Federal minister hopes to ‘move up’ Sisson Mine decision
Tim Hodgson calls proposed project ‘a fantastic card’ for New Brunswick to play for mineral exports
The federal natural resources minister says Ottawa hopes to accelerate the timeline for the Sisson Mine project.
Tim Hodgson said during a trip to New Brunswick that it could take until next year for Northcliff Resources to commit to building the mine, but that could change.
“The final target for an investment decision there is 2027, and we are working with New Brunswick and the proponent to see if we can move that up,” he told CBC News in an interview.
The $579-million project would extract tungsten and molybdenum from deposits in the Nashwaak River watershed northwest of Fredericton.
Last November, Prime Minister Mark Carney listed it among the projects forwarded for possible designation by the Major Projects Office, a designation that would trigger federal support.
Even without that designation, the mine will be eligible for faster approvals and help with financing, Hodgson said.
Ottawa looks to accelerate Sisson mine timeline“That’s a decision that gets worked out by the Major Projects Office and the proponent, and that’s ongoing right now,” Hodgson said.
Northcliff has not responded to interview requests from CBC News.
The company said in a Feb. 5 news release that it is updating its 2013 feasibility study and working on meeting the 40 conditions of the province’s environmental impact assessment issued in 2015.
Among those conditions are a water-quality monitoring plan, air quality approval, modelling for potential tailings-pond failures, an emergency response plan and a start of construction within five years.That start-work deadline has been extended three times by the province since 2015.
The province estimated a decade ago the mine could generate $280
million in royalties over its 27-year lifespan. (Submitted by Sisson
Mining Ltd.)There’s been no progress on the mine in the last decade because of low mineral prices on the global market.
But concern about China’s dominance in the supply of tungsten has revived interest in the project.
The U.S. government put $20.7 million Cdn into the project last May, and Hodgson’s department put up another $8.2 million in August to support the feasibility study.
Ottawa is also working on offtake agreements and price floors — two tools that would lock in long-term buyers for the minerals at a viable price.
“When you look at our G7 allies, when you look at our NATO allies, they are desperate for a new source of tungsten,” Hodgson said.
“That’s a fantastic card for Canada to play. That’s a fantastic card for New Brunswick to play.”
Premier Susan Holt has cited the mine as a cornerstone of her aspiration to kickstart the provincial economy as a way of coping with a large budget deficit.
The province estimated a decade ago the mine could generate $280 million in royalties over its 27-year lifespan.
John Herron, the provincial natural resources minister, says the federal effort to secure buyers for the minerals will make the mine more attractive to investors, which in turn should provide Northcliff with the capital required to push ahead.
“The good work that the federal government is doing on establishing price floors and offtake arrangements with European partners and the like — that is the role where we need to help the most from the federal government,” he said.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
November 13, 2025
EDMUNDSTON (GNB) – The government, through Opportunities NB, is supporting a long-standing wood products manufacturer as it expands operations and improves productivity at its newly acquired facility in Edmundston.
“Marwood is an important employer and a great example of a New Brunswick company continuing to invest and innovate to remain competitive,” said Premier Susan Holt. “This investment will help Marwood diversify and expand its operations and strengthen New Brunswick’s position in the forestry and value-added wood sector.”
Marwood manufactures a range of products. Its industrial product line includes utility poles and timbers for wharf and highway applications, while its residential line includes pressure-treated lumber for decks, fences, lattice and deck accessories. The company also produces wood pellets for heating, as well as wood siding, trim and shingles through its Cape Cod siding division. Headquartered in the Tracyville area of Sunbury-York South since 1974, Marwood employs about 400 people through its operations in Atlantic Canada and the United States, including about 250 in New Brunswick.
The company expanded its manufacturing network earlier this year, acquiring the assets of Fraser Specialty Products of Edmundston. The Opportunities NB investment aims to support long-term sustainability of the company’s operations by improving productivity and enabling diversification and expansion of its product line.
Through a conditionally repayable loan of up to $250,000, Marwood will invest in a new reciprocating paint line. This is meant to enhance product quality, strengthen the company’s competitiveness and position it for future growth. The company’s total investment in this project is estimated at $3.3 million.
“We’re proud to continue investing in our operations and people in New Brunswick,” said Marwood president Daniel Goodine. “The support from Opportunities NB will allow us to modernize production, improve efficiency, expand our product offerings and capacity, and further enhance our industry-leading customer service across North America. This investment is a key part of ensuring long-term growth and sustainability for our team and our communities.”
Opportunities NB is the lead business development agency for the province. It supports local businesses and attracts new investment from around the globe to boost economic and job growth.
Media Contact
Michel LeBlanc, communications, Opportunities NB, michel.leblanc@onbcanada.ca.
Mar 7, 2013 · Marwood Ltd. Danny Goodine, 506-459-7777, 506-451-8936, danny.goodine@marwoodltd.com.
https://onlinetraining.woodpreservation.ca/en/2013/03/07/representatives/
WPC Members Contact List
| Corporate Members | Designated Representative | Phone | Fax | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aallcann Wood Supplies | Bob Romanchuk | 306-929-3225 | 306-929-2601 | aallcann@inet2000.com |
| Arch Wood Protection, A Lonza Company | Paul Dandy | 905-826-9648 | 905-826-7333 | Paul.dandy@lonza.com |
| Bois KMS (GMI) Ltd. | Ken McCollough | 819-275-2240 | 819-275-3362 | ken@boiskms.ca |
| Brisco Wood Preservers | Peter Mason | 250-346-3315 | 250-346-3218 | psmason@telus.net |
|
CanWel Treating Plants |
Daryl Anderson | 604-585-2511 | 604-585-1548 | danderson@surewood.ca |
| Decker Lake Forest Products | Ian Gray | 250-698-7304 | 250-698-7374 | IanGray@HamptonAffiliates.com |
| Envirofor Preservers Ltd. | Russ Permann | 403-203-5354 | 403-236-4288 | rpermann@taigabuilding.com |
| BarretteWood | Benoit Barrette | 888-433-6256 | 450-357-7054 | bbarrette@fenclo.com |
| Goodfellow Inc. | Harold Sheepwash Jr. | 450-635-6511 | 450-635-8304 | Hsheepwash@goodfellowinc.com |
| Guelph Utility Pole Co. | Craig Frohlich | 519-822-3901 | 519-822-5411 | cfrohlich@stella-jones.com |
| Lebel / Cambium Group | Larry McTaggart | 613-332-4500 | 613-332-2185 | lmctaggart@cambiumgroup.ca |
| KMG Bernuth | Michael A. Hoffman | 602-538-5643 | Mhoffman@kmgchemicals.com | |
| Kootenay Wood Preservers | Jabob Blackmore | 250-489-0776 | 250-489-0768 | jake@prairieholdings.ca |
| L&M Wood Products LP. | Zane Delainey | 306-342-2080 | 306-342-4707 | zane@lmwp.com |
| Marwood Ltd. | Danny Goodine | 506-459-7777 | 506-451-8936 | danny.goodine@marwoodltd.com |
| Northern Pressure Treated Wood | Mike McCollough | 705-567-5101 | 705-567-4313 | nptwpole@onlink.net |
| Prairie Forest Products Ltd. | Lawrence Prendiville | 204-989-9600 | 204-694-7232 | lprendiville@prendiville.com |
| Princeton Wood Preservers Ltd. | Elizabeth Marion | 250-295-7911 | 250-295-7912 | elizabeth@pwppost.com |
| Ram Forest Products / Trent Timber Treating Ltd |
Tom Moryto | 905-727-1164 | 905-727-7758 | thomasmoryto@ram-forest.com |
| Roblin Forest Products | Gaye Lenderbeck | rfp@mymts.net | ||
| Rocky Wood Preservers Ltd. | Paul King | 403-845-2212 | 403-845-2595 | rwpand@xplornet.com |
| Shelburne Wood Protection Ltd. | Erwin Leonov | 519-925-5915 | 519-925-3061 | eleonov@bluwoodcanada.com |
| Spray Lake Sawmills Ltd. | Howard Pruden | 403-851-3306 | 403-932-6675 | howard.pruden@spraylakesawmills.com |
|
Stella-Jones Inc. Stella-Jones Canada Inc. |
Ron Zeegers | 403-934-4668 | 403-934-5880 | rzeegers@stella-jones.com |
| Sundre Forest Products Ltd. | Shea Pletzer | 403-638-1108 | 403-638-1140 | shea.pletzer@westfraser.com |
| Timber Specialties Co. / Koppers Inc. | Brad Burmeister | 905-854-2244 | 905-854-0834 | bburmeister@osmose.com |
| Total Forest Industries Ltd. | Paul Foster | 905-854-3333 | 905-854-3303 | pfoster@bellnet.ca |
| Ruetgers Canada Inc. | Gord Gilmet | 905-548-5532 | 905-544-4942 | gord.gilmet@ruetgers-group.com |
| Vermette Wood Preservers | Perry Vermette | 306-764-4054 | 306-922-4044 | perryvermette@sasktel.net |
| Viance, LLC | Kevin Archer | 704-522-0825 | karcher@viance.net | |
| Western Pacific Wood Pres – Surewood. | Gordon Leontowich | 604-587-1900 | 604-856-7783 | western_wood_preservers@yahoo.ca |
| Friends of the Association | Designated Representative | Phone | Fax | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CFP Forest Products | Jim Mogan | 905-209-0648 | 905-471-7498 | jimcfpconsulting@rogers.com |
| D.L. Alexander and Associates | David Alexander | 514-693-5642 | dlalexander@sympatico.ca | |
| FP Innovations | Dr. Paul Morris | 604-222-5651 | 604-222-5690 | paul.morris@FPInnovations.ca |
| Innovative Control Systems | Brad Nichol | 613-332-9960 | 613-332-9818 | brad@porta-kiln.com |
| WoodSci Consulting | Scott Henry | 705-790-0168 | scotth@sympatico.ca |
https://onlinetraining.woodpreservation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Membership_Text_web.pdf
Mr David Amos
Via Email david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
Jac Nasser AO Chairman
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 4:30 PM
Subject: Fwd: Fw: Home invasions supported by Feds
To: <danny.goodine@marwoodltd.com>
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Date: Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 4:07 PM
Subject: Fwd: Fw: Home invasions supported by Feds
To: <brad@porta-kiln.com>
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Date: Sun, Mar 1, 2026 at 7:24 AM
Subject: Fwd: Fw: Home invasions supported by Feds
To: <hmacdougald@ccedlaw.com>, <whistleblower@cfpb.gov>
Report potential industry misconduct
Whether you’re a whistleblower or just have concerns you want to flag for us, we strongly encourage current or former industry employees and industry insiders to reach out to us about possible violations of consumer financial rights. We review every submission.
