Federal Court File No. A-48-16
FEDERAL
COURT OF APPEAL
BETWEEN:
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
Plaintiff/Appellant
and
HER
MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant/Respondent
NOTICE OF APPEAL
TO THE RESPONDENT:
A
LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU by the appellant. The relief claimed by the appellant appears
on the following page.
THIS
APPEAL will be heard by the Court at a time and place to be fixed by the
Judicial Administrator. Unless the Court directs otherwise, the place of hearing
will be as requested by the appellant. The appellant requests that this appeal
be heard at (place where Federal Court of Appeal (or Federal Court) ordinarily
sits).
IF
YOU WISH TO OPPOSE THIS APPEAL, to receive notice of any step in the appeal
or to be served with any documents in the appeal, you or a solicitor acting for
you must prepare a notice of appearance in Form 341 prescribed by the Federal
Courts Rules and serve it on the appellant's solicitor, or where the appellant
is self-represented, on the appellant, WITHIN 10 DAYS of being served with this
notice of appeal.
IF
YOU INTEND TO SEEK A DIFFERENT DISPOSITION of the order appealed from, you
must serve and file a notice of cross-appeal in Form 341 prescribed by the
Federal Courts Rules instead of serving and filing a notice of appearance.
Copies of the Federal Courts Rules
information concerning the local offices of the Court and other necessary
information may be obtained on request to the Administrator of this Court at
Ottawa (telephone 613-992-4238) or at any local office.
IF
YOU FAIL TO OPPOSE THIS APPEAL, JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN IN YOUR ABSENCE AND
WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU.
DATED at Fredericton, New Brunswick,
this the day of February, 2016
Issued
by:________________________________
(Registry Officer)
Address of local
office:__________________
TO: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
per: WILLIAM F. PENTNEY
Deputy Attorney General of
Canada
and JILL CHISHOLM
Department of Justice
Suite
1400-Duke Tower
5251 Duke
Street
Halifax, NS
B3J 1P3
Counsel for
the Defendant/Respondent
APPEAL
THE APPELLANT APPEALS for relief from the order dated
January 25, 2016 of MR. JUSTICE RICHARD F. SOUTHCOTT (Justice
Southcott) by which his Order of the Appeal of the Order of PROTHONOTARY RICHARD MORNEAU was
allowed only in part for political reasons not legal reasons.
MR. JUSTICE B. RICHARD BELL (Justice Bell)at the outset
of the hearing in Fredericton, New
Brunswick, on December 14, 2015 admitted that he had studied all
the filings in
this matter and that he had paid particular
attention to the affidavit and supporting exhibits of the Plaintiff/Appellant, Justice
Bell after discussing the issues with the
Plaintiff/Appellant and the CROWN
counsel of HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN delivered his Order orally from the Bench
properly recusing himself and referred to 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.
The Plaintiff/Appellant, after hearing
Justice Bell’s order studied the biographies of all the Justices of Federal
Court. He provided to the Registrar of Federal Court a list of all the Justices
of this court whom he believed to have a conflict of interest similar to
Justice Bell’s before he received a copy of the Justice Bell’s Order dated
December 23, 2015. Justice Southcott was on that list.
The Plaintiff/Appellant had read many opinions in the media
about judicial independence and the political vetting of all the judges
appointed by the Harper Government but the response to media reports released
on January 7, 2016 by Richard Tardif Deputy Chief Administrator Judicial and
Registry Services Courts Administration Service was by far the most
interesting. The
Plaintiff/Appellant before he had the opportunity to read the published
words of Richard Tardif had already contacted many liberal political lawyers including J.E. Britt
Dysart QC of the law firm of Stewart McKelvey, which shares the same address as
the Federal Court in Fredericton, the ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF CANADA and the SPEAKER OF
THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. The Plaintiff/Appellant looked forward to the upcoming
hearing of this matter after he
received a response in writing from Craig Munroe, the Liberal Party Legal and
Constitutional Advisor on January 6, 2016.
On
January 11, 2016 in the preliminary matter and several more times during the
course of the hearing the conflict of interest of Justice Southcott, a former
managing partner of Stewart McKelvey
was clearly explained by the Plaintiff/Appellant and the CROWN offered no opinion. The CROWN
did not dispute any of the facts put before the court. The CROWN admitted that the wrong party had
been named in its Motion to Strike the Complaint and did not argue that it was
nearly three months in default in filing a defence. The CROWN admitted its motion in order to begin again Du Nuvo was not signed but Justice
Southcott supported it in order to ignore all prior filings and evidence. Justice
Southcott did not listen to the Plaintiff/Appellant’s argument about Rule 50
until the CROWN agreed that should
it be argued first.
Justice
Southcott during the hearing discussed with the CROWN why they believed that the Plaintiff/Appellant whom they
referred to as the CROWN’S “friend” was not barred from the House
Of Commons and why this complaint and his exercising his right under Section 3 of
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was frivolous and vexatious. Plaintiff/Appellant was
much offended by that discussion and made it known to the court in no uncertain
terms and Justice Southcott reserved his decision.
On January
25, 2016, the Plaintiff/Appellant did receive the decision of MR.
JUSTICE RICHARD F. SOUTHCOTT. In
paragraph 4 of his decision Justice
Southcott referred to 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..On January 11th, 2016 it was abundantly
clear to Plaintiff/Appellant
that Justice Southcott did
not agree with the decision that MR. JUSTICE B. RICHARD BELL took in
this matter and he did inform the court that he would be appealing to the
Federal Court of Appeal about what had transpired before the Federal Court during
the hearings held on December 14, 2015 and January 11, 2016.
THE
APPELLANT ASKS
(a)
That the ORDERS of
MR. PROTHONOTARY RICHARD MORNEAU and
MR. JUSTICE RICHARD F. SOUTHCOTT be revoked; and
(b)
The Defendant/Respondent be found in Default; and
(c)
Award the Plaintiff/Appellant eleven million dollars
($11,000,000.00) in the form of relief plus the costs
THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL
are as follows:
1/ The Plaintiff/Appellant
brings this matter before the Federal Court of Appeal
pursuant to Section 27 (1) (b) (c) (d) of the Federal Courts Act R.S., 1985, c. F-7,
s. 1; 2002, c. 8, s. 14.because of
Orders of the Federal Court dated November 12,
20i5 and January
25, 2016
DATED at Fredericton, New Brunswick,
this the day of February, 2016
___________________________
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
P.O.
Box 234
Apohaqui, NB E5P 3G2
Telephone no.:
(902) 800-0369
Fax no.: (506) 432-6089
E David.Raymond.Amos@gmail.com
Plaintiff/Appellant on his own behalf
No comments:
Post a Comment