David Raymond Amos @DavidRayAmos
Oh My My Methinks the Mindless Mr McCaig just told an awful truth about his fellow socialists within the CBC. The best part is CBC published it N'esy Pas?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/inheritance-tax-canada-1.4771304
An attempt to understand Canada's inheritance tax backlash: Don Pittis
Roar of objections to imposing death duties on Canadians may have complex roots
---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2018 06:29:08 -0400
Subject: Don Pittis of CBC said "even in wonderful Canada, you can't
escape death or taxes."
To: william.m.paul@irscounsel.
Gerald.Semasek@irscounsel.
David.kautter@treasury.gov, Lafayettechip.harter@treasury.
Arlene.preston@irscounsel.
Leni.c.perkins@irscounsel.
Aaron.junge@mail.house.gov, Kara.getz@mail.house.gov,
Jennifer_Acuna@finance.senate.
RepatRemedy@democratsabroad.
washington field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, "Boston.Mail"
<Boston.Mail@ic.fbi.gov>, "dean.buzza" <dean.buzza@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>,
"mark.vespucci" <mark.vespucci@ci.irs.gov>, "Mark.Blakely"
<Mark.Blakely@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, gabrielle.hirz@ropesgray.com,
Jason.anderson@us.gt.com, lawrencemack@kpmg.com, "Nathalie.Drouin"
<Nathalie.Drouin@justice.gc.ca
"claude.poirier" <claude.poirier@snb.ca>, "clare.barry"
<clare.barry@justice.gc.ca>, "jan.jensen" <jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca>,
"bill.pentney" <bill.pentney@justice.gc.ca>, bob.hamilton@canada.ca,
"Diane.Lebouthillier" <Diane.Lebouthillier@cra-arc.
Russell TIGTA <j.Russell.George@tigta.treas.
<Jean-Yves.Duclos@parl.gc.ca>, "Jody.Wilson-Raybould"
<Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.
pierre.corbin@cra-arc.gc.ca, ciat@ciat.org, tax@americanbar.org,
drewacummings@gmail.com, matthewscottcooper@gmail.com,
sophia.siddiqui@usdoj.gov, marissa.k.rensen@irscounsel.
bsaito@gmail.com, andrewjohnbrewster@gmail.com, Newsroom
<Newsroom@globeandmail.com>, "harvey.cashore" <harvey.cashore@cbc.ca>,
lee.bell-smith@gnb.ca, "Ted.Gallivan" <Ted.Gallivan@cra-arc.gc.ca>,
Charles.Nadeau@cra-arc.gc.ca, "zach.dubinsky" <zach.dubinsky@cbc.ca>,
"darrow.macintyre" <darrow.macintyre@cbc.ca>, "michael.comeau"
<michael.comeau@gnb.ca>, "serge.rousselle" <serge.rousselle@gnb.ca>,
"jody.carr" <jody.carr@gnb.ca>, "Gib.vanErt" <Gib.vanErt@scc-csc.ca>,
"hugh.flemming" <hugh.flemming@gnb.ca>, "brian.gallant"
<brian.gallant@gnb.ca>, "greg.byrne" <greg.byrne@gnb.ca>,
"Norman.Sabourin" <Norman.Sabourin@cjc-ccm.gc.ca
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
<Bill.Morneau@canada.ca>, PABMINMAILG@cra-arc.gc.ca,
Ministre-Minister.PWGSC@tpsgc-
<Michael.Ferguson@oag-bvg.gc.
djtjr <djtjr@trumporg.com>
---------- Original message ----------
From: Cabinet du recteur - Office of the President <recteur@uottawa.ca>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2018 09:03:45 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Re "At the Crossroads of Hope and Fear" Yo
Mr Graves we just talked say Hey to your buddy Petey Baby MacKay and
Trump/s lawyer Mikey Cohen for me will ya?
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
(AN ENGLISH MESSAGE FOLLOWS)
Bonjour,
Votre message nous est bien parvenu. Veuillez prendre note que je
serai en vacances jusqu'au 14 ao?t 2018.
Pour toute urgence, veuillez communiquer avec Catherine Parent ?
cerec@uottawa.ca
Anne-Lyse.Gagne@uottawa.ca<
Cordialement,
Marie-Jos?e
*******************
Hello,
Thank you for your message. Please note that I am on holidays until
August 14, 2018.
If your matte is urgent, please contact Catherine Parent at
cerec@uottawa.ca
Anne-Lyse.Gagne@uottawa.ca<
Kind regards,
Marie-Jos?e
Marie-Jos?e Lacroix
Adjointe administrative | Administrative Assistant
Cabinet du recteur<http://www.recteur.
Office of the President<http://www.
Universit? d'Ottawa | University of Ottawa
Pavillon Tabaret | Tabaret Hall
550 Cumberland (212)
Ottawa ON K1N 6N5
613-562-5809 | 1-888-uOttawa
D?fier les conventions<http://
Defy the Conventional<http://
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2018 15:24:42 -0400
Subject: Re "At the Crossroads of Hope and Fear" Yo Mr Graves we just
talked say Hey to your buddy Petey Baby MacKay and Trump/s lawyer
Mikey Cohen for me will ya?
To: fgraves@ekos.com, "PETER.MACKAY" <PETER.MACKAY@bakermckenzie.
mdcohen212 <mdcohen212@gmail.com>, david@policyalternatives.ca
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
alyssa@policyalternatives.ca, ccpans@policyalternatives.ca,
Don.Pittis@cbc.ca, premier <premier@ontario.ca>, caroline
<caroline@carolinemulroney.ca>
<Gerald.Butts@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>
Wednesday, 1 August 2018
The confusion of the CCPA and the CBC is well known when it comes to
matters of money N'esy Pas?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/
Robert Smythe
Lots of socialists out this morning with their common mantra of
What's mine is mine. And what's yours is mine as well.
Yeah. Good luck with that.
Jack O Hill
@david mccaig
"CIVICS 101, governments can only function if they have a tax base,
but these right wingers don't seem to understand that or want both,
and you can't have both."
While that is true, only a government will hire 4 people when 1 can do the job.
David Amos
@Robert Smythe "Lots of socialists out this morning"
Methinks some of them crawled out of their deathbeds to argue both
sides of this issue this article is about. It was a small wonder to me
because I know everything political is almost always about the money.
Almost everybody loves their money and a good book or two claims it is
the root of all evil N'esy Pas?
David Amos
@Jack O Hill "While that is true, only a government will hire 4 people
when 1 can do the job."
I would wager that almost all of those under-worked over-paid
government employees are unionized socialists supporting the CBC and
the left wing parties. It appears to me that the CRA has as many
employees as the Canadian Army and the RCMP combined. The CRA has
powerful union so nobody gets fired and their wages and pensions are
secure. The Army and the RCMP do not have unions but they sue us for
for harassing each other. Methinks the Crown should agree that its not
fair that the Army, the RCMP and the CRA get to a harass me with
immunity N'esy Pas?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/
On 8/1/18, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.archive.org/
>
> http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Corbin, Pierre" <Pierre.Corbin@cra-arc.gc.ca>
> Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2018 22:40:47 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: ATTN Michael Snaauw I call you and a lot of
> your pals today
> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
> I am out of the office and will be returning on Aug 23, 2018.
>
> Je suis absent du bureau et je serai de retour le 23 aout 2018.
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Newsroom <newsroom@globeandmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2018 22:40:56 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: ATTN Michael Snaauw I call you and a lot of
> your pals today
> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
> Thank you for contacting The Globe and Mail.
>
> If your matter pertains to newspaper delivery or you require technical
> support, please contact our Customer Service department at
> 1-800-387-5400 or send an email to customerservice@globeandmail.
>
> If you are reporting a factual error please forward your email to
> publiceditor@globeandmail.com<
>
> Letters to the Editor can be sent to letters@globeandmail.com
>
> This is the correct email address for requests for news coverage and
> press releases
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2018 18:09:35 -0400
> Subject: ATTN I Just called Acting Chief Counsel William M. Paul,
> To: william.m.paul@irscounsel.
> Gerald.Semasek@irscounsel.
> David.kautter@treasury.gov, Lafayettechip.harter@treasury.
> Arlene.preston@irscounsel.
> Leni.c.perkins@irscounsel.
> Aaron.junge@mail.house.gov, Kara.getz@mail.house.gov,
> Jennifer_Acuna@finance.senate.
> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
> RepatRemedy@democratsabroad.
> mdcohen212 <mdcohen212@gmail.com>, washington field
> <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, "Boston.Mail" <Boston.Mail@ic.fbi.gov>,
> "dean.buzza" <dean.buzza@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "mark.vespucci"
> <mark.vespucci@ci.irs.gov>, "Mark.Blakely"
> <Mark.Blakely@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, gabrielle.hirz@ropesgray.com,
> Jason.anderson@us.gt.com, lawrencemack@kpmg.com
>
> https://www.irs.gov/about-irs/
>
> Commissioner, Internal Revenue — David J. Kautter (acting)
> William M. Paul, Acting Chief Counsel
> Drita Tonuzi, Deputy Chief Counsel (Operations)
>
> Washington, DC
> Phone: (202) 317-3300
> Fax: (855) 573-7040
>
> https://www.irs.gov/about-irs/
>
>
> http://www.fedbar.org/
>
>
> CHAIR
> Shamik Trivedi
> Grant Thornton LLP
> 1250 Connecticut Ave. NW
> Ste. 400
> Washington, DC 20036
> (202)521-1511
> shamik.trivedi@us.gt.com
>
> CHAIR-ELECT
> Anne R. Gordon
> PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
> 600 13th St, NW, Suite 1000
> Washington, DC 20005
> (202)-875-0716
> anne.r.gordon@pwc.com
>
>
> FBA TAX BOSTON CHAIRS
> Gabby Hirz
> Ropes & Gray LLP
> 800 Bolyston St
> Boston, MA 02199
> gabrielle.hirz@ropesgray.com
>
> Jason Anderson
> Grant Thorton LLP
> 171 N. Clark St., Suite 200
> Chicago, IL 60601
> (312) 602-8208
> Jason.anderson@us.gt.com
>
> Larry Mack
> KPMG
> 1418 C Street NE
> Washington, DC 20002
> (202)533-3381
> lawrencemack@kpmg.com
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 13:49:13 -0400
> Subject: Attn Commissioner of Revenue Bob Hamilton I just called Best
> you start lining up your lawyers ASAP EH?
> To: bob.hamilton@canada.ca, "Diane.Lebouthillier"
> <Diane.Lebouthillier@cra-arc.
> <j.Russell.George@tigta.treas.
> "Jean-Yves.Duclos" <Jean-Yves.Duclos@parl.gc.ca>
> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
> <Nathalie.Drouin@justice.gc.ca
>
> Bob Hamilton
> Commissioner of Revenue and Chief Executive Officer of the CRA
> Telephone Number 613-957-3688
> Email bob.hamilton@canada.ca
>
> Perhaps I will run into somebody ethical some day but I bet the
> Yankees know that they won't work for any government. N'esy Pas
> George J Russell and Mikey Cohen?
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Ministre / Minister (SPAC/PSPC)"
> <TPSGC.Ministre-Minister.
> Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 10:56:46 -0400
> Subject: Accusé réception / Acknowledgement
> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
> Le présent message accuse réception de votre courriel au ministre des
> Services publics et de l'Approvisionnement. Soyez assuré(e) que nous y
> accorderons toute l'attention voulue.
>
> Merci de votre intérêt.
> ______________________________
>
> This message is to acknowledge receipt of your email to the Minister
> of the Public Services and Procurement. Please be assured it will be
> given every consideration.
>
> Thank you for your interest.
>
> http://davidraymondamos3.
>
> Tuesday, 14 February 2017
>
> RE FATCA, NAFTA & TPP etc ATTN President Donald J. Trump I just got
> off the phone with your lawyer Mr Cohen (646-853-0114) Why does he lie
> to me after all this time???
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Michael Cohen <mcohen@trumporg.com>
> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:15:14 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: RE FATCA ATTN Pierre-Luc.Dusseault I just
> called and left a message for you
> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
> Effective January 20, 2017, I have accepted the role as personal
> counsel to President Donald J. Trump. All future emails should be
> directed to mdcohen212@gmail.com and all future calls should be
> directed to 646-853-0114.
> ______________________________
> This communication is from The Trump Organization or an affiliate
> thereof and is not sent on behalf of any other individual or entity.
> This email may contain information that is confidential and/or
> proprietary. Such information may not be read, disclosed, used,
> copied, distributed or disseminated except (1) for use by the intended
> recipient or (2) as expressly authorized by the sender. If you have
> received this communication in error, please immediately delete it and
> promptly notify the sender. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed
> to be received, secure or error-free as emails could be intercepted,
> corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late, incomplete, contain viruses
> or otherwise. The Trump Organization and its affiliates do not
> guarantee that all emails will be read and do not accept liability for
> any errors or omissions in emails. Any views or opinions presented in
> any email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
> represent those of The Trump Organization or any of its
> affiliates.Nothing in this communication is intended to operate as an
> electronic signature under applicable law.
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Min.Mail / Courrier.Min (CRA/ARC)" <PABMINMAILG@cra-arc.gc.ca>
> Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 13:10:52 +0000
> Subject: Your various correspondence about abusive tax schemes - 2017-02631
> To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com" <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
> Mr. David Raymond Amos
> motomaniac333@gmail.com
>
>
> Dear Mr. Amos:
>
> Thank you for your various correspondence about abusive tax schemes,
> and for your understanding regarding the delay of this response.
>
> This is an opportunity for me to address your concerns about the way
> the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) deals with aggressive tax planning,
> tax avoidance, and tax evasion by targeting individuals and groups
> that promote schemes intended to avoid payment of tax. It is also an
> opportunity for me to present the Government of Canada’s main
> strategies for ensuring fairness for all taxpayers.
>
> The CRA’s mission is to preserve the integrity of Canada’s tax system,
> and it is taking concrete and effective action to deal with abusive
> tax schemes. Through federal budget funding in 2016 and 2017, the
> government has committed close to $1 billion in cracking down on tax
> evasion and combatting tax avoidance at home and through the use of
> offshore transactions. This additional funding is expected to generate
> federal revenues of $2.6 billion over five years for Budget 2016, and
> $2.5 billion over five years for Budget 2017.
>
> More precisely, the CRA is cracking down on tax cheats by hiring more
> auditors, maintaining its underground economy specialist teams,
> increasing coverage of aggressive goods and service tax/harmonized
> sales tax planning, increasing coverage of multinational corporations
> and wealthy individuals, and taking targeted actions aimed at
> promoters of abusive tax schemes.
>
> On the offshore front, the CRA continues to develop tools to improve
> its focus on high‑risk taxpayers. It is also considering changes to
> its Voluntary Disclosures Program following the first set of program
> recommendations received from an independent Offshore Compliance
> Advisory Committee. In addition, the CRA is leading international
> projects to address the base erosion and profit shifting initiative of
> the G20 and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
> Development, and is collaborating with treaty partners to address the
> Panama Papers leaks.
>
> These actions are evidence of the government’s commitment to
> protecting tax fairness. The CRA has strengthened its intelligence and
> technical capacities for the early detection of abusive tax
> arrangements and deterrence of those who participate in them. To
> ensure compliance, it has increased the number of actions aimed at
> promoters who use illegal schemes. These measures include increased
> audits of such promoters, improved information gathering, criminal
> investigations where warranted, and better communication with
> taxpayers.
>
> To deter potential taxpayer involvement in these schemes, the CRA is
> increasing notifications and warnings through its communications
> products. It also seeks partnerships with tax preparers, accountants,
> and community groups so that they can become informed observers who
> can educate their clients.
>
> The CRA will assess penalties against promoters and other
> representatives who make false statements involving illegal tax
> schemes. The promotion of tax schemes to defraud the government can
> lead to criminal investigations, fingerprinting, criminal prosecution,
> court fines, and jail time.
>
> Between April 1, 2011, and March 31, 2016, the CRA’s criminal
> investigations resulted in the conviction of 42 Canadian taxpayers for
> tax evasion with links to money and assets held offshore. In total,
> the $34 million in evaded taxes resulted in court fines of $12 million
> and 734 months of jail time.
>
> When deciding to pursue compliance actions through the courts, the CRA
> consults the Department of Justice Canada to choose an appropriate
> solution. Complex tax-related litigation is costly and time consuming,
> and the outcome may be unsuccessful. All options to recover amounts
> owed are considered.
>
> More specifically, in relation to the KPMG Isle of Man tax avoidance
> scheme, publicly available court records show that it is through the
> CRA’s efforts that the scheme was discovered. The CRA identified many
> of the participants and continues to actively pursue the matter. The
> CRA has also identified at least 10 additional tax structures on the
> Isle of Man, and is auditing taxpayers in relation to these
> structures.
