Automatic reply: YO Joe Tacopina I just called FYI 20 Years ago today the US Secret Service threatened to take me to GITMO 2 years ago tomorrow the US Naval Intelligence called me then offended me
Comeau, Mike (JPS/JSP)<Mike.Comeau@gnb.ca> | Sat, Apr 1, 2023 at 12:47 PM |
| To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> | |
I will return to the office April 18 . In the meatime, Chris O'Connell (chris.o'connell@gnb.ca) is acting deputy minister.
Je reviendrai au bureau le 11 avril. Entre-temps, Chris O'Connell (chris.o'connell@gnb.ca) est sous-ministre par intérim. | |
Saturday, April 01, 2006
-
March 24, 2006
Bernard Shapiro
Ethics Commissioner
C/o Andre Arthur MP
325 de l'Eglise
Donnacona, Québec G3M 2A2
Jean T. Fournier
Senate Ethics Officer
C/o Senator Noel Kinsella and Michael Comeau
Holy Cross House Rm. 206
St. Thomas University
Fredericton NB
Kevin Lynch Clerkc/o Paul Shuttle
Director of Legal Operations
Privy Council Office
59 Sparks Street
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A3
David Gourdeau
Commissioner for FederalJudicial Affairs
c/o Willa Doyle
District Administrator
Suite 100
82 Westmorland Street
Fredericton, NB E3B 3L3
Re: Public Corruption
Sirs,
Pursuant to my many phone calls and email to your offices please find enclosed the material I promised to you before I file my complaints in Federal Court in Fredericton. The CD which is a true copy of wiretap tape number 139 is served upon you all in confidence as officers of the court and or Parliamentarians in order that it may be investigated byway of my suing the Crown.
While Stevey Boy Harper is busy in New Brunswick today trying hard to shore up the shaky government of his little buddy, Bernie Lord with long delayed federal tax dollars. I am polishing off all my promises to crooked lawyers in the hope that the very corrupt House crumbles ASAP.
Shame on you all for forcing me to go to such lengths to protect my rights under the Charter. Methinks you have underestimated my diligence EH? Now ask yourselves why I don’t sue you after I sue the Crown? I fail to see any reason not to. That is the only way I know of to hold such people as you accountable. Stevey Boy Harper never will even though he talks the talk of such things. Everybody knows what I served upon his party’s lawyer Arthur Hamilton before I was falsely imprisoned in the USA in 2004.
Despite whatever Act our latest Prime Minister wishes to introduce to the Canadian people that he claims will compel our government to act with integrity, he can never deny my right to drag anyone into court. In fact he has done so himself in the past and I am no less of a man than he. Even a simple pigheaded Maritimer has the right to argue the law even with people who think themselves above it. How you all have failed to uphold the law and the public trust placed in your public office is either a matter of public record or soon shall be or my name ain’t Dave. There is no Democracy without Truth and Justice. It is just that simple.
Thats all for now fellas. I look forward to seeing you all in court someday or I will die trying to make it happen in an ethical fashion. It is just another one of those things I do that lawyers fail to appreciate. Ask your friends why that is if you don’t already know.
Veritas Vincit
David Raymond Amos
PO Box 234
Apohaqui, NB. E5P 3G2
UPS Ship Notification, Tracking Number 1Z24RW270464505354
Shipment Detail
Ship To:
PAUL SHUTTLE
PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE
59 SPARKS STREET
OTTAWA ON K1A0A3
Number of Packages:1
UPS Service: EXPRESS SAVER
Shipment Type: Envelope
Tracking Number: 1Z24RW270464505354
Reference Number 1:813556NY
Reference Number 2:25/03 1339
Status: Billing Information Received
Shipped or Billed on: 27/03/2006 Tracking Number: 1Z 24R W27 04 6450 535 4
Service Type: EXPRESS SAVER
Note: UPS has received shipper's billing information electronically. Billing information received does not indicate shipment pickup or drop-off. Please contact the shipper for more details.
UPS Ship Notification, Tracking Number 1Z24RW270464505363
Shipment Detail
Ship To:
ANDRE ARTHUR MP
325 DE L'EGLISE
DONNACONA QC G3M2A2
Number of Packages:1
UPS Service: EXPRESS SAVER
Weight: 5.0 LBS
Tracking Number: 1Z 24R W27 04 6450 536 3
Reference Number 1:813557NY
Reference Number 2: 24/03 4399
Status: Billing Information Received
Shipped or Billed on: 27/03/2006
Tracking Number: 1Z 24R W27 04 6450 536 3
Service Type: EXPRESS SAVER
Weight: 5.00 Lbs
Note: UPS has received shipper's billing information electronically. Billing information received does not indicate shipment pickup or drop-off. Please contact the shipper for more details.
Tracking results provided by UPS: 27/03/2006 16:18 Eastern Time
New Brunswick Crown Prosecutors Association (NBCPA)
| Contact | Email address | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Shara Munn (President) |
shara.munn@gnb.ca | ||
New Brunswick Crown Counsel Association (NBCCA)
| Contact | Email address |
|---|---|
| Daniel Standing (President) |
daniel.standing@gnb.ca |
Province plans 50 per cent increase in prosecutors after union warns of N.B. court 'crisis'
Crown prosecution union welcomes 30 new positions, but worries about when positions will be filled
The province's budget includes money for 30 positions on top of around 61 that already exist. It would also add three more prosecutors to handle family court cases.
Kris Austin, the province's minister of public safety, told the legislature in late March it was a "historic" 50 per cent increase.
It follows warnings from the New Brunswick Crown Prosecutors Association that staffing had reached a crisis point which risked the collapse of the court system.
Shara Munn, president of the association, expressed cautious optimism this week about the budget. Munn called it a clear acknowledgement of the problem. But she said the biggest concern is a lack of clarity on when the positions will be filled.
"We know that certain locations are in crisis and continue to be so," Munn said in an interview Wednesday.
"Just announcing funding on budget day doesn't wave a magic wand and solve the problem."
Shara
Munn, president of the New Brunswick Crown Prosecutors Association,
says the union warned the government for years that their staff
shortages had become critical. (Submitted by Shara Munn)
The union spoke publicly in February about concerns with staffing after a Moncton judge stayed a sexual assault case because the accused had waited too long to be tried.
The judge said some of the delays were caused by the Crown prosecutors office.
"I think right now the problem is we are risking collapse of the entire system if we allow more experienced prosecutors to leave, if we don't figure out ways to recruit and retain more prosecutors," Munn told CBC in February.
Days later, a judge in Fredericton stayed 25 charges against a former Fredericton car dealer because of delays.
A 2016 Supreme Court of Canada decision set a ceiling of 18 months to conclude criminal trials in provincial court, and 30 months in the Court of King's Bench.
New Brunswick's budget would also create two new specialized prosecution teams: an organized crime unit and a major cases unit in Moncton. It also plans to expand a unit that handles online child exploitation cases.
The province has yet to provide any details such as how much it will spend, where the positions will be located or when they will be filled. CBC requested an interview about the issue Wednesday but it was not provided.
Robert Duguay, a spokesperson for the province, said in an email that more details will be given when the justice minister presents the department's budget at a legislature committee in the coming weeks.
Experience concerns
Munn welcomed the new units, saying that prosecutors have been challenged handling daily cases at the same time as more complex files.
Munn said the units will likely be staffed by experienced prosecutors, something that could leave new or less experienced staff handling daily cases.
"I have nothing against new lawyers, new prosecutors. I was one myself," Munn said. "But again, when you're in office that's struggling to keep up with the day-to-day, the idea of training new prosecutors is also daunting."
The union president pointed to Moncton, where Munn said about half of prosecutors have less than five years of experience.
Moncton lawyer Gilles Lemieux agrees with the Crown prosecutors union that there's a crisis in the court system. (Shane Magee/CBC)
CBC asked several veteran defence lawyers about the measures in the budget.
Gilles Lemieux, a lawyer who works in the Moncton area and has handled complex and high-profile cases, said he's unsure how the new positions will affect the people he represents.
"How that's going to translate in the actual nuts and bolts operation, I'm not exactly sure. Right now the problems the Crown is facing, and the courts are facing, involve a lot more than just hiring a few bodies."
He said the problems include long delays early in the court process caused by slow disclosure from the Crown of its evidence. Without that information, lawyers tend to ask for a delay before they're ready to enter a plea or continue to trial.
Lemieux said he agreed with the Crown prosecutors union that there's a crisis in the court system.
"Is it because of a lack of staff or is it mismanagement? I don't know. It's hard to tell. They don't publicize what the problems are behind the walls."
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
THE PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK
PROVINCIAL COURT
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN )
) Case NO: 03683103
v. )
)
SHAWN TABOR )
1. On July 29th, 2004 I, David R. Amos at the request of my friend, Shawn Tabor, accompanied him to the hearing of the plea for the above-entitled matter before Judge Henrik G. Tonning.
2. I was well aware of the circumstances surrounding this matter because I have been staying at the home of Mr. Tabor’s sister Dawn at the time the allegations were made against him. I have been a witness to much that has transpired in this matter since June 18th .the same day I debated for the first time the former MP John Herron, a friend of the lawyer, David Lutz. The reason I stressed that night for entering the political fray was Public Trust. The actions of the Crown in this matter and the actions of David Lutz and his friends against my friend and I have proved my point. Henrick Tonning claimed jurisdiction the instant he threatened arrest.
3. Although I enjoyed my run for Parliament my real reason to come home to Canada and speak up was to protect my rights and to litigate if necessary. When Herron implied during the debate on June 18th that I may be a Hells Angel, I was not surprised to hear it but much offended me all the same. I had made it clear in my own intoduction that I wore the colors of a Clansman not a biker. The cops around New Brunswick have slandered me as a drug dealing biker for years. The malicious opinions of local law enforcement that are claimed not to be recorded has caused my freedom to suffer for years and I was almost shot twice by trigger-happy Yankees. I can talk of police harassment all day but I must say that if the town cop Livingstone had crossed paths with the Yankee draft dodger Lutz in 1977 instead of me, both men may have had different professions today rather be a lawyer and a RCMP officer.
4. I was well aware that Shawn Tabor had not offended Allison Withers in any way. She should not be in any fear of him whatsoever. The RCMP knew it as well. I attended at the request of his sister because Mr. Tabor was upset. I advised him to plead not guilty, keep his mouth shut and to demand copies non-existent evidence before any future hearing of the matter.
