Anybody notice this "Steve Haywood" character dropping the names of Nicholas Collins and Michael MacKenzie as the political spin doctors were teasing within CBC yesterday? I decided to check out all three of them and connected some interesting dots to say the least and started calling a lot of lawyers ASAP to figure who was who and what the Hell they knew about me. Need I say all the lawyers played dumb thus far? Lets see how they enjoy my emails N'esy Pas?
Steve Haywood
@David R. Amos Is that you Nicholas Collins? Or is it Michael MacKenzie ?
I post links and CBC quickly blocks my first reply to their brand new LIEbrano troll (92 comments and nearly every one on Trump issues)
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/republicans-block-subpoena-for-helsinki-summit-translator-1.4753322?__vfz=profile_comment%3D9854000016675
Trump invites Putin to White House amid fallout of first summit | CBC News
Steve Haywood
@Piero Scaramuzzi
I see constant declarations from you , without one iota of back up links to this information.
Anything can be said, but without irrefutable evidence it is all conjecture.
Provide links so we can evaluate for ourselves.
Or are you afraid to post them because you will be found prevaricating?
https://twitter.com/DavidRayAmos/with_replies
David Raymond Amos @DavidRayAmos
Methinks The Donald and his minions finally read page 12 of this file N'esy Pas?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/trump-federal-reserve-powell-1.4754748
Trump's Fed criticism prompts fears he's questioning bank's independence
Central bankers and politicians squabble often, but stakes are higher this time
Comments ( Clearly this comment section was much edited. The tally was that much many hours before the comment section closed but CBC kept blocking me so I quit)
Commenting is now closed for this story.
Dax Randall
I cant believe America is letting this inept businessman run their economy...into the ground.
Jane Saint-Clair
@Dax Randall
Random uninformed sap --> I cant believe America is letting this inept businessman run their economy...into the ground.
Wall Street Journal --> U.S. Leading Economic Indicators Rose in June
Random uninformed sap --> I cant believe America is letting this inept businessman run their economy...into the ground.
Wall Street Journal --> U.S. Leading Economic Indicators Rose in June
Dax Randall
@Jane Saint-Clair
Wait until the 4th quarter when Trumps disasters set in.
Wait until the 4th quarter when Trumps disasters set in.
James Spencer III
We don't have to go to the circus anymore. Just read or watch the news.
Lily O'Loughlin
@James Spencer III
And read the comments.
And read the comments.
Bob Baker
@Lily O'Loughlin Yeah your
right Lily the far right Trump supporters are really quite farcical and
surreal, almost as bizarre as a Bankruptee and Tax dodger on the Russian
pay roll locking horns with the Fed. I am sure you will agree
John Gerrits
@James Spencer III More like a dark comedy
David R. Amos
@James Spencer III Methinks
that by now many folks will recall that I have been saying Welcome to
the Circus for years N'esy Pas?
Jane Saint-Clair
@David R. Amos
What's that annoying "N'esy Pas" quirk you have?
What's that annoying "N'esy Pas" quirk you have?
Steve Haywood
@David R. Amos
Is that you Nicholas Collins? Or is it Michael MacKenzie ?
Is that you Nicholas Collins? Or is it Michael MacKenzie ?
Content disabled.
David R. Amos
@Jane Saint-Clair "What's that annoying "N'esy Pas" quirk you have?"
Methinks you are not nearly as annoyed as The Donald and his minions after they finally finally read page 12 of this old file of mine N'esy Pas?
https://www.scribd.com/document/2619437/CROSS-BORDER
Methinks you are not nearly as annoyed as The Donald and his minions after they finally finally read page 12 of this old file of mine N'esy Pas?
https://www.scribd.com/document/2619437/CROSS-BORDER
Content disabled.
David R. Amos
@Steve Haywood Nope
Methinks you know exactly who I am Anyone can Google my name and watch me debate one of Harper's Conservative Cabinet Ministers in the real world N'esy Pas?
https://www.google.com/search?q=fundy+royal+debate&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b
Methinks you know exactly who I am Anyone can Google my name and watch me debate one of Harper's Conservative Cabinet Ministers in the real world N'esy Pas?
https://www.google.com/search?q=fundy+royal+debate&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b
Bob Enrob
And Donald debt say he attended business school.... LOL
John Dunn
@Bob Enrob That was Trump University.
Janie Veston
@Bob Enrob His daddy bought
him a diploma from Wharton Business school. There is NO way he could
have graduated and still be so clueless!
Content disabled.
David R. Amos
@Bob Enrob Methinks The Donald and his minions finally read page 12 of this file N'esy Pas?
https://www.scribd.com/document/2619437/CROSS-BORDER
https://www.scribd.com/document/2619437/CROSS-BORDER
---------- Original message ----------
From: Premier of Ontario | Premier ministre de l’Ontario <Premier@ontario.ca>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 11:25:48 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: I bet Rotten Ralphy Goodale and Caroline Mulroney
know why I will contact Doug Ford's Attorney General as soon as I know who
it is N'esy Pas?
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Thank you for your email. Your thoughts, comments and input are greatly valued.
You can be assured that all emails and letters are carefully read,
reviewed and taken into consideration.
There may be occasions when, given the issues you have raised and the
need to address them effectively, we will forward a copy of your
correspondence to the appropriate government official. Accordingly, a
response may take several business days.
Thanks again for your email.
______
Merci pour votre courriel. Nous vous sommes très reconnaissants de
nous avoir fait part de vos idées, commentaires et observations.
Nous tenons à vous assurer que nous lisons attentivement et prenons en
considération tous les courriels et lettres que nous recevons.
Dans certains cas, nous transmettrons votre message au ministère
responsable afin que les questions soulevées puissent être traitées de
la manière la plus efficace possible. En conséquence, plusieurs jours
ouvrables pourraient s’écouler avant que nous puissions vous répondre.
Merci encore pour votre courriel.
---------- Original message ----------
From: Caroline Mulroney <caroline@carolinemulroney.ca>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 04:25:48 -0700
Subject: Thank you for your message! Re: I bet Rotten Ralphy Goodale and
Caroline Mulroney know why I will contact Doug Ford's Attorney General as
soon as I know who it is N'esy Pas?
To: motomaniac333@gmail.com
Thank you for your email. A member of our team will get back to you as
soon as possible.
Warm regards,
Team Caroline
--
Caroline Mulroney Campaign
905-960-1457
www.CarolineMulroney.ca
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/C_Mulroney
http://davidraymondamos3.
Sunday, 19 November 2017
Federal Court of Appeal Finally Makes The BIG Decision And Publishes It Now The Crooks Cannot Take Back Ticket To Try Put My Matter Before The Supreme Court
https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/236679/index.do
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Amos v. Canada
Court (s) Database
|
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
|
Date
|
2017-10-30
|
Neutral citation
|
2017 FCA 213
|
File numbers
|
A-48-16
|
Date: 20171030
Docket: A-48-16
Citation:
2017 FCA 213
CORAM:
|
WEBB J.A.
NEAR J.A.
GLEASON J.A.
|
BETWEEN:
|
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
|
Respondent
on the cross-appeal
(and formally Appellant) |
and
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
|
Appellant
on the cross-appeal
(and formerly Respondent) |
Heard at Fredericton, New Brunswick, on May 24, 2017.
Judgment
delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 30, 2017.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:
|
THE
COURT
|
Date: 20171030
Docket: A-48-16
Citation:
2017 FCA 213
CORAM:
|
WEBB J.A.
NEAR J.A.
GLEASON J.A.
|
BETWEEN:
|
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
|
Respondent
on the cross-appeal
(and formally Appellant) |
and
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
|
Appellant
on the cross-appeal
(and formerly Respondent) |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY THE COURT
I.
