https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sGFYCL_R_U&ab_channel=FOX4Dallas-FortWorth

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton impeached

52K views 2 weeks ago

The Texas House voted 121-23 to impeach Attorney General Ken Paxton. Paxton is suspended from office until the result of a trial in the senate. …

@davidamos7114

Hmmm

RE More than money at stake as Fox News goes to trial over presidential election coverage

David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>	Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 12:09 PM
To: dwebb@winston.com, sshackelford@susmangodfrey.com, dbrook@susmangodfrey.com, newsroom@globeandmail.com, elizabeth.thompson@cbc.ca, justin.ling@vice.com, Jean-Yves.Duclos@parl.gc.ca, stephen.kimber@ukings.ca, oldmaison@yahoo.com, jbosnitch@gmail.com, andre <andre@jafaust.com>, jfetzer@d.umn.edu, kirtl001@umn.edu, pm@pm.gc.ca, Katie.Telford@pmo-cpm.gc.ca, djtjr@trumporg.com, Donald.J.Trump@donaldtrump.com, JUSTWEB@novascotia.ca, "Jacques.Poitras" <Jacques.Poitras@cbc.ca>, "Robert. Jones" <Robert.Jones@cbc.ca>, Frank.McKenna@td.com, "pierre.poilievre" <pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca>, jacqueline.thomsen@thomsonreuters.com, adurkee@forbes.com
Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>, Bill.Blair@parl.gc.ca, paulpalango <paulpalango@protonmail.com>, "robert.frater" <robert.frater@justice.gc.ca>, postur@for.stjr.is, "fin.minfinance-financemin.fin" <fin.minfinance-financemin.fin@canada.ca>, David.Akin@globalnews.ca, mcu@justice.gc.ca, keith.ward@justice.gc.ca, "jan.jensen" <jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca>, "Kevin.leahy" <Kevin.leahy@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>


Deja Vu Anyone??? https://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.com/2023/04/more-than-money-at-stake-as-fox-news.html Monday, 17 April 2023 More than money at stake as Fox News goes to trial over presidential election coverage https://www.winston.com/en/thought-leadership/dan-webb-discusses-defamation-lawsuit-against-fox-news-in-the-new-york-times.html Dan Webb Discusses Defamation Lawsuit Against Fox News in The New York Times Dec 7, 2022 Winston & Strawn Co-Executive Chairman Dan Webb discussed his representation of Fox News in connection with Dominion Voting System’s ongoing defamation lawsuit against the network in The New York Times. Since the lawsuit was filed in March 2021, Fox News has stated that they are protected under the First Amendment and cannot be held liable for reporting news of Donald Trump’s voter fraud allegations. “This does not appear to be a case that’s going to settle — but anything can happen,” said Dan. “There are some very fundamental First Amendment issues here, and those haven’t changed.” He noted that while he intended to show that the fraud allegations were not entirely false, he would not pretend that the allegations of voter fraud in the 2020 election were true. “The president’s allegations were not correct,” he said, adding that he planned “to show the jury that those security concerns were there and were real and added plausibility to the president’s allegations.” Dan Webb Partner Chicago +1 312-558-5856 dwebb@winston.com

---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2020 02:14:39 -0400
Subject: Fwd: ATTN Sidney Powell et al I just called your office in
Texas and many of your associates within the Dec 11th filings
To: afoster@az.gov, bwjohnson@swlaw.com, cahler@swlaw.com,
dflint@swlaw.com, ijoyce@swlaw.com, governorsoffice@michigan.gov,
ccarr@law.ga.gov, dnessel@michigan.gov, kenneth.paxton@oag.texas.gov,
EversInfo@wisconsin.gov, attorneygeneral@doj.nh.gov,
kauljl@doj.state.wi.us, press@usdoj.gov, stateofcorruptionnh1
<stateofcorruptionnh1@gmail.com>, DSakowich@hearst.com, "Boston.Mail"
<Boston.Mail@ic.fbi.gov>, "ed.pilkington"
<ed.pilkington@guardian.co.uk>

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/texas-ag-ken-paxton-impeached-controversy/story?id=99826087

Texas AG Ken Paxton impeached: What to know about the controversy and what comes next

Paxton, dogged by scandal, is accused of bribery and more; he denies wrongdoing.

ByOlivia Osteen

June 16, 2023, 3:34 PM

PHOTO: Texas state Attorney General Ken Paxton reads a statement at his office in Austin, Texas, Friday, May 26, 2023.

Texas’ Republican-led House of Representatives impeached state Attorney General Ken Pa...

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton was impeached on May 27, becoming the state's first statewide official to be impeached since 1917.

The proceedings were sparked by claims from former employees in Paxton's office that he was misusing his power to aid a friend and donor. The impeachment also underlines the conflict between Paxton and a number of other Republicans, many of whom voted in the state House for his impeachment.

In a defiant statement last month, Paxton called the proceedings "unjust" and a partisan "sham," labeling the state House Speaker Dade Phelan a traitor.

Phelan, for his part, has defended the process. "What happened this week is nothing I take pride in. It is not anything I was proud of. But it was necessary," he said before the impeachment vote.

Who is Ken Paxton?

Paxton was suspended while serving his third term as Texas attorney general, the state's top law enforcement officer, after holding office in the Texas House and Senate for approximately 10 and two years, respectively. Before that, he worked as a corporate lawyer and in private practice.

During his career as attorney general, Paxton has brought several significant lawsuits against both the Obama and Biden administrations, including an effort to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which shields some immigrants from deportation if they were brought to the U.S. as kids.

As an outspoken supporter of former President Donald Trump, Paxton led an unsuccessful lawsuit contesting the 2020 presidential election results in four states.

While Paxton easily won two of his three attorney general elections, his time in office has also been marred by scandal.

PHOTO: Impeachment proceedings against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton are underway in the Texas House of Representatives, May 27, 2023, in Austin, Texas.

Impeachment proceedings against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton are underway in the Texas House of Representatives, May 27, 2023, in Austin, Texas.

Fort Worth Star-Telegram/Tribune News Service via Getty Images, FILE

When did the impeachment begin and what is Paxton accused of?

The case for Paxton's impeachment traces back to 2020, when top aides accused him of abuse of office to benefit donor Nate Paul, himself and Paxton's alleged mistress. That led to an ongoing FBI probe and multimillion-dollar whistleblower lawsuit, with some of those Paxton staffers claiming they were fired for speaking out.

An attorney for Paul declined to comment to ABC News. Paul has previously denied any wrongdoing.

Earlier this year, Paxton agreed to a $3.3 million settlement with the former staffers and to apologize for calling them "rogue," but he said he was settling in order to move past the allegations and that he'd done nothing wrong. He also sought to have the state -- taxpayers -- cover the cost. After that, state House lawmakers began looking into him, they have said.

On May 24, the state House's investigative committee brought 20 articles of impeachment against Paxton alleging misconduct, including bribery, obstruction of justice and misappropriation of public resources.

By that Saturday, he was impeached and temporarily suspended from office, as required under state law, pending his trial in the state Senate.

He faces other legal troubles, too.

In 2015, he was charged with securities fraud related to investments in a tech company and has pleaded not guilty, though he has yet to stand trial. That case is referenced in the impeachment charges against Paxton.

Separately, last year, Paxton was also sued by the state bar over alleged professional misconduct for backing the lawsuit against the 2020 election results. "Texas Bar: I'll see you and the leftists that control you in court," he said then.

The state House investigating committee, which recommended the impeachment, held a public forum in May detailing the whistleblower claims. The evidence presented to legislators included three hours of testimony from investigators.

Afterward, the House voted to impeach Paxton in a bipartisan 121-23 majority vote.

What's next?

Paxton awaits trial in the state Senate, which must start by Aug. 28. The chamber will review a set of trial rules on Tuesday, to be proposed by a seven-member committee chosen by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick who, like Paxton, has historically aligned himself with Trump.

One rule the committee will determine is whether the attorney general will be allowed to present a defense, which is an allowance that was not made for the state House proceedings and that Paxton criticized.

"My office made every effort to present evidence, testimony, and irrefutable facts that would have disproven the countless false statements and outright lies," Paxton wrote on Twitter in May.

Where do legislators stand?

While a majority overwhelmingly supported Paxton's impeachment in the state House, the Republican-controlled upper chamber requires two-thirds support to convict him, which would permanently remove and bar him from holding future Texas office.

State senators have largely remained mum on the pending trial, likely because of a commitment to protect the integrity of the proceedings, where they will essentially function as jurors, as stressed by the lieutenant governor, who presides over the Senate. In a streamed event with the Texas Public Policy Foundation, Patrick spoke directly to the press, saying he couldn't speak further on the case and asking for privacy as the trial proceeds.

"This is very serious. These are very serious people, and the Senate is going to do our job in a professional way," he said.

The potential jurors include one unusual member, should she not recuse: the attorney general's wife, state Sen. Angela Paxton. The Paxtons have long supported one another's political endeavors: She could be found with a guitar in hand singing at his events and he gave a $2 million loan toward her state Senate campaign in 2018. She has not yet commented on the impeachment and has not been accused of doing anything wrong.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican, has called the impeachment a "travesty" and defended the attorney general on Twitter. "Virtually all of the information in the articles was public BEFORE Election Day, and the voters chose to re-elect Ken Paxton by a large margin," Cruz wrote.

Most state House Republicans voted for the impeachment. One of them, Rep. Stan Kitzman, issued a statement calling the charges "a slap in the face to every Texan who believes in the rule of law and the integrity of our public offices."

In the legislative session that recently ended, the state House was able to pass multiple conservative priorities it set forth, like banning hormonal treatments for children under the age of 18. But it also failed to agree on other proposals, like more stringent immigration legislation -- an example of the disagreements between the party's more centrist and more hard-line wings.

The state GOP chair, Matt Rinaldi, alluded to that tension in a statement about Paxton: "The impeachment proceedings against the Attorney General are but the latest front in the Texas House's war against Republicans to stop the conservative direction of our state."

What could happen to Paxton?

Until Paxton's trial, while he remains suspended, John Scott has been appointed interim attorney general by Gov. Greg Abbott.

Should the state Senate not reach a two-thirds majority to remove Paxton, he will continue to serve in his role as before, albeit alongside legislators, many from his own party, who voted to impeach him.

RE Fifteen Signs You’re in an Abusive Relationship with the Government

David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>	Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 9:22 PM
To: lou.eastman@aier.org, Amelia.Janaskie@aier.org, Micha.Gartz@aier.org
Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>


https://www.aier.org/article/fifteen-signs-youre-in-an-abusive-relationship-with-the-government/ Fifteen Signs You’re in an Abusive Relationship with the Government Lucio Saverio-Eastman Micha Gartz – December 31, 2020 ---------- Original message ---------- From: noreply@wisconsin.gov Date: 25 Dec 2020 00:14:48 -0600 Subject: Your message has been received To: motomaniac333@gmail.com Thank you for contacting my office. I appreciate hearing your thoughts, concerns and ideas. If you are reaching out to my office about COVID-19, you can find the most accurate, current information about the status of COVID-19 in Wisconsin at the Wisconsin Department of Health Services’ website (https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/covid-19/index.htm). As governor, it is my top priority to ensure folks across our state have access to the most up-to-date information available so you have the resources you need to make informed decisions to keep yourself, your family, and our neighbors and communities safe. The best way to prevent illness is to avoid being exposed to this virus. Please follow guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), current as of April 16, 2020, to help take preventative steps that will limit your exposure and protect yourself from COVID-19: • Stay home as much as possible and avoid close contact with others • Wear a cloth face covering that covers your nose and mouth in public settings • Clean and disinfect frequently touched objects and surfaces • Wash your hands often with soap and water for at least 20 seconds, especially after going to the bathroom; before eating; and after blowing your nose, coughing, or sneezing. o If soap and water are not readily available, use an alcohol-based hand sanitizer with at least 60% alcohol. Always wash your hands with soap and water if they are visibly dirty. o For information about handwashing, see the CDC’s Handwashing website. o For information specific to healthcare providers, see the CDC’s Hand Hygiene in Healthcare Settings. • Stay home if you are sick, except to get medical care. My office receives thousands of letters, emails, and phone calls every day, but I want you to know that we are working on responding to your message. Again, thank you for contacting my office. It is an honor to serve you and to represent the people of our state. Tony Evers Governor ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Gonski, Sarah R. (Perkins Coie)" <SGonski@perkinscoie.com> Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2020 06:14:55 +0000 Subject: Automatic reply: ATTN Sidney Powell et al I just called your office in Texas and many of your associates within the Dec 11th filings To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> I am out of the virtual office until Monday, December 28 and my response to your email will be delayed. If you need immediate assistance, please contact my assistant at dgraziano@perkinscoie.com or 602-351-8078 and he will connect you with another member of the Political Law Group. Thank you, Sarah ________________________________ NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Press <Press@usdoj.gov> Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2020 06:16:10 +0000 Subject: Automatic Reply: Press@usdoj.gov To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> Thank you for contacting the Department of Justice's Office of Public Affairs. Inquiries sent to this mailbox are no longer monitored. To submit an inquiry, please visit www.justice.gov/media<http://www.justice.gov/media>. Inquiries made via this form will be checked every 30 minutes from 9:00am – 6:00pm, Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. To submit an RSVP for an event, please visit www.justice.gov/MediaRSVP<http://www.justice.gov/MediaRSVP>. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Higgs, Premier Blaine (PO/CPM)" <Blaine.Higgs@gnb.ca> Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2020 06:18:16 +0000 Subject: Automatic reply: ATTN Sidney Powell et al I just called your office in Texas and many of your associates within the Dec 11th filings To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> Thank you for taking the time to write to us. Due to the high volume of emails that we receive daily, please note that there may be a delay in our response. Thank you for your understanding. If you are looking for current information on Coronavirus, please visit www.gnb.ca/coronavirus<http://www.gnb.ca/coronavirus>. If this is a Media Request, please contact the Premier’s office at (506) 453-2144. Thank you. Bonjour, Nous vous remercions d’avoir pris le temps de nous écrire. Tenant compte du volume élevé de courriels que nous recevons quotidiennement, il se peut qu’il y ait un délai dans notre réponse. Nous vous remercions de votre compréhension. Si vous recherchez des informations à jour sur le coronavirus, veuillez visiter www.gnb.ca/coronavirus<http://www.gnb.ca/coronavirus>. S’il s’agit d’une demande des médias, veuillez communiquer avec le Cabinet du premier ministre au 506-453-2144. Merci. Office of the Premier/Cabinet du premier ministre P.O Box/C. P. 6000 Fredericton, New-Brunswick/Nouveau-Brunswick E3B 5H1 Canada Tel./Tel. : (506) 453-2144 Email/Courriel: premier@gnb.ca/premierministre@gnb.ca<mailto:premier@gnb.ca/premier.ministre@gnb.ca>