5. In the words of Judge Tonning Mr. Tabor’s ex wife was “jerking him around” in the pursuit of her own ends with the assistance of the Crown and her lawyer, David Lutz. That fact became painfully obvious the instant the Prosecutor McAvity attempted with the court’s permission to change the name of the person making the allegations against Mr. Tabor from that of his former sister in law to that of his ex wife Anne Tabor.
6. I was also well aware that Shawn Tabor had not offended his former wife, Anne Tabor in any way and that she has been in contempt of family court orders in the denial of his right to see his children in order to upset him further.
7. On July 29th it was widely known that the legal aid lawyers under contract with the New Brunswick Law Society had been on strike for months. These lawyers including David Lutz, the defendant’s ex wife’s lawyer were in fact delaying matters in the courts at the expense of justice for many New Brunswick taxpayers in order that they may increase their income.
8. I also knew that as of the aforesaid date in July the Attorney General Brad Green had given up trying to bargain with the greedy lawyers and had gone about changing the way legal aid would be administered in New Brunswick. I immediately recognized the conflict of interest if some lawyer employed by the Crown had tried advise him on how to act against some action began against him by the Crown. Ms. Gallagher quickly affirmed that suspicion as I heard her advise my friend that it was ok to change the name of the complainant and plead guilty.
9. The Crown’s action should have been dismissed immediately and the Prosecutor McAvity should have been questioned as to his malice and or competence. I certainly would not wish the likes of Ms. Gallagher defending my rights and interests before such a court. My thinking was affirmed when no person working the Crown would tell me who were the people on both sides of the fence on July 29th. Even the sheriff (Paul Gast) refused to tell me his name after he had made several moves against me at the judge’s bidding and on his own. Please view the attached letter dated August 18th McAvity and Legal aid that has gone unanswered.
10. Now over one month later David Lutz and his friend Gary Miller are lamenting their job loss and pointing out the same conflict of interest I pointed out in court on July 29th.
11. On July 29th I did not interfere with the hearing in any way. I did not speak before the court about this matter until the judge demanded me to explain my interaction with Mr. Tabor and Ms. Gallagher as they spoke before me and not before the court. This was done after Ms. Gallagher had complained of me to the court.
12. I did not speak again until after the hearing was over and another date was set and Judge Henrik Tonning started jerking me around. He pretended not to know who I was and called me a know it all courtroom counsel. I heard him advise my friend to secure the services of a lawyer and I agree but I do not see that statement within the transcript.
13. Upon my study of the transcript of the hearing of this matter on July 29th that was sold to Mr. Tabor, I see many words and omissions that I strongly disagree with. I truly believe that the Crown has practiced fraud against Mr. Tabor and I to cover up the failures of the law enforcement system of Canada. I ask that Judge Tonning review the transcript himself, recall his own words and then listen to the tape of the hearing before a copy of the tape is ordered and formatted.
14. I certainly hope that my friend has no wish to assist my wife’s Yankee cousins in their crimes against my family. I ask that he take the time to review the documents attached to this affidavit and listen to the FBI tapes I provided to the RCMP by way of the Graham Milner on September 2nd. I provided many more tapes to the Suffolk County District Attorney in Dorchester District Court on September 3rd. I mentioned during that hearing that I had served similar tapes upon the RCMP and they were mentioned in this matter.
15. I am no Jack-in-the-box as Judge Tonning claims. He knows I am a simple sincere and serious man who is already somewhere that he does not like to be. I am to stand trial in the USA to answer criminal charges placed against me by the same Court that falsely accused me of threatening President Bush last year.
16. Like Mr. Tabor I have had false allegations of harassment made against me by none other than the IRS. That was the matter that Henrick Tonning and I discussed as friends in his chambers over two years ago. The affidavit that he read that day is hereto attached for his review. It has been in the Public Record in the USA for over two years and should remain in the public record of this matter from this time forward.
17. On the same day that Mr. Tabor’s hearing was held in this court, the Suffolk County District Attorney answered me in the USA. One month later he attempted to prosecute me in a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter. Now I will summons many Canadians including Judge Tonning to testify as to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
18. I have read all the documents that Mr. Tabor has received on August 18th from the Prosecutor McAvity and from David Lutz on August 20th, the same day that he was slated to appear in Family Court. The lack integrity within David Lutz is obvious to me.
19. I have noticed that David Lutz signs a document in Family Court over one week after it is filed and that the statements of his client, Anne Tabor are different in the two courts.
20. It appears to me that David Lutz has no problem changing the dates of hearings to suit his own ends or to delay serving documents ordered by the court in a timely fashion.
21. It appears to me that the complaint in this court was brought against Mr. Tabor in order that David Lutz could use a judgement against him to deprive him of the right to see his children.
22. It appears to me that not only are the actions of David Lutz malicious but they are fraudulent as well. In my opinion he has no right to practice law for a fee but in fact he should be in jail.
23. All of my statements are made on my own free will in order to protect my rights and bear witness in Shawn Tabor’s matters. Judge Tonning did threaten to have me arrested after I stood in order to answer his insults.
24. This affidavit is filed in the above stated matter concerning Shawn Tabor as a witness pursuant to my words that can be found within the attached transcript of this matter.
25. Although I am Shawn Tabor’s friend who feels free to give him my honest opinion, I do not act as a counselor of any sort nor have I attempted to represent him in any legal matter.
26. I am much offended by the things I have heard that were said about me by the RCMP with regards to Mr. Tabor’s association with me.
27. I do recognize the fact that Shawn needs an honest lawyer to represent him and I am proud to say that I am the person that introduced him to the lady speaking for him. I have much respect for Joyce Richardson and her integrity. I hope to find more lawyers like her soon.
28. I have made it well known that I have no respect whatsoever for the legal profession. Just because I have gone to great lengths to prove why I think that way, it does not follow that I think all lawyers are crooks. It is the task of the legal profession to save it’s own mask of virtue, not mine. However I feel free to speak my mind about any lawyer who acts unethically and invite the to sue me in order to prove me wrong. Hundreds have declined.
29. That said, there is one lawyer in Canada that I wish to challenge on my own. I will serve this affidavit to the office of David Lutz in person so that he may complain of me if he wishes to do so. I will wager I will file a complaint against him first. I doubt that Yankee ain’t as quick on the draw as he is in running away in his cowboy boots. The fact that he ran from my questions proved to me he ain’t got any sand. I will look forward to arguing him in front of a jury of my peers. I did not believe him when he claimed to me in front of many witnesses on July 29th that he had given the attached material to law enforcement. I truly believe that he has destroyed many a family for his own gain. It is time to give the devil his due and make him fall on his own sword. I have read his work and I can’t think of a worse example of a Yankee Carpetbagger. He broke the law and dodged the draft in his native land then feels free to prosecute Canadians for not upholding the law and then brag of his accomplishments. It is time that he argues and honest Maritimer that ain’t no lawyer and who won’t make a deal or settle with the devil. Lutz cannot run back from whence he came for shelter. I live in the USA and I have studied the Federal Code. Title 18 applies to David Lutz as well.
30. As I said in statement numbered thirteen I did provide three original wiretap tapes to the RCMP in Sussex on September the 2nd with a witness. I have no idea as to whether or not CISNB has picked up the other three tapes and the documents from the priest, Bill Elliot or the same material in the possession of David Szemerda’s unnamed lawyer friend. However the RCMP remained true to form. Within the hour they showed more concern about motor vehicle infractions rather than crimes. Apparently the RCMP who had been following me around all summer were well aware of the day my registration expired in Massachusetts. When Cst. Belliveau stopped me and began interrogating me as to why it was not renewed, I served upon him the reason why I could not do so in front of the same witness that saw me serve his supervisor and tell him they why they were expired. I will leave the car the RCMP are so concerned about in Canada as evidence until the matter is resolved and I will call Cst. Belliveau and his supervisor Graham Milner to the USA to speak in my defense.
31. I have also received a very predictable and unsatisfactory response from the RCMP External Review Committee. By the date, where it was sent and gist of their letter I suspect those lawyers working under Anne McLellan thought I would never make it to court in the USA on September 3rd. I will look forward to arguing those lawyers later in another court.
32. In support of the foregoing statements and to defend myself against false allegations in a criminal trial I will be filing this document with its attachments in a court in the USA.
33. My last statement is far from the least important. The sad but true fact that the following oath and witnessed signature is totally unnecessary because Judge Henrick Tonning, the Crown Prosecutor McAvity, the RCMP officers in the courtroom today and David Lutz in particular know everything that I stated above is true. This affidavit would not need to exist if any one of the aforesaid parties had acted ethically long ago. They all know I am a man of my word Even though I don’t believe that any god will judge me in the future. I try to check my work every day and answer to my own conscience every night. I wish Henrick well with his legal dilemma but I see no ethical problem whatsoever. Just ask David Lutz why he changed the date of his actions against Shawn Tabor in Family Court until after the hearing of this matter today. Perhaps then the judge should ask Lutz how the document he filed in Family Court could be signed one week after it was supposedly filed. If Judge Tonning could read the statements made against Shawn Tabor by Anne Tabor in two different courts, he would truly see that she is “jerking him around” with the malicious assistance of David Lutz. I do and I ain’t no lawyer or courtroom counselor nor do I wish to be one. There is no need for the Judge to report these facts to the Law Society of New Brunswick. I am sending them a copy of this affidavit and its attachments. They can look into the matter for themselves. If the judge has any questions for me about what I have filed, I am seated in court but I will not speak unless called upon to do so. I will return to the USA tomorrow in order to stand in court on Monday and then in another court within two weeks. I may be unavailable for months afterwards. However, I will be back to complain of David Lutz and many other lawyers. If the Judge wishes to see how serious the business I am in, perhaps he should listen to the wiretap tapes or read the attached emails from Byron Prior in Newfoundland. All that said, please don’t allow David Lutz to stop Shawn Tabor from seeing his children. He loves them dearly. The court heard his plea for justice on July 29th now he has hired a lawyer to speak for him as the judge had suggested. I trust that Ms. Richardson has her client’s best interests at heart so I will say no more within my friend Shawn’s matters. But I will be watching to see if the law is upheld and justice is served. If it is not, I will act according to my conscience and the best way I know how. How’s that for politicking?
