R.
> > 259, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that disqualification of a
> > judge is to be determined based on whether there is a reasonable
> > apprehension of bias:
> > 60 In Canadian law, one standard has now emerged as the
> > criterion for disqualification. The criterion, as expressed by de
> > Grandpré J. in Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy
> > Board, …[[1978] 1 S.C.R. 369, 68 D.L.R. (3d) 716], at p. 394, is the
> > reasonable apprehension of bias:
> > … the apprehension of bias must be a reasonable one, held by
> > reasonable and right minded persons, applying themselves to the
> > question and obtaining thereon the required information. In the words
> > of the Court of Appeal, that test is "what would an informed person,
> > viewing the matter realistically and practically -- and having thought
> > the matter through -- conclude. Would he think that it is more likely
> > than not that [the decision-maker], whether consciously or
> > unconsciously, would not decide fairly."
> >
> > [17] The issue to be determined is whether an informed
> > person, viewing the matter realistically and practically, and having
> > thought the matter through, would conclude that Mr. Amos’ allegations
> > give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. As this Court has
> > previously remarked, “there is a strong presumption that judges will
> > administer justice impartially” and this presumption will not be
> > rebutted in the absence of “convincing evidence” of bias (Collins v.
> > Canada, 2011 FCA 140 at para. 7, [2011] 4 C.T.C. 157 [Collins]. See
> > also R. v. S. (R.D.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484 at para. 32, 151 D.L.R.
> > (4th) 193).
> >
> > [18] The Ontario Court of Appeal in Rando Drugs Ltd. v.
> > Scott, 2007 ONCA 553, 86 O.R. (3d) 653 (leave to appeal to the Supreme
> > Court of Canada refused, 32285 (August 1, 2007)), addressed the
> > particular issue of whether a judge is disqualified from hearing a
> > case simply because he had been a member of a law firm that was
> > involved in the litigation that was now before that judge. The Ontario
> > Court of Appeal determined that the judge was not disqualified if the
> > judge had no involvement with the person or the matter when he was a
> > lawyer. The Ontario Court of Appeal also explained that the rules for
> > determining whether a judge is disqualified are different from the
> > rules to determine whether a lawyer has a conflict:
> > 27 Thus, disqualification is not the natural corollary to a
> > finding that a trial judge has had some involvement in a case over
> > which he or she is now presiding. Where the judge had no involvement,
> > as here, it cannot be said that the judge is disqualified.
> >
> >
> > 28 The point can rightly be made that had Mr. Patterson been
> > asked to represent the appellant as counsel before his appointment to
> > the bench, the conflict rules would likely have prevented him from
> > taking the case because his firm had formerly represented one of the
> > defendants in the case. Thus, it is argued how is it that as a trial
> > judge Patterson J. can hear the case? This issue was considered by the
> > Court of Appeal (Civil Division) in Locabail (U.K.) Ltd. v. Bayfield
> > Properties Ltd., [2000] Q.B. 451. The court held, at para. 58, that
> > there is no inflexible rule governing the disqualification of a judge
> > and that, "[e]verything depends on the circumstances."
> >
> >
> > 29 It seems to me that what appears at first sight to be an
> > inconsistency in application of rules can be explained by the
> > different contexts and in particular, the strong presumption of
> > judicial impartiality that applies in the context of disqualification
> > of a judge. There is no such presumption in cases of allegations of
> > conflict of interest against a lawyer because of a firm's previous
> > involvement in the case. To the contrary, as explained by Sopinka J.
> > in MacDonald Estate v. Martin (1990), 77 D.L.R. (4th) 249 (S.C.C.),
> > for sound policy reasons there is a presumption of a disqualifying
> > interest that can rarely be overcome. In particular, a conclusory
> > statement from the lawyer that he or she had no confidential
> > information about the case will never be sufficient. The case is the
> > opposite where the allegation of bias is made against a trial judge.
> > His or her statement that he or she knew nothing about the case and
> > had no involvement in it will ordinarily be accepted at face value
> > unless there is good reason to doubt it: see Locabail, at para. 19.
> >
> >
> > 30 That brings me then to consider the particular circumstances
> > of this case and whether there are serious grounds to find a
> > disqualifying conflict of interest in this case. In my view, there are
> > two significant factors that justify the trial judge's decision not to
> > recuse himself. The first is his statement, which all parties accept,
> > that he knew nothing of the case when it was in his former firm and
> > that he had nothing to do with it. The second is the long passage of
> > time. As was said in Wewaykum, at para. 85:
> > To us, one significant factor stands out, and must inform
> > the perspective of the reasonable person assessing the impact of this
> > involvement on Binnie J.'s impartiality in the appeals. That factor is
> > the passage of time. Most arguments for disqualification rest on
> > circumstances that are either contemporaneous to the decision-making,
> > or that occurred within a short time prior to the decision-making.
> > 31 There are other factors that inform the issue. The Wilson
> > Walker firm no longer acted for any of the parties by the time of
> > trial. More importantly, at the time of the motion, Patterson J. had
> > been a judge for six years and thus had not had a relationship with
> > his former firm for a considerable period of time.
> >
> >
> > 32 In my view, a reasonable person, viewing the matter
> > realistically would conclude that the trial judge could deal fairly
> > and impartially with this case. I take this view principally because
> > of the long passage of time and the trial judge's lack of involvement
> > in or knowledge of the case when the Wilson Walker firm had carriage.
> > In these circumstances it cannot be reasonably contended that the
> > trial judge could not remain impartial in the case. The mere fact that
> > his name appears on the letterhead of some correspondence from over a
> > decade ago would not lead a reasonable person to believe that he would
> > either consciously or unconsciously favour his former firm's former
> > client. It is simply not realistic to think that a judge would throw
> > off his mantle of impartiality, ignore his oath of office and favour a
> > client - about whom he knew nothing - of a firm that he left six years
> > earlier and that no longer acts for the client, in a case involving
> > events from over a decade ago.
