David Raymond Amos @DavidRayAmos
Replying to @DavidRayAmos @alllibertynews and 49 others
Methinks while Robert MacKay is in Fat Fred City in the pursuit of justice he should read File No T-1557-15 in Federal Court before he continues to call anyone a secular saint" N'esy Pas?
https://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.com/2020/01/fredericton-man-faces-jail-time-for.html
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/vaughn-barnett-unlicenced-lawyer-jail-sentence-1.5478040
Fredericton man gets 100 days in jail for praticising law without licence
Vaughn Barnett found in contempt of court Thursday for not adhering to a court order
· CBC News · Posted: Feb 27, 2020 12:34 PM AT
Vaughn Barnett is pictured outside the Fredericton courthouse in January. On Thursday, he was found in contempt of court for violating a court order and will spend 100 days in jail. (CBC)
A Fredericton man who describes himself as a social activist is going to jail for what a senior judge says is practising law without a licence.
Vaughn Barnett was found in contempt of court Thursday morning for showing "a flagrant lack of respect" for a previous court order that he stop providing legal advice to people and representing them in legal disputes.
Court of Queen's Bench Chief Justice Tracey DeWare sentenced him to 100 days in jail, dismissing Barnett's argument that if he breached the two-decade-old order, he did so by mistake.
"The respondent is an extremely intelligent man," she wrote in her decision. "He is fully aware of the scope and nature of the court order in place and, in my view, there is no ambiguity in the wording of the injunction order."
The New Brunswick Law Society applied for the contempt finding, arguing that by not being a member of the society, Barnett was not required to have insurance, was not subject to a complaint procedure and could not be disciplined — a risk to the people he helps.
DeWare accepted those arguments, saying the society's requirements exist to protect the public.
What we need instead of a private club like this one ... is a public justice system where the people have free access, so you can get the justice you deserve, not the justice you can buy.
- Dan Weston, anti-poverty activist"The respondent is not a criminal, nor is he dangerous in the sense that society needs to have him behind bars in order to protect his fellow citizens from physical harm," she wrote.
"However, the respondent's insistence on engaging in the practice of law does endanger individuals whom he is ostensibly assisting. … His ability to do harm through the unlicensed practice of law is real, and, regretfully, unrelenting."
Moments after DeWare sentenced Barnett, a court sheriff took him into custody. Several supporters in the courtroom called out to him with words of encouragement.
One of them passed the sheriff a packed bag that Barnett brought to court in anticipation of going to jail.
Barnett argued at a January hearing that he was a community activist who helps low-income people by providing them with alternative dispute resolution services, but not legal advice. He said if he had crossed the line, it was by mistake.
'A secular saint'
Outside the courthouse, the supporters told reporters that Barnett represented an option for people who can't afford to hire lawyers.
"What we need instead of a private club like this one — if you haven't got the money, you can't take part — is a public justice system where the people have free access, so you can get the justice you deserve, not the justice you can buy," said anti-poverty activist Dan Weston.
Robert MacKay noted that judicial officials, including former Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, have called for better access to justice. He called Barnett "a secular saint" and added, "I just think it's crappy what happened today."
Fredericton historian Melynda Jarratt said she has known Barnett for 30 years and "if he says that he did not mean to contravene the order, I believe him."
But law society executive director Marc Richard said the decision was justified.
"It's not an easy situation," he said. "We have to do our job, which is the protection of the public."
Richard said the society has a committee including Department of Justice and court officials to improve access to justice, but someone like Barnett "has to respect the court order, the system that's in place."
Barnett's history
Barnett has a law degree but has never been licensed to practise law. In 2000 the society obtained an injunction ordering Barnett to stop practising, a decision later upheld by the New Brunswick Court of Appeal.
In 2007 a Court of Queen's Bench judge sent him to jail for 10 days for violating that order. He also amended the order by requiring Barnett add to any written reference he made to his law degree the disclaimer "not licensed to practice law" in type twice as large.
Vaughn Barnett previously argued the 2000 court order is ambiguous, saying he was acting under his 'honest interpretation' of the order. (CBC)
This year's case sprang from two new examples of Barnett doing what the society considered legal work.
In one case, he acted as what he called a "legal researcher and advocate" for Wendy Wetteland, who was suspended from her job as president and chief of the New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples' Council.
In that case, DeWare ruled, Barnett asked for disclosure of the evidence against her and to attend a hearing with her, referred to her as his "client" and asked the organization's lawyer for "the legal justification" for her suspension.
In the second case, the society said, he tried to negotiate with the New Brunswick Labour and Employment Board on behalf of his friend Gina Persaud, and did not use the required "not licensed to practice law" disclaimer.
He also described himself as Persaud's "legal advisor" and tried to negotiate the terms of her arrest with a Fredericton police detective.
22 Comments
David Amos
Content disabled
Methinks Vaughn
Barnett's fans should type his name and mine into Google sometime Trust
that his buddies Chucky Leblanc, David Coon, Dan Weston and his wife
Melynda Jarratt know that the New Brunswick Law Society and their hero
Barnett picked a fight with me in 2004 N'esy Pas?
David Amos
Blocked out of the gate again
Shawn Tabor
Reply to @David Amos: keep trying
David Amos
Reply to @Shawn Tabor: Already blogging it and am about to Tweet about it too
David Amos
Methinks while Robert MacKay is in Fat Fred City in the pursuit of justice he should read File No T-1557-15 in Federal Court before he continues to call anyone a secular saint" N'esy Pas?
"Robert MacKay noted that judicial officials, including former Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, have called for better access to justice. He called Barnett "a secular saint" and added, "I just think it's crappy what happened today."
http://charlesotherpersonalitie.blogspot.com/
Thursday, 27 February 2020
(Français ci-dessous) GROUPS SUPPORT
ACTIVIST FACING IMPRISONMENT
24 February 2020 - Fredericton activist Vaughn Barnett will be returning to
court on 27 February 2020, to learn whether he will be spending six months in
prison for the unauthorized practice of law. Barnett was previously sentenced
to ten days in a provincial jail for the same alleged offence, in January 2007,
following a contempt application brought by the Law Society of New Brunswick.
After a decade of no complaints against Barnett, the Law Society is now seeking
a stiffer sentence for him, due to his legal arguments on behalf of two
friends.
In the Court of Queen's Bench, before Chief Justice Tracey DeWare, on 27 January 2020, Barnett argued that he was engaging in community activism, not the practice of law. Aside from assisting one of these two friends in employment standards proceedings - with the prior written consent of the administrative bodies involved, as required by court order - his supposed legal practice comprised little more than writing letters about institutional unlawfulness, Barnett contended. One positive result, he pointed out, was that an illegal warrantless arrest of his other friend was averted, something which even the police should appreciate.
"Activists trying to protect marginalized people when the government or an institution is behaving unlawfully must have the freedom of expression to make arguments about the law," explains Claude Snow, who was awarded the Order of Canada for his work on behalf of the poor, including advocacy for their legal rights. Representing the Comité des 12, a community activist group in the Acadian Peninsula that is issuing a separate news release in support of Barnett, Snow states, "The most ironic thing is throwing in jail a citizen who exposes others' illegal behaviour."
Echoing this view, Dan Weston, Coordinator of the Fredericton Anti-Poverty Organization (FAPO), and recent candidate for the provincial Green Party, calls the Law Society's application for imprisonment "classic criminalization of dissent." He adds, "It's all the more abominable because its target is a person who is only trying to make up for the sorry state of access to justice in New Brunswick, with its deplorably low rates of legal aid and income assistance."
Media Event: 27 February 2020, Fredericton Justice Building (following 9:30 court hearing)
Contacts: Robert MacKay (506-961-7182), Dan Weston (506-440-4567 / 506-474-3476)
In the Court of Queen's Bench, before Chief Justice Tracey DeWare, on 27 January 2020, Barnett argued that he was engaging in community activism, not the practice of law. Aside from assisting one of these two friends in employment standards proceedings - with the prior written consent of the administrative bodies involved, as required by court order - his supposed legal practice comprised little more than writing letters about institutional unlawfulness, Barnett contended. One positive result, he pointed out, was that an illegal warrantless arrest of his other friend was averted, something which even the police should appreciate.
"Activists trying to protect marginalized people when the government or an institution is behaving unlawfully must have the freedom of expression to make arguments about the law," explains Claude Snow, who was awarded the Order of Canada for his work on behalf of the poor, including advocacy for their legal rights. Representing the Comité des 12, a community activist group in the Acadian Peninsula that is issuing a separate news release in support of Barnett, Snow states, "The most ironic thing is throwing in jail a citizen who exposes others' illegal behaviour."
Echoing this view, Dan Weston, Coordinator of the Fredericton Anti-Poverty Organization (FAPO), and recent candidate for the provincial Green Party, calls the Law Society's application for imprisonment "classic criminalization of dissent." He adds, "It's all the more abominable because its target is a person who is only trying to make up for the sorry state of access to justice in New Brunswick, with its deplorably low rates of legal aid and income assistance."
Media Event: 27 February 2020, Fredericton Justice Building (following 9:30 court hearing)
Contacts: Robert MacKay (506-961-7182), Dan Weston (506-440-4567 / 506-474-3476)
Posted by Charles Leblanc at 10:47 am No
comments :
Posted by Charles Leblanc at 10:34 am No
comments :
Posted by Charles Leblanc at 12:25 pm No
comments :
Posted by Charles Leblanc at 12:32 pm No
comments :
Posted by Charles Leblanc at 12:37 pm No
comments :
Lawyers are hunted down by Blogger after Vaughn Barnett is sentence to 100 days in Jail!
68 views
•Premiered 9 hours ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwMVZ9T51NA
Tuesday,
25 February 2020
Posted by Charles Leblanc at 11:20 pm No
comments :
Sunday,
2 February 2020
Posted by Charles Leblanc at 7:24 pm No
comments :
https://twitter.com/DavidRayAmos/with_replies
David Raymond Amos @DavidRayAmos
Replying to @DavidRayAmos @alllibertynews and 49 others
Methinks everybody and his dog knew it would not be long before Chucky Leblanc started yapping about his sneaky wannabe lawyer buddy Vaughn Barnett N'esy Pas?
https://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.com/2020/01/fredericton-man-faces-jail-time-for.html
http://charlesotherpersonalitie.blogspot.com/2020/01/vaughn-barnett-persecution-by-new.html
Wednesday, 29 January 2020
Vaughn Barnett persecution by New Brunswick Law Society VERY sad and Scary!!!
Vaughn Barnett persecution by New Brunswick Law Society VERY sad and Scary!!!
15 views
•Jan 29, 2020
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/vaughn-barnett-law-society-unlicenced-1.5442151
Fredericton man faces jail time for practising law without licence
Vaughn Barnett says court order prohibiting from practising is ambiguous
· CBC News · Posted: Jan 27, 2020 6:54 PM AT
Vaughn Barnett leaves the Fredericton courthouse Monday afternoon. The Fredericton man is facing jail time for allegedly violating a court order prohibiting from practising law without a licence. (CBC)
A Fredericton-area man is facing possible jail time as a result of his latest clash with the New Brunswick Law Society over what the society calls practising of law without a licence.
Vaughn Barnett represented himself in the day-long hearing Monday in which he argued that he hadn't meant to violate a 2000 court order.
The society asked Court of Queen's Bench Chief Justice Tracey DeWare to find Barnett in contempt of court for violating an injunction order by Justice Thomas Riordon in 2000. The society is asking for him to be sent to jail for 90 to 180 days.
Barnett has a law degree but is not a member of the law society and is not licensed to practice.
Lawyers licensed by the society are subject to a code of ethics and to disciplinary proceedings, and must carry liability insurance — requirements that protect the public, lawyer Tim Bell argued.
Bell said Barnett has appeared in court six times on the same issue and once spent 10 days in jail.
Tim Bell, the lawyer representing the New Brunswick Law Society, says Barnett has not let up practising without a licence since the court order issued in 2000. (CBC)
"Despite all of this Mr. Barnett will not let up," he said.
"He's been practising law, plain and simple … pushing the envelope, testing his luck, seeing how far he can go."
Bell quoted emails and letters Barnett wrote on behalf of one woman he was helping, Wendy Wetteland, asking about "the legal context," "the legal basis" and "the legal justification" of her suspension from her job.
"He doesn't say he's not a lawyer," Bell argued, "Instead he jumps right into legal arguments."
He also corresponded with police officials to ask for "the legal grounds" for Wetteland's potential arrest for questioning in the case and attempted to negotiate conditions for her co-operation, Bell said.
'Trying to walk a fine line'
Barnett acknowledged in court he was "trying to walk a fine line" by helping people in need without straying into a violation of the 2000 court order.
"I am advocating in the activist sense, not the legal advocate sense," he said.
He said if he "crossed the line" it was because of his "honest interpretation" of a court order he described as ambiguous.
"If that is what happened, I apologize," he said.
Vaughn Barnett argued the 2000 court order is ambiguous, saying he was acting under his 'honest interpretation' of the order. (CBC)
He described several possible definitions of "an administrative body," which the order prevents him from appearing before.
But DeWare was skeptical of Barnett's argument that there were many possible interpretations of the phrase.
"You are a very intelligent person," she told Barnett. "There's no doubt about that. … It seems incredible to me that you couldn't fully understand what that meant."
In its court filing, the society says "a strong, clear and unequivocal message needs to be sent" to Barnett.
Barnett says he is a community activist who helps low-income people by providing them with alternate dispute resolution services, but not legal advice.
"I do not charge for my help, advertise my work, nor actively solicit people to assist," he said in his court filing, adding he helps a small group of friends, members of their families, and "a few people who have somehow learned about me."
Order upheld by appeals court
Under the Law Society Act, the profession governs its own conduct, and no one can give legal advice or represent clients in a legal capacity without a licence.
In 2000 the society obtained an injunction ordering Barnett to stop. That was upheld by the New Brunswick Court of Appeal.
In 2007 a Court of Queen's Bench judge added to the initial order by requiring Barnett add to any written reference he made to his law degree the disclaimer "not licensed to practice law" in type twice as large.
No matter how much I scale back, I keep getting in trouble.
- Vaughn BarnettThe new application springs from two new examples of Barnett doing legal work, the society says.
In one case, he acted as what he called a "legal researcher and advocate" for Wetteland, who was suspended from her job as president and chief of the New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples' Council.
In the second case, the society said, he tried to negotiate with the New Brunswick Labour and Employment Board on behalf of someone, and did not use the required "not licensed to practice law" disclaimer.
Barnett said the 2007 order requiring that phrase referred only to business cards or marketing material, and did not apply to his letters and emails.
Those letters and emails said explicitly he was working "in support of" the complainant, and not "representing" her.
"To me that's political activism," he said.
Barnett said after the 2000 and 2007 cases he stopped doing work that was clearly legal, and argued that since he hadn't been in trouble with the law society from 2007 to last year, "I must have been making some kind of effort to do things differently."
He added: "No matter how much I scale back, I keep getting in trouble."
Barnett is also arguing the society's new application violates his Charter rights to free expression and fundamental justice. But the society says those constitutional claims were rejected in the appeal of the 2000 case, and bringing them up again is repetitive and an abuse of process.
DeWare will rule in the case Feb. 27. She told Barnett she hasn't made up her mind but in case she rules for the law society, he should be ready to go to jail that day.
He responded that he'd been ready to go Monday.
https://forbesrothbasque.nb.ca/tim-bell/
Timothy R. Bell
Lawyer
Bilingual
814 Main Street
Suite 300
Moncton, NB Canada
(506) 857-4880 Suite 300
Moncton, NB Canada
tbell@forbesrothbasque.nb.ca | | Vcard
Labour and Employment Law, Aboriginal Law, Administrative Law and General Litigation, Practices before administrative tribunals and all levels of Court in New Brunswick. Counsels members of a regulated profession providing representation throughout New Brunswick
Bar Admission
New Brunswick, 2014
Education
Université de Moncton – J.D., M.E.E., 2013
Queen’s University – B.Ed., 2004
http://oldmaison.blogspot.com/2007/06/charles-interviews-asaf-rashid.html
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Charles interviews Asaf Rashid.
Yesterday, I noticed Asaf sitting down in front of a coffee Shop.
I never said a word about the arrest in Halifax until I began the interview.
One interesting point is that he’s not allowed to participate in any protests across Canada until he appears in court in September.
Can the courts get away with that order?
Can Asaf go for the whole summer months without protesting???
Click below to listen to the whole interview -
target="_blank">Charles
Blog
7 comments:
- That's been going on all across canada for quite some time now. It blatantly breaks our basic charter rights of associations, but most of the people with those bail conditions are poor and can't afford to challenge it. Essentially what the law in Canada says now is that the right to protest belongs only to those who don't protest. Asaf didn't throw any rocks or paint balls, so hopefully his dad will stand by him and help him challenge it in the courts. Too many rights are being taken away from people.
