Claim of political motivation

The complaints about him, he said, are being brought forward by the political left, and the college's motivations to go after him are clearly political and one-sided.

The college has failed to demonstrate any harms to the targets of his tweets, he said.

Asked whether the college has any role in policing speech, even speech that may, for example, clearly be racist, Peterson said, "If you grant a board the right to bully speech outside of the narrow purview of professional interactions with clients, then you open the door to ideological capture of the colleges.

"Which of those is a bigger danger? It is not obvious."

The College of Psychologists of Ontario expressed concern about a number of Jordan Peterson's tweets, including one in which he called Gerald Butts, the former principal secretary of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, a 'prik' (sic). (Canadian Press)

https://www.canadaland.com/before-trudeau-gerald-butts-abandoned-tar-sands-action-as-head-of-world-wildlife-fund/

Before Trudeau, Gerald Butts Abandoned Tar Sands Action As Head Of WWF

The episode was an uncanny harbinger of how the Liberals would act in power

September 5, 2019

Article By Martin Lukacs

When veteran climate analyst Keith Stewart arrived at his office at the Toronto headquarters of the World Wildlife Fund Canada in the spring of 2010, he was in for a shock. Turning on his computer, he realized that the campaign he had been directing and working on for years — raising the alarm about the unsustainable exploitation of Alberta’s tar sands — had disappeared from the organization’s website.

Stewart hadn’t received any warning, and would not be offered an explanation. Later, he would learn that a decision to shut down the campaign and wipe the website had come from the top of WWF-Canada. The organization’s leadership was abandoning its advocacy on an issue that, thanks in part to their efforts, was finally capturing global attention. When the decision was made, the organization’s president was none other than Gerald Butts, Justin Trudeau’s close friend and primary advisor, who a few years later would become one of the most powerful officials in Canada’s Liberal government.

In his role at WWF-Canada, Butts initially embraced bold climate policies. But before long, he would appear to succumb to limits on action prescribed behind closed doors by corporate power-brokers. It was a striking omen of how he and Trudeau would eventually run the Liberal government — and an instructive parable for those seeking to understand Trudeau’s shift from ostensible climate champion to pipeline-nationalizing oil booster.

When Butts arrived at WWF-Canada in 2008 as its new president and CEO, the first campaigns to slow down the breakneck expansion of the tar sands had just been launched by nearby Indigenous communities, who were suffering from downstream pollution. International media had begun taking notice, publishing reports of hundreds of ducks mired in a Suncor tailings pond.

WWF-Canada was ahead of the curve of most organizations. Stewart, who holds a PhD in environmental policy and teaches at the University of Toronto, oversaw their climate campaigning. They sponsored a tour by journalist and fierce tar sands critic Andrew Nikiforuk. Their website featured commentary from the world’s top climate scientist, James Hansen, who has warned that fully exploiting the Alberta tar sands would spell “game over” for a livable climate. Butts and Trudeau flew to northern British Columbia with funders to visit the Great Bear Rainforest, which would soon be threatened by Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline. In an op-ed in the Toronto Star, Butts didn’t mince words: “From hewers of wood and drawers of water to makers of moonscapes and creators of toxic tailing ponds: what a face for Canada to show the world.” And in 2009, he would sign a joint public statement from several environmental groups calling for the government to “declare a moratorium on expansion of tar sands development and halt further approval of infrastructure that would lock us into using dirty liquid fuels.”

Just before Butts joined the organization, WWF-Canada had also opened an office just outside Edmonton and launched another campaign to try to curb the staggering amount of water that tar sands companies were drawing from the Athabasca River. That campaign was led by Rob Powell, a mild-mannered scientist who had previously worked at an industry-friendly regulatory agency of the Alberta government. “What we were looking for from tar sands companies was mild steps toward sustainability,” he told me over the phone in the spring of 2018. “We wanted to ensure that the water outtakes would not drive the Athabasca River below a level of flow that would be catastrophic. Below that, everything falls apart, killing the fish, leaving enormous ecological destruction.” Though Butts inherited this campaign, Powell says he was enthusiastic about it and had a hunch that the issue would rise in profile. Butts delegated several people to work on it.

While some companies resisted the campaign, others eventually agreed to make changes. The province’s water management improved, and WWF-Canada’s scientific modelling of water flows was heralded as an example for elsewhere in the country. The Toronto head office was delighted, Powell says. He began preparing another campaign, this time to challenge an outlandish exercise in green-washing by tar sands companies. To fulfill their obligation to remediate destroyed land, the industry was proposing to pipe toxic sludge from tailings ponds into giant mining craters, pour fresh water over them, and claim they would become thriving “end-pit lakes.” “It might look like a lake, but it wouldn’t act like one,” Powell says. “It was a horrendous excuse for reclamation.”

But as the notoriety of Alberta’s tar sands grew thanks to public education and campaigns, the mood shifted in some parts of the WWF-Canada headquarters. “It seemed like powerful people were not thrilled that we were working on this,” Powell says. Stewart remembers that staff began hearing from the fundraising department that their tar sands campaigns were hurting donations. “Corporate funders started freaking out,” Stewart recalls. “They’d tell us, ‘I don’t understand what you’re doing. Can we figure this out?’ Big donors weren’t saying straight-out that they were opposed to our work. It was more like, ‘I thought we had a partnership here.’” After all, WWF-Canada had a long history of friendly collaborations with corporations. Those now pushing more aggressive advocacy were beginning to jeopardize a safe brand.

“I felt at the time (and still do) that the campaign was divisive in Canada”

Stewart says he heard that some members of the board of directors grew increasingly anxious. The board was populated by CEOs, corporate lawyers, and bankers, as well as future Liberal cabinet minister Seamus O’Regan. It also included Blake Goldring, a member of the Business Council of Canada, who had previously donated $500,000 to WWF-Canada. He was the CEO of investment firm AGF Management, which advised an Oil Sands Sector Fund worth hundreds of millions of dollars. He would not rejoin the board in 2010, for reasons unknown. (He did not respond to questions about this.) All that remained was for Gerald Butts to exercise his widely-praised skills in reading the tea leaves.

Powell says support for his work from his direct superiors at WWF-Canada suddenly vanished. Every new campaign idea was rejected. “It was rather strange, when you have put a lot of effort in, and you have something to show for it,” he says. “Wiping it from the map seemed a very odd choice.” At the same time, in the spring of 2010, Stewart came into the office to discover that all signs of the tar sands campaign had vanished from the WWF-Canada website. Some staff demanded answers. One never came from Butts, Stewart says, but a director quietly told him: “We’re not doing that anymore. Priorities have shifted. The focus will now be on corporate engagement.”

---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2021 17:56:07 -0400
Subject: In my humble opinion this was the most IMPORTANT NEWS in the
Maritimes 3 very long years ago
To: jbdavis@eco-nova.com, outreach@cleanoceanaction.org,
mfkeddy30@gmail.com, kenpat@ns.sympatico.ca
Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

https://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.com/2018/12/in-my-humble-opinion-this-is-most.html

Monday, 24 December 2018
In my humble opinion this is the most IMPORTANT NEWS in the Maritimes
this week and hardly anybody seemed to care

Deja Vu anyone?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/ocean-phytoplankton-zooplankton-food-web-1.4927884

Building blocks of ocean food web in rapid decline as plankton
productivity plunges
Social Sharing
Senior DFO scientist says the cause of the collapse is unknown
Jane Adey · CBC News · Posted: Dec 22, 2018 5:00 PM NT

Re: UPDATED theCCF intervenor status and Dr. Jordan Peterson's freedom to express the fact that Gerald Butts is a prick just like Howie Anglin

Ministerial Correspondence Unit - Justice Canada <mcu@justice.gc.ca>	Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 8:20 AM
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>

Thank you for writing to the Honourable Arif Virani, 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 Arif Virani, 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.

Moore, Rob - M.P. <Rob.Moore@parl.gc.ca>	Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 8:18 AM
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>

*This is an automated response* Thank you for contacting the Honourable Rob Moore, P.C., M.P. office. We appreciate the time you took to get in touch with our office. If you did not already, please ensure to include your full contact details on your email and the appropriate staff will be able to action your request. We strive to ensure all constituent correspondence is responded to in a timely manner. If your question or concern is time sensitive, please call our office: 506-832-4200. Again, we thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns. ~~~~~~~*~ Office of the Honourable Rob Moore, P.C., M.P. Member of Parliament for Fundy Royal rob.moore@parl.gc.ca

David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>	Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 8:18 AM
To: czayid@mccarthy.ca, rmckechney@mccarthy.ca, phenein@hhllp.ca, mgourlay@hhllp.ca, ekrajewska@hhllp.ca, rphillips@theccf.ca, george.avraam@bakermckenzie.com, ahmed.shafey@bakermckenzie.com, Ajanthana.Anandarajah@bakermckenzie.com, john@mcintyrehealthlaw.com, gko@kastnerlam.com, jonah@healthlawfirm.ca, media@ccla.org, neffendi@blg.com, tmarkin@blg.com, emclachlan@blg.com, pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>, "Katie.Telford" <Katie.Telford@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>, "pierre.poilievre" <pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca>, "jagmeet.singh" <jagmeet.singh@parl.gc.ca>, "John.Williamson" <John.Williamson@parl.gc.ca>, "rob.moore" <rob.moore@parl.gc.ca>, "Jenica.Atwin" <Jenica.Atwin@parl.gc.ca>, mcu <mcu@justice.gc.ca>
Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>, "blaine.higgs" <blaine.higgs@gnb.ca>, premier <premier@ontario.ca>, PREMIER <PREMIER@gov.ns.ca>, "Pineo, Robert" <rpineo@pattersonlaw.ca>, JUSTMIN <JUSTMIN@novascotia.ca>, premier <premier@gov.ab.ca>, Office of the Premier <scott.moe@gov.sk.ca>, premier <premier@gov.nl.ca>, premier <premier@gov.pe.ca>, paulpalango <paulpalango@protonmail.com>, premier <premier@leg.gov.mb.ca>, premier <premier@gov.nt.ca>, premier <premier@gov.yk.ca>, "kris.austin" <kris.austin@gnb.ca>, "Mark.Blakely" <Mark.Blakely@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Marco.Mendicino" <Marco.Mendicino@parl.gc.ca>, "Michael.Duheme" <Michael.Duheme@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "martin.gaudet" <martin.gaudet@fredericton.ca>


https://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.com/2023/08/ccf-intervenor-status-in-dr-jordan.html Tuesday, 22 August 2023 RE theCCF intervenor status and Dr. Jordan Peterson's freedom to express the fact that Gerald Butts is a prick just like Howie Anglin Claim of political motivation The complaints about him, he said, are being brought forward by the political left, and the college's motivations to go after him are clearly political and one-sided. The college has failed to demonstrate any harms to the targets of his tweets, he said. Asked whether the college has any role in policing speech, even speech that may, for example, clearly be racist, Peterson said, "If you grant a board the right to bully speech outside of the narrow purview of professional interactions with clients, then you open the door to ideological capture of the colleges. "Which of those is a bigger danger? It is not obvious." The College of Psychologists of Ontario expressed concern about a number of Jordan Peterson's tweets, including one in which he called Gerald Butts, the former principal secretary of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, a 'prik' (sic). (Canadian Press) https://www.canadaland.com/before-trudeau-gerald-butts-abandoned-tar-sands-action-as-head-of-world-wildlife-fund/ Before Trudeau, Gerald Butts Abandoned Tar Sands Action As Head Of WWF The episode was an uncanny harbinger of how the Liberals would act in power September 5, 2019 Article By Martin Lukacs When veteran climate analyst Keith Stewart arrived at his office at the Toronto headquarters of the World Wildlife Fund Canada in the spring of 2010, he was in for a shock. Turning on his computer, he realized that the campaign he had been directing and working on for years — raising the alarm about the unsustainable exploitation of Alberta’s tar sands — had disappeared from the organization’s website. Stewart hadn’t received any warning, and would not be offered an explanation. Later, he would learn that a decision to shut down the campaign and wipe the website had come from the top of WWF-Canada. The organization’s leadership was abandoning its advocacy on an issue that, thanks in part to their efforts, was finally capturing global attention. When the decision was made, the organization’s president was none other than Gerald Butts, Justin Trudeau’s close friend and primary advisor, who a few years later would become one of the most powerful officials in Canada’s Liberal government. In his role at WWF-Canada, Butts initially embraced bold climate policies. But before long, he would appear to succumb to limits on action prescribed behind closed doors by corporate power-brokers. It was a striking omen of how he and Trudeau would eventually run the Liberal government — and an instructive parable for those seeking to understand Trudeau’s shift from ostensible climate champion to pipeline-nationalizing oil booster. When Butts arrived at WWF-Canada in 2008 as its new president and CEO, the first campaigns to slow down the breakneck expansion of the tar sands had just been launched by nearby Indigenous communities, who were suffering from downstream pollution. International media had begun taking notice, publishing reports of hundreds of ducks mired in a Suncor tailings pond. WWF-Canada was ahead of the curve of most organizations. Stewart, who holds a PhD in environmental policy and teaches at the University of Toronto, oversaw their climate campaigning. They sponsored a tour by journalist and fierce tar sands critic Andrew Nikiforuk. Their website featured commentary from the world’s top climate scientist, James Hansen, who has warned that fully exploiting the Alberta tar sands would spell “game over” for a livable climate. Butts and Trudeau flew to northern British Columbia with funders to visit the Great Bear Rainforest, which would soon be threatened by Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline. In an op-ed in the Toronto Star, Butts didn’t mince words: “From hewers of wood and drawers of water to makers of moonscapes and creators of toxic tailing ponds: what a face for Canada to show the world.” And in 2009, he would sign a joint public statement from several environmental groups calling for the government to “declare a moratorium on expansion of tar sands development and halt further approval of infrastructure that would lock us into using dirty liquid fuels.” Just before Butts joined the organization, WWF-Canada had also opened an office just outside Edmonton and launched another campaign to try to curb the staggering amount of water that tar sands companies were drawing from the Athabasca River. That campaign was led by Rob Powell, a mild-mannered scientist who had previously worked at an industry-friendly regulatory agency of the Alberta government. “What we were looking for from tar sands companies was mild steps toward sustainability,” he told me over the phone in the spring of 2018. “We wanted to ensure that the water outtakes would not drive the Athabasca River below a level of flow that would be catastrophic. Below that, everything falls apart, killing the fish, leaving enormous ecological destruction.” Though Butts inherited this campaign, Powell says he was enthusiastic about it and had a hunch that the issue would rise in profile. Butts delegated several people to work on it. While some companies resisted the campaign, others eventually agreed to make changes. The province’s water management improved, and WWF-Canada’s scientific modelling of water flows was heralded as an example for elsewhere in the country. The Toronto head office was delighted, Powell says. He began preparing another campaign, this time to challenge an outlandish exercise in green-washing by tar sands companies. To fulfill their obligation to remediate destroyed land, the industry was proposing to pipe toxic sludge from tailings ponds into giant mining craters, pour fresh water over them, and claim they would become thriving “end-pit lakes.” “It might look like a lake, but it wouldn’t act like one,” Powell says. “It was a horrendous excuse for reclamation.” But as the notoriety of Alberta’s tar sands grew thanks to public education and campaigns, the mood shifted in some parts of the WWF-Canada headquarters. “It seemed like powerful people were not thrilled that we were working on this,” Powell says. Stewart remembers that staff began hearing from the fundraising department that their tar sands campaigns were hurting donations. “Corporate funders started freaking out,” Stewart recalls. “They’d tell us, ‘I don’t understand what you’re doing. Can we figure this out?’ Big donors weren’t saying straight-out that they were opposed to our work. It was more like, ‘I thought we had a partnership here.’” After all, WWF-Canada had a long history of friendly collaborations with corporations. Those now pushing more aggressive advocacy were beginning to jeopardize a safe brand. “I felt at the time (and still do) that the campaign was divisive in Canada” Stewart says he heard that some members of the board of directors grew increasingly anxious. The board was populated by CEOs, corporate lawyers, and bankers, as well as future Liberal cabinet minister Seamus O’Regan. It also included Blake Goldring, a member of the Business Council of Canada, who had previously donated $500,000 to WWF-Canada. He was the CEO of investment firm AGF Management, which advised an Oil Sands Sector Fund worth hundreds of millions of dollars. He would not rejoin the board in 2010, for reasons unknown. (He did not respond to questions about this.) All that remained was for Gerald Butts to exercise his widely-praised skills in reading the tea leaves. Powell says support for his work from his direct superiors at WWF-Canada suddenly vanished. Every new campaign idea was rejected. “It was rather strange, when you have put a lot of effort in, and you have something to show for it,” he says. “Wiping it from the map seemed a very odd choice.” At the same time, in the spring of 2010, Stewart came into the office to discover that all signs of the tar sands campaign had vanished from the WWF-Canada website. Some staff demanded answers. One never came from Butts, Stewart says, but a director quietly told him: “We’re not doing that anymore. Priorities have shifted. The focus will now be on corporate engagement.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QGpVhAQ9YA&ab_channel=TorontoSun