Introduction
[1]
On September 16, 2015, David Raymond
Amos (Mr. Amos) filed a 53-page Statement of Claim (the Claim) in Federal Court
against Her Majesty the Queen (the Crown). Mr. Amos claims $11 million in
damages and a public apology from the Prime Minister and Provincial Premiers
for being illegally barred from accessing parliamentary properties and seeks a
declaration from the Minister of Public Safety that the Canadian Government
will no longer allow the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and Canadian
Forces to harass him and his clan (Claim at para. 96).
[2]
On November 12, 2015 (Docket
T-1557-15), by way of a motion brought by the Crown, a prothonotary of the
Federal Court (the Prothonotary) struck the Claim in its entirety, without
leave to amend, on the basis that it was plain and obvious that the Claim
disclosed no reasonable claim, the Claim was fundamentally vexatious, and the
Claim could not be salvaged by way of further amendment (the Prothontary’s
Order).
[3]
On January 25, 2016 (2016 FC 93), by
way of Mr. Amos’ appeal from the Prothonotary’s Order, a judge of the Federal
Court (the Judge), reviewing the matter de novo, struck all of Mr. Amos’
claims for relief with the exception of the claim for damages for being barred
by the RCMP from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004 (the Federal Court
Judgment).
[4]
Mr. Amos appealed and the Crown
cross-appealed the Federal Court Judgment. Further to the issuance of a Notice
of Status Review, Mr. Amos’ appeal was dismissed for delay on December 19,
2016. As such, the only matter before this Court is the Crown’s cross-appeal.
II.
Preliminary
Matter
[5]
Mr. Amos, in his memorandum of fact
and law in relation to the cross-appeal that was filed with this Court on March
6, 2017, indicated that several judges of this Court, including two of the
judges of this panel, had a conflict of interest in this appeal. This was the
first time that he identified the judges whom he believed had a conflict of
interest in a document that was filed with this Court. In his notice of appeal
he had alluded to a conflict with several judges but did not name those judges.
[6]
Mr. Amos was of the view that he did
not have to identify the judges in any document filed with this Court because
he had identified the judges in various documents that had been filed with the
Federal Court. In his view the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal
are the same court and therefore any document filed in the Federal Court would
be filed in this Court. This view is based on subsections 5(4) and 5.1(4) of
the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7:
5(4) Every judge of the Federal Court is, by virtue of his or
her office, a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal and has all the
jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal.
[…]
|
5(4) Les juges de la Cour fédérale sont d’office juges de la
Cour d’appel fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs que les
juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale.
[…]
|
5.1(4) Every judge of the Federal Court of Appeal is, by virtue
of that office, a judge of the Federal Court and has all the jurisdiction,
power and authority of a judge of the Federal Court.
|
5.1(4) Les juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale sont d’office juges
de la Cour fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs que les
juges de la Cour fédérale.
|
[7]
However, these subsections only
provide that the judges of the Federal Court are also judges of this Court (and
vice versa). It does not mean that there is only one court. If the
Federal Court and this Court were one Court, there would be no need for this
section.
3 The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the
Federal Court — Appeal Division is continued under the name “Federal Court of
Appeal” in English and “Cour d’appel fédérale” in French. It is continued as
an additional court of law, equity and admiralty in and for Canada, for the
better administration of the laws of Canada and as a superior court of record
having civil and criminal jurisdiction.
|
3 La Section d’appel, aussi appelée la Cour d’appel ou la
Cour d’appel fédérale, est maintenue et dénommée « Cour d’appel fédérale » en
français et « Federal Court of Appeal » en anglais. Elle est maintenue à
titre de tribunal additionnel de droit, d’equity et d’amirauté du Canada,
propre à améliorer l’application du droit canadien, et continue d’être une cour
supérieure d’archives ayant compétence en matière civile et pénale.
|
4 The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the
Federal Court — Trial Division is continued under the name “Federal Court” in
English and “Cour fédérale” in French. It is continued as an additional court
of law, equity and admiralty in and for Canada, for the better administration
of the laws of Canada and as a superior court of record having civil and
criminal jurisdiction.
|
4 La section de la Cour fédérale du Canada, appelée la
Section de première instance de la Cour fédérale, est maintenue et dénommée «
Cour fédérale » en français et « Federal Court » en anglais. Elle est
maintenue à titre de tribunal additionnel de droit, d’equity et d’amirauté du
Canada, propre à améliorer l’application du droit canadien, et continue
d’être une cour supérieure d’archives ayant compétence en matière civile et
pénale.
|
[9]
Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal
Courts Act create two separate courts – this Court (section 3) and the
Federal Court (section 4). If, as Mr. Amos suggests, documents filed in the
Federal Court were automatically also filed in this Court, then there would no
need for the parties to prepare and file appeal books as required by Rules 343
to 345 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 in relation to any appeal
from a decision of the Federal Court. The requirement to file an appeal book
with this Court in relation to an appeal from a decision of the Federal Court
makes it clear that the only documents that will be before this Court are the
documents that are part of that appeal book.
[10]
Therefore, the memorandum of fact
and law filed on March 6, 2017 is the first document, filed with this Court, in
which Mr. Amos identified the particular judges that he submits have a conflict
in any matter related to him.
[11]
On April 3, 2017, Mr. Amos attempted
to bring a motion before the Federal Court seeking an order “affirming or
denying the conflict of interest he has” with a number of judges of the Federal
Court. A judge of the Federal Court issued a direction noting that if Mr. Amos
was seeking this order in relation to judges of the Federal Court of Appeal, it
was beyond the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. Mr. Amos raised the Federal
Court motion at the hearing of this cross-appeal. The Federal Court motion is
not a motion before this Court and, as such, the submissions filed before the
Federal Court will not be entertained. As well, since this was a motion brought
before the Federal Court (and not this Court), any documents filed in relation
to that motion are not part of the record of this Court.
[12]
During the hearing of the appeal Mr.
Amos alleged that the third member of this panel also had a conflict of
interest and submitted some documents that, in his view, supported his claim of
a conflict. Mr. Amos, following the hearing of his appeal, was also afforded
the opportunity to provide a brief summary of the conflict that he was alleging
and to file additional documents that, in his view, supported his allegations.
Mr. Amos submitted several pages of documents in relation to the alleged
conflicts. He organized the documents by submitting a copy of the biography of
the particular judge and then, immediately following that biography, by
including copies of the documents that, in his view, supported his claim that
such judge had a conflict.
[13]
The nature of the alleged conflict
of Justice Webb is that before he was appointed as a Judge of the Tax Court of
Canada in 2006, he was a partner with the law firm Patterson Law, and before
that with Patterson Palmer in Nova Scotia. Mr. Amos submitted that he had a
number of disputes with Patterson Palmer and Patterson Law and therefore
Justice Webb has a conflict simply because he was a partner of these firms. Mr.
Amos is not alleging that Justice Webb was personally involved in or had any
knowledge of any matter in which Mr. Amos was involved with Justice Webb’s
former law firm – only that he was a member of such firm.
[14]
During his oral submissions at the
hearing of his appeal Mr. Amos, in relation to the alleged conflict for Justice
Webb, focused on dealings between himself and a particular lawyer at Patterson
Law. However, none of the documents submitted by Mr. Amos at the hearing or
subsequently related to any dealings with this particular lawyer nor is it
clear when Mr. Amos was dealing with this lawyer. In particular, it is far from
clear whether such dealings were after the time that Justice Webb was appointed
as a Judge of the Tax Court of Canada over 10 years ago.