>
> To ensure tax fairness, the CRA commissioned an independent review in
> March 2016 to determine if it had acted appropriately concerning KPMG
> and its clients. In her review, Ms. Kimberley Brooks, Associate
> Professor and former Dean of the Schulich School of Law at Dalhousie
> University, examined the CRA’s operational processes and decisions in
> relation to the KPMG offshore tax structure and its efforts to obtain
> the names of all taxpayers participating in the scheme. Following this
> review, the report, released on May 5, 2016, concluded that the CRA
> had acted appropriately in its management of the KPMG Isle of Man
> file. The report found that the series of compliance measures the CRA
> took were in accordance with its policies and procedures. It was
> concluded that the procedural actions taken on the KPMG file were
> appropriate given the facts of this particular case and were
> consistent with the treatment of taxpayers in similar situations. The
> report concluded that actions by CRA employees were in accordance with
> the CRA’s Code of Integrity and Professional Conduct. There was no
> evidence of inappropriate interaction between KPMG and the CRA
> employees involved in the case.
>
> Under the CRA’s Code of Integrity and Professional Conduct, all CRA
> employees are responsible for real, apparent, or potential conflicts
> of interests between their current duties and any subsequent
> employment outside of the CRA or the Public Service of Canada.
> Consequences and corrective measures play an important role in
> protecting the CRA’s integrity.
>
> The CRA takes misconduct very seriously. The consequences of
> misconduct depend on the gravity of the incident and its repercussions
> on trust both within and outside of the CRA. Misconduct can result in
> disciplinary measures up to dismissal.
>
> All forms of tax evasion are illegal. The CRA manages the Informant
> Leads Program, which handles leads received from the public regarding
> cases of tax evasion across the country. This program, which
> coordinates all the leads the CRA receives from informants, determines
> whether there has been any non-compliance with tax law and ensures
> that the information is examined and conveyed, if applicable, so that
> compliance measures are taken. This program does not offer any reward
> for tips received.
>
> The new Offshore Tax Informant Program (OTIP) has also been put in
> place. The OTIP offers financial compensation to individuals who
> provide information related to major cases of offshore tax evasion
> that lead to the collection of tax owing. As of December 31, 2016, the
> OTIP had received 963 calls and 407 written submissions from possible
> informants. Over 218 taxpayers are currently under audit based on
> information the CRA received through the OTIP.
>
> With a focus on the highest-risk sectors nationally and
> internationally and an increased ability to gather information, the
> CRA has the means to target taxpayers who try to hide their income.
> For example, since January 2015, the CRA has been collecting
> information on all international electronic funds transfers (EFTs) of
> $10,000 or more ending or originating in Canada. It is also adopting a
> proactive approach by focusing each year on four jurisdictions that
> raise suspicion. For the Isle of Man, the CRA audited 3,000 EFTs
> totalling $860 million over 12 months and involving approximately 800
> taxpayers. Based on these audits, the CRA communicated with
> approximately 350 individuals and 400 corporations and performed 60
> audits.
>
> In January 2017, I reaffirmed Canada’s important role as a leader for
> tax authorities around the world in detecting the structures used for
> aggressive tax planning and tax evasion. This is why Canada works
> daily with the Joint International Tax Shelter Information Centre
> (JITSIC), a network of tax administrations in over 35 countries. The
> CRA participates in two expert groups within the JITSIC and leads the
> working group on intermediaries and proponents. This ongoing
> collaboration is a key component of the CRA’s work to develop strong
> relationships with the international community, which will help it
> refine the world-class tax system that benefits all Canadians.
>
> The CRA is increasing its efforts and is seeing early signs of
> success. Last year, the CRA recovered just under $13 billion as a
> result of its audit activities on the domestic and offshore fronts.
> Two-thirds of these recoveries are the result of its audit efforts
> relating to large businesses and multinational companies.
>
> But there is still much to do, and additional improvements and
> investments are underway.
>
> Tax cheats are having a harder and harder time hiding. Taxpayers who
> choose to promote or participate in malicious and illegal tax
> strategies must face the consequences of their actions. Canadians
> expect nothing less. I invite you to read my most recent statement on
> this matter at canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/
> statement_from_
>
> Thank you for taking the time to write. I hope the information I have
> provided is helpful.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> The Honourable Diane Lebouthillier
> Minister of National Revenue
>
---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2018 04:38:45 -0400
Subject: Re "At the Crossroads of Hope and Fear" Yo Mr Graves we just talked say Hey
to your buddy Petey Baby MacKay and
Trump/s lawyer Mikey Cohen for me will ya?
To: Newsroom <Newsroom@globeandmail.com>, oldmaison <oldmaison@yahoo.com>,
To: Newsroom <Newsroom@globeandmail.com>, oldmaison <oldmaison@yahoo.com>,
andre <andre@jafaust.com>,
jbosnitch <jbosnitch@gmail.com>,
"Bill.Morneau" <Bill.Morneau@canada.ca>, "bill.pentney"
<bill.pentney@justice.gc.ca>,
"Jody.Wilson-Raybould" <Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.
"Diane.Lebouthillier" <Diane.Lebouthillier@cra-arc.
"Pat.Kelly" <Pat.Kelly@parl.gc.ca>,
"Murray.Rankin" <Murray.Rankin@parl.gc.ca>,
david <david@policyalternatives.ca>, news <news@hilltimes.com>,
david <david@policyalternatives.ca>, news <news@hilltimes.com>,
news <news@dailygleaner.com>,
news <news@kingscorecord.com>,
premier <premier@gnb.ca>, PREMIER
<PREMIER@gov.ns.ca>,
premier <premier@gov.sk.ca>,
Office of the Premier <scott.moe@gov.sk.ca>,
premier <premier@gov.bc.ca>, premier <premier@gov.pe.ca>,
premier <premier@gov.bc.ca>, premier <premier@gov.pe.ca>,
premier <premier@gov.nl.ca>,
premier <premier@leg.gov.mb.ca>,
premier <premier@gov.nt.ca>,
premier <premier@gov.yk.ca>,
Office of the President <recteur@uottawa.ca>,
press <press@bankofengland.co.uk>,
press <press@sanders.senate.gov>, mdcohen212 <mdcohen212@gmail.com>,
washington field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>,
press <press@sanders.senate.gov>, mdcohen212 <mdcohen212@gmail.com>,
washington field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>,
"Gilles.Blinn" <Gilles.Blinn@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>,
"Gilles.Moreau" <Gilles.Moreau@forces.gc.ca>, "Gilles.Cote" <Gilles.Cote@gnb.ca>,
"dan. bussieres" <dan.bussieres@gnb.ca>, "chris.collins" <chris.collins@gnb.ca>,
tj <tj@burkelaw.ca>, "David.Coon" <David.Coon@gnb.ca>,
"David.Akin" <David.Akin@globalnews.ca>, "steve.murphy" <steve.murphy@ctv.ca>, "Robert. Jones" <Robert.Jones@cbc.ca>
"Gilles.Moreau" <Gilles.Moreau@forces.gc.ca>, "Gilles.Cote" <Gilles.Cote@gnb.ca>,
"dan. bussieres" <dan.bussieres@gnb.ca>, "chris.collins" <chris.collins@gnb.ca>,
tj <tj@burkelaw.ca>, "David.Coon" <David.Coon@gnb.ca>,
"David.Akin" <David.Akin@globalnews.ca>, "steve.murphy" <steve.murphy@ctv.ca>, "Robert. Jones" <Robert.Jones@cbc.ca>
Cc:
David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Wednesday, 1 August 2018
The confusion of the CCPA and the CBC is well known when it comes to
matters of money N'esy Pas?
Wednesday, 1 August 2018
The confusion of the CCPA and the CBC is well known when it comes to
matters of money N'esy Pas?
"Ekos founder and president Frank Graves says the rejection of inheritance tax is just one part of a wider phenomenon demonstrated in his polling. He pointed to the election of Doug Ford as premier in Ontario as an example of its impact. Most of Ford's supporters declared themselves to be working class."
http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2018/02/at-the-crossroads-of-hope-and-fear/
At the Crossroads of Hope and Fear
THE NEW AXIS OF SOCIETAL TENSION
Frank Graves
President EKOS Research
t: 613.235-7215
fgraves@ekos.com
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/inheritance-tax-canada-1.4771304
An attempt to understand Canada's inheritance tax backlash: Don Pittis
Roar of objections to imposing death duties on Canadians may have complex roots
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this story.
Steve Timmins
I earned my money and I paid
all my taxes, so I should be free to do what I want with it and that
includes giving it all to my kids. I will not apologize for taking care
of my kids before I give my money to Justin so he can waste it on more
costumes or any another trip somewhere.
David Amos
@Steve Timmins I agree
Michael Murphy
@Steve Timmins Poor thing, taking offence to a report, then try to desperately blame Liberals
David Amos
@Michael Murphy "Poor thing, taking offence to a report, then try to desperately blame Liberals"Methinks it only proper in light of the fact that CBC blocks so many of my comments for the benefit of the liberals N'esy Pas?
david mccaig
@Steve Timmins
You have to understand writers like Din Pitts and the talking heads on your TV , ALL make above average incomes, so tax cuts are very beneficial to them. Perhaps without thought of the social damage these tax cuts result in.
You have to understand writers like Din Pitts and the talking heads on your TV , ALL make above average incomes, so tax cuts are very beneficial to them. Perhaps without thought of the social damage these tax cuts result in.
@Steve Timmins Oh My My Methinks the Mindless Mr McCaig just told an awful truth about his fellow socialists within the CBC The best part is CBC published it N'esy Pas?
Steve Timmins
My blood, sweat and tears
were for MY family not the government. I've already paid my taxes on
income. What's left is mine to decide what to do with not some socialist
who drools over it.
David Amos
@Steve Timmins "Anyone who
thinks the CBC does not serve conservative-leaning Canadians should look
at the comments for a recent online story about inheritance taxes."
Methinks the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives think-tank should have red my comments by now N'esy Pas?
Content disabled.
Dean Melanson
Robert Smythe
I would wager that almost all of those under-worked over-paid government employees are unionized socialists supporting the CBC and the left wing parties. It appears to me that the CRA has as many employees as the Canadian Army and the RCMP combined. The CRA has powerful union so nobody gets fired and their wages and pensions are secure. The Army and the RCMP do not have unions but they sue us for for harassing each other. Methinks the Crown should agree that its not fair that the Army, the RCMP and the CRA get to a harass me with immunity N'esy Pas?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cra-misconduct-discipline-employees-1.4679116
Denis VanHumbeck
https://twitter.com/DavidRayAmos/with_replies
Methinks the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives think-tank should have red my comments by now N'esy Pas?
Matt Thuaii
@Steve Timmins
See this is where things get weird. Thanks to my life choices, I can do things like semi-retire before 60 and spend time bantering in comment sections...and I know I’m both lucky, and far better off than most Canadians...yet I also know I won’t have a fraction of the finances required for this issue to affect me in the end...but here I am arguing the wealthy and extremely lucky should give back far more than they do, and also teach their kids the value of a $...and here you are arguing the opposite...
...weird.
See this is where things get weird. Thanks to my life choices, I can do things like semi-retire before 60 and spend time bantering in comment sections...and I know I’m both lucky, and far better off than most Canadians...yet I also know I won’t have a fraction of the finances required for this issue to affect me in the end...but here I am arguing the wealthy and extremely lucky should give back far more than they do, and also teach their kids the value of a $...and here you are arguing the opposite...
...weird.
Steve Timmins
@Matt Thuaii Think whatever
you want to think. It's a free country, but you may want to reread the
comments and see if your summary supports the comments made. I don't
think so, but whatever. This is boring
Alex Wong
@Matt Thuaii The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Steve Timmins
@André Carrel If it has
nothing to do with drooling socialists then maybe you can explain why
it's only drooling socialists who want other people to pay more?
André Carrel
@Steve Timmins
I suggested that the idea has nothing to do with drooling socialists is because I don't know your definition of a drooling socialist.
I look at the proposal as an idea on how to structure a fair an reasonable society. We all pay taxes, directly or indirectly, and I have no more power or authority to control what the taxes I pay are spent on than any other citizen has.
As a goal to strive for in our nation, I prefer us to work toward moderation in terms of excesses at both ends of the economic ladder.
I suggested that the idea has nothing to do with drooling socialists is because I don't know your definition of a drooling socialist.
I look at the proposal as an idea on how to structure a fair an reasonable society. We all pay taxes, directly or indirectly, and I have no more power or authority to control what the taxes I pay are spent on than any other citizen has.
As a goal to strive for in our nation, I prefer us to work toward moderation in terms of excesses at both ends of the economic ladder.
David Amos
@Steve Timmins "Think
whatever you want to think. It's a free country, but you may want to
reread the comments and see if your summary supports the comments made. I
don't think so, but whatever. This is boring"
No doubt even the drooling socialists agree with you about thinking what they wish. However I know for fact things got very interesting for certain parties and some drooling socialists inn particular after I made my first comment within this thread nearly 2000 comments ago then picked up the phone. Methinks If CBC allows my comments about what I decide to reveal about the aforementioned phone calls it should not be boring for you N'esy Pas?
No doubt even the drooling socialists agree with you about thinking what they wish. However I know for fact things got very interesting for certain parties and some drooling socialists inn particular after I made my first comment within this thread nearly 2000 comments ago then picked up the phone. Methinks If CBC allows my comments about what I decide to reveal about the aforementioned phone calls it should not be boring for you N'esy Pas?
David Amos
@Matt Thuaii "See this is
where things get weird. Thanks to my life choices, I can do things like
semi-retire before 60 and spend time bantering in comment sections...and
I know I’m both lucky, and far better off than most Canadians"
Methinks you defined for us what the typical drooling socialist is N'esy Pas?
Methinks you defined for us what the typical drooling socialist is N'esy Pas?
Johny Ng
We know the script, elect
Liberals, increase deficits, increase taxes, new taxes, some Canadians
were not aware of this reality it seems. Perhaps they can correct their X
in 2019?
David Amos
@Johny Ng YUP
Content disabled.
David Amos
@Jack O Hill "Now, what is the justification for Trudeau running deficits outside of a recession?"
Methinks all we hear is crickets at closing time for the comment section N'esy Pas?
Methinks all we hear is crickets at closing time for the comment section N'esy Pas?
Dean Melanson
Leave it to the liberals to tax the dead .... after taxing them to death no less ....
Wil Brown
@Dean Melanson
Please actually read the story. Pierre Trudeau was Prime Minister in 1972. He dropped Canada's inheritance tax to zero. He was a Liberal. This story is based on some think-tank's recommendations and not government policy.
Please actually read the story. Pierre Trudeau was Prime Minister in 1972. He dropped Canada's inheritance tax to zero. He was a Liberal. This story is based on some think-tank's recommendations and not government policy.
Tom Andersen
Inheritance taxes are very easy to legally avoid. They simply create money for tax lawyers, not the government.
Rob Kov
@Tom Andersen it really is, buy a segregated fund and it counts as an insurance contract.
Richard Sharp
@Dean Melanson
The Liberals have proposed no such thing so you engage in misinformation. The Libs have actually decreased taxes on the middle class and taken dozens of other measures to help the most disadvantaged Canadians, from FNs to the elderly and disabled to veterans.
The Liberals have proposed no such thing so you engage in misinformation. The Libs have actually decreased taxes on the middle class and taken dozens of other measures to help the most disadvantaged Canadians, from FNs to the elderly and disabled to veterans.
David Amos
@Dean Melanson Methinks many a true word is said in Jest N'esy Pas?
David Amos
@Wil Brown Methinks Left Wingnuts can't ever appreciate a decent joke N'esy Pas?
David Amos
@Richard Sharp Methinks you
should explain to me real slow why the Liberals and their CRA minions
just stole over half of my old age pension money N'esy Pas?
Robert Smythe
Lots of socialists out this morning with their common mantra of
What's mine is mine. And what's yours is mine as well.
Yeah. Good luck with that.
What's mine is mine. And what's yours is mine as well.
Yeah. Good luck with that.
Jack O Hill
@david mccaig
"CIVICS 101, governments can only function if they have a tax base, but these right wingers don't seem to understand that or want both, and you can't have both."
While that is true, only a government will hire 4 people when 1 can do the job.
"CIVICS 101, governments can only function if they have a tax base, but these right wingers don't seem to understand that or want both, and you can't have both."
While that is true, only a government will hire 4 people when 1 can do the job.
David Amos
@Robert Smythe "Lots of socialists out this morning"
Methinks some of them crawled out of their deathbeds to argue both sides of this issue this article is about. It was a small wonder to me because I know everything political is almost always about the money. Almost everybody loves their money and a good book or two claims it is the root of all evil N'esy Pas?
Methinks some of them crawled out of their deathbeds to argue both sides of this issue this article is about. It was a small wonder to me because I know everything political is almost always about the money. Almost everybody loves their money and a good book or two claims it is the root of all evil N'esy Pas?
David Amos
@Jack O Hill "While that is true, only a government will hire 4 people when 1 can do the job."
I would wager that almost all of those under-worked over-paid government employees are unionized socialists supporting the CBC and the left wing parties. It appears to me that the CRA has as many employees as the Canadian Army and the RCMP combined. The CRA has powerful union so nobody gets fired and their wages and pensions are secure. The Army and the RCMP do not have unions but they sue us for for harassing each other. Methinks the Crown should agree that its not fair that the Army, the RCMP and the CRA get to a harass me with immunity N'esy Pas?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cra-misconduct-discipline-employees-1.4679116
Denis VanHumbeck
How about making tax free offshore bank accounts illegal for the living instead of making people pay death duties.
