Methinks Chucky Murray cannot ignore the fact that other corrupt public
officials affirmed receipt of my documents before I was imprisoned in a
Yankee jail under the charges of "Other" in 2004 N'esy Pas?
---------- Original message ---------- From: Premier of
Ontario | Premier ministre de l’Ontario <Premier@ontario.ca> Date:
Wed, 10 Jul 2019 09:44:22 +0000 Subject: Automatic reply: YO Chucky Leblanc
your buddy the Chucky Murray the mindless Acting Integrity Commissioner was
yapping on CBCagain This time about failing people in jail. 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.
Everybody
knows that evil politcal lawyer has had many advantages over the years since
he and I first crossed paths when he worked for Elsie Wayne.
Methinks
the most important was Chucky Baby ignoring the fact that Bernie Richard had
answered the same hard copy of my material that YOU STOLE from me but that I
also served upon the RCMP, The Fat Fred City Finest the Police Commission and
many other evil lawyers and cops in 2004 before I went south of the 49th and
was falsely imprisoned in a Yankee jail under the charges of "Other" N'esy
Pas?
---------- 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: 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.
As
I told the RCMP who called me last month the proper time and place to discuss
the CBA and your former partner Judge Richard Bell is the Federal Court of
Canada
Raymond G. Adlington Partner McInnes Cooper 1300-1969 Upper
Water St., Purdy's Wharf Tower II PO Box 730, Stn. Central Halifax, Nova
Scotia B3J 2V1 Phone: (902) 444-8470 Fax: (902) 425-6350 E: ray.adlington@mcinnescooper.com
Halifax
partner Ray Adlington was recently named to the CBA Board of
Directors.
In their announcement yesterday the CBA advised that the board
would come into effect September 1st, 2017.
After collecting
extensive input over the past two years, we know that CBA members believe
it’s important for the organization to have a Board of Directors that
reflects the diversity of the legal profession, including a mix of practice
types, experience, skills, geography and more. Our new Board of
Directors exemplifies this principle.
The board is composed from one
member from each province as well as the CBA
President.
Congratulations Ray on this well deserved
appointment.
> ---------- 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 > >> >>
---------- 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 >> >> >>> 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: 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 >>> >>> >
Death of sick inmate at Saint John jail 'a pretty significant failure,' ombud says
Jeffrey Ryan was cold to the touch by the time someone went into his cell to check on him, investigation found
Jeffrey Ryan's obituary says he was an avid outdoorsman who loved to hunt and fish. (Submitted byh Ryan family)
Correctional
officers inside the Saint John Regional Correctional Centre did not
check on a sick inmate in person for more than six hours, violating
correctional policy by monitoring him through a video screen.
By the time someone entered 37-year-old Jeffrey Ryan's cell on the morning of March 8, 2011, he "was cold to the touch and rigor mortis had 'obviously' set in."
That's
according to new details from a previously secret Department of Public
Safety report detailing its investigation into Ryan's jail death. The
report was originally withheld by the department but was released to CBC
News after a ruling from the Office of the Integrity Commissioner.
For ombud Charles Murray, Ryan's case "is an example of a pretty significant failure" in the system.
"He
wasn't just an inmate, an incarcerated person. He was also a person in
our care," Murray, who is also the interim integrity commissioner, said
in an interview.
"He was dependent upon us for all the essentials of life and we failed in our primary duty to keep him healthy and safe."
The
Pocologan man was arrested on March 5, 2011, for allegedly failing to
comply with conditions of an undertaking. That's when Ryan lost access
to his addictive opioids, which were prescribed to treat chronic pain
from a gunshot wound to the stomach.
A June 2018 report
from New Brunswick Auditor General Kim MacPherson found that inmates'
treatment is often disrupted when they enter or leave the provincial
jail system, which can include losing access to prescribed medication.
Ryan was 37 years old when he died inside the Saint John Regional Correctional Centre in 2011. (Submitted)
In
the days that followed before his death, records show Ryan became
increasingly ill, as he was forced to go through opioid withdrawal cold
turkey. At one point, he became lightheaded and fell over in a hallway,
triggering a medical code.
But Ryan was never taken to a hospital.
He was scheduled to appear in provincial court on March 8, 2011, the same day he was found dead on the floor of his cell.
Discipline
was recommended against at least one correctional officer following
Ryan's death, but the report doesn't say whether anyone was actually
disciplined.
'These are humans'
"That's crazy," Ryan's daughter, Rebeckah Flint, said after reviewing the investigation report.
She believes her father might still be alive had he been taken to hospital during his time in jail.
"These are humans. Just because they're in prison doesn't mean they're trash."
Ryan
"appeared to be ill upon admission," according to the investigation
report, and spent his first night in jail on a couch because of the
frequency of his vomiting.
On the day before his death, nursing
staff noted that Ryan was having tremors and shaking, even spilling his
can of Ensure over a medical cart.
The report says he was treated
by a nurse practitioner, given an over-the-counter medication such as
Gravol, and placed alone in a medical cell, where he slept on a mattress
on the floor.
Rebeckah
Flint says she cries for her son, who won't get a chance to meet his
grandfather, Jeffrey Ryan. Ryan died in 2011 inside the Saint John
Regional Correctional Centre. (Brian Chisholm/CBC)
The
report, written by Sheldon Currie, who was then manager of provincial
institutional operations, says Ryan was placed in the medical cell for
"heightened observation."