, editor <editor@wikileaks.org>, premier
<premier@ontario.ca>, premier <premier@gnb.ca>,
"andrea.anderson-mason" <andrea.anderson-mason@gnb.ca>,
attorneygeneral <attorneygeneral@ontario.ca>, awilder@azleg.gov,
MarkFinchem@me.com, NBarto@azleg.gov, ADanneman@perkinscoie.com,
SGonski@perkinscoie.com, MElias@perkinscoie.com,
BSpiva@perkinscoie.com, JDevaney@perkinscoie.com,
JGeise@perkinscoie.com, LHill@perkinscoie.com,
HerreraR@ballardspahr.com, ArellanoD@ballardspahr.com,
kellyjtownsend@yahoo.com, liddyt@mcao.maricopa.gov,
craigere@mcao.maricopa.gov, vigilj@mcao.maricopa.gov,
brancoj@mcao.maricopa.gov, laruej@mcao.maricopa.gov,
ca-civilmailbox@mcao.maricopa.gov, rdesai@cblawyers.com,
agaona@cblawyers.com, kyost@cblawyers.com, jnelson@susmangodfrey.com,
smorrissey@susmangodfrey.com, sshackelford@susmangodfrey.com,
dbrook@susmangodfrey.com, michael.c.herron@dartmouth.edu,
jrodden@stanford.edu, sda@gov.harvard.edu, king-assist@iq.harvard.edu,
King@harvard.edu
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>,
1AP.admin@protonmail.com, govcorrespcrm@pa.gov,
jshapiro@attorneygeneral.gov, Alexander.Kolodin@kolodinlaw.com,
CViskovic@kolodinlaw.com

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2020 16:27:43 -0400
Subject: Fwd: ATTN Sidney Powell et al I just called your office in
Texas and many of your associates within the Dec 11th filings
To: sidney@federalappeals.com, howard@kleinhendler.com,
lwood@fightback.law, attorneystefanielambert@gmail.com,
eldridge@millercanfield.com, dshare@bsdd.com,
erosenberg@lawyerscommittee.org, jgreenbaum@lawyerscommittee.org,
grille@michigan.gov, dbressack@finkbressack.com, aap43@hotmail.com,
megurewitz@gmail.com, James@jamesfetzer.com, info@lionelmedia.com,
liveneedtoknow@gmail.com, tips@steeltruth.com, media@steeltruth.com,
press@deepcapture.com, bbachrach <bbachrach@bachrachlaw.net>, Norman
Traversy <traversy.n@gmail.com>
Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>, "ron.klain"
<ron.klain@revolution.com>, bgaier@finance-commerce.com,
fin.financepublic-financepublique.fin@canada.ca,
info@thomasmoresociety.org, info@rleighfrostlaw.com,
cferrara@thomasmoresociety.org, kaardal@mklaw.com,
mjnew@nationalreview.com, info@aul.org, pr@cato.org, "robert.frater"
<robert.frater@justice.gc.ca>, keith.ward@justice.gc.ca, "jan.jensen"
<jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca>, cxiong@startribune.com

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ministerial Correspondence Unit - Justice Canada <mcu@justice.gc.ca>
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2020 19:07:58 +0000
Subject: Automatic Reply
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

Thank you for writing to the Honourable David Lametti, Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

Due to the volume of correspondence addressed to the Minister, please
note that there may be a delay in processing your email. Rest assured
that your message will be carefully reviewed.

We do not respond to correspondence that contains offensive language.

-------------------

Merci d'avoir écrit à l'honorable David Lametti, ministre de la
Justice et procureur général du Canada.

En raison du volume de correspondance adressée au ministre, veuillez
prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de
votre courriel. Nous tenons à vous assurer que votre message sera lu
avec soin.

Nous ne répondons pas à la correspondance contenant un langage offensant.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bill.Blair@parl.gc.ca
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2020 19:08:11 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: FWD ATTN Sidney Powell et al I just called
your office in Texas and many of your associates within the Dec 11th
filings
To: motomaniac333@gmail.com

Thank you very much for reaching out to the Office of the Hon. Bill
Blair, Member of Parliament for Scarborough Southwest.

Please be advised that as a health and safety precaution, our
constituency office will not be holding in-person meetings until
further notice. We will continue to provide service during our regular
office hours, both over the phone and via email.

Due to the high volume of emails and calls we are receiving, our
office prioritizes requests on the basis of urgency and in relation to
our role in serving the constituents of Scarborough Southwest. If you
are not a constituent of Scarborough Southwest, please reach out to
your local of Member of Parliament for assistance. To find your local
MP, visit: https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en

Moreover, at this time, we ask that you please only call our office if
your case is extremely urgent. We are experiencing an extremely high
volume of calls, and will better be able to serve you through email.

Should you have any questions related to COVID-19, please see:
www.canada.ca/coronavirus<http://www.canada.ca/coronavirus>

Thank you again for your message, and we will get back to you as soon
as possible.

Best,

MP Staff to the Hon. Bill Blair
Parliament Hill: 613-995-0284
Constituency Office: 416-261-8613
bill.blair@parl.gc.ca<mailto:bill.blair@parl.gc.ca>

**
Merci beaucoup d'avoir pris contact avec le bureau de l'Honorable Bill
Blair, D?put? de Scarborough-Sud-Ouest.

Veuillez noter que par mesure de pr?caution en mati?re de sant? et de
s?curit?, notre bureau de circonscription ne tiendra pas de r?unions
en personne jusqu'? nouvel ordre. Nous continuerons ? fournir des
services pendant nos heures de bureau habituelles, tant par t?l?phone
que par courrier ?lectronique.

En raison du volume ?lev? de courriels que nous recevons, notre bureau
classe les demandes par ordre de priorit? en fonction de leur urgence
et de notre r?le dans le service aux ?lecteurs de Scarborough
Sud-Ouest. Si vous n'?tes pas un ?lecteur de Scarborough Sud-Ouest,
veuillez contacter votre d?put? local pour obtenir de l'aide. Pour
trouver votre d?put? local, visitez le
site:https://www.noscommunes.ca/members/fr

En outre, nous vous demandons de ne t?l?phoner ? notre bureau que si
votre cas est extr?mement urgent. Nous recevons un volume d'appels
extr?mement ?lev? et nous serons mieux ? m?me de vous servir par
courrier ?lectronique.

Si vous avez des questions concernant COVID-19, veuillez consulter le
site : http://www.canada.ca/le-coronavirus

Merci encore pour votre message, et nous vous r?pondrons d?s que possible.

Cordialement,

Personnel du D?put? de l'Honorable Bill Blair
Colline du Parlement : 613-995-0284
Bureau de Circonscription : 416-261-8613
bill.blair@parl.gc.ca<mailto:bill.blair@parl.gc.ca>
< mailto:bill.blair@parl.gc.ca>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Newsroom <newsroom@globeandmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2020 19:11:47 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: FWD ATTN Sidney Powell et al I just called
your office in Texas and many of your associates within the Dec 11th
filings
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

Thank you for contacting The Globe and Mail.

If your matter pertains to newspaper delivery or you require technical
support, please contact our Customer Service department at
1-800-387-5400 or send an email to customerservice@globeandmail.com

If you are reporting a factual error please forward your email to
publiceditor@globeandmail.com<mailto:publiceditor@globeandmail.com>

Letters to the Editor can be sent to letters@globeandmail.com

This is the correct email address for requests for news coverage and
press releases.

Below is a true copy of my latest email It was sent today to Sidney
Powell byway of her webpage format The lawyers found below will get
regular email just like I have done with you people (I already called
them all and spoke to some and left messages with the rest)

Perhaps all you lawyers should check my work from years ago and call
me back ASAP???