You can send an email to whistleblower@cfpb.gov.
Further options are forthcoming for those who wish to use additional layers of encryption when contacting us via email.
Phone
You can call a dedicated phone number and leave a voicemail.
The CFPB’s Whistleblower Tip line is: (855) 695-7974
You can send a letter or package to us at:
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
ATTN: Office of Enforcement, WB
1700 G Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20552
Why We Vote Ep. 164: The Ballot Battles Continue with Attorney Harry MacDougald
Trump former DOJ lawyer Jeffrey Clark joins the CFPB
The Trump administration has installed Jeffrey Clark at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, bringing to the watchdog agency a former Trump lawyer who was indicted as part of the president's efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
Jeffrey Clark | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs | |
Acting | |
| Assumed office March 5, 2025 | |
| President | Donald Trump |
| Preceded by | Dominic Mancini (acting) |
| United States Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division | |
| Acting September 5, 2020 – January 14, 2021 | |
| President | Donald Trump |
| Preceded by | Ethan Davis (acting) |
| Succeeded by | Brian Boynton (acting) |
| United States Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division | |
| In office November 1, 2018 – January 14, 2021 | |
| President | Donald Trump |
| Preceded by | John Cruden |
| Succeeded by | Todd Kim[1] |
| Personal details | |
| Born | Jeffrey Bossert Clark April 17, 1967 (age 58) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S. |
| Party | Republican |
| Education | Harvard University (BA) University of Delaware (MA) Georgetown University (JD) |
Jeffrey Bossert Clark (born April 17, 1967)[2] is an American lawyer who is Acting Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget.[3] Clark was Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division from 2018 to 2021. In September 2020, he was also appointed acting head of the Civil Division. In 2020 and 2021, Clark allegedly helped then-president Donald Trump attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Clark's actions in that endeavor were reviewed by the District of Columbia Bar – the entity authorized by law to pursue attorney discipline and disbarment in the District of Columbia – which recommended discipline to the DC Court of Appeals in July 2022,[4][5][6] and in August 2024 its Board on Professional Responsibility recommended a two year suspension of his law license.[7] In July 2025, the board recommended to the appeals court that Clark be disbarred.[8][9] He was identified as an unindicted co-conspirator in the federal prosecution of Donald Trump over attempts to overturn the 2020 election.[10] On August 14, 2023, he was indicted along with 18 other people in the prosecution related to the 2020 election in Georgia.[11]
After Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election and Trump refused to concede while making false claims of fraud, Clark worked on ways to cast doubt on the election results.[12][13] Trump considered installing Clark as head of the Department of Justice when acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen refused to lend credence to Trump's false claims of fraud,[5][12] but backed off when faced with the prospect of mass resignations within the Department of Justice if he made the change.[14] Clark resigned from the Department of Justice on January 14, 2021, after controversy over his post-election actions.[15]
After the end of the Trump administration, Clark was briefly named the Chief of Litigation and Director of Strategy at the conservative-libertarian New Civil Liberties Alliance.[16][17][18] On December 1, 2021, the House committee on the January 6 attack voted to recommend contempt of Congress charges against Clark after he refused to comply with a subpoena.[19]
As of June 2022 Clark was working as a Senior Fellow and Director of Litigation at the Center for Renewing America, a conservative think tank founded by his friend Russell Vought, former director of the Office of Management and Budget.[20]
Early life and career
Clark was born on April 17, 1967, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[2][21] He graduated from Father Judge High School in the Holmesburg section of Northeast Philadelphia.[22] He was on the parliamentary debate team at Harvard College, where he graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in economics and history in 1989. He received a Master of Arts in urban affairs and public policy from the University of Delaware in 1993, and a Juris Doctor from the Georgetown University Law Center in 1995.[2]
After graduating from law school, Clark clerked for Judge Danny J. Boggs of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Cincinnati, Ohio).[23]
Clark joined Kirkland & Ellis as a lawyer during 1996–2001 and 2005–2018. During 2001–2005, he served in the George W. Bush administration as Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Justice Department.[23] At Kirkland & Ellis, Clark represented the United States Chamber of Commerce in lawsuits challenging the federal government's authority to regulate carbon emissions and the Environmental Protection Agency's "endangerment finding," while also a part of the team representing BP in lawsuits related to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill.[24]
From 2012 to 2015, he was a member of the governing council of the American Bar Association's Administrative Law Section.[2] He is also a member of the Federalist Society.[25]
Assistant Attorney General
In June 2017, Clark was nominated by President Donald Trump to become the United States Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division.[26] He was confirmed by the Senate on October 11, 2018.[27] Within the division, Clark "developed a reputation for pushing aggressive conservative legal principles and taking a hands-on approach that drew kudos from some colleagues but often frustrated career lawyers on his team."[28]
Clark had opposed regulation of greenhouse gases.[29] In 2010, he had characterized US efforts to regulate greenhouse gases as "reminiscent of kind of a Leninistic program from the 1920s to seize control of the commanding heights of the economy."[30][31]
While Assistant Attorney General, Clark tried to delay the DOJ in seeking criminal and civil charges against North Dakota pipeline operator Summit Midstream Partners for its role in the largest-ever inland spill of waste water from oil drilling. Clark's attempts to delay the case led prosecutors under his supervision to go directly to Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen with the prosecutors arguing that Clark's rationale for delaying the case was inconsistent with "decades of case law". Ultimately, the DOJ proceeded with the case, which would become one of the largest water pollution cases in U.S. history. Summit Midstream Partners ultimately pleaded guilty and incurred $36.3 million in civil penalties.[32]
Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division
In September 2020, he was also appointed acting head of the Justice Department's Civil Division with the support of Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen.[33][34] Upon becoming the acting head of the civil division, Clark attempted unsuccessfully to include the government in lawsuits concerning defamation against Trump by E. Jean Carroll, who has accused Trump of raping her,[33][35] and against a former friend of First Lady Melania Trump.[33]
Attempts to overturn results of 2020 presidential election
In late December 2020 and early January 2021, Clark tried unsuccessfully to get the Justice Department to support Trump's attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.[34][36] After Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election, Trump refused to concede and strove to overturn Biden's win, making false claims of election fraud. Clark became an ally of Trump in his attempt to overturn the election results. Clark was introduced to Trump by Republican congressman Scott Perry.[22][37] In late December 2020 Clark urged acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, his deputy Richard Donoghue, and other top Justice Department officials to have the Department announce it was investigating serious election fraud issues. They rejected the suggestion; Rosen and his predecessor William Barr had resisted pressure from Trump to interfere with or cast doubt on the election results.[38]
On December 28, 2020, Clark emailed Rosen and Donoghue a draft letter[39] which he reportedly had discussed with Perry, requesting they sign it. The letter had been emailed to Clark 20 minutes earlier by Ken Klukowski, senior counsel to Clark and a former legal analyst for Breitbart News; Klukowski had co-authored a 2010 book titled, The Blueprint: Obama’s Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency.[40]
The draft letter was addressed to officials in the state of Georgia, saying that the Justice Department had evidence that raised "significant concerns" about the election results in multiple states, contradicting what Barr had publicly announced weeks earlier. The letter suggested the Georgia legislature should "call itself into special session for [t]he limited purpose of considering issues pertaining to the appointment of Presidential Electors". Both Rosen and Donoghue refused to sign the letter, and it was never sent.[41][42]
In early January 2021, Clark challenged an intelligence briefing top Justice Department officials had received from Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe finding there was no evidence foreign powers had interfered with voting machines. He claimed intelligence community analysts were withholding information, saying he had heard that "a Dominion machine accessed the Internet through a smart thermostat with a net connection trail leading back to China."[43]
Attempted appointment as Acting Attorney General
Also in January, Trump considered replacing Rosen with Clark,[9] because he was disappointed that Rosen would not support his unsupported claims of fraud, while Clark had worked on ways to cast doubt on, or even overturn, the election results.[12] Trump expected that if Clark became acting attorney general, he would reverse the decisions of previous attorneys general and publicly declare that DOJ had serious concerns about the election results. In particular he would open an investigation into supposed election fraud tainting the Georgia election, the results of which would compel Georgia officials to void Biden's win in that state.[34][36] When Clark told Rosen that Trump intended to appoint him to replace Rosen, the Department's remaining senior leaders – including Donoghue and Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel Steven Engel – agreed they would all resign if Rosen was removed. After Rosen and Clark presented their arguments to Trump in a White House meeting, Trump decided not to pursue the option.[34][36]
Clark denied that he had plotted to replace Rosen, who had mentored Clark when both worked at the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis, or that he recommended any action based on inaccurate material. He added that he could not discuss any conversations he had with Trump or with Justice Department lawyers because of legal privilege. Clark further noted that he had been the lead signatory on the Justice Department's letter opposing a claim that Vice President Mike Pence had the power to reject electoral votes for Biden when Congress met to certify the result.[34]
Clark's alleged cooperation with Trump to remove Rosen and to use the Justice Department's power to alter Georgia's election results was met with surprise by many of Clark's friends, colleagues, and acquaintances, who had previously viewed him as an "establishment lawyer" rather than a part of the "Trumpist faction of the party."[33]
On December 14, 2021, the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack released the contents of a text message dated Sunday, January 3 from an unknown person to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows which read: "I heard Jeff Clark is getting put in on Monday. That's amazing. It will make a lot of patriots happy and I'm personally so proud that you are at the tip of the spear and I can call you a friend."[44]
Resignation and investigation
Clark resigned from the Justice Department on January 14, 2021.[15] On January 25, 2021, the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General, Michael E. Horowitz, launched "an investigation into whether any former or current DOJ official engaged in an improper attempt to have DOJ seek to alter the outcome of the 2020 Presidential Election."[45][46] In early August, Rosen and Donoghue told the inspector general and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that Clark helped Trump attempt to subvert the election.[47][48]