- Theres some great bodies on some of those ladies, if I'd known protestors were so hot I'd have done some of it myself when I was younger.
- Rashid is just a troublemaker
- Why don't you take a little bit of personal responsibility Asaf, instead of distancing yourself from the violent instingation that happened in Halifax. F**kin' chickensh*t! I had interest in the motivation against Atlantica, but what happened there, the half assed anarchism (middle class temper tantrum?) really casts a lot of doubt on the whole purpose of the protest.
- I disagree with asaf on many many things, but not about this. I respect what he did and how he did it.
How degrading to have his father speak on television -- as if to say "he's just a dumb kid".
For the next little while you might feel alone asaf, but there are more people than you know standing in solidarity.
-dr - Must be good to know that there are so many people he doesn't know
standing in solidarity with him. Oh, but he actually doesn't
know...Or...now that dr has spilled the beans maybe he does?
Its all just so confusing! But wait, just why were these many people not standing with him when he was arrested? Maybe they couldn't find a mask that didn't chafe, you can get quite a nasty rash if your not careful you know. I wonder if they all send him letters of condolence? I nice card sometimes makes you feel better after all.
Maybe all he needs is some nice exceedingly wordy fellow protestor to write him a nice rant of the social and philosophical relevance of helping the poor with paint balls. Or perhaps a few tips on proper protestor etiquette, you know, Eye holes to the front...that sort of thing. Just to show your solidarity don't you know. - FREE JAGGI SINGH!
https://nbmediacoop.org/2020/01/23/activist-facing-contempt-for-offering-assistance-to-low-income-people/
Activist facing contempt for offering assistance to low-income people
Fredericton anti-poverty activist Vaughn Barnett is being taken to the Court of Queen’s Bench in Fredericton on January 27 by the Law Society of New Brunswick for contempt. They are seeking 90–180 days of jail time.
The Law Society is saying that Barnett has been practicing law without a licence, which they say is a violation of the Law Society Act of New Brunswick. The Act prohibits unlicenced individuals or organizations from providing legal services, even if the assistance is free and for low-income people.
Barnett has provided free services to people who could not afford a lawyer, but denies any wrongdoing. He is not a lawyer, but received a law degree from the University of Western Ontario in 1994. Since the late 1990s, he has assisted low-income people facing legal challenges, aiming to fill in gaps not covered by lawyers.
Previous court orders, since 2000, have prevented Barnett from providing assistance, even beyond the restrictions of the Act. He is prohibited from preparing affidavits, letters or any document for any legal proceeding, including administrative tribunals, unless he receives prior written consent from a judge or the Chairperson of the tribunal. He is also not allowed to advertise that he does “legal research” or “advocacy” and cannot advertise that he has a law degree (LLB), except with a large disclaimer.
“I was doing fine because I was trying to respect the court order. And just recently a couple of situations came up where I felt that I could help some seriously mistreated women without breaching the orders,” he explained.
The two matters were between 2017 and 2019. One case was of an unpaid trainee at the Employment Standards Branch and Labour and Employment Board. He obtained prior written consent from the tribunal, permitting him to assist.
“Following those unsuccessful proceedings, I called on the provincial government to investigate the employer in question for its apparent practice of not paying its trainees,” explains Barnett, “and this activism, more political than legal, appears to have been the trigger for the contempt application.”
The other case was a matter in which, “there was a concern about the lawfulness of a threatened warrantless arrest, which I thought I should raise as a citizen concerned about another person’s civil liberties,” he explained.
There is a long history between the Law Society of New Brunswick and Barnett. On November 23, 2000, on application by the Law Society, Barnett was ordered not to provide his services by Justice Thomas Riordon of the NB Court of Queen’s Bench.
In response, Barnett restricted the assistance he provided, rather than stopping entirely.
“I saw this all as part of the ongoing dynamic of fighting for access to justice and civil liberties,” he said.
In 2007, he was again taken to court by the Law Society of New Brunswick. Justice Richard Bell ordered further restrictions on Barnett and also ordered a 10-day jail term. Barnett was taken away from the court in handcuffs and leg shackles.
According to Barnett, his case raises the issue of access to justice in New Brunswick. He says there should be, “more legal aid, pro bono regulation, and changes to allow more non-lawyer assistance.”
New Brunswick’s regulations are particularly restrictive in denying the assistance of non-lawyers. Ontario, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island allow community organizations, family and friends to provide some legal services for poor people for free.
New Brunswick ranks at or near the bottom of the country for the availability of legal aid and access to justice among provinces.
Barnett’s personal struggle and the issues of access to justice he has raised were the background to the creation of the New Brunswick Access to Justice Coalition. The Coalition formed in 2011 under the leadership of Fredericton social justice advocates Gail Wylie and Norman Laverty. The Coalition is supported through the Access to Justice working group of the Maritime Conference of the United Church of Canada.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association wrote to the Attorney General of New Brunswick and the Law Society in 2011 upon receiving letters from the Access to Justice Coalition about Barnett’s situation. They stated, “The ban on free legal services provided by community members or organizations effectively results in less help for those in need.”
No changes were made in response to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association letter.
Regarding Barnett’s present case and the poor funding of legal aid in New Brunswick, Wylie says, “In light of this inadequate funding, many types of legal matters are not covered by New Brunswick’s Legal Aid Commission. This leaves individuals who do not have the financial means to hire a lawyer, with two choices: drop the matter, i.e., do not access the justice system, or self-represent without knowledge or experience of the complexities of the justice system.”
According to Barnett, his case is “a question of whether my court orders should be interpreted so as to restrict my community activism when part of that activism involves raising legal issues.”
Asaf Rashid is a lawyer, long-time community organizer, and former board member of the NB Media Co-op.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/green-party-calls-for-royal-commission-on-pension-reforms-1.1307996
Green Party calls for royal commission on pension reforms
The Green Party is calling on the Alward government to establish a royal commission to study plans to switch to a shared-risk pension model for public service retirees.
"The province intends to violate its role as trustee by abandoning retroactively its commitments to pensioners in the public sector," said Norman Laverty, a former superintendent of pensions for the provincial government and the Green Party's advocate for economic and social development.
"It's unacceptable," he said.
Premier David Alward announced plans to overhaul the pension system last May, saying the current plan is not sustainable.
Among the proposed changes, guaranteed cost-of-living increases will be eliminated for pensioners and instead be dependent upon market performance.
In addition, the risk of any market downturns would be shared by both sides instead of being borne by the provincial government alone.
The Green Party wants a Royal Commission on Retirement Income to determine if there truly is a crisis in the funding of retirement income for New Brunswickers in the public and private sectors, and to propose long-term solutions.
"We need to ensure that people in the workforce today have adequate income when they retire," said Green Party Leader David Coon.
"We believe a royal commission of inquiry is the best way to bring clarity to the many complex issues surrounding the future of retirement income."
Last month, Finance Minister Blaine Higgs faced thousands of angry retirees during a series of information sessions held across the province about the proposed changes.
Many pensioners have argued it's unfair for them to lose benefits they've already paid for.
The proposed model also includes increased contribution levels and moving the age of retirement to 65 from 60 over a 40-year period.
The Public Service Superannuation Act (PSSA), which covers employees who work directly for government departments and NB Power, currently has a $1 billion shortfall.
It included 13,441 pensioners as of March 31, 2012. Their average annual pension was $20,603.
Access to Justice Working Committee of United Church Maritime Conference And Access to Justice Coalition of New Brunswick
Update March 2012 – January 2015-01-07
Co- Convenors : Norman Laverty nwlaverty@yahoo.ca
Gail Wylie wylie1@nb.sympatico.ca
___________________________________________________________________________________
Norman Laverty
848 Windsor St, Fredericton NB, E3B4G5
- (506) 455-3349
Asaf Rashid, Barrister & Solicitor
1235 Bay Street, Suite 700
Toronto, ON, M5R 3K4
T: 647-223-8651
E: asaf@arashidlaw.ca
F: 866-436-6586
Shane Martínez B.A., LL.B, L.E.C.
Barrister & Solicitor
Criminal Defence & Human Rights
Martínez Law
Call now for a free consultation: 647-717-8111
Serving the Greater Toronto Area
Se habla español.
Content copyright 2014. Martínez Law. All rights reserved. Content on
website is not legal advice. Contacting the firm does not automatically
establish a solicitor-client relationship.
Shane's passion for social justice and human rights originated from his time living in rural eastern Canada and witnessing first-hand how working class and poor people are disproportionately and systemically affected by the criminal law.
During a portion of his legal education Shane worked with one of Toronto's top criminal defence firms. There he assisted on cases that included charges of first degree murder, prohibited firearms, fraud, narcotics, theft, assault and prostitution. The experience solidified his commitment to provide fierce representation for all clients regardless of the allegations.
With the goal of providing his clients with the best defence possible, Shane founded Martínez Law. Today the firm offers its services across Toronto, Oshawa, North York, Scarborough and beyond. Through combining a social justice perspective with innovative legal analysis and tireless dedication, Martínez Law is able to guarantee its clients a loyal and aggressive criminal defence against the charges they are faced with. Shane has also acted as counsel in Coroner's inquests in relation to the deaths of people who have been killed by the police or who have died in jail.
From
September 2013 to March 2014 Shane completed a period of academic leave
to become qualified to practice law in the Commonwealth Caribbean.
During that time he lived in Kingston, Jamaica, and assisted
attorney-at-law Michael Lorne as part of the defence team for dancehall
artist Shawn Storm, one of the co-accused in the Vybz Kartel murder trial.
Shane
regularly writes and lectures about police brutality, racial profiling,
the prison industrial complex and transnational labour. He is a member
of the Law Society of Upper Canada, the Law Union of Ontario, Lawyers' Rights Watch Canada, and the Prison Lawyers Association. He also serves on the Board of Directors for the Prisoners' HIV/AIDS Support Action Network (PASAN). In addition to this, Shane works closely with Justice 4 Migrant Workers (J4MW) providing legal education and pro bono assistance for Caribbean and Mexican migrant farm workers in southern Ontario.
Law Office of Shane Martínez
1235 Bay Street, Suite 700
Toronto, ON, M5R 3K4
Tel: 647-717-8111
Collect calls: 416-296-1996
Fax: 866-436-6586
shane@martinezlaw.ca
Hopperton awaits parole decision after lawyer argues right to freedom of expression
· CBC News ·
"I
would encourage those people right now sitting at the back to get the
f--k out," said Cedar Hopperton during a June 18 community conversation
at city hall. Hopperton was on parole, and their lawyer says their
comments at the meeting were the reason they were arrested. (Samantha Craggs/CBC)
A Hamilton anarchist whose parole was revoked after speaking at
a city hall public meeting about being "violent if necessary" is
waiting to hear if they'll remain in jail.
Cedar Hopperton had an Ontario Parole Board hearing Thursday morning that lasted more than two hours, says Hopperton's lawyer, Asaf Rashid. He expects a decision late Thursday or early Friday.
The bulk of that hearing focused on Hopperton's speech at a recent meeting in city hall council chambers, Rashid said.
City council's LGBTQ advisory committee held the June 18 "community conversation" to hear opinions on numerous issues. The most heated was violence at a Pride festival in Gage Park three days earlier, when Christian extremists and counter-protesters in pink masks clashed and several people were injured.
Hopperton, who uses the pronoun they, took the mic to say they're "not part of any community that includes police."
Hopperton urged LGBTQ residents not to rely on police for protection against hate groups. Instead, "let's figure out how to use measured force ourselves and figure out when it's appropriate to do so." They also told the deputy chief of the Hamilton Police Service to "get the f--k out."
Hopperton was on parole for their role in a 2018 anarchist vandalism spree on Locke Street. In court, the Crown called them the "ringleader."
Initially, police said Hopperton violated parole by being a counter-protester at Pride. But on Thursday, Jackie Penman, a spokesperson for Hamilton Police Service, said police also sent the parole board Hopperton's comments from the public meeting.
Rashid said the parole board arrest warrant only cites the meeting. The board and police, he said, saw Hopperton's comments as being "suggestive of violence," and "basically telling people to do violent things."
Rashid said about half an hour of the hearing Thursday was spent on whether Hopperton was at Pride, with a couple of photos supplied by police that he contested.
Rashid argued Hopperton, who is at Milton's Vanier Centre for Women, was exercising their constitutional right to freedom of expression. The issue, he said, is "a major concern for a lot of people, and I thought it was important to go all the way."
Interestingly, Rashid said, many freedom of expression court rulings he found during his research focused on people with wildly different views from Hopperton.
Among them: In 2018, Ontario's court of appeal said Fred Bracken had a right to hold a sign in a public Niagara Falls park that read "Trump is right. F—k China. F—k Mexico."
In connection to the Pride incident, police have charged four other people. One is charged with assault, two for violating a court order, and one for two counts of assault with a weapon.
The latter — Chris Vanderweide, 27, of Kitchener — was an anti-Pride protester who was seen in videos wielding a helmet.
Vanderweide made a brief video appearance at the John Sopinka Courthouse in Hamilton Thursday morning. He wore an orange T-shirt and waved at the camera before being escorted off-screen. His supporters filled three benches at the side of the room.
Vanderweide is scheduled to appear by video again Monday to set a date for a full-day bail hearing.
Cedar Hopperton had an Ontario Parole Board hearing Thursday morning that lasted more than two hours, says Hopperton's lawyer, Asaf Rashid. He expects a decision late Thursday or early Friday.
The bulk of that hearing focused on Hopperton's speech at a recent meeting in city hall council chambers, Rashid said.
City council's LGBTQ advisory committee held the June 18 "community conversation" to hear opinions on numerous issues. The most heated was violence at a Pride festival in Gage Park three days earlier, when Christian extremists and counter-protesters in pink masks clashed and several people were injured.
Hopperton, who uses the pronoun they, took the mic to say they're "not part of any community that includes police."
Hopperton urged LGBTQ residents not to rely on police for protection against hate groups. Instead, "let's figure out how to use measured force ourselves and figure out when it's appropriate to do so." They also told the deputy chief of the Hamilton Police Service to "get the f--k out."
Hopperton was on parole for their role in a 2018 anarchist vandalism spree on Locke Street. In court, the Crown called them the "ringleader."
Initially, police said Hopperton violated parole by being a counter-protester at Pride. But on Thursday, Jackie Penman, a spokesperson for Hamilton Police Service, said police also sent the parole board Hopperton's comments from the public meeting.
Rashid said the parole board arrest warrant only cites the meeting. The board and police, he said, saw Hopperton's comments as being "suggestive of violence," and "basically telling people to do violent things."
Rashid said about half an hour of the hearing Thursday was spent on whether Hopperton was at Pride, with a couple of photos supplied by police that he contested.
Rashid argued Hopperton, who is at Milton's Vanier Centre for Women, was exercising their constitutional right to freedom of expression. The issue, he said, is "a major concern for a lot of people, and I thought it was important to go all the way."
Interestingly, Rashid said, many freedom of expression court rulings he found during his research focused on people with wildly different views from Hopperton.
Among them: In 2018, Ontario's court of appeal said Fred Bracken had a right to hold a sign in a public Niagara Falls park that read "Trump is right. F—k China. F—k Mexico."
The latter — Chris Vanderweide, 27, of Kitchener — was an anti-Pride protester who was seen in videos wielding a helmet.
Vanderweide made a brief video appearance at the John Sopinka Courthouse in Hamilton Thursday morning. He wore an orange T-shirt and waved at the camera before being escorted off-screen. His supporters filled three benches at the side of the room.
Vanderweide is scheduled to appear by video again Monday to set a date for a full-day bail hearing.
Cedar Hopperton will stay in jail following heated speech at Hamilton city hall
· CBC News · Posted: Jul 08, 2019 5:04 PM ET
"I would encourage those people right now sitting at the back to get the
f-ck out," said Cedar Hopperton of the police in the room. "The idea
that we should turn to them for protection is actually ludicrous." (Samantha Craggs/CBC)
Cedar Hopperton, a Hamilton anarchist who's been behind bars following a heated speech at a city hall public meeting, will continue to have their parole revoked.
Hopperton, 33, has been in jail since June 22. That's when police arrested Hopperton following a speech about violence between far right demonstrators and a group of people in pink masks at a Pride festival a week earlier.
Initially, Hamilton police said Hopperton was at Pride and included both allegations as violations of parole conditions in its submission to the board. But Hopperton's lawyer, Asaf Rashid, say the allegation of being at Pride got little attention at the parole board hearing.
Instead, the board ruled on whether Hopperton was inciting violence in an anti-police speech.
Rashid argued that Hopperton had a right to freedom of expression, especially in Hamilton city council chambers.
"It basically baffles me," Rashid said. "It's a very disappointing decision, and it basically speaks to the very poor recognition of the rights of a person that is on parole."
Hopperton — who uses the pronoun they — gave the speech after several people were injured at a June 15 Pride festival at Hamilton's Gage Park. A group of self-appointed street preachers with homophobic signs arrived at the park with loud speakers and cameras. A masked group of people associated with The Tower, a local anarchist social space, blocked the protesters with a large black portable barrier.
