Hey Ralph Goodale perhaps
you and the RCMP should call the Yankee Governor Charlie Baker and the cop Robert Ridge (857 259
9083) ASAP EH Mr Prime Minister Trudeau the Younger and Donald Trump?
The men and women of the BPD would like to congratulate John Conroy on his promotion from Sergeant Detective to Lieutenant and Robert Ridge on his rating of Sergeant Detective. We wish them the best of luck in their new chapters with the BPD
PROMOTIONS: The men and women of the BPD would like to
congratulate John Conroy on his promotion from Sergeant Detective to
Lieutenant and Robert Ridge on his rating of Sergeant Detective. On
Friday, January 4, 2019 Commissioner Gross and Chief Long presented the
men with their new badges during a ceremony at Boston Police
Headquarters. We wish them the best of luck in their new chapters with
the BPD.
---------- Original message ----------
From: Kevin Leahy
<kevin.leahy@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>
Date:
Fri, 28 Jun 2019 12:38:43 -0400
Subject: Re: RE The call from the Boston cop
Robert Ridge (857 259
9083) on behalf of the VERY corrupt Yankee DA Rachael
Rollins
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
French
will follow
Thank you for your email.
For inquiries regarding
EMRO’s Office, please address your email to
acting EMRO Sebastien Brillon at
sebastien.brillon@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
For
inquiries regarding CO NHQ Office, please address your email to
acting CO
Farquharson, David at David.Farquharson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
All
PPS related correspondence should be sent to my PPS account
at
kevin.leahy@pps-spp@parl.gc.ca
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Merci
pour votre courriel.
Pour toute question concernant le Bureau de l'EMRO,
veuillez adresser
vos courriels à l’Officier responsable des
Relations
employeur-employés par intérim Sébastien Brillon à l'adresse
suivante sebastien.brillon@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
Pour
toute question concernant le bureau du Commandant de la
Direction générale,
veuillez adresser vos courriels au Commandant de
la Direction générale par
intérim Farquharson, David à l'adresse
suivante David.Farquharson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
Toute
correspondance relative au Service De Protection Parlementaire
doit être
envoyée à mon compte de PPS à l'adresse suivante
kevin.leahy@pps-spp@parl.gc.ca
Kevin Leahy
Chief
Superintendent/Surintendant principal
Director, Parliamentary Protective
Service
Directeur , Service de protection parlementaire
T
613-996-5048 Kevin.leahy@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
CONFIDENTIALITY
NOTICE: This email and any attachments are
confidential and may contain
protected information. It is intended
only for the individual or entity named
in the message. If you are not
the intended recipient, or the agent
responsible to deliver the
message that this email contains to the intended
recipient, you should
not disseminate, distribute or copy this email, nor
disclose or use in
any manner the information that it contains. Please notify
the sender
immediately if you have received this email by mistake and delete
it.
AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ: Le présent courriel et tout fichier qui y
est
joint sont confidentiels et peuvent contenir des
renseignements
protégés. Il est strictement réservé à l’usage du destinataire
prévu.
Si vous n’êtes pas le destinataire prévu, ou le mandataire chargé
de
lui transmettre le message que ce courriel contient, vous ne devez
ni
le diffuser, le distribuer ou le copier, ni divulguer ou utiliser
à
quelque fin que ce soit les renseignements qu’il contient.
Veuillez
aviser immédiatement l’expéditeur si vous avez reçu ce courriel
par
erreur et supprimez-le.
---------- Original message
----------
From: "OfficeofthePremier, Office PREM:EX" <Premier@gov.bc.ca>
Date:
Fri, 28 Jun 2019 16:38:40 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: RE The call from
the Boston cop Robert Ridge
(857 259 9083) on behalf of the VERY corrupt
Yankee DA Rachael Rollins
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Hello,
Thank
you for taking the time to write. I appreciate hearing feedback
and
suggestions from the people of British Columbia as we work
together to build
a better BC.
Due to the volume of incoming messages, this is an automated
response
to let you know that your email has been received and will be
reviewed
at the earliest opportunity.
In the event that your inquiry
more appropriately falls within the
mandate of a Ministry or other area of
government, staff will refer
your email for review and
consideration.
Again, thank you for
writing.
Sincerely,
John
Horgan
Premier
---------- Original message ----------
From:
Premier of Ontario | Premier ministre de l’Ontario <Premier@ontario.ca>
Date:
Fri, 28 Jun 2019 16:38:41 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: RE The call from
the Boston cop Robert Ridge
(857 259 9083) on behalf of the VERY corrupt
Yankee DA Rachael Rollins
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Thank
you for your email. Your thoughts, comments and input are greatly
valued.
You can be assured that all emails and letters are carefully
read,
reviewed and taken into consideration.
There may be occasions
when, given the issues you have raised and the
need to address them
effectively, we will forward a copy of your
correspondence to the appropriate
government official. Accordingly, a
response may take several business
days.
Thanks again for your email.
______
Merci pour votre
courriel. Nous vous sommes très reconnaissants de
nous avoir fait part de vos
idées, commentaires et observations.
Nous tenons à vous assurer que nous
lisons attentivement et prenons en
considération tous les courriels et
lettres que nous recevons.
Dans certains cas, nous transmettrons votre
message au ministère
responsable afin que les questions soulevées puissent
être traitées de
la manière la plus efficace possible. En conséquence,
plusieurs jours
ouvrables pourraient s’écouler avant que nous puissions vous
répondre.
'If
you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue'
By Teresa Hanafin, Globe
Staff
Good morning! It's Friday, June 28, the 179th day of the year.
Sunrise
in Boston was at 5:09 a.m.; sunset will be at 8:25 p.m. for 15
hours
and 16 minutes of sunlight. The waning moon is 17 percent
full.
US Senator Kamala Harris's challenge to former VP Joe Biden's
comments
about working with segregationists in Congress and his opposition
to
federal court-ordered busing got the most attention after
the
Democratic debate last night. And Biden seemed unprepared in
his
rather rambling answer.
By the way, it will be interesting to see
how Biden tries to clean
things up when he speaks this afternoon at Jesse
Jackson's Rainbow
PUSH Coalition Convention in Chicago.
And
predictably, conservatives almost immediately began attacking
Harris,
including by launching a coordinated campaign on Twitter in
which accounts
pretended to be black people offended that she would
claim to be black (and
all used the exact same wording):
"Kamala Harris is *not* an American
black. She is half Indian and half
Jamaican. I'm so sick of people robbing
American Blacks (like myself)
of our history. It's disgusting ... These are
my people not her
people. Freaking disgusting."
Because, you know,
racists would look at Harris throughout her life
and say, "Oh, she has black
skin, but she's actually half Jamaican, so
we won't discriminate against
her."