In October 2021, an ethics complaint against Clark, regarding his conduct when attempting to overturn the 2020 election, was filed with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.[49][50]
On October 7, 2021, the Senate Judiciary Committee released new testimony and a staff report.[51] They "reveal that we were only a half-step away from a full-blown constitutional crisis as President Donald Trump and his loyalists threatened a wholesale takeover of the Department of Justice (DOJ). They also reveal how former Acting Civil Division Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Clark became Trump's Big Lie Lawyer, pressuring his colleagues in DOJ to force an overturn of the 2020 election."[52]
On October 13, 2021, the U.S. House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol subpoenaed Clark for testimony and documents.[53] On December 1, 2021, the committee voted to recommend criminal charges of contempt of Congress against Clark.[54] On February 2, 2022, at an appearance before the committee, he refused to answer any substantive questions, asserting his right against self-incrimination in excess of 100 times.[55]
On June 22, 2022, federal investigators searched Clark's home but did not immediately release details of which agency conducted the search or what they were looking for. According to Clark's boss at the Center for Renewing America, Russell Vought: "DOJ law enforcement officials ... put him in the streets in his pajamas, and took his electronic devices."[56] The search came one day before the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack held a televised hearing that addressed Clark's alleged role in attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election.[57]
Media Matters reported the next day that in May 2022 Clark promoted the disproven Dinesh D'Souza film 2000 Mules while taunting law professor Steve Vladeck and Democratic elections attorney Marc Elias on Twitter. He asked Elias, who had thwarted every lawsuit Trump's legal team had pursued after the election, "Were you part of the massive multi-State operation #TrueTheVote uncovered?"[58]
On July 22, 2022, Clark was accused of violating ethics rules by the D.C. Bar Office of Disciplinary Counsel, which filed ethics charges against him for alleged interference in the administration of justice in relation to his alleged efforts to keep Trump in power.[59] The disciplinary counsel's complaint noted that Clark was told numerous times by acting U.S. attorney general, Jeffrey A. Rosen and acting deputy U.S. attorney general, Richard P. Donoghue, that there was no evidence to support Clark's allegations of election fraud. Despite this, Clark directed Kenneth Klukowski, who joined the Justice Department after the 2020 presidential election, to conduct research on submitting unauthorized electors to Congress. This research, according to the complaint, was then allegedly used by Clark to draft a "proof-of concept" letter to election officials in Georgia, which included several false or misleading statements, including that the state's election results were fraudulent and that the state legislature needed to convene a special session.[60] In April 2024, the Disciplinary Counsel recommended that Clark be disbarred.[61] In July 2025, the District of Columbia Board of Professional Responsibility recommended that he be disbarred, and referred the matter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The board said that attorneys "cannot advocate for any outcome based on false statements" or encourage others to take such actions, but Clark had "persistently and energetically sought to do just that on an important national issue".[8]
In August 2023, Clark was indicted along with 18 other people in the Georgia election racketeering prosecution, related to Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.[11] Clark was allegedly warned by the Deputy White House Counsel that should Trump refuse to leave office there would be "...riots in every major city in the United States," according to the indictment.[62] Though it did not identify him by name, it was determined he was unindicted "Co-conspirator 4," in the federal prosecution of Donald Trump over attempts to overturn the 2020 election.[10] Clark was said to have responded, "That's why there's an Insurrection Act."[62] In the aftermath of Trump v. United States, Clark was removed from the federal indictment by the Department of Justice.[63]
Later career
In August 2021, Clark was named the Chief of Litigation and Director of Strategy for the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA),[16] a 501(c)3 nonprofit which describes itself as a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights organization whose goal is "to protect constitutional freedoms from violations by the Administrative State." Since its founding in 2017,[64] by 2023, the NCLA, a member of the State Policy Network, has received, from among others, $3.6 million from the Charles Koch Foundation.[65][66] The organization's current focus is opposition to vaccine mandates and other COVID-19-related regulations and orders.[67] In October, after Clark received a congressional subpoena regarding his participation in the January 6 attack on the Capitol, his name disappeared from the NCLA site, though it had been restored by the time of his indictment.[18]
Clark later became the Senior Fellow and Director of Litigation at the Center for Renewing America, a conservative think tank that focuses on combatting critical race theory that was founded by Trump's OMB director and Clark's friend Russell Vought.[20][68]
On August 14, 2023, Clark, along with 18 co-defendants, was indicted by a grand jury in Fulton County, Georgia, for violations of the Georgia RICO Act relating to attempts to overturn results in the 2020 presidential election.[69] Clark turned himself in to the Fulton County Jail on August 25.[70] On September 5, 2023, Clark, along with co-defendants Mark Meadows and John Eastman, waived his arraignment and entered a written not guilty plea.[71]
Clark has collaborated to Project 2025; he is thanked for his contribution to Chapter 2: "Executive Office of the President of the United States".[72]
On February 7, 2025, Clark was installed as a senior advisor in the Director's Front Office at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.[73][74]
Trump ally Jeffrey Clark should be disbarred over 2020 election effort, DC panel says
By Alanna Durkin Richer, The Associated Press
Posted Jul 31, 2025 05:35:11 PM.
Last Updated Jul 31, 2025 09:15:49 PM.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Jeffrey Clark, the former Justice Department official who aided President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, should be stripped of his law license, a Washington disciplinary panel ruled on Thursday.
Clark, who is now overseeing a federal regulatory office, played a key role in Trump’s efforts to challenge his election loss to Joe Biden and clashed with Justice Department superiors who refused to back his false claims of fraud.
The D.C. Board of Professional Responsibility’s recommendation will now go to the D.C. Court of Appeals for a final decision.
Under the second Trump administration, Clark has been serving as acting head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, a part of the Office of Management and Budget that is responsible for reviewing executive branch regulations.
OMB spokesperson Rachel Cauley said in a post on X that “this latest injustice is just another chapter in the Deep State’s ongoing assault on President Trump and those who stood beside him in defense of the truth.”
“JEFF CLARK has been harassed, raided, doxed, and blacklisted simply for questioning a RIGGED election and serving President Trump,” she wrote.
At issue in the D.C. bar proceedings was a letter that Clark, as an assistant attorney general in the first Trump administration, drafted that said the Justice Department was investigating “various irregularities” and had identified “significant concerns” that may have impacted the election in Georgia and other states. Clark wanted the letter sent to Georgia lawmakers, but Justice Department superiors refused.
The board said disciplinary counsel proved that Clark made “intentionally false statements” when he continued to push for the Justice Department to issue the letter after being told by superiors that it contained falsehoods.
“Lawyers cannot advocate for any outcome based on false statements and they certainly cannot urge others to do so,” the board’s report said. “Respondent persistently and energetically sought to do just that on an important national issue. He should be disbarred as a consequence and to send a message to the rest of the Bar and to the public that this behavior will not be tolerated.”
Clark’s attorney, Harry MacDougald, argued during disciplinary hearings last year that the letter was part of the debate that normally occurs between lawyers and that punishing Clark in those circumstances would have a “chilling effect.”
“They want disbar Jeff Clark for the heresy of privately recommending further investigations of the 2020 election,” MacDougald said in an email Thursday. “This is a pure thought crime and a travesty of justice.”
Clark’s conflict with Justice Department superiors culminated in a contentious, hourslong meeting at the White House on Jan. 3, 2021, in which Trump openly considered installing Clark as acting attorney general, according to a Senate Judiciary report. Several officials in the Jan. 3 meeting told Trump they would resign if he put Clark in charge at the Justice Department.
Another close Trump ally, Rudy Giuliani, was disbarred in Washington last year, months after he lost his law license in New York for pursuing false claims Trump made about his 2020 election loss.
Alanna Durkin Richer, The Associated Press
Jan. 6 panel to vote on contempt charges against former DOJ official
Politics Dec 1, 2021 9:36 AM ESTWASHINGTON (AP) — The House panel investigating the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol insurrection will vote on pursuing contempt charges against a former Justice Department official Wednesday as the committee aggressively seeks to gain answers about the violent attack by former President Donald Trump's supporters.
The vote to pursue contempt charges against Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department lawyer who aligned with Trump as he tried to overturn his election defeat, comes as Trump's top aide at the time, chief of staff Mark Meadows, has agreed to cooperate with the panel on a limited basis. Clark appeared for a deposition last month but refused to answer any questions based on Trump's legal efforts to block the committee's investigation.
If approved by the panel, the recommendation of criminal contempt charges against Clark would go to the full House for a vote as soon as Thursday. If the House votes to hold Clark in contempt, the Justice Department would then decide whether to prosecute.
The panel has vowed to aggressively seek charges against any witness who doesn't comply as they investigate the worst attack on the Capitol in two centuries. The Justice Department has signaled it is willing to pursue those charges, indicting longtime Trump ally Steve Bannon earlier this month on two federal counts of criminal contempt.
READ MORE: Ex-Trump aide Meadows cooperating with House Jan. 6 panel
Attorney General Merrick Garland said then that Bannon's indictment reflects the department's "steadfast commitment" to the rule of law after Bannon outright defied the committee and refused to cooperate.
Clark's case could be more complicated since he did appear for his deposition and, unlike Bannon, was a Trump administration official on Jan. 6. But members of the committee argued that Clark had no basis to refuse questioning, especially since they intended to ask about matters that didn't involve direct interactions with Trump and wouldn't fall under the former president's claims of executive privilege.
In a transcript of Clark's aborted Nov. 5 interview, released by the panel on Tuesday evening, staff and members of the committee attempted to persuade Clark to answer questions about his role as Trump pushed the Justice Department to investigate his false allegations of widespread fraud in the election. Clark had aligned himself with the former president as other Justice officials pushed back on the baseless claims.
But Clark's attorney, Harry MacDougald, said during the interview that Clark was not only protected by Trump's assertions of executive privilege, but also several other privileges MacDougald said Clark should be afforded. The committee rejected those arguments, and MacDougald and Clark walked out of the interview after around 90 minutes.