The incident devolved in a violent clash between the people with homophobic signs and Pride supporters. A week later, police arrested Hopperton, who was on parole for their role in anti-gentrification vandalism on Locke Street a year earlier. The Crown described Hopperton as "the ringleader" of the Locke Street incident.
In a June 22 media release, police said Hopperton violated parole "in (the) Pride Hamilton disturbance" for "participating in a public demonstration where peace was disrupted."
Police eventually admitted, however, that Hopperton's speech at a June 18 "community conversation" held by city council's LGBTQ advisory committee was part of why they reported Hopperton to the Ontario Parole Board.
In the provocative speech, made amid numerous frustrated speeches from LGBTQ residents, Hopperton said they are "not part of any community that includes police."
Hopperton urged the LGBTQ community not to rely on police for protection against hate groups. Instead, "let's figure out how to use measured force ourselves and figure out when it's appropriate to do so."
Hopperton also told the deputy chief of the Hamilton Police Service to "get the f--k out."
The case has attracted widespread attention, particularly since police have arrested and charged three counter-protesters and only one protester.
Of the three counter-protesters arrested, two are affiliated with the Tower and were also on probation for convictions related to the Locke Street vandalism. The one protester arrested is charged with assault.
Police say to deal with possible assaults by protesters seen on video they need victims and witnesses to be more willing to come forward to co-operate with their investigations, and have made several public calls for that.
On Monday, 100 academics from various Ontario universities signed a letter expressing concern about how police and the city have handled the Pride incident.
A group of McMaster University faculty have expressed similar concerns, as have various unions, the Hamilton District Labour Council and the Council of Canadians.
Hopperton told CBC News last month that their sentence ends in late August.
About the Author
With files from Dan Taekema
CBC's Journalistic Standards and Practices|https://www.mississauga.com/news-story/9506082-lgbtq-activist-cedar-hopperton-released-from-jail/
LGBTQ+ activist Cedar Hopperton released from jail
A Facebook post from The Tower says the activist is “free”
Cedar Hopperton listens to discussions at a LGBTQ+ community meeting at city hall, June 18, 2019. - Cathie Coward,The Hamilton Spectator
LGBTQ+ and anarchist activist Cedar Hopperton has been released from jail after allegedly breaching parole conditions during a speech at a public meeting.
Hopperton was arrested in June for parole-breach allegations tied to a conviction in an anti-gentrification vandalism spree on Locke Street South in 2018.
On Tuesday, local anarchist collective The Tower posted a photo of the 33-year-old to Facebook.
The activist was controversially deemed to have breached parole by making an impassioned speech amid the fallout over brawls at the Pride Festival at a public forum June 18.
Hopperton, who prefers the pronoun "they," urged the community to have the "strength to be violent if necessary" when faced with threats, and directed stern words and profanity at a Hamilton police deputy chief and a hate-crime investigator at the meeting.
The Spectator previously reported Hopperton had until the end of July to serve out the sentence after being denied parole from the Vanier Centre for Women in Milton last week.
Hopperton's lawyer, Asaf Rashid, said Tuesday he did not receive paperwork about his client's release but confirmed they are out of jail.
"I think it's great," he said. "I'm not sure exactly why because nobody sent me anything, but the important thing is Cedar is not in detention."
A post from The Tower said a statement with more details is coming.
The arrest and subsequent decision to keep Hopperton jailed sparked a "Free Cedar" campaign that gained traction among hundreds of Canadian academics and many organizations. Posts to the anarchist website North Shore Counter-Info showed what appear to be solidarity banners and signs as far away as Berlin and Barcelona.
Out of five people charged after the June 15 clash, only one is aligned with preachers and alt-right demonstrators who were at Gage Park.
At the event, people wearing pink masks
positioned a large black fabric screen in front of extremist Christian
preachers waving anti-LGBTQ signs and yelling similar messages through a
megaphone.
Initially, police only said Hopperton allegedly breached parole by being at Gage Park during the violence.
But during the hearing, parole board members found "photos and information" police provided to place Hopperton at Pride were "insufficient."
npaddon@thespec.com
905-526-2420 | @NatatTheSpec
npaddon@thespec.com
905-526-2420 | @NatatTheSpec
https://nbmediacoop.org/2014/01/29/clearing-a-path-for-fracking-strategic-use-of-arrests-and-charges/
Clearing a path for fracking: strategic use of arrests and charges?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/police-officer-found-not-guilty-of-assaulting-protester-1.660985
Police officer found not guilty of assaulting protester
A Fredericton police officer has been found not guilty of assaulting a protester during a demonstration in May 2006.
Judge Leslie Jackson told the Fredericton court Friday that Cpl. Dwight Doyle was within his legal rights when he arrested Asaf Rashid at a city hall demonstration.
Doyle had responded to a policecall from a commissioner at city hall regarding a demonstration for refugee rights.
Earlier in the trial, the officer testified that when he arrived on the scene, many of the demonstrators had already dispersed.
Rashid, 31, was across the street when police arrived, the court heard, but returned to the area when he saw the officers.
The court heard Rashid became confrontational and ignored repeated requests to leave the premises.
Rashid was asked for his name so a ticket could be issued to him, but he refused, Doyle previously told the court.
Rashid resisted arrest and was eventually wrestled to the ground, where he kept trying to roll over, off his belly, the court heard.
The judge said that because the argument was getting louder and people were gathering, Doyle was within his rights to take action to prevent the situation from escalating.
Jackson also said it was clear that Rashid resisted the arrest and that any injuries he sustained weren't Doyle's fault.
Judge Leslie Jackson told the Fredericton court Friday that Cpl. Dwight Doyle was within his legal rights when he arrested Asaf Rashid at a city hall demonstration.
Doyle had responded to a policecall from a commissioner at city hall regarding a demonstration for refugee rights.
Earlier in the trial, the officer testified that when he arrived on the scene, many of the demonstrators had already dispersed.
Rashid, 31, was across the street when police arrived, the court heard, but returned to the area when he saw the officers.
The court heard Rashid became confrontational and ignored repeated requests to leave the premises.
Rashid was asked for his name so a ticket could be issued to him, but he refused, Doyle previously told the court.
Rashid resisted arrest and was eventually wrestled to the ground, where he kept trying to roll over, off his belly, the court heard.
The judge said that because the argument was getting louder and people were gathering, Doyle was within his rights to take action to prevent the situation from escalating.
Jackson also said it was clear that Rashid resisted the arrest and that any injuries he sustained weren't Doyle's fault.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/lone-quebec-protester-still-in-jail-1.296280
Lone Quebec protester still in jail
One protester from the Summit of the Americas remains in the suburban Orsainville jail.
Vaughan Barnett is a legal researcher from Fredericton. He is convinced the legal system in Quebec failed to provide him due process.
Barnett insists his protest was non-violent. He says he walked through a gate in the perimeter security fence and was arrested for no reason.
When he was offered bail, he says the prosecutor didn't give a reason why he should not be released on his own word.
"It imposes a serious question as to whether this is what should be happening in a democracy," Barnett said.
He calls his continued incarceration a stubborn attempt to make a point. He views his continued incarceration as a protest.
He hopes to embarrass authorities into letting him go. His case goes before a judge in two weeks.
Vaughan Barnett is a legal researcher from Fredericton. He is convinced the legal system in Quebec failed to provide him due process.
Barnett insists his protest was non-violent. He says he walked through a gate in the perimeter security fence and was arrested for no reason.
When he was offered bail, he says the prosecutor didn't give a reason why he should not be released on his own word.
"It imposes a serious question as to whether this is what should be happening in a democracy," Barnett said.
He calls his continued incarceration a stubborn attempt to make a point. He views his continued incarceration as a protest.
He hopes to embarrass authorities into letting him go. His case goes before a judge in two weeks.
https://rabble.ca/news/fredericton-man-remains-defiant
Fredericton Man Remains Defiant
May 11, 2001
Just
about everybody has heard about Montreal activist Jaggi Singh's run-in
with Quebec City's special anti-teddy-bear unit. News is also starting
to spread about the continued imprisonment of the Germinal 5, as
demonstrations are being prepared in various cities across the country
for the group's May 22 Quebec City hearing. But Vaughn Barnett's case
has not received much notice outside of his hometown of Fredericton New
Brunswick.
According to fellow protester Jeff Thoms, Barnett was not only openly and completely passive outside the Summit of the Americas. He had actually taped a bilingual sign to his chest that said he did not intend to damage any property. Once the fence was torn down and police had pushed Barnett out of the area, he crossed the perimeter again and sat down. "He felt he honestly had the right to be on the other side of the fence," said Thoms.
Barnett was subsequently charged with assaulting an officer. Since he opted to defend himself, he has had no contact with the Quebec Legal defence team, and few details of his case have been circulated.
The Coalition Of Fredericton Activists (COFA) is trying to change that. On May 7, it teamed-up with the Fredericton Alliance of Soft Toys (FAST), creating a combined force of about 130 assembled at Fredericton's city hall. There, the two groups participated in a re-enactment of the Quebec City protest. Some COFA members played the part of protesters while others donned riot-cop drag. FAST members were launched from a stuffed-animal catapult over a wall that was more than three metres high.
The theatre of the absurd (and entirely realistic) re-enactment played on the already well-known alleged teddy-antics of Jaggi Singh in order to draw attention to Barnett's continued imprisonment. Barnett's former wife, Tasha Barnett, is one of the few people who have been in contact with the prisoner. She says his main concern is "staying alive now that Jaggi has been released" and media interest in Orsainville detainees wanes.
Barnett could have walked out of Orsainville if he had agreed to pay $200 bail and sign a promise to appear (with certain conditions), but opted to stay behind bars to protest his lack of due process. Tasha Barnett explains that the former law student's attempts to defend himself in court are being considerably hampered because he is being denied access to law books (including the criminal code) to prepare his defence.
David Bernans is a researcher for the Concordia Student Union, a part-time professor at Concordia University, a member of the bikesheviks vélorutionnaires and is the author of the forthcoming book, Con U Inc: Privatization, Marketization and Globalization at Concordia University (and beyond). He ran for the NDP against Finance Minister Paul Martin in the most recent federal elections.
For rabble news Quebec Summit Coverage, please click here.
According to fellow protester Jeff Thoms, Barnett was not only openly and completely passive outside the Summit of the Americas. He had actually taped a bilingual sign to his chest that said he did not intend to damage any property. Once the fence was torn down and police had pushed Barnett out of the area, he crossed the perimeter again and sat down. "He felt he honestly had the right to be on the other side of the fence," said Thoms.
Barnett was subsequently charged with assaulting an officer. Since he opted to defend himself, he has had no contact with the Quebec Legal defence team, and few details of his case have been circulated.
The Coalition Of Fredericton Activists (COFA) is trying to change that. On May 7, it teamed-up with the Fredericton Alliance of Soft Toys (FAST), creating a combined force of about 130 assembled at Fredericton's city hall. There, the two groups participated in a re-enactment of the Quebec City protest. Some COFA members played the part of protesters while others donned riot-cop drag. FAST members were launched from a stuffed-animal catapult over a wall that was more than three metres high.
The theatre of the absurd (and entirely realistic) re-enactment played on the already well-known alleged teddy-antics of Jaggi Singh in order to draw attention to Barnett's continued imprisonment. Barnett's former wife, Tasha Barnett, is one of the few people who have been in contact with the prisoner. She says his main concern is "staying alive now that Jaggi has been released" and media interest in Orsainville detainees wanes.
Barnett could have walked out of Orsainville if he had agreed to pay $200 bail and sign a promise to appear (with certain conditions), but opted to stay behind bars to protest his lack of due process. Tasha Barnett explains that the former law student's attempts to defend himself in court are being considerably hampered because he is being denied access to law books (including the criminal code) to prepare his defence.
David Bernans is a researcher for the Concordia Student Union, a part-time professor at Concordia University, a member of the bikesheviks vélorutionnaires and is the author of the forthcoming book, Con U Inc: Privatization, Marketization and Globalization at Concordia University (and beyond). He ran for the NDP against Finance Minister Paul Martin in the most recent federal elections.
For rabble news Quebec Summit Coverage, please click here.
http://www.dominionpaper.ca/canadian_news/2003/08/23/fredericto.html
August 23, 2003
Fredericton Political Prisoner Freed
A Fredericton activist imprisoned for 18 days in Montreal following a mass arrest during last month's World Trade Organization (WTO) protest was denied a "most basic right" by the municipal judge who oversaw bail hearings for 120 anti-WTO protesters, a Superior Court judge ruled last week. Municipal Court Judge Denis Laberge should not have denied Vaughn Barnett's motion to present evidence in his own defence during his July 29 bail hearing, Justice James Brunton ruled in the August 15 review of Barnett's hearing.
Protesters arrested during demonstrations in Montreal were effectively forced to give up the right to protest through strict bail conditions. photo: Quebec Indymedia
"I shouldn't have been in prison at all, but I chose to be so that I wouldn't have to sign bail conditions that would compromise my constitutional rights and put me in a position of cooperating with what I consider to be fundamentally unjust institutions," Barnett told The Dominion shortly after his release. "The bail conditions were arbitrarily imposed on me and I considered that to be an extension of the unlawful process that started with the false arrest of almost 200 people in the green zone at the WTO protest." Barnett points to the continual arrests of people like Jaggi Singh and Aaron Koleszar as an argument against activists signing away their rights for a conditional release.
"An activist could be falsely arrested at one demonstration, be subjected to several bail conditions limiting his or her ability to protest later, and if the person tries to attend another demonstration the police can haul him or her into court and use those bail conditions against that person, claiming that the conditions were breached," he said. "Eventually, the activist is caged within these restrictions simply by being persistent and exercising basic constitutional rights."
Barnett, a legal advocate and researcher with a law degree, represented himself in court with assistance from Montreal lawyer, Denis Poitras. His trial is set for October 21.
Barnett was held for 42 days in a Quebec prison following the Summit of the Americas protest in 2001 under similar circumstances. --DARON LETTS
https://rabble.ca/news/radically-legal
An activist fights the law — and he's winning.
August 21, 2003
Vaughn Barnett was one of 150 protesters rounded up ina mass arrest on
July 28 during protests against theWorld Trade Organization
mini-ministerial in Montreal.Almost three weeks later, on August 15,
Barnett wasthe only protester still in jail after refusing tosign a
conditional release to regain his freedom.“I would as soon sign a
conditional release as buyback something that was stolen from me,” he
told thecourt during the review of his bail hearing thatresulted in his
release with minimal conditions.
Barnett was held for 42 days following the Summit ofthe Americas in Quebec City after refusing to sign aconditional release under similar circumstances. Bothhis arrests have court dates pending.
A legal researcher and advocate for people who can'tafford a lawyer in his home town of Fredericton, Barnettrepresented himself in court.
Denis Poitras, a Montreal lawyer representing more than 100 of those arrested in Montreal last month, saysthat the precedent set by Barnett will open thedoor for others to contest the long list of bailconditions imposed by the state following the massarrest in the green zone.
On the night of his release, Burnett was interviewed on Boulevard St. Laurent in Montreal — on thespot where he was arrested almost three weeks earlier.
Daron Letts: You have lived 60 days of your life inprison fighting against bail conditions that wouldhave secured your immediate release. Why?
Vaughn Barnett: These conditions set up an insidiousprocess — a slippery slope. The continual arrest ofJaggi Singh, Aaron Koleszar and others like themdemonstrates that quite well. An activist could befalsely arrested at one demonstration, be subjected toseveral bail conditions, limiting his or her abilityto protest later, then if the person tries to attendanother protest the police can haul him or her backinto court and use those bail conditions against thatperson, claiming that the conditions were breached.
Further restrictions canthen be imposed and, eventually, the activist is cagedwithin these restrictions simply by being persistentand exercising constitutional rights. It seems to bequite obvious that what the police and the people inthe judicial system want is for each arrestee to gethauled off to court and accept bail conditions,possibly accept a plea bargain, and come out the otherend more disempowered to exercise their civilliberties at subsequent demonstrations.
Letts: What advice would you offer to activists facingbail conditions after being swept up in anindiscriminant mass arrest?
Barnett: Well, respect for diversity of tactics meansallowing us all to try our different approaches.There's an ongoing learning and experimentalprocess for each of us, but I'd liketo see people acting in greater solidarity when itcomes to these mass arrests. When a group of us getshauled into court, if we all insisted on our fulllegal rights and full evidentiary bail hearings thenthat would be putting quite a strain on the legalsystem. We can't make these mass arrests convenientfor the state. If they don't likehaving the system clogged they can reconsider thispolicy of mass arrests. I think this would have thesame impact as if people were to sabotage capitalistor military operations, for example, yet it would beperfectly lawful. In fact, it would be taking the lawto its radical extreme.
Letts: Radically legal? How do you reconcile thisparadox?