[15]
The documents that he submitted in
relation to the alleged conflict for Justice Webb largely relate to dealings
between Byron Prior and the St. John’s Newfoundland and Labrador office of
Patterson Palmer, which is not in the same province where Justice Webb
practiced law. The only document that indicates any dealing between Mr. Amos
and Patterson Palmer is a copy of an affidavit of Stephen May who was a partner
in the St. John’s NL office of Patterson Palmer. The affidavit is dated January
24, 2005 and refers to a number of e-mails that were sent by Mr. Amos to
Stephen May. Mr. Amos also included a letter that is addressed to four individuals,
one of whom is John Crosbie who was counsel to the St. John’s NL office of
Patterson Palmer. The letter is dated September 2, 2004 and is addressed to “John
Crosbie, c/o Greg G. Byrne, Suite 502, 570 Queen Street, Fredericton, NB E3B
5E3”. In this letter Mr. Amos alludes to a possible lawsuit against Patterson
Palmer.
[16]
Mr. Amos’ position is that simply
because Justice Webb was a lawyer with Patterson Palmer, he now has a conflict.
In Wewaykum Indian Band v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2003 SCC 45, [2003] 2
S.C.R. 259, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that disqualification of a judge
is to be determined based on whether there is a reasonable apprehension of
bias:
60
In Canadian law, one standard has now emerged as the criterion for disqualification.
The criterion, as expressed by de Grandpré J. in Committee for Justice and
Liberty v. National Energy Board, …[[1978] 1 S.C.R. 369, 68 D.L.R. (3d)
716], at p. 394, is the reasonable apprehension of bias:
… the apprehension of bias must be a
reasonable one, held by reasonable and right minded persons, applying
themselves to the question and obtaining thereon the required information. In
the words of the Court of Appeal, that test is "what would an informed
person, viewing the matter realistically and practically -- and having thought
the matter through -- conclude. Would he think that it is more likely than not
that [the decision-maker], whether consciously or unconsciously, would not
decide fairly."
[17]
The issue to be determined is whether
an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically, and
having thought the matter through, would conclude that Mr. Amos’ allegations
give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. As this Court has previously
remarked, “there is a strong presumption that judges will administer justice
impartially” and this presumption will not be rebutted in the absence of “convincing
evidence” of bias (Collins v. Canada, 2011 FCA 140 at para. 7, [2011] 4
C.T.C. 157 [Collins]. See also R. v. S. (R.D.), [1997] 3 S.C.R.
484 at para. 32, 151 D.L.R. (4th) 193).
[18]
The Ontario Court of Appeal in Rando
Drugs Ltd. v. Scott, 2007 ONCA 553, 86 O.R. (3d) 653 (leave to appeal to
the Supreme Court of Canada refused, 32285 (August 1, 2007)), addressed the
particular issue of whether a judge is disqualified from hearing a case simply
because he had been a member of a law firm that was involved in the litigation
that was now before that judge. The Ontario Court of Appeal determined that the
judge was not disqualified if the judge had no involvement with the person or
the matter when he was a lawyer. The Ontario Court of Appeal also explained
that the rules for determining whether a judge is disqualified are different
from the rules to determine whether a lawyer has a conflict:
27
Thus, disqualification is not the natural corollary to a finding that a trial
judge has had some involvement in a case over which he or she is now presiding.
Where the judge had no involvement, as here, it cannot be said that the
judge is disqualified.
28
The point can rightly be made that
had Mr. Patterson been asked to represent the appellant as counsel before his
appointment to the bench, the conflict rules would likely have prevented him
from taking the case because his firm had formerly represented one of the
defendants in the case. Thus, it is argued how is it that as a trial judge
Patterson J. can hear the case? This issue was considered by the Court of
Appeal (Civil Division) in Locabail (U.K.) Ltd. v. Bayfield Properties Ltd.,
[2000] Q.B. 451. The court held, at para. 58, that there is no inflexible rule
governing the disqualification of a judge and that, "[e]verything depends
on the circumstances."
29
It seems to me that what appears at
first sight to be an inconsistency in application of rules can be explained by
the different contexts and in particular, the strong presumption of judicial
impartiality that applies in the context of disqualification of a judge. There
is no such presumption in cases of allegations of conflict of interest against
a lawyer because of a firm's previous involvement in the case. To the contrary,
as explained by Sopinka J. in MacDonald Estate v. Martin (1990), 77
D.L.R. (4th) 249 (S.C.C.), for sound policy reasons there is a presumption of a
disqualifying interest that can rarely be overcome. In particular, a conclusory
statement from the lawyer that he or she had no confidential information about
the case will never be sufficient. The case is the opposite where the allegation
of bias is made against a trial judge. His or her statement that he or she knew
nothing about the case and had no involvement in it will ordinarily be accepted
at face value unless there is good reason to doubt it: see Locabail, at
para. 19.
30
That brings me then to consider the
particular circumstances of this case and whether there are serious grounds to
find a disqualifying conflict of interest in this case. In my view, there are
two significant factors that justify the trial judge's decision not to recuse
himself. The first is his statement, which all parties accept, that he knew
nothing of the case when it was in his former firm and that he had nothing to
do with it. The second is the long passage of time. As was said in Wewaykum,
at para. 85:
To us, one significant factor stands out, and must inform the perspective of
the reasonable person assessing the impact of this involvement on Binnie J.'s
impartiality in the appeals. That factor is the passage of time. Most arguments
for disqualification rest on circumstances that are either contemporaneous to
the decision-making, or that occurred within a short time prior to the
decision-making.
31
There are other factors that inform
the issue. The Wilson Walker firm no longer acted for any of the parties by the
time of trial. More importantly, at the time of the motion, Patterson J. had
been a judge for six years and thus had not had a relationship with his former
firm for a considerable period of time.
32
In my view, a reasonable person,
viewing the matter realistically would conclude that the trial judge could deal
fairly and impartially with this case. I take this view principally because of
the long passage of time and the trial judge's lack of involvement in or
knowledge of the case when the Wilson Walker firm had carriage. In these
circumstances it cannot be reasonably contended that the trial judge could not
remain impartial in the case. The mere fact that his name appears on the
letterhead of some correspondence from over a decade ago would not lead a
reasonable person to believe that he would either consciously or unconsciously
favour his former firm's former client. It is simply not realistic to think
that a judge would throw off his mantle of impartiality, ignore his oath of
office and favour a client - about whom he knew nothing - of a firm that he
left six years earlier and that no longer acts for the client, in a case
involving events from over a decade ago.
(emphasis added)
[19]
Justice Webb had no involvement with
any matter involving Mr. Amos while he was a member of Patterson Palmer or
Patterson Law, nor does Mr. Amos suggest that he did. Mr. Amos made it clear
during the hearing of this matter that the only reason for the alleged conflict
for Justice Webb was that he was a member of Patterson Law and Patterson
Palmer. This is simply not enough for Justice Webb to be disqualified. Any
involvement of Mr. Amos with Patterson Law while Justice Webb was a member of
that firm would have had to occur over 10 years ago and even longer for the
time when he was a member of Patterson Palmer. In addition to the lack of any
involvement on his part with any matter or dispute that Mr. Amos had with
Patterson Law or Patterson Palmer (which in and of itself is sufficient to
dispose of this matter), the length of time since Justice Webb was a member of
Patterson Law or Patterson Palmer would also result in the same finding – that
there is no conflict in Justice Webb hearing this appeal.
[20]
Similarly in R. v. Bagot,
2000 MBCA 30, 145 Man. R. (2d) 260, the Manitoba Court of Appeal found that
there was no reasonable apprehension of bias when a judge, who had been a
member of the law firm that had been retained by the accused, had no involvement
with the accused while he was a lawyer with that firm.
[21]
In Del Zotto v. Minister of
National Revenue, [2000] 4 F.C. 321, 257 N.R. 96, this court did find that
there would be a reasonable apprehension of bias where a judge, who while he
was a lawyer, had recorded time on a matter involving the same person who was
before that judge. However, this case can be distinguished as Justice Webb did
not have any time recorded on any files involving Mr. Amos while he was a
lawyer with Patterson Palmer or Patterson Law.