According to a report earlier this year by the Senate Judiciary Committee, which interviewed several of Clark's colleagues, Trump's pressure culminated in a dramatic White House meeting at which the president ruminated about elevating Clark to attorney general. He did not do so after several aides threatened to resign.
Despite Trump's false claims about a stolen election — the primary motivation for the violent mob that broke into the Capitol and interrupted the certification of Democrat Joe Biden's victory — the results were confirmed by state officials and upheld by the courts. Trump's own attorney general, William Barr, had said the Justice Department found no evidence of widespread fraud that could have changed the results.
Trump, who told his supporters to "fight like hell" the morning of Jan. 6, has sued to block the committee's work and has attempted to assert executive privilege over documents and interviews, arguing that his conversations and actions at the time should be shielded from public view.
Clark is one of more than 40 people the committee has subpoenaed so far. The panel's chairman, Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson, wrote in Clark's subpoena that the committee's probe "has revealed credible evidence that you attempted to involve the Department of Justice in efforts to interrupt the peaceful transfer of power" and his efforts "risked involving the Department of Justice in actions that lacked evidentiary foundation and threatened to subvert the rule of law."
READ MORE: Why Congress is looking closely at the Jan. 6 rally
After Clark refused to answer questions, Thompson said it was "astounding that someone who so recently held a position of public trust to uphold the Constitution would now hide behind vague claims of privilege by a former President, refuse to answer questions about an attack on our democracy, and continue an assault on the rule of law."
A lawyer for Meadows, George Terwilliger, said Tuesday that he was continuing to work with the committee and its staff on a potential accommodation that would not require Meadows to waive the executive privileges claimed by Trump or "forfeit the long-standing position that senior White House aides cannot be compelled to testify before Congress."
Terwilliger said in a statement that "we appreciate the Select Committee's openness to receiving voluntary responses on non-privileged topics." He had previously said that Meadows wouldn't comply with the panel's September subpoena because of Trump's privilege claims.
Thompson said that Meadows has provided documents to the panel and will soon sit for a deposition, but that the committee "will continue to assess his degree of compliance."
Under the tentative agreement, Meadows could potentially decline to answer the panel's questions about his most sensitive conversations with Trump and what Trump was doing on Jan. 6.
Still, Meadows' intention to work with the panel is a victory for the seven Democrats and two Republicans on the committee, especially as they seek interviews with lower-profile witnesses who may have important information to share. The panel has so far subpoenaed more than 40 witnesses and interviewed more than 150 people behind closed doors.
___
Associated Press writer Eric Tucker contributed to this report.
Ashe in America is a writer and freedom activist. Following a
successful 20-year career in executive communications and enterprise
change management, Ashe left the corporate world voluntarily to engage
full-time in the fight to save our Republic. Ashe lives in Colorado with
her husband and three teenage sons. You can read her work at asheinamerica.substack.com
Brian Lupo, “CannCon”, is a business owner turned Marine combat veteran turned journalist and podcaster. The name “CannCon” is short for Cannabis Conservative. A huge proponent of medical cannabis for combat veterans suffering from PTSD and other ailments, he was in a documentary called, “Unprescribed,” written by Steve Elmore and featuring Boone Cutler.
CannCon started podcasting after the death of George Floyd and the insinuating racial divide was promoted heavier than ever by the mainstream. Promoting the idea of focusing on politicians rather than each other, he began doing short videos on issues in local communities heavily impacted by the riots.
From there, the stolen 2020 election became a primary focus. Election fraud was rampant, and no one was covering it. He focused on broadcasting the facts and worked at discovering more evidence. He has worked with prominent figures in the movement of election integrity, COVID, and pushing back against the globalist push.
He was banned from YouTube days after being a target in a Media Matters hit piece in June of 2021 amidst the Maricopa County audit.
In August of 2022, he began writing for The Gateway Pundit and has broken stories about ballot harvesting in Tarrant County, TX; poll pads adding voters in Harris County, TX; the federalization efforts between the DHS and local election officers in our elections; and the system errors found in Georgia counties throughout the 2020 and 2022 election.
Bar Admissions
- All trial courts in Georgia
- Court of Appeals of Georgia
- Supreme Court of Georgia
- United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
- United States Court of Appeals for the 6th, 9th, 11th, and D.C. Circuits
- United States Supreme Court
Memberships
- State Bar of Georgia Litigation and Estate & Probate Sections
- Federalist Society
- Legal Advisory Board, Atlanta Chapter
- Southeastern Legal Foundation, Advising Attorney
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Date: Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 4:08 PM
Subject: Fwd: Fw: Home invasions supported by Feds
To: <afader@mfs.com>, <Leadership@mfs.com>, <premier@gov.ns.ca>
During the early 2000s, MFS and five other mutual fund companies in the Boston area were investigated by Massachusetts and New Hampshire regulators. That same year, the Securities and Exchange Commission alleged that MFS made "false and misleading" statements in its fund prospectus about its policy on market trading and market timing. This was part of a wide-ranging investigation; see 2003 mutual fund scandal for additional details. MFS paid $350 million to settle state and federal fraud charges. MFS appointed Robert Pozen as non-executive chairman from 2004 to 2010.[7] MFS implemented company reforms to inform investors about fees, keep fund boards independent and create deterrents to market timing. This ended "soft-dollar" arrangements which allowed the swapping of brokerage commissions for market research and data.
From 2010 to 2020, assets under management grew from $253 billion to $528.4 billion.
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Date: Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 2:20 PM
Subject: Fwd: Fw: Home invasions supported by Feds
To: <ggarrett@tydings.com>, <dkatz@tydings.com>
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Date: Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 12:23 PM
Subject: Fwd: Fw: Home invasions supported by Feds
To: <DFlaherty@mfs.com>
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Date: Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Home invasions supported by Feds
To: <pfitzgerald@coxandpalmer.com>
MFS Mutual Fund Fraud Litigation
| Court: | United States District Court for the District of Maryland |
| Case Number: | 04-md-15863 |
| Class Period: | 12/15/1998 - 12/08/2003 |
Following a hearing on May 3, 2004 in the massive mutual fund litigation, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland appointed BLB&G client the City of Chicago Deferred Compensation Plan as Lead Plaintiff in the securities fraud class action against Massachusetts Financial Services Company ("MFS"), the investment advisor to the MFS Funds, and others.
On March 1, 2006, the Court sustained the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, allowing the case to move forward against certain defendants.
SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS:
The Complaint in this litigation alleges that MFS and certain of its senior executives were aware of, engaged in and facilitated "timing" trades in the MFS Funds: a money-making act involving short-term trading in and out of a mutual fund. The technique is designed to exploit inefficiencies in the way mutual fund companies price their shares by allowing certain customers to trade shares at distorted prices that no longer reflect the true value of the fund. As a result, those few customers permitted to engage in market timing typically reap huge profits, the cost of which are borne primarily by the long-term investors in the relevant fund.
The public filings issued by the Defendants stated that, "MFS funds do not permit market-timing or other excessive trading practices that may disrupt portfolio management strategies and may harm fund performance." In reality, however, the Defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded, the fact that trades were being timed and that these timed trades negatively and materially impacted the MFS Funds, thereby causing significant losses to investors in the MFS Funds.
On February 5, 2004, MFS agreed to entry of a cease and desist order by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") against MFS and John W. Ballen ("Ballen"), MFS's current chief executive officer, and Kevin R. Parke ("Parke"), MFS's current president and chief investment officer ("Cease and Desist Order"). Specifically, the SEC found that MFS, Ballen and Parke allowed widespread market timing trading in certain MFS Funds from at least late 1999 through October 2003, in contravention of the Funds' public disclosures. In particular, MFS explicitly informed certain select brokers in a written memo that "unrestricted" trading would be permitted in certain MFS funds (known internally at MFS as "Unrestricted Funds"), including the Massachusetts Investors Growth Stock Fund, "even if a pattern of excessive trading has been detected." Not only did MFS selectively enforce its market-timing policies, but executives at MFS facilitated the frequent trading in and out of certain MFS Funds by steering select investors to these "Unrestricted Funds." As the Cease and Desist Order confirms, as much as $2 billion in timing money flowed into MFS Funds during the Class Period.
Internal MFS documents and policies acknowledged that market timing was detrimental to long-term shareholders. In fact, as early as June 2000, an internal presentation entitled "Market Timing Wheel of Terror," warned that "[l]ong term investors are being penalized" by market timing activity. Nevertheless, the market timing activity persisted in the MFS "Unrestricted Funds." Moreover, MFS's select enforcement of its trading policies also included late trading, which alone caused well over $100 million in investor losses. And, as further alleged in the complaint, various brokers and financial institutions also participated in the market timing schemes, to the detriment of ordinary investors.
MFS's policy of allowing market-timing and steering select investors to the "Unrestricted Funds" was adopted as a means to increase profits by luring market timing assets so as to increase funds under management, and, therefore, increase fees paid to MFS for investment advisory services. These additional assets under management also resulted in an increased bonus pool from which MFS employees, including Ballen and Parke, were paid excessive compensation. During this period, none of the above detailed material information was disclosed to the members of the Class. In addition to the profits from their market timing, MFS also profited by charging ordinary investors hundreds of millions of dollars in management fees while breaching their fiduciary duties to those very same investors.
On May 20, 2010, the Court preliminarily approved proposed settlements, totaling $75,042,250, that would resolve this litigation. On October 25, 2010, the Court entered Judgments granting final approval to the settlements and entered separate Orders granting Plaintiffs' Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses and approving the Plan of Allocation of the settlement proceeds.
The claims administration process has concluded and the net settlement fund has been fully disbursed. This matter is considered closed.
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
IN RE MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT
LITIGATION
This Document Relates To:
In re MFS
04-md-15863-04
MDL 1586
Case No. 04-MD-15863
(Judge J. Frederick Motz)
BRUCE RIGGS, et al., Individually and
On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
MASSACHUSETTS FINANCIAL
SERVICES COMPANY, et al.
Defendants.