David Amos
@Denis VanHumbeck Dream on
---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2018 15:24:42 -0400
Subject: Re "At the Crossroads of Hope and Fear" Yo Mr Graves we just talked say Hey to your
buddy Petey Baby MacKay and Trump/s lawyer Mikey Cohen for me will ya?
To: fgraves@ekos.com, "PETER.MACKAY" <PETER.MACKAY@bakermckenzie.
mdcohen212 <mdcohen212@gmail.com>, david@policyalternatives.ca
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
alyssa@policyalternatives.ca, ccpans@policyalternatives.ca,
Don.Pittis@cbc.ca, premier <premier@ontario.ca>,
caroline <caroline@carolinemulroney.ca>
Gerald.Butts" <Gerald.Butts@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>
Wednesday, 1 August 2018
The confusion of the CCPA and the CBC is well known when it comes to
matters of money N'esy Pas?
"Ekos founder and president Frank Graves says the rejection of
inheritance tax is just one part of a wider phenomenon demonstrated in
his polling. He pointed to the election of Doug Ford as premier in
Ontario as an example of its impact. Most of Ford's supporters
declared themselves to be working class."
http://www.ekospolitics.com/
At the Crossroads of Hope and Fear
THE NEW AXIS OF SOCIETAL TENSION
Frank Graves
President EKOS Research
t: 613.235-7215
fgraves@ekos.com
https://www.cbc.ca/news/
An attempt to understand Canada's inheritance tax backlash: Don Pittis
Roar of objections to imposing death duties on Canadians may have complex roots
Don Pittis · CBC News · Posted: Aug 07, 2018 4:00 AM ET
291 Comments
Steve Timmins
My blood, sweat and tears were for MY family not the government. I've
already paid my taxes on income. What's left is mine to decide what to
do with not some socialist who drools over it.
David Amos
@Steve Timmins "Anyone who thinks the CBC does not serve
conservative-leaning Canadians should look at the comments for a
recent online story about inheritance taxes."
Methinks the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives think-tank should
have red my comments by now N'esy Pas?
http://davidraymondamos3.
Tuesday, 14 February 2017
RE FATCA, NAFTA & TPP etc ATTN President Donald J. Trump I just got
off the phone with your lawyer Mr Cohen (646-853-0114) Why does he lie
to me after all this time???
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Michael Cohen <mcohen@trumporg.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:15:14 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: RE FATCA ATTN Pierre-Luc.Dusseault I just
called and left a message for you
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Effective January 20, 2017, I have accepted the role as personal
counsel to President Donald J. Trump. All future emails should be
directed to mdcohen212@gmail.com and all future calls should be
directed to 646-853-0114.
______________________________
This communication is from The Trump Organization or an affiliate
thereof and is not sent on behalf of any other individual or entity.
This email may contain information that is confidential and/or
proprietary. Such information may not be read, disclosed, used,
copied, distributed or disseminated except (1) for use by the intended
recipient or (2) as expressly authorized by the sender. If you have
received this communication in error, please immediately delete it and
promptly notify the sender. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed
to be received, secure or error-free as emails could be intercepted,
corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late, incomplete, contain viruses
or otherwise. The Trump Organization and its affiliates do not
guarantee that all emails will be read and do not accept liability for
any errors or omissions in emails. Any views or opinions presented in
any email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of The Trump Organization or any of its
affiliates.Nothing in this communication is intended to operate as an
electronic signature under applicable law.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 18:22:21 -0400
Subject: Yo Bill Morneau before Trump causes the markets to crash
Methinks I should remind folks of the Bank of Canadas long lost
mandate, Harper's Bankster bail out 10 years ago and Trudeau The
Younger's recent Bankster Bail-In plan
To: "Bill.Morneau" <Bill.Morneau@canada.ca>, "Andrew.Bailey"
<Andrew.Bailey@fca.org.uk>, postur <postur@for.is>, postur
<postur@dmr.is>, postur <postur@irr.is>, smari <smari@immi.is>,
david@policyalternatives.ca, info@ipolitics.ca,
elizabeth.thompson@cbc.ca, michaelharris@ipolitics.ca,
KadyOMalley@ipolitics.ca, StephenMaher@ipolitics.ca,
info@canadachristiancollege.
<zach.dubinsky@cbc.ca>
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
<press@bankofengland.co.uk>, "boris.johnson.mp"
<boris.johnson.mp@parliament.
<herb.wiseman@gmail.com>, paul.slansky@bellnet.ca,
stuart@policyalternatives.ca, ccpa@policyalternatives.ca,
steve.silva@globalnews.ca, steve@stevesilva.ca, "David.Akin"
<David.Akin@globalnews.ca>
Whereas nobody listens to me I will attempt to do so byway of other
people's words and videos.
Does anyone recall this nonsense on Youtube 5 years ago when young
Justin was charging big bucks for speeches but having fun yapping it
up bigtime in malls for free? Obviously even bald mall guards loved
Trudeau "The Younger" back then Nesy Pas?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Justin Trudeau: Fluoride/Bilderberg/Bank of Canada Are Conspiracy Theories
Terry Wilson
Published on Feb 8, 2013
However this far important stuff was also put up on YouTube after it
appears CBC had aired it first and nobody seemed to care.
Please note I truly do appreciate David MacDonald's work. However I am
very tired of his old buddies such as the turncoat NDP?Conservative
Dominic Cardy laughing at me while sending me butter tarts and talking
mindlessly of ardvarrks, puffins and pussy cats etc.
Study Reveals Secret Bailouts to Canadian Banks
31,067 views
LeakSourceCanada
Published on Apr 30, 2012
04/30/2012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
"Our politicians are on the global stage touting the soundness of
Canada's banking system, where at the same time three of Canada's
banks were at some point underwater."
David Macdonald of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
explains the think tank's report that found Canadian banks received
secret bailouts during the 2008-2010 financial crisis.
(PDF) The Big Banks' Big Secret: Estimating Government Support for
Canadian Banks During the Financial Crisis
http://www.policyalternatives.
http://LeakSource.wordpress.
Need I say that I contacted these NDP/union/beancounter/
https://www.
https://www.
“Canada’s corporate executives were among the loudest critics of a new
fifteen dollar minimum wage in provinces like Ontario and Alberta,
meanwhile the highest paid among them were raking in record-breaking
earnings,” says the report’s author, CCPA Senior Economist David
Macdonald."
Climbing Up and Kicking Down: Executive pay in Canada is available on
the CCPA website. For more information contact Alyssa O’Dell, CCPA
Media and Public Relations: 613-563-1341 x307,
alyssa@policyalternatives.ca or cell 343-998-7575.
Here is a little proof of an email of mine from 2012 that the CCPA,
the NDP, the Conservatives, Dizzy Lizzy May, Trudeau "The Younger",
his many mindless minions and even YOU should recall N'esy Pas David
Akin?
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 13:09:54 -0400
Subject: Fwd: RE Potash Corp, The NEB, Nexen, Pipelines and MP Nathan Cullen
To: ccpa@policyalternatives.ca, "justin.trudeau.a1"
<justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca>
<marc.garneau.a1@parl.gc.ca>
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
<dean.delmastro.c1@parl.gc.ca>
<leader@greenparty.bc.ca>, "adrian.dix.mla" <adrian.dix.mla@leg.bc.ca>
That said
Does anyone remember what this crooked Bankster had to say to CBC the
following year before he split for a far fancier job in Not So Merry
Old England???
Bank 'bail-in' plan shouldn't worry Canadians, Carney says
Bank of Canada head says it's 'hard to fathom' Canadian deposits would
be touched
The Canadian Press Posted: Apr 18, 2013 5:03 PM ET
http://www.cbc.ca/news/
Since then the Liebranos put the Bankster 'bail-in' plan in the books.
While CBC has played dumb lawyers and many others have had an opinion
about it. I for one particularly enjoy the ones I view on YouTube.
So who is the liar of these two? an unnamed lawyer on the CBA website
who does not offer a name to back up its opinion or a biblepounder
that claims to be a "Dr" or both?
FAQ: What is a “bail-in regime” and are my bank deposits safe?
https://cba.ca/faq-what-is-a-
Trudeau's Bail-In Now Law to Allow Banks to Confiscate Your Deposits
23,777 views
Canadian Times NEWS
Published on Aug 11, 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Perhaps both the lawyer and the "Dr" may enjoy the email found within this blog
I published today for their benefit
Sunday, 21 January 2018
As soon as Mark Carney is appointed Govenor of the Bank of England I
get a call from the SEC (202 551 2000)
http://davidraymondamos3.
As far as the Bank of Canada lawsuit goes this stuff was published by CBC
Rocco Galati and the lawsuit against the Bank of Canada
40,691 views
CBC News
Published on May 8, 2015
Colourful and controversial. Rocco Galati isn't your average advocate.
He's a kind of legal David, known for tangling with Goliath-sized
courtroom opponents. His peers seem to approve. Electing him to the
bench that oversees them. His latest case may his most contentious of
his career.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
However I see no mention of the outcome this year except on YouTube.
COMER VS BOC Final press conference
1,564 views
Lawrence McCurry
Published on Jun 6, 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
The Most Important Canadian Litigation Of The XXI Century: COMER vs
The Government Of Canada
2,217 views
CounterBalanceToday
Published on Jun 7, 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Recorded on June 3, 2017 at the COMER Press Conference in Rocco
Galati's Law Offices
In my opinion this is one of the most important cases of the XXI
century in Canada about one of the biggest issues the world is facing
since the XX Century and that is the central banking control over
nations and the issue of money.
"After nearly 5 ½ years of contentious litigation between the
Committee On Monetary and Economic Reform (COMER) and the Government
of Canada involving three separate Federal Court and two additional
Federal Court of Appeal hearings resulting in contrary decisions, on
May 4th, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed COMER’s “leave”
(permission to appeal) application from the second judgment of the
Federal Court of Appeal. Following established practice, the federal
Supreme Court does NOT issue reasons when it dismisses a leave
application.
The dismissal by the Supreme Court of the Leave application, means
only that the Court does not want to hear the appeal. The
jurisprudence on this is clear: it does not mean that the lower court
decisions are correct in law. The possible reasons for the Supreme
Court not wanting to hear the case are many and various, including the
washing of their hands or “deference” to the political process –
hence, this is why reasons are not issued by the Supreme Court in
leave dismissals.
We believe that the case has ample legal merit, and should have
proceeded to trial. It is not uncommon for the Supreme Court to refuse
leave on a given issue multiple times, finally to grant leave, hear
the appeal and the case then succeeds. The Supreme Court controls its
own agenda, both in its timing and on the merits of issues it will or
will not hear. (Annually, fewer than 8 - 10% of all cases filed are
granted permission and heard at the Supreme Court of Canada.)
It should be noted that throughout this arduous and expensive legal
process, the substance of this lawsuit initiated in the public
interest has not been addressed. (The matters raised by the lawsuit
are summarized in the attached original news release issued on
December 19, 2011.)"
Source: http://mailchi.mp/
For more information about COMER and the brave people behind this organization:
http://www.comer.org/
https://www.facebook.com/
Other related project worth to check by Paul Heller:
http://www.
Recorded and edited by:
https://www.facebook.com/
Apologies for my amateur recording and editing I had a limitation in
my old photographic camera, the video stops after a few minutes so I
missed a few milliseconds of audio in between the multiple videos that
I consolidated here.
Feel Free to distribute share and download this important information.
Category
News & Politics
Then lastly for comic relief there was the wicked LIEbrano Motion
M-103.and its purported attack on Free Speech. Lots of people had
their opinion on that topic so there is not much need of adding my two
bits worth particularly after Kellie Leitch, Brad Trost, Pierre
Lemieux, Chris Alexander, Faith Goldy, Ezzy Levant and their Christian
Zionist "Dr." McVety pal made a big splash in Toronto. It did no good
whatsoever. The motion passed easily by a vote of 201–91. However it
was non-binding so what was all the noice about anyway other than to
make Trudueau "The Younger" look like some kind of hero???
https://ipolitics.ca/2017/02/
Conservatives may pay a price for M-103 hysteria
By Stephen Maher. Published on Feb 17, 2017 5:08pm
https://
1,500 People Gather at Canada Christian College to Defend Free Speech
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Furthermore everybody knows most folks don't read anymore and all my
words only fall on deaf ears anyway. However at least I was correct
about the Pirate Party and the ERRE Committee in 2016 N'esy Pas Mr
Prime Minister Trudeau "The Younger"?
All that said need I remind folks I am about to mak an application to
the Supreme Court becaue of this wicked decision? Please enjoy
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.
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Amos v. Canada
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2017-10-30
Neutral citation
2017 FCA 213
File numbers
A-48-16
Date: 20171030
Docket: A-48-16
Citation: 2017 FCA 213
CORAM:
WEBB J.A.
NEAR J.A.
GLEASON J.A.
BETWEEN:
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
Respondent on the cross-appeal
(and formally Appellant)
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Appellant on the cross-appeal
(and formerly Respondent)
Heard at Fredericton, New Brunswick, on May 24, 2017.
Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 30, 2017.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:
THE COURT
Date: 20171030
Docket: A-48-16
Citation: 2017 FCA 213
CORAM:
WEBB J.A.
NEAR J.A.
GLEASON J.A.
BETWEEN:
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
Respondent on the cross-appeal
(and formally Appellant)
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Appellant on the cross-appeal
(and formerly Respondent)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY THE COURT
I. Introduction
[1] On September 16, 2015, David Raymond Amos (Mr. Amos)
filed a 53-page Statement of Claim (the Claim) in Federal Court
against Her Majesty the Queen (the Crown). Mr. Amos claims $11 million
in damages and a public apology from the Prime Minister and Provincial
Premiers for being illegally barred from accessing parliamentary
properties and seeks a declaration from the Minister of Public Safety
that the Canadian Government will no longer allow the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police (RCMP) and Canadian Forces to harass him and his clan
(Claim at para. 96).
[2] On November 12, 2015 (Docket T-1557-15), by way of a
motion brought by the Crown, a prothonotary of the Federal Court (the
Prothonotary) struck the Claim in its entirety, without leave to
amend, on the basis that it was plain and obvious that the Claim
disclosed no reasonable claim, the Claim was fundamentally vexatious,
and the Claim could not be salvaged by way of further amendment (the
Prothontary’s Order).
[3] On January 25, 2016 (2016 FC 93), by way of Mr.
Amos’ appeal from the Prothonotary’s Order, a judge of the Federal
Court (the Judge), reviewing the matter de novo, struck all of Mr.
Amos’ claims for relief with the exception of the claim for damages
for being barred by the RCMP from the New Brunswick legislature in
2004 (the Federal Court Judgment).
[4] Mr. Amos appealed and the Crown cross-appealed the
Federal Court Judgment. Further to the issuance of a Notice of Status
Review, Mr. Amos’ appeal was dismissed for delay on December 19, 2016.
As such, the only matter before this Court is the Crown’s
cross-appeal.
II. Preliminary Matter
[5] Mr. Amos, in his memorandum of fact and law in
relation to the cross-appeal that was filed with this Court on March
6, 2017, indicated that several judges of this Court, including two of
the judges of this panel, had a conflict of interest in this appeal.
This was the first time that he identified the judges whom he believed
had a conflict of interest in a document that was filed with this
Court. In his notice of appeal he had alluded to a conflict with
several judges but did not name those judges.
[6] Mr. Amos was of the view that he did not have to
identify the judges in any document filed with this Court because he
had identified the judges in various documents that had been filed
with the Federal Court. In his view the Federal Court and the Federal
Court of Appeal are the same court and therefore any document filed in
the Federal Court would be filed in this Court. This view is based on
subsections 5(4) and 5.1(4) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985,
c. F-7:
5(4) Every judge of the Federal Court is, by virtue of his or her
office, a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal and has all the
jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Federal Court of
Appeal.
[…]
5(4) Les juges de la Cour fédérale sont d’office juges de la Cour
d’appel fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs que
les juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale.
[…]
5.1(4) Every judge of the Federal Court of Appeal is, by virtue of
that office, a judge of the Federal Court and has all the
jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Federal Court.
5.1(4) Les juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale sont d’office juges de la
Cour fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs que les
juges de la Cour fédérale.
[7] However, these subsections only provide that the
judges of the Federal Court are also judges of this Court (and vice
versa). It does not mean that there is only one court. If the Federal
Court and this Court were one Court, there would be no need for this
section.
[8] Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Courts Act provide that:
3 The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the Federal Court
— Appeal Division is continued under the name “Federal Court of
Appeal” in English and “Cour d’appel fédérale” in French. It is
continued as an additional court of law, equity and admiralty in and
for Canada, for the better administration of the laws of Canada and as
a superior court of record having civil and criminal jurisdiction.