[22]
Mr. Amos also included with his
submissions a CD. He stated in his affidavit dated June 26, 2017 that there is
a “true copy of an American police surveillance wiretap entitled 139” on this
CD. He has also indicated that he has “provided a true copy of the CD entitled
139 to many American and Canadian law enforcement authorities and not one of
the police forces or officers of the court are willing to investigate it”.
Since he has indicated that this is an “American police surveillance wiretap”,
this is a matter for the American law enforcement authorities and cannot
create, as Mr. Amos suggests, a conflict of interest for any judge to whom he
provides a copy.
[23]
As a result, there is no conflict or
reasonable apprehension of bias for Justice Webb and therefore, no reason for
him to recuse himself.
[24]
Mr. Amos alleged that Justice Near’s
past professional experience with the government created a “quasi-conflict” in
deciding the cross-appeal. Mr. Amos provided no details and Justice Near
confirmed that he had no prior knowledge of the matters alleged in the Claim.
Justice Near sees no reason to recuse himself.
[25]
Insofar as it is possible to glean
the basis for Mr. Amos’ allegations against Justice Gleason, it appears that he
alleges that she is incapable of hearing this appeal because he says he wrote a
letter to Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien in 2004. At that time, both Justice
Gleason and Mr. Mulroney were partners in the law firm Ogilvy Renault, LLP. The
letter in question, which is rude and angry, begins with “Hey you two Evil Old
Smiling Bastards” and “Re: me suing you and your little dogs too”. There is no
indication that the letter was ever responded to or that a law suit was ever
commenced by Mr. Amos against Mr. Mulroney. In the circumstances, there is no
reason for Justice Gleason to recuse herself as the letter in question does not
give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.
III.
Issue
[26]
The issue on the cross-appeal is as
follows: Did the Judge err in setting aside the Prothonotary’s Order striking
the Claim in its entirety without leave to amend and in determining that Mr.
Amos’ allegation that the RCMP barred him from the New Brunswick legislature in
2004 was capable of supporting a cause of action?
IV.
Analysis
A.
Standard of Review
[27]
Following the Judge’s decision to
set aside the Prothonotary’s Order, this Court revisited the standard of review
to be applied to discretionary decisions of prothonotaries and decisions made
by judges on appeals of prothonotaries’ decisions in Hospira Healthcare
Corp. v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, 2016 FCA 215, 402 D.L.R. (4th)
497 [Hospira]. In Hospira, a five-member panel of this Court
replaced the Aqua-Gem standard of review with that articulated in Housen
v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235 [Housen]. As a
result, it is no longer appropriate for the Federal Court to conduct a de
novo review of a discretionary order made by a prothonotary in regard to
questions vital to the final issue of the case. Rather, a Federal Court judge
can only intervene on appeal if the prothonotary made an error of law or a
palpable and overriding error in determining a question of fact or question of
mixed fact and law (Hospira at para. 79). Further, this Court can only
interfere with a Federal Court judge’s review of a prothonotary’s discretionary
order if the judge made an error of law or palpable and overriding error in determining
a question of fact or question of mixed fact and law (Hospira at paras.
82-83).
[28]
In the case at bar, the Judge
substituted his own assessment of Mr. Amos’ Claim for that of the Prothonotary.
This Court must look to the Prothonotary’s Order to determine whether the Judge
erred in law or made a palpable and overriding error in choosing to interfere.
B.
Did the Judge err in interfering
with the Prothonotary’s Order?
[29]
The Prothontoary’s Order accepted
the following paragraphs from the Crown’s submissions as the basis for striking
the Claim in its entirety without leave to amend:
17.
Within the 96 paragraph Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff addresses his
complaint in paragraphs 14-24, inclusive. All but four of those paragraphs are
dedicated to an incident that occurred in 2006 in and around the legislature in
New Brunswick. The jurisdiction of the Federal Court does not extend to Her
Majesty the Queen in right of the Provinces. In any event, the Plaintiff hasn’t
named the Province or provincial actors as parties to this action. The incident
alleged does not give rise to a justiciable cause of action in this Court.
(…)
21.
The few paragraphs that directly address the Defendant provide no details as to
the individuals involved or the location of the alleged incidents or other
details sufficient to allow the Defendant to respond. As a result, it is
difficult or impossible to determine the causes of action the Plaintiff is
attempting to advance. A generous reading of the Statement of Claim allows the
Defendant to only speculate as to the true and/or intended cause of action. At
best, the Plaintiff’s action may possibly be summarized as: he suspects he is
barred from the House of Commons.
[footnotes omitted].
[30]
The Judge determined that he could
not strike the Claim on the same jurisdictional basis as the Prothonotary. The
Judge noted that the Federal Court has jurisdiction over claims based on the
liability of Federal Crown servants like the RCMP and that the actors who
barred Mr. Amos from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004 included the RCMP
(Federal Court Judgment at para. 23). In considering the viability of these
allegations de novo, the Judge identified paragraph 14 of the Claim as containing
“some precision” as it identifies the date of the event and a RCMP officer
acting as Aide-de-Camp to the Lieutenant Governor (Federal Court Judgment at
para. 27).
[31]
The Judge noted that the 2004 event
could support a cause of action in the tort of misfeasance in public office and
identified the elements of the tort as excerpted from Meigs v. Canada,
2013 FC 389, 431 F.T.R. 111:
[13]
As in both the cases of Odhavji Estate v Woodhouse, 2003 SCC 69 [Odhavji]
and Lewis v Canada, 2012 FC 1514 [Lewis], I must determine
whether the plaintiffs’ statement of claim pleads each element of the alleged
tort of misfeasance in public office:
a) The public officer must have
engaged in deliberate and unlawful conduct in his or her capacity as public
officer;
b) The public officer must have been
aware both that his or her conduct was unlawful and that it was likely to harm
the plaintiff; and
c) There must be an element of bad
faith or dishonesty by the public officer and knowledge of harm alone is
insufficient to conclude that a public officer acted in bad faith or
dishonestly.
Odhavji, above, at paras 23, 24 and 28
(Federal Court Judgment at para.
28).
[32]
The Judge determined that Mr. Amos
disclosed sufficient material facts to meet the elements of the tort of
misfeasance in public office because the actors, who barred him from the New
Brunswick legislature in 2004, including the RCMP, did so for “political
reasons” (Federal Court Judgment at para. 29).
[33]
This Court’s discussion of the
sufficiency of pleadings in Merchant Law Group v. Canada (Revenue Agency),
2010 FCA 184, 321 D.L.R (4th) 301 is particularly apt:
…When pleading bad faith or abuse of
power, it is not enough to assert, baldly, conclusory phrases such as
“deliberately or negligently,” “callous disregard,” or “by fraud and theft did
steal”. “The bare assertion of a conclusion upon which the court is called upon
to pronounce is not an allegation of material fact”. Making bald, conclusory
allegations without any evidentiary foundation is an abuse of process…
To this, I would add that the tort
of misfeasance in public office requires a particular state of mind of a public
officer in carrying out the impunged action, i.e., deliberate conduct
which the public officer knows to be inconsistent with the obligations of his
or her office. For this tort, particularization of the allegations is
mandatory. Rule 181 specifically requires particularization of allegations of
“breach of trust,” “wilful default,” “state of mind of a person,” “malice” or
“fraudulent intention.”
(at paras. 34-35, citations
omitted).
[34]
Applying the Housen standard
of review to the Prothonotary’s Order, we are of the view that the Judge
interfered absent a legal or palpable and overriding error.
[35]
The Prothonotary determined that Mr.