> > (emphasis added)
> >
> > [19] Justice Webb had no involvement with any matter
> > involving Mr. Amos while he was a member of Patterson Palmer or
> > Patterson Law, nor does Mr. Amos suggest that he did. Mr. Amos made it
> > clear during the hearing of this matter that the only reason for the
> > alleged conflict for Justice Webb was that he was a member of
> > Patterson Law and Patterson Palmer. This is simply not enough for
> > Justice Webb to be disqualified. Any involvement of Mr. Amos with
> > Patterson Law while Justice Webb was a member of that firm would have
> > had to occur over 10 years ago and even longer for the time when he
> > was a member of Patterson Palmer. In addition to the lack of any
> > involvement on his part with any matter or dispute that Mr. Amos had
> > with Patterson Law or Patterson Palmer (which in and of itself is
> > sufficient to dispose of this matter), the length of time since
> > Justice Webb was a member of Patterson Law or Patterson Palmer would
> > also result in the same finding – that there is no conflict in Justice
> > Webb hearing this appeal.
> >
> > [20] Similarly in R. v. Bagot, 2000 MBCA 30, 145 Man. R.
> > (2d) 260, the Manitoba Court of Appeal found that there was no
> > reasonable apprehension of bias when a judge, who had been a member of
> > the law firm that had been retained by the accused, had no involvement
> > with the accused while he was a lawyer with that firm.
> >
> > [21] In Del Zotto v. Minister of National Revenue, [2000] 4
> > F.C. 321, 257 N.R. 96, this court did find that there would be a
> > reasonable apprehension of bias where a judge, who while he was a
> > lawyer, had recorded time on a matter involving the same person who
> > was before that judge. However, this case can be distinguished as
> > Justice Webb did not have any time recorded on any files involving Mr.
> > Amos while he was a lawyer with Patterson Palmer or Patterson Law.
> >
> > [22] Mr. Amos also included with his submissions a CD. He
> > stated in his affidavit dated June 26, 2017 that there is a “true copy
> > of an American police surveillance wiretap entitled 139” on this CD.
> > He has also indicated that he has “provided a true copy of the CD
> > entitled 139 to many American and Canadian law enforcement authorities
> > and not one of the police forces or officers of the court are willing
> > to investigate it”. Since he has indicated that this is an “American
> > police surveillance wiretap”, this is a matter for the American law
> > enforcement authorities and cannot create, as Mr. Amos suggests, a
> > conflict of interest for any judge to whom he provides a copy.
> >
> > [23] As a result, there is no conflict or reasonable
> > apprehension of bias for Justice Webb and therefore, no reason for him
> > to recuse himself.
> >
> > [24] Mr. Amos alleged that Justice Near’s past professional
> > experience with the government created a “quasi-conflict” in deciding
> > the cross-appeal. Mr. Amos provided no details and Justice Near
> > confirmed that he had no prior knowledge of the matters alleged in the
> > Claim. Justice Near sees no reason to recuse himself.
> >
> > [25] Insofar as it is possible to glean the basis for Mr.
> > Amos’ allegations against Justice Gleason, it appears that he alleges
> > that she is incapable of hearing this appeal because he says he wrote
> > both Justice Gleason and Mr. Mulroney were partners in the law firm
> > Ogilvy Renault, LLP. The letter in question, which is rude and angry,
> > begins with “Hey you two Evil Old Smiling Bastards” and “Re: me suing
> > you and your little dogs too”. There is no indication that the letter
> > was ever responded to or that a law suit was ever commenced by Mr.
> > Amos against Mr. Mulroney. In the circumstances, there is no reason
> > for Justice Gleason to recuse herself as the letter in question does
> > not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.
> >
> >
> > III. Issue
> >
> > [26] The issue on the cross-appeal is as follows: Did the
> > Judge err in setting aside the Prothonotary’s Order striking the Claim
> > in its entirety without leave to amend and in determining that Mr.
> > Amos’ allegation that the RCMP barred him from the New Brunswick
> > legislature in 2004 was capable of supporting a cause of action?
> >
> > IV. Analysis
> >
> > A. Standard of Review
> >
> > [27] Following the Judge’s decision to set aside the
> > Prothonotary’s Order, this Court revisited the standard of review to
> > be applied to discretionary decisions of prothonotaries and decisions
> > made by judges on appeals of prothonotaries’ decisions in Hospira
> > Healthcare Corp. v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, 2016 FCA 215,
> > 402 D.L.R. (4th) 497 [Hospira]. In Hospira, a five-member panel of
> > this Court replaced the Aqua-Gem standard of review with that
> > articulated in Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235
> > [Housen]. As a result, it is no longer appropriate for the Federal
> > Court to conduct a de novo review of a discretionary order made by a
> > prothonotary in regard to questions vital to the final issue of the
> > case. Rather, a Federal Court judge can only intervene on appeal if
> > the prothonotary made an error of law or a palpable and overriding
> > error in determining a question of fact or question of mixed fact and
> > law (Hospira at para. 79). Further, this Court can only interfere with
> > a Federal Court judge’s review of a prothonotary’s discretionary order
> > if the judge made an error of law or palpable and overriding error in
> > determining a question of fact or question of mixed fact and law
> > (Hospira at paras. 82-83).
> >
> > [28] In the case at bar, the Judge substituted his own
> > assessment of Mr. Amos’ Claim for that of the Prothonotary. This Court
> > must look to the Prothonotary’s Order to determine whether the Judge
> > erred in law or made a palpable and overriding error in choosing to
> > interfere.
> >
> >
> > B. Did the Judge err in interfering with the
> > Prothonotary’s Order?
> >
> > [29] The Prothontoary’s Order accepted the following
> > paragraphs from the Crown’s submissions as the basis for striking the
> > Claim in its entirety without leave to amend:
> >
> > 17. Within the 96 paragraph Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff
> > addresses his complaint in paragraphs 14-24, inclusive. All but four
> > of those paragraphs are dedicated to an incident that occurred in 2006
> > in and around the legislature in New Brunswick. The jurisdiction of
> > the Federal Court does not extend to Her Majesty the Queen in right of
> > the Provinces. In any event, the Plaintiff hasn’t named the Province
> > or provincial actors as parties to this action. The incident alleged
> > does not give rise to a justiciable cause of action in this Court.