3 La Section d’appel, aussi appelée la Cour d’appel ou la Cour d’appel
fédérale, est maintenue et dénommée « Cour d’appel fédérale » en
français et « Federal Court of Appeal » en anglais. Elle est maintenue
à titre de tribunal additionnel de droit, d’equity et d’amirauté du
Canada, propre à améliorer l’application du droit canadien, et
continue d’être une cour supérieure d’archives ayant compétence en
matière civile et pénale.
4 The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the Federal Court
— Trial Division is continued under the name “Federal Court” in
English and “Cour fédérale” in French. It is continued as an
additional court of law, equity and admiralty in and for Canada, for
the better administration of the laws of Canada and as a superior
court of record having civil and criminal jurisdiction.
4 La section de la Cour fédérale du Canada, appelée la Section de
première instance de la Cour fédérale, est maintenue et dénommée «
Cour fédérale » en français et « Federal Court » en anglais. Elle est
maintenue à titre de tribunal additionnel de droit, d’equity et
d’amirauté du Canada, propre à améliorer l’application du droit
canadien, et continue d’être une cour supérieure d’archives ayant
compétence en matière civile et pénale.
[9] Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Courts Act create
two separate courts – this Court (section 3) and the Federal Court
(section 4). If, as Mr. Amos suggests, documents filed in the Federal
Court were automatically also filed in this Court, then there would no
need for the parties to prepare and file appeal books as required by
Rules 343 to 345 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 in relation
to any appeal from a decision of the Federal Court. The requirement to
file an appeal book with this Court in relation to an appeal from a
decision of the Federal Court makes it clear that the only documents
that will be before this Court are the documents that are part of that
appeal book.
[10] Therefore, the memorandum of fact and law filed on
March 6, 2017 is the first document, filed with this Court, in which
Mr. Amos identified the particular judges that he submits have a
conflict in any matter related to him.
[11] On April 3, 2017, Mr. Amos attempted to bring a motion
before the Federal Court seeking an order “affirming or denying the
conflict of interest he has” with a number of judges of the Federal
Court. A judge of the Federal Court issued a direction noting that if
Mr. Amos was seeking this order in relation to judges of the Federal
Court of Appeal, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Federal Court.
Mr. Amos raised the Federal Court motion at the hearing of this
cross-appeal. The Federal Court motion is not a motion before this
Court and, as such, the submissions filed before the Federal Court
will not be entertained. As well, since this was a motion brought
before the Federal Court (and not this Court), any documents filed in
relation to that motion are not part of the record of this Court.
[12] During the hearing of the appeal Mr. Amos alleged that
the third member of this panel also had a conflict of interest and
submitted some documents that, in his view, supported his claim of a
conflict. Mr. Amos, following the hearing of his appeal, was also
afforded the opportunity to provide a brief summary of the conflict
that he was alleging and to file additional documents that, in his
view, supported his allegations. Mr. Amos submitted several pages of
documents in relation to the alleged conflicts. He organized the
documents by submitting a copy of the biography of the particular
judge and then, immediately following that biography, by including
copies of the documents that, in his view, supported his claim that
such judge had a conflict.
[13] The nature of the alleged conflict of Justice Webb is
that before he was appointed as a Judge of the Tax Court of Canada in
2006, he was a partner with the law firm Patterson Law, and before
that with Patterson Palmer in Nova Scotia. Mr. Amos submitted that he
had a number of disputes with Patterson Palmer and Patterson Law and
therefore Justice Webb has a conflict simply because he was a partner
of these firms. Mr. Amos is not alleging that Justice Webb was
personally involved in or had any knowledge of any matter in which Mr.
Amos was involved with Justice Webb’s former law firm – only that he
was a member of such firm.
[14] During his oral submissions at the hearing of his
appeal Mr. Amos, in relation to the alleged conflict for Justice Webb,
focused on dealings between himself and a particular lawyer at
Patterson Law. However, none of the documents submitted by Mr. Amos at
the hearing or subsequently related to any dealings with this
particular lawyer nor is it clear when Mr. Amos was dealing with this
lawyer. In particular, it is far from clear whether such dealings were
after the time that Justice Webb was appointed as a Judge of the Tax
Court of Canada over 10 years ago.
[15] The documents that he submitted in relation to the
alleged conflict for Justice Webb largely relate to dealings between
Byron Prior and the St. John’s Newfoundland and Labrador office of
Patterson Palmer, which is not in the same province where Justice Webb
practiced law. The only document that indicates any dealing between
Mr. Amos and Patterson Palmer is a copy of an affidavit of Stephen May
who was a partner in the St. John’s NL office of Patterson Palmer. The
affidavit is dated January 24, 2005 and refers to a number of e-mails
that were sent by Mr. Amos to Stephen May. Mr. Amos also included a
letter that is addressed to four individuals, one of whom is John
Crosbie who was counsel to the St. John’s NL office of Patterson
Palmer. The letter is dated September 2, 2004 and is addressed to
“John Crosbie, c/o Greg G. Byrne, Suite 502, 570 Queen Street,
Fredericton, NB E3B 5E3”. In this letter Mr. Amos alludes to a
possible lawsuit against Patterson Palmer.
[16] Mr. Amos’ position is that simply because Justice Webb
was a lawyer with Patterson Palmer, he now has a conflict. In Wewaykum
Indian Band v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2003 SCC 45, [2003] 2 S.C.R.
259, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that disqualification of a
judge is to be determined based on whether there is a reasonable
apprehension of bias:
60 In Canadian law, one standard has now emerged as the
criterion for disqualification. The criterion, as expressed by de
Grandpré J. in Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy
Board, …[[1978] 1 S.C.R. 369, 68 D.L.R. (3d) 716], at p. 394, is the
reasonable apprehension of bias:
… the apprehension of bias must be a reasonable one, held by
reasonable and right minded persons, applying themselves to the
question and obtaining thereon the required information. In the words
of the Court of Appeal, that test is "what would an informed person,
viewing the matter realistically and practically -- and having thought
the matter through -- conclude. Would he think that it is more likely
than not that [the decision-maker], whether consciously or
unconsciously, would not decide fairly."
[17] The issue to be determined is whether an informed
person, viewing the matter realistically and practically, and having
thought the matter through, would conclude that Mr. Amos’ allegations
give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. As this Court has
previously remarked, “there is a strong presumption that judges will
administer justice impartially” and this presumption will not be
rebutted in the absence of “convincing evidence” of bias (Collins v.
Canada, 2011 FCA 140 at para. 7, [2011] 4 C.T.C. 157 [Collins]. See
also R. v. S. (R.D.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484 at para. 32, 151 D.L.R.
(4th) 193).
[18] The Ontario Court of Appeal in Rando Drugs Ltd. v.
Scott, 2007 ONCA 553, 86 O.R. (3d) 653 (leave to appeal to the Supreme
Court of Canada refused, 32285 (August 1, 2007)), addressed the
particular issue of whether a judge is disqualified from hearing a
case simply because he had been a member of a law firm that was
involved in the litigation that was now before that judge. The Ontario
Court of Appeal determined that the judge was not disqualified if the
judge had no involvement with the person or the matter when he was a
lawyer. The Ontario Court of Appeal also explained that the rules for
determining whether a judge is disqualified are different from the
rules to determine whether a lawyer has a conflict:
27 Thus, disqualification is not the natural corollary to a
finding that a trial judge has had some involvement in a case over
which he or she is now presiding. Where the judge had no involvement,
as here, it cannot be said that the judge is disqualified.
28 The point can rightly be made that had Mr. Patterson been
asked to represent the appellant as counsel before his appointment to
the bench, the conflict rules would likely have prevented him from
taking the case because his firm had formerly represented one of the
defendants in the case. Thus, it is argued how is it that as a trial
judge Patterson J. can hear the case? This issue was considered by the
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) in Locabail (U.K.) Ltd. v. Bayfield
Properties Ltd., [2000] Q.B. 451. The court held, at para. 58, that
there is no inflexible rule governing the disqualification of a judge
and that, "[e]verything depends on the circumstances."
29 It seems to me that what appears at first sight to be an
inconsistency in application of rules can be explained by the
different contexts and in particular, the strong presumption of
judicial impartiality that applies in the context of disqualification
of a judge. There is no such presumption in cases of allegations of
conflict of interest against a lawyer because of a firm's previous
involvement in the case. To the contrary, as explained by Sopinka J.
in MacDonald Estate v. Martin (1990), 77 D.L.R. (4th) 249 (S.C.C.),
for sound policy reasons there is a presumption of a disqualifying
interest that can rarely be overcome. In particular, a conclusory
statement from the lawyer that he or she had no confidential
information about the case will never be sufficient. The case is the
opposite where the allegation of bias is made against a trial judge.
His or her statement that he or she knew nothing about the case and
had no involvement in it will ordinarily be accepted at face value
unless there is good reason to doubt it: see Locabail, at para. 19.
30 That brings me then to consider the particular circumstances
of this case and whether there are serious grounds to find a
disqualifying conflict of interest in this case. In my view, there are
two significant factors that justify the trial judge's decision not to
recuse himself. The first is his statement, which all parties accept,
that he knew nothing of the case when it was in his former firm and
that he had nothing to do with it. The second is the long passage of
time. As was said in Wewaykum, at para. 85:
To us, one significant factor stands out, and must inform
the perspective of the reasonable person assessing the impact of this
involvement on Binnie J.'s impartiality in the appeals. That factor is
the passage of time. Most arguments for disqualification rest on
circumstances that are either contemporaneous to the decision-making,
or that occurred within a short time prior to the decision-making.
31 There are other factors that inform the issue. The Wilson
Walker firm no longer acted for any of the parties by the time of
trial. More importantly, at the time of the motion, Patterson J. had
been a judge for six years and thus had not had a relationship with
his former firm for a considerable period of time.
32 In my view, a reasonable person, viewing the matter
realistically would conclude that the trial judge could deal fairly
and impartially with this case. I take this view principally because
of the long passage of time and the trial judge's lack of involvement
in or knowledge of the case when the Wilson Walker firm had carriage.
In these circumstances it cannot be reasonably contended that the
trial judge could not remain impartial in the case. The mere fact that
his name appears on the letterhead of some correspondence from over a
decade ago would not lead a reasonable person to believe that he would
either consciously or unconsciously favour his former firm's former
client. It is simply not realistic to think that a judge would throw
off his mantle of impartiality, ignore his oath of office and favour a
client - about whom he knew nothing - of a firm that he left six years
earlier and that no longer acts for the client, in a case involving
events from over a decade ago.
(emphasis added)
[19] Justice Webb had no involvement with any matter
involving Mr. Amos while he was a member of Patterson Palmer or
Patterson Law, nor does Mr. Amos suggest that he did. Mr. Amos made it
clear during the hearing of this matter that the only reason for the
alleged conflict for Justice Webb was that he was a member of
Patterson Law and Patterson Palmer. This is simply not enough for
Justice Webb to be disqualified. Any involvement of Mr. Amos with
Patterson Law while Justice Webb was a member of that firm would have
had to occur over 10 years ago and even longer for the time when he
was a member of Patterson Palmer. In addition to the lack of any
involvement on his part with any matter or dispute that Mr. Amos had
with Patterson Law or Patterson Palmer (which in and of itself is
sufficient to dispose of this matter), the length of time since
Justice Webb was a member of Patterson Law or Patterson Palmer would
also result in the same finding – that there is no conflict in Justice
Webb hearing this appeal.
[20] Similarly in R. v. Bagot, 2000 MBCA 30, 145 Man. R.
(2d) 260, the Manitoba Court of Appeal found that there was no
reasonable apprehension of bias when a judge, who had been a member of
the law firm that had been retained by the accused, had no involvement
with the accused while he was a lawyer with that firm.
[21] In Del Zotto v. Minister of National Revenue, [2000] 4
F.C. 321, 257 N.R. 96, this court did find that there would be a
reasonable apprehension of bias where a judge, who while he was a
lawyer, had recorded time on a matter involving the same person who
was before that judge. However, this case can be distinguished as
Justice Webb did not have any time recorded on any files involving Mr.
Amos while he was a lawyer with Patterson Palmer or Patterson Law.
[22] Mr. Amos also included with his submissions a CD. He
stated in his affidavit dated June 26, 2017 that there is a “true copy
of an American police surveillance wiretap entitled 139” on this CD.
He has also indicated that he has “provided a true copy of the CD
entitled 139 to many American and Canadian law enforcement authorities
and not one of the police forces or officers of the court are willing
to investigate it”. Since he has indicated that this is an “American
police surveillance wiretap”, this is a matter for the American law
enforcement authorities and cannot create, as Mr. Amos suggests, a
conflict of interest for any judge to whom he provides a copy.
[23] As a result, there is no conflict or reasonable
apprehension of bias for Justice Webb and therefore, no reason for him
to recuse himself.
[24] Mr. Amos alleged that Justice Near’s past professional
experience with the government created a “quasi-conflict” in deciding
the cross-appeal. Mr. Amos provided no details and Justice Near
confirmed that he had no prior knowledge of the matters alleged in the
Claim. Justice Near sees no reason to recuse himself.
[25] Insofar as it is possible to glean the basis for Mr.
Amos’ allegations against Justice Gleason, it appears that he alleges
that she is incapable of hearing this appeal because he says he wrote
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
http://davidraymondamos3.
Thursday, 21 December 2017
Attn Simon Fish of the BMO and Robert Kennedy of Dentons I just called
from 902 800 0369 Play dumb all you wish The BMO has had my documents
for years
https://www.scribd.com/
https://www.scribd.com/doc/
While I was publishing this in my blog the lawyer Bobby Baby Kennedy called
back from (416) 846-6598 and played as dumb. Hell he even claimed that he
did not know who Frank McKenna was No partner even a lowly collection
dude within Dentons is allowed to be THAT stupid.
> ---------- 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
, mfeder@mccarthy.ca, mjamal@osler.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
>>
http://www.cbc.ca/news/
BMO ran $288M 'abusive' tax dodge: CRA
Trial set for June over bank's convoluted arrangement of shell
companies, loans and stock swaps
By Zach Dubinsky, Harvey Cashore, CBC News Posted: Nov 08, 2017 5:00 AM ET
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2018 15:24:42 -0400
Subject: Re "At the Crossroads of Hope and Fear" Yo Mr Graves we just talked say Hey to your
buddy Petey Baby MacKay and Trump/s lawyer Mikey Cohen for me will ya?
To: fgraves@ekos.com, "PETER.MACKAY" <PETER.MACKAY@bakermckenzie.
mdcohen212 <mdcohen212@gmail.com>, david@policyalternatives.ca
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
alyssa@policyalternatives.ca, ccpans@policyalternatives.ca,
Don.Pittis@cbc.ca, premier <premier@ontario.ca>,
caroline <caroline@carolinemulroney.ca>
Gerald.Butts" <Gerald.Butts@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>
Wednesday, 1 August 2018
The confusion of the CCPA and the CBC is well known when it comes to
matters of money N'esy Pas?
"Ekos founder and president Frank Graves says the rejection of
inheritance tax is just one part of a wider phenomenon demonstrated in
his polling. He pointed to the election of Doug Ford as premier in
Ontario as an example of its impact. Most of Ford's supporters
declared themselves to be working class."
http://www.ekospolitics.com/
At the Crossroads of Hope and Fear
THE NEW AXIS OF SOCIETAL TENSION
Frank Graves
President EKOS Research
t: 613.235-7215
fgraves@ekos.com
https://www.cbc.ca/news/
An attempt to understand Canada's inheritance tax backlash: Don Pittis
Roar of objections to imposing death duties on Canadians may have complex roots
Don Pittis · CBC News · Posted: Aug 07, 2018 4:00 AM ET
291 Comments
Steve Timmins
My blood, sweat and tears were for MY family not the government. I've
already paid my taxes on income. What's left is mine to decide what to
do with not some socialist who drools over it.
David Amos
@Steve Timmins "Anyone who thinks the CBC does not serve
conservative-leaning Canadians should look at the comments for a
recent online story about inheritance taxes."
Methinks the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives think-tank should
have red my comments by now N'esy Pas?
http://davidraymondamos3.
Tuesday, 14 February 2017
RE FATCA, NAFTA & TPP etc ATTN President Donald J. Trump I just got
off the phone with your lawyer Mr Cohen (646-853-0114) Why does he lie
to me after all this time???
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Michael Cohen <mcohen@trumporg.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:15:14 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: RE FATCA ATTN Pierre-Luc.Dusseault I just
called and left a message for you
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Effective January 20, 2017, I have accepted the role as personal
counsel to President Donald J. Trump. All future emails should be
directed to mdcohen212@gmail.com and all future calls should be
directed to 646-853-0114.
______________________________
This communication is from The Trump Organization or an affiliate
thereof and is not sent on behalf of any other individual or entity.