https://www.scribd.com/doc/265620671/Cross-Border-Txt

On 12/13/20, Pam Stavropoulos <pstavropoulos@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
> Thank you David!
>
> Really appreciate wide dissemination of these concerns as you clearly
> recognise.
>
> Regards,
>
> Pam S.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Raymond Amos <pstavropoulos@iprimus.com.au>
> Sent: Monday, 14 December 2020 2:16 PM
> To: pstavropoulos@iprimus.com.au
> Subject: Contact Form submission from
> http://pamstavropoulos.com.au/contact/
>
> Sender's name: David Raymond Amos
> E-mail: David.Raymond.Amos333@gmail.com
> Phone: 506 434 8433
>
> Message: ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos
> Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2020 23:14:01 -0400
> Subject: ATTN Yanis Varoufakis and Pam Stavropoulos I just tweeted about
> your concerns about Julian Assange and global economy etc
> To: y.varoufakis@parliament.gr
> Cc: motomaniac333
>
> Yanis Varoufakis
> Web Site:
> https://www.yanisvaroufakis.eu
> Email:
> y.varoufakis@parliament.gr
> Address:
> Parliament Mansion (Megaro Voulis), GR10021
> Athens / Tel. +30 2103707568 / Fax +30 2103707570.
>
> Check out the attachment for USA litigation over 18 years ago
>
>
> Please notice that the webcasts and transcripts of this hearing went
> missing not long before the economy crashed in 2008 Find the letter
> fom Spitzer to me on page 12 within the document I offer as
> "Integrity-Yea-Right" and ask yourself why Assaage has never metioned
> me In fact I bet that you folks won't either
>
> https://www.banking.senate.gov/hearings/review-of-current-investigations-and-regulatory-actions-regarding-the-mutual-fund-industry
>
> Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding the
> Mutual Fund Industry
>
> Date: Thursday, November 20, 2003
>
> Witness Panel 1
>
> Mr. Stephen M. Cutler
> Director - Division of Enforcement
> Securities and Exchange Commission
> Cutler - November 20, 2003
> Mr. Robert Glauber
> Chairman and CEO
> National Association of Securities Dealers
> Glauber - November 20, 2003
> Eliot Spitzer
> Attorney General
> State of New York
> Spitzer - November 20, 2003
>
>
>
> Yanis Varoufakis
> @yanisvaroufakis
> ·
>
> Law and Disorder: The case of Julian Assange - DiEM25
> The conviction of Julian Assange would signify a new dystopian
> landscape in which all investigative journalism risks prosecution.
> diem25.org
>
> David Raymond Amos
> @DavidRaymondAm1
> ·
> 1h
> Perhaps you and I should have a long talk ASAP?
>
> FYI this old pdf file is the tip of the iceberg of things that Bolton
> and Assange have known about yours truly for many years
>
> https://www.scribd.com/doc/2718120/Integrity-Yea-Right
>
> David Raymond Amos
> @DavidRaymondAm1
> ·
> 41m
> The first link I offer in the blog Greece is among the many that
> received hundreds of documents byway of registered US Mail as I
> returned home to run for public office 6 more times while suing the
> Queen
>
>
> http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.com/2017/08/attn-andrey-dvornikov-tel-7-499-244-32.html
>
> Notice Assange and Trumps lawyer's email before they became famous?
>
>
> http://thedavidamosrant.blogspot.ca/2014/05/yo-birgitta-who-is-more-of-crook-julian.html
>
> From: Birgitta Jonsdottir
> Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 07:14:02 +0000
> Subject: Re: Bon Soir Birgitta according to my records this is the
> first email I ever sent you
> To: David Amos
>
> dear Dave
> i have got your email and will read through the links as soon as i
> find some time keep up the good fight in the meantime
>
> thank you for bearing with me
> i am literary drowning in requests to look into all sorts of matters
> and at the same time working 150% work at the parliament and
> the creation of a political movement and being a responsible parent:)
> plus all the matters in relation to immi
>
> with oceans of joy
> birgitta
>
> Better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for what you are
> not.
>
> Andre Gide
>
> Birgitta Jonsdottir
> Birkimelur 8, 107 Reykjavik, Iceland, tel: 354 692 8884
> http://this.is/birgitta – http://joyb.blogspot.com -
> http://www.facebook.com/birgitta.jonsdottir
>
>>>> From: "Julian Assange)" editor@wikileaks.org
>>>> To: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>>>> Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2010 3:15 PM
>>>> Subject: Al Jazeera on Iceland's plan for a press safe haven
>>>>
>>>> FYI: Al-Jazeera's take on Iceland's proposed media safe haven
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbGiPjIE1pE
>>>>
>>>> More info http://immi.is/
>>>>
>>>> Julian Assange Editor WikiLeaks http://wikileaks.org/
>>>>
>>>> From: "David Amos" david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>>>> To: "Julian Assange)" editor@wikileaks.org
>>>> Cc: "Dan Fitzgerald" danf@danf.net; "Byrne. G" Byrne.G@parl.gc.ca
>>>> Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2010 8:35 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: Al Jazeera on Iceland's new plan Thanx Here is
>>>> something
>>>> about Iceland and Banksters Al Jazeera would enjoy
>>>>
>>>> Checkout this old pdf file from 2005 at about page two or three
>>>>
>>>> http://www.scribd.com/doc/4304560/Speaker-Iceland-etc
>>>>
>>>> Then read on and chuckle
>>>>
>>>> From: postur@fjr.stjr.is
>>>> Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009
>>>> Subject: Re: RE: Iceland and Bankers etc I must ask the obvious
>>>> question. Why have you people ignored me for three years?
>>>> To: David Amos david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>>>>
>>>> Dear David Amos
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately there has been a considerable delay in responding to
>>>> incoming letters due to heavy workload and many inquiries to our
>>>> office.
>>>>
>>>> We appreciate the issue raised in your letter. We have set up a web
>>>> site www.iceland.org where we have gathered various practical
>>>> information regarding the economic crisis in Iceland.
>>>>
>>>> Greetings from the Ministry of Finance.
>>>>
>>>> Tilvísun í mál: FJR08100024
>>>>
>>>> From: postur@for.stjr.is
>>>> Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008
>>>> Subject: Regarding your enquiry to the Prime Ministry of Iceland
>>>> To: David Amos david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>>>>
>>>> David Raymond Amos
>>>>
>>>> Your enquiry has been received by the Prime Ministry of Iceland and
>>>> waits attendance.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you.
>>>>
>>>> From: David Amos david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>>>> Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008
>>>> Subject: I just called to remind the Speaker, the Bankers and the
>>>> Icelanders that I still exist EH Mrs Mrechant, Bob Rae and Iggy?
>>>> To: Milliken.P@parl.gc.ca, sjs@althingi.is, emb.ottawa@mfa.is,
>>>> rmellish@pattersonlaw.ca, irisbirgisdottir@yahoo.ca,
>>>> marie@mariemorneau.com, dfranklin@franklinlegal.com,
>>>> egilla@althingi.is, william.turner@exsultate.ca
>>>> Cc: Rae.B@parl.gc.ca, Ignatieff.M@parl.gc.ca, lebrem@sen.parl.gc.ca,
>>>> merchp@sen.parl.gc.ca, coolsa@sen.parl.gc.ca, olived@sen.parl.gc.ca
>>>>
>>>> All of you should review the documents and CD that came with this
>>>> letter ASAP EH?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.scribd.com/doc/2718120/Integrity-Yea-Right
>>>>
>>>> http://www.scribd.com/doc/4304560/Speaker-Iceland-etc
>>>>
>>>> http://www.scribd.com/doc/5352095/Tony-Merchant-and-Yankees
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps Geir Haarde and Steingrimur Sigfusson should call me back
>>>>
>>>> Veritas Vincit
>>>> David Raymond Amos
>>>>
>>>> The Reykjavík Grapevine
>>>> Hafnarstræti 15
>>>> 101 Reykjavík
>>>> Iceland
>>>> grapevine@grapevine.is
>>>> +354-540-3600
>
> http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.com/2017/08/attn-andrey-dvornikov-tel-7-499-244-32.html
>
> Wednesday, 2 August 2017
>
> Attn Andrey Dvornikov, tel. (+7) 499 244 32 54 RE Nikki Haley meeting
> with Vasily Nebeznya.Russia's new ambassador to the United Nations,
> This was the pdf file attached to the email found below
>
> https://www.scribd.com/document/332928056/UN-DUDES
>
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: "MAY, Theresa" theresa.may.mp@parliament.uk
> Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 12:12:24 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: Attn Andrey Dvornikov, tel. (+7) 499 244 32
> 54 RE Nikki Haley meeting with Vasily Nebeznya.Russia's new ambassador
> to the United Nations,
> To: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
>
> If your email is to the Prime Minister, please re-send to the No 10
> website:
> www.gov.uk/government/organisations/prime-ministers-office-10-downing-street
>
> http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/prime-ministers-office-10-downing-street
>
>
> If you are a constituent of the Prime Minister, please re-send to:
> sharkeyj@parliament.uk
>
> UK Parliament Disclaimer: This e-mail is confidential to the intended
> recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
> and delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or
> copying is not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses,
> but no liability is accepted for any damage caused by any virus
> transmitted by this e-mail. This e-mail address is not secure, is not
> encrypted and should not be used for sensitive data.
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: "Finance Public / Finance Publique (FIN)"
> fin.financepublic-financepublique.fin@canada.ca
> Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 12:12:16 +0000
> Subject: RE: Attn Andrey Dvornikov, tel. (+7) 499 244 32 54 RE Nikki
> Haley meeting with Vasily Nebeznya.Russia's new ambassador to the
> United Nations,
> To: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
>
> The Department of Finance acknowledges receipt of your electronic
> correspondence. Please be assured that we appreciate receiving your
> comments.
>
> Le ministère des Finances accuse réception de votre correspondance
> électronique. Soyez assuré(e) que nous apprécions recevoir vos
> commentaires.
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: David Amos
> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 10:51:14 -0400
> Subject: RE FATCA, NAFTA & TPP etc ATTN President Donald J. Trump I
> just got off the phone with your lawyer Mr Cohen (646-853-0114) Why
> does he lie to me after all this time???
> To: president , mdcohen212@gmail.com, pm ,
> Pierre-Luc.Dusseault@parl.gc.ca, MulcaT , Jean-Yves.Duclos@parl.gc.ca,
> B.English@ministers.govt.nz, Malcolm.Turnbull.MP@aph.gov.au,
> pminvites@pmc.gov.au, mayt@parliament.uk, press , "Andrew.Bailey" ,
> fin.financepublic-financepublique.fin@canada.ca, newsroom ,
> "CNN.Viewer.Communications.Management" , news-tips , lionel
> Cc: David Amos , elizabeth.thompson@cbc.ca, "justin.ling@vice.com,
> elizabeththompson" , djtjr , "Bill.Morneau" , postur ,
> stephen.kimber@ukings.ca, "steve.murphy" , "Jacques.Poitras" ,
> oldmaison , andre
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: Michael Cohen
> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:15:14 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: RE FATCA ATTN Pierre-Luc.Dusseault I just
> called and left a message for you
> To: David Amos
>
> Effective January 20, 2017, I have accepted the role as personal
> counsel to President Donald J. Trump. All future emails should be
> directed to mdcohen212@gmail.com and all future calls should be
> directed to 646-853-0114.
> ________________________________
> This communication is from The Trump Organization or an affiliate
> thereof and is not sent on behalf of any other individual or entity.
> This email may contain information that is confidential and/or
> proprietary. Such information may not be read, disclosed, used,
> copied, distributed or disseminated except (1) for use by the intended
> recipient or (2) as expressly authorized by the sender. If you have
> received this communication in error, please immediately delete it and
> promptly notify the sender. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed
> to be received, secure or error-free as emails could be intercepted,
> corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late, incomplete, contain viruses
> or otherwise. The Trump Organization and its affiliates do not
> guarantee that all emails will be read and do not accept liability for
> any errors or omissions in emails. Any views or opinions presented in
> any email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
> represent those of The Trump Organization or any of its
> affiliates.Nothing in this communication is intended to operate as an
> electronic signature under applicable law.
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: "Finance Public / Finance Publique (FIN)"
>
> Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 22:05:00 +0000
> Subject: RE: Yo President Trump RE the Federal Court of Canada File No
> T-1557-15 lets see how the media people do with news that is NOT FAKE
> To: David Amos
>
> The Department of Finance acknowledges receipt of your electronic
> correspondence. Please be assured that we appreciate receiving your
> comments.
>
> Le ministère des Finances accuse réception de votre correspondance
> électronique. Soyez assuré(e) que nous apprécions recevoir vos
> commentaires.
>
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: Kevin Leahy
> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 12:38:43 -0400
> Subject: Re: RE The call from the Boston cop Robert Ridge (857 259
> 9083) on behalf of the VERY corrupt Yankee DA Rachael Rollins
> To: David Amos
>
> French will follow
>
> Thank you for your email.
>
> For inquiries regarding EMRO’s Office, please address your email to
> acting EMRO Sebastien Brillon at sebastien.brillon@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>
> For inquiries regarding CO NHQ Office, please address your email to
> acting CO Farquharson, David at David.Farquharson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>
> All PPS related correspondence should be sent to my PPS account at
> kevin.leahy@pps-spp@parl.gc.ca
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Merci pour votre courriel.
>
> Pour toute question concernant le Bureau de l'EMRO, veuillez adresser
> vos courriels à l’Officier responsable des Relations
> employeur-employés par intérim Sébastien Brillon à l'adresse suivante
> sebastien.brillon@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>
> Pour toute question concernant le bureau du Commandant de la
> Direction générale, veuillez adresser vos courriels au Commandant de
> la Direction générale par intérim Farquharson, David à l'adresse
> suivante David.Farquharson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>
> Toute correspondance relative au Service De Protection Parlementaire
> doit être envoyée à mon compte de PPS à l'adresse suivante
> kevin.leahy@pps-spp@parl.gc.ca
>
>
> Kevin Leahy
> Chief Superintendent/Surintendant principal
> Director, Parliamentary Protective Service
> Directeur , Service de protection parlementaire
> T 613-996-5048
> Kevin.leahy@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are
> confidential and may contain protected information. It is intended
> only for the individual or entity named in the message. If you are not
> the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver the
> message that this email contains to the intended recipient, you should
> not disseminate, distribute or copy this email, nor disclose or use in
> any manner the information that it contains. Please notify the sender
> immediately if you have received this email by mistake and delete it.
> AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ: Le présent courriel et tout fichier qui y est
> joint sont confidentiels et peuvent contenir des renseignements
> protégés. Il est strictement réservé à l’usage du destinataire prévu.
> Si vous n’êtes pas le destinataire prévu, ou le mandataire chargé de
> lui transmettre le message que ce courriel contient, vous ne devez ni
> le diffuser, le distribuer ou le copier, ni divulguer ou utiliser à
> quelque fin que ce soit les renseignements qu’il contient. Veuillez
> aviser immédiatement l’expéditeur si vous avez reçu ce courriel par
> erreur et supprimez-le.
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: Premier of Ontario | Premier ministre de l’Ontario
> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 16:38:41 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: RE The call from the Boston cop Robert Ridge
> (857 259 9083) on behalf of the VERY corrupt Yankee DA Rachael Rollins
> To: David Amos
>
> Thank you for your email. Your thoughts, comments and input are greatly
> valued.
>
> You can be assured that all emails and letters are carefully read,
> reviewed and taken into consideration.
>
> There may be occasions when, given the issues you have raised and the
> need to address them effectively, we will forward a copy of your
> correspondence to the appropriate government official. Accordingly, a
> response may take several business days.
>
> Thanks again for your email.
> ______
>
> Merci pour votre courriel. Nous vous sommes très reconnaissants de
> nous avoir fait part de vos idées, commentaires et observations.
>
> Nous tenons à vous assurer que nous lisons attentivement et prenons en
> considération tous les courriels et lettres que nous recevons.
>
> Dans certains cas, nous transmettrons votre message au ministère
> responsable afin que les questions soulevées puissent être traitées de
> la manière la plus efficace possible. En conséquence, plusieurs jours
> ouvrables pourraient s’écouler avant que nous puissions vous répondre.
>
> Merci encore pour votre courriel.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> ---------- Original message ----------
>> From: David Amos
>> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 16:15:59 -0400
>> Subject: Hey Ralph Goodale perhaps you and the RCMP should call the
>> Yankees Governor Charlie Baker, his lawyer Bob Ross, Rachael Rollins
>> and this cop Robert Ridge (857 259 9083) ASAP EH Mr Primme Minister
>> Trudeau the Younger and Donald Trump Jr?
>> To: pm@pm.gc.ca, Katie.Telford@pmo-cpm.gc.ca,
>> Ian.Shugart@pco-bcp.gc.ca, djtjr@trumporg.com,
>> Donald.J.Trump@donaldtrump.com, JUSTWEB@novascotia.ca,
>> Frank.McKenna@td.com, barbara.massey@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
>> Douglas.Johnson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, sandra.lofaro@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
>> washington.field@ic.fbi.gov, Brenda.Lucki@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
>> gov.press@state.ma.us, bob.ross@state.ma.us, jfurey@nbpower.com,
>> jfetzer@d.umn.edu, Newsroom@globeandmail.com, sfine@globeandmail.com,
>> .Poitras@cbc.ca, steve.murphy@ctv.ca, David.Akin@globalnews.ca,
>> Dale.Morgan@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, news@kingscorecord.com,
>> news@dailygleaner.com, oldmaison@yahoo.com, jbosnitch@gmail.com,
>> andre@jafaust.com>
>> Cc: david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com, DJT@trumporg.com
>> wharrison@nbpower.com, David.Lametti@parl.gc.ca, mcu@justice.gc.ca,
>> Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca, hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca
>>
---------- Original message ----------
From: "Finance Public / Finance Publique (FIN)"
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:52:33 +0000
Subject: RE: RE FATCA, NAFTA & TPP etc ATTN President Donald J. Trump
I just got off the phone with your lawyer Mr Cohen (646-853-0114) Why
does he lie to me after all this time???
To: David Amos

The Department of Finance acknowledges receipt of your electronic
correspondence. Please be assured that we appreciate receiving your
comments.

Le ministère des Finances accuse réception de votre correspondance
électronique. Soyez assuré(e) que nous apprécions recevoir vos
commentaires.