Barnett: The concept of radicalism itself means goingto the roots of a system and, legally, it means goingto basic constitutional principles or principles ofjustice and the common good that the law is based on.Even if a situation calls for direct action or civildisobedience that doesn't mean that there's no legaljustification for those tactics. In fact, thosetactics, to be justified, would presuppose seriouslawlessness on the part of the state that we would bewithin our lawful rights to oppose.
So, I don't seeany inconsistency between lawfulness and civildisobedience. I think that this actually leads togreater radicalism and empowerment of the peoplebecause when you can do something as radical as directaction or civil disobedience, and yet have a legaljustification for it, then you've got legitimacy onyour side opposing the illegitimacy on the other side.
Letts: Is it realisticfor people without legal training to confront thesystem as you've done?
Barnett: I'm finding more and more that lay people canlearn quite a bit about the law. I've met peopleworking with legal collectives who have learned somevaluable skills and have even offered their servicesto people like me. The thing about the law is it canbe used to oppress or empower and one of the main waysit's used to oppress is through mystification, causingpeople to think that the law is so incomprehensiblethat it has to be entrusted to lawyers as an elitegroup. But, the basic principles of the law asenshrined in the constitution and our charter ofrights are quite easy to understand because they arebasic moral principles.
Ifa person were to read the criminal code and theCharter of Rights they would know a lot about thisarea of the law and be quite empowered.
Barnett was held for 42 days following the Summit ofthe Americas in Quebec City after refusing to sign aconditional release under similar circumstances. Bothhis arrests have court dates pending.
A legal researcher and advocate for people who can'tafford a lawyer in his home town of Fredericton, Barnettrepresented himself in court.
Denis Poitras, a Montreal lawyer representing more than 100 of those arrested in Montreal last month, saysthat the precedent set by Barnett will open thedoor for others to contest the long list of bailconditions imposed by the state following the massarrest in the green zone.
On the night of his release, Burnett was interviewed on Boulevard St. Laurent in Montreal — on thespot where he was arrested almost three weeks earlier.
Daron Letts: You have lived 60 days of your life inprison fighting against bail conditions that wouldhave secured your immediate release. Why?
Vaughn Barnett: These conditions set up an insidiousprocess — a slippery slope. The continual arrest ofJaggi Singh, Aaron Koleszar and others like themdemonstrates that quite well. An activist could befalsely arrested at one demonstration, be subjected toseveral bail conditions, limiting his or her abilityto protest later, then if the person tries to attendanother protest the police can haul him or her backinto court and use those bail conditions against thatperson, claiming that the conditions were breached.
Further restrictions canthen be imposed and, eventually, the activist is cagedwithin these restrictions simply by being persistentand exercising constitutional rights. It seems to bequite obvious that what the police and the people inthe judicial system want is for each arrestee to gethauled off to court and accept bail conditions,possibly accept a plea bargain, and come out the otherend more disempowered to exercise their civilliberties at subsequent demonstrations.
Letts: What advice would you offer to activists facingbail conditions after being swept up in anindiscriminant mass arrest?
Barnett: Well, respect for diversity of tactics meansallowing us all to try our different approaches.There's an ongoing learning and experimentalprocess for each of us, but I'd liketo see people acting in greater solidarity when itcomes to these mass arrests. When a group of us getshauled into court, if we all insisted on our fulllegal rights and full evidentiary bail hearings thenthat would be putting quite a strain on the legalsystem. We can't make these mass arrests convenientfor the state. If they don't likehaving the system clogged they can reconsider thispolicy of mass arrests. I think this would have thesame impact as if people were to sabotage capitalistor military operations, for example, yet it would beperfectly lawful. In fact, it would be taking the lawto its radical extreme.
Letts: Radically legal? How do you reconcile thisparadox?
Barnett: The concept of radicalism itself means goingto the roots of a system and, legally, it means goingto basic constitutional principles or principles ofjustice and the common good that the law is based on.Even if a situation calls for direct action or civildisobedience that doesn't mean that there's no legaljustification for those tactics. In fact, thosetactics, to be justified, would presuppose seriouslawlessness on the part of the state that we would bewithin our lawful rights to oppose.
So, I don't seeany inconsistency between lawfulness and civildisobedience. I think that this actually leads togreater radicalism and empowerment of the peoplebecause when you can do something as radical as directaction or civil disobedience, and yet have a legaljustification for it, then you've got legitimacy onyour side opposing the illegitimacy on the other side.
Letts: Is it realisticfor people without legal training to confront thesystem as you've done?
Barnett: I'm finding more and more that lay people canlearn quite a bit about the law. I've met peopleworking with legal collectives who have learned somevaluable skills and have even offered their servicesto people like me. The thing about the law is it canbe used to oppress or empower and one of the main waysit's used to oppress is through mystification, causingpeople to think that the law is so incomprehensiblethat it has to be entrusted to lawyers as an elitegroup. But, the basic principles of the law asenshrined in the constitution and our charter ofrights are quite easy to understand because they arebasic moral principles.
Ifa person were to read the criminal code and theCharter of Rights they would know a lot about thisarea of the law and be quite empowered.
http://halifax.mediacoop.ca/blog/asaf-rashid/919
Not reviewed by Halifax Media Co-op editors. copyedited [?]
December 22, Atlantica Trial, recap
Blog posts reflect the views of their authors.
There were about 35 people in attendance for support through the day. It was amazing and very uplifting for the defendants to have the supporters in the room. It helped give us a boost of energy as we took the stand, always a difficult experience.
Also, some people served food outside. The "From G8 to Atlantica: Resistance is Global" banner made an appearance as well. Thanks to everyone.
Our defender
Vaughn Barnett, non-lawyer advocate from New Brunswick, is defending the four of us. He's been helping Atlantica defendents since the arrests. He's doing it because he's committed to defending the poor and political dissidents. Vaughn helps greatly in the fight against the system using his over 14 years of experience with the law. His own politics, recognizing the systemic injustices of capitalism, make him approach the defense with the open-ness to making broad challenges.
The proceedings
The point of the day was to see if the charges would even go to trial, to attempt to get a stay of proceedings. The argument brought fourth by Vaughn was that our charter rights were violated through the arrests and treatment in jail. The official name of the kind of procedure we were going through was called a "charter challenge." The hope was that it would be made obvious that there were sufficient violations of procedure to nullify the trial. In his application for the charter challenge, Vaughn demonstrated that there were precedents of other judges granting stays of proceedings because of similar circumstances, the idea being that if a judge were to find there were significant charter violations, the matter can't go to trial unless the charter violations are tried first.
The day started our with Vaughn arguing for a stay of all the proceedings, including the charter challenge, because the Crown provided late disclosure of Gottingen Jail video footage of defendents and the other people arrested at the Atlantica protest. Vaughn received these tapes and CDs just before the proceedings began. Obviously there was no time to review the 24 hours of footage by then! The judge denied giving a stay of proceedings because of the late disclosure. So, the charter challenge proceeded.
Vaughn asked questions to each of the defendants about how they came to the arrest and about treatment during the arrest and in custody. His goal was to reveal improper feeding, lack of respect for legal rights and intimidation. There were many examples of these kinds of treatment.
The prosecutor was very aggressive. He asked questions to each defendent about their presence at other protests to try to make us look like we had chronic problems with protests and violence, and that we knew what we were getting ourselves into. To the first defendant, the prosecutor asked about things on fire being thrown at the police. There were no things on fire thrown. Other questions were asked to the first defendant about violence and aggression at the protest. The prosecutor asked him about his presence at other protests and whether or not they were violent protests. The prosecutor questioned him about his presence at the WTO protest in Montreal in 2003 and the Summit of the Americas protest in Quebec City in 2001, asking if they were violent protests. He responded: "the police were violent" for each of these questions. He also asked him "were you in Seattle?" (WTO protest), to which he responded with a very determined "no". The crowd laughed at this question because it was obvious the crown was trying to make him look like a chronic protester with violent tendencies and wasn't getting anywhere. The prosecutor complained that he was being laughed at and the judge politely informed the crowd about resepcting the court or they would be asked to leave. The prosecutor also mocked one of defendants for wearing a dress at the protest, to which the defendent announced that it was a "beautiful dress". To another defendant, he interrogated him about dressing in black at the Atlantica protest, to which he responded, "I always wear black".
As the day carried on, it looked like the judge was not really averse to us; however, he gave the prosecutor some leeway to ask questions that seemed like they were focused on our protest history, which should not have been considered relevant, but the questioning was allowed to proceed for each defendent in that manner. In the case of the first defendent on the stand, the prosecutor was finally stopped only when the prosecutor started asking about his presence at the Seattle protest.
There was one other witness other than the the defendants. It was the director of Corrections Nova Scotia. He was asked questions about what proper procedure at the prison was supposed to be, such as proper feeding, respect for vegetarian diets and other legal rights we were supposed to have been afforded according the procedure. There were some startling statements that he made. Prisoners are not supposed to receive vegeterian or any other "special diets" unless they are practitioners of one of the main, recognized religions (monotheistic) or if they have medical conditions. Some religions are not even recognized by the Corrections institute! They are referred to as culture. They do no provide special diets for "lifestyle" reasons. The judge actually asked a question to him about what the difference was between someone being bound to obey their consceince if they didn't believe it was ethical to eat animals, versus if they believed they were being instructed by a holy power to do so. The man did not realy have an answer to this. No surprise that the actual policies of prisons are so discriminatory, after all, the whole institute is based on putting up walls. All the inmates were also supposed to receive a "handbook" that told us what our rightw were. No one recieved this. The guy from Corrections was asked about this, saying we should have been informed of this. He also revealed that there was a copy of this book in the min room in our cell block, which was news to us, over a year-and-a-half later.
The Prosecutor then asked the director of Corrections some of his own easy questions. Following, the proceedings were adjourned after some negotiations over what would happen next. The Crown wanted to call in some police officers to get other versions of what happened at the protest. There was arguement over why this was relevant. Vaughn was not the one who strayed into that line of questioning -- i.e. trying to include what happened BEFORE the arrest in the charter challenge -- it was the Prosecutor who did this. Vaughn argued that the Crown had plenty of time to have called in any such witnesses he was suddenly interested in calling, but he didn't. The arguement Vaughn made was that he should not be allowed to delay the proceedings if he didn't prepare for such witnesses already. Vaughn argued that there should not be an adjournment. In the end, the Judge decided to allow an adjournment, and the dates were set for August, for both the remainder of the current procedure and the trial! That's a very long 9 months away. Vaughn argued for the conditions to be removed because the process was lingering. Neither the judge or the Crown condeded, claiming that the defendents had to go to the Supreme Court to argue for such changes.
Despite the dissappointing limbo we're in, we're bolstered by the great solidarity shown.
Resistance to Atlantica will continue.
Halifax News : blogFebruary 27, 2010
Reviewed by Halifax Media Co-op editors. copyedited [?]
Atlantica protest trial – solidarity has a powerful effect but one goes to jail
Blog posts reflect the views of their authors.
Feb 27, 2010Two years and eight months after the June 15, 2007 Atlantica protest and 21 arrests, the four people who remained on trial – myself, Colin, Aaron and George – finally reached our sentencing date: February 24, 2010. It was, and will continue to be, a long struggle, which has been marked by great examples of solidarity along the way. But one out of four was thrown in jail.
Background
(I won't recount the protest and whole court battle here, because that's a story on its own)
Upon our June 15th arrests, we spent three days in jail, and had to endure release conditions since then, which included: non-association with all the others arrested at the protest; prohibition from attending protests; an obligation to report to the court any changes of address; the requirement to show up to court on demand; and, the blanket “keep the peace and be of good behaviour”, which meant everyone had to ensure they were not charged with any new offenses, or else suffer a further charge of Breach, then go to jail.
It came to the decision on November 27th 2010. The judge, Michael Sherar, had to rule on our two arguments for shutting down the proceedings and on our charges themselves. We made arguments about violation of our Charter rights through the arrests and jail and about the trial being delayed beyond what should be allowed. The judge firmly decided against the Charter argument and ruled that the delay was only “borderline”, even though the period went beyond the delay precedents. Then, we were all found guilty of at least one charge amongst: unlawful assembly, possession of a marble (“weapon”) dangerous to the public, obstruction of a Peace Officer and breach of previous conditions.
Sentencing Date
Prior to our sentencing date, a significant effort was put into packing the courtroom. Similar efforts have been put into past court appearances, but this time, something was different. It was clear that this was the conclusion of the long trial process; that convictions had already been entered; and, that the judge was ready to hand down punishment. It was the last opportunity to let the judge see that the defendants had support. This, no doubt, helped build momentum. But there was also the feeling that many had about the whole situation being unfair, where four people were forced through such a long process when none were actually convicted of harming any person or even destroying any property. Guilty by association was the main theme. But despite the acknowledgment of unfairness, the sheer sketchiness of the connection between the defendants and any particular actions lead many onlookers to previously think the charges would eventually be dropped, but by the November 27th decision, it was clear that such a possibility vanished. All in all, people knew their presence was needed for February 24th.
The courtroom was so full that not everyone could even get in. One person heard a court cop say he'd never seen it so full. All told, more than 60 people made it out, representing a very diverse crowd of youth, professors, union organizers, environmentalists, students, unemployed and organizers from Halifax's resilient black community, who particularly understand repression. More than once during the sentencing hearing, the judge looked up and you could tell he felt the presence of the unprecedented crowd.
The Crown, Eric Woodburn conducted his arguments for sentencing first. He began with me. He started by characterizing the protest as an example of anarchy and how society could not allow anarchy to erode democratic values. Peaceful protest was well and good according to Woodburn, but the anarchy and violence at the Atlantica protest was a threat to our very social fabric. He also made reference to the fact that there was an upcoming G8 conference in Halifax, and an example needed to be set to ensure that everyone knew that anarchy and violence would not be allowed there. In my view, his arguments came across as a rant. Additionally, since the beginning of this trial, Woodburn has harped on the fact that I gave a presentation about resistance to Atlantica and global resistance to neoliberalism a few days before the protest, and that this, in addition to the fact that I have been at many other protests, showed that I was clearly a leader figure at the protest. However, no evidence was ever entered about me having anything more than a participatory role. Throughout Woodburn's entire commentary, he cited no case law, and made no reference to any specific witness testimonies to back up his position. This limited preparation reflected his total overconfidence that the result he desired was a formality. For me, he wanted one month of jail time. But he was not ready for what happened after.
My non-lawyer agent was a law student just about to graduate. Woodburn probably thought he'd be a pushover, but he was mistaken. My agent only had a few days to prepare because of my late request, but he worked with me non-stop during that time, finding the relevant precedents to put together a very strong case. I told him what I wanted done, and he translated it into an impressive case against my going to jail, and he did it all pro bono, out of a sheer commitment to those struggling for social justice. After he was done, the judge, known as one of the tougher ones in this kind of case, was in a position where he could do little other than favour my agent's arguments. He had to go with the “existing case law”, which my agent presented as showing that someone in my situation should NOT get jail time. Woodburn, in contrast, gave no case law to back his position for incarceration. I am of the view that if Woodburn would have given some case law to try and validate his position, the story might have ended differently because the judge would have been given an option. In the end, the judge ruled for a conditional discharge, with 18 months of probation and 100 hours of community service, $50 fine for each of my two charges, a weapons ban for 5 years (he didn't say whether or not it included marbles). My record of discharge lasts for an additional 3 years after my probation ends.
For George, the Crown also tried for the same punishment and the result was identical to mine, aside from the weapons ban. The Crown didn't repeat the same speech in arguments for George's sentence, but added in a few specific anecdotes to reflect George's circumstances. George's Legal Aid lawyer really just had to make a few points about potential harm that jail could present for his client, but was bascally riding on the coattails of my agent's thorough defense.
The same general context was presented for Colin. Duty Counsel represented him and put forward an argument about Colin's positive personal development and how his precarious socioeconomic status should be taken into consideration for sentencing. He ended up with a suspended sentence and the same conditions as George, except without the $100 fine due to his socioeconomic status. A suspended sentence basically means the jail sentence is put off to give a chance for the defendant to go through the probationary period, and if successful with no new charges arising, the judge usually throws out the sentence.
Aaron got the worst punishment. The Crown focused on his breach of a previous condition as being particularly problematic and presented how there was another breach of release conditions (non-association) since the arrest. The characterization was of someone who chose to flout his conditions. Aaron's Legal Aid lawyer presented a very reasoned defense, that Aaron harmed NO ONE in his breaches and that none of the breaches could be conceived of as part of disruptive actions. He also explained how Aaron had already performed community service for a previous arrest, and generally commented on how incarceration would be very detrimental. But all these great arguments mattered little; the Court tends to go hard on “contempt” related charges, where they feel their authority is being questioned/disrespected. Nevermind that Aaron did not harm anyone, the fact that the Court feels insulted is enough validation for them to put Aaron in a concrete room. He got 15 days, along with a criminal record. Even after the whole 2-year-and-8-month ordeal, he still got more jail.