SIGNED UNDER THE PENALTIES OF PERJURY THIS THE 9IH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2004
Sworn before me, a Commissioner of Oaths, )
Notary Public, on this the 9h day of )
September, 2004 at the town of )
Sussex, in the County of Kings, )
Province of New Brunswick, )
Dominion of Canada )
My commission expires
___________________________ ___________________________
11 Birch St 153 Alvin Ave.
Sussex, N.B. E4E 2l5 Milton, MA. 02186
Methinks Mr McKee cannot deny that the Crown should practice full discloursure with regards to my involvement in these matters N'esy Pas Higgy, and Madame Sturgeon, Mr Jones amd Mr Magee of the coporate media?
David Amos<motomaniac333@gmail.com> |  Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 6:34 PM | ||||||||||||||
| To: james.fowler@fowlerlawpc.com, Guillaume.LeBlanc@fowlerlawpc.com, "robert.mckee" <robert.mckee@gnb.ca>, "hugh.flemming" <hugh.flemming@gnb.ca>, James.McAvity@gnb.ca, shara.munn@gnb.ca, corry.toole@gnb.ca, remi.allard@gnb.ca, maurice.blanchard@gnb.ca, claude.hache@gnb.ca, christopher.titus@gnb.ca, "John.Williamson" <John.Williamson@parl.gc.ca>, "Dominic.Cardy@gnb.ca. \"Ross.Wetmore\"" <Ross.Wetmore@gnb.ca>, "rob.moore" <rob.moore@parl.gc.ca>, "Robert. Jones" <Robert.Jones@cbc.ca>, "steve.murphy" <steve.murphy@ctv.ca>, Newsroom <Newsroom@globeandmail.com>, Luc.LaBonte@gnb.ca, oldmaison@yahoo.com, "andrea.anderson-mason" <andrea.anderson-mason@gnb.ca>, andre <andre@jafaust.com>, "jake.stewart" <jake.stewart@gnb.ca>, "jeff.carr" <jeff.carr@bellaliant.net>, "Sherry.Wilson" <Sherry.Wilson@gnb.ca>, "martin.gaudet" <martin.gaudet@fredericton.ca>, "Mark.Blakely" <Mark.Blakely@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, Tom.Critchlow@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, tj <tj@burkelaw.ca>, "Kim.Poffenroth" <Kim.Poffenroth@gnb.ca>, "David.Coon" <David.Coon@gnb.ca>, "kris.austin" <kris.austin@gnb.ca>, greg.byrne@gnb.ca, "Jack.Keir" <Jack.Keir@gnb.ca>, jbosnitch@gmail.com, law@shapirohalpern.com, joshuahalpern@outlook.com | |||||||||||||||
| Cc: David.Raymond.Amos333@gmail.com, "blaine.higgs" <blaine.higgs@gnb.ca>, "Shane.Magee" <Shane.Magee@cbc.ca>, Nathalie Sturgeon <sturgeon.nathalie@brunswicknews.com> | |||||||||||||||
Out of the Gate I should ask where was the media and WHY the very corrupt RCMP did not remain true to their promise to the local politicians and arrest anyone else in Moncton today??? https://www.facebook.com/ Could it be that Canadians have had enough of this malicious lock down nonsense and are hitting the streets in tidal waves all over the country just before questionable budgets are tabled and confidence votes begin? Go Figure https://www.facebook.com/ Deja Vu Anyone??? https://www.facebook.com/ Talk New Brunswick JcsteefScapdnounaresoyrh 2m3ehd · This happened in front of Premier Higgs home today https://www.facebook.com/ If you don't want to watch the whole thing it ends with her being arrested. Methinks the Crown Attorneys in New Brunswick must now that Liz Kramer ran against their current boss Teddy Baby Flemming in the last election now even though Higgy had her arrested before all the people in Moncton were yet CBC won't talk about it but an Irving newsrag certainly did CORRECT??? COVID-19 One arrested in protest outside Premier Higgs's house Published an hour ago Marlo Glass | Telegraph-Journal SAINT JOHN • One person was arrested at a demonstration outside of Premier Blaine Higgs's house in Quispamsis on Saturday afternoon. The Kennebecasis Regional Police Force confirmed they were on the scene enforcing the mandatory order of the Emergency Measures Act. Zone 2, which includes the greater Saint John area, moved into phase red of the province's pandemic recovery plan on Jan. 20. Sgt. Kim Bennett confirmed one arrest was made. "There have been demonstrations for the past few Saturdays, and the police have been on the scene as well," said Bennett. Liz Kramer of Rothesay, who streamed a video of the demonstration on her Facebook page, told the Telegraph-Journal she was arrested for disturbing the peace, as well as ticketed for violating the Emergency Measures Act for not wearing a mask. Craig McDougall, the officer in charge of the police response to the gathering, was not available for comment at the time of publication. Kramer ran in the 2020 provincial election as an independent candidate for the Rothesay riding. The Telegraph-Journal asked the premier's oce for comment on Saturday but did not receive a response by publication time. Kramer returned to the premier's house on Sunday to "let everyone know she wasn't afraid," she said. She received another ticket for not wearing a mask in her car with another person. She says she is "protesting the non-justification of a continued state of emergency," and that she "isn't an anti-masker, just a freedom-lover." On Saturday, she was issued an additional ticket for protesting outside the premier's house the week prior. Kramer said she intends to fight the tickets in court on March 18. https://pipsc.ca/news-issues/ President Daviau asks political leaders in New Brunswick where they stand PIPSC President, Debi Daviau has reached out to all political leaders in New Brunswick to clarify their positions on issues that matter most to our members. Read the letter Several hundred PIPSC members live and work in New Brunswick. Our membership in the province includes Crown Prosecutors, Crown Counsel, Legal Aid Services employees, agrologists and agronomists, engineers, architects and land surveyors, as well as veterinarians and veterinary pathologists. All who have continued to provide critical services to the people of New Brunswick during the COVID 19 crises. And many who have been on the front lines of the provincial and federal response to the pandemic. President Daviau has asked each party to clarify what their position is on the following issues: (1) If elected, what will your party do to ensure an effective, well-funded provincial public service continues to be in place in the years ahead? (2) If elected, in light of ongoing health concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic, what will your party do to ensure the safety of our members returning to their regular work locations? And will your party support appropriate work-life balance accommodations for our members and their families given the continued uncertainty regarding what will constitute the “new normal” in the future? (3) If elected, will your party ensure that our members receive fair compensation that is competitive with those of their counterparts across Canada? As you may know, public service professionals in New Brunswick are currently among the lowest paid in the country. (4) With the move from a defined benefit pension plan to a shared risk pension plan, our members are now left with a retirement plan that delivers less and costs more. If elected, what will your party do to address this shortfall? We are a non-partisan union and ready to collaborate with the next New Brunswick government to ensure that New Brunswickers continue to receive the excellent public services that they expect and depend on. Published on 8 September 2020 https://pipsc.ca/groups/nbcp/ NBCP Group Executive President Christopher T. Titus Group : NBCP Department : OAG Phone : 1-506-658-2580 Email : christopher.titus@gnb.ca Vice-President Claude Haché Group : NBCP Department : OAG Phone : 1-506-453-2784 Email : claude.hache@gnb.ca Secretary Maurice Blanchard Group : NBCP Department : OAG Phone : 1-505-856-3536 Email : maurice.blanchard@gnb.ca Treasurer Rémi Allard Group : NBCP Department : OAG Phone : 1-506-856-2310 Email : remi.allard@gnb.ca Member Corry Toole Group : NBCP Department : OAG Phone : 1-506-643-2381 Email : corry.toole@gnb.ca Member Shara Munn Group : NBCP Department : OAG Phone : 1-506-658-2610 Email : shara.munn@gnb.ca https://www.cbc.ca/news/ Protesters who allegedly violated N.B. COVID rules hire Ontario lawyer Judge rejects request to bar media from publishing name of one of five facing charges Shane Magee · CBC News · Posted: Mar 10, 2021 2:40 PM AT Two people arrested and charged following a protest outside Moncton city hall in January have hired an Ontario lawyer who unsuccessfully requested a publication ban to restrict reporting the name of one of those facing charges. (Radio-Canada ) A provincial court judge on Wednesday denied a request to prohibit media from reporting the name of one of five people charged with violating New Brunswick's COVID-19 rules at a protest in Moncton. The request was made by Ontario lawyer Joshua Halpern, who is representing Bathurst residents Nicholas DeAngelis, 34, and 31-year-old Britney Green. DeAngelis and Green were arrested and charged following the Jan. 24 protest outside Moncton city hall. Both were scheduled to appear in Moncton provincial court Wednesday to enter pleas on the charges they face. Neither were present, but were represented by Halpern, who appeared by phone. "I'd like to request a publication ban on this file," Halpern told Provincial Judge Brigitte Volpé after she read the charges against DeAngelis. Publication bans are standard for the names of victims of sexual crimes and for those under 18 facing charges, but the names of adults charged are public record because of the open court principle. Prosecutor opposed request "I understand there's been a lot of media attention around this and he feels he's being harassed by the media," Halpern said. The defence lawyer sought the ban based on a section of the criminal code that allows barring names of witnesses and victims of crime at the request of a Crown prosecutor. Crown prosecutor Maurice Blanchard opposed the request, saying he didn't believe such a ban would be allowed. "Unless I'm mistaken, your client is the accused, not a victim here," the judge said. "Not a victim, but he is a witness as well as being an accused," Halpern said. "The section under which you're [requesting the ban], in my opinion, doesn't permit me to do that," Volpé said, adding Halpern could file an application seeking such a ban and a hearing would need to be held to consider the request. DeAngelis faces criminal charges of causing a disturbance at a Superstore in Moncton by screaming, mischief by interfering with the use of property, and resisting two police officers on Dec. 31, 2020. DeAngelis is alleged to have violated the province's Emergency Measures Act on Dec. 31 by not wearing a mask, not wearing a mask in Shediac on Jan. 22 and Jan. 24 by taking part in a gathering of more than five people while not physically distanced and not wearing a mask. Green faces similar criminal charges. It's also alleged she violated the Emergency Measures Act on Dec. 31 by not wearing a mask and Jan. 24 by taking part in a gathering of more than five people while not physically distanced and not wearing a mask. Halpern requested an adjournment so he can get disclosure of the Crown's evidence. He's scheduled to appear in court by phone on April 21. Jonathan Rossiter, 29, of Nackawic, Dawn Teakles, 49, of Moncton, and David Robert West, 54, of Riverview were also charged following the protest outside city hall. Teakles returns to court March 22, while West is scheduled to appear April 6. An arrest warrant was issued for Rossiter after he missed a court appearance in February. CBC's Journalistic Standards and Practices https://www.cbc.ca/news/ Moncton protester against COVID rules found fit after psychiatric evaluation David West of Riverview arrested during Jan. 24 protest outside Moncton city hall Shane Magee · CBC News · Posted: Feb 25, 2021 5:05 PM AT David West of Riverview arrested during Jan. 24 protest outside Moncton city hall Shane Magee · CBC News · Posted: Feb 25, 2021 5:05 PM AT | Last Updated: February 25 An anti-mask protest took place in Moncton on Jan. 24 and five people were arrested. (Radio-Canada ) A Riverview man arrested during a protest against COVID-19 restrictions in Moncton last month was found fit to stand trial following a 30-day psychiatric evaluation. David Robert West, 54, will be released from custody and is next scheduled to appear in court April 6. West was among five