---------- Original message ----------
From: Póstur FOR
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:51:41 +0000
Subject: Re: RE FATCA, NAFTA & TPP etc ATTN President Donald J. Trump
I just got off the phone with your lawyer Mr Cohen (646-853-0114) Why
does he lie to me after all this time???
To: David Amos

Erindi þitt hefur verið móttekið / Your request has been received

Kveðja / Best regards
Forsætisráðuneytið / Prime Minister's Office

---------- Original message ----------
From: "B English (MIN)"
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:51:29 +0000
Subject: Automated response from the office of Hon Bill English
To: David Amos

Thank you for your email to the Prime Minister.

This is an automated response.

Please be assured that any matters you raise in your email will be
noted; however, not all messages will receive an individual response.

Yours sincerely
The Office of the Prime Minister

---------- Original message ----------
From: PmInvites
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:52:50 +0000
Subject: PM Invites
To: David Amos

Thank you for your invitation/meeting request to the Prime Minister,
the Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP.
Your invitation will be considered in light of the Prime Minister's
existing commitments.
We will be in touch with you as soon as possible to formally advise
the progress of your invitation/meeting request.

Yours sincerely

Prime Minister's Office

______________________________________________________________________

IMPORTANT: This message, and any attachments to it, contains information
that is confidential and may also be the subject of legal professional or
other privilege. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you
must not review, copy, disseminate or disclose its contents to any other
party or take action in reliance of any material contained within it. If you
have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by
return email informing them of the mistake and delete all copies of the
message from your computer system.

---------- Original message ----------
From: "Turnbull, Malcolm (MP)"
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:51:35 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: RE FATCA, NAFTA & TPP etc ATTN President
Donald J. Trump I just got off the phone with your lawyer Mr Cohen
(646-853-0114) Why does he lie to me after all this time???
To: David Amos

***Please be advised that this email address is no longer in use***

Thank you for taking the time to write to me. Feedback from the people
we represent is always extremely valuable for members of parliament,
and especially valuable to me as Prime Minister.

However as you can imagine I receive a very large, sometimes
dauntingly large, amount of correspondence and it is important that we
do everything we can to respond to it as quickly and effectively as
possible.

So to help us best direct your enquiry and respond to it, please
complete this contact form. If you have written a detailed message in
your email, just cut and paste it into the contact form and complete
the details requested.

If you would like to invite me or Lucy to an event, please forward the
invitation to pminvites@pmc.gov.au.

If you are a Wentworth constituent, please make us aware of this and
my electorate office team in Edgecliff will be in touch.

Regards,

Malcolm Turnbull
Prime Minister

---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 10:51:14 -0400
Subject: RE FATCA, NAFTA & TPP etc ATTN President Donald J. Trump I
just got off the phone with your lawyer Mr Cohen (646-853-0114) Why
does he lie to me after all this time???
To: president , mdcohen212@gmail.com, pm ,
Pierre-Luc.Dusseault@parl.gc.ca, MulcaT , Jean-Yves.Duclos@parl.gc.ca,
B.English@ministers.govt.nz, Malcolm.Turnbull.MP@aph.gov.au,
pminvites@pmc.gov.au, mayt@parliament.uk, press , "Andrew.Bailey" ,
fin.financepublic-financepublique.fin@canada.ca, newsroom ,
"CNN.Viewer.Communications.Management" , news-tips , lionel
Cc: David Amos , elizabeth.thompson@cbc.ca, "justin.ling@vice.com,
elizabeththompson" , djtjr , "Bill.Morneau" , postur ,
stephen.kimber@ukings.ca, "steve.murphy" , "Jacques.Poitras" ,
oldmaison , andre

> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 16:15:59 -0400
> Subject: Hey Ralph Goodale perhaps you and the RCMP should call the
> Yankees Governor Charlie Baker, his lawyer Bob Ross, Rachael Rollins
> and this cop Robert Ridge (857 259 9083) ASAP EH Mr Primme Minister
> Trudeau the Younger and Donald Trump Jr?
> To: pm@pm.gc.ca, Katie.Telford@pmo-cpm.gc.ca,
> Ian.Shugart@pco-bcp.gc.ca, djtjr@trumporg.com,
> Donald.J.Trump@donaldtrump.com, JUSTWEB@novascotia.ca,
> Frank.McKenna@td.com, barbara.massey@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
> Douglas.Johnson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, sandra.lofaro@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
> washington.field@ic.fbi.gov, Brenda.Lucki@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
> gov.press@state.ma.us, bob.ross@state.ma.us, jfurey@nbpower.com,
> jfetzer@d.umn.edu, Newsroom@globeandmail.com, sfine@globeandmail.com,
> .Poitras@cbc.ca, steve.murphy@ctv.ca, David.Akin@globalnews.ca,
> Dale.Morgan@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, news@kingscorecord.com,
> news@dailygleaner.com, oldmaison@yahoo.com, jbosnitch@gmail.com,
> andre@jafaust.com>
> Cc: david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com, DJT@trumporg.com
> wharrison@nbpower.com, David.Lametti@parl.gc.ca, mcu@justice.gc.ca,
> Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca, hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca
>
>>> From: Justice Website <JUSTWEB@novascotia.ca>
>>> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:21:11 +0000
>>> Subject: Emails to Department of Justice and Province of Nova Scotia
>>> To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com" <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> Mr. Amos,
>>> We acknowledge receipt of your recent emails to the Deputy Minister of
>>> Justice and lawyers within the Legal Services Division of the
>>> Department of Justice respecting a possible claim against the Province
>>> of Nova Scotia. Service of any documents respecting a legal claim
>>> against the Province of Nova Scotia may be served on the Attorney
>>> General at 1690 Hollis Street, Halifax, NS. Please note that we will
>>> not be responding to further emails on this matter.
>>>
>>> Department of Justice
>>>
>>> On 8/3/17, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If want something very serious to download and laugh at as well Please
>>>> Enjoy and share real wiretap tapes of the mob
>>>>
>>>> http://thedavidamosrant.blogspot.ca/2013/10/re-glen-greenwald-and-braz
>>>> ilian.html
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/06/09/nsa-leak-guardian.html
>>>>>
>>>>> As the CBC etc yap about Yankee wiretaps and whistleblowers I must
>>>>> ask them the obvious question AIN'T THEY FORGETTING SOMETHING????
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vugUalUO8YY
>>>>>
>>>>> What the hell does the media think my Yankee lawyer served upon the
>>>>> USDOJ right after I ran for and seat in the 39th Parliament baseball
>>>>> cards?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://archive.org/details/ITriedToExplainItToAllMaritimersInEarly200
>>>>> 6
>>>>>
>>>>> http://davidamos.blogspot.ca/2006/05/wiretap-tapes-impeach-bush.html
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.archive.org/details/PoliceSurveilanceWiretapTape139
>>>>>
>>>>> http://archive.org/details/Part1WiretapTape143
>>>>>
>>>>> FEDERAL EXPRES February 7, 2006
>>>>> Senator Arlen Specter
>>>>> United States Senate
>>>>> Committee on the Judiciary
>>>>> 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
>>>>> Washington, DC 20510
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Mr. Specter:
>>>>>
>>>>> I have been asked to forward the enclosed tapes to you from a man
>>>>> named, David Amos, a Canadian citizen, in connection with the matters
>>>>> raised in the attached letter.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mr. Amos has represented to me that these are illegal FBI wire tap
>>>>> tapes.
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe Mr. Amos has been in contact with you about this previously.
>>>>>
>>>>> Very truly yours,
>>>>> Barry A. Bachrach
>>>>> Direct telephone: (508) 926-3403
>>>>> Direct facsimile: (508) 929-3003
>>>>> Email: bbachrach@bowditch.com
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
>>>> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 09:32:09 -0400
>>>> Subject: Attn Integrity Commissioner Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C.,
>>>> To: coi@gnb.ca
>>>> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>>>>
>>>> Good Day Sir
>>>>
>>>> After I heard you speak on CBC I called your office again and managed
>>>> to speak to one of your staff for the first time
>>>>
>>>> Please find attached the documents I promised to send to the lady who
>>>> answered the phone this morning. Please notice that not after the Sgt
>>>> at Arms took the documents destined to your office his pal Tanker
>>>> Malley barred me in writing with an "English" only document.
>>>>
>>>> These are the hearings and the dockets in Federal Court that I
>>>> suggested that you study closely.
>>>>
>>>> This is the docket in Federal Court
>>>>
>>>> http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=T-1557-15&select_court=T
>>>>
>>>> These are digital recordings of the last three hearings
>>>>
>>>> Dec 14th https://archive.org/details/BahHumbug
>>>>
>>>> January 11th, 2016 https://archive.org/details/Jan11th2015
>>>>
>>>> April 3rd, 2017
>>>>
>>>> https://archive.org/details/April32017JusticeLeblancHearing
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is the docket in the Federal Court of Appeal
>>>>
>>>> http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=A-48-16&select_court=All
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The only hearing thus far
>>>>
>>>> May 24th, 2017
>>>>
>>>> https://archive.org/details/May24thHoedown
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This Judge understnds the meaning of the word Integrity
>>>>
>>>> Date: 20151223
>>>>
>>>> Docket: T-1557-15
>>>>
>>>> Fredericton, New Brunswick, December 23, 2015
>>>>
>>>> PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Bell
>>>>
>>>> BETWEEN:
>>>>
>>>> DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
>>>>
>>>> Plaintiff
>>>>
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>> HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
>>>>
>>>> Defendant
>>>>
>>>> ORDER
>>>>
>>>> (Delivered orally from the Bench in Fredericton, New Brunswick, on
>>>> December 14, 2015)
>>>>
>>>> The Plaintiff seeks an appeal de novo, by way of motion pursuant to
>>>> the Federal Courts Rules (SOR/98-106), from an Order made on November
>>>> 12, 2015, in which Prothonotary Morneau struck the Statement of Claim
>>>> in its entirety.
>>>>
>>>> At the outset of the hearing, the Plaintiff brought to my attention a
>>>> letter dated September 10, 2004, which he sent to me, in my then
>>>> capacity as Past President of the New Brunswick Branch of the Canadian
>>>> Bar Association, and the then President of the Branch, Kathleen Quigg,
>>>> (now a Justice of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal). In that letter
>>>> he stated:
>>>>
>>>> As for your past President, Mr. Bell, may I suggest that you check the
>>>> work of Frank McKenna before I sue your entire law firm including you.
>>>> You are your brother’s keeper.
>>>>
>>>> Frank McKenna is the former Premier of New Brunswick and a former
>>>> colleague of mine at the law firm of McInnes Cooper. In addition to
>>>> expressing an intention to sue me, the Plaintiff refers to a number of
>>>> people in his Motion Record who he appears to contend may be witnesses
>>>> or potential parties to be added. Those individuals who are known to
>>>> me personally, include, but are not limited to the former Prime
>>>> Minister of Canada, The Right Honourable Stephen Harper; former
>>>> Attorney General of Canada and now a Justice of the Manitoba Court of
>>>> Queen’s Bench, Vic Toews; former member of Parliament Rob Moore;
>>>> former Director of Policing Services, the late Grant Garneau; former
>>>> Chief of the Fredericton Police Force, Barry McKnight; former Staff
>>>> Sergeant Danny Copp; my former colleagues on the New Brunswick Court
>>>> of Appeal, Justices Bradley V. Green and Kathleen Quigg, and, retired
>>>> Assistant Commissioner Wayne Lang of the Royal Canadian Mounted
>>>> Police.
>>>>
>>>> In the circumstances, given the threat in 2004 to sue me in my
>>>> personal capacity and my past and present relationship with many
>>>> potential witnesses and/or potential parties to the litigation, I am
>>>> of the view there would be a reasonable apprehension of bias should I
>>>> hear this motion. See Justice de Grandpré’s dissenting judgment in
>>>> Committee for Justice and Liberty et al v National Energy Board et al,
>>>> [1978] 1 SCR 369 at p 394 for the applicable test regarding
>>>> allegations of bias. In the circumstances, although neither party has
>>>> requested I recuse myself, I consider it appropriate that I do so.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> AS A RESULT OF MY RECUSAL, THIS COURT ORDERS that the Administrator of
>>>> the Court schedule another date for the hearing of the motion. There
>>>> is no order as to costs.
>>>>
>>>> “B. Richard Bell”
>>>> Judge
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Below after the CBC article about your concerns (I made one comment
>>>> already) you will find the text of just two of many emails I had sent
>>>> to your office over the years since I first visited it in 2006.
>>>>
>>>> I noticed that on July 30, 2009, he was appointed to the the Court
>>>> Martial Appeal Court of Canada Perhaps you should scroll to the
>>>> bottom of this email ASAP and read the entire Paragraph 83 of my
>>>> lawsuit now before the Federal Court of Canada?
>>>>
>>>> "FYI This is the text of the lawsuit that should interest Trudeau the
>>>> most
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Original message ----------
>>>> From: justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca
>>>> Date: Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:18 PM
>>>> Subject: Réponse automatique : RE My complaint against the CROWN in
>>>> Federal Court Attn David Hansen and Peter MacKay If you planning to
>>>> submit a motion for a publication ban on my complaint trust that you
>>>> dudes are way past too late
>>>> To: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>>>>
>>>> Veuillez noter que j'ai changé de courriel. Vous pouvez me rejoindre à
>>>> lalanthier@hotmail.com
>>>>
>>>> Pour rejoindre le bureau de M. Trudeau veuillez envoyer un courriel à
>>>> tommy.desfosses@parl.gc.ca
>>>>
>>>> Please note that I changed email address, you can reach me at
>>>> lalanthier@hotmail.com
>>>>
>>>> To reach the office of Mr. Trudeau please send an email to
>>>> tommy.desfosses@parl.gc.ca
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>>
>>>> Merci ,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2015/09/v-behaviorurldefaultvmlo.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 83. The Plaintiff states that now that Canada is involved in more war
>>>> in Iraq again it did not serve Canadian interests and reputation to
>>>> allow Barry Winters to publish the following words three times over
>>>> five years after he began his bragging:
>>>>
>>>> January 13, 2015
>>>> This Is Just AS Relevant Now As When I wrote It During The Debate
>>>>
>>>> December 8, 2014
>>>> Why Canada Stood Tall!
>>>>
>>>> Friday, October 3, 2014
>>>> Little David Amos’ “True History Of War” Canadian Airstrikes And
>>>> Stupid Justin Trudeau
>>>>
>>>> Canada’s and Canadians free ride is over. Canada can no longer hide
>>>> behind Amerka’s and NATO’s skirts.
>>>>
>>>> When I was still in Canadian Forces then Prime Minister Jean Chretien
>>>> actually committed the Canadian Army to deploy in the second campaign
>>>> in Iraq, the Coalition of the Willing. This was against or contrary to
>>>> the wisdom or advice of those of us Canadian officers that were
>>>> involved in the initial planning phases of that operation. There were
>>>> significant concern in our planning cell, and NDHQ about of the dearth
>>>> of concern for operational guidance, direction, and forces for
>>>> operations after the initial occupation of Iraq. At the “last minute”
>>>> Prime Minister Chretien and the Liberal government changed its mind.
>>>> The Canadian government told our amerkan cousins that we would not
>>>> deploy combat troops for the Iraq campaign, but would deploy a
>>>> Canadian Battle Group to Afghanistan, enabling our amerkan cousins to
>>>> redeploy troops from there to Iraq. The PMO’s thinking that it was
>>>> less costly to deploy Canadian Forces to Afghanistan than Iraq. But
>>>> alas no one seems to remind the Liberals of Prime Minister Chretien’s
>>>> then grossly incorrect assumption. Notwithstanding Jean Chretien’s
>>>> incompetence and stupidity, the Canadian Army was heroic,
>>>> professional, punched well above it’s weight, and the PPCLI Battle
>>>> Group, is credited with “saving Afghanistan” during the Panjway
>>>> campaign of 2006.
>>>>
>>>> What Justin Trudeau and the Liberals don’t tell you now, is that then
>>>> Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien committed, and deployed the
>>>> Canadian army to Canada’s longest “war” without the advice, consent,
>>>> support, or vote of the Canadian Parliament.
>>>>
>>>> What David Amos and the rest of the ignorant, uneducated, and babbling
>>>> chattering classes are too addled to understand is the deployment of
>>>> less than 75 special operations troops, and what is known by planners
>>>> as a “six pac cell” of fighter aircraft is NOT the same as a
>>>> deployment of a Battle Group, nor a “war” make.
>>>>
>>>> The Canadian Government or The Crown unlike our amerkan cousins have
>>>> the “constitutional authority” to commit the Canadian nation to war.
>>>> That has been recently clearly articulated to the Canadian public by
>>>> constitutional scholar Phillippe Legasse. What Parliament can do is
>>>> remove “confidence” in The Crown’s Government in a “vote of
>>>> non-confidence.” That could not happen to the Chretien Government
>>>> regarding deployment to Afghanistan, and it won’t happen in this
>>>> instance with the conservative majority in The Commons regarding a
>>>> limited Canadian deployment to the Middle East.
>>>>
>>>> President George Bush was quite correct after 911 and the terror
>>>> attacks in New York; that the Taliban “occupied” and “failed state”
>>>> Afghanistan was the source of logistical support, command and control,
>>>> and training for the Al Quaeda war of terror against the world. The
>>>> initial defeat, and removal from control of Afghanistan was vital and
>>>>
>>>> P.S. Whereas this CBC article is about your opinion of the actions of
>>>> the latest Minister Of Health trust that Mr Boudreau and the CBC have
>>>> had my files for many years and the last thing they are is ethical.
>>>> Ask his friends Mr Murphy and the RCMP if you don't believe me.
>>>>
>>>> Subject:
>>>> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:02:35 -0400
>>>> From: "Murphy, Michael B. $DH/MS$" MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca
>>>> To: motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com
>>>>
>>>> January 30, 2007
>>>>
>>>> WITHOUT PREJUDICE
>>>>
>>>> Mr. David Amos
>>>>
>>>> Dear Mr. Amos:
>>>>
>>>> This will acknowledge receipt of a copy of your e-mail of December 29,
>>>> 2006 to Corporal Warren McBeath of the RCMP.
>>>>
>>>> Because of the nature of the allegations made in your message, I have
>>>> taken the measure of forwarding a copy to Assistant Commissioner Steve
>>>> Graham of the RCMP “J” Division in Fredericton.
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>
>>>> Honourable Michael B. Murphy
>>>> Minister of Health
>>>>
>>>> CM/cb
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Warren McBeath warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:34:53 -0500
>>>> From: "Warren McBeath" warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>>>> To: kilgoursite@ca.inter.net, MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca,
>>>> nada.sarkis@gnb.ca, wally.stiles@gnb.ca, dwatch@web.net,
>>>> motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com
>>>> CC: ottawa@chuckstrahl.com, riding@chuckstrahl.com,John.Foran@gnb.ca,
>>>> Oda.B@parl.gc.ca,"Bev BUSSON" bev.busson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
>>>> "Paul Dube" PAUL.DUBE@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>>>> Subject: Re: Remember me Kilgour? Landslide Annie McLellan has
>>>> forgotten me but the crooks within the RCMP have not
>>>>
>>>> Dear Mr. Amos,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your follow up e-mail to me today. I was on days off
>>>> over the holidays and returned to work this evening. Rest assured I
>>>> was not ignoring or procrastinating to respond to your concerns.
>>>>
>>>> As your attachment sent today refers from Premier Graham, our position
>>>> is clear on your dead calf issue: Our forensic labs do not process
>>>> testing on animals in cases such as yours, they are referred to the
>>>> Atlantic Veterinary College in Charlottetown who can provide these
>>>> services. If you do not choose to utilize their expertise in this
>>>> instance, then that is your decision and nothing more can be done.
>>>>
>>>> As for your other concerns regarding the US Government, false
>>>> imprisonment and Federal Court Dates in the US, etc... it is clear
>>>> that Federal authorities are aware of your concerns both in Canada
>>>> the US. These issues do not fall into the purvue of Detachment
>>>> and policing in Petitcodiac, NB.
>>>>
>>>> It was indeed an interesting and informative conversation we had on
>>>> December 23rd, and I wish you well in all of your future endeavors.
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>
>>>> Warren McBeath, Cpl.
>>>> GRC Caledonia RCMP
>>>> Traffic Services NCO
>>>> Ph: (506) 387-2222
>>>> Fax: (506) 387-4622
>>>> E-mail warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C.,
>>>> Office of the Integrity Commissioner
>>>> Edgecombe House, 736 King Street
>>>> Fredericton, N.B. CANADA E3B 5H1
>>>> tel.: 506-457-7890
>>>> fax: 506-444-5224
>>>> e-mail:coi@gnb.ca
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>
>>> http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2017/11/federal-court-of-appeal-finally-makes.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Sunday, 19 November 2017
>>> Federal Court of Appeal Finally Makes The BIG Decision And Publishes
>>> It Now The Crooks Cannot Take Back Ticket To Try Put My Matter Before
>>> The Supreme Court
>>>
>>> https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/236679/index.do
>>>
>>>
>>> Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
>>>
>>> Amos v. Canada
>>> Court (s) Database
>>>
>>> Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
>>> Date
>>>
>>> 2017-10-30
>>> Neutral citation
>>>
>>> 2017 FCA 213
>>> File numbers
>>>
>>> A-48-16
>>> Date: 20171030
>>>
>>> Docket: A-48-16
>>> Citation: 2017 FCA 213
>>> CORAM:
>>>
>>> WEBB J.A.
>>> NEAR J.A.
>>> GLEASON J.A.
>>>
>>>
>>> BETWEEN:
>>> DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
>>> Respondent on the cross-appeal
>>> (and formally Appellant)
>>> and
>>> HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
>>> Appellant on the cross-appeal
>>> (and formerly Respondent)
>>> Heard at Fredericton, New Brunswick, on May 24, 2017.
>>> Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 30, 2017.
>>> REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:
>>>
>>> THE COURT
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Date: 20171030
>>>
>>> Docket: A-48-16
>>> Citation: 2017 FCA 213
>>> CORAM:
>>>
>>> WEBB J.A.
>>> NEAR J.A.
>>> GLEASON J.A.
>>>
>>>
>>> BETWEEN:
>>> DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
>>> Respondent on the cross-appeal
>>> (and formally Appellant)
>>> and
>>> HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
>>> Appellant on the cross-appeal
>>> (and formerly Respondent)
>>> REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY THE COURT
>>>
>>> I. Introduction
>>>
>>> [1] On September 16, 2015, David Raymond Amos (Mr. Amos)
>>> filed a 53-page Statement of Claim (the Claim) in Federal Court
>>> against Her Majesty the Queen (the Crown). Mr. Amos claims $11 million
>>> in damages and a public apology from the Prime Minister and Provincial
>>> Premiers for being illegally barred from accessing parliamentary
>>> properties and seeks a declaration from the Minister of Public Safety
>>> that the Canadian Government will no longer allow the Royal Canadian
>>> Mounted Police (RCMP) and Canadian Forces to harass him and his clan
>>> (Claim at para. 96).
>>>
>>> [2] On November 12, 2015 (Docket T-1557-15), by way of a
>>> motion brought by the Crown, a prothonotary of the Federal Court (the
>>> Prothonotary) struck the Claim in its entirety, without leave to
>>> amend, on the basis that it was plain and obvious that the Claim
>>> disclosed no reasonable claim, the Claim was fundamentally vexatious,
>>> and the Claim could not be salvaged by way of further amendment (the
>>> Prothontary’s Order).
>>>
>>>
>>> [3] On January 25, 2016 (2016 FC 93), by way of Mr.
>>> Amos’ appeal from the Prothonotary’s Order, a judge of the Federal
>>> Court (the Judge), reviewing the matter de novo, struck all of Mr.
>>> Amos’ claims for relief with the exception of the claim for damages
>>> for being barred by the RCMP from the New Brunswick legislature in
>>> 2004 (the Federal Court Judgment).
>>>
>>>
>>> [4] Mr. Amos appealed and the Crown cross-appealed the
>>> Federal Court Judgment. Further to the issuance of a Notice of Status
>>> Review, Mr. Amos’ appeal was dismissed for delay on December 19, 2016.
>>> As such, the only matter before this Court is the Crown’s
>>> cross-appeal.
>>>
>>>
>>> II. Preliminary Matter
>>>
>>> [5] Mr. Amos, in his memorandum of fact and law in
>>> relation to the cross-appeal that was filed with this Court on March
>>> 6, 2017, indicated that several judges of this Court, including two of
>>> the judges of this panel, had a conflict of interest in this appeal.
>>> This was the first time that he identified the judges whom he believed
>>> had a conflict of interest in a document that was filed with this
>>> Court. In his notice of appeal he had alluded to a conflict with
>>> several judges but did not name those judges.
>>>
>>> [6] Mr. Amos was of the view that he did not have to
>>> identify the judges in any document filed with this Court because he
>>> had identified the judges in various documents that had been filed
>>> with the Federal Court. In his view the Federal Court and the Federal
>>> Court of Appeal are the same court and therefore any document filed in
>>> the Federal Court would be filed in this Court. This view is based on
>>> subsections 5(4) and 5.1(4) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985,
>>> c. F-7:
>>>
>>>
>>> 5(4) Every judge of the Federal Court is, by virtue of his or her
>>> office, a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal and has all the
>>> jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Federal Court of
>>> Appeal.
>>> […]
>>>
>>> 5(4) Les juges de la Cour fédérale sont d’office juges de la Cour
>>> d’appel fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs que
>>> les juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale.
>>> […]
>>> 5.1(4) Every judge of the Federal Court of Appeal is, by virtue of
>>> that office, a judge of the Federal Court and has all the
>>> jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Federal Court.
>>>
>>> 5.1(4) Les juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale sont d’office juges de la
>>> Cour fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs que les
>>> juges de la Cour fédérale.
>>>
>>>
>>> [7] However, these subsections only provide that the
>>> judges of the Federal Court are also judges of this Court (and vice
>>> versa). It does not mean that there is only one court. If the Federal
>>> Court and this Court were one Court, there would be no need for this
>>> section.
>>> [8] Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Courts Act provide
>>> that:
>>> 3 The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the Federal Court
>>> — Appeal Division is continued under the name “Federal Court of
>>> Appeal” in English and “Cour d’appel fédérale” in French. It is
>>> continued as an additional court of law, equity and admiralty in and
>>> for Canada, for the better administration of the laws of Canada and as
>>> a superior court of record having civil and criminal jurisdiction.
>>>
>>> 3 La Section d’appel, aussi appelée la Cour d’appel ou la Cour d’appel
>>> fédérale, est maintenue et dénommée « Cour d’appel fédérale » en
>>> français et « Federal Court of Appeal » en anglais. Elle est maintenue
>>> à titre de tribunal additionnel de droit, d’equity et d’amirauté du
>>> Canada, propre à améliorer l’application du droit canadien, et
>>> continue d’être une cour supérieure d’archives ayant compétence en
>>> matière civile et pénale.
>>> 4 The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the Federal Court
>>> — Trial Division is continued under the name “Federal Court” in
>>> English and “Cour fédérale” in French. It is continued as an
>>> additional court of law, equity and admiralty in and for Canada, for
>>> the better administration of the laws of Canada and as a superior
>>> court of record having civil and criminal jurisdiction.
>>>
>>> 4 La section de la Cour fédérale du Canada, appelée la Section de
>>> première instance de la Cour fédérale, est maintenue et dénommée «
>>> Cour fédérale » en français et « Federal Court » en anglais. Elle est
>>> maintenue à titre de tribunal additionnel de droit, d’equity et
>>> d’amirauté du Canada, propre à améliorer l’application du droit
>>> canadien, et continue d’être une cour supérieure d’archives ayant
>>> compétence en matière civile et pénale.
>>>
>>>
>>> [9] Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Courts Act create
>>> two separate courts – this Court (section 3) and the Federal Court