An appeal?
There is no word yet about whether or not there will be an appeal. A lot needs to be considered to go for an appeal, including time and money, but also the potential of making a social cause out of the appeal, pros and cons.
In Solidarity
The whole saga, between the original arrests and today, has seen many court appearances and a decent chunk of money spent on covering basic costs that were court related.
We were initially defended collectively by non-lawyer agent Vaughn Barnett, a low income social justice activist with law degree and years of experience with similar efforts. Out of a commitment to social justice, he defended four comrades who were otherwise without a legal defense. He helped whittle down the charges before the decision. Then, for my sentencing, another comrade stepped in to assist me when I got myself stuck trying to represent myself.
We also were helped with a few benefit shows along the way, which assisted us in covering our costs. Several performers over the last 2-plus years have participated.
Never did we show up in court without at least some people in the stands to back us up. On our last day in court, we added an exclamation mark with a packed house.
All along the way, these acts of solidarity helped with the designed-to-be stressful court battle. But more importantly, the solidarity created examples of people helping each other out through social struggles. They are valuable stories, to be repeated in whatever forms each particular battle requires. I personally hope that the examples of solidarity shown through the particular battle that me and my friends have gone through can be expanded the next time someone has to face similar challenges, and the next time ...
One person is still in a concrete room. He has been getting messages of support, which will hopefully continue upon his release.
Thank you everyone for being there for us and let it be reciprocated when the time comes
Asaf
http://charlesotherpersonalitie.blogspot.com/2017/03/fredericton-police-should-arrest.html
Wednesday, 22 March 2017
Fredericton Police should arrest Blogger during next few days! Someone in Justice wants to harm Blogger!!!!
3 comments :
- Charles, going by your comments rather than a transcript, it sounds like this judge made little allowance for you as a self-represented litigant. Her "dog ate my homework" remark shows her insensitivity to people with ADHD, who can easily forget notes. A brief recess, to allow you to get your notes from home nearby, would have been less accommodation than I have seen the court give lawyers at times.Reply
Also, the judge could have warned you of the consequence of not presenting your own evidence. This would not be giving you legal advice so much as ensuring access to justice. Rather, she apparently counted on you walking into this procedural trap, so that she could rule against you on formal grounds, without having to deal with the real merits of your case. I have observed judges, particularly this one, use that tactic before, against disliked litigants representing themselves. 
Anonymous22 March 2017 at 21:35Vaughn Barnett, I had a professional opinion given to me on this decision, and what Charles is completely unaware of is that an appeal is possible when there is an error in law that the lower court committed. It is the opinion of that professional that the appeal that Charles will do is dead on arrival. In which case, the road is over for you Charles, the SCOC won't hear your case either. YOU LOSE CHARLES!Reply- Anonymous23 March 2017 at 20:25The only error of law is that Blogger Charles didn't present a case. If you're not going to cross examine defence witnesses you are dead in the water. The court indulged him as did the City - this has dragged on for years. When you file an action it's your responsibility to push and present your case. Charles makes not effort then blames the other party for not rolling over and admitting they were all wrong - that's not how the world works. Vaughan Barnett - you should know by now you cannot hypothesise from a short legal decision of a two day trial - which sounds like it was all about the defence presenting witnesses and evidence and the Plaintiff doing zip, except ask for adjournments and refuse to cross examine! What Twilight Zone world are you people living in???
http://oldmaison.blogspot.com/2007/01/vaughn-barnett-is-found-guilty-and.html
Thursday, January 18, 2007
1 comment:
- Charles you think it cost a lot on your Case ?you should of ben in Court and seen all the Booklet on Vaughn Case
http://oldmaison.blogspot.com/2007/01/verdict-should-come-down-today_18.html
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Verdict should come down today!
Charles,
Court goes back in session Thursday at 11 am. Vaughn is still in the middle of his argument.
Expect it all to be done tomorrow afternoon
Fred McKellman seemed to be getting away with some major attitude towards Vaughn (I'm not sure how much of that you heard). He was totally trying to make Vaughn out to be some sort of manipulative person with largely selfish motives
see you tomorrow
?????
Court goes back in session Thursday at 11 am. Vaughn is still in the middle of his argument.
Expect it all to be done tomorrow afternoon
Fred McKellman seemed to be getting away with some major attitude towards Vaughn (I'm not sure how much of that you heard). He was totally trying to make Vaughn out to be some sort of manipulative person with largely selfish motives
see you tomorrow
?????
http://oldmaison.blogspot.com/2007/01/new-brunswick-law-society-are-really.html
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
NEW BRUNSWICK LAW SOCIETY ARE REALLY GIVING VAUGHN BARNETT A DIFFICULT TIME!!!
I just came from the court room and the verdcit should come out today. Here's what happened so far? Click read more -
All are invited, and highly encouraged, to help our friend and dedicated social justice activist and non-lawyer advocate for the poor, Vaughn Barnett, as he prepares to enter precarious territory on this January 17th. On that date, Vaughn will be in court ( DAY 5) to defend himself against the Law Society of New Brunswick. They will be attempting to have him charged with contempt of court for allegedly providing services that only lawyers are allowed to, a charge which could land him in jail. One of the documents the Law Society provided Vaughn with for this case was a previous case where someone was put in jail for 8 MONTHS! for contempt of court. Vaughn highly doubts that 8 months is likely at all, but a several weeks would not be an unlikely expectation.
The decision is likely to come out tomorrow afternoon. So far, things are looking somewhat bleak.
Vaughn is asking for as much moral support as possible, so please make it if you can, especially in the afternoon, but the morning would be great too if that's the only time that's possible.
*****This is a call to all supporters to show the as massive solidarity as we can muster in defense of a deeply dedicated, local social justice activist; all we need to do is attend his trial to show moral support and present to the judge and prosecuting lawyer(s) that Vaughn is not fighting his struggle alone, and will not be pushed around in silence. Anyone is allowed to attend the trial and be part of the audience; no special permission required. In Halifax recently, Halifax Coalition Against Poverty activist Cole Webber had 25 people come to support him in court for his political trial. Montreal activist Jaggi Singh recently had around 80 people show to support him in a case where he was facing charges for his participation in refugee solidarity activism*****
If Vaughn loses, he can end up in jail, or with fines or some other financial punishment for doing nothing more than trying to help poor people defend themselves. It should be noted that Vaughn lives on social assistance, so he can ill afford fines, thus would likely be forced to go to jail if fines are overly burdensome. Additionally, a loss for Vaughn would set a dangerous precedent that could make it very difficult for grassroots groups in Fredericton, and possibly throughout the province, to provide any sort of legalistic services in the future without challenges.
If you can make it, please arrive at the courthouse in downtown Fredericton (“Justice” building on the corner of Queen and Carlton ) at:
***9:00AM ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 11TH***
A group will be waiting at the entrance to the courthouse, and we shall go in together to show a collective solidarity with Vaughn. WE NEED AS LARGE AN ATTENDANCE AS POSSIBLE. Even attending for 30 minutes - 1 hour helps. Courtroom solidarity is effective if enough people show up to demonstrate a collective strength that will continue to show resilience. A large support group can send a strong message to the judge and prosecutor. Through such solidarity, an unavoidable impression is created that pushing around the one person on trial reequires trying to push around all the supporters as well
THE BACKGROUND:
The Law Society of NB, which grants status to all practicing lawyers in New Brunswick, has hounded Vaughn for several years, continually arriving in court to intercept him every time he has tried to assist someone by using his knowledge of the law. The interference has included attempting to have everything Vaughn submits before the court on someone else’s account thrown out. Most of the time, these cold acts of interference—leaving poor people defenseless—have been effective for the
Law Society. And all this takes place in the province with probably the worst availabilty of Legal Aid services compared with any other in the country, anccording to Vaughn.
Vaughn has made it clear that a strong motivation for the Law Society's continual interference with his work has been animosity towards his direct challenge of the legal profession in NB for their gross lack of services available to poor people and their excessively high legel fees. Another factor mobilizing their interference has been a strong bias against both Vaughn's socialist views and his support and use of various forms of civil disobediance.
Vaughn's work in Fredericton is valuable. Many poor people, over the years, have approached him (and his free services) in order to pursue their respective legal/political cases. He does not announce himself as a lawyer, but someone with legal training. He holds an LL.B. (law degree) from the University of Western Ontario (1994), which, along with his own personalized research over the years, provides him with knowledge that the average person does not have, such as how to write up any relevant legal documents and how to do effective legal research.
After receiving his law degree, he had the intention of pursuing a career as a lawyer; however, when he returned home to Fredericton , he could not find a lawyer to article (apprentice) with—a necessary step in becoming a lawyer. Vaughn's career was temporarily halted, but rather than waiting for an “ordinary” opportunity, he decided to fill in the gaping hole that he still occupies today: arming poor people with tools they do not possess, so they can better defend themselves, find out what other legal options are available or even help determine when is the time for engaging in protest actions (which he joins them in). On occasion, Vaughn has also been able to speak in the courtroom; these have been situations where any citizen could have stepped in. Essentially, he has made himself available to those who would otherwise be out in the cold pleading for pro bono services or left to defending themselves with no training in the complicated games of the courtroom.
Rather than being recognized for his services, Vaughn has been punished. A complaint by the Law Society several years ago resulted in a court order (issued by Justice Riordon) in November of 2000 that has since prohibited Vaughn from offering “lawyer-like services.” The order is classified as a “permanent injunction” against Vaughn providing any lawyer-like services. This has often prevented the Court from accepting legal paperwork Vaughn has prepared for those requesting his help. This has included notices of motion, notices of application, affidavits and other legal documents that ANY PERSON is technically allowed to do on her/his own if he/she possesses the know-how. My speculation is that the Law Society will be seeking to expand on the already ridiculously restrictive conditions on Vaughn, aiming to prevent him from engaging in ANY communication with the court on someone else’s or EVEN ON HIS OWN BEHALF.
Once again, the date of the trial is:
Thursday, January 11th, 9AM at the Courthouse in downttown Fredericton
Please support Vaughn in his struggle. If you have any questions, please feel free to email me at asaf@citizenspress.org.
Sincerely and in solidarity
Asaf Rashid
(Along with Vaughn, one of the founding member of the Advocacy Collective, a justice-for-the poor, Fredericton-based collective that is currently in hibernation).
All are invited, and highly encouraged, to help our friend and dedicated social justice activist and non-lawyer advocate for the poor, Vaughn Barnett, as he prepares to enter precarious territory on this January 17th. On that date, Vaughn will be in court ( DAY 5) to defend himself against the Law Society of New Brunswick. They will be attempting to have him charged with contempt of court for allegedly providing services that only lawyers are allowed to, a charge which could land him in jail. One of the documents the Law Society provided Vaughn with for this case was a previous case where someone was put in jail for 8 MONTHS! for contempt of court. Vaughn highly doubts that 8 months is likely at all, but a several weeks would not be an unlikely expectation.
The decision is likely to come out tomorrow afternoon. So far, things are looking somewhat bleak.
Vaughn is asking for as much moral support as possible, so please make it if you can, especially in the afternoon, but the morning would be great too if that's the only time that's possible.
*****This is a call to all supporters to show the as massive solidarity as we can muster in defense of a deeply dedicated, local social justice activist; all we need to do is attend his trial to show moral support and present to the judge and prosecuting lawyer(s) that Vaughn is not fighting his struggle alone, and will not be pushed around in silence. Anyone is allowed to attend the trial and be part of the audience; no special permission required. In Halifax recently, Halifax Coalition Against Poverty activist Cole Webber had 25 people come to support him in court for his political trial. Montreal activist Jaggi Singh recently had around 80 people show to support him in a case where he was facing charges for his participation in refugee solidarity activism*****
If Vaughn loses, he can end up in jail, or with fines or some other financial punishment for doing nothing more than trying to help poor people defend themselves. It should be noted that Vaughn lives on social assistance, so he can ill afford fines, thus would likely be forced to go to jail if fines are overly burdensome. Additionally, a loss for Vaughn would set a dangerous precedent that could make it very difficult for grassroots groups in Fredericton, and possibly throughout the province, to provide any sort of legalistic services in the future without challenges.
If you can make it, please arrive at the courthouse in downtown Fredericton (“Justice” building on the corner of Queen and Carlton ) at:
***9:00AM ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 11TH***
A group will be waiting at the entrance to the courthouse, and we shall go in together to show a collective solidarity with Vaughn. WE NEED AS LARGE AN ATTENDANCE AS POSSIBLE. Even attending for 30 minutes - 1 hour helps. Courtroom solidarity is effective if enough people show up to demonstrate a collective strength that will continue to show resilience. A large support group can send a strong message to the judge and prosecutor. Through such solidarity, an unavoidable impression is created that pushing around the one person on trial reequires trying to push around all the supporters as well
THE BACKGROUND:
The Law Society of NB, which grants status to all practicing lawyers in New Brunswick, has hounded Vaughn for several years, continually arriving in court to intercept him every time he has tried to assist someone by using his knowledge of the law. The interference has included attempting to have everything Vaughn submits before the court on someone else’s account thrown out. Most of the time, these cold acts of interference—leaving poor people defenseless—have been effective for the
Law Society. And all this takes place in the province with probably the worst availabilty of Legal Aid services compared with any other in the country, anccording to Vaughn.
Vaughn has made it clear that a strong motivation for the Law Society's continual interference with his work has been animosity towards his direct challenge of the legal profession in NB for their gross lack of services available to poor people and their excessively high legel fees. Another factor mobilizing their interference has been a strong bias against both Vaughn's socialist views and his support and use of various forms of civil disobediance.
Vaughn's work in Fredericton is valuable. Many poor people, over the years, have approached him (and his free services) in order to pursue their respective legal/political cases. He does not announce himself as a lawyer, but someone with legal training. He holds an LL.B. (law degree) from the University of Western Ontario (1994), which, along with his own personalized research over the years, provides him with knowledge that the average person does not have, such as how to write up any relevant legal documents and how to do effective legal research.
After receiving his law degree, he had the intention of pursuing a career as a lawyer; however, when he returned home to Fredericton , he could not find a lawyer to article (apprentice) with—a necessary step in becoming a lawyer. Vaughn's career was temporarily halted, but rather than waiting for an “ordinary” opportunity, he decided to fill in the gaping hole that he still occupies today: arming poor people with tools they do not possess, so they can better defend themselves, find out what other legal options are available or even help determine when is the time for engaging in protest actions (which he joins them in). On occasion, Vaughn has also been able to speak in the courtroom; these have been situations where any citizen could have stepped in. Essentially, he has made himself available to those who would otherwise be out in the cold pleading for pro bono services or left to defending themselves with no training in the complicated games of the courtroom.
Rather than being recognized for his services, Vaughn has been punished. A complaint by the Law Society several years ago resulted in a court order (issued by Justice Riordon) in November of 2000 that has since prohibited Vaughn from offering “lawyer-like services.” The order is classified as a “permanent injunction” against Vaughn providing any lawyer-like services. This has often prevented the Court from accepting legal paperwork Vaughn has prepared for those requesting his help. This has included notices of motion, notices of application, affidavits and other legal documents that ANY PERSON is technically allowed to do on her/his own if he/she possesses the know-how. My speculation is that the Law Society will be seeking to expand on the already ridiculously restrictive conditions on Vaughn, aiming to prevent him from engaging in ANY communication with the court on someone else’s or EVEN ON HIS OWN BEHALF.
Once again, the date of the trial is:
Thursday, January 11th, 9AM at the Courthouse in downttown Fredericton
Please support Vaughn in his struggle. If you have any questions, please feel free to email me at asaf@citizenspress.org.
Sincerely and in solidarity
Asaf Rashid
(Along with Vaughn, one of the founding member of the Advocacy Collective, a justice-for-the poor, Fredericton-based collective that is currently in hibernation).
5 comments:
- I hope that things work out for Mr Barnett as the poor need someone on the legal side of things to help them out. Legal Aid just does not cut it as legal aid is not as free as they way it is. I wish Mr Barnett all the best with this case.
- I wish you all best in your lawsuit. But I can see what the law society
is doing, they are simply protecting the law profession (just like the
Teachers association, the Nurces association, the Engineers association,
etc..). They make sure that people who seek advice get the best
possible advice from trained qualified professionals that keep up with
their professional training.
But on the same note I am not able to take a side on this issue because I don't have all the facts as there must be a reason that he was not able to find a lawer to do his training in order to become a registered lawer - It is a simple FACT that Vaughn was doing what any person is allowed to
do, whether they have training or not. It is basic freedom of speech
that if somebody comes to you and asks you how to do something then you
can provide them with information. If a hospital refuses to treat you
(as legal aid does, just ask charles), then people MUST be allowed to
seek other courses of redress. As charles has often said, how many
poor people are in jail just because they don't have representation?
How bad is poverty REALLY in the province.