This email may contain information that is confidential and/or
proprietary. Such information may not be read, disclosed, used,
copied, distributed or disseminated except (1) for use by the intended
recipient or (2) as expressly authorized by the sender. If you have
received this communication in error, please immediately delete it and
promptly notify the sender. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed
to be received, secure or error-free as emails could be intercepted,
corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late, incomplete, contain viruses
or otherwise. The Trump Organization and its affiliates do not
guarantee that all emails will be read and do not accept liability for
any errors or omissions in emails. Any views or opinions presented in
any email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of The Trump Organization or any of its
affiliates.Nothing in this communication is intended to operate as an
electronic signature under applicable law.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 18:22:21 -0400
Subject: Yo Bill Morneau before Trump causes the markets to crash
Methinks I should remind folks of the Bank of Canadas long lost
mandate, Harper's Bankster bail out 10 years ago and Trudeau The
Younger's recent Bankster Bail-In plan
To: "Bill.Morneau" <Bill.Morneau@canada.ca>, "Andrew.Bailey"
<Andrew.Bailey@fca.org.uk>, postur <postur@for.is>, postur
<postur@dmr.is>, postur <postur@irr.is>, smari <smari@immi.is>,
david@policyalternatives.ca, info@ipolitics.ca,
elizabeth.thompson@cbc.ca, michaelharris@ipolitics.ca,
KadyOMalley@ipolitics.ca, StephenMaher@ipolitics.ca,
info@canadachristiancollege.
<zach.dubinsky@cbc.ca>
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
<press@bankofengland.co.uk>, "boris.johnson.mp"
<boris.johnson.mp@parliament.
<herb.wiseman@gmail.com>, paul.slansky@bellnet.ca,
stuart@policyalternatives.ca, ccpa@policyalternatives.ca,
steve.silva@globalnews.ca, steve@stevesilva.ca, "David.Akin"
<David.Akin@globalnews.ca>
Whereas nobody listens to me I will attempt to do so byway of other
people's words and videos.
Does anyone recall this nonsense on Youtube 5 years ago when young
Justin was charging big bucks for speeches but having fun yapping it
up bigtime in malls for free? Obviously even bald mall guards loved
Trudeau "The Younger" back then Nesy Pas?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Justin Trudeau: Fluoride/Bilderberg/Bank of Canada Are Conspiracy Theories
Terry Wilson
Published on Feb 8, 2013
However this far important stuff was also put up on YouTube after it
appears CBC had aired it first and nobody seemed to care.
Please note I truly do appreciate David MacDonald's work. However I am
very tired of his old buddies such as the turncoat NDP?Conservative
Dominic Cardy laughing at me while sending me butter tarts and talking
mindlessly of ardvarrks, puffins and pussy cats etc.
Study Reveals Secret Bailouts to Canadian Banks
31,067 views
LeakSourceCanada
Published on Apr 30, 2012
04/30/2012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
"Our politicians are on the global stage touting the soundness of
Canada's banking system, where at the same time three of Canada's
banks were at some point underwater."
David Macdonald of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
explains the think tank's report that found Canadian banks received
secret bailouts during the 2008-2010 financial crisis.
(PDF) The Big Banks' Big Secret: Estimating Government Support for
Canadian Banks During the Financial Crisis
http://www.policyalternatives.
http://LeakSource.wordpress.
Need I say that I contacted these NDP/union/beancounter/
https://www.
https://www.
“Canada’s corporate executives were among the loudest critics of a new
fifteen dollar minimum wage in provinces like Ontario and Alberta,
meanwhile the highest paid among them were raking in record-breaking
earnings,” says the report’s author, CCPA Senior Economist David
Macdonald."
Climbing Up and Kicking Down: Executive pay in Canada is available on
the CCPA website. For more information contact Alyssa O’Dell, CCPA
Media and Public Relations: 613-563-1341 x307,
alyssa@policyalternatives.ca or cell 343-998-7575.
Here is a little proof of an email of mine from 2012 that the CCPA,
the NDP, the Conservatives, Dizzy Lizzy May, Trudeau "The Younger",
his many mindless minions and even YOU should recall N'esy Pas David
Akin?
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 13:09:54 -0400
Subject: Fwd: RE Potash Corp, The NEB, Nexen, Pipelines and MP Nathan Cullen
To: ccpa@policyalternatives.ca, "justin.trudeau.a1"
<justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca>
<marc.garneau.a1@parl.gc.ca>
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
<dean.delmastro.c1@parl.gc.ca>
<leader@greenparty.bc.ca>, "adrian.dix.mla" <adrian.dix.mla@leg.bc.ca>
That said
Does anyone remember what this crooked Bankster had to say to CBC the
following year before he split for a far fancier job in Not So Merry
Old England???
Bank 'bail-in' plan shouldn't worry Canadians, Carney says
Bank of Canada head says it's 'hard to fathom' Canadian deposits would
be touched
The Canadian Press Posted: Apr 18, 2013 5:03 PM ET
http://www.cbc.ca/news/
Since then the Liebranos put the Bankster 'bail-in' plan in the books.
While CBC has played dumb lawyers and many others have had an opinion
about it. I for one particularly enjoy the ones I view on YouTube.
So who is the liar of these two? an unnamed lawyer on the CBA website
who does not offer a name to back up its opinion or a biblepounder
that claims to be a "Dr" or both?
FAQ: What is a “bail-in regime” and are my bank deposits safe?
https://cba.ca/faq-what-is-a-
Trudeau's Bail-In Now Law to Allow Banks to Confiscate Your Deposits
23,777 views
Canadian Times NEWS
Published on Aug 11, 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Perhaps both the lawyer and the "Dr" may enjoy the email found within this blog
I published today for their benefit
Sunday, 21 January 2018
As soon as Mark Carney is appointed Govenor of the Bank of England I
get a call from the SEC (202 551 2000)
http://davidraymondamos3.
As far as the Bank of Canada lawsuit goes this stuff was published by CBC
Rocco Galati and the lawsuit against the Bank of Canada
40,691 views
CBC News
Published on May 8, 2015
Colourful and controversial. Rocco Galati isn't your average advocate.
He's a kind of legal David, known for tangling with Goliath-sized
courtroom opponents. His peers seem to approve. Electing him to the
bench that oversees them. His latest case may his most contentious of
his career.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
However I see no mention of the outcome this year except on YouTube.
COMER VS BOC Final press conference
1,564 views
Lawrence McCurry
Published on Jun 6, 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
The Most Important Canadian Litigation Of The XXI Century: COMER vs
The Government Of Canada
2,217 views
CounterBalanceToday
Published on Jun 7, 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Recorded on June 3, 2017 at the COMER Press Conference in Rocco
Galati's Law Offices
In my opinion this is one of the most important cases of the XXI
century in Canada about one of the biggest issues the world is facing
since the XX Century and that is the central banking control over
nations and the issue of money.
"After nearly 5 ½ years of contentious litigation between the
Committee On Monetary and Economic Reform (COMER) and the Government
of Canada involving three separate Federal Court and two additional
Federal Court of Appeal hearings resulting in contrary decisions, on
May 4th, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed COMER’s “leave”
(permission to appeal) application from the second judgment of the
Federal Court of Appeal. Following established practice, the federal
Supreme Court does NOT issue reasons when it dismisses a leave
application.
The dismissal by the Supreme Court of the Leave application, means
only that the Court does not want to hear the appeal. The
jurisprudence on this is clear: it does not mean that the lower court
decisions are correct in law. The possible reasons for the Supreme
Court not wanting to hear the case are many and various, including the
washing of their hands or “deference” to the political process –
hence, this is why reasons are not issued by the Supreme Court in
leave dismissals.
We believe that the case has ample legal merit, and should have
proceeded to trial. It is not uncommon for the Supreme Court to refuse
leave on a given issue multiple times, finally to grant leave, hear
the appeal and the case then succeeds. The Supreme Court controls its
own agenda, both in its timing and on the merits of issues it will or
will not hear. (Annually, fewer than 8 - 10% of all cases filed are
granted permission and heard at the Supreme Court of Canada.)
It should be noted that throughout this arduous and expensive legal
process, the substance of this lawsuit initiated in the public
interest has not been addressed. (The matters raised by the lawsuit
are summarized in the attached original news release issued on
December 19, 2011.)"
Source: http://mailchi.mp/
For more information about COMER and the brave people behind this organization:
http://www.comer.org/
https://www.facebook.com/
Other related project worth to check by Paul Heller:
http://www.
Recorded and edited by:
https://www.facebook.com/
Apologies for my amateur recording and editing I had a limitation in
my old photographic camera, the video stops after a few minutes so I
missed a few milliseconds of audio in between the multiple videos that
I consolidated here.
Feel Free to distribute share and download this important information.
Category
News & Politics
Then lastly for comic relief there was the wicked LIEbrano Motion
M-103.and its purported attack on Free Speech. Lots of people had
their opinion on that topic so there is not much need of adding my two
bits worth particularly after Kellie Leitch, Brad Trost, Pierre
Lemieux, Chris Alexander, Faith Goldy, Ezzy Levant and their Christian
Zionist "Dr." McVety pal made a big splash in Toronto. It did no good
whatsoever. The motion passed easily by a vote of 201–91. However it
was non-binding so what was all the noice about anyway other than to
make Trudueau "The Younger" look like some kind of hero???
https://ipolitics.ca/2017/02/
Conservatives may pay a price for M-103 hysteria
By Stephen Maher. Published on Feb 17, 2017 5:08pm
https://
1,500 People Gather at Canada Christian College to Defend Free Speech
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Furthermore everybody knows most folks don't read anymore and all my
words only fall on deaf ears anyway. However at least I was correct
about the Pirate Party and the ERRE Committee in 2016 N'esy Pas Mr
Prime Minister Trudeau "The Younger"?
All that said need I remind folks I am about to mak an application to
the Supreme Court becaue of this wicked decision? Please enjoy
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.
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Amos v. Canada
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2017-10-30
Neutral citation
2017 FCA 213
File numbers
A-48-16
Date: 20171030
Docket: A-48-16
Citation: 2017 FCA 213
CORAM:
WEBB J.A.
NEAR J.A.
GLEASON J.A.
BETWEEN:
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
Respondent on the cross-appeal
(and formally Appellant)
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Appellant on the cross-appeal
(and formerly Respondent)
Heard at Fredericton, New Brunswick, on May 24, 2017.
Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 30, 2017.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:
THE COURT
Date: 20171030
Docket: A-48-16
Citation: 2017 FCA 213
CORAM:
WEBB J.A.
NEAR J.A.
GLEASON J.A.
BETWEEN:
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
Respondent on the cross-appeal
(and formally Appellant)
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Appellant on the cross-appeal
(and formerly Respondent)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY THE COURT
I. Introduction
[1] On September 16, 2015, David Raymond Amos (Mr. Amos)
filed a 53-page Statement of Claim (the Claim) in Federal Court
against Her Majesty the Queen (the Crown). Mr. Amos claims $11 million
in damages and a public apology from the Prime Minister and Provincial
Premiers for being illegally barred from accessing parliamentary
properties and seeks a declaration from the Minister of Public Safety
that the Canadian Government will no longer allow the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police (RCMP) and Canadian Forces to harass him and his clan
(Claim at para. 96).
[2] On November 12, 2015 (Docket T-1557-15), by way of a
motion brought by the Crown, a prothonotary of the Federal Court (the
Prothonotary) struck the Claim in its entirety, without leave to
amend, on the basis that it was plain and obvious that the Claim
disclosed no reasonable claim, the Claim was fundamentally vexatious,
and the Claim could not be salvaged by way of further amendment (the
Prothontary’s Order).
[3] On January 25, 2016 (2016 FC 93), by way of Mr.
Amos’ appeal from the Prothonotary’s Order, a judge of the Federal
Court (the Judge), reviewing the matter de novo, struck all of Mr.
Amos’ claims for relief with the exception of the claim for damages
for being barred by the RCMP from the New Brunswick legislature in
2004 (the Federal Court Judgment).
[4] Mr. Amos appealed and the Crown cross-appealed the
Federal Court Judgment. Further to the issuance of a Notice of Status
Review, Mr. Amos’ appeal was dismissed for delay on December 19, 2016.
As such, the only matter before this Court is the Crown’s
cross-appeal.
II. Preliminary Matter
[5] Mr. Amos, in his memorandum of fact and law in
relation to the cross-appeal that was filed with this Court on March
6, 2017, indicated that several judges of this Court, including two of
the judges of this panel, had a conflict of interest in this appeal.
This was the first time that he identified the judges whom he believed
had a conflict of interest in a document that was filed with this
Court. In his notice of appeal he had alluded to a conflict with
several judges but did not name those judges.
[6] Mr. Amos was of the view that he did not have to
identify the judges in any document filed with this Court because he
had identified the judges in various documents that had been filed
with the Federal Court. In his view the Federal Court and the Federal
Court of Appeal are the same court and therefore any document filed in
the Federal Court would be filed in this Court. This view is based on
subsections 5(4) and 5.1(4) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985,
c. F-7:
5(4) Every judge of the Federal Court is, by virtue of his or her
office, a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal and has all the
jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Federal Court of
Appeal.
[…]
5(4) Les juges de la Cour fédérale sont d’office juges de la Cour
d’appel fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs que
les juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale.
[…]
5.1(4) Every judge of the Federal Court of Appeal is, by virtue of
that office, a judge of the Federal Court and has all the
jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Federal Court.
5.1(4) Les juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale sont d’office juges de la
Cour fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs que les
juges de la Cour fédérale.
[7] However, these subsections only provide that the
judges of the Federal Court are also judges of this Court (and vice
versa). It does not mean that there is only one court. If the Federal
Court and this Court were one Court, there would be no need for this
section.
[8] Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Courts Act provide that:
3 The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the Federal Court
— Appeal Division is continued under the name “Federal Court of
Appeal” in English and “Cour d’appel fédérale” in French. It is
continued as an additional court of law, equity and admiralty in and
for Canada, for the better administration of the laws of Canada and as
a superior court of record having civil and criminal jurisdiction.
3 La Section d’appel, aussi appelée la Cour d’appel ou la Cour d’appel
fédérale, est maintenue et dénommée « Cour d’appel fédérale » en
français et « Federal Court of Appeal » en anglais. Elle est maintenue
à titre de tribunal additionnel de droit, d’equity et d’amirauté du
Canada, propre à améliorer l’application du droit canadien, et
continue d’être une cour supérieure d’archives ayant compétence en
matière civile et pénale.
4 The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the Federal Court
— Trial Division is continued under the name “Federal Court” in
English and “Cour fédérale” in French. It is continued as an
additional court of law, equity and admiralty in and for Canada, for
the better administration of the laws of Canada and as a superior
court of record having civil and criminal jurisdiction.
4 La section de la Cour fédérale du Canada, appelée la Section de
première instance de la Cour fédérale, est maintenue et dénommée «
Cour fédérale » en français et « Federal Court » en anglais. Elle est
maintenue à titre de tribunal additionnel de droit, d’equity et
d’amirauté du Canada, propre à améliorer l’application du droit
canadien, et continue d’être une cour supérieure d’archives ayant
compétence en matière civile et pénale.
[9] Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Courts Act create
two separate courts – this Court (section 3) and the Federal Court
(section 4). If, as Mr. Amos suggests, documents filed in the Federal
Court were automatically also filed in this Court, then there would no
need for the parties to prepare and file appeal books as required by
Rules 343 to 345 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 in relation
to any appeal from a decision of the Federal Court. The requirement to
file an appeal book with this Court in relation to an appeal from a
decision of the Federal Court makes it clear that the only documents
that will be before this Court are the documents that are part of that
appeal book.
[10] Therefore, the memorandum of fact and law filed on
March 6, 2017 is the first document, filed with this Court, in which
Mr. Amos identified the particular judges that he submits have a
conflict in any matter related to him.
[11] On April 3, 2017, Mr. Amos attempted to bring a motion
before the Federal Court seeking an order “affirming or denying the
conflict of interest he has” with a number of judges of the Federal
Court. A judge of the Federal Court issued a direction noting that if
Mr. Amos was seeking this order in relation to judges of the Federal
Court of Appeal, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Federal Court.
Mr. Amos raised the Federal Court motion at the hearing of this
cross-appeal. The Federal Court motion is not a motion before this
Court and, as such, the submissions filed before the Federal Court
will not be entertained. As well, since this was a motion brought
before the Federal Court (and not this Court), any documents filed in
relation to that motion are not part of the record of this Court.
[12] During the hearing of the appeal Mr. Amos alleged that
the third member of this panel also had a conflict of interest and
submitted some documents that, in his view, supported his claim of a
conflict. Mr. Amos, following the hearing of his appeal, was also
afforded the opportunity to provide a brief summary of the conflict
that he was alleging and to file additional documents that, in his
view, supported his allegations. Mr. Amos submitted several pages of
documents in relation to the alleged conflicts. He organized the
documents by submitting a copy of the biography of the particular
judge and then, immediately following that biography, by including
copies of the documents that, in his view, supported his claim that
such judge had a conflict.
[13] The nature of the alleged conflict of Justice Webb is
that before he was appointed as a Judge of the Tax Court of Canada in
2006, he was a partner with the law firm Patterson Law, and before
that with Patterson Palmer in Nova Scotia. Mr. Amos submitted that he
had a number of disputes with Patterson Palmer and Patterson Law and
therefore Justice Webb has a conflict simply because he was a partner
of these firms. Mr. Amos is not alleging that Justice Webb was
personally involved in or had any knowledge of any matter in which Mr.