For the record, Harris was born in Oakland. Her mother,
Shyamala
Gopalan Harris, was a Tamil Indian, a breast cancer scientist
who
immigrated to the US from Madras (present-day Chennai) in 1960.
Her
father, Donald Harris, is a Stanford University economics
professor
who emigrated from Jamaica in 1961 for graduate study in economics
at
the University of California at Berkeley.
Progressives in the US
House are still fuming today over Speaker Nancy
Pelosi's decision to accept
the Senate version of the border funding
bill instead of the House version
that had more protections for
migrant kids held in detention and restricted
how the Trump
administration could spend the money.
Pelosi tried to
add those elements to the Senate bill, but House
moderates threatened to
withhold their support if she did. So it's the
Senate bill, with money for
the Pentagon to send more soldiers to the
border and no health and care
standards for the detention centers,
that goes to Trump for his signature.
Vox has a good rundown of the
differences between the bills.
Trump is
scheduled to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Osaka
about their
ongoing trade war.
I missed this for yesterday's newsletter: The two
friends whom writer
E. Jean Carroll told about her alleged rape by Trump
immediately after
it happened in the mid-90s have identified themselves and
publicly
corroborated her account.
Here's a New York Times podcast
interview with the women.
One friend, Lisa Birnbach, an author best known
for co-authoring "The
Official Preppy Handbook" in 1980, urged Carroll to go
to the police.
The other, Carol Martin, a longtime news anchor for WCBS-TV in
New
York, advised Carroll not to tell anyone because she believed
that
Trump would use his army of lawyers to make her life
hell.
Carroll, who blamed herself for the assault -- as far too many
women
do -- stayed silent. Until now.
Mass. Governor Charlie Baker,
still in London, meets with US
Ambassador Woody Johnson. Boston Mayor Marty
Walsh is at the US
Conference of Mayors annual meeting in Honolulu, Hawaii. I
wonder if
they've ever met in say, Albany.
Finally, let's end with
Rudyard Kipling's most famous poem, "If—".
Pretty good use of the English
language, I'd say.
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all
men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can
wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in
lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too
good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream — and not make dreams your
master;
If you can think — and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can
meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the
same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by
knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to,
broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:
If you can
make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of
pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never
breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and
sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when
there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: 'Hold
on!'
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk
with Kings — nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends
can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can
fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance
run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And — which is
more — you'll be a Man, my son!
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From:
David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 12:14:34 -0400
> Subject: RE The call from the
Boston cop Robert Ridge (857 259 9083)
> on behalf of the VERY corrupt
Yankee DA Rachael Rollins
> To: internalaffairs@pd.boston.gov,
mediarelations@pd.boston.gov,
>
Robert.Ridge@pd.boston.gov,
N.Decosta-Klipa@boston.com,
>
John.Conroy@pd.boston.gov
>
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>,
"Dale.Morgan"
> <Dale.Morgan@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>,
"Boston.Mail" <Boston.Mail@ic.fbi.gov>,
>
news-tips <news-tips@nytimes.com>,
Newsroom
> <Newsroom@globeandmail.com>,
"darrow.macintyre"
> <darrow.macintyre@cbc.ca>
>
>
https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2019/04/08/charlie-baker-rachael-rollins
>
>
How a policy dispute between Charlie Baker and Rachael Rollins
> suddenly
turned personal
> "We are allowed to disagree with each other, but what
you are not
> going to do is disrespect this
office."
>
>
> "Gov. Charlie Baker and Rachael Rollins have
purportedly hit the
> “reset button,” but the Suffolk Country district
attorney still thinks
> there’s something “funny” about the way she — the
first woman to hold
> the Boston-area prosecutor job — has been
treated.
>
> The two elected officials clashed over the weekend,
after Baker’s top
> public safety official sent Rollins a letter last week
asking her to
> revise some of her new policies — including not
prosecuting certain
> misdemeanor crimes. In a press conference Friday,
the Democratic
> district attorney shot back at the Republican
administration,
> suggesting that “not everyone gets the benefit of the
Baker family,”
> alluding to groping allegations against the governor’s
son last year."
>
> https://bpdnews.com/news/2019/1/4/recent-promotions-two-members-of-the-bpd-receive-promotions-during-ceremony-at-bpd-headquartersnbsp
>
>
The men and women of the BPD would like to congratulate John Conroy on
>
his promotion from Sergeant Detective to Lieutenant and Robert Ridge
> on
his rating of Sergeant Detective. We wish them the best of luck in
> their
new chapters with the BPD.
>
> ---------- Original message
----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 16:15:59 -0400
> Subject: Hey Ralph Goodale perhaps
you and the RCMP should call the
> Yankees Governor Charlie Baker, his
lawyer Bob Ross, Rachael Rollins
> and this cop Robert Ridge (857 259
9083) ASAP EH Mr Primme Minister
> Trudeau the Younger and Donald Trump
Jr?
> To: pm@pm.gc.ca, Katie.Telford@pmo-cpm.gc.ca,
>
Ian.Shugart@pco-bcp.gc.ca,
djtjr@trumporg.com,
>
Donald.J.Trump@donaldtrump.com,
JUSTWEB@novascotia.ca,
>
Frank.McKenna@td.com,
barbara.massey@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
>
Douglas.Johnson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
sandra.lofaro@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
>
washington.field@ic.fbi.gov,
Brenda.Lucki@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
>
gov.press@state.ma.us,
bob.ross@state.ma.us,
jfurey@nbpower.com,
>
jfetzer@d.umn.edu, Newsroom@globeandmail.com,
sfine@globeandmail.com,
>
.Poitras@cbc.ca, steve.murphy@ctv.ca,
David.Akin@globalnews.ca,
>
Dale.Morgan@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
news@kingscorecord.com,
>
news@dailygleaner.com,
oldmaison@yahoo.com,
jbosnitch@gmail.com,
>
andre@jafaust.com>
>
Cc: david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com,
DJT@trumporg.com
>
wharrison@nbpower.com,
David.Lametti@parl.gc.ca,
mcu@justice.gc.ca,
>
Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca,
hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca
>
>>>
From: Justice Website <JUSTWEB@novascotia.ca>
>>>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:21:11 +0000
>>> Subject: Emails to
Department of Justice and Province of Nova Scotia
>>> To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com"
<motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>>
>>>
Mr. Amos,
>>> We acknowledge receipt of your recent emails to the
Deputy Minister of
>>> Justice and lawyers within the Legal Services
Division of the
>>> Department of Justice respecting a possible
claim against the Province
>>> of Nova Scotia. Service of any
documents respecting a legal claim
>>> against the Province of Nova
Scotia may be served on the Attorney
>>> General at 1690 Hollis
Street, Halifax, NS. Please note that we will
>>> not be responding
to further emails on this matter.