For those trying to grant the benefit of the doubt to the province, keep in mind this is a province that prosecuted Charles for taking pictures without any evidence whatsoever, and a a committee, most of whom were lawyers, drew up a bill that said Charles would be charged with 'assault' if he steps foot on legislature grounds, even if nobody else is around.
These acts are the main reason that many people acquiesced to having a federal government-somebody to keep an eye on provincial malfeasance. Yet the feds do nothing about this. This is simply government supported organized crime. - Are you saying that anyone can give legal advice for free or that anyone can charge for it? Are you saying Mr. Barnett does all his "legal" work for free?
- Yes, because he's on social assistance, and those who he helps have no money, that is the point. The big point is that he makes himself available, sort of like a 'company'. So the Law Society sent a 'cease and desist', then went to the court to order him to stop. When he refused, that became 'contempt of court'. Somebody can jump in there if there's an error or to fill in the blanks.
http://oldmaison.blogspot.com/2007/01/vaughn-barnett-final-argruments-set.html
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
VAUGHN BARNETT - FINAL ARGRUMENTS SET FOR 2:30PM!!!
I
chatted with the guy this morning and he feels that he's going to be
found guilty. I watch a little this morning and it doesn't look good.
I'll be there at 2:300pm!!!!
Room#7
Stay tuned!
I'll be there at 2:300pm!!!!
Room#7
Stay tuned!
http://oldmaison.blogspot.com/2007/01/could-vaughn-barnett-be-sent-to-jail.html
Monday, January 15, 2007
COULD VAUGHN BARNETT BE SENT TO JAIL THIS WEEK BY THE NEW BRUNSWICK LAW SOCIETY???
Ok . . . I never blog this issue but since he’s in court? I’ll put this issue so the readers can debate the issue.
Vaughn Barnett is in court this week.
It began late last week and will continue for a few more days.
I walked into the court room this morning and there were a few supporters.
The reason this guy is in court is because he gives advice to the poor on legal issues. He’s not a recognized lawyer.
The interesting part of this trial is it’s the Law Society who wishes to put this guy in Jail.
In New Brunswick, we live in a strange situation.
The Police Forces can grab you from the streets < like what happened to me in Saint John > and you will have to defend yourself in court.
Legal Aid will not give you a lawyer.
So of course, you will be found guilty and put on probation.
The second you break that probation? You end up in jail.
A poor person could use the legal knowledge of Vaughn but the Law Society will have none of it!
So? Vaughn Barnett might end up in jail this week???
Is the Legal system in New Brunswick set up for the poor will end up in jail?
Is Vaughn Barnett right or wrong in this case?
What’s your view on this issue????
Vaughn Barnett is in court this week.
It began late last week and will continue for a few more days.
I walked into the court room this morning and there were a few supporters.
The reason this guy is in court is because he gives advice to the poor on legal issues. He’s not a recognized lawyer.
The interesting part of this trial is it’s the Law Society who wishes to put this guy in Jail.
In New Brunswick, we live in a strange situation.
The Police Forces can grab you from the streets < like what happened to me in Saint John > and you will have to defend yourself in court.
Legal Aid will not give you a lawyer.
So of course, you will be found guilty and put on probation.
The second you break that probation? You end up in jail.
A poor person could use the legal knowledge of Vaughn but the Law Society will have none of it!
So? Vaughn Barnett might end up in jail this week???
Is the Legal system in New Brunswick set up for the poor will end up in jail?
Is Vaughn Barnett right or wrong in this case?
What’s your view on this issue????
8 comments:
- Can you link the blog which explains the charges against Vaughn? Does he have a website?
- Isn't it freedom of speech to give advice? If somebody asks me for medical advice the medical society can't sue me so long as I have a disclaimer.
- I asked them for some info weeks later but never received any.
This is the reason I decided to blog this issue.
Maybe they can leave some info in here?
Who knows??? - Would you let someone practice medicine without a licence? without malpractice insurance?
same thing - As long as the person seeking the advice is aware that he is not in fact a lawyer or legal aid then it is just his opinion probably based on his own research. It is up to that person to take his opinion or not. I don't think he should be put in jail for giving his advice to someone. We all give advice to people when they ask us.
- He actually studied law, he knows it, where the problem arose was when
he tried to take the bar, the lawyers association would not allow him
because he went to a protest. Which they say shows "bad character". It
was the WTO protest against globalization, which tons of people were
attending. Many times Vaughn has challenged their "bad character"
allegations but each time the lawyers stick their noses up and barely
listen.
In court, anyone can represent you, they don't even need to be a lawyer, if you study the right things you can get some things. Vaughn has studied them all and is practically a lawyer, he is one without the certificate saying so.
I really appreciate all Vaughn has done for the poor, and he has had a lot happen to him as a consequence which is pathetic. - Keep Vaughan Free.
"A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity" - Ralph Nader - So what is the actual charge?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/fredericton-man-ordered-to-stop-providing-legal-advice-1.221140
Fredericton man ordered to stop providing legal advice
A man in Fredericton is being ordered by a judge to stop acting like a lawyer.
For the past four years, Vaughn Barnett has been giving legal advice to clients on the north side. He has helped hundreds of people win their day in court, giving advice on everything from traffic tickets to custody fights.
Barnett says he helps people understand their rights and coaches them on what to say in court.
There's only one problem: Vaughn Barnett is not a lawyer.
"I am trained to be a lawyer but I have chosen not to be a lawyer so that I can reduce my overhead and be more affordable," he says.
Barnett uses his law degree to give legal help mainly to poor people. He charges very little money and sometimes even barters for his services.
But the Law Society of New Brunswick says he's acting like a lawyer. And so they successfully took him to court and got a judge to stop him.
Michel Carrier, a spokesperson for the law society, says in order to practise law in New Brunswick, you have to be a member of the law society.
Barnett says he's appealing the court order and Fredericton's anti-poverty organization is supporting him. It says poor people who can't afford lawyers need someone like Barnett to help them get justice.
For the past four years, Vaughn Barnett has been giving legal advice to clients on the north side. He has helped hundreds of people win their day in court, giving advice on everything from traffic tickets to custody fights.
Barnett says he helps people understand their rights and coaches them on what to say in court.
There's only one problem: Vaughn Barnett is not a lawyer.
"I am trained to be a lawyer but I have chosen not to be a lawyer so that I can reduce my overhead and be more affordable," he says.
Barnett uses his law degree to give legal help mainly to poor people. He charges very little money and sometimes even barters for his services.
But the Law Society of New Brunswick says he's acting like a lawyer. And so they successfully took him to court and got a judge to stop him.
Michel Carrier, a spokesperson for the law society, says in order to practise law in New Brunswick, you have to be a member of the law society.
Barnett says he's appealing the court order and Fredericton's anti-poverty organization is supporting him. It says poor people who can't afford lawyers need someone like Barnett to help them get justice.
----- Original Message -----
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
To: advocacycollective <advocacycollective@yahoo.com>
Cc: mhayes <mhayes@stu.ca>; brad. woodside <brad.woodside@fredericton.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, April 3, 2012, 10:16:02 PM ADT
Subject: Duhh Vaughn "Wannabe Lawyer " Barnett and his bloggng butt buddy Chucky in bed with the Fat Fred City Finest not long ago
Please allow me to quote from the text of Barnett's email to me over a year ago
"7. Given my activism against the RCMP and city police, I doubt I have
"buddies" in either force. However, based on my recollection of my
contact with the police about you, I am satisfied that I probably have
far more credibility with them than you do."
Sunday, April 01, 2012
Danny Copp from The Fredericton Police Force - WE GOT NO POLICIES!!!
Charles,
Last week Crown Prosecutor Darlene Blunston called SSgt Daniel Copp of
the Fredericton City Police to give evidence under oath as the FPF
"specialist" on their policies and protocols. Copp stated under oath
that the Fredericton City Police Force have "no policies at all" for
forced entry to a private dwelling, forced entry to a private dwelling
during night time hours, forced entry to a private dwelling under the
Mental Health Act or for "Knock and Announce" procedures prior to
forced entry to a private dwelling. SSgt Copp was also unable to
explain how officers are trained in light of their being no policies!
After telling us he has been a police officer of some 25 years this
was a pretty shocking admission from the FPF "guru" on policies
evaluater of public complaints against police officers' conduct and
performance.
When asked under cross examination if the Chief of Police is directly
responsible for ensuring appropriate policies and protocols are in
place, with approval of the Municipal Government, Copp stated the
Chief whould "generally oversee such matters". Interesting, since the
NB Police Act specifically requires the Chief of Police to ensure
appropriate policies and protocols are in place and with the approval
of the Municipal Government, who oversees and employs them.
What is truly shocking to me is that the FPF have no policies or
protocols whatsoever in place for training their officers to respect,
uphold and protect the public's Canadian Charter Rights and Freedoms.
Ms Blunston actually put in a letter she filed with the Court on 29th
February that the police are not required to read or provide Charter
Rights to a person involuntarily detained by police and taken to
hospital; she also wrote there is no requirement for a hospital to
inform or offer Charter Rights on involuntary detention! How wrong she
is! Ms Blunston obviously skipped class when they were teaching
Constitutional Law....
She knows that even a private corporation, such as a hospital or Law
Society, is bound by the Charter where they are an instrument of
public legislation, such as s.5(a-b) of the Law Society Act 1996 NB.
She has filed false information to the Court and she cannot now take
it back.
The Charter states under S.9 that no person can be arbitrarily
detained or imprisoned and S.10 affirms every persons right to retain
and instruct counsel without delay and to have the validfity of the
detention determined.
The police and Crown Attorneys don't seem to care about that at all -
or perhaps I just don't count as a person with rights.
I can't wait to get more Fredericton Police Farce members under oath!
Sally < Wingnut > Brooks
Posted by Charles LeBlanc at 4:53:00 PM
4 comments:
sally said...
I re-read the post and it dawned on me - if the police have NO
policies thay cannot be in breech of them! I get the game...sorry
Danny, we have to go back to the Charter violations! You're still
screwed!
6:34 PM, April 01, 2012
Anonymous said...
You cant have a policy for every thing the cops do. Cops do a many
many things and you cant have a policy. A policy for picking up a
siringe, a policy for cheking bulding secuirty, a policy for.....
etc...
You cant have a policy for everything, many things come from training,
practice and experience.
Dont have policy for everyting.
11:02 PM, April 01, 2012
Anonymous said...
I read a very acurate article in the gleaner over the weekend about you Sally.
Gotta say, it pretty much hit the mark, calling you mentally unstable
and stuff.
Guess what Sally, you are a loser and this really proves it.
As anon 11:02 mentioned, one cannot have a policy for every single
thing they do, you're just grasping for straws and making yourself
look even more pathetic
2:03 PM, April 02, 2012
Vaughn Barnett said...
Even if the police cannot have a policy for every single thing, they
at least need one for things as constitutionally serious as forced
entry into a private home and involuntary detention. I have had
judicial confirmation of the inappropriateness of both being done to
me, and I am troubled to see that this appears to be a recurring
pattern without a policy being put in place to address it. However, it
is not too difficult to see how the police can keep getting away with
such conduct, when one reads the defamatory comments here directed at
the people who are trying to expose this.
8:54 PM, April 02, 2012
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Advocacy Collective <advocacycollective@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 10:03:06 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Delivery of your material
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Mr. Amos:
Earlier today, I delivered your material to the city police via their
neighbourhood place in the Capital Credit Union strip mall on Hughes
Street, Fredericton. Unless there is some remaining issue about this
matter, I will now ask you to refrain from any communications with me,
by e-mail or otherwise - and if you do send me e-mails, please do not
assume that I will read them, for I intend to treat them as Spam.
Thank you, and good luck with any worthy cause you may be pursuing.
Vaughn "Wannabe Lawyer" Barnett
--- On Sun, 1/2/11, Advocacy Collective <advocacycollective@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Advocacy Collective <advocacycollective@yahoo.com>
Subject: E-mail & Cops
To: "David Amos" <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Received: Sunday, January 2, 2011, 4:40 PM
If you mean JAF, I only mentioned him because you sent me an e-mail
from him saying "plonk," but I don't know the guy. As for the cops, I
haven't delivered your documents to them yet, so you still have a
chance to designate either city police or RCMP.
VB
--- On Sat, 1/1/11, David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com> wrote:
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Subject: SO Barnett which cops did ya give my stuff too the Fat Fred
City Finest or the RCMP?
Cc: "Wayne.Lang" <Wayne.Lang@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>,
"Gilles. Blinn" <Gilles.Blinn@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>,
"Barry.MacKnight" <Barry.MacKnight@fredericton.ca>, "Louis.Lefebvre"
Received: Saturday, January 1, 2011, 9:44 AM
Interesting that you mentioned your pal the very strange old dude in a
dress Tony Baby Fitzgerald and not the doings of his son and your
other Fake Left butt buddies such as Chucky leblanc and Richy Baby
Harris EH Mr Bullshitting Wannabe Lawyer?
Scroll down dummy to see SOME YOUR words and that of Danny Boy's long
after YOU were prosecuted and jailed oh ye who is far from ethical.
FTW that is Danny BOY's pdf file not mine.
Communication is key that is why i save EVERYTHING and create pdf files as well
Veritas Vincit
David Raymond Amos
--- On Fri, 12/31/10, Advocacy Collective <advocacycollective@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Advocacy Collective <advocacycollective@yahoo.com>
Subject: E-mail
To: "David Amos" <myson333@yahoo.com>
Date: Friday, December 31, 2010, 9:21 PM
So is david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, listed below, your e-mail address,
and the one you prefer? Not that it should matter for long. Except
for this present exchange about your documents, whenever I get an
e-mail from you, like JAF, and probably many others, I "plonk" it or
treat it as spam. That would explain why I am unfamiliar with the
issues you seem to assume I have been following in your rants. I know
virtually nothing about your crusade.
As I recall, this yahoo address was my only e-mail for you that
worked, and you had used it yourself. I didn't know until now that
this was your son's account, since that user name could have meant
anything. Once again, as with your documents, you could simply have
made a request early on, instead of complaining long after the fact.
Communication is key.
VB
--- On Fri, 12/31/10, David Amos <myson333@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: David Amos <myson333@yahoo.com>
Subject: Yo Vaughny Baby Please inform me in writing as to which
corrupt cop you gave my documents to
Received: Friday, December 31, 2010, 9:55 AM
In return I will notify the cops around Fat fred City to expect you
byway of other email accounts that you ignored emails from for years.
I must confess I find it interesting that you only send your malicious
bullshit only to my son's email account now. Most folks know I only
use it only now and then for reasons I explained long ago. I will
explain it again within legal documents someday that you really should
read because you will be mentioned bigtime.
For the record I suspect that you trying to have this account killed
for spamming or whaever like your pals did with many other Internet
accounts of mine CORRECT?
However whatever the silly reason you dream up please feel free to
send me more of your bullshit anytime you wish and I will respond from
other email accounts of mine so you Fake Left Friends in Fat Fred City
and others can't bitch about this account.
Veritas Vincit
David Raymond Amos
--- On Thu, 12/30/10, Advocacy Collective <advocacycollective@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Advocacy Collective <advocacycollective@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: You should have given my stuff to the cops instead of
threatening to destroy them
To: "David Amos" <myson333@yahoo.com>
Date: Thursday, December 30, 2010, 5:33 PM
I was not "threatening to destroy" your documents, but giving you a
chance to retrieve them before they were discarded, as old documents
typically are. However, if you would now like me to give them to the
police, I can do that (but I do not intend to follow your reading
instructions).
VB
--- On Thu, 12/30/10, David Amos <myson333@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: David Amos <myson333@yahoo.com>
Subject: You should have given my stuff to the cops instead of
threatening to destroy them
Received: Thursday, December 30, 2010, 9:55 AM
Read the document from Landslide Annie and check your other emails dummy
--- On Thu, 12/30/10, Advocacy Collective <advocacycollective@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Advocacy Collective <advocacycollective@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Fw: RE: Chance to get your stuff BULLSHIT as you know I
called the cops about you again yestrday
To: "David Amos" <myson333@yahoo.com>
Date: Thursday, December 30, 2010, 8:28 AM
Feel free to share my e-mails, as I have nothing to be "nervous" about
- and thanks for copying my e-mail below to others, so they can get a
more correct idea of what's going on.
I will assume, unless you advise me otherwise, that you no longer care
to have your material returned to you.
VB
--- On Wed, 12/29/10, David Amos <myson333@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: David Amos <myson333@yahoo.com>
Subject: Fw: RE: Chance to get your stuff BULLSHIT as you know I
called the cops about you again yestrday
Received: Wednesday, December 29, 2010, 5:42 AM
Did you forget that I published some the emails from you and CHUCKY
that you nasty bastards sent me in 2004?
You stole the documents and CD alright and I reported it to the RCMP
and the Fat Fred City Finest long ago.