LILLEY UNLEASHED: Dr.Jordan Peterson in a fighting mood after court ruling

Toronto Sun

109K subscribers

336,687 views Aug 23, 2023 In an exclusive interview, Dr. Jordan Peterson describes the Ontario court ruling against him as shocking, disappointing, and politically motivated. Peterson explains his position on Freedom of Speech to the Toronto Sun’s, Brian Lilley, and pledges to continue his fight and appeal the ruling.

4,991 Comments

@davidamos7114

The Feds pulled Rule 55 on me after I beat them fair and square

@davidamos7114

55 In special circumstances, in a proceeding, the Court may vary a rule or dispense with compliance with a rule. SOR/2004-283, s. 11

>>>>

>>>> ---------- Original message ----------

>>>> From: "McGrath, Stephen T" <Stephen.McGrath@novascotia.ca>

>>>> Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2018 12:40:22 +0000
>>>> Subject: Automatic reply: Does anyone recall the email entitled "So
>>>> Stephen McGrath if not you then just exactly who sent me this latest
>>>> email from your office?"
>>>> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your message, however I am no longer at the Department of
>>>> Justice, and this email account is not being monitored.
>>>>
>>>> Please contact Kim Fleming at Kim.Fleming@novascotia.ca (phone
>>>> 902-424-4023), or Vicky Zinck at Victoria.Zinck@novascotia.ca (phone
>>>> 902-424-4390). Kim and Vicky will be able to redirect you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Original message ----------
>>>> From: Justice Website <JUSTWEB@novascotia.ca>
>>>> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:21:11 +0000
>>>> Subject: Emails to Department of Justice and Province of Nova Scotia
>>>> To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com" <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> Mr. Amos,
>>>> We acknowledge receipt of your recent emails to the Deputy Minister of
>>>> Justice and lawyers within the Legal Services Division of the
>>>> Department of Justice respecting a possible claim against the Province
>>>> of Nova Scotia. Service of any documents respecting a legal claim
>>>> against the Province of Nova Scotia may be served on the Attorney
>>>> General at 1690 Hollis Street, Halifax, NS. Please note that we will
>>>> not be responding to further emails on this matter.
>>>>
>>>> Department of Justice
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Original message ----------
>>>> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
>>>> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 15:16:38 -0400
>>>> Subject: Attn Laura Lee Langley, Karen Hudson and Joanne Munro I just
>>>> called all three of your offices to inform you of my next lawsuit
>>>> against Nova Scotia
>>>> To: LauraLee.Langley@novascotia.ca, Karen.Hudson@novascotia.ca,
>>>> Joanne.Munro@novascotia.ca
>>>> Cc: David Amos david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>>>>
>>>> https://novascotia.ca/exec_council/NSDeputies.html
>>>>
>>>> https://novascotia.ca/exec_council/LLLangley-bio.html
>>>>
>>>> Laura Lee Langley
>>>> 1700 Granville Street, 5th Floor
>>>> One Government Place
>>>> Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 1X5
>>>> Phone: (902) 424-8940
>>>> Fax: (902) 424-0667
>>>> Email: LauraLee.Langley@novascotia.ca
>>>>
>>>> https://novascotia.ca/just/deputy.asp
>>>>
>>>> Karen Hudson Q.C.
>>>> 1690 Hollis Street, 7th Floor
>>>> Joseph Howe Building
>>>> Halifax, NS B3J 3J9
>>>> Phone: (902) 424-4223
>>>> Fax: (902) 424-0510
>>>> Email: Karen.Hudson@novascotia.ca
>>>>
>>>> https://novascotia.ca/sns/ceo.asp
>>>>
>>>> Joanne Munro:
>>>> 1505 Barrington Street, 14-South
>>>> Maritime Centre
>>>> Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 3K5
>>>> Phone: (902) 424-4089
>>>> Fax: (902) 424-5510
>>>> Email: Joanne.Munro@novascotia.ca
>>>>
>>>> If you don't wish to speak to me before I begin litigation then I
>>>> suspect the Integrity Commissioner New Brunswick or the Federal Crown
>>>> Counsel can explain the email below and the documents hereto attached
>>>> to you and your Premier etc.
>>>>
>>>> Veritas Vincit
>>>> David Raymond Amos
>>>> 902 800 0369
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------- 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
>>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Vertias Vincit
>>>> David Raymond Amos
>>>> 902 800 0369
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.archive.org/details/PoliceSurveilanceWiretapTape139
>>>>
>>>> http://www.archive.org/details/FedsUsTreasuryDeptRcmpEtc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCMeKQCYG58&ab_channel=CanadianConstitutionFoundation

Decision in Dr Jordan Peterson Freedom of Expression case

Canadian Constitution Foundation

59.4K subscribers

28,456 views Streamed live 7 hours ago Learn more here: https://theccf.ca/ccf-reaction-to-res...

1,255 Comments

@davidamos7114

Surprise Surprise Surprise

https://theccf.ca/ccf-reaction-to-result-in-jordan-peterson-case/

CCF reaction to result in Jordan Peterson freedom of expression case

Post author:The CCF
Post published:August 23, 2023
Post category:Press Releases

TORONTO: The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) is disappointed in the result in the judicial review of a case between public intellectual Dr Jordan Peterson and the College of Psychologists of Ontario. The dispute is over professional penalties, in the form of mandatory training, imposed on Dr Peterson by the College. This order for training was a result of public statements Dr Peterson had made on social media. The comments did not relate to the practice of psychology. The complaints were made by members of the public, not by any individuals who Dr Peterson had ever treated as a patient.

The CCF was an intervener in the judicial review, arguing that professionals have private lives and regulators may not discipline for off-duty conduct that lacks a clear nexus to the profession. Where off-duty conduct engages a Charter right, like freedom of expression, regulators have a heightened duty to ensure they have given full effect to the Charter protection.

“We are disappointed in this result, which we think could have a chilling effect on people in other regulated professions, like doctors, lawyers, teachers and accountants,” said CCF Litigation Director Christine Van Geyn. “Professionals should not have to soft pedal their speech for fear that activists will weaponize regulatory bodies so that unpopular speech is penalized, even when there is no connection between that speech and the profession.”

The Divisional Court did not accept Dr Peterson’s argument that his comments were “off duty” and outside his role as a psychologist. Writing for the court, Justice Schabas found that Dr Peterson “cannot speak as a member of a regulated profession without taking responsibility for the risk of harm that flows from him speaking in that trusted capacity.”

“We hope that Dr Peterson will appeal this result, which will have long lasting impacts beyond his case. The right to freedom of expression must be given more weight than the court gave it here, and the mere assertion of risk of harm is not enough. While controversial and inflammatory, there is no suggestion that any of the people Dr Peterson made comments about were harmed in any way, and indeed, they were not the source of the complaints. Complaints were made by members of the public who simply did not like what Dr Peterson said, or worse, how he said it. This is not a sufficient basis for action by the regulator when weighed against Dr Peterson’s constitutional right to freedom of expression,” said Van Geyn.

The CCF is represented in this case by George Avraam, Ahmed Shafey and Juliette Mestre of Baker McKenzie LLP. The CCF is grateful for their hard work and diligence on this case. If Dr Peterson appeals, the CCF will seek leave to intervene.

Members of the public interested in supporting the work of the CCF can make a tax deductible charitable donation at theCCF.ca/donate/

Image by Gage Skidmore and used under CC 2.0.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/jordan-peterson-college-psychologists-tweets-1.6711524

Jordan Peterson is being disciplined for his tweets. Why some say that raises free speech issues

College of Psychologists of Ontario launched investigation after complaints about Peterson's tweets

Mark Gollom · CBC News · Posted: Jan 13, 2023 10:19 AM AST

Controversial psychologist Jordan Peterson ordered to undergo media training over tweets

2:08

The College of Psychologists of Ontario has ordered controversial psychologist Jordan Peterson — who has espoused questionable views on women, masculinity and gender identity — to undergo media training over tweets allegedly degrading the profession.

WARNING: This story contains details some readers may find distressing.

Jordan Peterson says he has no intention of giving up his fight with Ontario's psychologist regulatory body, accusing the college of attempting to stymie his speech and discipline him for his political opinions.

The College of Psychologists of Ontario has ordered Peterson — who has gained international fame for his bestselling self-help books and lectures — to undergo a media training program, saying some of his tweets may be "degrading" the profession and even raise questions about his abilities as a psychologist.

Peterson, a professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Toronto, has sparked controversy over his views on women, masculinity and gender identity, namely refusing to use people's preferred pronouns.

Peterson has refused the regulatory body's demand, arguing that the tweets cited by the college have nothing to do with the profession of psychology.

CBC Investigates
Jordan Peterson seeks 'emergency' drug detox treatment in Russia

Cambridge University withdraws fellowship it offered to Jordan Peterson

The case has also raised broader issues about freedom of expression and whether the college is overstepping its authority by penalizing the controversial psychologist for his opinions.

"I can either stop or give up or accede to the demands or continue the fight. And I'm not stopping," Peterson said in a phone interview with CBC News.

Peterson's battle with the college has won him allies among freedom of expression advocates, and drawn support from public figures like Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre and Tesla and Twitter boss Elon Musk.

James Turk, director of the Centre for Free Expression at Toronto Metropolitan University, said while he opposes many of Peterson's views, he's "deeply troubled" by the actions of the college.

"There's no reason whatsoever for the College of Psychologists to try to stop him from expressing those views."

"It's really worrisome … in a democratic society when a professional body feels it has a right to censor political speech of all of the members over whom it has regulatory authority."

Peterson said his battle with the college isn't just about him, but the idea that a regulatory body, backed by government power, can try and silence someone by "threatening their livelihood."

Tweets result in disciplinary action

Peterson said he no longer treats patients and his career is instead focused on social and political commentary.

Some of those views have resulted in disciplinary action against him by the regulatory college, which has ordered him to take a remedial media training course. Peterson has refused and has filed a judicial review and a "notice of constitutional question" regarding the constitutional validity of some bylaws of the college with the Ontario Superior Court.

He denies that he has brought disrepute to the profession, arguing the opposite is true.

"I think I've done demonstrably more than any psychologist has ever produced to increase the prestige and trust of the practice of psychology around the world," Peterson said.

In an email to CBC News, the college said it was not authorized to discuss Peterson's case due to confidentiality issues.

But the college panel that investigated Peterson has ordered him to complete a "specified continuing education or remedial program" to address issues regarding professionalism in public statements.

He must also pay for the program or face an allegation of professional misconduct, which could lead to the suspension of his licence to practise psychology.

Peterson gave up his clinical practice when he gained a global profile, but he said he doesn't want to give up his clinical licence.

"I deserve it. I earned it. I haven't done anything to justify suspending it, and I don't want to give the hyenas their bones."

Complaints to college

Last year, the college launched an investigation into Peterson after receiving public complaints about statements he had made on Twitter.

The complaints centred on tweets Peterson had made about public health restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic and his appearance on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast. The panel followed up on the concerns, examined other tweets Peterson had made and noted particular concern with a series of statements that included:

Referring to Catherine McKenney, an Ottawa city councillor, who prefers to use they/them pronouns, as an "appalling self-righteous moralizing thing."
A tweet in which he used the dead name of actor Elliot Page, stating: "Remember when pride was a sin. And Ellen Page just had her breasts removed by a criminal physician."
A tweet in which he referred to Gerald Butts, the former principal secretary of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, as a "prik" (sic).
His tweet in response to a Sports Illustrated swimsuit cover of a plus-sized model, in which he said: "Sorry. Not Beautiful. And no amount of authoritarian tolerance is going to change that."