>>> (section 4). If, as Mr. Amos suggests, documents filed in the Federal
>>> Court were automatically also filed in this Court, then there would no
>>> need for the parties to prepare and file appeal books as required by
>>> Rules 343 to 345 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 in relation
>>> to any appeal from a decision of the Federal Court. The requirement to
>>> file an appeal book with this Court in relation to an appeal from a
>>> decision of the Federal Court makes it clear that the only documents
>>> that will be before this Court are the documents that are part of that
>>> appeal book.
>>>
>>>
>>> [10] Therefore, the memorandum of fact and law filed on
>>> March 6, 2017 is the first document, filed with this Court, in which
>>> Mr. Amos identified the particular judges that he submits have a
>>> conflict in any matter related to him.
>>>
>>>
>>> [11] On April 3, 2017, Mr. Amos attempted to bring a motion
>>> before the Federal Court seeking an order “affirming or denying the
>>> conflict of interest he has” with a number of judges of the Federal
>>> Court. A judge of the Federal Court issued a direction noting that if
>>> Mr. Amos was seeking this order in relation to judges of the Federal
>>> Court of Appeal, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Federal Court.
>>> Mr. Amos raised the Federal Court motion at the hearing of this
>>> cross-appeal. The Federal Court motion is not a motion before this
>>> Court and, as such, the submissions filed before the Federal Court
>>> will not be entertained. As well, since this was a motion brought
>>> before the Federal Court (and not this Court), any documents filed in
>>> relation to that motion are not part of the record of this Court.
>>>
>>>
>>> [12] During the hearing of the appeal Mr. Amos alleged that
>>> the third member of this panel also had a conflict of interest and
>>> submitted some documents that, in his view, supported his claim of a
>>> conflict. Mr. Amos, following the hearing of his appeal, was also
>>> afforded the opportunity to provide a brief summary of the conflict
>>> that he was alleging and to file additional documents that, in his
>>> view, supported his allegations. Mr. Amos submitted several pages of
>>> documents in relation to the alleged conflicts. He organized the
>>> documents by submitting a copy of the biography of the particular
>>> judge and then, immediately following that biography, by including
>>> copies of the documents that, in his view, supported his claim that
>>> such judge had a conflict.
>>>
>>>
>>> [13] The nature of the alleged conflict of Justice Webb is
>>> that before he was appointed as a Judge of the Tax Court of Canada in
>>> 2006, he was a partner with the law firm Patterson Law, and before
>>> that with Patterson Palmer in Nova Scotia. Mr. Amos submitted that he
>>> had a number of disputes with Patterson Palmer and Patterson Law and
>>> therefore Justice Webb has a conflict simply because he was a partner
>>> of these firms. Mr. Amos is not alleging that Justice Webb was
>>> personally involved in or had any knowledge of any matter in which Mr.
>>> Amos was involved with Justice Webb’s former law firm – only that he
>>> was a member of such firm.
>>>
>>>
>>> [14] During his oral submissions at the hearing of his
>>> appeal Mr. Amos, in relation to the alleged conflict for Justice Webb,
>>> focused on dealings between himself and a particular lawyer at
>>> Patterson Law. However, none of the documents submitted by Mr. Amos at
>>> the hearing or subsequently related to any dealings with this
>>> particular lawyer nor is it clear when Mr. Amos was dealing with this
>>> lawyer. In particular, it is far from clear whether such dealings were
>>> after the time that Justice Webb was appointed as a Judge of the Tax
>>> Court of Canada over 10 years ago.
>>>
>>>
>>> [15] The documents that he submitted in relation to the
>>> alleged conflict for Justice Webb largely relate to dealings between
>>> Byron Prior and the St. John’s Newfoundland and Labrador office of
>>> Patterson Palmer, which is not in the same province where Justice Webb
>>> practiced law. The only document that indicates any dealing between
>>> Mr. Amos and Patterson Palmer is a copy of an affidavit of Stephen May
>>> who was a partner in the St. John’s NL office of Patterson Palmer. The
>>> affidavit is dated January 24, 2005 and refers to a number of e-mails
>>> that were sent by Mr. Amos to Stephen May. Mr. Amos also included a
>>> letter that is addressed to four individuals, one of whom is John
>>> Crosbie who was counsel to the St. John’s NL office of Patterson
>>> Palmer. The letter is dated September 2, 2004 and is addressed to
>>> “John Crosbie, c/o Greg G. Byrne, Suite 502, 570 Queen Street,
>>> Fredericton, NB E3B 5E3”. In this letter Mr. Amos alludes to a
>>> possible lawsuit against Patterson Palmer.
>>> [16] Mr. Amos’ position is that simply because Justice Webb
>>> was a lawyer with Patterson Palmer, he now has a conflict. In Wewaykum
>>> Indian Band v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2003 SCC 45, [2003] 2 S.C.R.
>>> 259, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that disqualification of a
>>> judge is to be determined based on whether there is a reasonable
>>> apprehension of bias:
>>> 60 In Canadian law, one standard has now emerged as the
>>> criterion for disqualification. The criterion, as expressed by de
>>> Grandpré J. in Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy
>>> Board, …[[1978] 1 S.C.R. 369, 68 D.L.R. (3d) 716], at p. 394, is the
>>> reasonable apprehension of bias:
>>> … the apprehension of bias must be a reasonable one, held by
>>> reasonable and right minded persons, applying themselves to the
>>> question and obtaining thereon the required information. In the words
>>> of the Court of Appeal, that test is "what would an informed person,
>>> viewing the matter realistically and practically -- and having thought
>>> the matter through -- conclude. Would he think that it is more likely
>>> than not that [the decision-maker], whether consciously or
>>> unconsciously, would not decide fairly."
>>>
>>> [17] The issue to be determined is whether an informed
>>> person, viewing the matter realistically and practically, and having
>>> thought the matter through, would conclude that Mr. Amos’ allegations
>>> give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. As this Court has
>>> previously remarked, “there is a strong presumption that judges will
>>> administer justice impartially” and this presumption will not be
>>> rebutted in the absence of “convincing evidence” of bias (Collins v.
>>> Canada, 2011 FCA 140 at para. 7, [2011] 4 C.T.C. 157 [Collins]. See
>>> also R. v. S. (R.D.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484 at para. 32, 151 D.L.R.
>>> (4th) 193).
>>>
>>> [18] The Ontario Court of Appeal in Rando Drugs Ltd. v.
>>> Scott, 2007 ONCA 553, 86 O.R. (3d) 653 (leave to appeal to the Supreme
>>> Court of Canada refused, 32285 (August 1, 2007)), addressed the
>>> particular issue of whether a judge is disqualified from hearing a
>>> case simply because he had been a member of a law firm that was
>>> involved in the litigation that was now before that judge. The Ontario
>>> Court of Appeal determined that the judge was not disqualified if the
>>> judge had no involvement with the person or the matter when he was a
>>> lawyer. The Ontario Court of Appeal also explained that the rules for
>>> determining whether a judge is disqualified are different from the
>>> rules to determine whether a lawyer has a conflict:
>>> 27 Thus, disqualification is not the natural corollary to a
>>> finding that a trial judge has had some involvement in a case over
>>> which he or she is now presiding. Where the judge had no involvement,
>>> as here, it cannot be said that the judge is disqualified.
>>>
>>>
>>> 28 The point can rightly be made that had Mr. Patterson been
>>> asked to represent the appellant as counsel before his appointment to
>>> the bench, the conflict rules would likely have prevented him from
>>> taking the case because his firm had formerly represented one of the
>>> defendants in the case. Thus, it is argued how is it that as a trial
>>> judge Patterson J. can hear the case? This issue was considered by the
>>> Court of Appeal (Civil Division) in Locabail (U.K.) Ltd. v. Bayfield
>>> Properties Ltd., [2000] Q.B. 451. The court held, at para. 58, that
>>> there is no inflexible rule governing the disqualification of a judge
>>> and that, "[e]verything depends on the circumstances."
>>>
>>>
>>> 29 It seems to me that what appears at first sight to be an
>>> inconsistency in application of rules can be explained by the
>>> different contexts and in particular, the strong presumption of
>>> judicial impartiality that applies in the context of disqualification
>>> of a judge. There is no such presumption in cases of allegations of
>>> conflict of interest against a lawyer because of a firm's previous
>>> involvement in the case. To the contrary, as explained by Sopinka J.
>>> in MacDonald Estate v. Martin (1990), 77 D.L.R. (4th) 249 (S.C.C.),
>>> for sound policy reasons there is a presumption of a disqualifying
>>> interest that can rarely be overcome. In particular, a conclusory
>>> statement from the lawyer that he or she had no confidential
>>> information about the case will never be sufficient. The case is the
>>> opposite where the allegation of bias is made against a trial judge.
>>> His or her statement that he or she knew nothing about the case and
>>> had no involvement in it will ordinarily be accepted at face value
>>> unless there is good reason to doubt it: see Locabail, at para. 19.
>>>
>>>
>>> 30 That brings me then to consider the particular circumstances
>>> of this case and whether there are serious grounds to find a
>>> disqualifying conflict of interest in this case. In my view, there are
>>> two significant factors that justify the trial judge's decision not to
>>> recuse himself. The first is his statement, which all parties accept,
>>> that he knew nothing of the case when it was in his former firm and
>>> that he had nothing to do with it. The second is the long passage of
>>> time. As was said in Wewaykum, at para. 85:
>>> To us, one significant factor stands out, and must inform
>>> the perspective of the reasonable person assessing the impact of this
>>> involvement on Binnie J.'s impartiality in the appeals. That factor is
>>> the passage of time. Most arguments for disqualification rest on
>>> circumstances that are either contemporaneous to the decision-making,
>>> or that occurred within a short time prior to the decision-making.
>>> 31 There are other factors that inform the issue. The Wilson
>>> Walker firm no longer acted for any of the parties by the time of
>>> trial. More importantly, at the time of the motion, Patterson J. had
>>> been a judge for six years and thus had not had a relationship with
>>> his former firm for a considerable period of time.
>>>
>>>
>>> 32 In my view, a reasonable person, viewing the matter
>>> realistically would conclude that the trial judge could deal fairly
>>> and impartially with this case. I take this view principally because
>>> of the long passage of time and the trial judge's lack of involvement
>>> in or knowledge of the case when the Wilson Walker firm had carriage.
>>> In these circumstances it cannot be reasonably contended that the
>>> trial judge could not remain impartial in the case. The mere fact that
>>> his name appears on the letterhead of some correspondence from over a
>>> decade ago would not lead a reasonable person to believe that he would
>>> either consciously or unconsciously favour his former firm's former
>>> client. It is simply not realistic to think that a judge would throw
>>> off his mantle of impartiality, ignore his oath of office and favour a
>>> client - about whom he knew nothing - of a firm that he left six years
>>> earlier and that no longer acts for the client, in a case involving
>>> events from over a decade ago.
>>> (emphasis added)
>>>
>>> [19] Justice Webb had no involvement with any matter
>>> involving Mr. Amos while he was a member of Patterson Palmer or
>>> Patterson Law, nor does Mr. Amos suggest that he did. Mr. Amos made it
>>> clear during the hearing of this matter that the only reason for the
>>> alleged conflict for Justice Webb was that he was a member of
>>> Patterson Law and Patterson Palmer. This is simply not enough for
>>> Justice Webb to be disqualified. Any involvement of Mr. Amos with
>>> Patterson Law while Justice Webb was a member of that firm would have
>>> had to occur over 10 years ago and even longer for the time when he
>>> was a member of Patterson Palmer. In addition to the lack of any
>>> involvement on his part with any matter or dispute that Mr. Amos had
>>> with Patterson Law or Patterson Palmer (which in and of itself is
>>> sufficient to dispose of this matter), the length of time since
>>> Justice Webb was a member of Patterson Law or Patterson Palmer would
>>> also result in the same finding – that there is no conflict in Justice
>>> Webb hearing this appeal.
>>>
>>> [20] Similarly in R. v. Bagot, 2000 MBCA 30, 145 Man. R.
>>> (2d) 260, the Manitoba Court of Appeal found that there was no
>>> reasonable apprehension of bias when a judge, who had been a member of
>>> the law firm that had been retained by the accused, had no involvement
>>> with the accused while he was a lawyer with that firm.
>>>
>>> [21] In Del Zotto v. Minister of National Revenue, [2000] 4
>>> F.C. 321, 257 N.R. 96, this court did find that there would be a
>>> reasonable apprehension of bias where a judge, who while he was a
>>> lawyer, had recorded time on a matter involving the same person who
>>> was before that judge. However, this case can be distinguished as
>>> Justice Webb did not have any time recorded on any files involving Mr.
>>> Amos while he was a lawyer with Patterson Palmer or Patterson Law.
>>>
>>> [22] Mr. Amos also included with his submissions a CD. He
>>> stated in his affidavit dated June 26, 2017 that there is a “true copy
>>> of an American police surveillance wiretap entitled 139” on this CD.
>>> He has also indicated that he has “provided a true copy of the CD
>>> entitled 139 to many American and Canadian law enforcement authorities
>>> and not one of the police forces or officers of the court are willing
>>> to investigate it”. Since he has indicated that this is an “American
>>> police surveillance wiretap”, this is a matter for the American law
>>> enforcement authorities and cannot create, as Mr. Amos suggests, a
>>> conflict of interest for any judge to whom he provides a copy.
>>>
>>> [23] As a result, there is no conflict or reasonable
>>> apprehension of bias for Justice Webb and therefore, no reason for him
>>> to recuse himself.
>>>
>>> [24] Mr. Amos alleged that Justice Near’s past professional
>>> experience with the government created a “quasi-conflict” in deciding
>>> the cross-appeal. Mr. Amos provided no details and Justice Near
>>> confirmed that he had no prior knowledge of the matters alleged in the
>>> Claim. Justice Near sees no reason to recuse himself.
>>>
>>> [25] Insofar as it is possible to glean the basis for Mr.
>>> Amos’ allegations against Justice Gleason, it appears that he alleges
>>> that she is incapable of hearing this appeal because he says he wrote
>>> a letter to Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien in 2004. At that time,
>>> both Justice Gleason and Mr. Mulroney were partners in the law firm
>>> Ogilvy Renault, LLP. The letter in question, which is rude and angry,
>>> begins with “Hey you two Evil Old Smiling Bastards” and “Re: me suing
>>> you and your little dogs too”. There is no indication that the letter
>>> was ever responded to or that a law suit was ever commenced by Mr.
>>> Amos against Mr. Mulroney. In the circumstances, there is no reason
>>> for Justice Gleason to recuse herself as the letter in question does
>>> not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.
>>>
>>>
>>> III. Issue
>>>
>>> [26] The issue on the cross-appeal is as follows: Did the
>>> Judge err in setting aside the Prothonotary’s Order striking the Claim
>>> in its entirety without leave to amend and in determining that Mr.
>>> Amos’ allegation that the RCMP barred him from the New Brunswick
>>> legislature in 2004 was capable of supporting a cause of action?
>>>
>>> IV. Analysis
>>>
>>> A. Standard of Review
>>>
>>> [27] Following the Judge’s decision to set aside the
>>> Prothonotary’s Order, this Court revisited the standard of review to
>>> be applied to discretionary decisions of prothonotaries and decisions
>>> made by judges on appeals of prothonotaries’ decisions in Hospira
>>> Healthcare Corp. v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, 2016 FCA 215,
>>> 402 D.L.R. (4th) 497 [Hospira]. In Hospira, a five-member panel of
>>> this Court replaced the Aqua-Gem standard of review with that
>>> articulated in Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235
>>> [Housen]. As a result, it is no longer appropriate for the Federal
>>> Court to conduct a de novo review of a discretionary order made by a
>>> prothonotary in regard to questions vital to the final issue of the
>>> case. Rather, a Federal Court judge can only intervene on appeal if
>>> the prothonotary made an error of law or a palpable and overriding
>>> error in determining a question of fact or question of mixed fact and
>>> law (Hospira at para. 79). Further, this Court can only interfere with
>>> a Federal Court judge’s review of a prothonotary’s discretionary order
>>> if the judge made an error of law or palpable and overriding error in
>>> determining a question of fact or question of mixed fact and law
>>> (Hospira at paras. 82-83).
>>>
>>> [28] In the case at bar, the Judge substituted his own
>>> assessment of Mr. Amos’ Claim for that of the Prothonotary. This Court
>>> must look to the Prothonotary’s Order to determine whether the Judge
>>> erred in law or made a palpable and overriding error in choosing to
>>> interfere.
>>>
>>>
>>> B. Did the Judge err in interfering with the
>>> Prothonotary’s Order?
>>>
>>> [29] The Prothontoary’s Order accepted the following
>>> paragraphs from the Crown’s submissions as the basis for striking the
>>> Claim in its entirety without leave to amend:
>>>
>>> 17. Within the 96 paragraph Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff
>>> addresses his complaint in paragraphs 14-24, inclusive. All but four
>>> of those paragraphs are dedicated to an incident that occurred in 2006
>>> in and around the legislature in New Brunswick. The jurisdiction of
>>> the Federal Court does not extend to Her Majesty the Queen in right of
>>> the Provinces. In any event, the Plaintiff hasn’t named the Province
>>> or provincial actors as parties to this action. The incident alleged
>>> does not give rise to a justiciable cause of action in this Court.
>>> (…)
>>>
>>>
>>> 21. The few paragraphs that directly address the Defendant
>>> provide no details as to the individuals involved or the location of
>>> the alleged incidents or other details sufficient to allow the
>>> Defendant to respond. As a result, it is difficult or impossible to
>>> determine the causes of action the Plaintiff is attempting to advance.
>>> A generous reading of the Statement of Claim allows the Defendant to
>>> only speculate as to the true and/or intended cause of action. At
>>> best, the Plaintiff’s action may possibly be summarized as: he
>>> suspects he is barred from the House of Commons.
>>> [footnotes omitted].
>>>
>>>
>>> [30] The Judge determined that he could not strike the Claim
>>> on the same jurisdictional basis as the Prothonotary. The Judge noted
>>> that the Federal Court has jurisdiction over claims based on the
>>> liability of Federal Crown servants like the RCMP and that the actors
>>> who barred Mr. Amos from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004
>>> included the RCMP (Federal Court Judgment at para. 23). In considering
>>> the viability of these allegations de novo, the Judge identified
>>> paragraph 14 of the Claim as containing “some precision” as it
>>> identifies the date of the event and a RCMP officer acting as
>>> Aide-de-Camp to the Lieutenant Governor (Federal Court Judgment at
>>> para. 27).
>>>
>>>
>>> [31] The Judge noted that the 2004 event could support a
>>> cause of action in the tort of misfeasance in public office and
>>> identified the elements of the tort as excerpted from Meigs v. Canada,
>>> 2013 FC 389, 431 F.T.R. 111:
>>>
>>>
>>> [13] As in both the cases of Odhavji Estate v Woodhouse, 2003 SCC
>>> 69 [Odhavji] and Lewis v Canada, 2012 FC 1514 [Lewis], I must
>>> determine whether the plaintiffs’ statement of claim pleads each
>>> element of the alleged tort of misfeasance in public office:
>>>
>>> a) The public officer must have engaged in deliberate and unlawful
>>> conduct in his or her capacity as public officer;
>>>
>>> b) The public officer must have been aware both that his or her
>>> conduct was unlawful and that it was likely to harm the plaintiff; and
>>>
>>> c) There must be an element of bad faith or dishonesty by the public
>>> officer and knowledge of harm alone is insufficient to conclude that a
>>> public officer acted in bad faith or dishonestly.
>>> Odhavji, above, at paras 23, 24 and 28
>>> (Federal Court Judgment at para. 28).
>>>
>>> [32] The Judge determined that Mr. Amos disclosed sufficient
>>> material facts to meet the elements of the tort of misfeasance in
>>> public office because the actors, who barred him from the New
>>> Brunswick legislature in 2004, including the RCMP, did so for
>>> “political reasons” (Federal Court Judgment at para. 29).
>>>
>>> [33] This Court’s discussion of the sufficiency of pleadings
>>> in Merchant Law Group v. Canada (Revenue Agency), 2010 FCA 184, 321
>>> D.L.R (4th) 301 is particularly apt:
>>>
>>> …When pleading bad faith or abuse of power, it is not enough to
>>> assert, baldly, conclusory phrases such as “deliberately or
>>> negligently,” “callous disregard,” or “by fraud and theft did steal”.
>>> “The bare assertion of a conclusion upon which the court is called
>>> upon to pronounce is not an allegation of material fact”. Making bald,
>>> conclusory allegations without any evidentiary foundation is an abuse
>>> of process…
>>>
>>> To this, I would add that the tort of misfeasance in public office
>>> requires a particular state of mind of a public officer in carrying
>>> out the impunged action, i.e., deliberate conduct which the public
>>> officer knows to be inconsistent with the obligations of his or her
>>> office. For this tort, particularization of the allegations is
>>> mandatory. Rule 181 specifically requires particularization of
>>> allegations of “breach of trust,” “wilful default,” “state of mind of
>>> a person,” “malice” or “fraudulent intention.”
>>> (at paras. 34-35, citations omitted).
>>>
>>> [34] Applying the Housen standard of review to the
>>> Prothonotary’s Order, we are of the view that the Judge interfered
>>> absent a legal or palpable and overriding error.
>>>
>>> [35] The Prothonotary determined that Mr. Amos’ Claim
>>> disclosed no reasonable claim and was fundamentally vexatious on the
>>> basis of jurisdictional concerns and the absence of material facts to
>>> ground a cause of action. Paragraph 14 of the Claim, which addresses
>>> the 2004 event, pleads no material facts as to how the RCMP officer
>>> engaged in deliberate and unlawful conduct, knew that his or her
>>> conduct was unlawful and likely to harm Mr. Amos, and acted in bad
>>> faith. While the Claim alleges elsewhere that Mr. Amos was barred from
>>> the New Brunswick legislature for political and/or malicious reasons,
>>> these allegations are not particularized and are directed against
>>> non-federal actors, such as the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Legislative
>>> Assembly of New Brunswick and the Fredericton Police Force. As such,
>>> the Judge erred in determining that Mr. Amos’ allegation that the RCMP
>>> barred him from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004 was capable of
>>> supporting a cause of action.
>>>
>>> [36] In our view, the Claim is made up entirely of bare
>>> allegations, devoid of any detail, such that it discloses no
>>> reasonable cause of action within the jurisdiction of the Federal
>>> Courts. Therefore, the Judge erred in interfering to set aside the
>>> Prothonotary’s Order striking the claim in its entirety. Further, we
>>> find that the Prothonotary made no error in denying leave to amend.
>>> The deficiencies in Mr. Amos’ pleadings are so extensive such that
>>> amendment could not cure them (see Collins at para. 26).
>>>
>>> V. Conclusion
>>> [37] For the foregoing reasons, we would allow the Crown’s
>>> cross-appeal, with costs, setting aside the Federal Court Judgment,
>>> dated January 25, 2016 and restoring the Prothonotary’s Order, dated
>>> November 12, 2015, which struck Mr. Amos’ Claim in its entirety
>>> without leave to amend.
>>> "Wyman W. Webb"
>>> J.A.
>>> "David G. Near"
>>> J.A.
>>> "Mary J.L. Gleason"
>>> J.A.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
>>> NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
>>>
>>> A CROSS-APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SOUTHCOTT DATED
>>> JANUARY 25, 2016; DOCKET NUMBER T-1557-15.
>>> DOCKET:
>>>
>>> A-48-16
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> STYLE OF CAUSE:
>>>
>>> DAVID RAYMOND AMOS v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> PLACE OF HEARING:
>>>
>>> Fredericton,
>>> New Brunswick
>>>
>>> DATE OF HEARING:
>>>
>>> May 24, 2017
>>>
>>> REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:
>>>
>>> WEBB J.A.
>>> NEAR J.A.
>>> GLEASON J.A.
>>>
>>> DATED:
>>>
>>> October 30, 2017
>>>
>>> APPEARANCES:
>>> David Raymond Amos
>>>
>>>
>>> For The Appellant / respondent on cross-appeal
>>> (on his own behalf)
>>>
>>> Jan Jensen
>>>
>>>
>>> For The Respondent / appELLANT ON CROSS-APPEAL
>>>
>>> SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
>>> Nathalie G. Drouin
>>> Deputy Attorney General of Canada
>>>
>>> For The Respondent / APPELLANT ON CROSS-APPEAL
>>>
>>>
>