people arrested and held in custody following the Jan. 24 protest outside Moncton city hall, but was the only one still in custody. He appeared in Moncton provincial court Thursday afternoon by video from the Southeast Regional Correctional Centre in Shediac. Defence lawyer Guillaume LeBlanc told provincial court Judge Paul Duffie that he had yet to receive disclosure of the Crown's evidence. West indicated during an appearance Jan. 28 that he was "just not all there in the head right now." A judge had ordered the psychiatric evaluation at the Restigouche Hospital Centre in Campbellton at LeBlanc's request. West faces several criminal charges, including allegations he resisted a police officer on Oct. 8, 2020, assaulted a peace officer on the same date, caused a disturbance at a grocery store in Moncton on Dec. 31, 2020 and violated the province's Emergency Measures Act at a Shediac grocery store on Jan. 22 this year, according to a list of charges read in court Thursday. Jonathan Rossiter, 29, of Nackawic, Dawn Teakles, 49, of Moncton, Nicholas Deangelis, 34, of Bathurst, and Britney Green, 31, of Bathurst were the others arrested and charged following the Jan. 24 protest. Green and Deangelis are scheduled to return to court March 10. Teakles returns to court March 22. An arrest warrant was issued after Rossiter missed his Tuesday court appearance. CBC's Journalistic Standards and Practices https://www.cbc.ca/news/ Warrant issued after anti-mask protester skips Moncton court appearance Jonathan Rossiter, 29, of Nackawic was set to enter a plea in Moncton court Shane Magee · CBC News · Posted: Feb 22, 2021 12:09 PM AT RCMP officers issued tickets and arrested several people at the protest for violating the province's emergency measures during a protest outside Moncton city hall on Jan. 24. (Guy LeBlanc/Radio-Canada) A judge issued an arrest warrant Monday after a person arrested and charged following an anti-mask protest in Moncton missed his court appearance. Jonathan Rossiter, 29, of Nackawic faces criminal charges of assaulting, resisting and obstructing police officers on Jan. 24 in Moncton. He also faces a charge of violating the province's Emergency Measures Act by taking part in a gathering of more than five people outside, while people were not more than two metres apart and wearing masks. He was one of six arrested Jan. 24 at the protest outside Moncton city hall. He was released from custody the following day and ordered to appear in court again on Monday to enter a plea on the charges. He was not present in Moncton provincial court, and no lawyer was there to represent him, so Judge Luc Labonté issued an arrest warrant. Dawn Teakles, 49, of Moncton, was also arrested at the protests and also faces similar criminal charges and an alleged violation of the Emergency Measures Act. Teakles was present in court and was wearing a mask, but did not enter a plea. Teakles told the judge she has applied for legal aid representation. She's scheduled to return to court March 22. Earlier, David West, 54, of Riverview was sent for a 30-day psychiatric evaluation and is scheduled to return to court Feb. 25. Bathurst residents Britney Green, 31, and Nicholas DeAngelis, 34, were released on bail Jan. 28 and are scheduled to return to court March 10. Codiac Regional RCMP Supt. Tom Critchlow told Moncton councillors last week that police had noted a protest Feb. 14 had followed the province's rules meant to reduce the spread of COVID-19. CBC's Journalistic Standards and Practices For the record I crossed paths with Judge Luc Labonté BIGTIME when he was prosecuting Werner Bock He wisely dropped the charges as soon as he and I had a little pow wow on the phone and I sent him a few emails to prove what I said was true The same holds true only worse for James McAvity and his cohorts years 10 years before when he was prosecuting Corry Toole and my bother in law's former client Shawn Tabor in 2004 because those fools continued to pursue the matter for the benefit of their friend David Lutz and wannabe liberal judge even though they were duly informed of the truth of the matter https://www.cbc.ca/news/ Charges against cattle farmer Werner Bock dropped Crown withdrew 2 counts of failing to provide proper food and water because cows have been sold CBC News · Posted: Jun 20, 2014 12:05 PM AT A New Brunswick cattle farmer is no longer facing charges of failing to care for his animals. Werner Bock, 70, of Petitcodiac, had been charged with two counts of failing to provide proper food and water to his cattle during the spring of 2011. But the Crown withdrew the charges under New Brunswick's SPCA Act in Moncton provincial court on Thursday, saying Bock has sold his cows and the herd no longer needs protection. Bock had claimed the case against him was a conspiracy by the government, veterinarians, the RCMP and CBC. He testified that lasers and heat rays had killed his cows. In December, Bock had been found unfit to stand trial. A psychiatric assessment showed he was suffering from a delusional disorder. Judge Troy Sweet had adjourned the case until June 19 and released Bock on the conditions that he keep the peace and report to Moncton Mental Health for assessment and treatment. Crown witnesses had testified about a pile of carcasses under hay bales, a dead cow in a brook and others buried in the woods. CBC's Journalistic Standards and Practices The following year the LIEBRANOS and Luc Labonte cannot deny that I smelled something fishy while I was arguing Crown Attorneys in Federal Court ---------- Original message ---------- From: "LaBonte, Luc (OAG/CPG)" <Luc.LaBonte@gnb.ca> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 12:41:18 +0000 Subject: Automatic reply: Methinks something smelled fishy between Dominic Leblanc and Trudeau The Younger's minions within the RCMP way back in 2004 yett the CBC or Keith Ashfield would never say shit about it but the media in Norway sometimes did To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> I will out of the office until January 4, 2016. I will periodically check my e-mails, however, expect delays for responses. Should you have an emergency, please contact 506-453-2784. Je serai absent du bureau jusqu'au 4 janvier 2016. Je vérifirai mon courriel de temps en temps mais il y aura un délai pour les réponses. Si vous avez une urgence, s.v.p. veuillez contacter le 506-453-2784. > From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: FW: Message to Angie re confirmation that David Banks of > the Dispatch 911 at the Fredericton City Police said he sent the 911 > audio evidence to the Crown > To: "Evelyn Greene" <evelyngreene@live.ca>, "oldmaison@yahoo.com" > <oldmaison@yahoo.com>, "thepurplevioletpress" > <thepurplevioletpress@gmail. > Cc: "We are Fred up" <WEAREFREDUP@gmail.com>, andremurraynow@gmail.com > Date: Saturday, January 28, 2012, 2:38 PM > > > http:// > > http://www.youtube.com/watch? > > http://www.scribd.com/doc/ > > http:// > > http://www.youtube.com/watch? > > http:// > > On 1/28/12, David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com> wrote: >> No special treatment when police face charges: lawyer >> Craig Babstock (Times & Transcript) – With more than 20 years >> experience as a Crown prosecutor, Luc Labonté knows how some people >> will react when they hear an RCMP officer had his assault charged >> stayed earlier this week. He knows that some will have the perception >> this individual no longer faces a charge because he’s a police >> officer. >> >> “Unfortunately, we’ll never be able to change those people’s minds,” >> says Labonté. >> >> But New Brunswick’s director of Public Prosecutions Services wants to >> assure the public that people who are charged with a crime are all >> treated the same, no matter if they are a Mountie, a plumber or a >> newspaper reporter. >> >> “Our system is based on evidence, not on someone’s profession,” says >> the prosecutor. >> >> The case in question involved an accusation a Mountie committed a >> summary assault against his spouse in December and was supposed to go >> to trial in Moncton provincial court on Tuesday. Instead, the Crown >> asked for a stay of proceedings, saying the request came from the head >> office in Fredericton, which the judge granted. Head office gave no >> reason for the request, beyond saying the file was reviewed and it was >> determined that it was not appropriate to proceed with a charge at >> this time. >> >> Knowing the public is quick to scrutinize cases involving a police >> officer, Labonté agreed to talk about the procedure that’s in place in >> cases where a police officer is charged, in an attempt to reassure the >> public there is no bias, either for or against an officer. >> >> In this particular case, an RCMP officer investigated the RCMP officer >> who was accused and eventually laid the charge against him in court. >> That investigator told the Times & Transcript earlier this week that >> his work was reviewed by officers from a non-RCMP police force in the >> province. >> >> Labonté says while it’s preferable not to have officers from the same >> police force investigate one another, this particular investigation >> was independently reviewed by two Crown prosecutors. New Brunswick is >> what’s known as a “pre-screening province,” meaning that the Crown >> reviews charges and approves them before they are laid in court. The >> director says no prosecutor deals with files involving police officers >> from their own area. >> >> “If I’m a Moncton prosecutor and they bring me a file about a Codiac >> RCMP member, I would immediately not look at that file and send it to >> head office,” says Labonté. “If a Moncton prosecutor said no to a >> charge for a Moncton police officer, it would look bad.” >> >> The head office finds a prosecutor in the province who has not had >> dealings with that police officer. Because Mounties are frequently >> transferred, they also check where that person has been located in the >> past so there’s no conflict with the Crown assigned to the file. >> >> During his career in Moncton, Labonté took on files involving police >> officers in other parts of the province of whom he had no knowledge, >> which allowed him to treat each case like any other file. >> >> “We want to make sure they don’t get any special treatment or treated >> more harshly than any other person,” he says. “We ensure the threshold >> required to prosecute someone is met.” >> >> A common misperception about Crown prosecutors is that they are out to >> register convictions, but that’s not the case. As a sign in the lobby >> of the Crown’s office in the Moncton Law Courts says, the goal is to >> present the facts and let the judge or jury decide guilt. >> >> “We are to be an unbiased presenter of the facts, we’re not there to >> seek convictions,” he says. >> >> Labonté says cases are constantly reviewed leading up to a trial and >> there are many reasons why a stay may be sought. For example a witness >> may disappear, a person can change their story, new evidence can be >> discovered, or a new person reviewing the file may have a different >> opinion whether or not it should proceed. >> >> While Labonté can’t discuss the specifics of the Moncton case from >> this week, he says he reviewed the file and recommended the case not >> go to trial. That recommendation went to his deputy minister, who >> agreed. In cases where the Crown requests a stay of proceedings, it >> has a year to decide if it wants to lay the charge again. >> JAMES MCAVITY Crown Prosecutor (Acting) Saint John, Crown Prosecutors Office (Regional Office ) Justice & Public Safety Phone : (506) 658-2580 Fax : (506) 658-3061 Email : James.McAvity@gnb.ca https://www.linkedin.com/in/ Guillaume LeBlanc Fowler Law P.C. inc. Full-time Dates Employed Sep 2020 – Present Employment Duration 7 mos Location Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada James E. Fowler Called to the bar: 1979 (NB); Q.C.2013 (NB) Fowler Law P.C. Inc. 69 Waterloo St. Moncton, New Brunswick E1C 0E1 Phone: 506-857-8811 Fax: 506-857-9297 Email: james.fowler@fowlerlawpc.com https://www.facebook.com/ https://www.shaplegal.com/ (647) 932-2147 law@shapirohalpern.com Joshua Halpern Law Society Number 78744E Class of Licence Definitions Lawyer (L1) Real Estate Insured † No Status Definitions In Private Practice Business Name Shapiro Halpern Law Business Address 149 Willowdale Ave.Toronto, OntarioM2N 4Y5 Phone 1 647 932 2147 Email Address joshuahalpern@outlook.com ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 11:17:25 -0400 Subject: Attn Robert McKee I am calling you for the third time The pdf files hereto attached are for real To: robert.mckee@fowlerlawpc.com, "brian.gallant" <brian.gallant@gnb.ca>, "chris.collins" <chris.collins@gnb.ca>, tj <tj@burkelaw.ca>, "blaine.higgs" <blaine.higgs@gnb.ca>, "David.Coon" <David.Coon@gnb.ca>, oldmaison <oldmaison@yahoo.com>, andre <andre@jafaust.com>, jbosnitch <jbosnitch@gmail.com> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com> <greg.byrne@gnb.ca>, "Jack.Keir" <Jack.Keir@gnb.ca> Robert K. Mckee Called to the bar: 2012 (NB) Fowler Law P.C. Inc. 69 Waterloo St. Moncton, New Brunswick E1C 0E1 Phone: 506-857-8811 Fax: 506-857-9297 Email: robert.mckee@fowlerlawpc.com http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ Robert McKee to run for the Liberals in Moncton Centre Lawyer won Saturday's nomination by acclamation, a spokesperson for the party says CBC News · Posted: Jun 03, 2018 4:50 PM AT Robert McKee, a 32-year-old lawyer and first-term Moncton city councillor, declared his candidacy for the Moncton Centre Liberal nomination on May 17. (Submitted) Robert McKee has won the Moncton Centre Liberal nomination and will run for the party in the upcoming provincial election this fall. The 32-year-old lawyer was elected to Moncton city council in May, 2016, representing Ward 3, and declared his candidacy for the Moncton Centre Liberal nomination on May 17. He won Saturday's nomination by acclamation, according to Duncan Gallant, a spokesperson for the party. The availability to run in Moncton Centre for the Liberals opened up after Speaker Chris Collins said he wouldn't reoffer for the party. Speaker Chris Collins won't reoffer for Liberals, plans to sue premier for libel 8 Liberals quit over premier's 'humiliating' treatment of Chris Collins Premier Brian Gallant suspended Collins from the Liberal caucus on the basis of allegations of harassment made by a former employee of the legislature. Collins described Premier Gallant's handling of the allegations as "atrocious" and will finish his term as an independent. The election is scheduled for Sept. 24. > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com > Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 09:32:09 -0400 > Subject: Attn Integrity Commissioner Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C., > To: coi@gnb.ca > Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com > > Good Day Sir > > After I heard you speak on CBC I called your office again and managed > to speak to one of your staff for the first time > > Please find attached the documents I promised to send to the lady who > answered the phone this morning. Please notice that not after the Sgt > at Arms took the documents destined to your office his pal Tanker > Malley barred me in writing with an "English" only document. > > These are the hearings and the dockets in Federal Court that I > suggested that you study closely. > > This is the docket in Federal Court > > http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj. > > These are digital recordings of the last three hearings > > Dec 14th https://archive.org/details/ > > January 11th, 2016 https://archive.org/details/ > > April 3rd, 2017 > > https://archive.org/details/ > > > This is the docket in the Federal Court of Appeal > > http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj. > > > The only hearing thus far > > May 24th, 2017 > > https://archive.org/details/ > > > This Judge understnds the meaning of the word Integrity > > Date: 20151223 > > Docket: T-1557-15 > > Fredericton, New Brunswick, December 23, 2015 > > PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Bell > > BETWEEN: > > DAVID RAYMOND AMOS > > Plaintiff > > and > > HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN > > Defendant > > ORDER > > (Delivered orally from the Bench in Fredericton, New Brunswick, on > December 14, 2015) > > The Plaintiff seeks an appeal de novo, by way of motion pursuant to > the Federal Courts Rules (SOR/98-106), from an Order made on November > 12, 2015, in which Prothonotary Morneau struck the Statement of Claim > in its entirety. > > At the outset of the hearing, the Plaintiff brought to my attention a > letter dated September 10, 2004, which he sent to me, in my then > capacity as Past President of the New Brunswick Branch of the Canadian > Bar Association, and the then President of the Branch, Kathleen Quigg, > (now a Justice of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal). In that letter > he stated: > > As for your past President, Mr. Bell, may I suggest that you check the > work of Frank McKenna before I sue your entire law firm including you. > You are your brother’s keeper. > > Frank McKenna is the former Premier of New Brunswick and a former > colleague of mine at the law firm of McInnes Cooper. In addition to > expressing an intention to sue me, the Plaintiff refers to a number of > people in his Motion Record who he appears to contend may be witnesses > or potential parties to be added. Those individuals who are known to > me personally, include, but are not limited to the former Prime > Minister of Canada, The Right Honourable Stephen Harper; former > Attorney General of Canada and now a Justice of the Manitoba Court of > Queen’s Bench, Vic Toews; former member of Parliament Rob Moore; > former Director of Policing Services, the late Grant Garneau; former > Chief of the Fredericton Police Force, Barry McKnight; former Staff > Sergeant Danny Copp; my former colleagues on the New Brunswick Court > of Appeal, Justices Bradley V. Green and Kathleen Quigg, and, retired > Assistant Commissioner Wayne Lang of the Royal Canadian Mounted > Police. > > In the circumstances, given the threat in 2004 to sue me in my > personal capacity and my past and present relationship with many > potential witnesses and/or potential parties to the litigation, I am > of the view there would be a reasonable apprehension of bias should I > hear this motion. See Justice de Grandpré’s dissenting judgment in > Committee for Justice and Liberty et al v National Energy Board et al, > [1978] 1 SCR 369 at p 394 for the applicable test regarding > allegations of bias. In the circumstances, although neither party has > requested I recuse myself, I consider it appropriate that I do so. > > > AS A RESULT OF MY RECUSAL, THIS COURT ORDERS that the Administrator of > the Court schedule another date for the hearing of the motion. There > is no order as to costs. > > “B. Richard Bell” > Judge > > > Below after the CBC article about your concerns (I made one comment > already) you will find the text of just two of many emails I had sent > to your office over the years since I first visited it in 2006. > > I noticed that on July 30, 2009, he was appointed to the the Court > Martial Appeal Court of Canada Perhaps you should scroll to the > bottom of this email ASAP and read the entire Paragraph 83 of my > lawsuit now before the Federal Court of Canada? > > "FYI This is the text of the lawsuit that should interest Trudeau the most > > > ---------- Original message ---------- > From: justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca > Date: Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:18 PM > Subject: Réponse automatique : RE My complaint against the CROWN in > Federal Court Attn David Hansen and Peter MacKay If you planning to > submit a motion for a publication ban on my complaint trust that you > dudes are way past too late > To: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com > > Veuillez noter que j'ai changé de courriel. Vous pouvez me rejoindre à > lalanthier@hotmail.com > > Pour rejoindre le bureau de M. Trudeau veuillez envoyer un courriel à > tommy.desfosses@parl.gc.ca > > Please note that I changed email address, you can reach me at > lalanthier@hotmail.com > > To reach the office of Mr. Trudeau please send an email to > tommy.desfosses@parl.gc.ca > > Thank you, > > Merci , > > > http://davidraymondamos3. > > > 83. The Plaintiff states that now that Canada is involved in more war > in Iraq again it did not serve Canadian interests and reputation to > allow Barry Winters to publish the following words three times over > five years after he began his bragging: > > January 13, 2015 > This Is Just AS Relevant Now As When I wrote It During The Debate > > December 8, 2014 > Why Canada Stood Tall! > > Friday, October 3, 2014 > Little David Amos’ “True History Of War” Canadian Airstrikes And > Stupid Justin Trudeau > > Canada’s and Canadians free ride is over. Canada can no longer hide > behind Amerka’s and NATO’s skirts. > > When I was still in Canadian Forces then Prime Minister Jean Chretien > actually committed the Canadian Army to deploy in the second campaign > in Iraq, the Coalition of the Willing. This was against or contrary to > the wisdom or advice of those of us Canadian officers that were > involved in the initial planning phases of that operation. There were > significant concern in our planning cell, and NDHQ about of the dearth > of concern for operational guidance, direction, and forces for > operations after the initial occupation of Iraq. At the “last minute” > Prime Minister Chretien and the Liberal government changed its mind. > The Canadian government told our amerkan cousins that we would not > deploy combat troops for the Iraq campaign, but would deploy a > Canadian Battle Group to Afghanistan, enabling our amerkan cousins to > redeploy troops from there to Iraq. The PMO’s thinking that it was > less costly to deploy Canadian Forces to Afghanistan than Iraq. But > alas no one seems to remind the Liberals of Prime Minister Chretien’s > then grossly incorrect assumption. Notwithstanding Jean Chretien’s > incompetence and stupidity, the Canadian Army was heroic, > professional, punched well above it’s weight, and the PPCLI Battle > Group, is credited with “saving Afghanistan” during the Panjway > campaign of 2006. > > What Justin Trudeau and the Liberals don’t tell you now, is that then > Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien committed, and deployed the > Canadian army to Canada’s longest “war” without the advice, consent, > support, or vote of the Canadian Parliament. > > What David Amos and the rest of the ignorant, uneducated, and babbling > chattering classes are too addled to understand is the deployment of > less than 75 special operations troops, and what is known by planners > as a “six pac cell” of fighter aircraft is NOT the same as a > deployment of a Battle Group, nor a “war” make. > > The Canadian Government or The Crown unlike our amerkan cousins have > the “constitutional authority” to commit the Canadian nation to war. > That has been recently clearly articulated to the Canadian public by > constitutional scholar Phillippe Legasse. What Parliament can do is > remove “confidence” in The Crown’s Government in a “vote of > non-confidence.” That could not happen to the Chretien Government > regarding deployment to Afghanistan, and it won’t happen in this > instance with the conservative majority in The Commons regarding a > limited Canadian deployment to the Middle East. > > President George Bush was quite correct after 911 and the terror > attacks in New York; that the Taliban “occupied” and “failed state” > Afghanistan was the source of logistical support, command and control, > and training for the Al Quaeda war of terror against the world. The > initial defeat, and removal from control of Afghanistan was vital and > > P.S. Whereas this CBC article is about your opinion of the actions of > the latest Minister Of Health trust that Mr Boudreau and the CBC have > had my files for many years and the last thing they are is ethical. > Ask his friends Mr Murphy and the RCMP if you don't believe me. > > Subject: > Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:02:35 -0400 > From: "Murphy, Michael B. \(DH/MS\)" MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca > To: motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com > > January 30, 2007 > > WITHOUT PREJUDICE > > Mr. David Amos > > Dear Mr. Amos: > > This will acknowledge receipt of a copy of your e-mail of December 29, > 2006 to Corporal Warren McBeath of the RCMP. > > Because of the nature of the allegations made in your message, I have > taken the measure of forwarding a copy to Assistant Commissioner Steve > Graham of the RCMP “J” Division in Fredericton. > > Sincerely, > > Honourable Michael B. Murphy > Minister of Health > > CM/cb > > > Warren McBeath warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca wrote: > > Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:34:53 -0500 > From: "Warren McBeath" warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca > To: kilgoursite@ca.inter.net, MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca, > nada.sarkis@gnb.ca, wally.stiles@gnb.ca, dwatch@web.net, > motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com > CC: ottawa@chuckstrahl.com, riding@chuckstrahl.com,John. > Oda.B@parl.gc.ca,"Bev BUSSON" bev.busson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, > "Paul Dube" PAUL.DUBE@rcmp-grc.gc.ca > Subject: Re: Remember me Kilgour? Landslide Annie McLellan has > forgotten me but the crooks within the RCMP have not > > Dear Mr. Amos, > > Thank you for your follow up e-mail to me today. I was on days off > over the holidays and returned to work this evening. Rest assured I > was not ignoring or procrastinating to respond to your concerns. > > As your attachment sent today refers from Premier Graham, our position > is clear on your dead calf issue: Our forensic labs do not process > testing on animals in cases such as yours, they are referred to the > Atlantic Veterinary College in Charlottetown who can provide these > services. If you do not choose to utilize their expertise in this > instance, then that is your decision and nothing more can be done. > > As for your other concerns regarding the US Government, false > imprisonment and Federal Court Dates in the US, etc... it is clear > that Federal authorities are aware of your concerns both in Canada > the US. These issues do not fall into the purvue of Detachment > and policing in Petitcodiac, NB. > > It was indeed an interesting and informative conversation we had on > December 23rd, and I wish you well in all of your future endeavors. > > Sincerely, > > Warren McBeath, Cpl. > GRC Caledonia RCMP > Traffic Services NCO > Ph: (506) 387-2222 > Fax: (506) 387-4622 > E-mail warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca > > > > Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C., > Office of the Integrity Commissioner > Edgecombe House, 736 King Street > Fredericton, N.B. CANADA E3B 5H1 > tel.: 506-457-7890 > fax: 506-444-5224 > e-mail:coi@gnb.ca > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Justice Website <JUSTWEB@novascotia.ca> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:21:11 +0000 Subject: Emails to Department of Justice and Province of Nova Scotia To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com" <motomaniac333@gmail.com> Mr. Amos, We acknowledge receipt of your recent emails to the Deputy Minister of Justice and lawyers within the Legal Services Division of the Department of Justice respecting a possible claim against the Province of Nova Scotia. Service of any documents respecting a legal claim against the Province of Nova Scotia may be served on the Attorney General at 1690 Hollis Street, Halifax, NS. Please note that we will not be responding to further emails on this matter. Department of Justice On 8/3/17, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote: > If want something very serious to download and laugh at as well Please > Enjoy and share real wiretap tapes of the mob > > http://thedavidamosrant. > ilian.html > >> http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ >> >> As the CBC etc yap about Yankee wiretaps and whistleblowers I must >> ask them the obvious question AIN'T THEY FORGETTING SOMETHING???? >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch? >> >> What the hell does the media think my Yankee lawyer served upon the >> USDOJ right after I ran for and seat in the 39th Parliament baseball >> cards? >> >> http://archive.org/details/ >> 6 >> >> http://davidamos.blogspot.ca/ >> >> http://www.archive.org/ >> >> http://archive.org/details/ >> >> FEDERAL EXPRES February 7, 2006 >> Senator Arlen Specter >> United States Senate >> Committee on the Judiciary >> 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building >> Washington, DC 20510 >> >> Dear Mr. Specter: >> >> I have been asked to forward the enclosed tapes to you from a man >> named, David Amos, a Canadian citizen, in connection with the matters >> raised in the attached letter. >> >> Mr. Amos has represented to me that these are illegal FBI wire tap tapes. >> >> I believe Mr. Amos has been in contact with you about this previously. >> >> Very truly yours, >> Barry A. Bachrach >> Direct telephone: (508) 926-3403 >> Direct facsimile: (508) 929-3003 >> Email: bbachrach@bowditch.com >> > http://davidraymondamos3. Sunday, 19 November 2017 Federal Court of Appeal Finally Makes The BIG Decision And Publishes It Now The Crooks Cannot Take Back Ticket To Try Put My Matter Before The Supreme Court https://decisions.fct-cf.gc. Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Amos v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2017-10-30 Neutral citation 2017 FCA 213 File numbers A-48-16 Date: 20171030 Docket: A-48-16 Citation: 2017 FCA 213 CORAM: WEBB J.A. NEAR J.A. GLEASON J.A. BETWEEN: DAVID RAYMOND AMOS Respondent on the cross-appeal (and formally Appellant) and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Appellant on the cross-appeal (and formerly Respondent) Heard at Fredericton, New Brunswick, on May 24, 2017. Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 30, 2017. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: THE COURT Date: 20171030 Docket: A-48-16 Citation: 2017 FCA 213 CORAM: WEBB J.A. NEAR J.A. GLEASON J.A. BETWEEN: DAVID RAYMOND AMOS Respondent on the cross-appeal (and formally Appellant) and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Appellant on the cross-appeal (and formerly Respondent) REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY THE COURT I. Introduction [1] On September 16, 2015, David Raymond Amos (Mr. Amos) filed a 53-page Statement of Claim (the Claim) in Federal Court against Her Majesty the Queen (the Crown). Mr. Amos claims $11 million in damages and a public apology from the Prime Minister and Provincial Premiers for being illegally barred from accessing parliamentary properties and seeks a declaration from the Minister of Public Safety that the Canadian Government will no longer allow the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and Canadian Forces to harass him and his clan (Claim at para. 96). [2] On November 12, 2015 (Docket T-1557-15), by way of a motion brought by the Crown, a prothonotary of the Federal Court (the Prothonotary) struck the Claim in its entirety, without leave to amend, on the basis that it was plain and obvious that the Claim disclosed no reasonable claim, the Claim was fundamentally vexatious, and the Claim could not be salvaged by way of further amendment (the Prothontary’s Order). [3] On January 25, 2016 (2016 FC 93), by way of Mr. Amos’ appeal from the Prothonotary’s Order, a judge of the Federal Court (the Judge), reviewing the matter de novo, struck all of Mr. Amos’ claims for relief with the exception of the claim for damages for being barred by the RCMP from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004 (the Federal Court Judgment). [4] Mr. Amos appealed and the Crown cross-appealed the Federal Court Judgment. Further to the issuance of a Notice of Status Review, Mr. Amos’ appeal was dismissed for delay on December 19, 2016. As such, the only matter before this Court is the Crown’s cross-appeal. II. Preliminary Matter [5] Mr. Amos, in his memorandum of fact and law in relation to the cross-appeal that was filed with this Court on March 6, 2017, indicated that several judges of this Court, including two of the judges of this panel, had a conflict of interest in this appeal. This was the first time that he identified the judges whom he believed had a conflict of interest in a document that was filed with this Court. In his notice of appeal he had alluded to a conflict with several judges but did not name those judges. [6] Mr. Amos was of the view that he did not have to identify the judges in any document filed with this Court because he had identified the judges in various documents that had been filed with the Federal Court. In his view the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal are the same court and therefore any document filed in the Federal Court would be filed in this Court. This view is based on subsections 5(4) and 5.1(4) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7: 5(4) Every judge of the Federal Court is, by virtue of his or her office, a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal and has all the jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal. […] 5(4) Les juges de la Cour fédérale sont d’office juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs que les juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale. […] 5.1(4) Every judge of the Federal Court of Appeal is, by virtue of that office, a judge of the Federal Court and has all the jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Federal Court. 5.1(4) Les juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale sont d’office juges de la Cour fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs que les juges de la Cour fédérale. [7] However, these subsections only provide that the judges of the Federal Court are also judges of this Court (and vice versa). It does not mean that there is only one court. If the Federal Court and this Court were one Court, there would be no need for this section. [8] Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Courts Act provide that: 3 The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the Federal Court — Appeal Division is continued under the name “Federal Court of Appeal” in English and “Cour d’appel fédérale” in French. It is continued as an additional court of law, equity and admiralty in and for Canada, for the better administration of the laws of Canada and as a superior court of record having civil and criminal jurisdiction. 3 La Section d’appel, aussi appelée la Cour d’appel ou la Cour d’appel fédérale, est maintenue et dénommée « Cour d’appel fédérale » en français et « Federal Court of Appeal » en anglais. Elle est maintenue à titre de tribunal additionnel de droit, d’equity et d’amirauté du Canada, propre à améliorer l’application du droit canadien, et continue d’être une cour supérieure d’archives ayant compétence en matière civile et pénale. 4 The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the Federal Court — Trial Division is continued under the name “Federal Court” in English and “Cour fédérale” in French. It is continued as an additional court of law, equity and admiralty in and for Canada, for the better administration of the laws of Canada and as a superior court of record having civil and criminal jurisdiction. 