Peterson was temporarily suspended from Twitter for his tweet about Page. His account was reinstated by Elon Musk shortly after he purchased the social media platform in 2022.

After its review, the panel concluded that Peterson's conduct "poses moderate risks to the public," which includes the potential of "undermining public trust in the profession of psychology, and trust in the college's ability to regulate the profession in the public interest."

The panel said it recognizes Peterson has a constitutional right to freedom of expression, but as a member of the college it said Peterson is obligated to maintain its professional standards.

Peterson's comments, the panel also concluded, "raise questions about Dr. Peterson's ability to carry out his responsibilities as a psychologist."

The college said his comments about Page and McKenney, for example, reveal that Peterson "may be engaging in degrading, demeaning and unprofessional comments."

Peterson, however, said his tweets on subjects like gender dysphoria are based on his informed knowledge and are, in fact, "professional of the highest order."

Claim of political motivation

The complaints about him, he said, are being brought forward by the political left, and the college's motivations to go after him are clearly political and one-sided.

The college has failed to demonstrate any harms to the targets of his tweets, he said.

"Which of those is a bigger danger? It is not obvious."

Peterson's court application for a judicial review argues that the college's disciplinary measures were "unreasonable and unduly infringes upon [his] free expression in contravention of his Charter rights." Peterson's public statements do not relate to the practice of psychology, were political in nature and "fall within the core of protected speech."

Another freedom of expression expert says the case raises questions about the reach of public regulatory bodies.

Richard Moon, a University of Windsor law professor, said the college's actions raise some "difficult questions" about the scope of authority of a professional body to oversee the speech of an individual member of the profession.

"When it's outside the scope of that immediate professional relationship, what kind of limits are acceptable or justified to ensure that somebody behaves in a professional way and doesn't bring the profession into disrepute in some way?

"And so there's a lot of room for debate and disagreement."

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Mark Gollom

Senior Reporter

Mark Gollom is a Toronto-based reporter with CBC News. He covers Canadian and U.S. politics and current affairs.

CBC's Journalistic Standards and Practices|About CBC News

RE theCCF intervenor status and Dr. Jordan Peterson's freedom to express the fact that Gerald Butts is a prick just like Howie Anglin

Moore, Rob - M.P. <Rob.Moore@parl.gc.ca>	Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 12:43 PM
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>

*This is an automated response* Thank you for contacting the Honourable Rob Moore, P.C., M.P. office. We appreciate the time you took to get in touch with our office. If you did not already, please ensure to include your full contact details on your email and the appropriate staff will be able to action your request. We strive to ensure all constituent correspondence is responded to in a timely manner. If your question or concern is time sensitive, please call our office: 506-832-4200. Again, we thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns. ~~~~~~~*~ Office of the Honourable Rob Moore, P.C., M.P. Member of Parliament for Fundy Royal rob.moore@parl.gc.ca

Ministerial Correspondence Unit - Justice Canada <mcu@justice.gc.ca>	Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 12:12 PM
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>

Thank you for writing to the Honourable Arif Virani, 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 Arif Virani, 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.

David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>	Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 12:40 PM
To: rphillips@theccf.ca, pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>, "Katie.Telford" <Katie.Telford@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>, "pierre.poilievre" <pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca>, "jagmeet.singh" <jagmeet.singh@parl.gc.ca>, "John.Williamson" <John.Williamson@parl.gc.ca>, "rob.moore" <rob.moore@parl.gc.ca>, "Jenica.Atwin" <Jenica.Atwin@parl.gc.ca>, mcu <mcu@justice.gc.ca>
Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>


https://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.com/2023/08/ccf-intervenor-status-in-dr-jordan.html Tuesday, 22 August 2023 RE theCCF intervenor status and Dr. Jordan Peterson's freedom to express the fact that Gerald Butts is a prick just like Howie Anglin

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/jordan-peterson-court-case-decision-1.6943845

Ontario court rules against Jordan Peterson, upholds social media training order

Divisional court released its decision Wednesday

The Canadian Press · Posted: Aug 23, 2023 6:00 AM ADT

Jordan Peterson holds his arm up as if posing a question while making a speech in Sherwood Park, Alta., in 2018.

Jordan Peterson, who has gained international fame for his bestselling self-help books and lectures, has refused to pay to undergo a media training course ordered by the College of Psychologists of Ontario. (Jason Franson/The Canadian Press)

An Ontario court ruled against psychologist and media personality Jordan Peterson Wednesday, and upheld a regulatory body's order that he take social media training in the wake of complaints about his controversial online posts and statements.

Last November, Peterson, a professor emeritus with the University of Toronto psychology department who is also an author and media commentator, was ordered by the College of Psychologists of Ontario to undergo a coaching program on professionalism in public statements.

That followed numerous complaints to the governing body of Ontario psychologists, of which Peterson is a member, regarding his online commentary directed at politicians, a plus-sized model, and transgender actor Elliot Page, among other issues. You can read more about those social media posts here.

The college's complaints committee concluded his controversial public statements could amount to professional misconduct and ordered Peterson to pay for a media coaching program — noting failure to comply could mean the loss of his licence to practice psychology in the province.

Peterson filed for a judicial review, arguing his political commentary is not under the college's purview.

Peterson says he stands behind statements

Three Ontario Divisional Court judges unanimously dismissed Peterson's application, ruling that the college's decision falls within its mandate to regulate the profession in the public interest and does not affect his freedom of expression.

"The order is not disciplinary and does not prevent Dr. Peterson from expressing himself on controversial topics; it has a minimal impact on his right to freedom of expression," the decision written by Justice Paul Schabas reads, in part. You can read the entire decision at the bottom of this story.

Peterson had said his statements were not made in his capacity as a clinical psychologist, but instead were "off-duty opinions" — an argument the court rejected.

"Dr. Peterson sees himself functioning as a clinical psychologist 'in the broad public space' where he claims to be helping 'millions of people,"' Schabas wrote.

"Peterson cannot have it both ways: he cannot speak as a member of a regulated profession without taking responsibility for the risk of harm that flows from him speaking in that trusted capacity."

Jordan Peterson is being disciplined for his tweets. Why some say that raises free speech issues

In a post on X, formerly known as Twitter, before the decision was released, Peterson said that he stands by what he has said, and wished the college luck in its "continued prosecution.

"They're going to need it," he wrote.

Peterson told CBC News in January that he had no intention of giving up his fight with the regulatory body, accusing the college of attempting to stymie his speech and discipline him for his political opinions.

Controversial figure wants to retain licence

He added he no longer treats patients and his career is instead focused on social and political commentary. Similarly, he doesn't regularly lecture at U of T.

However, Peterson has said he wants to retain his licence.

"I deserve it. I earned it. I haven't done anything to justify suspending it, and I don't want to give the hyenas their bones," he said earlier this year.

The college, in a statement released after the decision was issued, said it is committed to carrying out its mandate of protecting the public interest by regulating the practice of psychology.

"The College will review today's decision and undertake next steps in accordance with our mandate and any appropriate legal processes," the statement reads.

Peterson speaks to a crowd in 2018. Peterson, seen here speaking to a crowd in Sherwood Park, Alta., in 2018, has said he wants to retain his licence, though his career is now largely focused on social and political commentary. (Jason Franson/The Canadian Press)

Peterson's case was watched closely by free speech advocates and regulators in other professions. It featured interveners including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, and LGBTQ+ advocacy group Egale Canada, which said in a statement from Executive Director Helen Kennedy that communities her organization represents often face discrimination and barriers when accessing healthcare.

"Today's ruling that as a professional regulatory body, the College of Psychologists of Ontario has the mandate to regulate degrading and demeaning speech by its members, is a step in the right direction in ensuring that 2SLGBTQI individuals can access healthcare safely and without discrimination," Kennedy wrote.

Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) Executive Director Noa Mendelsoh Aviv, meanwhile, said in a statement that the CCLA doesn't endorse Peterson's views, but still argued in court that professional regulatory bodies shouldn't be policing speech that is not directly connected to professional practice.

"Freedom of expression is a right that no individual gives up just because they join a regulated profession," she said.

Peterson rose to prominence through his polarizing YouTube videos critiquing liberal culture and his successful self-help book, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos.

Here's the Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision:

Mobile users: View the document
(PDF KB)
(Text KB)CBC is not responsible for 3rd party content

With files from CBC News

CBC's Journalistic Standards and Practices

Peterson v. College of Psychologists of Ontario

CITATION: Peterson v. College of Psychologists of Ontario, 2023 ONSC 4685

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 714/22

DATE: 20230823

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT

Backhouse, Schabas and Krawchenko JJ.

BETWEEN:

)

JORDAN PETERSON

Applicant

– and –

COLLEGE OF PSYCHOLOGISTS OF ONTARIO

Respondent

)

Peter J. Henein, Matthew R. Gourlay, Ewa Krajewska, Brandon Chung, for the Applicant

Caroline Zayid, Robin McKechney, Eric Freeman, Sarah O’Neill, for the Respondent

)

John McIntyre, Gregory Ko, for Egale Canada and JusticeTrans, Intervener

Nadia Effendi, Teagan Markin, for Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Intervener

George Avraam, Ahmad Shafey, Juliet Mestre, for Canadian Constitution Foundation, Intervener

Jonah Arnold, for Association of Aggrieved Regulated Professionals of Ontario, Intervener

Carolyn Silver, Amy Block, for College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, Intervener

)

HEARD at Toronto: June 21, 2023

REASONS FOR DECISION

SCHABAS J.:

Overview

When individuals join a regulated profession, they do not lose their Charter right to freedom of expression. At the same time, however, they take on obligations and must abide by the rules of their regulatory body that may limit their freedom of expression. This case raises the clash between a regulated clinical psychologist’s right to speak in a certain manner and the regulator’s power to require the member to moderate that speech.
The Applicant, Dr. Jordan Peterson, seeks judicial review of a Decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (“ICRC”) of the College of Psychologists of Ontario (the “College”), dated November 22, 2022 (the “Decision”). This Decision ordered Dr. Peterson, as a registered member of the College authorized to practice clinical psychology, to complete a specified continuing education or remedial program (a “SCERP”) regarding professionalism in public statements.
The ICRC’s order followed an investigation into language used by Dr. Peterson in public statements earlier in 2022. In its Decision, the ICRC expressed its concern that Dr. Peterson’s comments may be “degrading, demeaning and unprofessional.” The ICRC concluded that some of the language used in Dr. Peterson’s public statements “may be reasonably regarded by members of the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable and/or unprofessional” and posed “moderate risks of harm to the public.” The risks of harm identified by the ICRC included “undermining public trust in the profession of psychology” and “may also raise questions about Dr. Peterson’s ability to appropriately carry out his responsibilities as a registered psychologist.”
Although Dr. Peterson, in responding to the ICRC’s concerns, said that he was taking his own steps to address his public statements, the ICRC Decision requires Dr. Peterson to participate in a “coaching program” directed by the College to “reflect on, and ameliorate [his] professionalism in public statements.” Dr. Peterson was advised that failure to complete this program, at his own expense and to the coach’s satisfaction, may result in an allegation of professional misconduct and the commencement of disciplinary proceedings by the College.
I have concluded that the application should be dismissed. In my view, the Decision of the ICRC adequately and reasonably considered Dr. Peterson’s statements in the context of the College’s statutory mandate to regulate the profession in the public interest. It considered and proportionately balanced the impact of imposing a SCERP on Dr. Peterson’s right to freedom of expression protected by s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”). The order is not disciplinary and does not prevent Dr. Peterson from expressing himself on controversial topics; it has a minimal impact on his right to freedom of expression and meets the requirements of the Supreme Court’s framework for balancing the competing considerations set out in Doré v. Barreau du Québec, 2012 SCC 12, [2012] 1 SCR 395 (“Doré“). Further, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, [2019] 4 SCR 653 (“Vavilov”), the Decision is transparent, logical, and provides a coherent chain of reasoning and is reasonable based on the facts which were before the ICRC.