Case No. 04-cv-01162-JFM
CONSOLIDATED AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Dated: September 29, 2004 BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
& GROSSMANN LLP
/s/
ALAN SCHULMAN
ROBERT S. GANS
TIMOTHY A. DeLANGE
JERALD D. BIEN-WILLNER
12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 150
San Diego, CA 92130
Tel: (858) 793-0070
Fax: (858) 793-0323
-and-
J. ERIK SANDSTEDT
JOSEPH A. FONTI
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10019
Tel: (212) 554-1400
Fax: (212) 554-1444
Lead Counsel
Dated: September 29, 2004 TYDINGS & ROSENBERG LLP
/s/
WILLIAM C. SAMMONS, Fed Bar No. 02366
JOHN B. ISBISTER, Fed Bar No. 00639
100 East Pratt Street, 26th Floor
Baltimore, MD 21202
Tel: (410) 752-9700
Fax: (410) 727-5460
Liaison Counsel
From: Minister of Finance / Ministre des Finances <minister-ministre@fin.gc.ca>
Date: Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 1:56 PM
Subject: Automatic reply: 617 954 4225 RE Robert Pozen Former executive chairman of MFS Investment Management
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
From: Fraser, Sean - M.P. <Sean.Fraser@parl.gc.ca>
Date: Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 1:57 PM
Subject: Automatic reply: 617 954 4225 RE Robert Pozen Former executive chairman of MFS Investment Management
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Thank you for your contacting the constituency office of Sean Fraser, Member of Parliament for Central Nova.
This is an automated reply.
Please note that all correspondence is read, however due to the high volume of emails we receive on a daily basis there may be a delay in getting back to you. Priority will be given to residents of Central Nova.
To ensure we get back to you in a timely manner, please include your full name, home address including postal code and phone number when reaching out.
Thank you.
-------------
Merci d'avoir contacté le bureau de circonscription de Sean Fraser, député de Central Nova. Il s'agit d'une réponse automatisée.
Veuillez noter que toute la correspondance est lue, mais qu'en raison du volume élevé de courriels que nous recevons quotidiennement, il se peut que nous ne puissions pas vous répondre dans les meilleurs délais.
Pour que nous puissions vous répondre dans les meilleurs délais, veuillez indiquer votre nom complet, votre adresse personnelle, y compris le code postal, et votre numéro de téléphone lorsque vous nous contactez.
Nous vous remercions.
Facebook : facebook.com/SeanFraserMP
Twitter : @SeanFraserMP
Instagram : SeanFraserMP
Sans frais : 1-844-641-5886
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Date: Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 1:53 PM
Subject: Fwd: 617 954 4225 RE Robert Pozen Former executive chairman of MFS Investment Management
To: <bobpozen@mit.edu>, fin.minfinance-financemin.fin <fin.minfinance-financemin.
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Date: Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 1:49 PM
Subject: 617 954 4225 RE Robert Pozen Former executive chairman of MFS Investment Management
To: <Leadership@mfs.com>, <kimc714@mit.edu>
Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry
Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 Time: 10:00 AM
Topic
Witnesses
Witness Panel 1
-
Mr.
William H.
Donaldson
ChairmanSecurities and Exchange Commission
Witness Panel 2
-
Mr.
Matthew P.
Fink
PresidentInvestment Company Institute
-
Mr.
Marc
Lackritz
PresidentSecurities Industry Association
Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry
Date: Thursday, November 20, 2003 Time: 02:00 PM
Topic
Witnesses
Witness Panel 1
-
Mr.
Stephen M.
Cutler
Director - Division of EnforcementSecurities and Exchange Commission
-
Mr.
Robert
Glauber
Chairman and CEONational Association of Securities Dealers
-
Eliot
Spitzer
Attorney GeneralState of New York
Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry: Understanding the Fund Industry from the Investor’s Perspective
Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 Time: 10:00 AM
Topic
Witnesses
Witness Panel 1
-
Mr.
Tim
Berry
TreasurerState of Indiana
-
Honorable
Gary
Gensler
ChairmanU.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
-
Mr.
James K.
Glassman
Resident FellowAmerican Enterprise Institute
-
Mr.
Don
Phillips
Managing DirectorMorningstar, Inc
-
Mr.
Jim
Riepe
Vice Chairman of the Board of DirectorsT. Rowe Price Group, Inc.
Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry: Fund Operations and Governance.
Date: Thursday, February 26, 2004 Time: 02:00 PM
Topic
Witnesses
Witness Panel 1
-
Mr.
Jack
Bogle
FounderThe Vanguard Group
-
Ms.
Mellody
Hobson
PresidentAriel Capital Management
-
Mr.
David
Pottruck
President, Chief Executive Officer and a member of the Board of DirectorsCharles Schwab
-
Mr.
David
Ruder
Former ChairmenU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry: The Regulatory Landscape
Date: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 Time: 10:00 AM
Topic
Witnesses
Witness Panel 1
-
Ms.
Lori
Richards
Director, Office of Compliance, Inspections, and ExaminationsSecurities and Exchange Commission
-
Mr.
Paul
Roye
Director, Division of Investment ManagementSecurities and Exchange Commission
-
Ms.
Mary
Schapiro
Vice Chairman of NASD and President of NASD Regulatory Policy & OversightNational Association of Securities Dealers
-
Honorable
David M.
Walker
Comptroller General of the United States
Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry: Fund Operations and Governance
Date: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 Time: 10:00 AM
Topic
Witnesses
Witness Panel 1
-
Professor
Mercer
Bullard
Associate Professor of LawUniversity of Mississippi School of Law
-
Mr.
William D
Lutz
Professor of EnglishRutgers University
-
Mr.
Robert
Pozen
Non-Executive ChairmanMassachusetts Financial Services Co.
-
Ms.
Barbara
Roper
Director of Investor ProtectionConsumer Federation of America
Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry: Fund Costs and Distribution Practices
Date: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 Time: 02:30 PM
Topic
Witnesses
Witness Panel 1
-
Honorable
Daniel K.
Akaka (D-HI)
United States Senator
-
Honorable
Susan
Collins (R-ME)
United States Senator
-
Honorable
Peter
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
United States Senator
-
Honorable
Carl
Levin (D-MI)
United States Senator
Witness Panel 2
-
Mr.
Paul G.
Haaga, Jr.
Executive Vice President and Director of Capitol Research and Management Company, and Chairman of the Investment Company Institute
-
Mr.
Chet
Helck
President and Chief Operating OfficerRaymond James Financial
-
Mr.
Thomas
Putnam
Founder and CEOFenimore Asset Management
-
Mr.
Edward
Siedle
Founder and PresidentThe Benchmark Companies
-
Mr.
Mark
Treanor
General Counsel and Head of Legal DepartmentWachovia Corporation
Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry: The SEC's Perspective
Date: Thursday, April 8, 2004 Time: 10:00 AM
Topic
Witnesses
Witness Panel 1
-
Mr.
William H.
Donaldson
ChairmanSecurities and Exchange Commission
archive.today webpage capture | Saved from | |
| 6 Jul 2025 17:01:34 UTC | ||
| All snapshots | from host www.govinfo.gov | |
WASHINGTON :
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800
Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001
97–186 PDF 2004
S. HRG . 108–711
REVIEW OF CURRENT INVESTIGATIONS
AND REGULATORY ACTIONS REGARDING
THE MUTUAL FUND INDUSTRY
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST AND SECOND SESSION
ON
INVESTIGATIONS AND REGULATORY ACTIONS REGARDING THE
MUTUAL FUND INDUSTRY AND INVESTORS’ PROTECTION
NOVEMBER 18, 20, 2003, FEBRUARY 25, 26, MARCH 2, 10, 23, 31, AND
APRIL 8, 2004
Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
REVIEW OF CURRENT INVESTIGATIONS
AND REGULATORY ACTIONS REGARDING
THE MUTUAL FUND INDUSTRY
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2003
U.S. SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met at 10 a.m. in room SD–538 of the Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Senator Richard C. Shelby (Chairman of
the Committee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN RICHARD C. SHELBY
Chairman SHELBY. The hearing shall come to order.
This hearing is part of the Committee’s ongoing oversight of the
mutual fund industry. Today, the Committee will review current
investigations and enforcement proceedings and examine regu-
latory actions taken to date in order to fully inform and guide the
Banking Committee’s consideration of possible legislative reform.
On September 30, 2003, this Committee first examined the scope
of problems confronting the mutual fund industry. At that time,
Chairman Donaldson testified about the SEC’s ongoing enforce-
ment actions and described the SEC’s regulatory blueprint for
adopting new regulations aimed at improving the transparency of
fund operations and stopping abusive trading practices. Since
Chairman Donaldson’s testimony, we have learned that improper
fund trading practices are a widespread problem that fund insiders,
brokers, and privileged clients have profited from at the expense of
average investors.
In early September, New York Attorney General Spitzer uncov-
ered arrangements through which brokers facilitated improper
trades for their clients in certain prominent mutual funds in ex-
change for large, fee generating investments. Since this initial set-
tlement, we have learned the extent to which both intermediaries,
such as brokers, and fund executives have engaged in illicit trading
activities. We have read about the backhanded ways by which the
brokers colluded with their customers to disguise improper trade
orders to make them appear legitimate, thus evading detection by
mutual fund policing systems.
Even in situations where mutual funds attempted to halt im-
proper trading activity, certain brokers created fictitious names
and account numbers to fool fund compliance officers and to con-
tinue trading. Recent investigations have also revealed that mutual
fund executives and portfolio managers have actively engaged in
improper trading activity. And these allegations are particularly
troubling because fund executives and portfolio managers have
represented themselves as protecting client assets, but they failed
by either knowingly permitting improper trading by brokers or
actively engaging in illegal trading activities themselves.
Such practices may not only violate prospectus disclosures, but
also violate the fiduciary duties that funds owe to their share-
holders—the duties to treat all shareholders equitably and to pro-
tect shareholder interests. Further, regulators have indicated that
they may soon file charges against funds that have selectively
disclosed portfolio information to certain privileged investors and
fund executives that may have engaged in illegal insider trading by
acting on the basis of nonpublic information.
As this Committee made clear during Chairman William H.
Donaldson’s September 30 appearance here, a regulatory response
to improper trading activities is just one of the many actions that
the SEC must take to address the many troubling issues that have
come to light in the mutual fund industry. This Committee remains
concerned with the transparency of fund operations and ensuring
that investors can learn how their fund is being managed. It has
become very, very apparent that many of the questionable fund
practices that are now being examined are not just the result of a
few bad actors, but are longstanding industry practices that have
largely gone unregulated and not well disclosed to, or understood
by, most investors.