In my humble opinion you Fake Left bastards have been using my
documents and your knowledge of my actions and concerns to keep
yourselves out of hot water for six fucking years. However my recent
conversations with the NDP dude Dominic Cardy and the cops etc has got
you nervous so you opted to speak up and try to appear honest CORRECT
MR WANNABE LAWYER?
Veritas Vincit ( the motto of my Clan dummy)
David Raymond Amos
--- On Tue, 12/28/10, Advocacy Collective <advocacycollective@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Advocacy Collective <advocacycollective@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Chance to get your stuff
To: "David Amos" <myson333@yahoo.com>
Date: Tuesday, December 28, 2010, 7:33 PM
Mr. Amos, this might be pointless, but to respond:
1. I was only given your material by Charles, at your request as I
understood, and decided that I couldn't help you. Any other
involvement in your issues appears to be solely in your imagination.
2. So I didn't steal your material, as you alleged on the phone, and
was always prepared to return them when you asked for them and made
arrangements.
3. When you finally did "ask" for your material, I tried to e-mail
you immediately, and offered to send you the material at my expense.
Yet, after complaining about not having your material returned, you
did not give me an address where it could be sent.
4. As for the label of "wannabe lawyer," I could have become a lawyer
if I had chosen that over my activism, which was the only thing
preventing me from being accepted by the bar. My qualifications were
not otherwise a problem, as my legal skills, and even my honesty and
integrity, were acknowledged at the inquiry into my admissibility.
5. "(902 800 0369)," assuming that's not your phone number, does not
mean anything to me, nor ring a bell, but you can explain it to me if
you'd like.
6. Hardly would I want to call you, or speak with you in person,
because so far you've only been rude and threatening. In fact, I ask
that you refrain from phoning me again, until you can assure me that
your communications will be civilized.
7. Given my activism against the RCMP and city police, I doubt I have
"buddies" in either force. However, based on my recollection of my
contact with the police about you, I am satisfied that I probably have
far more credibility with them than you do.
8. You likely will not believe me, but I have no idea what you mean
by the "truth" and my "nasty pals," and would be very interested if
you would tell me, instead of attacking me as if I already knew.
9. Because you do attack people, based on unverified assumptions
about them, and guilt by association (i.e., putting "vincit" ahead of
"veritas"), instead of giving them the fair hearing that you
apparently seek for your own issues, you cannot complain about people
avoiding you and failing to take you seriously.
Now again, do you want to give me an address where I can send your
material, or shall I throw it out? I will give you at least another
week, until next garbage day.
Sincerely,
Vaughn Barnett
--- On Tue, 12/28/10, David Amos <myson333@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: David Amos <myson333@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Chance to get your stuff before it's too late Need I say
BULLSHIT AGAIN???
Received: Tuesday, December 28, 2010, 4:46 AM
YOU are WAY past too late and I just called you the wannabe lawyer
AGAIN to rub it in (902 800 0369)
I sounded really pissed off CORRECT??? Now I strongly suggest that you
fianlly call me back or call your buddies in the RCMP and the Fat Fred
City Finest and tell the truth, the whole truth and NOTHING BUT THE
TRUTH ASAP because as you well know I already talked to them about you
and your very nasty pals long ago.EH???
Veritas Vincit
David Raymond Amos
--- On Mon, 12/27/10, Advocacy Collective <advocacycollective@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Advocacy Collective <advocacycollective@yahoo.com>
Subject: Chance to get your stuff before it's too late
To: "David Amos" <myson333@yahoo.com>
Date: Monday, December 27, 2010, 8:06 PM
Mr. Amos,
Here's another chance to get your material back (see below).
Otherwise, I intend to throw it out, as I'm trying to clean house.
I'll give you a few days to respond.
Season's Greetings,
Vaughn Barnett
--- On Thu, 2/14/08, Advocacy Collective <advocacycollective@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Advocacy Collective <advocacycollective@yahoo.com>
Subject: Requested Material
Received: Thursday, February 14, 2008, 2:54 PM
Mr. Amos:
I got your phone message a while back, and tried unsuccessfully to
e-mail you in response, but now I see that you apparently have a new
e-mail address.
Until I received your message, I don't recall ever being asked to
return your material, nor being given an address for doing so (even
when you left me that cryptic message way back when). But if you
would like to e-mail me an address, I would be glad to send you the
material at my expense.
Vaughn Barnett
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dan Fitzgerald <danf@danf.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 02:52:37 +0200
Subject: Re: FYI Chucky while you were teasing me about looking like
your dead dog, the Irvings answered me ask your buddy Carl Davies if I
am a lair or not
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Integrity?
Check the attachment, maniac.
I still vote you charge all three of us in the first blogger slander
trials of NB.
Best wishes,
Dan F.
David Amos wrote:
David Amos wrote:
> The comment you won't post
>
>
> If what you say is true Perhaps you should read the email I just sent
> you real slow EH Chucky?
>
> Rest assured I don't care if you don't read on. I just want proof this was sent.
>
> I know you won't read this email Chucky and if you did I truly doubt
> you would understand it. After all you got it almost four years ago
> and ignored it correct? More importantly your Iron Horse of a lawyer
> or your not so clever covert legal counsels such as Vaughn Barnett or
> the very nasty Mikey Archibald certainly should pay attention to it
> now. May I suggest that you have them read the affidavit of mine that
> a lawyer filed in New Brunswick Provincial Court in a matter about
> criminal harassment in September of 2004 one month after your buddy
> Carl Davies answered this particular email from an Irving email
> account.. Whereas my affidavits and the related documents evaporated
> from the public records of three court (two in the USA and one in
> Canada) long ago and immediately before I was falsely imprisoned, and
> you laughed at me , methinks that it is high time you suffered the
> same fate. You are predicting that it will happen correct?
>
> It appears to me that only the Crown or Byron Prior's associates are
> the only arseholes that can provide the words of my affidavit filed in
> front of Judge Tonning to you if I decide not to. Your lawyer may need
> it if the Fat Fred City Finest or the RCMP decide to arrest you for
> the benefit of your old buddy Danny Boy Busierres and his many
> cohorts. Should I give it to you before or after that bullshit goes
> down? Methinks NOT. For the record I just forwarded the words of it
> that were records within an old email to Byron Prior and his strange
> associates out west on to T. J. Burke and some of his pals such as
> Danny Copp of the Fat Fred City Finest. I did it to protect my own
> dumb arse from further false imprisonment..But I did not send it to
> any of your Fake Left pals because I would prefer to see you arrested
> just like your buddy Scotty Baby Agnew and his nasty lawyer wife want
> to happen to me. Ask your old liberal buddy Senator Joe Day to ask his
> wifey the clerk whom I call Georgey Girl if she can find her copy of
> my affidavit in her public records in Hampton or stuffed under her
> desk just in case she and her hubby need it.
>
> BTW Chucky Baby here are some of the reasons why I hope the cops
> arrest you soon. From my point of view the sooner the cops arrest you,
> the sooner you may start telling the truth, the whole truth and
> nothing but the truth in order to save your own dumb malicious arse
> from false imprisonment and to the chagrin of your liberal party .The
> sooner your words become truthful the sooner they will be of some
> benefit to your ethical readers. N'est Pas? The sooner people
> understand that I am not the bad guy you made of me the sooner the
> shit may hit the fan. I know for a fact the sooner you set the record
> straight about the doings between you and I and T.J. Burke etc, the
> better things will begin to be for my little Clan. Thus I will support
> the Crown's prosecution of you because you most definitely slandered
> me and that is a crime.You did imply that I was a Hell Angel and you
> were the only person to report, publish and support my illegal
> banishment from the Leg while I was running for a seat in Parliament.
> Correct? Imagine if you had said such things of your buddy Andy Scot
> or his strange hero Stevey Boy Harper? Am I any less of man than they
> are? Are any of my rights or my family interests any less important
> than theirs or yours? Who is more ethical in their reporting the CBC,
> CTV, Global, the Irvings or you or your fellow bloggers about the
> malice of the politicians and cops that you complain about? From my
> perch on the fence both sides of the pasture are so full of bullshit I
> am just gonna stay on the fence and keep pissing on all of you smiling
> bastards and your bullshit. A jury of our peers will have to decide
> that someday in court if citizens don;t figure out the truth of it all
> from our many blogs first. Many people with no names within the blogs
> lately have falsely claimed that I have done many illegal things.
> However the only persons to sign a document to that effect were your
> old Buddy Danny Boy Busierres and Danny Copp of the Fat Fred City
> Finest, the very same people whom you claim will have you arrested
> someday soon. Too funny N'est Pas? Be careful sometimes what one
> predicts does come true sometimes. It is easy to see that you are
> running out of friends fast. It is also easy for you to predict your
> arrest when you are the one whose actions and words cause it. Correct?
> Have your buddies affirm to you that slander is a criminal offence if
> the ongoing prosecution of Byron Prior did not convince you of that
> fact. I must ask are you gonna tell the truth before or after that
> bullshit of yours about a pending arrest goes down and becomes a
> matter of blogger history? Do ya think anyone will raise your bail. If
> not will the Crown allow you to blog from jail or will the CBC dude
> Robert Jones come to your defence once again in order to make himself
> even more famous than he already thinks he is?
>
> I have no understanding why Byron Prior never mentioned my name and
> yet why he asked me to come over to the Rock secretly other than the
> obvious fact he must have made a deal with Stevey Boy Harper byway of
> the very nasty Newfy lawyer Johnny " Never Been Good" Crosbie.Methinks
> that he was trying to trade may freedom for his with Danny Boy
> Williams and was trying to sucker me over into Danny Boy jurisdiction.
> Nothing else made any sense all his lawyer had to do was file the
> former Lt.; Governor's letter to me and Prior's troubles would be over
> in a heartbeat Why Byron Prior and his lawyer let his malicious
> prosecution drag on forever and a day met ether they were incredibly
> dumb or a very nasty deal had be made. The fact that you and your Fake
> Left friends now support Byron Prior caused me to just shake my head
> at the nonsense of it all. Nobody is that dumb not even you Chucky.
> When your friend Danny Fitzgerald burst upon the scene with his two
> faced words about my doings within T. J. Burke and all the rest while
> supporting the inference that I may some sort of one percenter I
> pounced on him bigtime just like I always do. I did it just like I did
> with you and so many others who have done so in the past at the behest
> of the RCMP and the corrupt politicians etc they support. I did not
> waste time with that snotty blogger kid who wants a Ph.D. from
> overseas. Did I? The dumb bastard should have at least read my letter
> to the mean old Commissioner Zack of the GRC in December 0f 2003 and
> understood what I said about what I would do if anyone even implied
> that I was a Hells Angel like you did four god damned years ago. Hell
> Angels like Special Forces dudes such as T.J. Burke brags he is do not
> like anyone stealing their thunder. Falsely claiming to be one of them
> can put one in jeopardy.I am just one guy. I do not belong to any
> organization illegal or otherwise. I run as Independent for public
> office and I refuse to buy Girl guide cookies. I associate with no one
> except those of MY Clan. Anyone who attacks my Clan must deal with me
> first and foremost. Your Fake Left friends do understand that I am the
> Chief? Have your Mother explain what that means to Scottish folks who
> take their heritage seriously Chucky.
>
> Veritas Vincit
> David Raymond Amos
>
> P.S. Say Hoka Hey to our old buddy Carl Davies for me will ya?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Davies, Carl (Telegraph)
> To: 'David Amos'
> Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 9:55 AM
> Subject: RE: Text of letter to Joe Day
>
>
> I remember the call in 2002. I didn't make the connection when you
> were at Bill's that time. I'm not sure what exactly it is you're
> asking though.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Amos [mailto:motomaniac_02186@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 1980 3:37 AM
> To: oldmaison@yahoo.com
> Subject: Fw: Text of letter to Joe Day
>
>
>
> Yes Frenchy I did get your silly slam about comparing me to to a
> dog. The thing is it is no insult. I compare myself to a mangy old
> guard dog. Ask Brad Green and maybe he will show you the letter I sent
> him. I am not impressed that you made an Irving paper. I have had far
> better coverage than you and trust me they hate me more than they do
> you. Ask Frank McKenna. Have you got around to asking your favorite
> priest where Cardinal Law went after I filed my affidavit on Dec.
> 12th/02? Watch the priest's eyes when he answers you. Never mind
> laughing at my plight Frenchy. Did you ever think the confession booth
> is built the way it is so that you could not see the priests laughing
> at you?
>
>
>
> If you really want to get the scoop on things ask Carl why he is
> no longer with CBC and why he don't say shit about me long ago.
> Remember when I called you from the camp Carl in November of 2002 and
> asked you to get Henrik to call me? Don't deny it because I had a
> witnesses there who had suggested that I call you and I have my cell
> phone records as well. How does it feel to be a part of an interesting
> story Carl?
>
>
>
> As for you Carl you can just say hey to our friends Henrik Tonning
> and Bill Dalton for me and tell them I am still pissed off at them.
> All of you smiling bastards know I ain't no bullshitter because it
> takes one to know one.
>
>
>
> As for you Mr. Vaughn and Mr. Richard perhaps you should get to
> gether and share the material that Charles Leblanc gave you before the
> shit hits the fan. Do you understnd the meaning of the word
> Conspiracy. If not call the US Attorney Michael J. Sullivan in Boston
> and ask him to explain. He is such a good Catholic boy that he edited
> out Cardinal Law from my complaint about religious freedom.
>
>
>
> Now thats funny because after he did so Charles J. Kickham Jr. did it again.
>
>
>
> Are you still laughing fellas? Watch out for my next complaint.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: David Amos
>
> To: inquiry.admin@bellnet.ca
>
> Cc: vverma@cavalluzzo.com ; Martin.P@parl.gc.ca ;
>
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 1980 2:55 AM
>
> Subject: Text of letter to Joe Day
>
>
>
> He can never say that he didn't get it. This is an email is
> sent as triple check as proof that it was done when and where I swear
> I did it. That is his front door and although no one came to it
> because I didn't bother knocking I did bring witnesses and obviously
> took pictures
>
> I can easily prove that I was in contact with Wayne Easter's
> office on November 19th/03 the same day Arar's lawyers from the CCR in
> the USA were. Apparently the Canadian government and Mr. Ashcroft must
> have had a different plan as to what to do about me. Doesn't anyone
> think that Anne McLellan, Wayne Easter and I have lots to argue about
> within the Arar Commission. My evidence certainly supports Arar's.
>
> If anyone who is now seated as a Member of Parliament considers
> themselves worthy of the public trust perhaps they should speak up
> andask a few questions and consider asking for a non confidence vote.
> May I suggest that some member of the NDP who is not a lawyer contact
> me before I return to the USA. I would prefer to talk to Ed Broadbent.
> If he chooses to recall, I did wish him luck.
>
> Veena tell Geoff Regan to give a call when he gets back from
> golfing with Clinton and McKenna's buddies will ya?
>
> Just so everybody knows I am sending this email to many folks all
> around the world.
>
> What do ya thing should I hang around home long enough to see if
> Premier Lord calls an election for a Senator in the Federal government
> or wait until he calls a by-election to fill Bernard Richard's vacate
> seat at the provincial level? I know the Yankees are sick and tired of
> me. But i did make lots of folks uphome laugh and think about things.
> Everybody calls me a rebel or a fool. Both labels I take as my own
> with a smile. However I must ask why am I so rebelious to expect
> lawyers to uphold the law or demand that politicians uphold the Public
> Trust? Why am I so foolish not to trust the law enforcement community?
> Never forget it was the US Secret Service that came to my door with a
> town cop that is paid to protect and serve me. They did not mind
> investigating false allegations made against me as a by lawyers to
> protect politicians but refused to accept hard evidence of Bank Fraud,
> Securities Faud and Tax Fraud which is well within the scope oftheir
> employment. The well paid governent officials within my own nativeland
> are more than willing to throw me back to the wolves in the USA
> claiming that they don't have jurisdiction over me. Why? Are they
> pissed I ran for Parliament and had too much fun telling the truth in
> the process? Maybe I should hang around and have some fun and piss
> them off some more. Pat Hannraty did suggest that in one of the CBC
> debates that I was excluded from. Joe Day ran for many positions in
> government and never succeeded. However once he became a top dog
> lawyer for the Irving Clan he wasn't long finding a seat. I say the
> first order of business for any elected Member of Parliament would be
> to inspire and act that makes all Senators be elected as well. What
> say you oh ye honourable members of the NDP? Why not put that on Mr.
> Martin'.s table to chew on.
>
>
>
>
> Friday the 13th of August, 2004
>
> Senator Joseph A. Day
> Ethics Counselor, Howard Wilson
> 14 Everett St.