On the night before his death,
correctional officers were supposed to complete "eye checks" on Ryan
every 15 minutes, meaning they had to verify his condition with their
own eyes.
At 11:10 p.m., a correctional officer went into Ryan's
cell to replace his bedding after he vomited. The unnamed officer
assisted Ryan to his bunk and covered him with a new sheet.
That was the last time anyone entered Ryan's cell until 5:45 a.m. the next day.
Physical rounds not completed after 11 p.m.
"The
investigation has established there is consistent collaborative
information that physical rounds after (11 p.m.) on March 7, 2011, were
not completed as there was a 'practice' employed on this shift where the
observation of inmates in medical services and segregation were
completed by watching video monitors and logging of these observations
by the central control officer," the report says.
That practice
violates a policy on supervision of inmates who require "special
observation," though Currie found "no purposeful neglect" was apparent.
Provincial ombud Charles Murray says Ryan's case is 'an example of a pretty significant failure' in the system. (Nicolas Steinbach/Radio-Canada)
No one noticed anything was wrong until approximately 5:43 a.m., the report shows.
A
new correctional officer took over the video monitoring post at 5 a.m.
That person noticed that Ryan had been "sleeping on his stomach facing
the wall" and hadn't moved since they arrived at their post.
Even then, an emergency response was "not immediate," according to the report.
"Video
evidence leaves the viewer with the impression CO [name redacted]
appeared hesitant to actually confirm signs of life, i.e., pulse,
respirations, body temperature upon entering the cell, seconds passed
before [redacted] was able to compose himself and could eventually be
seen touching Mr. Ryan, [albeit] very briefly initially."
Another correctional officer arrived and they "appear to stand by awaiting instruction."
It
wasn't until a third correctional officer arrived and "took control"
that someone took Ryan's pulse and discovered rigor mortis had already
set in. CPR was never performed.
"At the point at which an actual physical check was made, he had been deceased for some time," Murray said.
"A
more rigorous schedule of proper physical checks would have revealed
that much earlier, even perhaps in time for an intervention, a medical
intervention which might have saved his life. We'll never know, of
course."
Government declines interview
Currie recommended
"corrective actions" be considered against an unnamed correctional
officer "for the wilful authorization of 'practices' that contravene
standard policy and procedures."
He also recommended "formal
constructive direction" be given to two unnamed correctional officers
"on the importance of readiness within a correctional environment and
the offering of immediate assistance upon the discovery of someone in
medical distress."
No one from the Department of Public Safety was made available for an interview about Ryan's death.
An
investigation report recommended discipline against at least one staff
member at the Saint John Regional Correctional Centre in Saint John
after Ryan's death, but it's not clear whether anyone was actually
disciplined. (CBC)
In an emailed
statement, spokesperson Shawn Berry said "all of the recommendations
that required action by the Department of Public Safety were addressed"
in the Ryan case, but he didn't provide details.
Ryan's death was
investigated by Saint John police and the coroner, who determined he
died from "natural causes," Berry wrote. The full coroner's report has
never been made public.
No access to treatment
An ongoing CBC News investigation
has found that inmates routinely complain of being denied their
prescription medication, even when the medication has been prescribed to
treat serious mental health issues.
That was echoed in last year's report from the auditor general,
which described a patchwork system of care that often sees inmates
leaving jail sicker than when they came in. MacPherson compared some of
what she found in New Brunswick's jail system to "stuff you would see in
a developing country."
The government also declined an interview
about its progress in implementing MacPherson's recommended changes,
saying only that government "continues to work on addressing and
implementing the recommendations."
Ryan, pictured here on the left, became increasingly ill before his death at the jail in 2011, records show. (CBC)
Ryan's death represents the failure of the "guard mentality" inside New Brunswick's jails, according to Murray.
He's been
advocating correctional officers take more of a "caretaker mentality"
with inmates, something he said requires a culture change.
"It takes time and there's always resistance from the former culture," Murray said.
"So I think we should give credit for the improvement that has been made but also recognize we still have a long way to go."
He pointed to the recent hiring of a patient advocate for inmates as a sign of that change.
The person's goal is to focus on inmates' health and to make sure sick prisoners are treated as patients, Murray said.
Getting justice
Eight years after her father's death, Flint still has questions about why no one took him to a hospital.
She's
determined to get the government to release a video that shows Ryan's
final hours inside that medical cell. CBC News was refused access to the
video.
"He went to jail because he was driving without a license and he died in there," Flint said. "That's insane."
For Flint, it's about getting justice for her son, who will never meet his grandfather.
She's
also doing it for her late grandfather, Nelson Ryan, who died in
February 2017 without getting answers about what happened to his son.
Nelson Ryan died in 2017 without getting the answers he wanted about his son's death. (CBC)
The
two were best friends and for years after the death of his son, Flint
said, her grandfather would lie in bed and call out for him.
"To get some sort of justice would, for me, be amazing because that was his [Nelson Ryan's] dying wish," Flint said.
In 2016, Nelson Ryan told CBC News he wanted to hire a lawyer to get answers about his son's death.
But he couldn't afford the fees.
"I think he'd be very proud and if my dad was still here, he'd be telling me, 'Go forward with it, keep pushing,'" Flint said.
Ryan's
obituary described him as a "hands-on type of guy who worked as a clam
harvester." He was also an avid outdoorsman, who loved fishing and
hunting.
Do you have a tip about the New Brunswick correctional system? Please click here to get in touch.
No comments:
Post a Comment