> > (…)
> >
> >
> > 21. The few paragraphs that directly address the Defendant
> > provide no details as to the individuals involved or the location of
> > the alleged incidents or other details sufficient to allow the
> > Defendant to respond. As a result, it is difficult or impossible to
> > determine the causes of action the Plaintiff is attempting to advance.
> > A generous reading of the Statement of Claim allows the Defendant to
> > only speculate as to the true and/or intended cause of action. At
> > best, the Plaintiff’s action may possibly be summarized as: he
> > suspects he is barred from the House of Commons.
> > [footnotes omitted].
> >
> >
> > [30] The Judge determined that he could not strike the Claim
> > on the same jurisdictional basis as the Prothonotary. The Judge noted
> > that the Federal Court has jurisdiction over claims based on the
> > liability of Federal Crown servants like the RCMP and that the actors
> > who barred Mr. Amos from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004
> > included the RCMP (Federal Court Judgment at para. 23). In considering
> > the viability of these allegations de novo, the Judge identified
> > paragraph 14 of the Claim as containing “some precision” as it
> > identifies the date of the event and a RCMP officer acting as
> > Aide-de-Camp to the Lieutenant Governor (Federal Court Judgment at
> > para. 27).
> >
> >
> > [31] The Judge noted that the 2004 event could support a
> > cause of action in the tort of misfeasance in public office and
> > identified the elements of the tort as excerpted from Meigs v. Canada,
> > 2013 FC 389, 431 F.T.R. 111:
> >
> >
> > [13] As in both the cases of Odhavji Estate v Woodhouse, 2003 SCC
> > 69 [Odhavji] and Lewis v Canada, 2012 FC 1514 [Lewis], I must
> > determine whether the plaintiffs’ statement of claim pleads each
> > element of the alleged tort of misfeasance in public office:
> >
> > a) The public officer must have engaged in deliberate and unlawful
> > conduct in his or her capacity as public officer;
> >
> > b) The public officer must have been aware both that his or her
> > conduct was unlawful and that it was likely to harm the plaintiff; and
> >
> > c) There must be an element of bad faith or dishonesty by the public
> > officer and knowledge of harm alone is insufficient to conclude that a
> > public officer acted in bad faith or dishonestly.
> > Odhavji, above, at paras 23, 24 and 28
> > (Federal Court Judgment at para. 28).
> >
> > [32] The Judge determined that Mr. Amos disclosed sufficient
> > material facts to meet the elements of the tort of misfeasance in
> > public office because the actors, who barred him from the New
> > Brunswick legislature in 2004, including the RCMP, did so for
> > “political reasons” (Federal Court Judgment at para. 29).
> >
> > [33] This Court’s discussion of the sufficiency of pleadings
> > in Merchant Law Group v. Canada (Revenue Agency), 2010 FCA 184, 321
> > D.L.R (4th) 301 is particularly apt:
> >
> > …When pleading bad faith or abuse of power, it is not enough to
> > assert, baldly, conclusory phrases such as “deliberately or
> > negligently,” “callous disregard,” or “by fraud and theft did steal”.
> > “The bare assertion of a conclusion upon which the court is called
> > upon to pronounce is not an allegation of material fact”. Making bald,
> > conclusory allegations without any evidentiary foundation is an abuse
> > of process…
> >
> > To this, I would add that the tort of misfeasance in public office
> > requires a particular state of mind of a public officer in carrying
> > out the impunged action, i.e., deliberate conduct which the public
> > officer knows to be inconsistent with the obligations of his or her
> > office. For this tort, particularization of the allegations is
> > mandatory. Rule 181 specifically requires particularization of
> > allegations of “breach of trust,” “wilful default,” “state of mind of
> > a person,” “malice” or “fraudulent intention.”
> > (at paras. 34-35, citations omitted).
> >
> > [34] Applying the Housen standard of review to the
> > Prothonotary’s Order, we are of the view that the Judge interfered
> > absent a legal or palpable and overriding error.
> >
> > [35] The Prothonotary determined that Mr. Amos’ Claim
> > disclosed no reasonable claim and was fundamentally vexatious on the
> > basis of jurisdictional concerns and the absence of material facts to
> > ground a cause of action. Paragraph 14 of the Claim, which addresses
> > the 2004 event, pleads no material facts as to how the RCMP officer
> > engaged in deliberate and unlawful conduct, knew that his or her
> > conduct was unlawful and likely to harm Mr. Amos, and acted in bad
> > faith. While the Claim alleges elsewhere that Mr. Amos was barred from
> > the New Brunswick legislature for political and/or malicious reasons,
> > these allegations are not particularized and are directed against
> > non-federal actors, such as the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Legislative
> > Assembly of New Brunswick and the Fredericton Police Force. As such,
> > the Judge erred in determining that Mr. Amos’ allegation that the RCMP
> > barred him from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004 was capable of
> > supporting a cause of action.
> >
> > [36] In our view, the Claim is made up entirely of bare
> > allegations, devoid of any detail, such that it discloses no
> > reasonable cause of action within the jurisdiction of the Federal
> > Courts. Therefore, the Judge erred in interfering to set aside the
> > Prothonotary’s Order striking the claim in its entirety. Further, we
> > find that the Prothonotary made no error in denying leave to amend.
> > The deficiencies in Mr. Amos’ pleadings are so extensive such that
> > amendment could not cure them (see Collins at para. 26).
> >
> > V. Conclusion
> > [37] For the foregoing reasons, we would allow the Crown’s
> > cross-appeal, with costs, setting aside the Federal Court Judgment,
> > dated January 25, 2016 and restoring the Prothonotary’s Order, dated
> > November 12, 2015, which struck Mr. Amos’ Claim in its entirety
> > without leave to amend.
> > "Wyman W. Webb"
> > J.A.
> > "David G. Near"
> > J.A.
> > "Mary J.L. Gleason"
> > J.A.
> >
> >
> >
> > FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
> > NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
> >
> > A CROSS-APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SOUTHCOTT DATED
> > JANUARY 25, 2016; DOCKET NUMBER T-1557-15.