>>>
>>> Department of
Justice
>>>
>>> On 8/3/17, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>
>>>> If want something very serious to
download and laugh at as well Please
>>>> Enjoy and share real
wiretap tapes of the mob
>>>>
>>>> http://thedavidamosrant.blogspot.ca/2013/10/re-glen-greenwald-and-braz
>>>>
ilian.html
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/06/09/nsa-leak-guardian.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
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?v=vugUalUO8YY
>>>>>
>>>>>
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://archive.org/details/ITriedToExplainItToAllMaritimersInEarly200
>>>>>
6
>>>>>
>>>>> http://davidamos.blogspot.ca/2006/05/wiretap-tapes-impeach-bush.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
http://www.archive.org/details/PoliceSurveilanceWiretapTape139
>>>>>
>>>>>
http://archive.org/details/Part1WiretapTape143
>>>>>
>>>>>
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
>>>>>
>>>>
>
>
>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Newsroom <newsroom@globeandmail.com>
>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 17:09:31 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: Perhpas
your buddy Ralph Goodale should
> cantact the Yankee Governor Charlie
Baker and finally have the
> warrants for my arrest erased EH Franky Boy
McKenna?
> 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.com
>
>
If you are reporting a factual error please forward your email to
> publiceditor@globeandmail.com<mailto: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: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 13:09:12 -0400
> Subject: Perhpas your buddy Ralph
Goodale should cantact the Yankee
> Governor Charlie Baker and finally
have the warrants for my arrest
> erased EH Franky Boy McKenna?
>
To: "Frank.McKenna" <Frank.McKenna@td.com>,
>
barbara.massey@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
Douglas.Johnson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
>
sandra.lofaro@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
washington field
> <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>,
"Brenda.Lucki"
> <Brenda.Lucki@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>,
gov.press@state.ma.us,
>
bob.ross@state.ma.us,
"Furey, John" <jfurey@nbpower.com>,
jfetzer
> <jfetzer@d.umn.edu>,
Newsroom <Newsroom@globeandmail.com>,
sfine
> <sfine@globeandmail.com>,
"Jacques.Poitras" <Jacques.Poitras@cbc.ca>,
>
"steve.murphy" <steve.murphy@ctv.ca>,
"David.Akin"
> <David.Akin@globalnews.ca>,
"Dale.Morgan"
> <Dale.Morgan@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>,
news <news@kingscorecord.com>,
news
> <news@dailygleaner.com>,
oldmaison <oldmaison@yahoo.com>,
jbosnitch
> <jbosnitch@gmail.com>,
andre <andre@jafaust.com>
>
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>,
wharrison
> <wharrison@nbpower.com>,
"David.Lametti" <David.Lametti@parl.gc.ca>,
>
mcu <mcu@justice.gc.ca>,
"Jody.Wilson-Raybould"
> <Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca>,
"hon.ralph.goodale"
> <hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca>
>
>
Brendan Moss, Press Secretary, Governor's Office
> (617)
725-4025
> gov.press@state.ma.us
>
>
>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Hon.Ralph.Goodale
(PS/SP)" <Hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca>
>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 16:03:41 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: Attn
Barbara Massey I just called AGAIN
> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
>
Merci d'avoir ?crit ? l'honorable Ralph Goodale, ministre de la
> S?curit?
publique et de la Protection civile.
> En raison d'une augmentation
importante du volume de la correspondance
> adress?e au ministre, veuillez
prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir un
> retard dans le traitement de
votre courriel. Soyez assur? que votre
> message sera examin? avec
attention.
> Merci!
> L'Unit? de la correspondance
minist?rielle
> S?curit? publique Canada
> *********
>
>
Thank you for writing to the Honourable Ralph Goodale, Minister of
>
Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.
> Due to the significant
increase in the volume of correspondence
> addressed to the Minister,
please note there could be a delay in
> processing your email. Rest
assured that your message will be
> carefully reviewed.
> Thank
you!
> Ministerial Correspondence Unit
> Public Safety
Canada
>
>
>
>
> On 6/26/19, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> http://www.goc411.ca/en/95200/Barbara-Massey
>>
>>
Barbara Massey
>> Barbara Massey works as Executive Director and Senior
General Counsel
>> for Justice Canada.
>> Barbara can be
reached at 613-843-6394
>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: "Liliana (Legal
Services) Longo" <Liliana.Longo@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>
>>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 11:28:36 -0400
>> Subject: Re: Attn Suzelle
Bazinet.(613-995-5117) I just earlier
>> Whereas I was not allowed to
speak to you today its best that we
>> confer in writng anyway (Away
from the office/absente du bureau)
>> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>
>>
I will be away from the office June 26 to 28, 2017. In my absence,
>>
Barbara Massey will be acting and she can be reached at (613)
843-6394.
>>
>> Je serai absente du bureau du 26 au 28 juin
2017. En mon absence,
>> Barbara Massey sera interimaire et peut être
rejointe au (613) 843-6394.
>>
>> Thank you /
Merci
>> Liliana
>>
>>
>> Liliana Longo,
Q.C., c.r.
>> Senior General Counsel / Avocate générale
principale
>> RCMP Legal Services / Services juridiques GRC
>>
73 Leikin Drive / 73 Promenade Leikin
>> M8, 2nd Floor / M8, 2ième
étage
>> Mailstop #69 / Arrêt Postal #69
>> Ottawa,
Ontario
>> K1A 0R2
>> Tel: (613) 843-4451
>> Fax:
(613) 825-7489
>> liliana.longo@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>>
>>
Sandra Lofaro
>> Executive Assistant /
>> Adjointe
exécutive
>> (613)843-3540
>> sandra.lofaro@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>>
>>>>>
David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
06/27/17 11:28 >>>
>>
>> Good
Day
>>
>> Please view attachments
>>
>>
Before I file my next lawsuit please explain why my documents which
>>
included a letter to you and an unsigned draft of a motion that you
>>
did not want me to file that I sent you in confidence as per your
>>
request were filed in the Public Record then argued by the Crown and
>>
even quoted from by Judges of the Federal Court of
Appeal?
>>
>> Whereas the clerks of Federal Court are
reluctant to file my brief
>> and its exhibits Jan Jensen should at
very least give his copy to his
>> associate Paul Adams
ASAP.EH?
>>
>> This is Canada Post's tracking history of my
documents
>>
>> Tracking Number
PG399580893CA
>>
>> FREDERICTON, NB
>> HALIFAX,
NS
>> Accepted
>>
>> Out for delivery
>>
Date received 2017/06/26
>> Current date 2017/06/27
>>
Expected delivery 2017/06/27
>> Delivery details
>>
ServiceXpresspost
>>
>> Expected delivery is
2017/06/27
>>
>> Perhaps somebody should start acting
ethically before the lawyers Bill
>> Pentney and John Laskin take a
seat on the bench N'esy Pas Mr Prime
>> Minister Trudeau "The Younger"
???? Better yet have your lawyers even
>> bothered to read paragraph 83
of my first lawsuit yet?
