Court File No. A-48-16
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
BETWEEN:
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
Appellant/Moving Party
and
HER
MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent/Responding
Party
NOTICE OF MOTION TO REQUEST AN ORAL HEARING
TAKE NOTICE THAT the
Plaintiff/Appellant, DAVID RAYMON AMOS
will make a
motion to the Court at Fredericton, NB. on Thursday, April 28, 2016 at
12:30 P.M. or as soon thereafter as the motion can be heard, at Fredericton, NB.
THE MOTION IS FOR:
1.
To
request that the Justices of the Federal Court of Appeal notify William Brooks
(Brooks), the Commissioner of Federal Judicial Affairs and Bob Paulson
(Paulson), the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), that
they should finally uphold the law and the mandates of their offices before HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (CROWN) is subject to lawsuits in the
United States of America (USA) and Canada. The actions in the Federal Court (File
no. T-1557-15) by William Pentney QC,
the Deputy Attorney
General of Canada, Prothonotary Richard Morneau and Justice Richard
Southcott have caused the CROWN to lose the right to claim sovereign
immunity in the USA in defense of
certain actions that the Amos Clan plans to put before courts of law in the USA
and Canada.
2.
On
December 14, 2015 Justice Richard Bell after studying the evidence properly
filed in the public record and discussing the issues with the Plaintiff/Appellant and the CROWN counsel delivered his Order orally
from the Bench 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 CROWN cannot deny the
Plaintiff/Appellant had filed irrefutable evidence of his concerns about financial
crimes and a true copy of an American police surveillance wiretap tape.
3.
Since
December 14th, 2015 the Plaintiff/Appellant has been in contact with
the offices of the Attorney General of the USA (USDOJ) and the Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI). They have been made well aware that a true copy of
an American police surveillance wiretap tape is on file in the public record of
the Federal Court of Canada and of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court of
Canada (SCC), Wakeling v
United States of America, 2014 SCC 72.
Officials with the USDOJ and the US Inspector General for Tax
Administration are also well aware that some of their documents pertaining to
the Plaintiff/Appellant concerns about
their severe lack of integrity related to cross border taxation etc are also in
the public record of the Federal Court of Canada and they have failed to
respond as if they are relying on the
Deputy Attorney General, William F. Pentney QC (Pentney to defend their unethical
actions against the Plaintiff/Appellant
in the USA that are ongoing to this very day .Whereas the Attorney General of General of Canada had the
Attorney General of the USA for a client in Wakeling v United States
of America, 2014 SCC 72. and it
defended FATCA before the Federal Court of Canada in the Hillis et al v. Attorney
General of Canada and the Minister of National Revenue [2015] FC 1082 matter and no one will respond the
Plaintiff/Appellant’s concern, he has concluded that his suspicions of a
continuing cover-up of his actions are valid.
4.
The Deputy
Attorney General, William F. Pentney QC (Pentney) acting as the solicitor
for the Defendant/ Respondent is not an infant
or incompetent. He and the Crown attorneys working under him have refused to
confer with the
Plaintiff/Appellant about the existence of the copy of wiretap tape filed in
the public record or discuss the content of the appeal book pursuant rule 343(1) until they were duly notified on March 5th,
2016 of the requirement of the Plaintiff/Appellant to file a motion pursuant to rule 343(3)
of the Federal Court Rules. However
within an unsigned motion record filed in Federal Court on December 10th,
2015 on behalf of the CROWN William F. Pentney QC and his associates do admit
to the existence of the wiretap tape properly filed in the public record of the
matter. Pentney’s assistant Jill Chisholm has refused to discuss anything with
the Plaintiff/Appellant either on
the phone or in person or in writing. However she has witnessed the Plaintiff/Appellant discuss the evidence and the wiretap tapes
with Justice Bell on December 14th, 2015 and Justice Southcott on
January 11th, 2015. Jill Chisholm did
not dispute the evidence as he displayed to the court that he had brought
several original wiretaps to the court and that he was willing to play them for
the court to listen to if the Justices doubted his sworn affidavit and his
complaint clearly stating that he was in passion of many American wiretap tapes
and that he had given many original tapes to the RCMP, the FBI and other Police
Forces in the past. Although many wiretap tapes have been stolen from him in
the past, the Plaintiff/Appellant still
has in his possession in the USA and Canada many more that he may give to the
Americans recorded on them in order that they may file lawsuits against the
USDOJ etc..
5.
Since
December 14th, 2015 the only responses the Plaintiff/Appellant has received
from any law enforcement authority in Canada or the USA were verbal denials
that they knew nothing of his concerns and snide suggestions that he file
another lawsuit. The Plaintiff/Appellant truly believes that the law
enforcement authorities planned on his matter before the Federal Court to
continue to be dismissed. Since the day the Plaintiff/Appellant filed his
appeal of Justice Southcott’s decision it appears that they are planning to
make the Plaintiff/Appellant spend a great deal of money as they delay this
appeal as long as possible.
THE
GROUNDS FOR THIS MOTION TO REQUESTG AN ORAL HEARING ARE:
1.
The Plaintiff/Appellant, David Raymond Amos
makes this motion pursuant to rule 35(1)(2)(a) of the Federal Court Rules which is as follows:
35 (1) Subject to rule 298 and paragraph 385(1) motions
that can conveniently be heard at the General Sittings of the Federal Court may
be made returnable accordingly.
(2) A request may be made informally to the
Judicial Administrator of the Federal Court of Appeal or the Federal Court, as
the case may be, for an appointment of a special time and place
(a) for
sittings of the Federal Court of Appeal or of a judge of that court to hear a motion;
2. A
portion of the mandate William Brooks the Commissioner of Federal Judicial
Affairs id as follows:
“In 1996,
Federal Judicial Affairs (FJA) was given the responsibility
by the Chief Justice of Canada and the Federal Minister of Justice to
coordinate the involvement of the Canadian judiciary in international technical
cooperation initiatives. The Commissioner for FJA thus
represents the principal instrument of intervention in the international
judicial arena on behalf of the federal government, the Minister of Justice and
the Canadian Judicial Council, ensuring that their participation in
international activities does not compromise judicial independence and
impartiality. The Commissioner is supported in the discharge of these
responsibilities by the Judicial Advisory Committee on International
Engagement.”
“Since its inception and with the professional
contributions of members of the judicial community, judicial experts and
Canadian institutional partners, the International Programs Division (IPD)
has implemented numerous international judicial cooperation activities and
coordinated the participation of Canadian experts to that end. IPD
is guided by the Canadian Judicial Council Policy on International Judicial
Activities.”
___________________________
Dated , 2016 DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
P.O. Box 234
Apohaqui, NB E5P 3G2
Plaintiff/Appellant on his own behalf
TO: Administrator, Federal Court
AND
TO: WILLIAM F. PENTNEY
Deputy Attorney General of
Canada
per: JAN JENSEN
Department of Justice
Suite
1400-Duke Tower
5251 Duke
Street
Halifax, NS
B3J 1P3
Counsel for
the Defendant
No comments:
Post a Comment