SIDNEY POWELL
Sidney Powell, P.C.
2911 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 300
Dallas, Texas 75219
(517) 763-7499
sidney@federalappeals.com

HOWARD KLEINHENDLER
Counsel of Record
Howard Kleinhendler Esquire
369 Lexington Avenue, 12th Floor
New York, New York 10017
(917) 793-1188
howard@kleinhendler.com

L. LIN WOOD
L. LIN WOOD, P.C.
P.O. Box 52584
Atlanta, GA 30305-0584
(404) 891-1402
lwood@fightback.law

Of Counsel
JULIA Z. HALLER
BRANDON JOHNSON
EMILY P. NEWMAN

SIDNEY POWELL
STEFANIE LAMBERT JUNTTILA
Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Petitioners
500 Griswold Street, Suite 2340
Detroit, MI 48226
(248) 270-6689
attorneystefanielambert@gmail.com

SCOTT R. ELDRIDGE
Attorney at Law
Miller, Canfield,
One Michigan Avenue
Suite 900
Lansing, MI 48933-1609
517-483-4918
Email: eldridge@millercanfield.com

DANIEL M. SHARE
EUGENE DRIKER
STEPHEN E. GLAZEK
Attorney at Law
Barris, Sott, Denn & Driker, PLLC
333 West Fort Street; 12th Floor
Detroit, MI 48226
313-965-9725
Email: dshare@bsdd.com

EZRA D. ROSENBERG
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
1500 K Street, NW; Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005
202-662-8345
Email: erosenberg@lawyerscommittee.org

JON GREENBAUM
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
District Of Columbia
1500 K Street NW
Ste 9th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
202-662-8315
Email: jgreenbaum@lawyerscommittee.org

ERIK A. GRILL
HEATHER S. MEINGAST
Michigan Department of Attorney General
Civil Litigation, Employment & Elections Division
PO Box 30736
Lansing, MI 48909
517-335-7659
Email: grille@michigan.gov

DARRYL BRESSACK
DAVID H. FINK and NATHAN J. FINK
Attorneys as Law
38500 Woodward Avenue; Suite 350
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
248-971-2500
Email: dbressack@finkbressack.com

ANDREW A. PATERSON, JR.
Attorney at Law
46350 Grand River Ave.
Novi, MI 48374
248 568-9712
Email: aap43@hotmail.com

MARY ELLEN GUREWITZ
Attorney at Law
Cummings & Cummings Law PLLC
423 North Main Street; Suite 200
Royal Oak, MI 48067
313-204-6979
Email: megurewitz@gmail.com

THOMAS MORE SOCIETY
309 W. Washington Street
Suite 1250
Chicago, IL 60606
ph: 312.782.1680
f: 312.782.1887

“Personal prejudice and financial greed are the two great evils that
threaten courts of law, and once they get the upper hand they
immediately hamstring society, by destroying all justice.”
― Thomas More, Utopia.”