Amos’ Claim disclosed no reasonable claim and was fundamentally vexatious on
the basis of jurisdictional concerns and the absence of material facts
to ground a cause of action. Paragraph 14 of the Claim, which addresses the
2004 event, pleads no material facts as to how the RCMP officer engaged in
deliberate and unlawful conduct, knew that his or her conduct was unlawful and
likely to harm Mr. Amos, and acted in bad faith. While the Claim alleges
elsewhere that Mr. Amos was barred from the New Brunswick legislature for
political and/or malicious reasons, these allegations are not particularized
and are directed against non-federal actors, such as the Sergeant-at-Arms of
the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick and the Fredericton Police Force. As
such, the Judge erred in determining that Mr. Amos’ allegation that the RCMP
barred him from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004 was capable of supporting
a cause of action.
[36]
In our view, the Claim is made up
entirely of bare allegations, devoid of any detail, such that it discloses no
reasonable cause of action within the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts.
Therefore, the Judge erred in interfering to set aside the Prothonotary’s Order
striking the claim in its entirety. Further, we find that the Prothonotary made
no error in denying leave to amend. The deficiencies in Mr. Amos’ pleadings are
so extensive such that amendment could not cure them (see Collins at
para. 26).
V.
Conclusion
[37]
For the foregoing reasons, we would
allow the Crown’s cross-appeal, with costs, setting aside the Federal Court
Judgment, dated January 25, 2016 and restoring the Prothonotary’s Order, dated
November 12, 2015, which struck Mr. Amos’ Claim in its entirety without leave
to amend.
"Wyman W. Webb"
J.A.
"David G. Near"
J.A.
"Mary J.L. Gleason"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
A CROSS-APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SOUTHCOTT DATED JANUARY 25, 2016; DOCKET NUMBER T-1557-15.
DOCKET:
|
A-48-16
|
||
STYLE OF CAUSE:
|
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS v. HER MAJESTY
THE QUEEN
|
||
PLACE OF HEARING:
|
Fredericton,
New Brunswick
|
||
DATE OF HEARING:
|
May 24, 2017
|
||
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
BY:
|
WEBB J.A.
NEAR J.A.
GLEASON J.A.
|
||
DATED:
|
October 30, 2017
|
||
APPEARANCES:
David Raymond Amos
|
For The Appellant / respondent on
cross-appeal
(on his own behalf)
|
Jan Jensen
|
For The Respondent / appELLANT ON
CROSS-APPEAL
|
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD:
Nathalie G. Drouin
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
|
For The Respondent / APPELLANT ON
CROSS-APPEAL
|
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 09:32:09 -0400
> Subject: Attn Integrity Commissioner Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C.,
> To: coi@gnb.ca
> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>
> Good Day Sir
>
> After I heard you speak on CBC I called your office again and managed
> to speak to one of your staff for the first time
>
> Please find attached the documents I promised to send to the lady who
> answered the phone this morning. Please notice that not after the Sgt
> at Arms took the documents destined to your office his pal Tanker
> Malley barred me in writing with an "English" only document.
>
> These are the hearings and the dockets in Federal Court that I
> suggested that you study closely.
>
> This is the docket in Federal Court
>
> http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.
>
> These are digital recordings of the last three hearings
>
> Dec 14th https://archive.org/details/
>
> January 11th, 2016 https://archive.org/details/
>
> April 3rd, 2017
>
> https://archive.org/details/
>
>
> This is the docket in the Federal Court of Appeal
>
> http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.
>
>
> The only hearing thus far
>
> May 24th, 2017
>
> https://archive.org/details/
>
>
> This Judge understnds the meaning of the word Integrity
>
> Date: 20151223
>
> Docket: T-1557-15
>
> Fredericton, New Brunswick, December 23, 2015
>
> PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Bell
>
> BETWEEN:
>
> DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
>
> Plaintiff
>
> and
>
> HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
>
> Defendant
>
> ORDER
>
> (Delivered orally from the Bench in Fredericton, New Brunswick, on
> December 14, 2015)
>
> The Plaintiff seeks an appeal de novo, by way of motion pursuant to
> the Federal Courts Rules (SOR/98-106), from an Order made on November
> 12, 2015, in which Prothonotary Morneau struck the Statement of Claim
> in its entirety.
>
> At the outset of the hearing, the Plaintiff brought to my attention a
> letter dated September 10, 2004, which he sent to me, in my then
> capacity as Past President of the New Brunswick Branch of the Canadian
> Bar Association, and the then President of the Branch, Kathleen Quigg,
> (now a Justice of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal). In that letter
> he stated:
>
> As for your past President, Mr. Bell, may I suggest that you check the
> work of Frank McKenna before I sue your entire law firm including you.
> You are your brother’s keeper.
>
> Frank McKenna is the former Premier of New Brunswick and a former
> colleague of mine at the law firm of McInnes Cooper. In addition to
> expressing an intention to sue me, the Plaintiff refers to a number of
> people in his Motion Record who he appears to contend may be witnesses
> or potential parties to be added. Those individuals who are known to
> me personally, include, but are not limited to the former Prime
> Minister of Canada, The Right Honourable Stephen Harper; former
> Attorney General of Canada and now a Justice of the Manitoba Court of
> Queen’s Bench, Vic Toews; former member of Parliament Rob Moore;
> former Director of Policing Services, the late Grant Garneau; former
> Chief of the Fredericton Police Force, Barry McKnight; former Staff
> Sergeant Danny Copp; my former colleagues on the New Brunswick Court
> of Appeal, Justices Bradley V. Green and Kathleen Quigg, and, retired
> Assistant Commissioner Wayne Lang of the Royal Canadian Mounted
> Police.
>
> In the circumstances, given the threat in 2004 to sue me in my
> personal capacity and my past and present relationship with many
> potential witnesses and/or potential parties to the litigation, I am
> of the view there would be a reasonable apprehension of bias should I
> hear this motion. See Justice de Grandpré’s dissenting judgment in
> Committee for Justice and Liberty et al v National Energy Board et al,
> [1978] 1 SCR 369 at p 394 for the applicable test regarding
> allegations of bias. In the circumstances, although neither party has
> requested I recuse myself, I consider it appropriate that I do so.
>
>
> AS A RESULT OF MY RECUSAL, THIS COURT ORDERS that the Administrator of
> the Court schedule another date for the hearing of the motion. There
> is no order as to costs.
>
> “B. Richard Bell”
> Judge
>
>
> Below after the CBC article about your concerns (I made one comment
> already) you will find the text of just two of many emails I had sent
> to your office over the years since I first visited it in 2006.
>
> I noticed that on July 30, 2009, he was appointed to the the Court
> Martial Appeal Court of Canada Perhaps you should scroll to the
> bottom of this email ASAP and read the entire Paragraph 83 of my
> lawsuit now before the Federal Court of Canada?
>
> "FYI This is the text of the lawsuit that should interest Trudeau the most
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca
> Date: Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:18 PM
> Subject: Réponse automatique : RE My complaint against the CROWN in
> Federal Court Attn David Hansen and Peter MacKay If you planning to
> submit a motion for a publication ban on my complaint trust that you
> dudes are way past too late
> To: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>
> Veuillez noter que j'ai changé de courriel. Vous pouvez me rejoindre à
> lalanthier@hotmail.com
>
> Pour rejoindre le bureau de M. Trudeau veuillez envoyer un courriel à
> tommy.desfosses@parl.gc.ca
>
> Please note that I changed email address, you can reach me at
> lalanthier@hotmail.com
>
> To reach the office of Mr. Trudeau please send an email to
> tommy.desfosses@parl.gc.ca
>
> Thank you,
>
> Merci ,
>
>
> http://davidraymondamos3.