Background and context
Peterson has been registered with the College as a clinical psychologist since 1999. However, he stopped seeing patients in 2017 and no longer has a clinical practice. Rather, as his counsel described him in their written submissions, “he is a prolific author, podcaster, and YouTube content producer who maintains an active social media presence. In his social and political commentary, Dr. Peterson is often colourful and controversial.” Nevertheless, Dr. Peterson maintains his membership in the College and refers to himself in his public statements as a clinical psychologist.
Since at least 2018, the College has received complaints about Dr. Peterson’s public statements. Some complaints have been formal, but many were “tweeted” to the College via the social media platform Twitter, and often involved Dr. Peterson’s views on topics of social and political interest, including transgender questions, racism, overpopulation, and the response to COVID-19, among others.
In March 2020, following an investigation of statements made by Dr. Peterson which were alleged to be “transphobic, sexist, racist and [which] were not in keeping with any clinical understanding of mental health”, the ICRC did not make any order regarding him. However, at that time the ICRC expressed concern that “the manner and tone in which Dr. Peterson espouses his public statements may reflect poorly on the profession of psychology.” The ICRC noted the “importance for a psychologist to conduct themself in a respectful manner”, whether Dr. Peterson identifies himself as a psychologist or not. The ICRC reminded Dr. Peterson of his “responsibility to be cognizant of how his provocative language and tone might impact the public’s perception toward the profession of psychology, and that his public utterances may have negative consequences for those struggling with issues directly or tangentially related to his comments.” The ICRC concluded with the following advice:As a registered Member of the College, and in light of your public profile, you may wish to offer your opinions and comments in a respectful tone in order to avoid a negative perception toward the profession of psychology.
Between January and June 2022, the College received numerous reports about Dr. Peterson’s conduct on social media and in his public appearances. The reports again raised concerns about Dr. Peterson’s professionalism, including whether his tweets complied with the College’s Standards of Professional Conduct. The tweets and statements included the following:
1. A tweet on January 2, 2022, in which Dr. Peterson responded to an individual who expressed concern about overpopulation by stating: “You’re free to leave at any point.”
2. Various comments Dr. Peterson made on a January 25, 2022, appearance on the podcast, “The Joe Rogan Experience”. Dr. Peterson is identified as a clinical psychologist and spoke about a “vindictive” client whose complaint about him was a “pack of lies.” Speaking about air pollution and child deaths, Dr. Peterson said: “it’s just poor children, and the world has too many people on it anyways.”
3. A tweet on February 7, 2022, in which Dr. Peterson referred to Gerald Butts as a “prik”.
4. A tweet on February 19, 2022, in which Dr. Peterson commented that Catherine McKenney, an Ottawa City Councillor who uses they/them pronouns, was an “appalling self-righteous moralizing thing”.
5. In response to a tweet about actor Elliot Page being “proud” to introduce a trans character on a TV show, Dr. Peterson tweeted on June 22, 2022: “Remember when pride was a sin? And Ellen Page just had her breasts removed by a criminal physician.”
6. A further complaint about Dr. Peterson’s January 2, 2022 tweet, in which Dr. Peterson responded to an individual who expressed concern about overpopulation by stating: “You’re free to leave at any point.” The further complaint provided a link to a 2018 GQ interview in which Dr. Peterson made a similar comment about suicide.
7. Peterson’s tweet posted in May 2022, in which he commented on a Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition cover with a plus-sized model, tweeting: “Sorry. Not Beautiful. And no amount of authoritarian tolerance is going to change that.”
Peterson identified himself on Twitter as a “clinical psychologist” in 2022. This appears to be a change from 2020 when, although a member of the College, he stated that he “opted not to advertise this title on his Twitter.”
On March 8, 2022, the Registrar of the College requested the appointment of an investigator. A report of the investigation was completed and provided to a panel of the ICRC (the “Panel”) on May 17, 2022. The report was then provided to Dr. Peterson who responded to it on June 21, 2022.
In July 2022, the College was made aware that Dr. Peterson’s Twitter account had been suspended as a result of the Elliot Page comments which had been flagged for violating Twitter’s rules against hateful conduct. Dr. Peterson provided a further response to the College on July 20, 2022.
On July 27, 2022, the Panel released decisions recommending no further action be taken regarding Dr. Peterson’s tweet in which it was alleged he encouraged people to commit suicide (“you’re free to leave at any point”), finding that, while “provocative and inflammatory” it “could be interpreted as innuendo, a joke, or parody”, and did not “rise to the level of disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct.” Additionally, a tweet critical of the involvement of the Children’s Aid Society in removing children from the Ottawa trucker protest was also found to require no further action.
However, on August 4, 2022, College staff wrote to Dr. Peterson on behalf of the same Panel of the ICRC about the remaining statements. The letter reviewed the statements, Dr. Peterson’s self-identification as a clinical psychologist on his Twitter page and on the Joe Rogan podcast, and raised concerns that the statements may be demeaning, degrading and unprofessional. It referred to and quoted from several provisions in the College’s Code of Ethics. The letter observed that the Panel recognized Dr. Peterson’s “right to freedom of expression” but expressed concern about the significant “impact risks” in this case given that “public statements that are demeaning, degrading, and unprofessional may cause harm, both to the people they are directed at, and to the impacted and other communities more broadly.”
The Panel noted the advice provided in 2020 in concluding that the “recurrence risk” of Dr. Peterson using unprofessional language in the future was moderate. The Panel proposed that Dr. Peterson undertake “to reflect on these issues with a period of coaching” with a person selected by it as a remedial step.
On September 6, 2022, Dr. Peterson rejected the ICRC’s proposal. In a lengthy letter to the College, Dr. Peterson acknowledged that the various social media platforms he utilises “requires careful attention and care to be used appropriately” and that he had “already implemented a solution” to respond to the College’s concerns, which included “modification of the tone of my approach.” Dr. Peterson stated that he had “surrounded” himself with people to help him monitor his public communications and to provide him with “continual feedback as to the appropriateness of the tone and content of what I am purveying.” These people included, Dr. Peterson said, his “expert editorial teams at Penguin Random House” which publishes his books, members of his immediate family “who work professionally with me” and “a very wide network of expert thinkers from the world of theology, psychology, politics and business.” He concluded:I would say, then, in my defense, that I have already undertaken the remediation of my actions in a manner very much akin to what has been suggested by the ICRC and have done so in an exceptionally thorough and equally exceptionally public and transparent manner, and would like to therefore submit to the ICRC that I have already and plan to continue to atone for what are no doubt my multiplicity of sins in relation to my interaction with the public audience I have the privilege to serve.
Peterson also addressed the concern that he identifies himself as a clinical psychologist, stating:While the notoriety and complexity that has surrounded me since 2016 has made it impossible for me to retain my clinical practice at the standards of practice I regard as crucial, I remain a clinical psychologist (and, indeed, a professor emeritus at the University of Toronto), and am functioning in the broad public space as both (and appear by their own testimony and actions to be helping millions of people). Given that I am still licensed, and still practicing in that more diffuse and broader manner, I think it is appropriate for me to identify myself as a psychologist.
On September 13, 2022, College staff responded on behalf of the ICRC. The Panel considered Dr. Peterson’s position that he was able to remediate his conduct through use of his own advisors. These advisors, the Panel stated, were not independent and their review of his communications would not be “from the point of view of the protection of the public interest, nor does it appear to offer any accountability or oversight to the College.” As the letter continued, “[n]one of the ‘experts’ you employ appear to be reviewing your communications through the lens of your obligations as a member of the College to uphold the Standards of Professional Conduct (2017), and the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists.”
Accordingly, the ICRC stated its concern that “the recurrence risk in this case is high, and the plan you have proposed in your response does not adequately remediate the risk.” The ICRC again proposed Dr. Peterson undertake to complete a period of coaching by an independent professional and provided him with the names of two individuals who “have experience working with regulatory bodies, and with members of health Colleges to remediate issues of public communication through the lens of professionalism and public protection.”
In a subsequent letter responding to Dr. Peterson’s counsel on October 7, 2022, the College referred to the competing interests of Dr. Peterson’s right to freedom of expression and his obligations as a regulated professional, stating:The Panel in no way disagrees that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees Dr. Peterson a right to freedom of expression. However, the Panel believes that as a Member of the College of Psychologists of Ontario, Dr. Peterson also owes a duty to the public and to the profession to conduct himself in a way that is consistent with professional standards and ethics. The Panel does not believe that Dr. Peterson’s public statements are currently in line with professional standards and ethics. The proposed Undertaking would provide Dr. Peterson with the opportunity to better understand the standards and ethical expectations for regulated health professionals who make public statements of various kinds.
On October 21, 2022, Dr. Peterson, through his counsel, declined to sign the undertaking, stating that “[h]e is prepared to vigorously defend his rights to free expression which the College has acknowledged are a factor in these proceedings.”

The Decision
The ICRC released its Decision and Reasons (the “Decision”) on November 22, 2022.
The ICRC found that Dr. Peterson “appeared to be engaging in degrading comments about a former client and making demeaning jokes” on the “Joe Rogan Experience.” It expressed concern that by referring to Elliot Page as “her” and by their former name, and “by calling Catherine McKenney an ‘appalling self-righteous moralizing thing’…Dr. Peterson may be engaging in degrading, demeaning, and unprofessional comments.” The Panel also stated that referring to the physician who performed Elliot Page’s surgery as a “‘criminal’ appears to be inflammatory and unprofessional.” Following reference to the Gerald Butts and Sports Illustrated comments, the Panel stated that it “is very concerned that looked at cumulatively, these public statements may be reasonably regarded by members of the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable and/or unprofessional.”
The Decision continued:The Panel is concerned that making public statements that may be inconsistent with the professional standards, policies, and ethics currently adopted by the College poses moderate risks of harm to the public. These potential harms include undermining public trust in the profession of psychology, and trust in the College’s ability to regulate the profession in the public interest. Public statements of this nature may also raise questions about Dr. Peterson’s ability to appropriately carry out his responsibilities as a registered psychologist. While Dr. Peterson may not currently have an active clinical practice, he continues to be registered and authorized to do so. Furthermore, public statements that are demeaning, degrading, and unprofessional may cause harm, both to the people they are directed at, and to the impacted and other communities more broadly.
The Panel also said that it was “very concerned” about “recurrence risk”, which it described as “high.” In support of this conclusion the Panel referred to the advice Dr. Peterson received in 2020, the lack of independent advisors who could review his communications “through the lens of his obligations as a member of the College”, and that “Dr. Peterson did not appear to acknowledge any of the Panel’s concerns” about his statements.
The Panel then set out the terms of the SCERP for Dr. Peterson. It directed that Dr. Peterson enter a coaching program with either one of two individuals identified by the Panel “to review, reflect on and ameliorate his professionalism in public statements.” The coaching program was to begin within three months and be completed within twelve months. Costs associated with the coaching were to be borne by Dr. Peterson.
The Panel also stated that a failure to comply with the SCERP “may result in an allegation of professional misconduct”, and that unless the coach provided a “final report indicating that the concerns…have been appropriately remediated in the public interest, Dr. Peterson will not be considered to have successfully complied with the SCERP”, which “may constitute professional misconduct.”

Issues and standard of review
The issue in this case is whether the Panel’s decision to order Dr. Peterson to complete a SCERP was reasonable. Dr. Peterson raises two arguments which, he submits, make the decision unreasonable:(1) that the ICRC failed to conduct an appropriate proportionately-focused balancing of Dr. Peterson’s right to freedom of expression and the statutory objectives of the College as required by the decision of the Supreme Court in Doré; and
(2) the Decision fails to meet the standard of “justification, transparency and intelligibility” required by the Supreme Court’s decision in Vavilov and is unreasonable having regard to the facts and the legal rights at stake.
There is no dispute that the standard of review is reasonableness, and that the principles set out in Doré and Vavilov must be applied in reviewing the Decision.

Doré and Vavilov – the legal framework
In Doré, the Supreme Court addressed the question of “how to protect Charter guarantees and the values they reflect in the context of adjudicated administrative decisions.” (para. 3.) As the Court elaborated in Law Society of British Columbia v. Trinity Western University, 2018 SCC 32, [2018] 2 SCR 293, at para. 57 (“Trinity Western“), the Doré framework is “concerned with ensuring that Charter protections are upheld to the fullest extent possible given the statutory objectives within a particular administrative context.”
This requires an administrative decision-maker, such as the ICRC, to proportionately balance Charter rights and values and its statutory objectives. This is a highly contextual inquiry. A decision-maker must first consider the statutory objectives it is seeking to uphold, and then, secondly, “ask how the Charter value at issue will best be protected in view of the statutory objectives.” This requires conducting a proportionality exercise, balancing “the severity of the interference of the Charter protection with the statutory objectives.” However, as with the proportionality test under s. 1 of the Charter, which will be met if the measure falls within a range of reasonable alternatives, “in the context of a review of an administrative decision for reasonableness, … decision-makers are entitled to a measure of deference so long as the decision…‘falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes’.” (Doré at para. 56)
The Supreme Court elaborated on the Doré framework in Loyola High School v. Quebec (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 12, [2015] 1 SCR 613 (“Loyola“), and Trinity Western, observing that the Doré approach is not to be a “watered-down version of proportionality”, but is to be “robust.” On an application for judicial review, therefore, the role of the Court is to ensure that the administrative decision-maker “proportionately” balanced the impact on Charter rights and the statutory objectives which “gives effect, as fully as possible to the Charterprotections at stake given the particular statutory mandate” (Loyola, at para. 39).” As the Court stated in Trinity Western at para. 80:Put another way, the Charter protection must be “affected as little as reasonably possible” in light of the applicable statutory objectives (Loyola, at para. 40). When a decision engages the Charter, reasonableness and proportionality become synonymous. Simply put, a decision that has a disproportionate impact on Charter rights is not reasonable.
However, it is also clear that the Doré approach still requires deference. A reviewing court need not agree with the outcome, as that would impose a standard of correctness; nor must a decision-maker “choose the option that limits the Charter protection least”; rather, the question is “always whether the decision falls within a range of reasonable outcomes.” (Trinity Western, at para. 81). As Abella J. put it at para. 58 of Doré: “If, in exercising its statutory discretion, the decision-maker has properly balanced the relevant Chartervalue with the statutory objectives, the decision will be found to be reasonable.”
Vavilov does not change the standard of review which remains, clearly, a test of reasonableness, showing deference to, and respect for, decision-makers and their specialized expertise. Rather, Vavilov focuses the reviewing court on “the decision actually made by the decision maker, including both the decision maker’s reasoning process and the outcome.” As the Court continued at para. 83:The role of courts in these circumstances is to review, and they are, at least as a general rule, to refrain from deciding the issue themselves. Accordingly, a court applying the reasonableness standard does not ask what decision it would have made in place of that of the administrative decision maker, attempt to ascertain the “range” of possible conclusions that would have been open to the decision maker, conduct a de novo analysis or seek to determine the ‘correct’ solution to the problem.
A reasonable decision, we are told in Vavilov at para. 85, “is one that is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker.” However, reasons “must not be assessed against a standard of perfection”, they need not include all arguments, nor should they “always be expected to deploy the same array of legal techniques that might be expected of a lawyer or judge.” As the Court put it, “‘Administrative justice’ will not always look like ‘judicial justice’ and reviewing courts must remain acutely aware of that fact.” (Vavilov, at paras. 91 -92)
Reasons must be read “in light of the history and context of the proceedings in which they were rendered”, including the evidence and submissions of the parties. As the Court continued at para. 94 of Vavilov, “[t]his may explain an aspect of the decision maker’s reasoning process that is not apparent from the reasons themselves, or may reveal that an apparent shortcoming in the reasons is not, in fact, a failure of justification, intelligibility or transparency.”
Further, the degree of justification found in reasons, like reasonableness review itself, must reflect the stakes of the decision. As the Court stated at para. 133 of Vavilov:Where the impact of a decision on an individual’s rights and interests is severe, the reasons provided to that individual must reflect the stakes. The principle of responsive justification means that if a decision has particularly harsh consequences for the affected individual, the decision maker must explain why its decision best reflects the legislature’s intention. This includes decisions with consequences that threaten an individual’s life, liberty, dignity or livelihood.