>>
>> Veritas Vincit
>>
David Raymond Amos
>> 902 800 0369
>>
>> Elizabeth
Caverly Director:
>> Courts Administration Service
>>
1720-1801 Hollis St.
>> Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 3N4
>> Phone:
902-426-9619
>> Fax: 902-426-5514
>> Email: elizabeth.caverly@cas-satj.gc.ca
>>
>>
>>
http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=A-48-16&select_court=All
>>
>>
PROCEEDINGS QUERIES
>> Recorded entry(ies) for
A-48-16
>>
>> Court number information Court Number :
A-48-16
>> Style of Cause : DAVID RAYMOND AMOS v. HER MAJESTY THE
QUEEN
>> Proceeding Category : Appeals Nature : Appeal (S.27 -
Interloc.) -
>> Others
>> Type of Action :
Non-Action
>>
>>
>> 70 records found for court number
A-48-16 Doc Date Filed Office
>> Recorded Entry
Summary
>>
>> - 2017-06-26 Fredericton Memorandum to file from
Catharine M. Wilson
>> dated 26-JUN-2017 On June 26, 2017, the
Appellant/Respondent on
>> Cross-Appeal submitted a post hearing brief
per the direction of Webb,
>> J.A., dated 08-JUN-2017, which is being
sent to the FCA for direction
>> as the document was submitted late and
exceeds the number of pages.
>> placed on file.
>>
>>
- 2017-06-08 Ottawa Acknowledgment of Receipt received from both
>>
parties by email with respect to the Directions dated June 8, 2017
>>
placed on file on 08-JUN-2017
>>
>> - 2017-06-08 Ottawa
Written directions of the Court: The Honourable
>> Mr. Justice Webb
dated 08-JUN-2017 directing "Please advise the
>> parties that Mr. Amos
has the right to submit a brief summary (not to
>> exceed 5 pages) to
explain the exact conflict that, in his view,
>> arises in this matter
with any of the judges assigned to this appeal
>> and to submit any
additional documents that are relevant to this
>> issue. This summary
and documents are to be submitted on or before
>> June 23, 2017. [...]"
received on 08-JUN-2017 Confirmed in writing to
>> the
party(ies)
>>
>> - 2017-05-26 Fredericton Letter from the
respondent to Appellant,
>> provided by Appellant (copy of the letter)
dated 26-MAY-2017 The
>> Respondent mentions they want communication
from Appellant in written
>> letters by mail only, from now on.
received on 26-MAY-2017
>>
>> - 2017-05-24 Fredericton Request
received from MR
>> - 2017-05-24 Fredericton Request received from
Appellant for CD audio
>> of the hearing on 24-MAY-2017 for transcript.
Tarriff: $15 paid placed
>> on file on
24-MAY-2017
>>
>> - 2017-05-24 Fredericton This matter comes
on for hearing on
>> 24-MAY-2017 at Fredericton before The Honourable
Mr. Justice Webb The
>> Honourable Mr. Justice Near The Honourable
Madam Justice Gleason
>> Appearances: David Raymond Amos
(self-litigant) 902-800-0369 for the
>> appellant Jan Jensen
902-426-8177 for the respondent Language of
>> Hearing: E Court Usher:
Jason Kennedy Duration: on 24-MAY-2017 from
>> 14:03 to 15:58 Courtroom
: Courtroom No. 1 - Fredericton Court
>> Registrar Michel Morneault
Total duration: 1h55min Before the Court:
>> Cross-appeal Result:
reserved Comments: DARS Z005130 was used for the
>> recording of the
hearing Minutes of Hearing entered in Vol. 222
>> page(s) 411 - 413
Abstract of Hearing placed on file
>>
>> 33 2017-04-24
Fredericton Affidavit of David Raymond Amos on behalf of
>>
Appellant/Respondent on cross-appeal sworn on 24-APR-2017 confirming
>>
service of doc.32 on Respondent/Appellant on cross-appeal by
>>
Xpresspost on 24-APR-2017 filed on 24-APR-2017
>>
>> 32
2017-04-24 Fredericton Book of Authorities with copy on DVD
>>
consisting of 1 volume(s) on behalf of Appellant/Respondent on
>>
cross-appeal Filed on 24-APR-2017 3 copy(ies) for the Court stored
in
>> Ottawa One copy placed in Annex
>>
>> 31
2017-04-20 Halifax Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of
>>
Jan Jensen confirming service of doc #30 upon Appellant by courier
on
>> 20-APR-2017 filed on 20-APR-2017
>>
>> 30
2017-04-20 Halifax Book of Authorities consisting of 1 volume(s) on
>>
behalf of HMQ (cross-appeal) Filed on 20-APR-2017 3 copy(ies) for
the
>> Court stored in
Ottawa
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: "Liliana (Legal
Services) Longo" <Liliana.Longo@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>
>>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 12:44:06 -0400
>> Subject: Re: Yo Mr Jensen see
attached file I see that you corrupt
>> FEDS are on the attack bigtime
as of May 24th N'esy Pas? (Away from
>> the office/absente du
bureau)
>> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>
>>
I will be away from the office until June 2, 2017. In my absence,
>>
Barbara Massey will be acting and she can be reached at (613)
>>
843-6394.
>>
>> Je serai absente du bureau jusqu'au 2 juin
2017. En mon absence,
>> Barbara Massey sera interimaire et peut être
rejointe au (613)
>> 843-6394.
>>
>> Thank you /
Merci
>> Liliana
>>
>>
>> Liliana Longo,
Q.C., c.r.
>> Senior General Counsel / Avocate générale
principale
>> RCMP Legal Services / Services juridiques GRC
>>
73 Leikin Drive / 73 Promenade Leikin
>> M8, 2nd Floor / M8, 2ième
étage
>> Mailstop #69 / Arrêt Postal #69
>> Ottawa,
Ontario
>> K1A 0R2
>> Tel: (613) 843-4451
>> Fax:
(613) 825-7489
>> liliana.longo@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>>
>>
Sharon Dickson
>> Executive Assistant /
>> Adjointe
exécutive
>> (613)843-3540
>> Sharon.Dickson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>
>
>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Murray, Charles (Ombud)"
<Charles.Murray@gnb.ca>
>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 18:16:15 +0000
> Subject: You wished to speak with
me
> To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com"
<motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
>
I have the advantage, sir, of having read many of your emails over the
>
years.
>
>
> As such, I do not think a phone conversation
between us, and
> specifically one which you might mistakenly assume was
in response to
> your threat of legal action against me, is likely to
prove a
> productive use of either of our time.