> > DOCKET:
> >
> > A-48-16
> >
> >
> >
> > STYLE OF CAUSE:
> >
> > DAVID RAYMOND AMOS v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
> >
> >
> >
> > PLACE OF HEARING:
> >
> > Fredericton,
> > New Brunswick
> >
> > DATE OF HEARING:
> >
> > May 24, 2017
> >
> > REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:
> >
> > WEBB J.A.
> > NEAR J.A.
> > GLEASON J.A.
> >
> > DATED:
> >
> > October 30, 2017
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > APPEARANCES:
> > David Raymond Amos
> >
> >
> > For The Appellant / respondent on cross-appeal
> > (on his own behalf)
> >
> > Jan Jensen
> >
> >
> > For The Respondent / appELLANT ON CROSS-APPEAL
> >
> > SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
> > Nathalie G. Drouin
> > Deputy Attorney General of Canada
> >
> > For The Respondent / APPELLANT ON CROSS-APPEAL
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------- Original message ----------
> > From: Brian Gallant <briangallant10@gmail.com>
> > Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2018 18:28:55 -0700
> > Subject: Merci / Thank you Re: ATTN John Kelly, Secretary US
> > Department of Homeland Security
> > To: motomaniac333@gmail.com
> >
> > (Français à suivre)
> >
> > If your email is pertaining to the Government of New Brunswick, please
> > email me at brian.gallant@gnb.ca
> >
> > If your matter is urgent, please email Greg Byrne at greg.byrne@gnb.ca
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Si votre courriel s'addresse au Gouvernement du Nouveau-Brunswick,
> > svp m'envoyez un courriel à brian.gallant@gnb.ca
> >
> > Pour les urgences, veuillez contacter Greg Byrne à greg.byrne@gnb.ca
> >
> > Merci.
> >
> >
> http://davidraymondamos3.blogs
> >
> > Saturday, 21 April 2018
> > Business as usual with the EVIL Yankee Department of Homeland Security
> > Need I say that this "News" item published by the Crown Corp commonly
> > known as the CBC pissed me off yesterday? In return I pounced on a
> > lots of evil Yankee FEDS today because of their tough talk about
> > upholding the law over weed of all things as their crazy Yankee boss
> > Mr Trump starts another COLD WAR.
> >
> > For the public record I attached a pdf of this file to the email I
> > sent to the people found below.
> >
> > https://www.scribd.com/documen
> >
> >
> > Obviously I explained a lot of the file above in front of the RCMP
> > office in June of 2007 and published it in YouTube immediately
> >
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?
> >
> > RCMP Sussex New Brunswick
> >
> > On 4/21/18, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> The Honorable John Kelly, Secretary
> >> Department of Homeland Security
> >> 20 Massachusetts Ave. NW
> >> Washington, D.C. 20528
> >> jkelly@hq.dhs.gov
> >> Fax: (202) 612-1976
> >>
> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> From: "Hon.Ralph.Goodale (PS/SP)" <Hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca>
> >> Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2018 22:29:57 +0000
> >> Subject: Automatic reply: ATTN Corey McPhee I talked to an "Officer
> >> Cruz" in Todd Owen's office then your minion in Calais called me back
> >> wanting to when I was returning to the USA
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> From: "Kelly, John" <john.e.kelly@tsa.dhs.gov>
> >> Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 14:13:19 +0000
> >> Subject: RE: YO Minister Jean-Yves.Duclos Once again you are welcome
> >> Now how about the RCMP, the LIEbranos and all the other
> >> parliamentarians start acting with some semblance of Integrity after
> >> all these years?
> >> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> >>
> >> Sir,
> >>
> >> I believe you have addressed and sent your email to the wrong John
> >> Kelly. I am not the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
> >>
> >> I suggest that you should seek out and identify the correct electronic
> >> message address for the intended recipient you want to address.
> >>
> >> Please note that, I am not at liberty to provide you with any email
> >> addresses and I respectfully ask you to remove my email address from
> >> your contact list and any distribution lists.
> >>
> >> Thank you in advance.
> >>
> >>
> >> V/r,
> >>
> >> John E. Kelly
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
> >> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 09:32:09 -0400
> >> Subject: Attn Integrity Commissioner Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C.,
> >> To: coi@gnb.ca
> >> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
> >>
> >> Good Day Sir
> >>
> >> After I heard you speak on CBC I called your office again and managed
> >> to speak to one of your staff for the first time
> >>
> >> Please find attached the documents I promised to send to the lady who
> >> answered the phone this morning. Please notice that not after the Sgt
> >> at Arms took the documents destined to your office his pal Tanker
> >> Malley barred me in writing with an "English" only document.
> >>
> >> These are the hearings and the dockets in Federal Court that I
> >> suggested that you study closely.
> >>
> >> This is the docket in Federal Court
> >>
> >>
> http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.
> >>
> >> These are digital recordings of the last three hearings
> >>
> >> Dec 14th https://archive.org/details/Ba
> >>
> >> January 11th, 2016 https://archive.org/details/Ja
> >>
> >> April 3rd, 2017
> >>
> >> https://archive.org/details/Ap
> >>
> >>
> >> This is the docket in the Federal Court of Appeal
> >>
> >>
> http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.
> >>
> >>
> >> The only hearing thus far
> >>
> >> May 24th, 2017
> >>
> >> https://archive.org/details/Ma
> >>
> >>
> >> This Judge understnds the meaning of the word Integrity
> >>
> >> Date: 20151223
> >>
> >> Docket: T-1557-15
> >>
> >> Fredericton, New Brunswick, December 23, 2015
> >>
> >> PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Bell
> >>
> >> BETWEEN:
> >>
> >> DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
> >>
> >> Plaintiff
> >>
> >> and
> >>
> >> HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
> >>
> >> Defendant
> >>
> >> ORDER
> >>
> >> (Delivered orally from the Bench in Fredericton, New Brunswick, on
> >> December 14, 2015)
> >>
> >> The Plaintiff seeks an appeal de novo, by way of motion pursuant to
> >> the Federal Courts Rules (SOR/98-106), from an Order made on November
> >> 12, 2015, in which Prothonotary Morneau struck the Statement of Claim
> >> in its entirety.