Therefore, this Committee must take a comprehensive look, I be-
lieve, at the industry to determine if the industry’s operations and
practices are consistent with investors’ interests and the greater
interests of the market. It may be that we must consider possible
realignment of interests to ensure that mutual funds are operating
as efficiently and fairly as the market and investors demand. We
will examine fund disclosure practices regarding fees, trading costs,
sales commissions, and portfolio holdings. So, we will continue to
question the conflicts of interest surrounding the relationship be-
tween the investment adviser and the fund and how potential
changes to fund governance and disclosure practices may minimize
these conflicts.
We will also focus on fund sales practices to ensure that brokers
sell suitable investments to their clients, provide adequate disclo-
sure of any sales incentives, and give clients any breakpoint dis-
counts to which they are entitled.
Chairman Donaldson has told this Committee that the SEC has
the necessary statutory authority to reform the mutual fund indus-
try and is in the process of conducting a comprehensive rulemak-
ing. As we have learned in other contexts, however, additional reg-
ulation is not the only answer. Late trading is clearly illegal and
market timing is actively deterred and policed. Despite prohibitions
and warnings, these activities continued unabated because of the
inadequate compliance and enforcement regimes at the SEC, the
mutual funds and the brokers. Whether due to a lack of resources
or other pressing priorities, mutual fund abuses simply did not re-
ceive adequate attention from the SEC. Although recent enforce-
ment actions indicate that priorities have changed, we need to
and halt future fund abuses.
Vigorous enforcement remains the key to restoring integrity to
the fund industry, and Attorney General Spitzer’s timely actions
once again demonstrate, I believe, the significant role that States
play in prosecuting fraud and abuse in the securities markets. Re-
gardless of the number of rules or amount of resources, it would
be impractical to expect the SEC to detect every single fraud and
manipulation in the fund industry. Therefore, the mutual funds
and the brokerage houses themselves must proactively adopt new
compliance measures to detect fraud and abuse. For many years,
participants in the mutual fund industry maintain industry ‘‘best
practices.’’ These practices, however, have clearly proven to be in-
adequate as brokers and funds have disregarded conflicts of inter-
est and colluded at the expense of investors without detection.
Although funds and brokers owe different types of duties to their
investors, both groups have an obligation to refrain from knowingly
ignoring their clients’ interests and profiting at their expense.
With over 95 million investors and $7 trillion—yes, $7 trillion—
in assets, mutual funds have always been perceived as the safe
investment option for average investors. America has become a Na-
tion of investors, but there is no doubt that recent revelations
about mutual funds have caused very many to question the per-
ceived fairness of the industry. Many are surprised to learn that
the mutual fund industry is plagued by the same conflict that was
at the root of the Enron scandal and the global settlement—one set
of profitable rules for insiders and another costly set for average
investors.
Beyond the legal concepts of fiduciary duties and transparency,
there is a more fundamental principle that should underlie the
operation of the mutual fund industry and our securities markets
in general.
This principle is that securities firms and mutual funds should
not neglect investors’ interests and knowingly profit at their ex-
pense. Until firms can demonstrate an ability to abide by this
ideal, investors will not trust the markets, nor should they. In our
own way, Congress, the SEC and regulators, and industry partici-
pants must collectively work to reform the mutual fund industry in
order to restore investor confidence. I believe, we must reassure in-
vestors that mutual funds are a vehicle in which they can safely
invest their money and not fall victim to financial schemes. The
mutual fund industry is simply too important to too many Ameri-
cans to do otherwise.
Examining the mutual fund industry is a priority for this Com-
mittee, and I look forward to working with my fellow Committee
Members, especially Senators Enzi, Dodd, and Corzine, all of whom
have already expressed significant interest in this issue.
Our first witness today is Chairman Bill Donaldson, and on the
second panel we will hear from Matthew Fink, President of the In-
vestment Company Institute, and Marc Lackritz, President of the
Securities Industry Association.
Now, I will call on my Members.
Senator Sarbanes.
Chairman
MFS Investment Management
and
Visiting Professor
Harvard Law School
“REVIEW OF CURRENT INVESTIGATIONS AND REGULATORY ACTIONS
REGARDING THE MUTUAL FUND INDUSTRY:
FUND OPERATIONS AND GOVERNANCE”
COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
Committee for this opportunity to present my views on appropriate reforms for the mutual fund
industry.
My name is Robert C. Pozen and I am from Boston, Massachusetts. I am currently
Chairman of MFS Investment Management, which manages approximately $140 billion for
approximately 370 accounts including over 100 mutual funds serving approximately six million
investors. I am also a visiting professor at Harvard Law School and author of the textbook The
Mutual Fund Business (2 ed. Houghton Mifflin 2001).
I commend the Committee for engaging in a deliberative and broad-ranging review of the
operations and regulation of the mutual fund industry. While I welcome questions about any
aspect of the fund industry, I will limit my testimony today to three areas where I believe that MFS is helping to set important new standards for the fund industry:
The current system of paying for goods and services with “soft dollars”, taken out of
brokerage commissions, is detrimental to mutual fund shareholders. The use of “soft dollar”
payments makes it virtually impossible for a fund manager to ascertain the true costs of executing trades because execution costs are bundled together with the costs of other goods and services such as research reports and Bloomberg terminals. If these costs were unbundled, then fund managers could pay cash out of their own pockets for independent research or market data, and could negotiate for lower execution prices for fund shareholders.
broker on Wall Street, the trader pays five cents a share for execution plus a broad range of
goods or services from the executing broker or third parties: e.g., securities research, market data and brokerage allocations to promote fund sales. These goods and services are paid in “soft dollars”: that is, they are bundled into the five cents per share charge in a non- transparent
1 of 6
be required to pay five cents per share by the full-service broker.
In other words, it is almost impossible to obtain a price discount from a full-service
Wall Street firm for executing a large fund trade. However, that firm is willing to provide an in-kind
discount in the form of soft dollars that can be used to purchase various goods or services. This is
more than a technical pricing oddity. The key point is this: a price discount on the trade (for
example, from five cents to three cents per share) would go directly to the mutual fund and its
shareholders. In-kind services like market data services go directly to the fund management
company and only indirectly to the mutual fund and its shareholders.
MFS has already eliminated the use of “soft dollars” to promote sales of mutual fund
shares. Since January 1, 2004, MFS has been paying cash out of its own pocket to broker-
dealers to promote fund sales. While the SEC has proposed a rule to this effect, MFS has
switched from soft dollars to cash to promote fund sales regardless of whether and when the SEC
adopts its rule.
More dramatically, earlier this month MFS decided to stop using soft dollars to pay for
third-party research1 and market data. Again MFS will pay cash out of its own pocket for these
items. MFS estimates that this decision will cost the management company $10 to $15 million per
year. Yet MFS has agreed not to raise its advisory fees for its funds over the next five years.
Why is MFS willing to take the lead on getting off the addiction to soft dollars and moving to the healthy environment of price discounts?
1 We are not stopping the use of “soft dollars” for proprietary research and other services. Only recently has the SEC issued a concept release on accounting for all the elements of a bundled commission. SEC Release IC-26313 (Dec. 19, 2003).
2 of 6
MFS will issue an individualized quarterly statement, rather than a general listing of fund expenses in basis points, which will show each fund shareholder a reasonable estimate of his or her actual fund expenses in dollar terms.
various categories of fund expenses in basis points. The table might say, for instance:
Advisory Fee 53 bp
Transfer Agency Fee 10 bp
Other Fees 2 bp
12 b-1 Fee 25 bp
Total Expenses 90 bp
Nevertheless, some critics have argued that mutual fund investors need customized
expense statements. By that, these critics mean the actual expenses paid by a shareholder in
period. For example, we would have to compute the exact expenses of a shareholder who held
Fund A from January 15 until March 31 without reinvesting fund dividends; another shareholder
who held Fund B for the whole year and reinvested all fund dividends; and yet another
shareholder who held Fund C from February 1 until June 15 as well as from August 22 until
December 11 (during both periods, assuming no record date for fund dividends occurred).
This type of customized expense statement would, in my opinion, involve enormous
computer programming costs. The program would have to track the holdings of every fund
shareholder on a daily basis, take into account whether a fund dividend was reinvested or paid
out to the shareholder, and apply monthly basis point charges to fund balances reflecting monthly
appreciation or depreciation of fund assets. Of course, these large computer costs would
ultimately be passed on to fund shareholders.
At MFS, we will provide every fund shareholder with an estimate of his or her actual
expenses on their quarterly statements.2 We can do this at an affordable cost by making one
reasonable assumption—that the fund holdings of the shareholder at the end of the quarter were
the same throughout the quarter. Although this is a simplifying assumption, it produces a good
estimate of actual fund expenses since most shareholders do not switch funds during a quarter.
Indeed, this assumption will often lead to a slightly higher estimate of individualized expenses
than the actual amount because some shareholders will buy the fund during the quarter and other
shareholders will reinvest fund dividends during the quarter.
In addition, MFS will send its shareholders in every fund’s semi-annual report the
total amount of brokerage commissions paid by the fund during the relevant period as well as the
fund’s average commission rate per share (for example, 4.83 cents per share on average). But
this information on brokerage commissions should be separated from the fund expense table
because all the other items in the table are ordinary expenses expressed in basis points. By
contrast, brokerage commissions are a capital expense added to the tax basis of the securities
held by the fund, and brokerage commissions are expressed in cents per share.
2 These individualized expenses will not include brokerage costs because they are capitalized in the cost of the portfolio
security.
4 of 6
The mutual fund industry has a unique governance structure: the fund is a separate entity from its external manager. The independent directors of the fund must annually approve the
terms and conditions of the fund’s contract with its external manager. Of course, the independent directors usually reappoint the management company. In an industrial company, how often do the directors throw out the whole management team? But the independent directors of most mutual funds, in my experience, do represent fund shareholders by negotiating for contract terms and monitoring potential conflicts of interest.
industry. To begin with, over 75% of the board is comprised of independent directors, who elect their own independent chairman. The chairman leads the executive sessions of independent directors, which occur before or after every board meeting. The independent chairman also helps set the board’s agenda for each meeting. A lead independent director could definitely take charge of the executive sessions and a lead director could also help set the board’s agenda. Thus, it
does not matter which title is employed; the key is to insure that a senior independent director
plays these two functions.