>
>
> If
there is some specific matter about which you wish to communicate
> with
me, feel free to email me with the full details and it will be
> given due
consideration.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
Charles Murray
>
> Ombud NB
>
> Acting Integrity
Commissioner
>
>
>
>
>>>>
>>>>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 10:48:58 -0400 (EDT)
>>>> From: "David
Raymond Amos" davidramos333@yahoo.ca
>>>>
Subject: I already know that you are as crooked as Hell Mr Leger. I
am
>>>> fishing for an honest cop not another corrupt bureaucrat.
i am just
>>>> proving that you know the truth Get
it?
>>>> To: Marc.Leger@gnb.ca
>>>>
CC: Day.S@parl.gc.ca,
John.Foran@gnb.ca, pat.bonner@saintjohn.ca,
>>>>
lou.lafleur@fredericton.ca,
infoam@fredericton.cbc.ca,
>>>>
infomorning@moncton.cbc.ca,
infomorning@halifax.cbc.ca,
>>>>
webo@xplornet.com, Stephane.vaillancourt@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
>>>>
alltrue@nl.rogers.com,
samperrier@hotmail.com,
oldmaison@yahoo.com,
>>>>
Scott.A@parl.gc.ca,
amerrino@gmail.com,
deanr0032@hotmail.com,
>>>>
wickedwanda3@adelphia.net,
rfowlo@comcast.net,
Harper.S@parl.gc.ca,
>>>>
bmulroney@ogilvyrenault.com,
pcollin@cpa-acp.ca,
Dion.S@parl.gc.ca,
>>>>
Dryden.K@parl.gc.ca,
Layton.J@parl.gc.ca,
Duceppe.G@parl.gc.ca,
>>>>
Casey.B@parl.gc.ca,
leader@greenparty.ca
>>>>
>>>>
Subject: Mr. Amos
>>>> Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:41:22
-0300
>>>> From: "Leger, Marc (DPS/MSP)" Marc.Leger@gnb.ca
>>>>
To: "David Raymond Amos" davidramos333@yahoo.ca
>>>>
David Amos,
>>>>
>>>> I am not able to address
your concerns.
>>>>
>>>> Your calls and emails are
not welcome and I would like you to stop
>>>> communicating with
me by phone and email
>>>>
>>>> Marc
Léger
>>>> Deputy Minister / Sous-ministre
>>>>
Public Safety / Sécurité publique
>>>> (506) 453-7412 marc.leger@gnb.ca
>>>>
Working together to build a safer New Brunswick / Travaillons
ensemble
>>>> pour bâtir un Nouveau-Brunswick plus
sûr
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded
message ----------
>>> From: Brian Gallant <briangallant10@gmail.com>
>>>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 06:01:57 -0700
>>> Subject: Merci / Thank you
Re: Fwd: I just called Alan Roy again about
>>> my right to health
care, my missing 1965 Harley, the Yankee Wiretaps
>>> tapes in its
saddlebag and Federal Court and his assistant played dumb
>>> as
usual
>>> To: motomaniac333@gmail.com
>>>
>>>
(Français à suivre)
>>>
>>> If your email is pertaining
to the Government of New Brunswick, please
>>> email me at brian.gallant@gnb.ca
>>>
>>>
If your matter is urgent, please email Greg Byrne at greg.byrne@gnb.ca
>>>
>>>
Thank you.
>>>
>>> Si votre courriel s'addresse au
Gouvernement du Nouveau-Brunswick,
>>> svp m'envoyez un courriel à
brian.gallant@gnb.ca
>>>
>>>
Pour les urgences, veuillez contacter Greg Byrne à greg.byrne@gnb.ca
>>>
>>>
Merci.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 10:42:09 -0400
>>> Subject: Attn Marc Richard
and John McNair I just called AGAIN Say hey
>>> to my Brother in Law
W. S. Reid CHEDORE and his brother of the law
>>> David Lutz QC for
me will ya?
>>> To: MRichard@lawsociety-barreau.nb.ca,
John.McNair@snb.ca,
>>>
"serge.rousselle" <serge.rousselle@gnb.ca>,
Erin.Hardy@snb.ca,
>>>
David.Eidt@gnb.ca
>>>
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
---------- 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.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=T-1557-15&select_court=T
>>>>
>>>>
These are digital recordings of the last three
hearings
>>>>
>>>> Dec 14th https://archive.org/details/BahHumbug
>>>>
>>>>
January 11th, 2016 https://archive.org/details/Jan11th2015
>>>>
>>>>
April 3rd, 2017
>>>>
>>>> https://archive.org/details/April32017JusticeLeblancHearing
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
This is the docket in the Federal Court of
Appeal
>>>>
>>>> http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=A-48-16&select_court=All
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
The only hearing thus far
>>>>
>>>> May 24th,
2017
>>>>
>>>> https://archive.org/details/May24thHoedown
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
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.blogspot.ca/2015/09/v-behaviorurldefaultvmlo.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
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.Foran@gnb.ca,
>>>>
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 ----------
>>>
>>> http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2017/11/federal-court-of-appeal-finally-makes.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
Sunday, 19 November 2017
>>> Federal Court of Appeal Finally Makes
The BIG Decision And Publishes
>>> It Now The Crooks Cannot Take
Back Ticket To Try Put My Matter Before
>>> The Supreme
Court
>>>
>>> https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/236679/index.do
>>>
>>>
>>>
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
>>>
>>> Amos v.
Canada
>>> Court (s) Database
>>>
>>>
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
>>>
Date
>>>
>>> 2017-10-30
>>> Neutral
citation
>>>
>>> 2017 FCA 213
>>> File
numbers
>>>
>>> A-48-16
>>> Date:
20171030
>>>
>>> Docket: A-48-16
>>>
Citation: 2017 FCA 213
>>> CORAM:
>>>
>>>
WEBB J.A.
>>> NEAR J.A.
>>> GLEASON
J.A.
>>>
>>>
>>> BETWEEN:
>>>
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
>>> Respondent on the
cross-appeal
>>> (and formally Appellant)
>>>
and
>>> HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
>>> Appellant on the
cross-appeal
>>> (and formerly Respondent)
>>> Heard at
Fredericton, New Brunswick, on May 24, 2017.
>>> Judgment delivered
at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 30, 2017.
>>> REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BY:
>>>
>>> THE
COURT
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Date:
20171030
>>>
>>> Docket: A-48-16
>>>
Citation: 2017 FCA 213
>>> CORAM:
>>>
>>>
WEBB J.A.
>>> NEAR J.A.
>>> GLEASON
J.A.
>>>
>>>
>>> BETWEEN:
>>>
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
>>> Respondent on the
cross-appeal
>>> (and formally Appellant)
>>>
and
>>> HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
>>> Appellant on the
cross-appeal
>>> (and formerly Respondent)
>>> REASONS
FOR JUDGMENT BY THE COURT
>>>
>>> I.