>
>
> 83. The Plaintiff states that now that Canada is involved in more war
> in Iraq again it did not serve Canadian interests and reputation to
> allow Barry Winters to publish the following words three times over
> five years after he began his bragging:
>
> January 13, 2015
> This Is Just AS Relevant Now As When I wrote It During The Debate
>
> December 8, 2014
> Why Canada Stood Tall!
>
> Friday, October 3, 2014
> Little David Amos’ “True History Of War” Canadian Airstrikes And
> Stupid Justin Trudeau
>
> Canada’s and Canadians free ride is over. Canada can no longer hide
> behind Amerka’s and NATO’s skirts.
>
> When I was still in Canadian Forces then Prime Minister Jean Chretien
> actually committed the Canadian Army to deploy in the second campaign
> in Iraq, the Coalition of the Willing. This was against or contrary to
> the wisdom or advice of those of us Canadian officers that were
> involved in the initial planning phases of that operation. There were
> significant concern in our planning cell, and NDHQ about of the dearth
> of concern for operational guidance, direction, and forces for
> operations after the initial occupation of Iraq. At the “last minute”
> Prime Minister Chretien and the Liberal government changed its mind.
> The Canadian government told our amerkan cousins that we would not
> deploy combat troops for the Iraq campaign, but would deploy a
> Canadian Battle Group to Afghanistan, enabling our amerkan cousins to
> redeploy troops from there to Iraq. The PMO’s thinking that it was
> less costly to deploy Canadian Forces to Afghanistan than Iraq. But
> alas no one seems to remind the Liberals of Prime Minister Chretien’s
> then grossly incorrect assumption. Notwithstanding Jean Chretien’s
> incompetence and stupidity, the Canadian Army was heroic,
> professional, punched well above it’s weight, and the PPCLI Battle
> Group, is credited with “saving Afghanistan” during the Panjway
> campaign of 2006.
>
> What Justin Trudeau and the Liberals don’t tell you now, is that then
> Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien committed, and deployed the
> Canadian army to Canada’s longest “war” without the advice, consent,
> support, or vote of the Canadian Parliament.
>
> What David Amos and the rest of the ignorant, uneducated, and babbling
> chattering classes are too addled to understand is the deployment of
> less than 75 special operations troops, and what is known by planners
> as a “six pac cell” of fighter aircraft is NOT the same as a
> deployment of a Battle Group, nor a “war” make.
>
> The Canadian Government or The Crown unlike our amerkan cousins have
> the “constitutional authority” to commit the Canadian nation to war.
> That has been recently clearly articulated to the Canadian public by
> constitutional scholar Phillippe Legasse. What Parliament can do is
> remove “confidence” in The Crown’s Government in a “vote of
> non-confidence.” That could not happen to the Chretien Government
> regarding deployment to Afghanistan, and it won’t happen in this
> instance with the conservative majority in The Commons regarding a
> limited Canadian deployment to the Middle East.
>
> President George Bush was quite correct after 911 and the terror
> attacks in New York; that the Taliban “occupied” and “failed state”
> Afghanistan was the source of logistical support, command and control,
> and training for the Al Quaeda war of terror against the world. The
> initial defeat, and removal from control of Afghanistan was vital and
>
> P.S. Whereas this CBC article is about your opinion of the actions of
> the latest Minister Of Health trust that Mr Boudreau and the CBC have
> had my files for many years and the last thing they are is ethical.
> Ask his friends Mr Murphy and the RCMP if you don't believe me.
>
> Subject:
> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:02:35 -0400
> From: "Murphy, Michael B. \(DH/MS\)" MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca
> To: motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com
>
> January 30, 2007
>
> WITHOUT PREJUDICE
>
> Mr. David Amos
>
> Dear Mr. Amos:
>
> This will acknowledge receipt of a copy of your e-mail of December 29,
> 2006 to Corporal Warren McBeath of the RCMP.
>
> Because of the nature of the allegations made in your message, I have
> taken the measure of forwarding a copy to Assistant Commissioner Steve
> Graham of the RCMP “J” Division in Fredericton.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Honourable Michael B. Murphy
> Minister of Health
>
> CM/cb
>
>
> Warren McBeath warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca wrote:
>
> Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:34:53 -0500
> From: "Warren McBeath" warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
> To: kilgoursite@ca.inter.net, MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca,
> nada.sarkis@gnb.ca, wally.stiles@gnb.ca, dwatch@web.net,
> motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com
> CC: ottawa@chuckstrahl.com, riding@chuckstrahl.com,John.
> Oda.B@parl.gc.ca,"Bev BUSSON" bev.busson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
> "Paul Dube" PAUL.DUBE@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
> Subject: Re: Remember me Kilgour? Landslide Annie McLellan has
> forgotten me but the crooks within the RCMP have not
>
> Dear Mr. Amos,
>
> Thank you for your follow up e-mail to me today. I was on days off
> over the holidays and returned to work this evening. Rest assured I
> was not ignoring or procrastinating to respond to your concerns.
>
> As your attachment sent today refers from Premier Graham, our position
> is clear on your dead calf issue: Our forensic labs do not process
> testing on animals in cases such as yours, they are referred to the
> Atlantic Veterinary College in Charlottetown who can provide these
> services. If you do not choose to utilize their expertise in this
> instance, then that is your decision and nothing more can be done.
>
> As for your other concerns regarding the US Government, false
> imprisonment and Federal Court Dates in the US, etc... it is clear
> that Federal authorities are aware of your concerns both in Canada
> the US. These issues do not fall into the purvue of Detachment
> and policing in Petitcodiac, NB.
>
> It was indeed an interesting and informative conversation we had on
> December 23rd, and I wish you well in all of your future endeavors.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Warren McBeath, Cpl.
> GRC Caledonia RCMP
> Traffic Services NCO
> Ph: (506) 387-2222
> Fax: (506) 387-4622
> E-mail warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>
>
>
> Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C.,
> Office of the Integrity Commissioner
> Edgecombe House, 736 King Street
> Fredericton, N.B. CANADA E3B 5H1
> tel.: 506-457-7890
> fax: 506-444-5224
> e-mail:coi@gnb.ca
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
> Date: Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:35 AM
> Subject: RE My complaint against the CROWN in Federal Court Attn David
> Hansen and Peter MacKay If you planning to submit a motion for a
> publication ban on my complaint trust that you dudes are way past too late
> To: David.Hansen@justice.gc.ca, peter.mackay@justice.gc.ca
> peacock.kurt@telegraphjournal.
> david.akin@sunmedia.ca, robert.frater@justice.gc.ca, paul.riley@ppsc-sppc.gc.ca,
> greg@gregdelbigio.com, joyce.dewitt-vanoosten@gov.bc.
> joan.barrett@ontario.ca, jean-vincent.lacroix@gouv.qc.
> peter.rogers@mcinnescooper.com
> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, gopublic@cbc.ca,
> Whistleblower@ctv.ca
>
> https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-
>
> http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/
>
> http://thedavidamosrant.
>
> I repeat what the Hell do I do with the Yankee wiretapes taps sell
> them on Ebay or listen to them and argue them with you dudes in
> Feferal Court?
>
> Petey Baby loses all parliamentary privelges in less than a month but
> he still supposed to be an ethical officer of the Court CORRECT?
>
> Veritas Vincit
> David Raymond Amos
> 902 800 0369
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
> Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 14:10:14 -0400
> Subject: Yo Mr Bauer say hey to your client Obama and his buddies in
> the USDOJ for me will ya?