> >>
> >> At the outset of the hearing, the Plaintiff brought to my attention a
> >> letter dated September 10, 2004, which he sent to me, in my then
> >> capacity as Past President of the New Brunswick Branch of the Canadian
> >> Bar Association, and the then President of the Branch, Kathleen Quigg,
> >> (now a Justice of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal). In that letter
> >> he stated:
> >>
> >> As for your past President, Mr. Bell, may I suggest that you check the
> >> work of Frank McKenna before I sue your entire law firm including you.
> >> You are your brother’s keeper.
> >>
> >> Frank McKenna is the former Premier of New Brunswick and a former
> >> colleague of mine at the law firm of McInnes Cooper. In addition to
> >> expressing an intention to sue me, the Plaintiff refers to a number of
> >> people in his Motion Record who he appears to contend may be witnesses
> >> or potential parties to be added. Those individuals who are known to
> >> me personally, include, but are not limited to the former Prime
> >> Minister of Canada, The Right Honourable Stephen Harper; former
> >> Attorney General of Canada and now a Justice of the Manitoba Court of
> >> Queen’s Bench, Vic Toews; former member of Parliament Rob Moore;
> >> former Director of Policing Services, the late Grant Garneau; former
> >> Chief of the Fredericton Police Force, Barry McKnight; former Staff
> >> Sergeant Danny Copp; my former colleagues on the New Brunswick Court
> >> of Appeal, Justices Bradley V. Green and Kathleen Quigg, and, retired
> >> Assistant Commissioner Wayne Lang of the Royal Canadian Mounted
> >> Police.
> >>
> >> In the circumstances, given the threat in 2004 to sue me in my
> >> personal capacity and my past and present relationship with many
> >> potential witnesses and/or potential parties to the litigation, I am
> >> of the view there would be a reasonable apprehension of bias should I
> >> hear this motion. See Justice de Grandpré’s dissenting judgment in
> >> Committee for Justice and Liberty et al v National Energy Board et al,
> >> [1978] 1 SCR 369 at p 394 for the applicable test regarding
> >> allegations of bias. In the circumstances, although neither party has
> >> requested I recuse myself, I consider it appropriate that I do so.
> >>
> >>
> >> AS A RESULT OF MY RECUSAL, THIS COURT ORDERS that the Administrator of
> >> the Court schedule another date for the hearing of the motion. There
> >> is no order as to costs.
> >>
> >> “B. Richard Bell”
> >> Judge
> >>
> >>
> >> Below after the CBC article about your concerns (I made one comment
> >> already) you will find the text of just two of many emails I had sent
> >> to your office over the years since I first visited it in 2006.
> >>
> >> I noticed that on July 30, 2009, he was appointed to the the Court
> >> Martial Appeal Court of Canada Perhaps you should scroll to the
> >> bottom of this email ASAP and read the entire Paragraph 83 of my
> >> lawsuit now before the Federal Court of Canada?
> >>
> >> "FYI This is the text of the lawsuit that should interest Trudeau the
> >> most
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------- Original message ----------
> >> From: justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca
> >> Date: Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:18 PM
> >> Subject: Réponse automatique : RE My complaint against the CROWN in
> >> Federal Court Attn David Hansen and Peter MacKay If you planning to
> >> submit a motion for a publication ban on my complaint trust that you
> >> dudes are way past too late
> >> To: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
> >>
> >> Veuillez noter que j'ai changé de courriel. Vous pouvez me rejoindre à
> >> lalanthier@hotmail.com
> >>
> >> Pour rejoindre le bureau de M. Trudeau veuillez envoyer un courriel à
> >> tommy.desfosses@parl.gc.ca
> >>
> >> Please note that I changed email address, you can reach me at
> >> lalanthier@hotmail.com
> >>
> >> To reach the office of Mr. Trudeau please send an email to
> >> tommy.desfosses@parl.gc.ca
> >>
> >> Thank you,
> >>
> >> Merci ,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> http://davidraymondamos3.blogs
> >>
> >>
> >> 83. The Plaintiff states that now that Canada is involved in more war
> >> in Iraq again it did not serve Canadian interests and reputation to
> >> allow Barry Winters to publish the following words three times over
> >> five years after he began his bragging:
> >>
> >> January 13, 2015
> >> This Is Just AS Relevant Now As When I wrote It During The Debate
> >>
> >> December 8, 2014
> >> Why Canada Stood Tall!
> >>
> >> Friday, October 3, 2014
> >> Little David Amos’ “True History Of War” Canadian Airstrikes And
> >> Stupid Justin Trudeau
> >>
> >> Canada’s and Canadians free ride is over. Canada can no longer hide
> >> behind Amerka’s and NATO’s skirts.
> >>
> >> When I was still in Canadian Forces then Prime Minister Jean Chretien
> >> actually committed the Canadian Army to deploy in the second campaign
> >> in Iraq, the Coalition of the Willing. This was against or contrary to
> >> the wisdom or advice of those of us Canadian officers that were
> >> involved in the initial planning phases of that operation. There were
> >> significant concern in our planning cell, and NDHQ about of the dearth
> >> of concern for operational guidance, direction, and forces for
> >> operations after the initial occupation of Iraq. At the “last minute”
> >> Prime Minister Chretien and the Liberal government changed its mind.
> >> The Canadian government told our amerkan cousins that we would not
> >> deploy combat troops for the Iraq campaign, but would deploy a
> >> Canadian Battle Group to Afghanistan, enabling our amerkan cousins to
> >> redeploy troops from there to Iraq. The PMO’s thinking that it was
> >> less costly to deploy Canadian Forces to Afghanistan than Iraq. But
> >> alas no one seems to remind the Liberals of Prime Minister Chretien’s
> >> then grossly incorrect assumption. Notwithstanding Jean Chretien’s
> >> incompetence and stupidity, the Canadian Army was heroic,
> >> professional, punched well above it’s weight, and the PPCLI Battle
> >> Group, is credited with “saving Afghanistan” during the Panjway
> >> campaign of 2006.
> >>
> >> What Justin Trudeau and the Liberals don’t tell you now, is that then
> >> Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien committed, and deployed the
> >> Canadian army to Canada’s longest “war” without the advice, consent,
> >> support, or vote of the Canadian Parliament.