Introduction
>>>
>>> [1] On September 16,
2015, David Raymond Amos (Mr. Amos)
>>> filed a 53-page Statement of
Claim (the Claim) in Federal Court
>>> against Her Majesty the Queen
(the Crown). Mr. Amos claims $11 million
>>> in damages and a public
apology from the Prime Minister and Provincial
>>> Premiers for
being illegally barred from accessing parliamentary
>>> properties
and seeks a declaration from the Minister of Public Safety
>>> that
the Canadian Government will no longer allow the Royal Canadian
>>>
Mounted Police (RCMP) and Canadian Forces to harass him and his
clan
>>> (Claim at para. 96).
>>>
>>> [2]
On November 12, 2015 (Docket T-1557-15), by way of a
>>>
motion brought by the Crown, a prothonotary of the Federal Court
(the
>>> Prothonotary) struck the Claim in its entirety, without
leave to
>>> amend, on the basis that it was plain and obvious that
the Claim
>>> disclosed no reasonable claim, the Claim was
fundamentally vexatious,
>>> and the Claim could not be salvaged by
way of further amendment (the
>>> Prothontary’s
Order).
>>>
>>>
>>> [3] On
January 25, 2016 (2016 FC 93), by way of Mr.
>>> Amos’ appeal from
the Prothonotary’s Order, a judge of the Federal
>>> Court (the
Judge), reviewing the matter de novo, struck all of Mr.
>>> Amos’
claims for relief with the exception of the claim for damages
>>>
for being barred by the RCMP from the New Brunswick legislature
in
>>> 2004 (the Federal Court
Judgment).
>>>
>>>
>>> [4] Mr.
Amos appealed and the Crown cross-appealed the
>>> Federal Court
Judgment. Further to the issuance of a Notice of Status
>>> Review,
Mr. Amos’ appeal was dismissed for delay on December 19, 2016.
>>>
As such, the only matter before this Court is the Crown’s
>>>
cross-appeal.
>>>
>>>
>>> II.
Preliminary Matter
>>>
>>> [5] Mr. Amos,
in his memorandum of fact and law in
>>> relation to the
cross-appeal that was filed with this Court on March
>>> 6, 2017,
indicated that several judges of this Court, including two of
>>>
the judges of this panel, had a conflict of interest in this
appeal.
>>> This was the first time that he identified the judges
whom he believed
>>> had a conflict of interest in a document that
was filed with this
>>> Court. In his notice of appeal he had
alluded to a conflict with
>>> several judges but did not name those
judges.
>>>
>>> [6] Mr. Amos was of the
view that he did not have to
>>> identify the judges in any document
filed with this Court because he
>>> had identified the judges in
various documents that had been filed
>>> with the Federal Court. In
his view the Federal Court and the Federal
>>> Court of Appeal are
the same court and therefore any document filed in
>>> the Federal
Court would be filed in this Court. This view is based on
>>>
subsections 5(4) and 5.1(4) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C.,
1985,
>>> c. F-7:
>>>
>>>
>>>
5(4) Every judge of the Federal Court is, by virtue of his or
her
>>> office, a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal and has all
the
>>> jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Federal
Court of
>>> Appeal.
>>>
[…]
>>>
>>> 5(4) Les juges de la Cour fédérale sont
d’office juges de la Cour
>>> d’appel fédérale et ont la même
compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs que
>>> les juges de la Cour
d’appel fédérale.
>>> […]
>>> 5.1(4) Every judge of the
Federal Court of Appeal is, by virtue of
>>> that office, a judge of
the Federal Court and has all the
>>> jurisdiction, power and
authority of a judge of the Federal Court.
>>>
>>>
5.1(4) Les juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale sont d’office juges de
la
>>> Cour fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs
que les
>>> juges de la Cour
fédérale.
>>>
>>>
>>> [7]
However, these subsections only provide that the
>>> judges of the
Federal Court are also judges of this Court (and vice
>>> versa). It
does not mean that there is only one court. If the Federal
>>> Court
and this Court were one Court, there would be no need for this
>>>
section.
>>> [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
>>>
>>>
>
Gov. Charlie Baker and Rachael Rollins have purportedly hit the
“reset button,” but the Suffolk Country district attorney still thinks
there’s something “funny” about the way she — the first woman to hold
the Boston-area prosecutor job — has been treated.
The two elected officials clashed over the weekend, after
Baker’s top public safety official sent Rollins a letter last week
asking her to revise some of her new policies — including not
prosecuting certain misdemeanor crimes. In a press conference Friday,
the Democratic district attorney shot back at the Republican
administration, suggesting that “not everyone gets the benefit of the
Baker family,” alluding to groping allegations against the governor’s
son last year.
And while both sides say they had a productive phone call
Saturday, Rollins has remained critical of what she suggests is sexist
treatment from Baker’s office.
“Isn’t it so funny that when all of the male DAs before me had this
discretion and were moving towards mass incarceration, the governor did
not give a s[***] about that,” she said at an event Sunday.
Here’s what the dispute is about, and why it got so personal this weekend:
The decline-to-prosecute list
Rollins was elected last November
on a progressive criminal justice reform platform aimed at reducing
racial inequality and mass incarceration. She also received national attention for her campaign pledge to instruct prosecutors not to bring charges, with certain exceptions, for a list of 15 nonviolent offenses.
The crimes on the list included trespassing, shoplifting, larceny under
$250, underage possession of alcohol, drug possession, drug possession
with intent to distribute, and some cases of resisting arrest.
Last month, she made that pledge, among others, official in a 65-page public memo.
Rollins, a former federal prosecutor and MBTA legal counsel, wrote that
“declination and diversion policy” is a “part of a strategy to achieve
two important goals.”
“First, to reduce the footprint of the criminal justice system
where it served no public safety interest, and second, to allocate more
of our prosecution resources to the serious offenses that harm people,
families, and the community as a whole,” she wrote.
Baker administration pushback
In a rare rebuke from the Baker administration, Public Safety Secretary Thomas Turco wrote a two-page letter
to Rollins last Thursday, expressing concern that her policies “put at
risk the commonwealth’s ongoing efforts to combat the ongoing crisis of
the opioid epidemic and substantially restrict the government’s ability
to protect victims threatened with serious crimes.”
Gov. Charlie Baker answers questions from the media Monday at Faneuil Hall in Boston.—Matthew J. Lee / The Boston Globe
The State House News Service first reported the letter Thursday night.
Protesting Rollins’s policy of not prosecuting the aforementioned
drug crimes, Turco said prosecutors should not be prohibited from
bringing charges against suspected dealers, if they have sufficient
evidence, “simply because the police made an arrest before the sale was
fully consummated.” He also objected to a policy of not prosecuting the
unlicensed possession of “20, 30, or even 40 pounds of marijuana as a
crime,” as Massachusetts rolls out its regulated cannabis market.