The ICRC applied a Doré analysis
In my view, the ICRC conducted an appropriate, proportionately-focused balancing of Dr. Peterson’s right to freedom of expression and the statutory objectives of the College. Consistent with Doré, the ICRC approached the matter from the perspective, first, of fulfilling the College’s statutory mandate to regulate the practice of psychology in the public interest. This included considering the conduct of Dr. Peterson in light of possible risks to the public. It then considered how to balance the statutory objectives in order to minimise any impact on Dr. Peterson’s Charter

Consideration of the statutory objectives
Following a review of the background and specific complaints about Dr. Peterson’s conduct, the ICRC referred to the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists (the “Code”). The Code has been adopted by the College and incorporated into the College’s Standards of Professional Conduct, 2017, (the “Standards”) and states that information provided to the public must be consistent with the “professional standards, policies and ethics currently adopted by the College.” As a registered member of the College, Dr. Peterson is obliged to follow the Code and the Standards.
The ICRC identified sections of the Code relevant to Dr. Peterson’s public statements. The Panel considered “Principle I: Respect for the Dignity of Persons and Peoples.” This includes the statement that “[r]espect for the dignity of persons is the most fundamental and universally found ethical principle across disciplines, and includes the concepts of equal inherent worth, non- discrimination, moral rights, and distributive, social, and natural justice.” The Code continues:In respecting dignity, psychologists acknowledge that each human being should be treated primarily as a person or an end in him/herself, not as an object or a means to an end, and is worthy of equal moral consideration. In doing so, psychologists acknowledge that all human beings have a moral right to have their innate worth as human beings appreciated and that this inherent worth is not dependent on a human being’s culture, nationality, ethnicity, colour, race, religion, sex, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, physical or mental abilities, age, socio-economic status, or any other preference or personal characteristic, condition, or status. As such, psychologists do not engage in unjust discrimination based on such factors and promote non-discrimination in all of their activities.
Consequently, the Code states the requirement that members:Not engage publicly (e.g., in public statements, presentations, research reports, with primary clients or other contacts) in degrading comments about others, including demeaning jokes based on such characteristics as culture, nationality, ethnicity, colour, race, religion, sex, gender, or sexual orientation.”
The Code also urges members to “strive to use language that conveys respect for the dignity of persons and peoples as much as possible in all spoken, written electronic, or printed communication.”
The ICRC Panel considered the statements made by Dr. Peterson in the context of the Code and expressed concern that a number of them appeared to be degrading, demeaning and unprofessional. The Panel observed that those public statements could undermine public trust in the profession and the College’s ability to regulate it, and also “raise questions about Dr. Peterson’s ability to carry out his responsibilities as a registered psychologist.” The Panel noted that such comments “may cause harm, both to the people they are directed at, and to the impacted and other communities more broadly.”
Peterson does not challenge the principles in the Code. Although he takes issue with objections to his language on the ground that some of it, at least, was justified based on the facts, his response to the ICRC recognized that he has made errors in his public communication and that he has “already undertaken the remediation of [his] actions.”
The ICRC’s concerns related to the public interest in members of the College avoiding the use of demeaning or degrading language. In Trinity Western, at para. 38, the Supreme Court observed that a regulator’s interpretation of the public interest, based on its expertise, is owed deference. Similarly, in Jha v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2022 ONSC 769, at para. 147, this Court gave “significant deference” to the expertise of a disciplinary committee to assess whether a member’s conduct was relevant to their suitability to practice, as the members of the committee, which included members of the profession, were “well-situated to assess the harm to the profession, the public, and to the reputation of the profession” by the member’s conduct. The ICRC is made up of a majority of professional members. Deference should also be afforded its assessment of the risk of harm to the public and the profession in this case.
Peterson complains that reliance on the Code is misplaced in this case where the College is, to quote his argument, “operating at the very margins of its mandate”, as he asserts that his statements are not made in his capacity as a clinical psychologist but are “off duty opinions.” He refers to the statement in the Code that “[p]ersonal behaviour [of a member] becomes a concern of the discipline only if it is of such a nature that it undermines public trust in the discipline as a whole or if it raises questions about the psychologist’s ability to carry out appropriately his/her responsibilities as a psychologist.”
There are at least two responses to this submission. First, Dr. Peterson’s statements are not personal comments made in conversation with friends or colleagues, but public statements to broad audiences. Indeed, Dr. Peterson references his vast following on social media and his best-selling books. The Code explicitly addresses “public statements” and prohibits degrading and demeaning comments by its members when making public statements.
Second, the argument that Dr. Peterson is speaking in a personal capacity and not as a clinical psychologist is undermined by his own conduct and statements. As the ICRC observed, Dr. Peterson describes himself on his Twitter account as a clinical psychologist, and he identified himself that way on the Joe Rogan podcast. Indeed, as he made clear in his submissions to the ICRC, quoted earlier in these reasons, Dr. Peterson sees himself functioning as a clinical psychologist “in the broad public space” where he claims to be helping “millions of people” and as he put it, he is “still practicing in that more diffuse and broader manner.”
In short, while his counsel may argue that Dr. Peterson’s comments are “off duty” and outside his role as a psychologist, Dr. Peterson doesn’t see it that way. To the contrary, representing himself as a clinical psychologist when expressing his views is important to him. It also adds credibility to his statements since, as a regulated health professional he holds a position of “trust, confidence and responsibility” in society: Ross New Brunswick School District No. 15, 1996 CanLII 237 (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 825, at paras. 44-45. But Dr. Peterson cannot have it both ways: he cannot speak as a member of a regulated profession without taking responsibility for the risk of harm that flows from him speaking in that trusted capacity.
High standards are imposed on members of the College of Psychologists who, like members of other regulated professions, take on responsibilities to their profession and to the public. As the Supreme Court observed in Pharmascience Inc. v. Binet, 2006 SCC 48, [2006] 2 SCR 513, at para. 36, “[t]he importance of monitoring competence and supervising the conduct of professionals stems from the extent to which the public places trust in them.”
Even when “off duty”, courts have recognized that members of regulated professions can still harm public trust and confidence in their profession by their statements and conduct. As the British Columbia Court of Appeal put it in Kempling v. British Columbia College of Teachers, 2005 BCCA 327, 255 DLR (4^th) 169, at para. 43, citing the Supreme Court in Ross: “When a teacher makes public statements espousing discriminatory views, and when such views are linked to his or her professional position as a teacher, harm to the integrity of the school system is a necessary result.”
A similar situation arose recently in Pitter v. College of Nurses of Ontario and Alviano v. College of Nurses of Ontario, 2022 ONSC 5513, 164 OR (3d) 433, in which two nurses spoke out on social media and at a public gathering against masks and vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic. Both identified themselves as registered nurses. The College of Nurses’ ICRC identified concerns with certain statements which were misleading and spread what could be dangerous misinformation. As this Court held, at para. 14:Given its statutory mandate, it was reasonable for the ICRC to be concerned about the Applicants’ statements. As the committee noted, in their public statements, both Applicants identified themselves as health professionals. Ms. Pitter publicly identified herself as a nurse practitioner and Ms. Alviano publicly identified herself as a registered nurse. This not only put the public at risk of being guided by false information, but also risked impacting the reputation of the profession.
In Pitter, the Court upheld the ICRC’s direction that the nurses be cautioned and attend remedial education through a SCERP.
Many other professional discipline cases have involved situations in which a member’s misconduct in their personal life, or outside the immediate context of practising their profession, has nevertheless resulted in regulatory action. As observed by Copeland J. (as she then was) in Jha at para. 119:It is well-established that actions of members of a profession in their private lives may in some cases be relevant to and have an impact on their professional lives – including where the conduct is not consistent with the core values of a profession and/or where there is a need for a regulated profession to maintain confidence of the public in the profession and not be seen to condone certain types of conduct by its members: Wigglesworth at pp. 562-563; Sazant v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2012 ONCA 727, 113 O.R. (3d) 420 at paras 97-98; Re Cwinn and Law Society of Upper Canada (1980), 1980 CanLII 1694 (ON SC), 1980 CanLII 1964, 28 O.R. (2d) 61 (Div. Ct.), leave to appeal refused 28 O.R. (2d) 61n (C.A.); Adams v. Law Society of Alberta, 2000 ABCA 240, 82 Alta. L.R. (3d) 21.
Like the legal profession, the health professions recognize limitations on free expression to maintain “boundaries of civility” and professionalism: Ontario (College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario) v. Waddell, 2020 ONCPSD 9; Rathe v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2013 ONSC 821; Ontario (College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario) v. Wright, 2018 ONCPSD 19.
Here, the Panel of the College of Psychologists’ ICRC – an expert body – reviewed its Code and Standards and expressed concern that Dr. Peterson’s public statements, insofar as they contained degrading and demeaning language, may be inconsistent with its professional standards and could undermine public trust in the profession.

Balancing the statutory objectives and freedom of expression
Turning to the Charter, the ICRC acknowledged Dr. Peterson’s submission that his “conduct on Twitter is protected by his right to freedom of expression and is unrelated to his practice of psychology.” However, as the Panel noted, while Dr. Peterson has a constitutional right to freedom of expression, “as a member of the College of Psychologists, he is also obligated to maintain the professional standards of the College” which “includes ensuring that any public statements made are consistent with the professional standards, policies and ethics currently adopted by the College. This is especially the case where Dr. Peterson identifies himself as a member of the profession.”
Peterson submits this limited reference to his right to freedom of expression in the Decision was not a sufficient, or proportionate, balancing of his Charter rights and the College’s statutory objectives, as required by Doré. I disagree. It is clear from the “history and context of the proceedings” (Vavilov, para. 94) that the Panel was well aware of the importance of the value of freedom of expression and Dr. Peterson’s position respecting it, and appropriately balanced freedom of expression with the College’s statutory objectives.
Earlier in the Decision, the ICRC noted Dr. Peterson’s submission that his “professional obligations and ethical duties must be balanced alongside his personal rights and freedoms”, and that “the protection of freedom of expression is a basic and central tenant [sic] of any free and fair democracy, particularly as it applies to public debate and criticism.” The Panel also noted Dr. Peterson’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Grant v. Torstar, 2009 SCC 61, [2009] 3 SCR 640, a defamation case which held at para. 42, that “freedom of expression and respect for vigorous debate on matters of public interest have long been seen as fundamental to Canadian democracy … all Canadian laws must conform to it.”
In its correspondence with Dr. Peterson prior to the Decision, the Panel had agreed that Dr. Peterson’s right to freedom of expression was engaged, but that it was subject to his duty to the public and to the profession to conduct himself in a way that is consistent with professional standards and ethics.
The Panel was also aware of the ICRC’s 2020 decision giving advice to Dr. Peterson, in which that panel of the ICRC had referred to the Charter’s guarantee of “rigorous debate” and had concluded that the Charter “protects Dr. Peterson’s public pronouncements so long as he does not violate provincial or federal laws, which he does not appear to do so in this instance.” It was argued by Dr. Peterson’s counsel that the 2020 decision, in referring to the guarantee of “rigorous debate” and concluding that whether Dr. Peterson’s views reflected poorly on the profession “is a matter of opinion and not fact”, showed a greater appreciation of his right to freedom of expression, and engaged in a more appropriate balancing than the 2022 Decision under review. However, as noted, even in 2020 Dr. Peterson was warned about using unprofessional language, with the Panel advising him to “offer [his] opinions and comments in a respectful tone in order to avoid a negative perception toward the profession of psychology.”
The fact that the Decision did not provide a detailed discussion of the value of freedom of expression does not mean the ICRC did not appropriately consider it. Furthermore, the ICRC should not be expected to do so. The ICRC is, essentially, a screening body. It reviews complaints and investigations and, where appropriate, sends cases to a disciplinary hearing for adjudication, in which case its decision is not even subject to judicial review as the process has not run its course: Volochay v. College of Massage Therapists of Ontario, 2012 ONCA 541, 111 OR (3d) 561, at para. 68. The ICRC, however, also has other, less serious options available to it to address concerns that may be raised by a complaint or complaints, including directing a SCERP, which is not disciplinary, but remedial.
The ICRC had, effectively, three options in dealing with Dr. Peterson’s case: send the matter to discipline, do nothing, or direct a SCERP. By directing a SCERP, the ICRC pursued a proportionate and reasonable option to further its objective of maintaining professional standards, and which will have a minimal impact on Dr. Peterson’s right to freedom of expression. Admittedly, the ICRC Decision is not benign; the direction to submit to a SCERP will be placed on Dr. Peterson’s public record with the College, but it is a remedial order, not a disciplinary finding, or even a referral to discipline: Longman v. Ontario College of Pharmacists, 2021 ONSC 1610, at para. 45. The Decision simply requires him to have coaching “to review, reflect on, and ameliorate his professionalism in public statements” in order to avoid making demeaning and degrading statements about people that may be harmful to them and to the profession.
The ICRC Decision does not prevent Dr. Peterson from expressing himself on issues of interest to him and his audiences; rather, the Decision is focussed on concerns over his use of degrading or demeaning language, about which he was given advice in 2020. Requiring coaching following apparently unheeded advice seems a reasonable next step, proportionately balancing statutory objectives against Charter rights which are minimally impaired, if they are impaired at all, by the Decision. In Pitter, directing a SCERP in similar circumstances was recognized to be a “remedial and educative” response which “minimally impaired” the nurses’ rights. This is also the case with Dr. Peterson.
The result in this case may be contrasted with the results in other professional contexts in which balancing professional, public interest objectives against Charter interests of a member has led to what appear to be more serious impairments of Charter In Christian Medical Dental Society v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2019 ONCA 393, 147 OR (3d) 398, for example, the Court of Appeal upheld a policy that required physicians to provide an “effective referral” for services they oppose on religious grounds, such as abortion and gender-affirming care. The Court held that the policy struck the appropriate balance between the members’ religious beliefs and the public’s overriding interest in equitable access to legally available publicly funded health care services.
In Trinity Western University v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2018 SCC 33, [2018] 2 SCR 453, the Supreme Court upheld the Ontario legal regulator’s decision not to accredit TWU’s proposed law school, which prohibited same-sex sexual activity among its students. The Court found that the decision represented a proportional balance between the limitation on freedom of religion and the statutory objectives the Law Society sought to promote, including access to the legal profession, diversity within the bar, and prevention of harm to LGBTQ law students.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that the Panel conducted an appropriate Doré It addressed first its statutory mandate and then considered Dr. Peterson’s Charter right to freedom of expression. The Decision proportionately balanced the competing interests, protecting the public interest in professionalism in communications by members and prevention of harm, while minimally impairing Dr. Peterson’s right to freedom of expression.