In many boards, the independent directors have their own independent counsel, as
the MFS boards do. But the independent directors of the MFS funds are going one step further by
appointing their own compliance officer. This officer will monitor all compliance activities by MFS
as well as supervise the fund’s own activities, and will report regularly to the Compliance
Committee of the Board (which itself is composed solely of independent directors).
On the management company side, MFS is the only company I know of that has a
non-executive chairman reporting to the independent directors of the MFS funds. This is a new
position designed to assure that the management company is fully accountable to the funds’
independent directors.
Finally, MFS as a management company has established the new position of Executive Vice President for Regulatory Affairs, and filled the position with a distinguished industry veteran. In addition, MFS has hired a distinguished law firm partner as its new general
5 of 6
This high profile position within MFS is more than symbolic; it represents the great significance
given by MFS to these regulatory functions. While these functions are performed in most fund
management companies, it is rare to see the person in charge of these functions having the title of executive vice president and serving on the executive committee of the firm.
Conclusions
In summary, MFS is trying to establish standards of best practices in three important
areas to fund shareholders:
proposing and adopting a myriad of rules on disclosure requirements and substantive prohibitions or the fund industry—which overlap to a degree with the efforts of the fund management firms.
Because the SEC and the management firms are making such serious efforts to develop
higher behavioral norms for the mutual fund industry, it might be useful for Congress to monitor these efforts before finalizing a bill on mutual fund reforms. These are complex issues that may be better suited to an evolutionary process, led by an expert public agency with the flexibility to address the changing legal and factual environment.
to answer any questions the Chairman or Committee Members might have.
Robert C. Pozen
- Former president of Fidelity Investments and executive chairman of MFS Investment Management
- Expert who has made hundreds of appearances to companies, television audiences and leaders around the world
- Writer for the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, the Harvard Business Review, and more around the globe
Support Staff
Kimberly Crumpton
Get in Touch
- Building E62-483
- bobpozen@mit.edu
- (617) 715-4813
- (617) 258-6855
I was glad to get the call from 902 491 6817 Perhaps we should talk ASAPEX-5.3 4 dex53.htm OPINION OF COX & PALMERExhibit 5.3
July 30, 2010
General Partner of Connors Bros. Holdings, L.P.
c/o Centre Partners Management, LLC
30 Rockefeller Plaza, 50th Floor
New York, NY 10020
The holders of the Notes (as hereinafter defined)
Re: Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, Connors Bros. Clover Leaf Seafoods Company
and Bumble Bee Capital Corp. (the “Issuers”) – Issue of Exchange Notes Ladies and Gentlemen:
We have acted as New Brunswick and Nova Scotia counsel to Connors Bros. Clover Leaf Seafoods Company (“CBCLSC”), Clover Leaf Holdings Company (“CLHC”), K.C.R. Fisheries Ltd. (“KCR”) and 6162410 Canada Limited (“6162410”) in connection with the issuance of Exchange Notes (as defined in the Indenture) for the 7.75% Senior Secured Notes due 2015 (the “Notes”) pursuant to a registration rights agreement dated as of December 17, 2009 between the Issuers, certain guarantors and Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Jeffries & Company Inc. and Barclays Capital Inc., as initial purchasers (the “Initial Purchasers”).
We refer to each of CLHC, KCR and 6162410 as an “Opinion Guarantor” and together with CBCLSC as the “Opinion Parties”. Except as otherwise defined in this opinion, capitalized terms used below shall have the respective meanings assigned to such terms in the Indenture.
In that connection, we have examined an executed copy of the following (or, in certain circumstances, an electronic copy of the following together with a facsimile of a corresponding signature page or pages, which we have assumed constitute a true and complete executed copy):
(a) the Purchase Agreement dated December 10, 2009 between Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, CBCLSC, Bumble Bee Capital Corp., as Issuers, the Guarantor named therein and the Purchasers named therein (the “Purchase Agreement”); Patrick Fitzgerald | Partner
Direct 902 491 4117 Main 902 421 6262 Fax 902 421 3130 Email pfitzgerald@coxandpalmer.com
Purdy’s Wharf Tower | 1100-1959 Upper Water Street Halifax NS
Correspondence PO Box 2380 Central Halifax NS B3J 3E5
July 30, 2010
(b) the Indenture dated December 17, 2009, between Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, CBCLSC, Bumble Bee Capital Corp., the Guarantors named therein and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas as Trustee (the “Indenture”);
(c) the Registration Rights Agreement dated December 17, 2009 between Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, CBCLSC, Bumble Bee Capital Corp., as Issuers to the Initial Purchasers, and the Guarantors named therein (the “Registration Rights Agreement”);
(d) the Regulation S Guarantee dated as of December 17, 2009 wherein CLHC, KCR and 6162410, inter alia, are Guarantors named therein (the “Regulation S Guarantee”); and
(e) the Rule 144 Guarantee dated as of December 17, 2009 wherein CLHC, KCR and 6162410, inter alia, are Guarantors named therein (the “Rule 144 Guarantee”). The documents in clauses (a) through (e) are collectively referred to as the “Transaction Documents”.
In connection with the foregoing, we have examined execution forms of the Transaction Documents and relied upon such statutes and regulations, public records and certificates of government officials and such other records and documents as we have deemed necessary for the opinions expressed below, including the following:
(a) certificates from an officer of each of the Opinion Parties dated December 17, 2009; and
(b) resolutions or certified copies of resolutions of the directors of the Opinion Parties authorizing, inter alia, the execution and delivery of the Transaction Documents to which it is a party (the “Resolutions”). We have also considered such questions of law as we have deemed relevant and necessary as a basis for the opinions hereinafter expressed.
We express no opinion herein as to the laws of any jurisdiction other than the Province of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick (the “Provinces”) and the laws of Canada applicable therein. In particular, to the extent the laws of the Provinces would require the application of the laws of any other jurisdiction; no opinion is expressed as to the laws of such jurisdiction.
July 30, 2010
Based upon and subject to the foregoing and the assumptions and qualifications set out at the end of this opinion, we are of the opinion that, on the date hereof:
1. Each of the Transaction Documents has been duly authorized, executed and delivered by each Opinion Party that is a party thereto.
2. The Guarantee of each Opinion Guarantor to be endorsed on the Notes has been duly authorized, executed, issued and delivered by each Opinion Guarantor.
3. The Exchange Notes have been duly authorized by CBCLSC. The foregoing opinions are subject to the following assumptions and qualifications:
(a) That the Transaction Documents constitute legal, valid and binding obligations of all parties thereto and that all parties thereto (excluding the Opinion Parties) are duly incorporated (if incorporated) and validly existing;
(b) The genuineness of all signatures;
(c) The authenticity of all documents submitted to us as originals; and
(d) The conformity to authentic original documents of all documents submitted to us as copies. We consent to the filing of this opinion letter as an exhibit to the Registration Statement on Form S-4 to be filed by the Issuers with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Yours very truly, /s/ Cox & Palmer Cox & Palmer