4 La section de la Cour fédérale du Canada, appelée la Section de première instance de la Cour fédérale, est maintenue et dénommée « Cour fédérale » en français et « Federal Court » en anglais. Elle est maintenue à titre de tribunal additionnel de droit, d’equity et d’amirauté du Canada, propre à améliorer l’application du droit canadien, et continue d’être une cour supérieure d’archives ayant compétence en matière civile et pénale. [9] Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Courts Act create two separate courts – this Court (section 3) and the Federal Court (section 4). If, as Mr. Amos suggests, documents filed in the Federal Court were automatically also filed in this Court, then there would no need for the parties to prepare and file appeal books as required by Rules 343 to 345 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 in relation to any appeal from a decision of the Federal Court. The requirement to file an appeal book with this Court in relation to an appeal from a decision of the Federal Court makes it clear that the only documents that will be before this Court are the documents that are part of that appeal book. [10] Therefore, the memorandum of fact and law filed on March 6, 2017 is the first document, filed with this Court, in which Mr. Amos identified the particular judges that he submits have a conflict in any matter related to him. [11] On April 3, 2017, Mr. Amos attempted to bring a motion before the Federal Court seeking an order “affirming or denying the conflict of interest he has” with a number of judges of the Federal Court. A judge of the Federal Court issued a direction noting that if Mr. Amos was seeking this order in relation to judges of the Federal Court of Appeal, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. Mr. Amos raised the Federal Court motion at the hearing of this cross-appeal. The Federal Court motion is not a motion before this Court and, as such, the submissions filed before the Federal Court will not be entertained. As well, since this was a motion brought before the Federal Court (and not this Court), any documents filed in relation to that motion are not part of the record of this Court. [12] During the hearing of the appeal Mr. Amos alleged that the third member of this panel also had a conflict of interest and submitted some documents that, in his view, supported his claim of a conflict. Mr. Amos, following the hearing of his appeal, was also afforded the opportunity to provide a brief summary of the conflict that he was alleging and to file additional documents that, in his view, supported his allegations. Mr. Amos submitted several pages of documents in relation to the alleged conflicts. He organized the documents by submitting a copy of the biography of the particular judge and then, immediately following that biography, by including copies of the documents that, in his view, supported his claim that such judge had a conflict. [13] The nature of the alleged conflict of Justice Webb is that before he was appointed as a Judge of the Tax Court of Canada in 2006, he was a partner with the law firm Patterson Law, and before that with Patterson Palmer in Nova Scotia. Mr. Amos submitted that he had a number of disputes with Patterson Palmer and Patterson Law and therefore Justice Webb has a conflict simply because he was a partner of these firms. Mr. Amos is not alleging that Justice Webb was personally involved in or had any knowledge of any matter in which Mr. Amos was involved with Justice Webb’s former law firm – only that he was a member of such firm. [14] During his oral submissions at the hearing of his appeal Mr. Amos, in relation to the alleged conflict for Justice Webb, focused on dealings between himself and a particular lawyer at Patterson Law. However, none of the documents submitted by Mr. Amos at the hearing or subsequently related to any dealings with this particular lawyer nor is it clear when Mr. Amos was dealing with this lawyer. In particular, it is far from clear whether such dealings were after the time that Justice Webb was appointed as a Judge of the Tax Court of Canada over 10 years ago. [15] The documents that he submitted in relation to the alleged conflict for Justice Webb largely relate to dealings between Byron Prior and the St. John’s Newfoundland and Labrador office of Patterson Palmer, which is not in the same province where Justice Webb practiced law. The only document that indicates any dealing between Mr. Amos and Patterson Palmer is a copy of an affidavit of Stephen May who was a partner in the St. John’s NL office of Patterson Palmer. The affidavit is dated January 24, 2005 and refers to a number of e-mails that were sent by Mr. Amos to Stephen May. Mr. Amos also included a letter that is addressed to four individuals, one of whom is John Crosbie who was counsel to the St. John’s NL office of Patterson Palmer. The letter is dated September 2, 2004 and is addressed to “John Crosbie, c/o Greg G. Byrne, Suite 502, 570 Queen Street, Fredericton, NB E3B 5E3”. In this letter Mr. Amos alludes to a possible lawsuit against Patterson Palmer. [16] Mr. Amos’ position is that simply because Justice Webb was a lawyer with Patterson Palmer, he now has a conflict. In Wewaykum Indian Band v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2003 SCC 45, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 259, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that disqualification of a judge is to be determined based on whether there is a reasonable apprehension of bias: 60 In Canadian law, one standard has now emerged as the criterion for disqualification. The criterion, as expressed by de Grandpré J. in Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy Board, …[[1978] 1 S.C.R. 369, 68 D.L.R. (3d) 716], at p. 394, is the reasonable apprehension of bias: … the apprehension of bias must be a reasonable one, held by reasonable and right minded persons, applying themselves to the question and obtaining thereon the required information. In the words of the Court of Appeal, that test is "what would an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically -- and having thought the matter through -- conclude. Would he think that it is more likely than not that [the decision-maker], whether consciously or unconsciously, would not decide fairly." [17] The issue to be determined is whether an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically, and having thought the matter through, would conclude that Mr. Amos’ allegations give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. As this Court has previously remarked, “there is a strong presumption that judges will administer justice impartially” and this presumption will not be rebutted in the absence of “convincing evidence” of bias (Collins v. Canada, 2011 FCA 140 at para. 7, [2011] 4 C.T.C. 157 [Collins]. See also R. v. S. (R.D.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484 at para. 32, 151 D.L.R. (4th) 193). [18] The Ontario Court of Appeal in Rando Drugs Ltd. v. Scott, 2007 ONCA 553, 86 O.R. (3d) 653 (leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada refused, 32285 (August 1, 2007)), addressed the particular issue of whether a judge is disqualified from hearing a case simply because he had been a member of a law firm that was involved in the litigation that was now before that judge. The Ontario Court of Appeal determined that the judge was not disqualified if the judge had no involvement with the person or the matter when he was a lawyer. The Ontario Court of Appeal also explained that the rules for determining whether a judge is disqualified are different from the rules to determine whether a lawyer has a conflict: 27 Thus, disqualification is not the natural corollary to a finding that a trial judge has had some involvement in a case over which he or she is now presiding. Where the judge had no involvement, as here, it cannot be said that the judge is disqualified. 28 The point can rightly be made that had Mr. Patterson been asked to represent the appellant as counsel before his appointment to the bench, the conflict rules would likely have prevented him from taking the case because his firm had formerly represented one of the defendants in the case. Thus, it is argued how is it that as a trial judge Patterson J. can hear the case? This issue was considered by the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) in Locabail (U.K.) Ltd. v. Bayfield Properties Ltd., [2000] Q.B. 451. The court held, at para. 58, that there is no inflexible rule governing the disqualification of a judge and that, "[e]verything depends on the circumstances." 29 It seems to me that what appears at first sight to be an inconsistency in application of rules can be explained by the different contexts and in particular, the strong presumption of judicial impartiality that applies in the context of disqualification of a judge. There is no such presumption in cases of allegations of conflict of interest against a lawyer because of a firm's previous involvement in the case. To the contrary, as explained by Sopinka J. in MacDonald Estate v. Martin (1990), 77 D.L.R. (4th) 249 (S.C.C.), for sound policy reasons there is a presumption of a disqualifying interest that can rarely be overcome. In particular, a conclusory statement from the lawyer that he or she had no confidential information about the case will never be sufficient. The case is the opposite where the allegation of bias is made against a trial judge. His or her statement that he or she knew nothing about the case and had no involvement in it will ordinarily be accepted at face value unless there is good reason to doubt it: see Locabail, at para. 19. 30 That brings me then to consider the particular circumstances of this case and whether there are serious grounds to find a disqualifying conflict of interest in this case. In my view, there are two significant factors that justify the trial judge's decision not to recuse himself. The first is his statement, which all parties accept, that he knew nothing of the case when it was in his former firm and that he had nothing to do with it. The second is the long passage of time. As was said in Wewaykum, at para. 85: To us, one significant factor stands out, and must inform the perspective of the reasonable person assessing the impact of this involvement on Binnie J.'s impartiality in the appeals. That factor is the passage of time. Most arguments for disqualification rest on circumstances that are either contemporaneous to the decision-making, or that occurred within a short time prior to the decision-making. 31 There are other factors that inform the issue. The Wilson Walker firm no longer acted for any of the parties by the time of trial. More importantly, at the time of the motion, Patterson J. had been a judge for six years and thus had not had a relationship with his former firm for a considerable period of time. 32 In my view, a reasonable person, viewing the matter realistically would conclude that the trial judge could deal fairly and impartially with this case. I take this view principally because of the long passage of time and the trial judge's lack of involvement in or knowledge of the case when the Wilson Walker firm had carriage. In these circumstances it cannot be reasonably contended that the trial judge could not remain impartial in the case. The mere fact that his name appears on the letterhead of some correspondence from over a decade ago would not lead a reasonable person to believe that he would either consciously or unconsciously favour his former firm's former client. It is simply not realistic to think that a judge would throw off his mantle of impartiality, ignore his oath of office and favour a client - about whom he knew nothing - of a firm that he left six years earlier and that no longer acts for the client, in a case involving events from over a decade ago. (emphasis added) [19] Justice Webb had no involvement with any matter involving Mr. Amos while he was a member of Patterson Palmer or Patterson Law, nor does Mr. Amos suggest that he did. Mr. Amos made it clear during the hearing of this matter that the only reason for the alleged conflict for Justice Webb was that he was a member of Patterson Law and Patterson Palmer. This is simply not enough for Justice Webb to be disqualified. Any involvement of Mr. Amos with Patterson Law while Justice Webb was a member of that firm would have had to occur over 10 years ago and even longer for the time when he was a member of Patterson Palmer. In addition to the lack of any involvement on his part with any matter or dispute that Mr. Amos had with Patterson Law or Patterson Palmer (which in and of itself is sufficient to dispose of this matter), the length of time since Justice Webb was a member of