Amos was involved with Justice Webb’s former law firm – only that he
was a member of such firm.
[14] During his oral submissions at the hearing of his
appeal Mr. Amos, in relation to the alleged conflict for Justice Webb,
focused on dealings between himself and a particular lawyer at
Patterson Law. However, none of the documents submitted by Mr. Amos at
the hearing or subsequently related to any dealings with this
particular lawyer nor is it clear when Mr. Amos was dealing with this
lawyer. In particular, it is far from clear whether such dealings were
after the time that Justice Webb was appointed as a Judge of the Tax
Court of Canada over 10 years ago.
[15] The documents that he submitted in relation to the
alleged conflict for Justice Webb largely relate to dealings between
Byron Prior and the St. John’s Newfoundland and Labrador office of
Patterson Palmer, which is not in the same province where Justice Webb
practiced law. The only document that indicates any dealing between
Mr. Amos and Patterson Palmer is a copy of an affidavit of Stephen May
who was a partner in the St. John’s NL office of Patterson Palmer. The
affidavit is dated January 24, 2005 and refers to a number of e-mails
that were sent by Mr. Amos to Stephen May. Mr. Amos also included a
letter that is addressed to four individuals, one of whom is John
Crosbie who was counsel to the St. John’s NL office of Patterson
Palmer. The letter is dated September 2, 2004 and is addressed to
“John Crosbie, c/o Greg G. Byrne, Suite 502, 570 Queen Street,
Fredericton, NB E3B 5E3”. In this letter Mr. Amos alludes to a
possible lawsuit against Patterson Palmer.
[16] Mr. Amos’ position is that simply because Justice Webb
was a lawyer with Patterson Palmer, he now has a conflict. In Wewaykum
Indian Band v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2003 SCC 45, [2003] 2 S.C.R.
259, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that disqualification of a
judge is to be determined based on whether there is a reasonable
apprehension of bias:
60 In Canadian law, one standard has now emerged as the
criterion for disqualification. The criterion, as expressed by de
Grandpré J. in Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy
Board, …[[1978] 1 S.C.R. 369, 68 D.L.R. (3d) 716], at p. 394, is the
reasonable apprehension of bias:
… the apprehension of bias must be a reasonable one, held by
reasonable and right minded persons, applying themselves to the
question and obtaining thereon the required information. In the words
of the Court of Appeal, that test is "what would an informed person,
viewing the matter realistically and practically -- and having thought
the matter through -- conclude. Would he think that it is more likely
than not that [the decision-maker], whether consciously or
unconsciously, would not decide fairly."
[17] The issue to be determined is whether an informed
person, viewing the matter realistically and practically, and having
thought the matter through, would conclude that Mr. Amos’ allegations
give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. As this Court has
previously remarked, “there is a strong presumption that judges will
administer justice impartially” and this presumption will not be
rebutted in the absence of “convincing evidence” of bias (Collins v.
Canada, 2011 FCA 140 at para. 7, [2011] 4 C.T.C. 157 [Collins]. See
also R. v. S. (R.D.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484 at para. 32, 151 D.L.R.
(4th) 193).
[18] The Ontario Court of Appeal in Rando Drugs Ltd. v.
Scott, 2007 ONCA 553, 86 O.R. (3d) 653 (leave to appeal to the Supreme
Court of Canada refused, 32285 (August 1, 2007)), addressed the
particular issue of whether a judge is disqualified from hearing a
case simply because he had been a member of a law firm that was
involved in the litigation that was now before that judge. The Ontario
Court of Appeal determined that the judge was not disqualified if the
judge had no involvement with the person or the matter when he was a
lawyer. The Ontario Court of Appeal also explained that the rules for
determining whether a judge is disqualified are different from the
rules to determine whether a lawyer has a conflict:
27 Thus, disqualification is not the natural corollary to a
finding that a trial judge has had some involvement in a case over
which he or she is now presiding. Where the judge had no involvement,
as here, it cannot be said that the judge is disqualified.
28 The point can rightly be made that had Mr. Patterson been
asked to represent the appellant as counsel before his appointment to
the bench, the conflict rules would likely have prevented him from
taking the case because his firm had formerly represented one of the
defendants in the case. Thus, it is argued how is it that as a trial
judge Patterson J. can hear the case? This issue was considered by the
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) in Locabail (U.K.) Ltd. v. Bayfield
Properties Ltd., [2000] Q.B. 451. The court held, at para. 58, that
there is no inflexible rule governing the disqualification of a judge
and that, "[e]verything depends on the circumstances."
29 It seems to me that what appears at first sight to be an
inconsistency in application of rules can be explained by the
different contexts and in particular, the strong presumption of
judicial impartiality that applies in the context of disqualification
of a judge. There is no such presumption in cases of allegations of
conflict of interest against a lawyer because of a firm's previous
involvement in the case. To the contrary, as explained by Sopinka J.
in MacDonald Estate v. Martin (1990), 77 D.L.R. (4th) 249 (S.C.C.),
for sound policy reasons there is a presumption of a disqualifying
interest that can rarely be overcome. In particular, a conclusory
statement from the lawyer that he or she had no confidential
information about the case will never be sufficient. The case is the
opposite where the allegation of bias is made against a trial judge.
His or her statement that he or she knew nothing about the case and
had no involvement in it will ordinarily be accepted at face value
unless there is good reason to doubt it: see Locabail, at para. 19.
30 That brings me then to consider the particular circumstances
of this case and whether there are serious grounds to find a
disqualifying conflict of interest in this case. In my view, there are
two significant factors that justify the trial judge's decision not to
recuse himself. The first is his statement, which all parties accept,
that he knew nothing of the case when it was in his former firm and
that he had nothing to do with it. The second is the long passage of
time. As was said in Wewaykum, at para. 85:
To us, one significant factor stands out, and must inform
the perspective of the reasonable person assessing the impact of this
involvement on Binnie J.'s impartiality in the appeals. That factor is
the passage of time. Most arguments for disqualification rest on
circumstances that are either contemporaneous to the decision-making,
or that occurred within a short time prior to the decision-making.
31 There are other factors that inform the issue. The Wilson
Walker firm no longer acted for any of the parties by the time of
trial. More importantly, at the time of the motion, Patterson J. had
been a judge for six years and thus had not had a relationship with
his former firm for a considerable period of time.
32 In my view, a reasonable person, viewing the matter
realistically would conclude that the trial judge could deal fairly
and impartially with this case. I take this view principally because
of the long passage of time and the trial judge's lack of involvement
in or knowledge of the case when the Wilson Walker firm had carriage.
In these circumstances it cannot be reasonably contended that the
trial judge could not remain impartial in the case. The mere fact that
his name appears on the letterhead of some correspondence from over a
decade ago would not lead a reasonable person to believe that he would
either consciously or unconsciously favour his former firm's former
client. It is simply not realistic to think that a judge would throw
off his mantle of impartiality, ignore his oath of office and favour a
client - about whom he knew nothing - of a firm that he left six years
earlier and that no longer acts for the client, in a case involving
events from over a decade ago.
(emphasis added)
[19] Justice Webb had no involvement with any matter
involving Mr. Amos while he was a member of Patterson Palmer or
Patterson Law, nor does Mr. Amos suggest that he did. Mr. Amos made it
clear during the hearing of this matter that the only reason for the
alleged conflict for Justice Webb was that he was a member of
Patterson Law and Patterson Palmer. This is simply not enough for
Justice Webb to be disqualified. Any involvement of Mr. Amos with
Patterson Law while Justice Webb was a member of that firm would have
had to occur over 10 years ago and even longer for the time when he
was a member of Patterson Palmer. In addition to the lack of any
involvement on his part with any matter or dispute that Mr. Amos had
with Patterson Law or Patterson Palmer (which in and of itself is
sufficient to dispose of this matter), the length of time since
Justice Webb was a member of Patterson Law or Patterson Palmer would
also result in the same finding – that there is no conflict in Justice
Webb hearing this appeal.
[20] Similarly in R. v. Bagot, 2000 MBCA 30, 145 Man. R.
(2d) 260, the Manitoba Court of Appeal found that there was no
reasonable apprehension of bias when a judge, who had been a member of
the law firm that had been retained by the accused, had no involvement
with the accused while he was a lawyer with that firm.
[21] In Del Zotto v. Minister of National Revenue, [2000] 4
F.C. 321, 257 N.R. 96, this court did find that there would be a
reasonable apprehension of bias where a judge, who while he was a
lawyer, had recorded time on a matter involving the same person who
was before that judge. However, this case can be distinguished as
Justice Webb did not have any time recorded on any files involving Mr.
Amos while he was a lawyer with Patterson Palmer or Patterson Law.
[22] Mr. Amos also included with his submissions a CD. He
stated in his affidavit dated June 26, 2017 that there is a “true copy
of an American police surveillance wiretap entitled 139” on this CD.
He has also indicated that he has “provided a true copy of the CD
entitled 139 to many American and Canadian law enforcement authorities
and not one of the police forces or officers of the court are willing
to investigate it”. Since he has indicated that this is an “American
police surveillance wiretap”, this is a matter for the American law
enforcement authorities and cannot create, as Mr. Amos suggests, a
conflict of interest for any judge to whom he provides a copy.
[23] As a result, there is no conflict or reasonable
apprehension of bias for Justice Webb and therefore, no reason for him
to recuse himself.
[24] Mr. Amos alleged that Justice Near’s past professional
experience with the government created a “quasi-conflict” in deciding
the cross-appeal. Mr. Amos provided no details and Justice Near
confirmed that he had no prior knowledge of the matters alleged in the
Claim. Justice Near sees no reason to recuse himself.
[25] Insofar as it is possible to glean the basis for Mr.
Amos’ allegations against Justice Gleason, it appears that he alleges
that she is incapable of hearing this appeal because he says he wrote
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
http://davidraymondamos3.
Thursday, 21 December 2017
Attn Simon Fish of the BMO and Robert Kennedy of Dentons I just called
from 902 800 0369 Play dumb all you wish The BMO has had my documents
for years
https://www.scribd.com/
https://www.scribd.com/doc/
While I was publishing this in my blog the lawyer Bobby Baby Kennedy called
back from (416) 846-6598 and played as dumb. Hell he even claimed that he
did not know who Frank McKenna was No partner even a lowly collection
dude within Dentons is allowed to be THAT stupid.
> ---------- 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
, mfeder@mccarthy.ca, mjamal@osler.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
>>
http://www.cbc.ca/news/
BMO ran $288M 'abusive' tax dodge: CRA
Trial set for June over bank's convoluted arrangement of shell
companies, loans and stock swaps
By Zach Dubinsky, Harvey Cashore, CBC News Posted: Nov 08, 2017 5:00 AM ET
https://twitter.com/DavidRayAmos/with_replies
David Raymond Amos @DavidRayAmos
Methinks the confusion of the CCPA and the CBC is well known when it comes to matters of money N'esy Pas?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/inheritance-tax-ccpa-1.4767137
Lack of inheritance tax is making inequality worse, think-tank study suggests
Canada is the only G7 country without a federal inheritance tax
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this story.
Richard Smith
If someone works hard and
saves their money, they should be able to leave that money for their
children. Why should it be taken away and redistributed to someone else
via taxation?
David Amos
@Richard Smith I concur
Lee HUI
There is no inheritance tax
but there are capital gains at Fair Market Value plus probate fees which
are both a disguised form of inheritance tax...
glen spryszak
@Lee HUI
Robbing the dead. Disgusting.
Robbing the dead. Disgusting.
David Amos
@glen spryszak YUP
Jennifer McIsaac
I have always thought that
inheritance taxes are unfair. You work hard for a living, pay your
income taxes and manage your finances well - only to have yet more taxes
on your nest egg to punsdi you for being financially competent.
While others who blow every penny as they spend it, then rely on welfare programs when they are old are totally free of this obligation.
Why would anyone save for the future if they are punished for it?
We need to encourage wise financial management rather than punish it in my opinion.
Now if this is all about wealth disparity then we need to loo at ways to encourage wage improvements over your life such that the very well remunerated and lowest paid are not so far apart
While others who blow every penny as they spend it, then rely on welfare programs when they are old are totally free of this obligation.
Why would anyone save for the future if they are punished for it?
We need to encourage wise financial management rather than punish it in my opinion.
Now if this is all about wealth disparity then we need to loo at ways to encourage wage improvements over your life such that the very well remunerated and lowest paid are not so far apart
David Amos
@Jennifer McIsaac I agree
mike holy
the alt left even wants to tax death now
and they still wonder how they destroy everything they touch
and they still wonder how they destroy everything they touch
David Amos
@mike holy Methinks it is just another on those things the fake left does that some folks fail to appreciate N'esy Pas?
Roland Reimer
This is exactly how Trudeau came by his wealth and his Prime Ministership.
He inherited it.
He inherited it.
David Amos
@Roland Reimer Methinks the
CCPA economist David Macdonald loves to talk the talk and CBC loves to
quote him but common folk won't have much luck trying to talk to either
of them N'esy Pas?
David Amos
Edward Water
The Left never misses an
opportunity to tax the wealth created by other people to spend on
propping up individuals too lazy to make the slightest effort to improve
their lot in life. Equality of opportunity is does not imply equality
of outcome. Nor should it.
Doug James
@George Young
Perhaps you are just looking at the accumulated wealth rather than what was done to create that wealth in the first place. Socialism does not move people away from poverty, that is why Russia and China are pursuing capitalism. That is why the best countries in the world have capitalism. When was the last time you went to the poor neighborhoods and gave away your wages? If you have more than the poor people then you should share it first before you ask the government to share out everyone elses wealth.
David Allan
@Edward Water
Name one multi-millionaire who didn't make their money on the backs of minimum wage earners.
Just one.
Name one multi-millionaire who didn't make their money on the backs of minimum wage earners.
Just one.
Jack O Hill
@David Allan
Bill Gates.
Bill Gates.
Steven Arsenault
@David Allan
That guy who owns Magna. And btw I support your positions.
That guy who owns Magna. And btw I support your positions.
David Allan
@Jack O Hill
"Bill Gates."
Born to a wealthy family.
Do you honestly think that Microsoft never hired anyone at minimum wage?
Think about that.
"Bill Gates."
Born to a wealthy family.
Do you honestly think that Microsoft never hired anyone at minimum wage?
Think about that.
David Allan
@Steven Arsenault
"That guy who owns Magna."
Frank Stronach?
You think minimum wage wasn't involved in the manufacture and distribution of auto parts?
Stroll down the auto parts aisles of Canadian Tire and tell me they aren't minimum wage employees.
"That guy who owns Magna."
Frank Stronach?
You think minimum wage wasn't involved in the manufacture and distribution of auto parts?
Stroll down the auto parts aisles of Canadian Tire and tell me they aren't minimum wage employees.
David Amos
@David Allan 'Name one multi-millionaire who didn't make their money on the backs of minimum wage earners. "
Methinks I can name a lot of artists and sport personalities why do I have pick just one? That said the old song and dance man Bob Dylan who be a fine example N'esy Pas?
Methinks I can name a lot of artists and sport personalities why do I have pick just one? That said the old song and dance man Bob Dylan who be a fine example N'esy Pas?
Simon McVeigh
My family earned it through
hard work and ALL our sacrifices... My family should get to keep it...
keep your hands of others' money ! Simple... dunno why the government
should feel entitled to more... except of course, it's easier to keep
going into the well, rather than be fiscally prudent. It's easy to spend
OPM...
David Allan
@Simon McVeigh
What business is your family in?
Remember, if it's a business you should all be partners and have no inheritance to worry about.
What business is your family in?
Remember, if it's a business you should all be partners and have no inheritance to worry about.
David Amos
@Simon McVeigh "My family should get to keep it"
YUP Methinks that particularly important when you consider the fact it what your folks have managed save after so many years of taxation N'esy Pas?
YUP Methinks that particularly important when you consider the fact it what your folks have managed save after so many years of taxation N'esy Pas?
Richard McIntyre
Sounds like communist BS. CCPA on brand as usual with their left wing lunacy.
Richard Sharp
@Richard McIntyre
The lunacy is all yours. The CCPA (and the Council of Canadians) are two of the most thoughtful “civil society” organizations in the country. What part of progressive taxation bothers you?
The lunacy is all yours. The CCPA (and the Council of Canadians) are two of the most thoughtful “civil society” organizations in the country. What part of progressive taxation bothers you?
Peter Ray
@Richard Sharp
"...What part of progressive taxation bothers you?..."
The regressive aspect.
The wealth transfer from those who do and can to those who choose not to.
The bolstering of a utopia of nonproductive and noncontributory existence.
But I don't expect a partisan liberal or socialist to understand the concept of EARNING anything.
"...What part of progressive taxation bothers you?..."
The regressive aspect.
The wealth transfer from those who do and can to those who choose not to.
The bolstering of a utopia of nonproductive and noncontributory existence.
But I don't expect a partisan liberal or socialist to understand the concept of EARNING anything.