The Decision meets Vavilov’s requirement of justification, intelligibility and transparency
Peterson’s counsel also submitted that the Decision did not satisfy the required standard of reasoning set by Vavilov by failing to engage with Dr. Peterson’s explanations for the comments in issue. I do not agree.
The ICRC identified language used by Dr. Peterson which it was concerned was degrading or demeaning, or otherwise unprofessional. This concern is entitled to deference: Trinity Western, at para. 38; Jha at para. 147. It was not necessary to engage in whether Dr. Peterson’s comments were supported by facts or were his honest opinion, as the concern arises from the nature of the language used, not the validity of his opinions. Again, Dr. Peterson is speaking as a regulated professional psychologist – what might be protected by the laws of defamation, such as the defence of fair comment, is not the point.
The fact that a complaint by a client against Dr. Peterson was unfounded does not mean the ICRC should not be concerned when Dr. Peterson publicly described the client as “vindictive.” There is nothing unreasonable about being concerned when a regulated health professional attacks a client or patient, regardless of what they have done. Indeed, in the Joe Rogan podcast, Dr. Peterson referred to the client’s reliance on him, noting that she had felt abandoned by him when he closed his clinical practice and stopped seeing her.
Similarly, while Dr. Peterson’s comment on “poor children” may have been sarcastic, it was open to the ICRC to be concerned about him making “demeaning jokes.” Sarcasm is commonly used to insult, demean and degrade. The ICRC’s concerns with Dr. Peterson addressing Elliot Page as “her” and by their prior name, as well as calling a city councillor a “thing” and a doctor a “criminal” (a term even Dr. Peterson has expressed some regret using), arose from the language Dr. Peterson used, not his personal views. So too with his negative comment on the appearance of a woman on the cover of Sports Illustrated and calling Gerald Butts a “prik.” On its face, the language raised professionalism concerns, and it was not necessary for the ICRC to engage with Dr. Peterson on his motivation for making those comments.
Rather, the Panel focused on the harm from the language used, noting, transparently and clearly, its concern that potential harms included “undermining public trust in the profession of psychology, and trust in the College’s ability to regulate the profession in the public interest.” It expressed concern that “public statements of this nature may also raise questions about Dr. Peterson’s ability to appropriately carry out his responsibilities as a registered psychologist” and that “public statements that are demeaning, degrading, and unprofessional may cause harm, both to the people they are directed at, and to the impacted and other communities more broadly.”
The scope and extent of the ICRC’s reasons must also be considered in the context of its role as a screening committee. The stakes before the ICRC are not as high as they are before discipline panels, as was the case in Groia v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2018 SCC 27, [2018] 1 S.C.R. 772, Lauzon v. Ontario (Justices of the Peace Review Council), 2023 ONCA 425, and in Doré As this Court summarized in Pitter at para. 22, the reasonableness review under Vavilov is “expected to reflect the stakes of the decision.” O’Brien J. continued:Where a decision has a particularly harsh consequence to the individual, there is a higher onus on the decision-maker to explain its decision. The corollary is that where, as here, a screening committee requires a remedial and educative response to a member’s conduct, a reasonableness review permits less detailed reasons.
As noted earlier, reasons “must not be assessed against a standard of perfection”, they need not include all arguments, nor should we expect or require administrative decision-makers to “deploy the same array of legal techniques that might be expected of a lawyer or judge”: Vavilov, paras. 91-92. This is especially the case for a screening decision and the making of a remedial order. The focus on sufficiency of reasons in Vavilov should not be inappropriately used as a tool to reduce deference and respect for the role and decisions of expert administrative bodies, having regard to the context in which those decisions are made and their consequences for the individual.
In any event, the ICRC’s reasons are transparent, intelligible, justifiable, and reasonable. The Panel prepared a 10-page single-spaced Decision. It considered its mandate and engaged in a clear chain of analysis that involved reviewing the factual background, its concerns with the language used by Dr. Peterson, and his responses to the Panel. It considered the advice provided to Dr. Peterson in 2020, the ICRC’s suggestion that Dr. Peterson agree to undertake a program of coaching, his refusal to do so, and the ICRC’s reasons for rejecting Dr. Peterson’s own coaching proposal. The Panel considered the professional regulatory context, the governing rules, the impact of the Charter, and Dr. Peterson’s unwillingness to acknowledge the Panel’s concerns.
Following that transparent and coherent discussion, the panel concluded, reasonably, that Dr. Peterson’s behaviour raised a moderate risk of harm to the public, which the Panel had articulated in its decision, and concluded that it was “very concerned that the recurrence risk in this case was high.” It therefore concluded its chain of analysis by deciding that “it would be appropriate and in the public interest” to require Dr. Peterson to complete a SCERP to address his professionalism in public statements.

Conclusion
The application for judicial review is dismissed. The applicant shall pay the respondent costs, as agreed, in the amount of $25,000.

___________________________

Paul B. Schabas J.

__________________________
I agree: Backhouse J.

___________________________

I agree: Krawchenko J.

Released: August 23, 2023

CITATION: Peterson v. College of Psychologists of Ontario, 2023 ONSC 4685

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 714/22

DATE: 20230823

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

Divisional Court

Backhouse, Schabas and Krawchenko JJ.

JORDAN PETERSON

– and –

COLLEGE OF PSYCHOLOGISTS OF ONTARIO

REASONS FOR DECISION

Schabas J.

Released: August 23, 2023

Join us with your questions TOMORROW for our live meeting on the Jordan Peterson case

Russell Phillips <rphillips@theccf.ca>	Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 1:27 PM
Reply-To: rphillips@theccf.ca
To: david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com

Dear David, Thank you for your continued support of the Canadian Constitution Foundation. I'm writing you today to remind you about our upcoming digital Town Hall meeting on Thursday, July 6 at 12 PM ET. You're invited to join Joanna, Christine, myself and our lawyer on this case – George Avraam– as we discuss what happened at the June 21 hearing and the next steps in Jordan Peterson v College of Psychologists of Ontario. You can register for this meeting here: https://theccf.ca/townhalljp/ CCF Freedom Insiders will be given priority to ask questions to our team. Simply reply to this email with your questions. To become a Freedom Insider, you just have to be a donor of the CCF and opt in. Find out more here. If you're already a donor but not a Freedom Insider, let me know by replying to this email. Thank you again for joining our community and for supporting the Canadian Constitution Foundation Sincerely, -- Russell Phillips \| Communications Director Canadian Constitution Foundation P: 1.888.695.9105 x105 theCCF.ca

https://theccf.ca/cbc-radio-howard-anglin-comeau-at-the-supreme-court/

CBC Radio: Howard Anglin – Comeau at the Supreme Court

Post author:The CCF
Post published:May 5, 2017
Post category:News

CBC Radio: Howard Anglin – Comeau at the Supreme Court

May 5, 2017

The Supreme Court of Canada says it will hear arguments for getting rid of limits on how much alcohol you’re allowed to transport between provinces. Terry Seguin talks to the executive director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation.

Thank you Colonel Douglas Macgregor Please check my work

David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>	Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 12:26 AM
To: contact@thecountersignal.com, info@rebelnews.com, vicki.hogarth@chco.tv, "andrea.anderson-mason" <andrea.anderson-mason@gnb.ca>, jason.gaudet@town.stgeorge.nb.ca, bhenderson@townofstandrews.ca, "kris.austin" <kris.austin@gnb.ca>, "John.Williamson" <John.Williamson@parl.gc.ca>, robertfisher@stcroixcourier.ca, "blaine.higgs" <blaine.higgs@gnb.ca>, "pierre.poilievre" <pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca>, "rob.moore" <rob.moore@parl.gc.ca>, "jake.stewart" <jake.stewart@parl.gc.ca>, "Richard.Bragdon" <Richard.Bragdon@parl.gc.ca>, "Anita.Anand" <Anita.Anand@parl.gc.ca>, "fin.minfinance-financemin.fin" <fin.minfinance-financemin.fin@canada.ca>, washington field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>
Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>, pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>, "Katie.Telford" <Katie.Telford@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>, mcu <mcu@justice.gc.ca>, "Michael.Duheme" <Michael.Duheme@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Greta.Bossenmaier" <Greta.Bossenmaier@hq.nato.int>, nia_ig.fct@navy.mil

- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2023 00:00:25 -0300 Subject: Thank you Colonel Douglas Macgregor Please check my work To: sharlettemeleena@gmail.com Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com> https://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.com/2023/08/tucker-carlson-talks-to-colonel-douglas.html Monday, 21 August 2023 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMUAaWK79Vc&ab_channel=TheDCShorts Tucker Carlson Talks To Colonel Douglas Macgregor About The Ukraine War TheDC Shorts22,771 views Aug 21, 2023 Tucker Carlson spoke with Colonel Douglas Macgregor about the Ukraine war TheDC Shorts 531K subscribers 565 Comments @davidamos7114 Thank you Col Douglas McGregor https://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.com/2021/04/russia-warns-nato-against-deploying.html Friday, 2 April 2021 Russia warns NATO against deploying troops to Ukraine https://twitter.com/DavidRaymondAm1/with_replies Image David Raymond Amos @DavidRaymondAm1 Replying to @DavidRaymondAm1 @Nyonitz and 49 others NATO has been picking a fight long before this weekend but big media ain't been saying much about it until now Methinks it was no coincidence US Naval Intel people called me on Good Friday N'esy Pas? https://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.com/2021/04/russia-warns-nato-against-deploying.html #nbpoli #cdnpoli #CORRUPTION https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/ukraine-says-russia-massing-troops-on-border-u-s-warns-moscow-1.5371806 Ukraine says Russia massing troops on border; U.S. warns Moscow Dmytro Gorshkov AFP Staff Agence France-Presse’s network of 201 bureaus covers 151 countries, with 80 nationalities represented among its 2,400 collaborators. AFP is a global news agency delivering in-depth coverage of the events shaping our world from conflicts to politics, economics, sports, entertainment and the latest breakthroughs in health, science and technology. The Agency operates regional hubs in five geographical zones: Africa, North America, Latin America, Asia, Middle East Published Thursday, April 1, 2021 4:09PM EDT ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: NIA_IG <nia_ig.fct@navy.mil> Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 11:03:08 +0000 Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Fwd: Methinks the evil lawyer Howie Cooper made a deal with the VERY NASTY FBI dudes in Beantown N'esy Pas Howie Anglin? To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> Dear David Amos, The Naval Intelligence Activity (NIA) Office of the Inspector General (IG) reviewed your email and attached .WAV file provided to the NIA Hotline on 2 April 2021. I found no connection to the United States Navy or United States Naval Intelligence. Naval Inspectors General exist to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of US Navy Programs, and strive to eliminate and prevent waste, fraud, and abuse with their respective departments. Naval IGs are restricted to assessing matters falling within the purview of their respective commanders. Citing the lack of an apparent connection to the US Navy or Naval Intelligence, I am unable to provide further assistance, or provide direct referral to any other agency or activity. Sincerely, Mark Koneda Investigator Naval Intelligence Activity Office of the Inspector General NIA_IG@navy.mil (301)669-3030 (unclass) TSVOIP 560-3030 INSPECTOR GENERAL SENSITIVE INFORMATION - FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY The information contained in this email and any accompanying attachments may contain Inspector General sensitive or pre-decisional information, which is protected from mandatory disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, 5 USC Section 552). It should not be released to unauthorized persons. If you are not the intended recipient of this information, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on this information is prohibited. If you received this email in error, please notify this office by email or by calling (301) 669-3030.

YO Howie Anglin I sue lawyers too Remember?

Higgs, Premier Blaine (PO/CPM) <Blaine.Higgs@gnb.ca>	Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 10:43 AM
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

Hello, Thank you for taking the time to write. Due to the volume of incoming messages, this is an automated response to let you know that your email has been received and will be reviewed at the earliest opportunity. If your inquiry more appropriately falls within the mandate of a Ministry or other area of government, staff will refer your email for review and consideration. Merci d'avoir pris le temps de nous écrire. En raison du volume des messages reçus, cette réponse automatique vous informe que votre courriel a été reçu et sera examiné dans les meilleurs délais. Si votre demande relève plutôt du mandat d'un ministère ou d'un autre secteur du gouvernement, le personnel vous renverra votre courriel pour examen et considération. If this is a Media Request, please contact the Premier’s office at (506) 453-2144 or by email media-medias@gnb.ca S’il s’agit d’une demande des médias, veuillez communiquer avec le Cabinet du premier ministre au 506-453-2144. 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/premier.ministre@gnb.ca

Howard Anglin <hanglin@theccf.ca>	Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 4:27 PM
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

I have no idea what you are talking about. Please unsubscribe me from your wacko newsletter. On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 1:56 PM, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote: However Google assisted me in putting your latest insult at the top of my blog http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.com/2018/08/most-cra-auditors-polled-say-canadas.html Say Hey to Harper and Novak for me will ya? I am taking the weeknd off before the writ is dropped in New Brunswick methinks I will talk about the boys in short pants in Harper PMO much to your chagrin and that of Blaine Higgs and his turncoat buddies Dominic Cardy and Kelly Lamrock N'esy Pas? -- Howard Anglin \| Executive Director Canadian Constitution Foundation Second Floor \| 514 11 Ave SW \| Calgary \| AB \| T2R 0C8 P: 1.888.695.9105 x101 F: 1.888.695.9105 Charitable Number: 86617 6654 RR0001 theCCF.ca Follow the CCF: FaceBook \| Twitter \| YouTube Sign up for Email Updates: Freedom Update

More about Beer? Well lets just say that Howard Anglin one Harper's little buddies in short pants was not wise to brag that he was a research assistant for one of my Yankee enemies Prof. Alan Dershowitz EH?