Turco also said the Rollins memo’s stances on petty crimes and
driving with a suspended license would, respectively, victimize
shopkeepers in “economically challenged neighborhoods” and “undermine”
the state’s drunk driving laws, “making our roads more dangerous.”
In addition to the list of crimes not to be prosecuted, Turco also
took issue with Rollins’s instructions for prosecutors to get supervisor
approval before counting defendants’ criminal history beyond the last
36 months, as well as a rule discouraging requests for courts to set
certain pre-trial release conditions.
“I appreciate your efforts to think differently about criminal
justice, accountability, and public safety,” Turco wrote Thursday,
noting that Rollins’s memo was in many ways aligned with the Baker
administration’s reform efforts.
“I urge you, however, to review the concerns I have outlined above
and to consider appropriate revisions to the memorandum,” he added.
Rollins hits back — hard
The local district attorney did not take lightly to Turco’s
intervention in a press conference Friday afternoon, in which she
suggested the state official should concentrate on “the things he’s
responsible for,” according to The Boston Globe. Rollins reportedly singled out the ever-growing list of scandals embroiling Massachusetts State Police and “terrible water conditions at MCI Norfolk,” the state’s largest prison.
She also defended the list of crimes she was instructing her office
not to prosecute, which she said was putting into writing what had been
the common practice of her predecessors. Low-level drug charges, driving
offenses, and property crimes were 12 percent more likely to be
dismissed or diverted than more serious cases in Suffolk County, Rollins
wrote in her memo last month.
“They didn’t write it down because it was working really well for
certain communities and not for other communities,” she argued Friday,
according to the Globe.
Seeking to make a point about how the criminal justice system treats
defendants of differing socioeconomic means disparately, Rollins
pointedly used Baker’s own family as an example. The Republican
governor’s 27-year-old son, A.J., was escorted by police off a flight last June — but not arrested — after a woman accused him of groping her during the trip.
“Candidly, you know, not everyone gets the benefit of the Baker
family when they have interacted with the criminal justice system, they
don’t get to not get arrested,” Rollins reportedly said Friday. “Most
moms that are living in Suffolk County don’t have a one-thousand-dollar
lawyer to handle a charge when it’s brought against their son or
daughter or loved one.”
When asked to clarify those comments, she added the people who benefit from the current system are “overwhelmingly wealthy.”
“It is really important that you guys understand that there are
significant racial disparities in our criminal justice system,” she
said.
District
Attorney Rachael Rollins stood with police on scene in Mattapan
following a triple shooting with one confirmed fatality Saturday.—Aram Boghosian / The Boston Globe
In response, Lizzy Guyton, a spokeswoman for Baker, told the Globe in an email that the administration “does not engage in personal attacks” and was raising “legitimate public safety concerns.”
“We hope for an ongoing, productive dialogue on the important issues raised by Secretary Turco,” Guyton said.
Reaching a truce?
Rollins’s press conference Friday afternoon resulted in a phone call
from Baker the following morning — which both sides described as
generally positive.
“I don’t want to damage the partnership,” Baker told reporters later
Saturday, calling the conversation “constructive and helpful,” as the Boston Herald reported.
“I want that partnership to be there, and I want it to work,” the
governor said. “The good thing about having a 66-page document is it
gives everybody a chance to see where somebody is coming from, and I
think all of us share the same goal here, which is to recognize and
appreciate the fact that the criminal justice system has flaws that need
to be dealt with and fixed.”
While Baker said his concerns with Rollins’s policies hadn’t changed,
he hoped for a “dialogue” with the district attorney’s office.
“I think we’re going to try and hit the reset button and start again
on Monday,” Baker said, noting that he and Rollins have a shared goal of
keeping people safe and that state and local law enforcement efforts
can sometimes be intertwined.
“I said when the whole thing started that it was a serious allegation
and it needed to be independently investigated,” Baker said Saturday.
“And I expect that the US attorney, which was the appropriate authority
to do that investigation, was the right place for that to get done, and I
believe they did what they were supposed to do.”
In turn, Rollins told Globe columnist Adrian Walker
that she respected Baker for initiating the “productive” conversation,
but also wouldn’t go into detail about what they discussed.
“I have deep respect for him for being the leader he is, and calling
me, and I have nothing further to say about the matter,” she said
Saturday. “We had a incredibly productive conversation and now it’s time
to get to work.”
Rollins did have more to say — about respect
Despite having “deep respect” for the governor, Rollins suggested
Sunday that the feeling may not be mutual from Baker’s administration.
“Isn’t it so funny that when all of the male DAs before me had this
discretion and were moving towards mass incarceration, the governor did
not give a s[***] about that,” Rollins told about 200 supporters at a
rally in Dorchester, according to the Globe.
“But miraculously now that this DA wants to end mass incarceration,
you want to question the discretion that we have?” she added.
Rollins indicated that she was less upset by the policy disagreement
than by Turco’s decision to send to her — and the press — the letter
without any prior notice.
“I love criticism,” she said. “We need to start talking with people
who don’t agree with us. In fact, I don’t mind the letter that was sent.
I don’t like what happened before the letter. … Had the secretary or
the governor picked up the phone and spoken to me, sat down and said ‘We
disagree with everything you’re saying,’ and then written this letter,
you wouldn’t have heard a word from me. We are allowed to disagree with
each other, but what you are not going to do is disrespect this office.”
Rollins said there was “no way in hell” that Baker didn’t have
knowledge beforehand of Turco’s letter and questioned why anyone was
surprised that she was implementing the policies on which she
campaigned. She voiced a similar sentiment during her original press
conference Friday.
“As your new DA, and the first woman to ever have this job, it has
been very apparent to me that the men that were in this position before
me were treated with quite a bit more respect,” Rollins reportedly said at the time. “But I didn’t get into this job to make friends, I got into this job to make change.”
According to MassLive, she added that “if people would like to speak to me before they issue a letter, I’m always willing and able to speak to them.”
While she again praised Baker’s leadership Sunday, Rollins gave Turco a reminder.
“Secretary Turco got his job because he knows one person: The
governor,” she said, contrasting that number with the more than 185,000
Suffolk County voters who gave her a “mandate” last November.
“I got my job because a majority — to the tune of 80 percent — voted for me to have this job,” Rollins said.
Office of Governor Charlie Baker and Lt. Governor Karyn Polito
Governor's Press Office
Press Release Governor Baker Announces Departure of Lon Povich, Names
Bob Ross as Chief Legal Counsel
For immediate release:
2/26/2019
Office of Governor Charlie Baker and Lt. Governor Karyn Polito
Governor's Press Office
Press Release- Governor Baker
BOSTON — Today, Governor Charlie Baker and Lt. Governor Karyn Polito
announced the departure of Lon Povich as Chief Legal Counsel for the
Office of the Governor. Attorney Bob Ross, current General Counsel at
the Executive Office for Administration and Finance, will assume the
post of Chief Legal Counsel.