Michael McHale, Counsel

Michael McHale received a B.A. in Journalism and History from the
University of Nebraska-Lincoln with high distinction in 2009, and a
J.D. from the University of Nebraska College of Law with distinction
in 2012. Prior to joining TMS, Michael served as general counsel and
policy analyst for the Nebraska Catholic Conference, where he
testified before several committees of the Nebraska Legislature
defending the constitutionality of school vouchers, tax-credit
scholarships, and Nebraska’s parental consent statute for
abortion-seeking minors. From 2018 to 2019, he clerked for the
Honorable L. Steven Grasz on the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit.

Michael is a Blackstone Legal Fellow with Alliance Defending Freedom.
His writings on the
rights to life and religious freedom have appeared in the Witherspoon
Institute’s online journal, Public Discourse, along with the Omaha
World-Herald and the Lincoln Journal Star. He has also completed
pre-theology studies as a seminarian at St. Gregory the Great
Seminary, where he studied philosophy and natural law.

Biography of Michael McHale, Counsel

Biography of Christopher Ferrara, Special Counsel

Christopher Ferrara is a Roman Catholic attorney, pro-life activist,
and journalist. He founded the American Catholic Lawyers Association
in 1990. He joined the Thomas More Society in 2020, and concentrates
his legal work on pro-life defense, religious liberty cases, unjust
laws that attack Catholic institutions, and that infringe on parental
rights. Mr. Ferrara graduated from Fordham Law in 1977 and practices
out of a satellite office in the New York metropolitan area. Mr.
Ferrara is a widely published author on Catholic Church affairs. Mr.
Ferrara is married and has six children.

CHRISTOPHER A. FERRARA, ESQ.
(Bar No. 51198)
148-29 Cross Island Parkway
Whitestone, Queens, New York 11357
Telephone: (718) 357-1040 973 703 0907
cferrara@thomasmoresociety.org
Special Counsel to the Thomas More Society

https://minnlawyer.com/2020/11/25/republicans-sue-to-stop-wisconsin-vote-certification/

Bill Gaier President and Publisher 612-584-1537

Republicans sue to stop Wisconsin vote certification

By: The Associated Press November 25, 2020

MADISON, Wis. — Republicans filed a lawsuit Tuesday asking the
Wisconsin Supreme Court to block certification of the presidential
election results even as a recount over President-elect Joe Biden’s
win over President Donald Trump is ongoing.

The lawsuit echoes many of the same arguments Trump is making in
trying, unsuccessfully, to have tens of thousands of ballots
discounted during the recount. It also seeks to give the power to name
presidential electors to the Republican-controlled Legislature.

Wisconsin state law allows the political parties to pick electors,
which was done in October. Once the election results are certified,
which is scheduled to be done Dec. 1, those pre-determined electors
will cast their ballots for the winner on Dec. 14.

“The litigation filed this afternoon seeks to disenfranchise every
Wisconsinite who voted in this year’s presidential election,” said
Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul. “The Wisconsin Department of
Justice will ensure that Wisconsin’s presidential electors are
selected based on the will of the more than 3 million Wisconsin voters
who cast a ballot.”

The lawsuit also rehashes a claim that a federal court rejected in
September that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg tried to “illegally
circumvent Wisconsin absentee voting laws” through grants awarded by a
nonprofit center he funds.

At least 10 cases have been filed across the country seeking to halt
certification in parts or all of key battleground states, including
lawsuits brought by the Trump campaign in Michigan and Pennsylvania.
So far none have been successful.

The Wisconsin lawsuit was filed by attorney Erick Kaardal, a former
Minnesota Republican Party official who also represented rapper Kanye
West in his unsuccessful lawsuit attempting to get on the ballot in
Wisconsin. Kaardal represents a conservative group called the
Wisconsin Voters Alliance and a host of Republican voters.

Kaardal also filed an unsuccessful federal lawsuit in Wisconsin that
attempted to block $6.3 million from being awarded to five heavily
Democratic cities from the nonprofit Center for Technology and Civic
Life, which is primarily funded by Zuckerberg and his wife. A judge
tossed the lawsuit that argued the money amounted to bribery to
bolster Democratic turnout in Green Bay, Kenosha, Madison, Milwaukee
and Racine.

Many of the same arguments alleging the money was illegally awarded
and therefore the election results should be nullified are being made
in the new lawsuit in state court.

Other claims mirror those by Trump’s campaign. Those claims allege
absentee ballots should not have been counted where election officials
filled in missing information on the certification envelope that
contains the ballot and that voters who identified as “indefinitely
confined” were lying to avoid the state’s photo ID law.

The Wisconsin Elections Commission advises clerks that they can fill
in missing information on the ballot envelopes, such as the address of
a witness. That’s been the practice for years, and it’s never been
challenged.

Biden won Wisconsin by 20,608 votes, but the lawsuit claims that more
than 156,000 ballots should be tossed out.

info@thomasmoresociety.org

Federal Court Says New York Governor Cuomo is Wrong to Limit Worship Services
Governor Cuomo and Mayor DeBlasio

(Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is wrong to limit worship services yet
condone mass protests, according to a federal judge. After telling
Thomas More Society attorneys in a June 18, 2020 hearing that he was
“troubled by” the government’s responses, Senior U.S. District Judge
Gary L. Sharpe issued a preliminary injunction on June 26, 2020,
prohibiting Governor Cuomo, his Attorney General Letitia James, and
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio from ordering or enforcing COVID-19
prompted restrictions on outdoor religious worship gatherings.
Christopher Ferrara

“This decision is an important step toward inhibiting the suddenly
emerging trend of exercising absolute monarchy on pretext of public
health. What this kind of regime really meant in practice is freedom
for me, but not for thee,” said Thomas More Society Special Counsel
Christopher Ferrara.

Thomas More Society Special Counsel Christopher Ferrara remarked, “We
are pleased that Judge Sharpe was able to see through the sham of
Governor Cuomo’s ‘Social Distancing Protocol’ which went right out the
window as soon as he and Mayor de Blasio saw a mass protest movement
they favored taking to the streets by the thousands. Suddenly, the
limit on ‘mass gatherings’ was no longer necessary to ‘save lives.’
Yet they were continuing to ban high school graduations and other
outdoor gatherings exceeding a mere 25 people. This decision is an
important step toward inhibiting the suddenly emerging trend of
exercising absolute monarchy on pretext of public health. What this
kind of regime really meant in practice is freedom for me, but not for
thee.”

Sharpe’s order noted that, “it is not the judiciary’s role to second
guess the likes of Governor Cuomo or Mayor de Blasio when it comes to
decisions they make in such troubling times, that is, until those
decisions result in the curtailment of fundamental rights without
compelling justification.”

In awarding the injunction, the court noted that “nonessential
businesses” that enjoy a 50% capacity limitation are not justifiably
different than houses of worship.

Sharpe remarked that offices, retails stores, salons, and restaurants
– all now permitted to open at 50% capacity indoors – all involve the
congregation of people for a length of time. He stated, “These secular
businesses/activities threaten defendants’ interest in slowing the
spread of COVID-19 to a similar or greater degree than those of
plaintiffs’, and demonstrate that the 25% indoor capacity limitation
on houses of worship is underinclusive and triggers strict scrutiny
review.”

The judge pointed out, “Another case of individualized exemption seems
even more obvious.” Governor Cuomo has now specifically authorized
outdoor, in-person graduation ceremonies of no more than 150 people.
This is an express exemption from the ten- or twenty-five-person
outdoor limits that apply to other situations. Yet, “There is nothing
materially different about a graduation ceremony and a religious
gathering such that defendants’ justifications for a difference in
treatment can be found compelling.”

Sharpe took New York City to task, stating that de Blasio’s
simultaneous pro-protest/anti-religious gathering messages “clearly
undermine the legitimacy” of his argument that selective enforcement
of the challenged laws with respect to mass race protests is a matter
of public safety.

“Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio could have just as easily
discouraged protests, short of condemning their message, in the name
of public health and exercised discretion to suspend enforcement for
public safety reasons instead of encouraging what they knew was a
flagrant disregard of the outdoor limits and social distancing rules,”
wrote Sharpe. “They could have also been silent. But by acting as they
did, Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio sent a clear message that mass
protests are deserving of preferential treatment.”

As a result of the federal order, Governor Cuomo, Attorney General
James, and Mayor de Blasio are “enjoined and restrained from enforcing
any indoor gathering limitations” against the involved houses of
worship “greater than imposed for Phase 2 industries,” provided that
participants follow the prescribed social distancing. They are also
forbidden from “enforcing any limitation for outdoor gatherings
provided that participants in such gatherings follow social distancing
requirements as set forth in the applicable executive orders and
guidance.”

Cuomo, James, and de Blasio were sued by two Catholic priests from
upstate New York and a trio of Orthodox Jewish congregants from
Brooklyn for violations of their civil rights by prejudicial orders
and selective enforcement. The federal lawsuit, filed June 10, 2020,
in United States District Court for the Northern District of New York,
charged the governor, attorney general, and mayor with violating the
plaintiffs’ rights to free exercise of religion, freedom of speech,
assembly and expressive association, and due process, under the First
and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Governor Cuomo was
also accused of violating New York state law and the New York State
Constitution.

Ferrara explained the lawsuit: “In an unprecedented abuse of power,
Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio have exploited the COVID-19
pandemic to create, over the past three months, a veritable
dictatorship by means of a complex web of executive orders. The orders
have imposed and selectively enforced ‘social distancing’ under a
‘lockdown’ of virtually every aspect of life for New York state
residents on the pretext of ‘public health,’ but with numerous
exceptions. The permissible activities, not based on the science of
viral contagion, but rather determined according to personal value
judgments, have included mass demonstrations of thousands of people –
gatherings of which the governor and mayor have approved and the mayor
participated in. Cuomo and de Blasio, along with James, have enforced
the gubernatorial ‘lockdown’ by threat of criminal prosecution and
actual prosecution, including $1,000 fines for the recently created
offense of violating Cuomo’s ‘Social Distancing Protocol’.”

Ferrara added, “These mass protest gatherings, taking place during the
COVID-19 stay-at-home lockdown orders, have been not only allowed but
praised by both the governor of New York and mayor of New York City,
even though massive property damage and death have resulted. This,
when the government’s primary purpose is to protect the people it
governs.”

Read United States District Court for the Northern District of New
York Judge Gary L. Sharpe’s Memorandum-Decision and Order, issued June
26, 2020, in response to the Thomas More Society’s complaint, filed on
behalf of Rev. Steven Soos, Rev. Nicholas Stamos, Daniel Schonbrun,
Elchanan Perr, and Mayer Mayerfeld, in Rev. Steven Soos, et al v.
Andrew M. Cuomo, et al, here.

https://minnlawyer.com/2020/08/14/minnesota-churches-join-legal-challenges-to-virus-rules/

Minnesota churches join legal challenges to virus rules

By: The Associated Press August 14, 2020

Churches in Minnesota and California, backed by a conservative legal
group, filed lawsuits this week against the governors of their states
challenging restrictions imposed due to the coronavirus outbreak that
they contend are violations of religious liberty.

They’re the latest in a long series of legal challenges, many of them
in California, pitting clerics and houses of worship who believe they
should be exempt from certain restrictions on public gatherings
against governors who insist the measures are needed to rein in the
pandemic. Most of the suits have been rebuffed; some have succeeded.

In Minnesota, a lawsuit was filed Thursday in federal court
challenging Gov. Tim Walz’s executive orders requiring 6-foot social
distancing and the wearing of face masks at worship services.

“Gov. Walz, a former teacher, gets an F in religious liberties,” said
Erick Kaardal, special counsel for the Thomas More Society. “Other
states, including Texas, Illinois and Ohio, have excluded churches
from COVID-19 mask mandates.”

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison reiterated his defense of
Walz’s order, saying it was legally and constitutionally sound.

Teddy Tschann, spokesperson for Walz, said the governor was within his
authority taking the action and added that all Walz’s actions have
been grounded in the desire to keep Minnesotans safe.

Walz had been embroiled in a battle with Roman Catholic and Lutheran
Church-Missouri Synod congregations across Minnesota over restrictions
he placed on gatherings of more than 10 people. He relented and said
they could hold services at 25% of capacity if certain conditions were
met after they made it clear they planned to defy the order.

Earlier this month a pastor in Palmetto, Florida, filed a suit
challenging Manatee County’s mask mandate. The Rev. Joel Tillis of
Suncoast Baptist Church said the order shouldn’t extend to houses of
worship because it hinders prayer.

The Thomas More Society, which specializes in litigation on religious
issues, filed a lawsuit Wednesday in California Superior Court against
Gov. Gavin Newsom and other officials. It seeks to prevent the
enforcement of “unconstitutional and onerous coronavirus pandemic
regulations” against Grace Community Church in the Los Angeles
neighborhood of Sun Valley.

The pastor, John MacArthur, has been holding services in recent weeks
attended by throngs of worshippers in de...

[Message clipped] View entire message

David Raymond Amos Round 3

Sunday, 18 June 2023