> 66 Slater St., 22nd Floor
> Hampton, NB
> Ottawa, ON. K1A 0C9
>
> Prime Minister, Paul Martin
> Geoff Reagan c/o Irwin Cotler,
> 80 Wellington Street
> 900 Justice Building
> Ottawa, ON. K1A 0A2
> Ottawa, ON. K1A 0A6
>
> Eva Plunkett Inspector
> General (CSIS) Philippe Rabot
> 340 Laurier Avenue West
> RCMP External Review Committee
> Ottawa, ON. K1A 0P8
> P.O. Box 1159, Station B
>
> Ottawa, ON. K1P 5R2
> RE: Corruption
>
> Hey Joe,
>
> The fact that you said I was not worth voting for is no matter
> to me. I just wish my fellow Canadians had the right to vote you out
> of your job. That is one thing I agree with Mr. Lord about. To me you
> are just another lawyer who couldn't get elected so you were
> politically appointed to a high government position for the benefit of
> Irving interests. Now that you are in public service not only must you
> obey the Code of Conduct of your chosen profession, you must act
> ethically as a well paid federal employee and speak for the public
> good. Forget your former employer's interests and do your job.
>
> It is time to check the work of many high officials and mine as
> well. I demand that you study of the enclosed material then forward it
> all to the Prime Minister Paul Martin. Ask him to forward copies of it
> all to the other above named government employees and to the Arar
> Commission in particular. I can easily prove prior contact to all the
> above named persons or their offices and I believe they should be
> expecting to see this stuff. The CD of the copy of wiretap tape
> numbered 139 is served upon you as an officer of the court in
> confidence in order that it may be properly investigated. I have given
> you many more documents than the ones I will mention in the following
> paragraphs. I will send a copy of this letter to many people as a
> double check on your ethics.
>
> One of the documents of foremost importance to me is a recent
> letter Attorney General Brad Green sent to me dated August 3rd. It is
> attached to the letter and all the other material I had delivered to
> Bernard Lord and Frank McKenna just after Canada Day. I deem the
> aforesaid letter to be so important because he is the first Canadian
> public servant in any office to even admit knowledge my concerns and
> allegations in two months of waiting for a proper response. His
> position in public service and his answer forever prove just how bad
> things really are in Canada and the USA. I am not sorry for the delay
> in providing you with this material as I planned and stated within the
> enclosed email. If you had wanted it, you would have returned my calls
> or answered my email.
>
> I had spoken to many people about my concerns as I ran for
> Parliament. I made certain that the proper authorities knew of my
> allegations the instant I was on Canadian soil. If our government was
> on the up and up, someone should have sent the cops around to pick
> this stuff up or at least ask me a few questions a long time ago. I
> cannot wait any longer for my country to act properly in my defense.
> The Yankees now want me in court.
>
> The recent letter from Brad Green and the actions of some other
> bad actors in Fredericton and the USA gave me cause to pause, rethink
> and rewrite a bunch of stuff. One would think that Henrick Tonning,
> the first judge that Green had ever appointed or the unnamed duty
> counsel in court on the first day of Brad's new plan to defend the
> rights of the people would have informed him that I was very pissed
> off and still in New Brunswick. The Sheriff who refused to identify
> himself in Henrik's court that day was more than willing to take me
> away and under his jurisdiction. What province writes the Sheriff's
> paycheck? Even the local rumormill had enough time to generate enough
> gossip from July 29th to August 3rd for Brad Green to be adequately
> informed before he wrote such a ridiculous letter to me. Clearly Brad
> paid no heed my fair warning to lawyers about making one false move.
> Maybe he should call the former Attorney General in New Hampshire and
> ask Peter Heed why he paid no heed to me. Now I will prove to both Mr
> Heed and Brad Green that I wasn't joking and that I am well within the
> jurisdiction of law enforcement in both New Brunswick and New
> Hampshire.
>
> If the Fredericton City Police arrest me as I approach the
> legislature one day very soon, Brad Green, Bruce Noble and I will have
> lots to argue about in years to come in many courts. I will be filing
> a complaint against them and several others with the Law Society
> anyway. I am looking to hire an ethical lawyer to sue the bastards
> long before the Law Society gets around to figuring out how to ignore
> my allegations. What would you do if you were I? Do you know an
> ethical lawyer that I can discuss this with? Or would I fare better if
> I acted ethically in a Pro Se fashion?
>
> My encounter with the Ombudsman, Bernard Richard proved much to
> me about NB politicians. I didn't believe what he said about Wayne
> Steeves the second he mentioned Connie Fogal. He tried so hard to
> argue about jurisdiction that he maintained Rule One of the Code of
> Professional Conduct of the New Brunswick Law Society is not about
> integrity but jurisdiction. No lawyer is that dumb and the last thing
> I would want is such a man to speak for me. So I promptly told him I
> would see him in court and ended our conversation. He was obviously
> arguing against me for the benefit of Brad Green rather than making a
> sincere and ethical effort to listen to me and address my concerns to
> the powers that be on my behalf. Richard likely has few Liberal
> friends to chum with. For all I know he may have just got back from
> Larry's Gulch so I allowed him to continue on the fishing expedition
> byway of email. For his information just in case he is that dumb, I
> brought up the subject of integrity so he would stop arguing
> jurisdiction and act more ethically and diligently as a lawyer. When
> he continued, I quit talking and sought proof of contact. Lawyers must
> maintain their integrity no matter the jurisdiction or issue.
>
> I can easily refute the jurisdictional argument of both Mr.
> Richard and Brad Green. I am used to that legal dodge. Thirty-three
> years ago a RCMP officer charged me with speeding by within the city
> limits of Fredericton. When I questioned his jurisdiction the Crown
> was quick to inform me that the RCMP have jurisdiction over everyone
> everywhere in Canada. If I were to unbuckle my seat belt in defiance
> of a NB law as I drove to Hampton to serve this material upon a lawyer
> employed as a Senator in the federal government, in what court would I
> appear? What if I served this material upon the cop that had the
> authority stop me? If the matter was heard in Hampton or Sussex
> Provincial Court shouldn't Judge Henrik Tonning immediately recuse
> himself because of his words to me in court on July 29th. Would I not
> have the right to make a federal case out of what began as a seat belt
> offense and change the jurisdiction to the USA?
>
> A far better example is what happened on June 24th. A man who
> claimed represent the Crown as the Sergeant at Arms in the New
> Brunswick legislature claimed that he and the Fredericton PD had
> jurisdiction over me and the right to throw me out of the public
> building. However when I tried to give them this stuff as the Deputy
> Prime Minister Anne McLellan and Attorney General Brad Green have both
> suggested, they refused. What right did they have to do so? Should I
> file a complaint against the Crown in the USA? I was thrown out of a
> building in NB. Who defends the Crown if not Green?
>
> Senator Day, make certain that Jack Hooper of CSIS sends
> someone to see the priest, Bill Elliott and get the stuff I gave to
> him the night of his debate on June 21st. Everybody in the churchyard
> watched that old man holler at me as I gave it to him. Now Mr. Waldman
> can listen to what Mr. Harper was harping about on June 22nd on the
> CBC, As I told the priest there were three original wiretap tapes
> within that envelope I gave him. The tapes are important evidence for
> the Arar Commission. If nothing else their mere existence proves how
> far the FEDS in two countries will go to cover things up. Let me know
> if the priest denies he got them or Hooper won't give them up, I have
> several more hidden in Canada that the Arar Commission can have.
> Hooper can hoop and holler about National Security all he wants. I
> must protect my ass if he won't, If you look at the photo I have
> provided, you will see me talking to a RCMP officer that was guarding
> Harper in Sussex on June 19th. Now you know what I was talking about
> to him. What I want to know is that cop's name. Harper wasn't long
> spilling the beans to his political advantage on CBC but his lawyers
> weren't long shutting him up on June 24th after Waldman demanded that
> he testify at the Inquiry. Why is that?
>
> Waldman should have known of me if Arar's lawyers at CCR in the
> USA had kept him properly informed. Rest assured that I did as soon as
> I became aware of him. During our conversation I know I said enough
> for him to check my words. His silence spoke volumes.
>
> Mr. Arar's lawyers had no fear of filing a complaint against
> Ashcroft and the others in the USA after they received my stuff last
> November. I see no further progress with that suit since it was filed
> last January. Why have they ignored me? Did they make a deal and
> settle? Why have they fallen so silent within the inquiry in Canada?
>
> If you don't believe me about what Mr. Harper knows, call
> Arthur Hamilton and ask him about the little talk we had about this a
> little while ago. Mr. Hamilton can never say he doesn't know because I
> saved his voicemail to me. I have no doubt that he has had a long talk
> with our new MP Rob Moore by now. Why are they so silent?
>
> I have many questions to ask Geoff Regan and Anne McLellan
> about the Arar Commission. Geoff has no time to return my call but
> lots of time to golf with Clinton and McKenna. I demand to know if the
> many documents that caused the delay in the inquiry were mine. If not,
> why not? I did do as Anne McLellan suggested and gave this stuff to
> both Customs and Immigration the instant I landed in Canadian
> jurisdiction. If I am not called to testify, I will never understand.
> I did manage to talk to Veena Verma and she had no answers for me only
> arguments about jurisdiction as usual.
>
> Your friend, Mr. Zed can never say he don't know because as
> you can see I served his law office this stuff on June 25th the day
> before he and John Herron greeted Paul Martin at the airport. After
> your review of this stuff you must confess it is obvious to all why
> Paul Zed and his friend Frank McKenna have been struck so dumb. Paul
> Zed was elected to speak for that politically minded priest amongst
> others, correct? Perhaps after they voted according to their
> conscience they should act according to it as well.
>
> I know that I have proved what everybody knows. The word of a
> lawyer is worthless. Peter MacKay also proved that to all the true
> Progressive Conservatives in Canada. The fact that another lawyer,
> John Crosbie advised the former Alliance party on what to say is too
> funny and sad for the words of this letter. One reason I came home and
> ran for Parliament is to sooth my own soul because I found Mr. Harper
> and his buddies to be a truly dangerous bunch of characters. Crosbie
> did too for awhile anyway. Ain't it funny how he now sings a different
> tune? There is no doubt that the old lawyer Paul Martin is a
> monumental a crook. The boat in Sidney proved that to me two days
> after the election. He can play well within Mulroney's league. It was
> truly sad that so many Canadians were compelled to vote for Martin
> simply because they were too scared that Harper may lead our country
> down a garden path and under an evil Bush.
>
> Perhaps the NDP should check my work closely and then help
> me expose all the crooks in both the Liberal and Conservative camps. I
> will give this stuff to their local lawyer leader Ms. Weir. Maybe it
> is time for the NDP to shine for the benefit of all Canadians. Even
> though the NDP have only 19 seats in Parliament I believe they have
> the power to inspire a non-confidence vote and cause another election.
> I think the NDP politicians should think about the following statement
> a long time then review how they made out in the last election. I did
> say at the Moss Glen debate that the NDP party was the best spot to
> place a vote. However NDP people I know argued with me saying that if
> they did that their vote would be wasted and Harper might get in, so
> they must vote out of fear for a Liberal. Therefore I fall back on
> what I had said during the Hampton debate in that every ballot should
> have one more line on it "None of the above" then I am certain many
> more Canadians would exercise their right to vote. Many did agree.
>
> Senator Day I did come across your wife in the Canada
> Elections office as she worked in support of Herron. Please don't deny
> the fact that the person seated beside your wife in Hampton laughed
> and applauded at many of my remarks, Everybody heard what I said to
> Herron in front of Rob Moore about suing him. Herron is foolish if he
> thought I was kidding. Herron is a layman with few political friends.
> I spoke to him very openly and honestly after the debate in Moss Glen.
> It should be interesting to see whom he and Rob Moore manage to hire
> for lawyers to defend them from my actions. I look forward to meeting
> a judge but I am not certain I would be allowed a jury of my peers.
> Lawyers do have an unfair stranglehold on Canadian justice. As you
> check my work, you should see that I am out to shame all lawyers and
> the political ones in particular. None of this would have been
> necessary if just one lawyer had upheld their oath or one public
> servant had blown the whistle. Why is not the question. The answer is
> Filthy Lucre.
>
> Today is Friday the 13th. I am expected to stand in court in
> Boston and argue allegations of criminal harassment made against me by
> a lawyer who has practiced crimes against me. Clearly I am not making
> an appearance. My kids and I will remain in this jurisdiction. I
> suspect foul play and that it is a ploy to make me return to the USA.
> I have little doubt that agents of the DHS would never allow me to
> appear in that court. I notified everyone down in Boston that I look
> forward to trial. Monday will tell the tale.
>
> In closing I must say I considered myself a raging success to
> finally break surface in the media and in an Irving owned newspaper of
> all places. A former Irving lawyer needs no explanation as to the
> reason for my joy. That said, let's see if I can make the Internet
> work for me in a grassroots sort of way. The Irvings are a little
> behind the times in that regard. Although I do not wear a blue coat, I
> did give the folks in Fundy one last chance to vote for a PC (Pissed
> off Candidate) and I tried to do it in a fun fashion so that my
> efforts would be remembered. Read the Kings County Record again to
> check my words. As I watch the boob tube, I find the most honest
> reporting of the political circus in America can be found on the
> Canadian comedy shows. The stuff on Barack Obama, Ralph Nader, Melanie
> Sloan and the Clintons should be pretty funny to you as well as you
> read the documents I have provided. Now all I can say is Hooray for
> Canada and thanks to the folks in Fundy that did vote for me. I am
> glad that at least one percent understood and agreed with me. Quite
> likely not one of them was a lawyer. Now I only need one lawyer in the
> right place in government to do the right thing and things will change
> for the better. Until that happens I will continue torturing lawyers
> with dilemmas that a simple application of ethics could easily solve.
> It is just a matter of time before one will break rank with the crooks
> and become a truly honourable hero for the common man. As I said in my
> first political speech I am a son of the Keith Clan whose roots can be
> found in Fundy. Although I have separated myself from that Clan and
> founded my own in order to declare a Blood Feud in my own name, I will
> always honour from whence I came. I simply don't care what lawyers or
> politicians think of me Although I have no religion, I have faith in
> my forefather's motto "Veritas Vincit".
>
> So what say you now, Senator Joe Day? Are you with me or
> against me? Ignoring me just won't do. Please send your answer to the
> following address just as Brad Green did. I don't know where I will be
> from day to day these days. Like it or not you are all now witnesses
> to my sad complaints. I demand an answer from you in writing even if
> it is to refuse this demand to do your job. Your friend the Yankee
> lawyer, David Lutz can turn his back on me then sneak away and try to
> hide but you are a Canadian public servant now. You must answer me in
> a timely fashion. I am part of the Canadian Public and a citizen that
> came to your office in the constituency that I have been hanging my
> hat for over two months. I demand assistance from the Senator
> appointed to watch over us and expect you to act with the integrity
> that is mandated by your license to practice law for a fee. Trust me,
> I am wise to the delaying and denying game. Forget trying to argue
> jurisdiction. I am here. What do you think? Should I run for Senator
> if Lord manages to call an election for one? I can be reached by local
> phone # 506 434-1379 but everything I say from here on out I want
> recorded in the Public Record because it appears that lawyers think I
> must sue the Queen in the USA. Do you think she will get pissed? The
> reason question is can she afford the relief. Check the bottom line of
> my first two complaints. Anne McLellan has made the Crown a
> conspirator against me. Methinks she owes me three times the loss. Now
> we all know the reason for the cover up. Too many lawyer/politicians
> in Boston assisted the lawyer, Charles J. Kickham Jr. assist the ex
> FBI agent William J. Kickham in his crimes against my Clan. If any of
> the above named parties don't like anything
>
> I have stated, Please sue me. I dare ya. I promise I will not
> file any sort of motion to dismiss the matter but I will demand a
> jury. I will call many witnesses in my defense. I think the first one
> would be Mr. Harper. Wouldn't it be fun if he was a hostile one?
>
> Cya'll in CourtJ
>
> David R. Amos
>
>
> 153 Alvin Ave.
>
> Milton, MA. 02186
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Certificate of Service
>
> I, David R. Amos, a Canadian citizen presently within the
> jurisdiction of the Province of New Brunswick in the County of Kings
> on Friday the 13th of August, 2004 delivered the above named material
> to the office of Senator Joseph A. Day at 14 Everett St. Hampton, NB.
> I will also email many people in many places the proof that this was
> done on this day. Check into my beefs with the USPS and look at the
> news about the Canadian Postal Service's political issues with Paul
> Martin today and it should be obvious why this is necessary for me to
> do in person.
>
> David R. Amos
>
Do you need an urgent loan of any kind? Loans to liquidate debts or need to loan to improve your business have you been rejected by any other banks and financial institutions? Do you need a loan or a mortgage? This is the place to look, we are here to solve all your financial problems. We borrow money for the public. Need financial help with a bad creditor in need of money. To pay for a commercial investment at a reasonable rate of 3%, let me use this method to inform you that we are providing reliable and helpful assistance and we will be ready to lend you. Contact us today by email: daveloganloanfirm@gmail.com Call/Text: +1(501)800-0690 And whatsapp: +1 (315) 640-3560
ReplyDeleteNEED A LOAN?
Ask Me.