Lon Povich managed attorneys across the executive branch as Chief
Legal Counsel and played key roles in crafting significant pieces of
legislation such as last year’s criminal justice reform bill and the
MBTA reform measures passed in 2015. Bob Ross has helped craft the
Baker-Polito Administration’s five state budget proposals and worked
with legislative leaders and administration officials on several major
initiatives, including a review of all Executive Branch agency
regulations, while serving as General Counsel for A&F.
“Lon has served as an integral member of the Governor’s Office since
the start of our Administration, providing invaluable counsel to our
team over the past four years,” said Governor Charlie Baker. “One of
Lon’s signature contributions to our Administration has been the
appointment of 130 members of the judiciary, including 5 members of
the Supreme Judicial Court, which will have an impact on the
Commonwealth for years to come, and I thank Lon for his leadership
over the past four years. Bob Ross has been a key advisor for our
Administration on some of the most pressing issues relating to the
state’s budget and finances, and we congratulate him on this new
position.”
“Lon’s thoughtful guidance has supported our Administration through
the most difficult of situations, including the gas explosions in the
Merrimack Valley,” said Lt. Governor Karyn Polito. “Lon’s wealth of
experience in both the public and private sectors has helped inform
the tremendous advice that he has given our office, and I wish him all
the best.”
“Throughout my last four years in the Governor’s Office, I have been
honored and enthusiastic to work on a team with elected leaders known
for their extraordinary competence, balance, and civility,” said Lon
Povich. “I am very grateful for the opportunity to do complicated
legal, policy, and political analysis on the most important issues
facing the people of the Commonwealth, working alongside dedicated
professionals throughout state government. I offer my sincere
congratulations to Bob Ross, who I am confident will carry on the
tradition of fine lawyers who have had the privilege of serving our
governors as their chief legal counsel.”
“I am grateful to Governor Baker and Lieutenant Governor Polito for
this opportunity to serve their Administration in this important
role,” said Bob Ross. “I am also grateful to Secretary Heffernan and
former Secretary Kristen Lepore for the support and trust they have
placed in me. A&F is a great place to work with a great team, and I am
looking forward to working with the team in the Governor’s Legal
Office to build on the substantial legacy of success that Lon has
entrusted to me.”
About Bob Ross
Since the start of the Baker-Polito Administration, Bob Ross has
served as the General Counsel for the Executive Office for
Administration and Finance under Secretary Kristen Lepore and
Secretary Michael Heffernan. In this role, he has been primarily
responsible for the drafting and review of legislation that has a
fiscal impact on the Commonwealth. He has advised the Secretary and
the Governor on legal issues inherent in the Commonwealth’s finances
and worked closely with the Governor’s Chief Legal Counsel to review
enacted legislation that is presented to the Governor for signature.
Prior to his current position, he was the Bureau Chief for the
Business and Labor Bureau in the Office of Attorney General Martha
Coakley, where he managed five divisions that regulate and enforce the
laws governing businesses in Massachusetts, while simultaneously
working to preserve the state’s dynamic business climate. He
represented the Commonwealth’s interests in litigation stemming from
the closure and subsequent bankruptcy filing of North Adams Regional
Hospital, continuing vital emergency medical services in the
community, and successfully argued the Commonwealth’s case as an
amicus in a False Claims Act case before the First Circuit Court of
Appeals.
Mr. Ross came to the Attorney General’s Office from the Office of the
Senate President, where he worked for more than a decade in various
roles in that Office and the Senate Committee on Ways and Means,
including six and one half years as Chief Policy Advisor for Senate
President Therese Murray.
Before coming to state government, Mr. Ross worked for six years as a
litigation associate in the main office of McGuire Woods, a large law
firm based in Richmond, Virginia. He graduated from Northwestern
University Law School, and did his undergraduate work at the College
of William and Mary in Virginia.
He and his wife live in Wellesley with their three children, ages 14, 12 and 10.
About Lon Povich
As Governor Baker’s Chief Legal Counsel, Lon Povich is responsible for
the broad range of policy and legal matters that come before the
Governor and his senior team.
Prior to joining the Baker administration in January 2015, Lon was
Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of BJ’s
Wholesale Club, Inc. Lon joined BJ’s in February 2007 after serving
for 11 years as General Counsel at The Boston Consulting Group, a
global strategy firm. At both BCG and BJ’s, Lon had responsibility for
a number of management and operational issues.
Earlier in his career Lon worked as a litigation associate at Goodwin
Procter in Boston; as an Assistant United States Attorney, in the
Economic Crimes Division of the Boston United States Attorney’s
Office; and as Deputy Chief Legal Counsel to Massachusetts Governor
Weld. Lon graduated from Harvard Law School and Dartmouth College
(summa cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa.) After graduation from HLS, he
served as a law clerk to Chief Justice Vincent McKusick of the Maine
Supreme Judicial Court.
Lon has also been active in the community. From 1996 to 2004, he was a
director of MassHousing (Massachusetts’ low income housing finance
agency); and from 2005 until 2010 he served on the Governor’s Judicial
Nominating Commission. Lon also sat on the Board of Directors of the
Greater Boston Food Bank, served on the Board of Greater Boston Legal
Services, as an elected member of the Council of the Boston Bar
Association, and has been involved in a number of local organizations
in Wellesley, MA. In 2018 he received the Executive Leadership Award
at the Jewish Community Relations Council’s Annual Legislative
Reception, 2018; and in 2014 he received the Good Apple Award for
“demonstrated dedication to public service, fairness and social
justice,” from the Massachusetts Appleseed Center for Law and Justice.
###
###
Media Contact for Governor Baker Announces Departure of Lon Povich,
Names Bob Ross as Chief Legal Counsel
Office of Governor Charlie Baker and Lt. Governor Karyn Polito
Governor Charlie Baker, Lt. Governor Karyn Polito, and members of
their administration are committed to making Massachusetts the best
place to live, work, and raise a family.
More
Governor's Press Office
Visit the Governor’s Press Office to learn about recent news from the
administration, follow our happenings on social media, and for media
contact information.
More
Media Contact for Governor Baker Announces Departure of Lon Povich,
Names Bob Ross as Chief Legal Counsel
Brendan Moss, Press Secretary, Governor's Office
Phone
Call Brendan Moss, Press Secretary, Governor's Office at (617) 725-4025
Online
Email Brendan Moss, Press Secretary, Governor's Office at gov.press@state.ma.us
Feedback
Did you find what you were looking for on this webpage? *
Yes
No
We will use this information to improve the site.
Do not include sensitive information, such as Social Security or bank
account numbers.
Massachusetts State Seal
Follow Mass.gov on Facebook
Follow Mass.gov on Twitter
Follow Mass.gov on LinkedIn
Follow Mass.gov on Youtube
Follow Mass.gov on Instagram
No comments:
Post a Comment