> >>
> >> What David Amos and the rest of the ignorant, uneducated, and babbling
> >> chattering classes are too addled to understand is the deployment of
> >> less than 75 special operations troops, and what is known by planners
> >> as a “six pac cell” of fighter aircraft is NOT the same as a
> >> deployment of a Battle Group, nor a “war” make.
> >>
> >> The Canadian Government or The Crown unlike our amerkan cousins have
> >> the “constitutional authority” to commit the Canadian nation to war.
> >> That has been recently clearly articulated to the Canadian public by
> >> constitutional scholar Phillippe Legasse. What Parliament can do is
> >> remove “confidence” in The Crown’s Government in a “vote of
> >> non-confidence.” That could not happen to the Chretien Government
> >> regarding deployment to Afghanistan, and it won’t happen in this
> >> instance with the conservative majority in The Commons regarding a
> >> limited Canadian deployment to the Middle East.
> >>
> >> President George Bush was quite correct after 911 and the terror
> >> attacks in New York; that the Taliban “occupied” and “failed state”
> >> Afghanistan was the source of logistical support, command and control,
> >> and training for the Al Quaeda war of terror against the world. The
> >> initial defeat, and removal from control of Afghanistan was vital and
> >>
> >> P.S. Whereas this CBC article is about your opinion of the actions of
> >> the latest Minister Of Health trust that Mr Boudreau and the CBC have
> >> had my files for many years and the last thing they are is ethical.
> >> Ask his friends Mr Murphy and the RCMP if you don't believe me.
> >>
> >> Subject:
> >> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:02:35 -0400
> >> From: "Murphy, Michael B. \(DH/MS\)" MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca
> >> To: motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com
> >>
> >> January 30, 2007
> >>
> >> WITHOUT PREJUDICE
> >>
> >> Mr. David Amos
> >>
> >> Dear Mr. Amos:
> >>
> >> This will acknowledge receipt of a copy of your e-mail of December 29,
> >> 2006 to Corporal Warren McBeath of the RCMP.
> >>
> >> Because of the nature of the allegations made in your message, I have
> >> taken the measure of forwarding a copy to Assistant Commissioner Steve
> >> Graham of the RCMP “J” Division in Fredericton.
> >>
> >> Sincerely,
> >>
> >> Honourable Michael B. Murphy
> >> Minister of Health
> >>
> >> CM/cb
> >>
> >>
> >> Warren McBeath warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca wrote:
> >>
> >> Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:34:53 -0500
> >> From: "Warren McBeath" warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
> >> To: kilgoursite@ca.inter.net, MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca,
> >> nada.sarkis@gnb.ca, wally.stiles@gnb.ca, dwatch@web.net,
> >> motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com
> >> CC: ottawa@chuckstrahl.com, riding@chuckstrahl.com,John.Fo
> >> Oda.B@parl.gc.ca,"Bev BUSSON" bev.busson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
> >> "Paul Dube" PAUL.DUBE@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
> >> Subject: Re: Remember me Kilgour? Landslide Annie McLellan has
> >> forgotten me but the crooks within the RCMP have not
> >>
> >> Dear Mr. Amos,
> >>
> >> Thank you for your follow up e-mail to me today. I was on days off
> >> over the holidays and returned to work this evening. Rest assured I
> >> was not ignoring or procrastinating to respond to your concerns.
> >>
> >> As your attachment sent today refers from Premier Graham, our position
> >> is clear on your dead calf issue: Our forensic labs do not process
> >> testing on animals in cases such as yours, they are referred to the
> >> Atlantic Veterinary College in Charlottetown who can provide these
> >> services. If you do not choose to utilize their expertise in this
> >> instance, then that is your decision and nothing more can be done.
> >>
> >> As for your other concerns regarding the US Government, false
> >> imprisonment and Federal Court Dates in the US, etc... it is clear
> >> that Federal authorities are aware of your concerns both in Canada
> >> the US. These issues do not fall into the purvue of Detachment
> >> and policing in Petitcodiac, NB.
> >>
> >> It was indeed an interesting and informative conversation we had on
> >> December 23rd, and I wish you well in all of your future endeavors.
> >>
> >> Sincerely,
> >>
> >> Warren McBeath, Cpl.
> >> GRC Caledonia RCMP
> >> Traffic Services NCO
> >> Ph: (506) 387-2222
> >> Fax: (506) 387-4622
> >> E-mail warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C.,
> >> Office of the Integrity Commissioner
> >> Edgecombe House, 736 King Street
> >> Fredericton, N.B. CANADA E3B 5H1
> >> tel.: 506-457-7890
> >> fax: 506-444-5224
> >> e-mail:coi@gnb.ca
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
> >> Date: Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:35 AM
> >> Subject: RE My complaint against the CROWN in Federal Court Attn David
> >> Hansen and Peter MacKay If you planning to submit a motion for a
> >> publication ban on my complaint trust that you dudes are way past too
> >> late
> >> To: David.Hansen@justice.gc.ca, peter.mackay@justice.gc.ca
> >> peacock.kurt@telegraphjournal.
> >> david.akin@sunmedia.ca, robert.frater@justice.gc.ca,
> >> paul.riley@ppsc-sppc.gc.ca,
> >> greg@gregdelbigio.com, joyce.dewitt-vanoosten@gov.bc.
> >> joan.barrett@ontario.ca, jean-vincent.lacroix@gouv.qc.c
> >> peter.rogers@mcinnescooper.com , mfeder@mccarthy.ca, mjamal@osler.com
> >> Whistleblower@ctv.ca
> >>
> >> https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-
> >>
> >>
> http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/WebDo
> >>
> >>
> http://thedavidamosrant.blogsp
> >>
> >> I repeat what the Hell do I do with the Yankee wiretapes taps sell
> >> them on Ebay or listen to them and argue them with you dudes in
> >> Feferal Court?
> >>
> >> Petey Baby loses all parliamentary privelges in less than a month but
> >> he still supposed to be an ethical officer of the Court CORRECT?
> >>
> >> Veritas Vincit
> >> David Raymond Amos
> >> 902 800 0369
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
> >> Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 14:10:14 -0400
> >> Subject: Yo Mr Bauer say hey to your client Obama and his buddies in
> >> the USDOJ for me will ya?