Eileen Kinley
@Richard McIntyre
They are talking about a mechanism that is in place in countries like the U.S., the U.K. ...
They are talking about a mechanism that is in place in countries like the U.S., the U.K. ...
Richard Sharp
@Peter Ray
You can expect whatever you want. Jesus would be overturning the tables of today’s super rich in rage. Helping the poor and the sick may be out of style for some, but most Canadians retain those values even if you don’t.
You can expect whatever you want. Jesus would be overturning the tables of today’s super rich in rage. Helping the poor and the sick may be out of style for some, but most Canadians retain those values even if you don’t.
Dave Lane
@Eileen Kinley So? There’s no need for Canada to jump off the same cliff.
Ian Smyth
@Peter Ray do you really believe that being rich or poor is based on willingness to work hard?
Lee Day
@Richard Sharp
Every part and mostly you.
Every part and mostly you.
Peter Ray
@Richard Sharp
I'm ALL FOR helping the sick FAR MORE than we already do.
All we'd have to do is eliminate the money and resources that go to those who can and CHOOSE not to and redirect to those who truly can't and are deserving of our help.
In Canada, for the able-minded and able-bodied, poverty is a CHOICE.
I'm ALL FOR helping the sick FAR MORE than we already do.
All we'd have to do is eliminate the money and resources that go to those who can and CHOOSE not to and redirect to those who truly can't and are deserving of our help.
In Canada, for the able-minded and able-bodied, poverty is a CHOICE.
Susan Sydney
@Eileen Kinley Those countries can keep that tax WE don’t need yet another tax.
Dave Plain
@Ian Smyth yes, combined with financial accumen to not live beyond your means.
I have a grade 12 education, no rich predecessors, and I'm comfortable. I put my nose down and worked in a blue collar industry and advanced. I'm not rich by anybody's definition. Im comfortable....and EARNED every penny and saved what i could.
I have a grade 12 education, no rich predecessors, and I'm comfortable. I put my nose down and worked in a blue collar industry and advanced. I'm not rich by anybody's definition. Im comfortable....and EARNED every penny and saved what i could.
Peter Ray
@Ian Smyth
"...do you really believe that being rich or poor is based on willingness to work hard?..."
Of course.
What OTHER possible reason COULD there be? Other than not acting ones wage.
"...do you really believe that being rich or poor is based on willingness to work hard?..."
Of course.
What OTHER possible reason COULD there be? Other than not acting ones wage.
Peter Mals
@Peter Ray so I guess you're an alt-right wing bat then? grown up with your "liberal is a slur" bs
Eileen Kinley
@Dave Lane
I'm not saying Canada should jump off the same cliff. What I am saying is that is far from being a communist plot
I'm not saying Canada should jump off the same cliff. What I am saying is that is far from being a communist plot
David Allan
@Richard McIntyre
You don't know what communism is.
You don't know what communism is.
Doug James
@Richard Sharp
Money changers in the temples. Rich did not seem to bother him.
Money changers in the temples. Rich did not seem to bother him.
Zane Gateman
@Richard McIntyre Yep, as communist as
*... looks up nearest nation with said tax... *
The United States of America
*... looks up nearest nation with said tax... *
The United States of America
David Amos
@Richard McIntyre YUP
David Amos
@Richard Sharp "The lunacy is
all yours. The CCPA (and the Council of Canadians) are two of the most
thoughtful “civil society” organizations in the country. "
Methinks you drink far too much of the fake left kool aid N'esy Pas?
Methinks you drink far too much of the fake left kool aid N'esy Pas?
Mike Heart
More redistribution of
wealth. Take away the incentive to work hard and we will have the
socialist utopia that these people are dreaming of...like Venezuela.
David Allan
@Jamie Thak
"because working hard nets you much more than living on welfare or doing nothing."
Many who work hard still require welfare.
The key factor in being rich is being born rich.
The key factor in being poor is being born poor.
"because working hard nets you much more than living on welfare or doing nothing."
Many who work hard still require welfare.
The key factor in being rich is being born rich.
The key factor in being poor is being born poor.
David Amos
@David Allan "The key factor in being rich is being born rich."
YUP
YUP
John Smythe
Most wealthy are mobile, raise taxes high enough, they move.
Neil Gregory
@John Smythe
Seize their passports!
Seize their passports!
George William
@Neil Gregory .. Authoritarian thinking will take us to the promise land of milk and honey eh Neil!!
Sean Lagacé
@John Smythe Yeah. If the
CCPA has its way, someone with $3M in investments (i.e. rich, but not
filthy rich) and a $100k salary (~$70k after taxes) would basically be
working for free in Canada: salary pays taxes on investment returns. I'd
expect many people like that to quit their job, become resident in a
low-tax country, and spend 182 days in Canada per year. Canada ends up
losing both tax revenue and talent.
Bill Billings
@George William it’s a joke.
This idea of taxing the rich is not workable....if you took all the
money from the top 10 wealthiest,not just tax the money...how long do
you think that will run the federal govt? Ppl can’t deal with numbers
that big.
Reg Proutle
@Neil Gregory
I think they do that in... ummm... North Korea.
Nope I'm wrong - the average person there doesn't have a passport (or any money).
I think they do that in... ummm... North Korea.
Nope I'm wrong - the average person there doesn't have a passport (or any money).
Mike Heart
@Neil Gregory
You can’t be serious...
You can’t be serious...
Mike Heart
@Sean Lagacé
Don’t expect socialists to be able to do the math.
Don’t expect socialists to be able to do the math.
David Allan
@John Smythe
You said that in 2015.
Trudeau raised taxes on the wealthy. He created a new bracket just for them.
No exodus.
You said that in 2015.
Trudeau raised taxes on the wealthy. He created a new bracket just for them.
No exodus.
David Amos
@Mike Heart "Don’t expect socialists to be able to do the math."
Methinks the right wingnuts are no better at it N'esy Pas?
Methinks the right wingnuts are no better at it N'esy Pas?
An attempt to understand Canada's inheritance tax backlash: Don Pittis
Roar of objections to imposing death duties on Canadians may have complex roots
Anyone who thinks the CBC does not serve conservative-leaning Canadians should look at the comments for a recent online story about inheritance taxes.
The article was based on a report about the wide gulf between rich and poor issued by the left-leaning Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives think-tank. The report suggested the lack of an inheritance tax in this country makes inequality worse.
Other countries, including Britain and the United States, have 40 per cent inheritance taxes that kick in if people are rich enough. In the U.S., you have to have about $11 million when you die for your estate to pay death duties.
Death and no taxes
Canada used to have an inheritance tax, but as of 1972 the Canadian death duty rate dropped to zero.
Of course, that's not the whole story (more on that in a bit). But the really interesting thing was the reaction to the think-tank's proposal that estates worth more than $5 million be subject to a 45 per cent tax.
Of the roughly 3,000 people who commented, a large number — and generally the most strident voices — condemned the idea. Many Twitter responses did so as well.
Mark Scott, for example, tweeted that he would leave Canada if such a tax were ever applied.
Depending on your religious views, you really do have to depart — if just to the Great Beyond — in order to pay death duties.
But if you do decide to leave Canada before you die, choose your country wisely. The U.S. isn't the only place to have an inheritance tax. Most rich countries have one, or like Canada, something roughly equivalent. Japan takes half. Tax havens such as the Channel Islands and the Caymans are among the few safe spots.
Unlike in so many other cases, the usual warning that if Canada doesn't do the same as the U.S., rich Canadians will take their money bags and head south, does not apply.
Lucky to pay high taxes
Perhaps more interesting was the angry reaction from people who probably have little prospect of being affected by the hypothetical tax anyway. It's hard to imagine all the comments at the bottom of the inheritance story were from the richest group of Canadians known as the "one per cent," or even from the "10 per cent."
Instead, the tone is very much Joe and Josephine Canadian. And as that inheritance report points out, the vast majority of Canadians can never aspire to pay death duties. They should be so lucky!
As the article reminds us, half off all Canadian families have net assets worth less than $300,000. Even the relatively well-off, with say, a paid-off home in Vancouver and a million dollar retirement nest egg, won't pass the $5-million threshold.
So why the backlash? According to research in the U.S. by scholar Dianna Muntz, the main cause of conservative anger that fired up working-class supporters of Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election was status threat.
It wasn't so much that people were poorer, although they may have been, but that they were afraid that they were losing what they had, "a sense that white Americans are under siege by these engines of change," wrote Muntz.
Man on horse wanted
And according to Canadian data from Ekos Research released earlier this year, a similar kind of populist backlash seems to be brewing here in Canada. Last Friday's report on growing anger over illegal border crossings seems to support the theory.
Ekos founder and president Frank Graves says the rejection of inheritance tax is just one part of a wider phenomenon demonstrated in his polling. He pointed to the election of Doug Ford as premier in Ontario as an example of its impact. Most of Ford's supporters declared themselves to be working class.
Ontario PC voter worried about family's future without basic income pilot | CBC Radio https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-wednesday-edition-1.4769851/ontario-pc-voter-worried-about-family-s-future-without-basic-income-pilot-1.4769853 …
When people feel threatened by change, he says, they don't necessarily look for logical solutions such as income redistribution from the very rich to people like them. Instead, the part of the collective personality that seeks strong leadership and order comes out.
"It looks for the man on the horse, the strong man," Graves says. "It also looks for decisive government action."
Research by Graves and others shows that under what some call "ordered populism," people turn against progressive action that they would have supported when they felt secure. That includes sharing wealth through government transfers — even if they would benefit. He says research shows that explaining the advantages of tax transfers to poorer people can make them change their position on such transfers.
As to solving inequality with inheritance taxes, the U.S and Britain, two of the most unequal of the rich countries, are hardly proof it works. Good public education for everyone has been shown to work better. And it makes a county richer in the long term.
And as for leaving Canada if it were to introduce death duties, it may not be worth your while. Under the tax provisions introduced in 1972, inheritance tax was cut to zero, but a provision on capital gains was added. Bringing back death duties would likely mean the two would be switched again to avoid double taxation.
Right now, if you die at 85 and bequeath a cottage lot you bought for a few thousand bucks to the grand kids, you (or, rather, having passed on, your estate) must pretend you sold it at the $500,000 it is worth today, treat that notional increase as capital gains and pay the appropriate tax. Same applies to other assets. And, sorry, no $5-million minimum.
So no, even in wonderful Canada, you can't escape death or taxes.
Follow Don on Twitter @don_pittis
About the Author
Lack of inheritance tax is making inequality worse, think-tank study suggests
Canada is the only G7 country without a federal inheritance tax
The gap between the haves and the
have-nots is getting wider in Canada — and the country's lack of an
inheritance tax is a big reason why, according to a new report from the
left-leaning think-tank Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
In a report released Tuesday, CCPA economist David Macdonald looked at inequalities in wealth between those on the extreme high end in Canada and everybody else.
Similar reports have tended to focus on income inequality — the gap between what different people make every year. But Macdonald chose instead to focus on wealth inequality — the difference between what they are worth.
The 87 wealthiest families in Canada owned a collective $259 billion at the end of last year, or just shy of $3 billion apiece, Macdonald said. According to Statistics Canada data, that figure has increased by $850 million between 2012 and 2016 — a jump of 37 per cent.
Add it all up and that's "about what everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick collectively owns," Macdonald said.
He contrasted that with the numbers for the median Canadian family, which saw its net worth increase by just 15 per cent over the same time period — rising to $295,100 from $257,200.
While the group of super-rich would no doubt contain a large number of high earners, Macdonald says they are even more disproportionately made up of people who inherited much of their wealth.
While slightly less than half of Canada's super-rich were self-made, creating businesses that came to be worth hundreds of millions, the remainder inherited much of their wealth, before they themselves were able to grow it.
According
to the CCPA, one solution to that growing gulf that Canadian
policy-makers have so far been unwilling to explore is to implement an
inheritance tax — a one-time fee that an heir would pay upon receiving
an inheritance, typically paid out of the estate before it is handed
down.
While there are various probate fees and capital gains taxes that can be levied when someone inherits real estate or other investments, Canada has no formal inheritance tax at the federal or provincial levels.
That makes the country one of 15 OECD member-nations that has no such tax, while countries such as the United States, the U.K., France, Japan and South Korea all take up to 40 per cent or more, of large inheritances.
Some
sort of inheritance tax in Canada would be one of the most effective
ways of combating inequality, Macdonald says, since it would target only
the very rich and only assets that are, for the most part, not
filtering through the broader economy.
"A family's stock of wealth can accumulate not just over a single lifetime, but over generations, through inheritance, which further widens whatever income gaps may have existed on an annual basis," Macdonald said.
By his math, if Canada were to implement a 45 per cent tax on inheritances of $5 million or more, it would add $2 billion a year to government coffers.
"You'd expect Canada's tax regime would try to counteract this concentration of wealth at the very top, where it's needed the least. But in fact, federal policies encourage it."
Of course, that's not a universal view. Harvard economics professor Greg Mankiw has written extensively on inheritance taxes and says that keeping the tax on inheritances low or non-existent is the best way of encouraging investment, which boosts the economy and grows wages and government revenues over the long haul.
"It is a good rule of thumb that when you tax an activity, you get less of it," Mankiw wrote in one of his many published papers on the subject. "If we stopped taxing estates, estate-building would be more attractive, and that would be good for everyone in the economy."
"The repeal of the estate tax would stimulate growth and raise incomes for everyone, even those who never receive a bequest," Mankiw writes in another paper.
If evening out wealth inequality is the goal, Mankiw suggests consumption taxes — where people are taxed every time they buy something — is a better way of levelling the playing field.
But Macdonald is unconvinced. In addition to implementing what he calls a "modest" inheritance tax, the CCPA report advocates overhauling how the government treats capital gains and dividend income — two tax advantages that are disproportionately used by wealthy people.
"Eliminating the 50 per cent tax break for capital gains and the 25 per cent tax break on dividends would raise $11 billion and $5 billion annually while almost exclusively targeting Canada's highest earners," Macdonald says.
In a report released Tuesday, CCPA economist David Macdonald looked at inequalities in wealth between those on the extreme high end in Canada and everybody else.
Similar reports have tended to focus on income inequality — the gap between what different people make every year. But Macdonald chose instead to focus on wealth inequality — the difference between what they are worth.
The 87 wealthiest families in Canada owned a collective $259 billion at the end of last year, or just shy of $3 billion apiece, Macdonald said. According to Statistics Canada data, that figure has increased by $850 million between 2012 and 2016 — a jump of 37 per cent.
Add it all up and that's "about what everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick collectively owns," Macdonald said.
He contrasted that with the numbers for the median Canadian family, which saw its net worth increase by just 15 per cent over the same time period — rising to $295,100 from $257,200.
Wealth accumulated 'over generations'
While the group of super-rich would no doubt contain a large number of high earners, Macdonald says they are even more disproportionately made up of people who inherited much of their wealth.
While slightly less than half of Canada's super-rich were self-made, creating businesses that came to be worth hundreds of millions, the remainder inherited much of their wealth, before they themselves were able to grow it.
While there are various probate fees and capital gains taxes that can be levied when someone inherits real estate or other investments, Canada has no formal inheritance tax at the federal or provincial levels.
That makes the country one of 15 OECD member-nations that has no such tax, while countries such as the United States, the U.K., France, Japan and South Korea all take up to 40 per cent or more, of large inheritances.
"A family's stock of wealth can accumulate not just over a single lifetime, but over generations, through inheritance, which further widens whatever income gaps may have existed on an annual basis," Macdonald said.
By his math, if Canada were to implement a 45 per cent tax on inheritances of $5 million or more, it would add $2 billion a year to government coffers.
"You'd expect Canada's tax regime would try to counteract this concentration of wealth at the very top, where it's needed the least. But in fact, federal policies encourage it."
Other ways to level the playing field?
Of course, that's not a universal view. Harvard economics professor Greg Mankiw has written extensively on inheritance taxes and says that keeping the tax on inheritances low or non-existent is the best way of encouraging investment, which boosts the economy and grows wages and government revenues over the long haul.
"It is a good rule of thumb that when you tax an activity, you get less of it," Mankiw wrote in one of his many published papers on the subject. "If we stopped taxing estates, estate-building would be more attractive, and that would be good for everyone in the economy."
"The repeal of the estate tax would stimulate growth and raise incomes for everyone, even those who never receive a bequest," Mankiw writes in another paper.
If evening out wealth inequality is the goal, Mankiw suggests consumption taxes — where people are taxed every time they buy something — is a better way of levelling the playing field.
But Macdonald is unconvinced. In addition to implementing what he calls a "modest" inheritance tax, the CCPA report advocates overhauling how the government treats capital gains and dividend income — two tax advantages that are disproportionately used by wealthy people.
"Eliminating the 50 per cent tax break for capital gains and the 25 per cent tax break on dividends would raise $11 billion and $5 billion annually while almost exclusively targeting Canada's highest earners," Macdonald says.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/opinion-lynne-fernandez-manitoba-kpmg-report-1.4344664
KPMG's value-for-money report is an exercise in confusion: CCPA
Plan to cut civil service jobs relies on faulty comparison, says Lynne Fernandez
This
week's long-awaited release of the KPMG value-for-money report provided
the background for an important policy announcement from Manitoba's
finance minister.