----- Forwarded Message -----From: David Amos <motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com>To: "ruby@ruby-edwardh.com" <ruby@ruby-edwardh.com>; "wickedwanda3@adelphia.net" <wickedwanda3@adelphia.net>; "daniel.conley@massmail.state.ma.us" <daniel.conley@massmail.state. ma.us>; "stoffer.p@parl.gc.ca" <stoffer.p@parl.gc.ca>; "mcdonough.a@parl.gc.ca" <mcdonough.a@parl.gc.ca>; "godin.y@parl.gc.ca" <godin.y@parl.gc.ca>; "smurphy@ctv.ca" <smurphy@ctv.ca>; "martine.turcotte@bell.ca" <martine.turcotte@bell.ca>; "michelsamson@ns.sympatico.ca" <michelsamson@ns.sympatico.ca> ; "premier@gov.ns.ca" <premier@gov.ns.ca>; "jdewolfe@ns.sympatico.ca" <jdewolfe@ns.sympatico.ca>; "morse.mla@ns.sympatico.ca" <morse.mla@ns.sympatico.ca>; "parentma@gov.ns.ca" <parentma@gov.ns.ca>; "rodneym@ns.sympatico.ca" <rodneym@ns.sympatico.ca>; "rrussellmla@ns.sympatico.ca" <rrussellmla@ns.sympatico.ca>; "barnetbe@gov.ns.ca" <barnetbe@gov.ns.ca>; "ronchisholmmla@auracom.com" <ronchisholmmla@auracom.com>; "bill.dooks@ns.sympatico.ca" <bill.dooks@ns.sympatico.ca>; "elf@ns.sympatico.ca" <elf@ns.sympatico.ca>; "bill.langille@ns.sympatico.ca " <bill.langille@ns.sympatico.ca >; "chatawaymla@hfxeastlink.ca" <chatawaymla@hfxeastlink.ca>; "mlaclarke@ns.sympatico.ca" <mlaclarke@ns.sympatico.ca>; "peter.christie@ns.sympatico. ca" <peter.christie@ns.sympatico. ca>; "dentreca@gov.ns.ca" <dentreca@gov.ns.ca>; "a.macisaac@ns.sympatico.ca" <a.macisaac@ns.sympatico.ca>; "rhurlburt@auracom.com" <rhurlburt@auracom.com>; "hinesgb@gov.ns.ca" <hinesgb@gov.ns.ca>; "codonnellmla@ns.sympatico.ca" <codonnellmla@ns.sympatico.ca> ; "kgmorashmla@ns.aliantzinc.ca" <kgmorashmla@ns.aliantzinc.ca> ; "mackay.p@parl.gc.ca" <mackay.p@parl.gc.ca>; "lrikleen@bowditch.com" <lrikleen@bowditch.com>; "lliss@rubinrudman.com" <lliss@rubinrudman.com>; "john.conyers@mail.house.gov" <john.conyers@mail.house.gov>; "smay@pattersonpalmer.ca" <smay@pattersonpalmer.ca>; "dan@djflynn.com" <dan@djflynn.com>; "david.saffran@ipsos-reid.com" <david.saffran@ipsos-reid.com> ; "adams_sammon@msn.com" <adams_sammon@msn.com>; "darrell.bricker@ipsos-na.com" <darrell.bricker@ipsos-na.com> ; "kathryn.prudhomme@uottawa.ca" <kathryn.prudhomme@uottawa.ca> ; "kandalaw@mindspring.com" <kandalaw@mindspring.com> Cc: "sarah.mann@rci.rogers.com" <sarah.mann@rci.rogers.com>; "tomp.young@atlanticradio.rogers.com" <tomp.young@atlanticradio. rogers.com>; "dwatch@web.net" <dwatch@web.net>; "info@afterdowningstreet.org" <info@afterdowningstreet.org>; "trvl@hotmail.com" <trvl@hotmail.com>; "governor.rell@po.state.ct.us" <governor.rell@po.state.ct.us> ; "fbinhct@leo.gov" <fbinhct@leo.gov>; "dc@thepen.us" <dc@thepen.us>; "patrick.fitzgerald@usdoj.gov" <patrick.fitzgerald@usdoj.gov> ; "russell_feingold@feingold. senate.gov" <russell_feingold@feingold. senate.gov>; "stephen.cutler@wilmerhale.com " <stephen.cutler@wilmerhale.com >; "robert.bagnall@wilmerhale.com " <robert.bagnall@wilmerhale.com >; "bbixby@burnslev.com" <bbixby@burnslev.com>; "drosenblatt@burnslev.com" <drosenblatt@burnslev.com>; "governorlynch@nh.gov" <governorlynch@nh.gov>; "mayor@ci.boston.ma.us" <mayor@ci.boston.ma.us>; "publicrelations@cubanmission. com" <publicrelations@cubanmission. com>; "rusun@un.int" <rusun@un.int>; "france-presse@un.int" <france-presse@un.int>; "uk@un.int" <uk@un.int>; "contact@germany-un.org" <contact@germany-un.org>; "belanger.jean-daniel@psio- bifp.gc.ca" <belanger.jean-daniel@psio- bifp.gc.ca>; "kmearn@mpdmilton.org" <kmearn@mpdmilton.org>; "letter@globe.com" <letter@globe.com>; "ombud@globe.com" <ombud@globe.com>; "press@devalpatrick.com" <press@devalpatrick.com>; "plamom@sen.parl.gc.ca" <plamom@sen.parl.gc.ca>; "olived@sen.parl.gc.ca" <olived@sen.parl.gc.ca>; "iwhitehall@heenan.ca" <iwhitehall@heenan.ca>; "neil.finkelstein@blakes.com" <neil.finkelstein@blakes.com>; "jchretien@heenan.ca" <jchretien@heenan.ca>; "rheenan@heenan.ca" <rheenan@heenan.ca>; "bmulroney@ogilvyrenault.com" <bmulroney@ogilvyrenault.com>; "broy@ogilvyrenault.com" <broy@ogilvyrenault.com>; "clementgroleau@videotron.ca" <clementgroleau@videotron.ca>; "ghunter@blgcanada.com" <ghunter@blgcanada.com>; "kinsella@stu.ca" <kinsella@stu.ca>; "mcomeau@stu.ca" <mcomeau@stu.ca>; "shawn.graham@gnb.ca" <shawn.graham@gnb.ca>; "alltrue@nl.rogers.com" <alltrue@nl.rogers.com>; "matthews.b@parl.gc.ca" <matthews.b@parl.gc.ca>; "bbachrach@bowditch.com" <bbachrach@bowditch.com>; "lcampenella@ledger.com" <lcampenella@ledger.com>; "mcknight.gisele@ kingscorecord.com" <mcknight.gisele@ kingscorecord.com>; "bmosher@mosherchedore.ca" <bmosher@mosherchedore.ca> Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2006 at 06:34:34 PM ADTSubject: Home invasions supported by FedsObviously I must have taught you to read before you write. Eh Ckayton Baby. Now you must understand I must sue the Crown in Canada ASAP in order to have a purported warrant for my arrest revoked in the USA in order that I may return to the USA and sue this Yankee named Neil Kerstein as he has obviously requested. However first I will sue my Gaurdian Ad Litem Brian Bixby's law firm of Burns and Levinson in Canada for allowing this malice to occur in the first place. That Yankee bastard helped to write the Probate Manual for the Commonwealth of Massachustts. Methinks he above all should understand it.What say you Clayton Ruby? Would you like to argue this this stuff in a criminal mater in front of a jury before I sue you along with Bixby and Franky Boy McKenna. No shit I would prefer that you made false criminal allegations against me in Canada so that the matter could not be dismissed and I would have the right to demand a jury of my peers in order argue the likes of you. That is the very same right that I have been denied in the USA for way past too long. What I am most concerned with today is getting my name legally on a ballot in Nova Scotia ASAP. I will worry about snotty Upper Canadain lawyers like you later. I have given you enough today to put your panties in a knot EH? You keep on fighting for the rights of Pit Bulls in far off Ontario and watch a fierce Maritime political animal at play. Say hey to Eddy Greenspan and his pal Lord Conrad Black for me Will ya?Veritas Vincit David Raymond Amos
New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.
WPC Members Contact List
| Corporate Members | Designated Representative | Phone | Fax | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aallcann Wood Supplies | Bob Romanchuk | 306-929-3225 | 306-929-2601 | aallcann@inet2000.com |
| Arch Wood Protection, A Lonza Company | Paul Dandy | 905-826-9648 | 905-826-7333 | Paul.dandy@lonza.com |
| Bois KMS (GMI) Ltd. | Ken McCollough | 819-275-2240 | 819-275-3362 | ken@boiskms.ca |
| Brisco Wood Preservers | Peter Mason | 250-346-3315 | 250-346-3218 | psmason@telus.net |
|
CanWel Treating Plants |
Daryl Anderson | 604-585-2511 | 604-585-1548 | danderson@surewood.ca |
| Decker Lake Forest Products | Ian Gray | 250-698-7304 | 250-698-7374 | IanGray@HamptonAffiliates.com |
| Envirofor Preservers Ltd. | Russ Permann | 403-203-5354 | 403-236-4288 | rpermann@taigabuilding.com |
| BarretteWood | Benoit Barrette | 888-433-6256 | 450-357-7054 | bbarrette@fenclo.com |
| Goodfellow Inc. | Harold Sheepwash Jr. | 450-635-6511 | 450-635-8304 | Hsheepwash@goodfellowinc.com |
| Guelph Utility Pole Co. | Craig Frohlich | 519-822-3901 | 519-822-5411 | cfrohlich@stella-jones.com |
| Lebel / Cambium Group | Larry McTaggart | 613-332-4500 | 613-332-2185 | fdale@lebelcambium.com lmctaggart@cambiumgroup.ca |
| KMG Bernuth | Michael A. Hoffman | 602-538-5643 | Mhoffman@kmgchemicals.com | |
| Kootenay Wood Preservers | Jabob Blackmore | 250-489-0776 | 250-489-0768 | jake@prairieholdings.ca |
| L&M Wood Products LP. | Zane Delainey | 306-342-2080 | 306-342-4707 | zane@lmwp.com |
| Marwood Ltd. | Danny Goodine | 506-459-7777 | 506-451-8936 | danny.goodine@marwoodltd.com |
| Northern Pressure Treated Wood | Mike McCollough | 705-567-5101 | 705-567-4313 | nptwpole@onlink.net |
| Prairie Forest Products Ltd. | Lawrence Prendiville | 204-989-9600 | 204-694-7232 | lprendiville@prendiville.com |
| Princeton Wood Preservers Ltd. | Elizabeth Marion | 250-295-7911 | 250-295-7912 | elizabeth@pwppost.com |
| Ram Forest Products / Trent Timber Treating Ltd |
Tom Moryto | 905-727-1164 | 905-727-7758 | thomasmoryto@ram-forest.com |
| Roblin Forest Products | Gaye Lenderbeck | rfp@mymts.net | ||
| Rocky Wood Preservers Ltd. | Paul King | 403-845-2212 | 403-845-2595 | rwpand@xplornet.com |
| Shelburne Wood Protection Ltd. | Erwin Leonov | 519-925-5915 | 519-925-3061 | eleonov@bluwoodcanada.com |
| Spray Lake Sawmills Ltd. | Howard Pruden | 403-851-3306 | 403-932-6675 | howard.pruden@spraylakesawmills.com |
|
Stella-Jones Inc. Stella-Jones Canada Inc. |
Ron Zeegers | 403-934-4668 | 403-934-5880 | rzeegers@stella-jones.com |
| Sundre Forest Products Ltd. | Shea Pletzer | 403-638-1108 | 403-638-1140 | shea.pletzer@westfraser.com |
| Timber Specialties Co. / Koppers Inc. | Brad Burmeister | 905-854-2244 | 905-854-0834 | bburmeister@osmose.com |
| Total Forest Industries Ltd. | Paul Foster | 905-854-3333 | 905-854-3303 | pfoster@bellnet.ca |
| Ruetgers Canada Inc. | Gord Gilmet | 905-548-5532 | 905-544-4942 | gord.gilmet@ruetgers-group.com |
| Vermette Wood Preservers | Perry Vermette | 306-764-4054 | 306-922-4044 | perryvermette@sasktel.net |
| Viance, LLC | Kevin Archer | 704-522-0825 | karcher@viance.net | |
| Western Pacific Wood Pres – Surewood. | Gordon Leontowich | 604-587-1900 | 604-856-7783 | western_wood_preservers@yahoo.ca |
| Friends of the Association | Designated Representative | Phone | Fax | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CFP Forest Products | Jim Mogan | 905-209-0648 | 905-471-7498 | jimcfpconsulting@rogers.com |
| D.L. Alexander and Associates | David Alexander | 514-693-5642 | dlalexander@sympatico.ca | |
| FP Innovations | Dr. Paul Morris | 604-222-5651 | 604-222-5690 | paul.morris@FPInnovations.ca |
| Innovative Control Systems | Brad Nichol | 613-332-9960 | 613-332-9818 | brad@porta-kiln.com |
| WoodSci Consulting | Scott Henry | 705-790-0168 | scotth@sympatico.ca |