> >> To: RBauer@perkinscoie.com, sshimshak@paulweiss.com,
> >> cspada@lswlaw.com, msmith@svlaw.com, bginsberg@pattonboggs.com,
> >> gregory.craig@skadden.com, pm@pm.gc.ca, bob.paulson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
> >> bob.rae@rogers.blackberry.net, MulcaT@parl.gc.ca, leader@greenparty.ca
> >> Cc: alevine@cooley.com, david.raymond.amos@gmail.com,
> >> michael.rothfeld@wsj.com, remery@ecbalaw.com
> >>
> >> QSLS Politics
> >> By Location Visit Detail
> >> Visit 29,419
> >> Domain Name usdoj.gov ? (U.S. Government)
> >> IP Address 149.101.1.# (US Dept of Justice)
> >> ISP US Dept of Justice
> >> Location Continent : North America
> >> Country : United States (Facts)
> >> State : District of Columbia
> >> City : Washington
> >> Lat/Long : 38.9097, -77.0231 (Map)
> >> Language English (U.S.) en-us
> >> Operating System Microsoft WinXP
> >> Browser Internet Explorer 8.0
> >> Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET
> >> CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; InfoPath.2;
> >> DI60SP1001)
> >> Javascript version 1.3
> >> Monitor Resolution : 1024 x 768
> >> Color Depth : 32 bits
> >> Time of Visit Nov 17 2012 6:33:08 pm
> >> Last Page View Nov 17 2012 6:33:08 pm
> >> Visit Length 0 seconds
> >> Page Views 1
> >> Referring URL http://www.google.co...wwWJrm9
> >> Search Engine google.com
> >> Search Words david amos bernie madoff
> >> Visit Entry Page http://qslspolitics....-wendy-
> >> Visit Exit Page http://qslspolitics....-wendy-
> >> Out Click
> >> Time Zone UTC-5:00
> >> Visitor's Time Nov 17 2012 12:33:08 pm
> >> Visit Number 29,419
> >>
> >>
> http://qslspolitics.blogspot.c
> >>
> >>
> >> Could ya tell I am investigating your pension plan bigtime? Its
> >> because no member of the RCMP I have ever encountered has earned it yet
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
> >> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:36:04 -0400
> >> Subject: This is a brief as I can make my concerns Randy
> >> To: randyedmunds@gov.nl.ca
> >> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
> >>
> >> In a nutshell my concerns about the actions of the Investment Industry
> >> affect the interests of every person in every district of every
> >> country not just the USA and Canada. I was offering to help you with
> >> Emera because my work with them and Danny Williams is well known and
> >> some of it is over eight years old and in the PUBLIC Record.
> >>
> >> All you have to do is stand in the Legislature and ask the MInister of
> >> Justice why I have been invited to sue Newfoundland by the
> >> Conservatives
> >>
> >>
> >> Obviously I am the guy the USDOJ and the SEC would not name who is the
> >> link to Madoff and Putnam Investments
> >>
> >> Here is why
> >>
> >>
> http://banking.senate.gov/publ
> >>
> >> Notice the transcripts and webcasts of the hearing of the US Senate
> >> Banking Commitee are still missing? Mr Emory should at least notice
> >> Eliot Spitzer and the Dates around November 20th, 2003 in the
> >> following file
> >>
> >>
> http://www.checktheevidence.co
> >>
> >> http://occupywallst.org/users/
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> From: "Hansen, David" David.Hansen@justice.gc.ca
> >> Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 19:28:44 +0000
> >> Subject: RE: I just called again Mr Hansen
> >> To: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
> >>
> >> Hello Mr. Amos,
> >>
> >> I manage the Justice Canada civil litigation section in the Atlantic
> >> region. We are only responsible for litigating existing civil
> >> litigation files in which the Attorney General of Canada is a named
> >> defendant or plaintiff. If you are a plaintiff or defendant in an
> >> existing civil litigation matter in the Atlantic region in which
> >> Attorney General of Canada is a named defendant or plaintiff please
> >> provide the court file number, the names of the parties in the action
> >> and your question. I am not the appropriate contact for other
> >> matters.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> David A. Hansen
> >> Regional Director | Directeur régional
> >> General Counsel |Avocat général
> >> Civil Litigation and Advisory | Contentieux des affaires civiles et
> >> services de consultation
> >> Department of Justice | Ministère de la Justice
> >> Suite 1400 – Duke Tower | Pièce 1400 – Tour Duke
> >> 5251 Duke Street | 5251 rue Duke
> >> Halifax, Nova Scotia | Halifax, Nouvelle- Écosse
> >> B3J 1P3
> >> david.hansen@justice.gc.ca
> >> Telephone | Téléphone (902) 426-3261 / Facsimile | Télécopieur (902)
> >> 426-2329
> >> This e-mail is confidential and may be protected by solicitor-client
> >> privilege. Unauthorized distribution or disclosure is prohibited. If
> >> you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us and delete
> >> this entire e-mail.
> >> Before printing think about the Environment
> >> Thinking Green, please do not print this e-mail unless necessary.
> >> Pensez vert, svp imprimez que si nécessaire.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >>> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
> >>> Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 02:23:24 -0300
> >>> Subject: ATTN FBI Special Agent Richard Deslauriers Have you talked to
> >>> your buddies Fred Wyshak and Brian Kelly about the wiretap tapes YET?
> >>> To: boston@ic.fbi.gov, washington.field@ic.fbi.gov,
> >>> bob.paulson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, Kevin.leahy@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
> >>> Brian.Kelly@usdoj.gov, us.marshals@usdoj.gov, Fred.Wyshak@usdoj.gov,
> >>> jcarney@carneybassil.com, bbachrach@bachrachlaw.net
> >>> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, birgittaj@althingi.is,
> >>> shmurphy@globe.com, redicecreations@gmail.com
> >>>
> >>> FBI Boston
> >>> One Center Plaza
> >>> Suite 600
> >>> Boston, MA 02108
> >>> Phone: (617) 742-5533
> >>> Fax: (617) 223-6327
> >>> E-mail: Boston@ic.fbi.gov
> >>>
> >>> Hours
> >>> Although we operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, our normal
> >>> "walk-in" business hours are from 8:15 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday
> >>> through Friday. If you need to speak with a FBI representative at any
> >>> time other than during normal business hours, please telephone our
> >>> office at (617) 742-5533.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >>> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
> >>> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 01:20:20 -0300
> >>> Subject: Yo Fred Wyshak and Brian Kelly your buddy Whitey's trial is
> >>> finally underway now correct? What the hell do I do with the wiretap
> >>> tapes Sell them on Ebay?