Patterson Law or Patterson Palmer would also result in the same finding – that there is no conflict in Justice Webb hearing this appeal. [20] Similarly in R. v. Bagot, 2000 MBCA 30, 145 Man. R. (2d) 260, the Manitoba Court of Appeal found that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias when a judge, who had been a member of the law firm that had been retained by the accused, had no involvement with the accused while he was a lawyer with that firm. [21] In Del Zotto v. Minister of National Revenue, [2000] 4 F.C. 321, 257 N.R. 96, this court did find that there would be a reasonable apprehension of bias where a judge, who while he was a lawyer, had recorded time on a matter involving the same person who was before that judge. However, this case can be distinguished as Justice Webb did not have any time recorded on any files involving Mr. Amos while he was a lawyer with Patterson Palmer or Patterson Law. [22] Mr. Amos also included with his submissions a CD. He stated in his affidavit dated June 26, 2017 that there is a “true copy of an American police surveillance wiretap entitled 139” on this CD. He has also indicated that he has “provided a true copy of the CD entitled 139 to many American and Canadian law enforcement authorities and not one of the police forces or officers of the court are willing to investigate it”. Since he has indicated that this is an “American police surveillance wiretap”, this is a matter for the American law enforcement authorities and cannot create, as Mr. Amos suggests, a conflict of interest for any judge to whom he provides a copy. [23] As a result, there is no conflict or reasonable apprehension of bias for Justice Webb and therefore, no reason for him to recuse himself. [24] Mr. Amos alleged that Justice Near’s past professional experience with the government created a “quasi-conflict” in deciding the cross-appeal. Mr. Amos provided no details and Justice Near confirmed that he had no prior knowledge of the matters alleged in the Claim. Justice Near sees no reason to recuse himself. [25] Insofar as it is possible to glean the basis for Mr. Amos’ allegations against Justice Gleason, it appears that he alleges that she is incapable of hearing this appeal because he says he wrote a letter to Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien in 2004. At that time, both Justice Gleason and Mr. Mulroney were partners in the law firm Ogilvy Renault, LLP. The letter in question, which is rude and angry, begins with “Hey you two Evil Old Smiling Bastards” and “Re: me suing you and your little dogs too”. There is no indication that the letter was ever responded to or that a law suit was ever commenced by Mr. Amos against Mr. Mulroney. In the circumstances, there is no reason for Justice Gleason to recuse herself as the letter in question does not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. III. Issue [26] The issue on the cross-appeal is as follows: Did the Judge err in setting aside the Prothonotary’s Order striking the Claim in its entirety without leave to amend and in determining that Mr. Amos’ allegation that the RCMP barred him from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004 was capable of supporting a cause of action? IV. Analysis A. Standard of Review [27] Following the Judge’s decision to set aside the Prothonotary’s Order, this Court revisited the standard of review to be applied to discretionary decisions of prothonotaries and decisions made by judges on appeals of prothonotaries’ decisions in Hospira Healthcare Corp. v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, 2016 FCA 215, 402 D.L.R. (4th) 497 [Hospira]. In Hospira, a five-member panel of this Court replaced the Aqua-Gem standard of review with that articulated in Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235 [Housen]. As a result, it is no longer appropriate for the Federal Court to conduct a de novo review of a discretionary order made by a prothonotary in regard to questions vital to the final issue of the case. Rather, a Federal Court judge can only intervene on appeal if the prothonotary made an error of law or a palpable and overriding error in determining a question of fact or question of mixed fact and law (Hospira at para. 79). Further, this Court can only interfere with a Federal Court judge’s review of a prothonotary’s discretionary order if the judge made an error of law or palpable and overriding error in determining a question of fact or question of mixed fact and law (Hospira at paras. 82-83). [28] In the case at bar, the Judge substituted his own assessment of Mr. Amos’ Claim for that of the Prothonotary. This Court must look to the Prothonotary’s Order to determine whether the Judge erred in law or made a palpable and overriding error in choosing to interfere. B. Did the Judge err in interfering with the Prothonotary’s Order? [29] The Prothontoary’s Order accepted the following paragraphs from the Crown’s submissions as the basis for striking the Claim in its entirety without leave to amend: 17. Within the 96 paragraph Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff addresses his complaint in paragraphs 14-24, inclusive. All but four of those paragraphs are dedicated to an incident that occurred in 2006 in and around the legislature in New Brunswick. The jurisdiction of the Federal Court does not extend to Her Majesty the Queen in right of the Provinces. In any event, the Plaintiff hasn’t named the Province or provincial actors as parties to this action. The incident alleged does not give rise to a justiciable cause of action in this Court. (…) 21. The few paragraphs that directly address the Defendant provide no details as to the individuals involved or the location of the alleged incidents or other details sufficient to allow the Defendant to respond. As a result, it is difficult or impossible to determine the causes of action the Plaintiff is attempting to advance. A generous reading of the Statement of Claim allows the Defendant to only speculate as to the true and/or intended cause of action. At best, the Plaintiff’s action may possibly be summarized as: he suspects he is barred from the House of Commons. [footnotes omitted]. [30] The Judge determined that he could not strike the Claim on the same jurisdictional basis as the Prothonotary. The Judge noted that the Federal Court has jurisdiction over claims based on the liability of Federal Crown servants like the RCMP and that the actors who barred Mr. Amos from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004 included the RCMP (Federal Court Judgment at para. 23). In considering the viability of these allegations de novo, the Judge identified paragraph 14 of the Claim as containing “some precision” as it identifies the date of the event and a RCMP officer acting as Aide-de-Camp to the Lieutenant Governor (Federal Court Judgment at para. 27). [31] The Judge noted that the 2004 event could support a cause of action in the tort of misfeasance in public office and identified the elements of the tort as excerpted from Meigs v. Canada, 2013 FC 389, 431 F.T.R. 111: [13] As in both the cases of Odhavji Estate v Woodhouse, 2003 SCC 69 [Odhavji] and Lewis v Canada, 2012 FC 1514 [Lewis], I must determine whether the plaintiffs’ statement of claim pleads each element of the alleged tort of misfeasance in public office: a) The public officer must have engaged in deliberate and unlawful conduct in his or her capacity as public officer; b) The public officer must have been aware both that his or her conduct was unlawful and that it was likely to harm the plaintiff; and c) There must be an element of bad faith or dishonesty by the public officer and knowledge of harm alone is insufficient to conclude that a public officer acted in bad faith or dishonestly. Odhavji, above, at paras 23, 24 and 28 (Federal Court Judgment at para. 28). [32] The Judge determined that Mr. Amos disclosed sufficient material facts to meet the elements of the tort of misfeasance in public office because the actors, who barred him from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004, including the RCMP, did so for “political reasons” (Federal Court Judgment at para. 29). [33] This Court’s discussion of the sufficiency of pleadings in Merchant Law Group v. Canada (Revenue Agency), 2010 FCA 184, 321 D.L.R (4th) 301 is particularly apt: …When pleading bad faith or abuse of power, it is not enough to assert, baldly, conclusory phrases such as “deliberately or negligently,” “callous disregard,” or “by fraud and theft did steal”. “The bare assertion of a conclusion upon which the court is called upon to pronounce is not an allegation of material fact”. Making bald, conclusory allegations without any evidentiary foundation is an abuse of process… To this, I would add that the tort of misfeasance in public office requires a particular state of mind of a public officer in carrying out the impunged action, i.e., deliberate conduct which the public officer knows to be inconsistent with the obligations of his or her office. For this tort, particularization of the allegations is mandatory. Rule 181 specifically requires particularization of allegations of “breach of trust,” “wilful default,” “state of mind of a person,” “malice” or “fraudulent intention.” (at paras. 34-35, citations omitted). [34] Applying the Housen standard of review to the Prothonotary’s Order, we are of the view that the Judge interfered absent a legal or palpable and overriding error. [35] The Prothonotary determined that Mr. Amos’ Claim disclosed no reasonable claim and was fundamentally vexatious on the basis of jurisdictional concerns and the absence of material facts to ground a cause of action. Paragraph 14 of the Claim, which addresses the 2004 event, pleads no material facts as to how the RCMP officer engaged in deliberate and unlawful conduct, knew that his or her conduct was unlawful and likely to harm Mr. Amos, and acted in bad faith. While the Claim alleges elsewhere that Mr. Amos was barred from the New Brunswick legislature for political and/or malicious reasons, these allegations are not particularized and are directed against non-federal actors, such as the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick and the Fredericton Police Force. As such, the Judge erred in determining that Mr. Amos’ allegation that the RCMP barred him from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004 was capable of supporting a cause of action. [36] In our view, the Claim is made up entirely of bare allegations, devoid of any detail, such that it discloses no reasonable cause of action within the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts. Therefore, the Judge erred in interfering to set aside the Prothonotary’s Order striking the claim in its entirety. Further, we find that the Prothonotary made no error in denying leave to amend. The deficiencies in Mr. Amos’ pleadings are so extensive such that amendment could not cure them (see Collins at para. 26). V. Conclusion [37] For the foregoing reasons, we would allow the Crown’s cross-appeal, with costs, setting aside the Federal Court Judgment, dated January 25, 2016 and restoring the Prothonotary’s Order, dated November 12, 2015, which struck Mr. Amos’ Claim in its entirety without leave to amend. "Wyman W. Webb" J.A. "David G. Near" J.A. "Mary J.L. Gleason" J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD A CROSS-APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SOUTHCOTT DATED JANUARY 25, 2016; DOCKET NUMBER T-1557-15. DOCKET: A-48-16 STYLE OF CAUSE: DAVID RAYMOND AMOS v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN PLACE OF HEARING: Fredericton, New Brunswick DATE OF HEARING: May 24, 2017 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: WEBB J.A. NEAR J.A. GLEASON J.A. DATED: October 30, 2017 APPEARANCES: David Raymond Amos For The Appellant / respondent on cross-appeal (on his own behalf) Jan Jensen For The Respondent / appELLANT ON CROSS-APPEAL SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Nathalie G. Drouin Deputy Attorney General of Canada For The Respondent / APPELLANT ON CROSS-APPEAL
| |||||||||||||||
No comments:
Post a Comment