David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>	Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 6:28 PM
To: Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca, Dan.Albas.c1@parl.gc.ca, "Matt.DeCourcey" <Matt.DeCourcey@parl.gc.ca>, Matt.DeCourcey.c1@parl.gc.ca, "David.Coon" <David.Coon@gnb.ca>, "hugh.flemming" <hugh.flemming@gnb.ca>, oldmaison <oldmaison@yahoo.com>, "terry.seguin" <terry.seguin@cbc.ca>, "justin.trudeau.a1" <justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca>, pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>, "sylvie.gadoury" <sylvie.gadoury@radio-canada.ca>, "Leanne.Fitch" <Leanne.Fitch@fredericton.ca>, "Larry.Tremblay" <Larry.Tremblay@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, denis.lebel@parl.gc.ca, HAnglin@theccf.ca, abslegal@total.net, Brian.Gallant@gnb.ca
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, "Bobbi-Jean.MacKinnon" <Bobbi-Jean.MacKinnon@cbc.ca>


Cross-border booze case would 'redesign' federalism, N.B. prosecutors argue Arguments filed with Supreme Court of Canada in appeal of acquittal of Gerard Comeau By Bobbi-Jean MacKinnon, CBC News Posted: Aug 21, 2017 5:27 PM AT Last Updated: Aug 21, 2017 8:54 PM AT New Brunswick law allows only 12 pints of beer or one bottle of wine or liquor to be brought into the province from another province. New Brunswick law allows only 12 pints of beer or one bottle of wine or liquor to be brought into the province from another province. (Chris Young/The Canadian Press) New Brunswick asks Supreme Court to rule on cross-border liquor limits Cross-border beer decision stands, for now Border beer battle: Appeal court reserves decision on if it will hear case Feds expect provinces to ratify free trade deal next year, with booze in the mix Comeau beer decision appeal leaves alcohol out of trade talks 'After 3 years, I'm thirsty': N.B. man says after court nixes border beer limits Upholding the acquittal of a Tracadie, N.B., man who exceeded cross-border alcohol limits would "redesign Canadian federalism," provincial prosecutors say. The case of Gerard Comeau "began as a simple ticket offence," prosecutors say in arguments submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada as part of their appeal of the 2016 lower court decision. But "a simple case it is not." "This 'simple case' and the trial decision that resulted raise the issue of competing constitutional provisions and propose an end to Canadian federalism as it was originally conceived, has politically evolved and is judicially confirmed," the 45-page document says. 'A huge economic opportunity': trade barriers at stake in border booze case Supreme Court agrees to hear appeal of cross-border booze case Comeau, a retired steelworker, was charged in 2012 and fined $292.50 after RCMP stopped him driving home from Quebec with 14 cases of beer and three bottles of liquor in his vehicle. New Brunswick's Liquor Control Act sets a personal importation limit of 12 pints of beer or one bottle of liquor or wine. But Campbellton provincial court Judge Ronald LeBlanc ruled last year that the liquor restriction was unconstitutional because Section 121 of the 1867 Constitution Act says products from any province "shall … be admitted free into each of the other provinces." nb-gerard-comeau-smile Gerard Comeau was all smiles in April 2016 after a judge dismissed a charge against him of bringing too much alcohol into New Brunswick from Quebec, saying the legislation violated free trade provisions in the Constitution. (Bridget Yard) Prosecutors say LeBlanc's decision was "flawed." They want the country's highest court to rule New Brunswick's restrictions on bringing alcohol into the province do not violate the act's free-trade provisions. The relationship between Section 121 and other constitutional provisions, along with its function within the Canadian Constitution, has been "the subject of political debate and discussion for decades," the prosecutors say. But this is the first time the Supreme Court is being asked directly to determine the relationship of Section 121, on the free movement of goods between provinces, to Section 92 of the Constitution Act, on provincial powers over property and civil rights, they say. 11 requests to intervene The federal government, the attorneys general of Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, Alberta, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, and Northwest Territories, and the minister of justice of Nunavut have all asked to be interveners in the case. They have until Oct. 13 to file their written arguments, not exceeding 10 pages each. Comeau's lawyers must file a reply not exceeding 10 pages by Oct. 27. The appeal is tentatively scheduled to be heard on Dec. 6 and Dec. 7. Section 121 "has not to this date been considered as a standalone 'free trade' provision," New Brunswick prosecutors argue. They point to a 1921 decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in Gold Seal Ltd. vs. Dominion Express Co., which held the constitutional provision only meant provinces couldn't impose tariffs on goods at their border. "The provinces are not subordinate to 'a central authority' nor are they melded together," the prosecutors state in their factum, dated Aug. 18. Provinces "are to retain their differences and subject their interests to a central government '…entrusted with exclusive authority only in affairs in which they had a common interest.'" "The historical context of the Canadian federation, the foundational principles of Canadian constitutionalism, and a proper textual understanding of the written Constitution, all lead to the inexorable conclusion that the decision of the trial judge is incorrect." N.B. ordered to cover Comeau's costs Lawyer Ian Blue, who acted as part of Comeau's defence team on behalf of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, has said the case "could have more profound effects on interprovincial trade barriers than President Trump could." "That's how important this case is," Blue has said. The Supreme Court's decision could have implications for "literally hundreds" of interprovincial trade barriers across the country, according to the executive director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, which provided legal assistance to Comeau. "Anything where provinces erect, deliberately erect, systems to keep competitive goods out from other provinces — this would, if not eliminate those, at least shake the foundations on which they are built," said Howard Anglin. The Supreme Court of Canada agreed in May to hear the appeal and ordered that Comeau's legal costs in fighting the case be paid for by the New Brunswick government. The public prosecution service had initially asked the New Brunswick Court of Appeal to review LeBlanc's decision, but the province's highest court declined to hear the case. As is customary, the court did not provide any reasons. The prosecution service, which has described itself as being independent from government, then sought leave to appeal to Canada's top court. The provincial government has declined to comment because the case is before the courts. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 20:53:53 -0400 Subject: Yo Tom Flanagan I called you again today EH? Lets just say that Howard Anglin one Harper's little buddies in short pants was not wise to brag that he was a research assistant for one of my Yankee enemies Prof. Alan Dershowitz EH? To: tflanaga@ucalgary.ca, "carolyn.bennett" < carolyn.bennett@parl.gc.ca>, mcu <mcu@justice.gc.ca>, "jason.kenney" < jason.kenney@parl.gc.ca>, dfrom@theccf.ca, arevay@theccf.ca, msoupcoff@theccf.ca, mike@mblg.ca, bill.richards@gnb.ca, kathryn.gregory@gnb.ca, jeff.mockler@gnb.ca, "Katherine.dEntremont" < Katherine.dEntremont@gnb.ca>, oldmaison <oldmaison@yahoo.com>, andre < andre@jafaust.com>, "ron.tremblay2" <ron.tremblay2@gmail.com>, almabrooks26 <almabrooks26@hotmail.com>, markandcaroline < markandcaroline@gmail.com>, upriverwatch <upriverwatch@gmail.com>, COCMoncton <COCMoncton@gmail.com>, rona.ambrose.A1@parl.gc.ca, "Gerald.Butts" <Gerald.Butts@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>, "Katie.Telford" < Katie.Telford@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>, Ezra <Ezra@therebel.media>, gopublic < gopublic@cbc.ca>, "steve.murphy" <steve.murphy@ctv.ca>, nmoore < nmoore@bellmedia.ca>, "Robert. Jones" <Robert.Jones@cbc.ca>, news < news@hilltimes.com>, news <news@kingscorecord.com>, "peacock.kurt" < peacock.kurt@telegraphjournal.com>, Saint Croix Courier < editor@stcroixcourier.ca> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, denis.lebel@parl.gc.ca, HAnglin@theccf.ca, abslegal@total.net, Brian.Gallant@gnb.ca https://www.youtube.com/user/CDNConstFoundation/videos CCF Law & Freedom 2016 Justice David Stratas' keynote presentation 908 views Omar Khadr: What does our Constitution say about Guantanamo Bay? 68 views Beer Without Borders: The Comeau Case and the Future of Interprovincial Alcohol Law 94 views The New World of Aboriginal Property Rights 138 views Tom Flanagan Political Science University of Calgary Calgary, AB T2N 1N4 403-239-6988 tflanaga@ucalgary.ca http://theccf.ca/staff/ Howard Anglin, J.D. Executive Director Howard grew up in Victoria, British Columbia, and attended McGill University where he received a B.A. (Hons.) in English Literature in 1997. He pursued graduate studies for two years before changing paths to attend New York University Law School, where he graduated in 2002. At law school he was an editor of the NYU Law Review, served as co-president of the NYU chapter of the Federalist Society, and was a research assistant for Prof. Alan Dershowitz. After graduating, he practised at two international law firms in New York and London, U.K., before accepting a clerkship with the Hon. Diarmuid O’Scannlainn on the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit, in Portland, OR. After clerking, he resumed legal practice, with a focus on appellate litigation, in Washington, DC. In 2011, he moved to Ottawa, where he served first as Chief of Staff to a federal cabinet minister and later as Deputy Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister. He has written widely on legal matters, as well as politics and culture. http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2016/05/fwddenis-lebel-wants-matter-about-beer.html Monday, 30 May 2016 Denis Lebel wants a matter about BEER to go before the Supreme Court? HMMM Let see what the pervert Barry Winters thinks of this ---------- Original message ---------- From: denis.lebel@parl.gc.ca Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 18:24:48 +0000 Subject: RE: Denis Lebel wants a matter about BEER to go before the Supreme Court? HMMM Methinks I may go there some day as well To: motomaniac333@gmail.com Bonjour, Au nom de l'honorable Denis Lebel, député de Lac-Saint-Jean, nous accusons réception de votre correspondance. Soyez assuré(e) que votre correspondance sera traitée avec considération. Sincères salutations, L'équipe de l'honorable Denis Lebel, député ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Greetings, On behalf of the Honourable Denis Lebel, Member of Parliament for Lac-Saint-Jean, we wish to acknowledge receipt of your correspondence. Please be assured that your correspondence will receive careful consideration. Best regards, The team of Honourable Denis Lebel, Member of Parliament ---------- Original message ---------- From: Karen Selick <kselick@theccf.ca> Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 11:23:31 -0700 Subject: Re: Denis Lebel wants a matter about BEER to go before the Supreme Court? HMMM Methinks I may go there some day as well To: motomaniac333@gmail.com Regrettably, Karen Selick is no longer with the Canadian Constitution Foundation. For assistance with litigation matters, please contact Derek From at dfrom@theccf.ca; for assistance with operations matters, please contact Adam Revay at arevay@theccf.ca. To contact Ms. Selick personally, please go to her website: http://www.karenselick.com. ---------- Original message ---------- From: "Gallant, Premier Brian (PO/CPM)" <Brian.Gallant@gnb.ca> Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 18:24:23 +0000 Subject: RE: Denis Lebel wants a matter about BEER to go before the Supreme Court? HMMM Methinks I may go there some day as well To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> Thank you for writing to the Premier of New Brunswick. Please be assured that your email has been received, will be reviewed, and a response will be forthcoming. Once again, thank you for taking the time to write. Merci d'avoir communiqué avec le premier ministre du Nouveau-Brunswick. Soyez assuré que votre courriel a bien été reçu, qu'il sera examiné et qu'une réponse vous sera acheminée. Merci encore d'avoir pris de temps de nous écrire. Sincerely, / Sincèrement, Mallory Fowler Correspondence Manager / Gestionnaire de la correspondance Office of the Premier / Cabinet du premier ministre ---------- Original message ---------- From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 14:22:34 -0400 Subject: Denis Lebel wants a matter about BEER to go before the Supreme Court? HMMM Methinks I may go there some day as well To: denis.lebel@parl.gc.ca, denis.lebel.ca@parl.gc.ca, "rona.ambrose.A1" <rona.ambrose.A1@parl.gc.ca>, "stephen.harper.a1" < stephen.harper.a1@parl.gc.ca>, premier <premier@gnb.ca>, bill.richards@gnb.ca, kathryn.gregory@gnb.ca, jeff.mockler@gnb.ca, "Katherine.dEntremont" <Katherine.dEntremont@gnb.ca> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, "msoupcoff@theccf.ca" < msoupcoff@theccf.ca>, kselick < kselick@canadianconstitutionfoundation.ca>, mike@mblg.ca, abslegal@total.net http://www.canlii.org/en/nb/nbpc/doc/2016/2016nbpc3/2016nbpc3.html Mikaël H. H. Bernard Called to the bar: 2008 (NB) Matchim Bernard Law Group, An Association of Independent Lawyers 803-157 Water St. Campbellton, New Brunswick E3N 3L4 Phone: 506-789-6251 Fax: 506-789-1906 Email: mike@mblg.ca Arnold B. Schwisberg Called to the bar: 1987 (ON) Schwisberg, Arnold B. 6th Flr., East Twr. 675 Cochrane Dr. Markham, Ontario L3R 0B8 Phone: 905-530-2110 Fax: 905-530-2210 Email: abslegal@total.net Conservatives call for Comeau case referral to Supreme Court Opposition says case about interprovincial alcohol movement can clarify Section 121 of Constitution CBC News Posted: May 30, 2016 12:29 PM AT http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/conservatives-comeau-supreme-court-1.3607187 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 15:40:59 -0400 Subject: Attn Robert Currie I just called from 902 800 0369 RE International Law and Federal Court File # T-1557-15 To: robert.currie@dal.ca Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com> Robert J Currie Associate Professor of Law; Director, Law & Technology Institute Schulich School of Law , Law & Technology Institute Email: robert.currie@dal.ca Phone: 902-494-1012 Mailing Address: Room 434, Weldon Law Building, 6061 University Avenue PO Box 15000 Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H 4R2 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 14:50:07 -0400 Subject: ATTN Nathan Whitling RE Federal Court File # T-1557-15 Here is why I called you today. To: whitling@libertylaw.ca, dedney@shaw.ca, freeomarkhadrnow@gmail.com, sammorison@cox.net, ddagostino@fedpractice.com, stm@pardonattorney.com, andy@andyworthington.co.uk Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com> I had to leave a message because nobody in your office was available to speak to me? I tried to explain to the person answering the phone for you who wanted to know why I was calling but she got too busy too. Anyway here is why I called and tried to make friends with you. However David Edney and you other associates should have informed you of my concerns a long time ago. Correct? https://twitter.com/DavidRayAmos/status/770292071706001408 David Raymond Amos @DavidRayAmos @LindaFrum @UniteAlbertans @MichelleRempel @CBCPolitics @stephenharper @jkenney @howardanglin @CanadianPM @FBI HMMMM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqWCN1PahFc 1:08 PM - 29 Aug 2016 http://libertylaw.ca/lawyers/nathan-j-whitling/ Nathan J. Whitling Phone: 780-421-4766 Toll Free: 1-877-277-4766 Fax: 780-429-0346 Email: whitling@libertylaw.ca http://thedavidamosrant.blogspot.ca/2013/12/fwd-re-concerns-of-omar-khadrs-us.html Tuesday, 24 December 2013 Fwd: RE The concerns of Omar Khadr's US lawyer Sam Morison (I must say his help just pissed me off) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 18:50:20 -0400 Subject: RE The concerns of Omar Khadr's US lawyer Sam Morison (I must say his help just pissed me off) To: andy@andyworthington.co.uk, stm@pardonattorney.com, ddagostino@fedpractice.com Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, "Barry.Kennedy" < Barry.Kennedy@rcmp-grc.gc.ca> So lets see "FED" lawyers deal with this link http://thedavidamosrant.blogspot.ca/2013/10/re-glen-greenwald-and-brazilian.html http://www.fedpractice.com/our-team/samuel-morison/ 1150 Connecticut Ave., NW Suite 900 Washington, DC 20036-4129 Samuel Taylor Morison. 