> >>> To: Brian.Kelly@usdoj.gov, us.marshals@usdoj.gov,
> >>> Fred.Wyshak@usdoj.gov, jcarney@carneybassil.com,
> >>> bbachrach@bachrachlaw.net, wolfheartlodge@live.com, shmurphy@globe.com
> ,
> >>> >> jonathan.albano@bingham.com, mvalencia@globe.com
> >>> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, oldmaison@yahoo.com,
> >>> PATRICK.MURPHY@dhs.gov, rounappletree@aol.com
> >>>
> >>>
> http://www.bostonglobe.com/met
> >>>
> >>> http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/s
> >>>
> >>> As the CBC etc yap about Yankee wiretaps and whistleblowers I must ask
> >>> them the obvious question AIN'T THEY FORGETTING SOMETHING????
> >>>
> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v
> >>>
> >>> What the hell does the media think my Yankee lawyer served upon the
> >>> USDOJ right after I ran for and seat in the 39th Parliament baseball
> >>> cards?
> >>>
> >>> http://www.archive.org/details
> >>>
> >>> http://archive.org/details/ITr
> >>>
> >>> http://davidamos.blogspot.ca/2
> >>>
> >>> http://www.archive.org/details
> >>>
> >>> http://archive.org/details/Par
> >>>
> >>> FEDERAL EXPRES February 7, 2006
> >>> Senator Arlen Specter
> >>> United States Senate
> >>> Committee on the Judiciary
> >>> 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
> >>> Washington, DC 20510
> >>>
> >>> Dear Mr. Specter:
> >>>
> >>> I have been asked to forward the enclosed tapes to you from a man
> >>> named, David Amos, a Canadian citizen, in connection with the matters
> >>> raised in the attached letter.
> >>>
> >>> Mr. Amos has represented to me that these are illegal FBI wire tap
> >>> tapes.
> >>>
> >>> I believe Mr. Amos has been in contact with you about this previously.
> >>>
> >>> Very truly yours,
> >>> Barry A. Bachrach
> >>> Direct telephone: (508) 926-3403
> >>> Direct facsimile: (508) 929-3003
> >>> Email: bbachrach@bowditch.com
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: "David Amos" david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
> >>> To: "Rob Talach" rtalach@ledroitbeckett.com
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 10:59 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: Attn Robert Talach and I should talk ASAP about my suing
> >>> the Catholic Church Trust that Bastarache knows why
> >>>
> >>> The date stamp on about page 134 of this old file of mine should mean
> >>> a lot to you
> >>>
> >>> http://www.checktheevidence.co
> >>>
> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >>> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
> >>> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 15:37:08 -0400
> >>> Subject: To Hell with the KILLER COP Gilles Moreau What say you NOW
> >>> Bernadine Chapman??
> >>> To: Gilles.Moreau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, phil.giles@statcan.ca,
> >>> maritme_malaise@yahoo.ca, Jennifer.Nixon@ps-sp.gc.ca,
> >>> bartman.heidi@psic-ispc.gc.ca, Yves.J.Marineau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
> >>> david.paradiso@erc-cee.gc.ca, desaulniea@smtp.gc.ca,
> >>> denise.brennan@tbs-sct.gc.ca, anne.murtha@vac-acc.gc.ca,
> >>> webo@xplornet.com, julie.dickson@osfi-bsif.gc.ca,
> >>> rod.giles@osfi-bsif.gc.ca, flaherty.j@parl.gc.ca, toewsv1@parl.gc.ca,
> >>> Nycole.Turmel@parl.gc.ca,Cleme
> >>> >> oig@sec.gov, whistleblower@finra.org, whistle@fsa.gov.uk,
> >>> david@fairwhistleblower.ca
> >>> Cc: j.kroes@interpol.int, david.raymond.amos@gmail.com,
> >>> bernadine.chapman@rcmp-grc.gc.
> >>> Juanita.Peddle@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, oldmaison@yahoo.com,
> >>> Wayne.Lang@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, Robert.Trevors@gnb.ca,
> >>> ian.fahie@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>
> >>>
> >>> http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/nb/n
> >>>
> >>> http://nb.rcmpvet.ca/Newslette
> >>>
> >>> From: Gilles Moreau Gilles.Moreau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
> >>> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 08:03:22 -0500
> >>> Subject: Re: Lets ee if the really nasty Newfy Lawyer Danny Boy
> >>> Millions will explain this email to you or your boss Vic Toews EH
> >>> Constable Peddle???
> >>> To: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
> >>>
> >>> Please cease and desist from using my name in your emails.
> >>>
> >>> Gilles Moreau, Chief Superintendent, CHRP and ACC
> >>> Director General
> >>> HR Transformation
> >>> 73 Leikin Drive, M5-2-502
> >>> Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0R2
> >>>
> >>> Tel 613-843-6039
> >>> Cel 613-818-6947
> >>>
> >>> Gilles Moreau, surintendant principal, CRHA et ACC
> >>> Directeur général de la Transformation des ressources humaines
> >>> 73 Leikin, pièce M5-2-502
> >>> Ottawa, ON K1A 0R2
> >>>
> >>> tél 613-843-6039
> >>> cel 613-818-6947
> >>> gilles.moreau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
> >>>
> >
>
--
*Stefanos KaratopisMember Ontario Landowners
Associationhttp://store.ontari
<http://store.ontariolandowner
Ontario Libertarian Party <http://www.libertarian.on.ca/
The Party of Choice
T <http://thebrightlibertarian.b
<http://thebrightlibertarian.b
<http://thebrightlibertarian.b
No comments:
Post a Comment