> To: RBauer@perkinscoie.com, sshimshak@paulweiss.com,
> cspada@lswlaw.com, msmith@svlaw.com, bginsberg@pattonboggs.com,
> gregory.craig@skadden.com, pm@pm.gc.ca, bob.paulson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
> bob.rae@rogers.blackberry.net, MulcaT@parl.gc.ca, leader@greenparty.ca
> Cc: alevine@cooley.com, david.raymond.amos@gmail.com,
> michael.rothfeld@wsj.com, remery@ecbalaw.com
>
> QSLS Politics
> By Location Visit Detail
> Visit 29,419
> Domain Name usdoj.gov ? (U.S. Government)
> IP Address 149.101.1.# (US Dept of Justice)
> ISP US Dept of Justice
> Location Continent : North America
> Country : United States (Facts)
> State : District of Columbia
> City : Washington
> Lat/Long : 38.9097, -77.0231 (Map)
> Language English (U.S.) en-us
> Operating System Microsoft WinXP
> Browser Internet Explorer 8.0
> Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET
> CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; InfoPath.2;
> DI60SP1001)
> Javascript version 1.3
> Monitor Resolution : 1024 x 768
> Color Depth : 32 bits
> Time of Visit Nov 17 2012 6:33:08 pm
> Last Page View Nov 17 2012 6:33:08 pm
> Visit Length 0 seconds
> Page Views 1
> Referring URL http://www.google.co...
> Search Engine google.com
> Search Words david amos bernie madoff
> Visit Entry Page http://qslspolitics....-wendy-
> Visit Exit Page http://qslspolitics....-wendy-
> Out Click
> Time Zone UTC-5:00
> Visitor's Time Nov 17 2012 12:33:08 pm
> Visit Number 29,419
>
> http://qslspolitics.blogspot.
>
>
> Could ya tell I am investigating your pension plan bigtime? Its
> because no member of the RCMP I have ever encountered has earned it yet
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:36:04 -0400
> Subject: This is a brief as I can make my concerns Randy
> To: randyedmunds@gov.nl.ca
> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>
> In a nutshell my concerns about the actions of the Investment Industry
> affect the interests of every person in every district of every
> country not just the USA and Canada. I was offering to help you with
> Emera because my work with them and Danny Williams is well known and
> some of it is over eight years old and in the PUBLIC Record.
>
> All you have to do is stand in the Legislature and ask the MInister of
> Justice why I have been invited to sue Newfoundland by the
> Conservatives
>
>
> Obviously I am the guy the USDOJ and the SEC would not name who is the
> link to Madoff and Putnam Investments
>
> Here is why
>
> http://banking.senate.gov/
>
> Notice the transcripts and webcasts of the hearing of the US Senate
> Banking Commitee are still missing? Mr Emory should at least notice
> Eliot Spitzer and the Dates around November 20th, 2003 in the
> following file
>
> http://www.checktheevidence.
>
> http://occupywallst.org/users/
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Hansen, David" David.Hansen@justice.gc.ca
> Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 19:28:44 +0000
> Subject: RE: I just called again Mr Hansen
> To: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
>
> Hello Mr. Amos,
>
> I manage the Justice Canada civil litigation section in the Atlantic
> region. We are only responsible for litigating existing civil
> litigation files in which the Attorney General of Canada is a named
> defendant or plaintiff. If you are a plaintiff or defendant in an
> existing civil litigation matter in the Atlantic region in which
> Attorney General of Canada is a named defendant or plaintiff please
> provide the court file number, the names of the parties in the action
> and your question. I am not the appropriate contact for other
> matters.
>
> Thanks
>
> David A. Hansen
> Regional Director | Directeur régional
> General Counsel |Avocat général
> Civil Litigation and Advisory | Contentieux des affaires civiles et
> services de consultation
> Department of Justice | Ministère de la Justice
> Suite 1400 – Duke Tower | Pièce 1400 – Tour Duke
> 5251 Duke Street | 5251 rue Duke
> Halifax, Nova Scotia | Halifax, Nouvelle- Écosse
> B3J 1P3
> david.hansen@justice.gc.ca
> Telephone | Téléphone (902) 426-3261 / Facsimile | Télécopieur (902)
> 426-2329
> This e-mail is confidential and may be protected by solicitor-client
> privilege. Unauthorized distribution or disclosure is prohibited. If
> you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us and delete
> this entire e-mail.
> Before printing think about the Environment
> Thinking Green, please do not print this e-mail unless necessary.
> Pensez vert, svp imprimez que si nécessaire.
>
>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
>> Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 02:23:24 -0300
>> Subject: ATTN FBI Special Agent Richard Deslauriers Have you talked to
>> your buddies Fred Wyshak and Brian Kelly about the wiretap tapes YET?
>> To: boston@ic.fbi.gov, washington.field@ic.fbi.gov,
>> bob.paulson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, Kevin.leahy@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
>> Brian.Kelly@usdoj.gov, us.marshals@usdoj.gov, Fred.Wyshak@usdoj.gov,
>> jcarney@carneybassil.com, bbachrach@bachrachlaw.net
>> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, birgittaj@althingi.is,
>> shmurphy@globe.com, redicecreations@gmail.com
>>
>> FBI Boston
>> One Center Plaza
>> Suite 600
>> Boston, MA 02108
>> Phone: (617) 742-5533
>> Fax: (617) 223-6327
>> E-mail: Boston@ic.fbi.gov
>>
>> Hours
>> Although we operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, our normal
>> "walk-in" business hours are from 8:15 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday
>> through Friday. If you need to speak with a FBI representative at any
>> time other than during normal business hours, please telephone our
>> office at (617) 742-5533.
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
>> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 01:20:20 -0300
>> Subject: Yo Fred Wyshak and Brian Kelly your buddy Whitey's trial is
>> finally underway now correct? What the hell do I do with the wiretap
>> tapes Sell them on Ebay?
>> To: Brian.Kelly@usdoj.gov, us.marshals@usdoj.gov,
>> Fred.Wyshak@usdoj.gov, jcarney@carneybassil.com,
>> bbachrach@bachrachlaw.net, wolfheartlodge@live.com, shmurphy@globe.com, >> jonathan.albano@bingham.com, mvalencia@globe.com
>> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, oldmaison@yahoo.com,
>> PATRICK.MURPHY@dhs.gov, rounappletree@aol.com
>>
>> http://www.bostonglobe.com/
>>
>> http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/
>>
>> As the CBC etc yap about Yankee wiretaps and whistleblowers I must ask
>> them the obvious question AIN'T THEY FORGETTING SOMETHING????
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?
>>
>> What the hell does the media think my Yankee lawyer served upon the
>> USDOJ right after I ran for and seat in the 39th Parliament baseball
>> cards?
>>
>> http://www.archive.org/
>>
>> http://archive.org/details/
>>
>> http://davidamos.blogspot.ca/
>>
>> http://www.archive.org/
>>
>> http://archive.org/details/
>>
>> FEDERAL EXPRES February 7, 2006
>> Senator Arlen Specter
>> United States Senate
>> Committee on the Judiciary
>> 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
>> Washington, DC 20510
>>
>> Dear Mr. Specter:
>>
>> I have been asked to forward the enclosed tapes to you from a man
>> named, David Amos, a Canadian citizen, in connection with the matters
>> raised in the attached letter.
>>
>> Mr. Amos has represented to me that these are illegal FBI wire tap tapes.
>>
>> I believe Mr. Amos has been in contact with you about this previously.
>>
>> Very truly yours,
>> Barry A. Bachrach
>> Direct telephone: (508) 926-3403
>> Direct facsimile: (508) 929-3003
>> Email: bbachrach@bowditch.com
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "David Amos" david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>> To: "Rob Talach" rtalach@ledroitbeckett.com
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 10:59 PM
>> Subject: Re: Attn Robert Talach and I should talk ASAP about my suing
>> the Catholic Church Trust that Bastarache knows why
>>
>> The date stamp on about page 134 of this old file of mine should mean
>> a lot to you
>>
>> http://www.checktheevidence.