Based on the report's recommendations, Finance Minister Cameron Friesen advised that his government will be eliminating 1,200 jobs from Manitoba's civil service.
To justify the cut, the minister claimed that Manitoba's civil service is 20 per cent larger than the Canadian average. He derives this information from the KPMG report.
The problem with that reference is that the minister does not seem to understand the difference between the provincial civil service and the broader public sector.
His statement refers to data on the public sector as a whole, which includes those who work for municipalities, the federal government, school boards, government business enterprises, hospitals and clinics, universities and colleges, and even non-governmental organizations.
Manitoba civil servants — the group the minister should be concerned with — work directly for the province.
This is a nuance you would expect the finance minister to understand. The assertion seemed to be that there are 20 per cent more civil servants working directly for the provincial government than the national average.
There is no way of coming to that conclusion using the data provided by KPMG because we can't distinguish between federal, provincial, municipal or NGOs.
According to the Manitoba Bureau of Statistics, in 2015, the provincial civil service numbered 14,687 and made up 2.3 per cent of the total Manitoba workforce. The bureau also reports that the Manitoba civil service was 1.4 per cent smaller in 2015 than it was six years earlier and four per cent smaller than in 2012.
In 2012, the NDP announced it would be reducing the size of the civil service by 600 over four years, a target it seems to have met.
Even if we were to compare the total provincial public sector (civil service, hospitals, universities, and Crown corporations), the analysis would be skewed. Alberta does not have a public utility like Manitoba Hydro, public insurance or a public liquor system. These Crown corporations keep prices affordable and circulate hundreds of millions of dollars back into the public purse, more than paying for the Manitobans who work for them.
Furthermore, it makes no sense to compare a small province like Manitoba to the national average.
Averages are affected by the big provinces like Ontario, B.C. and Alberta which can realize economies of scale in their public sectors. It makes much more sense to compare Manitoba to similarly sized provinces like Saskatchewan.
In fact, the KPMG data — albeit irrelevant for Minister Friesen's argument — show that in 2016,
Saskatchewan's public sector was very close to the same size as Manitoba's in terms of its percentage of total employment (24.5 per cent versus 25.7 cent) and per 1,000 population (122 versus 125).
Why would KPMG and the minister refer to data that blur the provincial civil service and the broader public sector, and includes municipal, federal and NGO workers as wards of the province?
The report does include the information we're interested in — the size of the provincial civil service — so why did the minister not base his recommendation on that? Is it because it is buried and difficult to find, in contrast to the splashy total public sector table at the front of the report?
The minister also fails to acknowledge the damage that getting rid of so many good jobs inflicts on our economy — demand will fall and GDP will decline.
When
looking at job cuts already announced, including 900 job losses at
Manitoba Hydro, there is a concern young people might leave Manitoba,
says Lynne Fernandez. (CBC)
We at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives recently published a report
on just how much is lost when workers lose their jobs: overall labour
income decreases by $1.20 for every $1.00 of change in demand.
Furthermore, when you combine all the cuts already announced in the health-care sector, the 900 job losses at Manitoba Hydro, the 600 jobs cut under the NDP and now the loss of 1,200 positions, one wonders what kind of jobs there will be for our youth, and whether they will leave Manitoba for greener pastures.
One also has to wonder how services will be affected. The report assumes that cutting so many jobs will only have a positive effect. Does the minister really have such a low opinion of the work being done by so many Manitobans? Does he believe we won't see a decline in services when they're gone?
If there's anything we can learn from this "value-for-money" report it's that KPMG and the minister may know the cost of a lot of things, but they don't really understand the value of much.
This column is part of CBC's Opinion section. For more information about this section, please read this editor's blog and our FAQ.
Based on the report's recommendations, Finance Minister Cameron Friesen advised that his government will be eliminating 1,200 jobs from Manitoba's civil service.
To justify the cut, the minister claimed that Manitoba's civil service is 20 per cent larger than the Canadian average. He derives this information from the KPMG report.
The problem with that reference is that the minister does not seem to understand the difference between the provincial civil service and the broader public sector.
Public sector more than civil servants
His statement refers to data on the public sector as a whole, which includes those who work for municipalities, the federal government, school boards, government business enterprises, hospitals and clinics, universities and colleges, and even non-governmental organizations.
Manitoba civil servants — the group the minister should be concerned with — work directly for the province.
This is a nuance you would expect the finance minister to understand. The assertion seemed to be that there are 20 per cent more civil servants working directly for the provincial government than the national average.
There is no way of coming to that conclusion using the data provided by KPMG because we can't distinguish between federal, provincial, municipal or NGOs.
According to the Manitoba Bureau of Statistics, in 2015, the provincial civil service numbered 14,687 and made up 2.3 per cent of the total Manitoba workforce. The bureau also reports that the Manitoba civil service was 1.4 per cent smaller in 2015 than it was six years earlier and four per cent smaller than in 2012.
In 2012, the NDP announced it would be reducing the size of the civil service by 600 over four years, a target it seems to have met.
Even if we were to compare the total provincial public sector (civil service, hospitals, universities, and Crown corporations), the analysis would be skewed. Alberta does not have a public utility like Manitoba Hydro, public insurance or a public liquor system. These Crown corporations keep prices affordable and circulate hundreds of millions of dollars back into the public purse, more than paying for the Manitobans who work for them.
Damage to Manitoba economy
Furthermore, it makes no sense to compare a small province like Manitoba to the national average.
Averages are affected by the big provinces like Ontario, B.C. and Alberta which can realize economies of scale in their public sectors. It makes much more sense to compare Manitoba to similarly sized provinces like Saskatchewan.
In fact, the KPMG data — albeit irrelevant for Minister Friesen's argument — show that in 2016,
Saskatchewan's public sector was very close to the same size as Manitoba's in terms of its percentage of total employment (24.5 per cent versus 25.7 cent) and per 1,000 population (122 versus 125).
Why would KPMG and the minister refer to data that blur the provincial civil service and the broader public sector, and includes municipal, federal and NGO workers as wards of the province?
The report does include the information we're interested in — the size of the provincial civil service — so why did the minister not base his recommendation on that? Is it because it is buried and difficult to find, in contrast to the splashy total public sector table at the front of the report?
The minister also fails to acknowledge the damage that getting rid of so many good jobs inflicts on our economy — demand will fall and GDP will decline.
Furthermore, when you combine all the cuts already announced in the health-care sector, the 900 job losses at Manitoba Hydro, the 600 jobs cut under the NDP and now the loss of 1,200 positions, one wonders what kind of jobs there will be for our youth, and whether they will leave Manitoba for greener pastures.
One also has to wonder how services will be affected. The report assumes that cutting so many jobs will only have a positive effect. Does the minister really have such a low opinion of the work being done by so many Manitobans? Does he believe we won't see a decline in services when they're gone?
If there's anything we can learn from this "value-for-money" report it's that KPMG and the minister may know the cost of a lot of things, but they don't really understand the value of much.
This column is part of CBC's Opinion section. For more information about this section, please read this editor's blog and our FAQ.
About the Author
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/banks-got-114b-from-governments-during-recession-1.1145997
Banks got $114B from governments during recession
Support for banks 'more substantial than Canadians were led to believe': CCPA report
Canada's
biggest banks accepted tens of billions in government funds during the
recession, according to a report released today by the Canadian Centre
for Policy Alternatives.
Canada's banking system is often lauded for being one of the world's safest. But an analysis by CCPA senior economist David Macdonald concluded that Canada's major lenders were in a far worse position during the downturn than previously believed.
Macdonald examined data provided by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and the big banks themselves for his report published Monday.
It says support for Canadian banks from various agencies reached $114 billion at its peak. That works out to $3,400 for every man, woman and child in Canada, and also to seven per cent of Canada's gross domestic product in 2009.
The figure is also 10 times the amount Canadian taxpayers spent on the auto industry in 2009.
"At some point during the crisis, three of Canada's banks — CIBC, BMO, and Scotiabank — were completely under water, with government support exceeding the market value of the company," Macdonald said.
"Without government supports to fall back on, Canadian banks would have been in serious trouble."
During October 2008 and June 2010, the banks combined to report $27 billion in profits on their balance sheets.
One of the most well-known ways in which policymakers helped the banks during the crisis is through a $69-billion CMHC program whereby the housing agency took mortgages off the balance sheets of big Canadian banks. In contrast with other support facilities, all of the funds granted by the CMHC were through selling assets (in this case mortgages) to the housing agency. They were not funds that had to be paid back.
The CMHC has provided the aggregate total of how much was given out, but has yet to release specifics on which banks sold how much to them, and when, the CCPA says.
When asked for comment in reaction to the CCPA report, the Canadian Bankers Association noted that the $69 billion that Canada's big banks sold into the CMHC program is in fact only 55 per cent of what was allocated for the program.
"Many of the mortgages were already insured and therefore, created no additional risk for the government," the CBA noted in an email to CBC News. The CMHC estimates that by the time the program is wound up, it will have generated $2.5 billion in profit as those mortgages are paid off, the bankers' group noted.
Calling the CCPA report "completely baseless," Department of Finance spokesperson Chisholm Pothier noted that the mortgage program has already generated more than $1.2 billion in net revenues for the CMHC's coffers.
But Canadian lenders also dipped into a program set up by the U.S. Federal Reserve aimed at providing cash to keep American banks afloat. CIBC and BMO took almost $3 billion each out of the fund, RBC and TD took out $8 billion and Scotiabank drew down almost $12 billion, the CCPA report found.
That data came from the U.S. Federal Reserve, which released it publicly. But Macdonald's analysis found that Canadian banks got a comparable amount — $41 billion — from Bank of Canada facilities, an agency that has been far less transparent in sharing information.
"Despite Access to Information requests for the data, the Bank of Canada refuses to release it," the CCPA report states.
"The federal government claims it was offering the banks 'liquidity support,' but it looks an awful lot like a bailout to me," says Macdonald. "Whatever you call it, Canadian government aid for the country's biggest banks was far more indispensable than the official line would suggest.
"The support for Canadian banks was much more substantial than Canadians were led to believe," Macdonald said.
The Canadian Bankers Association disputes the notion that the funds in question were any sort of bailout, arguing they were routine transactions aimed at keeping the financial system liquid.
"These funding measures were put in place to ensure that credit was available to lend to businesses and consumers to help the economy through the recession," the CBA said. "These funding measures were not put in place because banks were in financial difficulty."
Since the start of the recession, the CBA notes 436 U.S. banks have failed. No Canadian financial institution went under, but Canada's banking sector was hit by an overall crisis of confidence in the banking sector that caused some of the banks' normal lending sources to dry up, the CBA says.
Canadian banks get about two-thirds of their funding from consumer and business deposits, but the other third comes from credit markets.
"It was these markets that were seizing up. Funding was less available," the CBA says. "Canadian banks continued to lend and increased their lending after some non-bank lenders pulled out of the Canadian market."
While some of the funding came from government sources such as the Bank of Canada, the bankers' association points out that the central bank itself says Canadian banks needed less official central bank liquidity support than their foreign counterparts.
"The credit was extended at competitive interest rates to protect taxpayers," Pothier said. "Financial institutions accepting this credit paid interest on the loans."
To show the scale of the funding, the CCPA report contrasted the total value of the support Canadian banks took against the bank's total value at the time. Under that comparison, CIBC received $21 billion in support — almost 1.5 times the value of the company at the time. BMO maxed out at $17 billion or 118 per cent, Scotiabank peaked at $25 billion or 100 per cent of its value, while TD and RBC maxed out at $26 billion and $25 billion — good enough for 69 and 63 per cent, respectively, of the total value of those companies at the time.
"It would have been cheaper to buy every single share in these companies," Macdonald said.
But the CBA disputes those numbers too, saying comparing a bank's value to the level with which it participated in a liquidity program aimed at boosting confidence in the market is "an apples to oranges comparison as the two factors are not at all related."
"The Oxford dictionary defines bailout as 'financial assistance to a failing business or economy to save it from collapse," the Canadian Bankers Association noted.
"That definitely was not the case here: not one bank in Canada was in danger of going bankrupt or required the government to buy an equity stake under taxpayer-funded bailouts."
Canada's banking system is often lauded for being one of the world's safest. But an analysis by CCPA senior economist David Macdonald concluded that Canada's major lenders were in a far worse position during the downturn than previously believed.
Macdonald examined data provided by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and the big banks themselves for his report published Monday.
It says support for Canadian banks from various agencies reached $114 billion at its peak. That works out to $3,400 for every man, woman and child in Canada, and also to seven per cent of Canada's gross domestic product in 2009.
The figure is also 10 times the amount Canadian taxpayers spent on the auto industry in 2009.
"At some point during the crisis, three of Canada's banks — CIBC, BMO, and Scotiabank — were completely under water, with government support exceeding the market value of the company," Macdonald said.
"Without government supports to fall back on, Canadian banks would have been in serious trouble."
During October 2008 and June 2010, the banks combined to report $27 billion in profits on their balance sheets.
CMHC mortgage program aided banks
One of the most well-known ways in which policymakers helped the banks during the crisis is through a $69-billion CMHC program whereby the housing agency took mortgages off the balance sheets of big Canadian banks. In contrast with other support facilities, all of the funds granted by the CMHC were through selling assets (in this case mortgages) to the housing agency. They were not funds that had to be paid back.
The CMHC has provided the aggregate total of how much was given out, but has yet to release specifics on which banks sold how much to them, and when, the CCPA says.
When asked for comment in reaction to the CCPA report, the Canadian Bankers Association noted that the $69 billion that Canada's big banks sold into the CMHC program is in fact only 55 per cent of what was allocated for the program.
"Many of the mortgages were already insured and therefore, created no additional risk for the government," the CBA noted in an email to CBC News. The CMHC estimates that by the time the program is wound up, it will have generated $2.5 billion in profit as those mortgages are paid off, the bankers' group noted.
Calling the CCPA report "completely baseless," Department of Finance spokesperson Chisholm Pothier noted that the mortgage program has already generated more than $1.2 billion in net revenues for the CMHC's coffers.
But Canadian lenders also dipped into a program set up by the U.S. Federal Reserve aimed at providing cash to keep American banks afloat. CIBC and BMO took almost $3 billion each out of the fund, RBC and TD took out $8 billion and Scotiabank drew down almost $12 billion, the CCPA report found.
That data came from the U.S. Federal Reserve, which released it publicly. But Macdonald's analysis found that Canadian banks got a comparable amount — $41 billion — from Bank of Canada facilities, an agency that has been far less transparent in sharing information.
"Despite Access to Information requests for the data, the Bank of Canada refuses to release it," the CCPA report states.
"The federal government claims it was offering the banks 'liquidity support,' but it looks an awful lot like a bailout to me," says Macdonald. "Whatever you call it, Canadian government aid for the country's biggest banks was far more indispensable than the official line would suggest.
"The support for Canadian banks was much more substantial than Canadians were led to believe," Macdonald said.
The Canadian Bankers Association disputes the notion that the funds in question were any sort of bailout, arguing they were routine transactions aimed at keeping the financial system liquid.
"These funding measures were put in place to ensure that credit was available to lend to businesses and consumers to help the economy through the recession," the CBA said. "These funding measures were not put in place because banks were in financial difficulty."
Since the start of the recession, the CBA notes 436 U.S. banks have failed. No Canadian financial institution went under, but Canada's banking sector was hit by an overall crisis of confidence in the banking sector that caused some of the banks' normal lending sources to dry up, the CBA says.
Canadian banks get about two-thirds of their funding from consumer and business deposits, but the other third comes from credit markets.
"It was these markets that were seizing up. Funding was less available," the CBA says. "Canadian banks continued to lend and increased their lending after some non-bank lenders pulled out of the Canadian market."
While some of the funding came from government sources such as the Bank of Canada, the bankers' association points out that the central bank itself says Canadian banks needed less official central bank liquidity support than their foreign counterparts.
"The credit was extended at competitive interest rates to protect taxpayers," Pothier said. "Financial institutions accepting this credit paid interest on the loans."
To show the scale of the funding, the CCPA report contrasted the total value of the support Canadian banks took against the bank's total value at the time. Under that comparison, CIBC received $21 billion in support — almost 1.5 times the value of the company at the time. BMO maxed out at $17 billion or 118 per cent, Scotiabank peaked at $25 billion or 100 per cent of its value, while TD and RBC maxed out at $26 billion and $25 billion — good enough for 69 and 63 per cent, respectively, of the total value of those companies at the time.
"It would have been cheaper to buy every single share in these companies," Macdonald said.
But the CBA disputes those numbers too, saying comparing a bank's value to the level with which it participated in a liquidity program aimed at boosting confidence in the market is "an apples to oranges comparison as the two factors are not at all related."
"The Oxford dictionary defines bailout as 'financial assistance to a failing business or economy to save it from collapse," the Canadian Bankers Association noted.
"That definitely was not the case here: not one bank in Canada was in danger of going bankrupt or required the government to buy an equity stake under taxpayer-funded bailouts."
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