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
>> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 15:37:08 -0400
>> Subject: To Hell with the KILLER COP Gilles Moreau What say you NOW
>> Bernadine Chapman??
>> To: Gilles.Moreau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, phil.giles@statcan.ca,
>> maritme_malaise@yahoo.ca, Jennifer.Nixon@ps-sp.gc.ca,
>> bartman.heidi@psic-ispc.gc.ca, Yves.J.Marineau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>> david.paradiso@erc-cee.gc.ca, desaulniea@smtp.gc.ca,
>> denise.brennan@tbs-sct.gc.ca, anne.murtha@vac-acc.gc.ca,
>> webo@xplornet.com, julie.dickson@osfi-bsif.gc.ca,
>> rod.giles@osfi-bsif.gc.ca, flaherty.j@parl.gc.ca, toewsv1@parl.gc.ca,
>> Nycole.Turmel@parl.gc.ca,Cleme
>> david@fairwhistleblower.ca
>> Cc: j.kroes@interpol.int, david.raymond.amos@gmail.com,
>> bernadine.chapman@rcmp-grc.gc.
>> Juanita.Peddle@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, oldmaison@yahoo.com,
>> Wayne.Lang@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, Robert.Trevors@gnb.ca,
>> ian.fahie@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>
>>
>> http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/nb/
>>
>> http://nb.rcmpvet.ca/
>>
>> From: Gilles Moreau Gilles.Moreau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 08:03:22 -0500
>> Subject: Re: Lets ee if the really nasty Newfy Lawyer Danny Boy
>> Millions will explain this email to you or your boss Vic Toews EH
>> Constable Peddle???
>> To: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
>>
>> Please cease and desist from using my name in your emails.
>>
>> Gilles Moreau, Chief Superintendent, CHRP and ACC
>> Director General
>> HR Transformation
>> 73 Leikin Drive, M5-2-502
>> Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0R2
>>
>> Tel 613-843-6039
>> Cel 613-818-6947
>>
>> Gilles Moreau, surintendant principal, CRHA et ACC
>> Directeur général de la Transformation des ressources humaines
>> 73 Leikin, pièce M5-2-502
>> Ottawa, ON K1A 0R2
>>
>> tél 613-843-6039
>> cel 613-818-6947
>> gilles.moreau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>>
Trump's Fed criticism prompts fears he's questioning bank's independence
Central bankers and politicians squabble often, but stakes are higher this time
U.S. President Donald Trump took his second shot in as many days at the man he hand-picked to run his central bank on Friday, saying the Federal Reserve's current plan to raise interest rates will hurt his administration and penalize the economy.
In a series of tweets on Friday, Trump complained about the Fed's current round of rate hikes, saying while policymakers in Europe and China are cutting their interest rates, America's central bank is doing the opposite, which is widening the trade imbalance he is trying to remedy.
China, the European Union and others have been manipulating their currencies and interest rates lower, while the U.S. is raising rates while the dollars gets stronger and stronger with each passing day - taking away our big competitive edge. As usual, not a level playing field...
China's central bank rate is currently 4.35 per cent and the country hasn't cut its benchmark rate since 2015. The European Central Bank, however, is keeping its benchmark rate near zero. But while the Federal Reserve's current benchmark rate is less than half of China's, the Fed is in the middle of steadily ratcheting its lending rate higher. After keeping rates at near zero for years, the Fed has hiked its benchmark interest rate seven times since 2015, and more are planned because the U.S. economy is heating up.
All things being equal, rate hikes have the effect of raising a value of a country's currency, because they mean investors can expect higher returns for investing in that country. So the Fed's rate hikes have lit a fire under the U.S. dollar, something which tends to widen the country's trade deficit as foreign countries with weaker currencies become much cheaper to import from.
That phenomenon is being magnified by Trump's trade rhetoric, since fear of a global trade war has investors flocking for the historical perceived safety of the U.S. dollar.
"Tightening now hurts all that we have done," Trump continued, calling the Fed's strategy into question, and raising larger concerns over whether he is trying to interfere in the independence of the bank.
....The United States should not be penalized because we are doing so well. Tightening now hurts all that we have done. The U.S. should be allowed to recapture what was lost due to illegal currency manipulation and BAD Trade Deals. Debt coming due & we are raising rates - Really?
During the 2016 election campaign, Trump was critical of the Fed for keeping rates low, but that was because he thought it favoured his Democratic opponent.
Lindsay Walters, a White House spokesperson, said Thursday in a statement that the president "respects the independence of the Fed."
"The president's views on interest rates are well-known, and his comments today are a reiteration of those long held positions, and public comments," Walters said.
Squabbling nothing new
Policymakers around the world go out of their way to maintain the independence of their central banks, because the temptation to use monetary policy as a political tool by elected officials is too great.
The inverse is also true, as central bankers go out of their way to stay out of political and fiscal decisions, and tend to make headlines when they say things perceived to be remotely critical of government policies.
The Fed is led by chairman Jerome Powell, who was hand-picked by Trump in February to succeed Janet Yellen for a four-year term.
Last week, Powell said in an interview with American radio program Marketplace that he didn't expect to face pressure from the White House.
"We have a long tradition here of conducting policy in a particular way, and that way is independent of all political concerns," Powell said. "We do our work in a strictly nonpolitical way, based on detailed analysis, which we put on the record transparently."
It's what allowed the Fed to take emergency measures in the past, without fear of political meddling, such as in 2008 when it undertook an aggressive policy known as quantitative easing, whereby it bought massive amounts of debt to create new money out of nothing, to stimulate the economy.
That policy drew rebukes from many Republican lawmakers at the time, but the Fed proceeded with its plan regardless.
Nor is it the only time the Fed and the White House have clashed. Both Bush administrations, and the Clinton administration that came between them, squabbled with chair Alan Greenspan, whose time atop the Fed saw the central bank make a long series of aggressive hikes and cuts between 1987 and 2006, when he was replaced by Ben Bernanke.
Prior to that, then-president Richard Nixon put pressure on more than one Fed chief to bend to his will on setting interest rates, which is why at least one watcher says the current squabble between the White House and the Fed is nothing new.
"The Fed should be independent but that independence does not mean that is an institution outside of the government of the United States," said Mark Grant, managing director at money managing firm B. Riley FBR Inc. "Independence does not mean 'above the law' or 'above the will of the people' and I am always just flabbergasted when some members of the Fed, or former members of the Fed, take the attitude that the Fed somehow does not report to the government."
Randall Kroszner, a former Fed governor, said the central bank has withstood political pressure before and will continue to do so under Powell's leadership.
"The Fed has often faced political pressures — from Congress, presidents, Treasury secretaries and innumerable outside groups," said Kroszner, an economics professor at the University of Chicago.
"My experience at the Fed is consistent with what Jay Powell recently said — being non-political is deep in the Fed's DNA — and I believe that Jay will keep it that way."
With files from The Associated Press
I'm Dr Ogudugu, a real and genuine spell caster/Spiritual healer with years of experience in spell casting and an expert in all spells, i specialize exclusively in LOVE SPELL/GET REUNITE WITH EX LOVER, MONEY SPELL, POWERFUL MAGIC RING, ANY COURT CASES, FRUIT OF THE WOMB, HIV CURE, CURE FOR CANCER, HERPES, DIABETE, HERPERTITIS B, PARKINSON’S HERBAL CURE, BECOMING A MERMAID, BECOMING A VAMPIRE, SAVE CHILD BIRTH. They are all %100 Guaranteed QUICK Results, it most work. If you have any problem and you need a real and genuine spell caster to solve your problems, contact me now through my personal Email Address with problem case...Note-you can also Text/Call on WhatsApp.
ReplyDeleteContact me -
Email: greatogudugu@gmail.com
WhatsApp No: +27663492930