5015 Gadsen Drive. Fairfax, Virginia 22032. (703) 909-3157 stm@pardonattorney.com (202) 862-4348 http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2013/11/26/video-omar-khadrs-us-lawyer-sam-morison-explains-why-his-guantanamo-war-crimes-conviction-is-a-disgrace/ From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 18:53:26 -0400 Subject: Fwd: RE The concerns of Omar Khadr's US lawyer Sam Morison (I must say his help just pissed me off) To: sammorison@cox.net Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com> http://www.pardonattorney.com/#!contact Law Office of Samuel T. Morison 5015 Gadsen Drive Fairfax, VA 22032 Phone: (703) 652-4326 Fax: (866) 348-2693 E-mail: sammorison@cox.net From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 18:04:49 -0400 Subject: Attn Mr Edney I just called and explained some of my concerns to your better half (780 908 9555) She was very nice Merry Christmas To: dedney@shaw.ca Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com> http://ccla.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/DOCS-734470-v12-TorStar_s_517_SCC_FACTUM1.pdf ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 17:31:26 -0400 Subject: Fwd: Attn US Attorney B. Todd Jones I am on the phone to a person in your office who handles criminal matters after hours To: freeomarkhadrnow@gmail.com Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com> http://freeomarakhadr.com/about-us/ Our national spokesperson: T Heather Marsh (604) 240-2260 E freeomarkhadrnow@gmail.com and ttscanada@riseup.net http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/case-dossier/info/counsel-procureurs-eng.aspx?cas=33289 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 20:10:55 -0300 Subject: Attn US Attorney B. Todd Jones I am on the phone to a person in your office who handles criminal matters after hours To: b.todd.jones@usdoj.gov, lanny.breuer@usdoj.gov, david.kris@usdoj.gov, "marie-claude.blais" < marie-claude.blais@gnb.ca>, andre <andre@jafaust.com>, andremurraynow < andremurraynow@gmail.com>, "bernadine.chapman" < bernadine.chapman@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "john.warr" < john.warr@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "John.Williamson" < John.Williamson@parl.gc.ca>, "brian.t.macdonald" < brian.t.macdonald@gnb.ca>, "tom.smith" <tom.smith@ci.stpaul.mn.us>, jcarney <jcarney@carneybassil.com>, "Brian.Kelly" < Brian.Kelly@usdoj.gov>, premier <premier@gov.ab.ca>, "jason.kenney.c1" <jason.kenney.c1@parl.gc.ca>, ruby < ruby@rubyshiller.com>, rosent@math.toronto.edu, creeclayton77 < creeclayton77@gmail.com>, ppalmater <ppalmater@politics.ryerson.ca>, jrebick <jrebick@politics.ryerson.ca> Cc: David Amos <myson333@yahoo.com>, premier <premier@gov.bc.ca>, gplant <gplant@heenan.ca>, News10@newswithviews.com I must ask the obvious question do you snobby Yankee lawyers have any idea who wrote the Declaration of Human Rights for the UN and where he hailed from? I will give you a clue the same Riding that I ran in in 2004 after your former bosses tried to send me to Cuba after I had beaten fair and square the US District Mikey Sullivan another US Attorney who acted as the boss of the ATF until your lates boss Mr Obama got sworn in http://thedavidamosrant.blogspot.ca/2013/07/attn-hey-chief-tom-smith-i-support-mr.html http://my.firedoglake.com/youmayberight/tag/universal-declaration-of-human-rights/ http://www.justice.gov/usao/mn/meetattorney.html B. Todd Jones President Barack Obama formally nominated B. Todd Jones for the position of United States Attorney for the District of Minnesota on June 4, 2009, and he was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on August 7, 2009. United States Attorneys serve as the nation's principal litigators under the direction of the Attorney General, and each is the chief federal law enforcement officer of the United States within his or her particular jurisdiction. In September of 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder appointed Jones to serve as the Acting Director for the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Prior to becoming U.S. Attorney, Jones was a partner with a major national law firm in Minneapolis, where his practice focused on complex business litigation. He has represented a number of organizations and individuals in both criminal and civil regulatory matters. Jones is a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers. He also has served as special counsel to various boards of directors of public and privately held companies. In that capacity, he has led internal investigations and provided guidance on compliance and governance issues. This is the second time Jones has served as United States Attorney. President Clinton appointed him to the position in 1998 and he served in that capacity until January 2001. Jones also has served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the District of Minnesota. During his initial tenure as a federal prosecutor, Jones conducted grand jury investigations and was the lead trial lawyer in a number of federal prosecutions involving drug trafficking, financial fraud, firearms, and violent crime. Jones received his Juris Doctor from the University of Minnesota Law School in 1983. Following admission to the Minnesota bar, he went on active duty in the United States Marine Corps, where he served as both a trial defense counsel and prosecutor in a number of courts martial proceedings. In 1989, he and his family returned to Minnesota, where he developed a civil litigation practice encompassing a wide variety of legal matters, ranging from products liability defense and insurance coverage disputes to environmental and labor and employment controversies in both a private and public sector setting. http://www.justice.gov/usao/mn/contact.html ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 19:26:27 -0300 Subject: I am on the phone to a person in your office who handles criminal matters after hours To: jeanne.cooney@usdoj.gov, "bob.paulson" < bob.paulson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Mackay.P" <Mackay.P@forces.gc.ca> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: campaign <campaign@rickperry.org> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 17:12:44 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: Say hello to the "Gov" Ricky Baby Perry for me Howie You SOUTHERN Yankee bastards hang to far many innocent people to suit mean old me To: motomaniac333@gmail.com Thank you for your message. This email address is not checked frequently. If your message is urgent and you need to speak with someone at the campaign, please call our offices at 512-478-3276. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 19:12:32 -0300 Subject: Say hello to the "Gov" Ricky Baby Perry for me Howie You SOUTHERN Yankee bastards hang to far many innocent people to suit mean old me To: paul.paulos@ci.stpaul.mn.us, howie.padilla@ci.stpaul.mn.us, campaign@rickperry.org Cc: DAvid R Amos <davidr_amos@yahoo.ca>, "Jacques.Poitras" < Jacques.Poitras@cbc.ca>, newstips <newstips@cnn.com> Texans for Rick Perry 815-A Brazos Street, PMB 217 Austin, TX 78701 Phone: 512-478-3276 > QSLS Politics > By Location Visit Detail > Visit 21,964 > Domain Name swbell.net ? (Network) > IP Address 69.153.163.# (Texans For Rick Perry) > ISP SBC Internet Services > Location Continent : North America > Country : United States (Facts) > State : Texas > City : Austin > Lat/Long : 30.3037, -97.7696 (Map) > Language English (U.S.) en-us > Operating System Macintosh WinNT > Browser Safari 1.3 > Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0) AppleWebKit/534.30 (KHTML, like Gecko) > Chrome/12.0.742.122 Safari/534.30 > Javascript version 1.5 > Monitor Resolution : 1280 x 800 > Color Depth : 32 bits > Time of Visit Aug 2 2011 8:14:13 pm > Last Page View Aug 2 2011 8:14:13 pm > Visit Length 0 seconds > Page Views 1 > Referring URL > Visit Entry Page http://qslspolitics....-wendy-olsen-on.html > Visit Exit Page http://qslspolitics....-wendy-olsen-on.html > Out Click > Time Zone UTC-6:00 > Visitor's Time Aug 2 2011 1:14:13 pm > Visit Number 21,964 > > QSLS Politics > By Location Visit Detail > Visit 21,970 > Domain Name state.tx.us ? (U.S.) > IP Address 204.65.226.# (STATE OF TEXAS GENERAL SERVICES COMMISSION) > ISP STATE OF TEXAS GENERAL SERVICES COMMISSION > Location Continent : North America > Country : United States (Facts) > State : Texas > City : Austin > Lat/Long : 30.3037, -97.7696 (Map) > Language English (U.S.) en-us > Operating System Microsoft WinXP > Browser Internet Explorer 8.0 > Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; > InfoPath.2; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR > 3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648; .NET CLR 3.5.21022; .NET CLR > 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729) > Javascript version 1.3 > Monitor Resolution : 1024 x 768 > Color Depth : 32 bits > Time of Visit Aug 2 2011 10:04:07 pm > Last Page View Aug 2 2011 10:04:07 pm > Visit Length 0 seconds > Page Views 1 > Referring URL http://www.google.co...wwWJrm94lCEqRmovPXJg > Search Engine google.com > Search Words david amos madoff > Visit Entry Page http://qslspolitics....-wendy-olsen-on.html > Visit Exit Page http://qslspolitics....-wendy-olsen-on.html > Out Click > Time Zone UTC-6:00 > Visitor's Time Aug 2 2011 3:04:07 pm > Visit Number 21,970 > > QSLS Politics > By Location Visit Detail > Visit 21,962 > Domain Name senate.gov ? (U.S. Government) > IP Address 156.33.87.# (U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms) > ISP U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms > Location Continent : North America > Country : United States (Facts) > State : District of Columbia > City : Washington > Lat/Long : 38.9097, -77.0231 (Map) > Language English (U.S.) en-us > Operating System Macintosh MacOSX > Browser Safari 1.3 > Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_6_7; en-us) > AppleWebKit/533.21.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.5 Safari/533.21.1 > Javascript version 1.5 > Monitor Resolution : 2560 x 1440 > Color Depth : 24 bits > Time of Visit Aug 2 2011 7:01:04 pm > Last Page View Aug 2 2011 7:01:04 pm > Visit Length 0 seconds > Page Views 1 > Referring URL http://www.google.co...wwWJrm94lCEqRmovPXJg > Search Engine google.com > Search Words david amos madoff > Visit Entry Page http://qslspolitics....-wendy-olsen-on.html > Visit Exit Page http://qslspolitics....-wendy-olsen-on.html > Out Click > Time Zone UTC-5:00 > Visitor's Time Aug 2 2011 1:01:04 pm > Visit Number 21,962 http://o.canada.com/2013/07/17/mike-allen-mla-prostitution/ Howie Padilla Public Information Coordinator Office: 651-266-5735 Before joining the Saint Paul Police Department as Public Information Coordinator for in August of 2011, he spent four years serving in communications roles at Saint Paul Public Schools. He also spent seven years reporting on Public Safety and Justice issues at the Star Tribune following graduation from the University of North Dakota where he majored in Communications. Sgt. Paul Paulos Public Information Officer Office: 651-266-5639 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 18:40:29 -0300 Subject: Mr Campbell mett Mr Bauer say hello to Mr Obama lawyer and our Attorney general Mr Mackay for me will ya? To: paul.williams@ci.stpaul.mn.us, joe.campbell@ci.stpaul.mn.us, RBauer <RBauer@perkinscoie.com>, Mackap <Mackap@parl.gc.ca> Cc: David Amos <myson333@yahoo.com>, premier <premier@gov.ab.ca>, highwood <highwood@assembly.ab.ca>, "fortmcmurray.woodbuffalo" < fortmcmurray.woodbuffalo@assembly.ab.ca> Just so ya my Scottish ancestors told us to NEVER trust a poltician named Campbell Paul Williams Mayor's Staff Title: Deputy Mayor Phone: (651) 266-8569 Joe Campbell Mayor's Staff Title: Director of Communications Phone: (651) 266-8518 >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Póstur FOR <postur@for.is> >> Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 22:05:47 +0000 >> Subject: Re: Hey Premier Gallant please inform the questionable >> parliamentarian Birigtta Jonsdottir that although NB is a small "Have >> Not" province at least we have twice the population of Iceland and >> that not all of us are as dumb as she and her Prime Minister pretends >> to be.. >> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> >> >> Erindi þitt hefur verið móttekið / Your request has been received >> >> Kveðja / Best regards >> Forsætisráðuneytið / Prime Minister's Office >> >> >> This is the docket >> >> 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 two hearings >> >> Dec 14th https://archive.org/details/BahHumbug >> >> Jan 11th https://archive.org/details/Jan11th2015 >> >> This me running for a seat in Parliament again while CBC denies it again >> >> Fundy Royal, New Brunswick Debate – Federal Elections 2015 - The Local >> Campaign, Rogers TV >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cFOKT6TlSE >> >> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/fundy-royal-riding-profile-1.3274276 >> >> Veritas Vincit >> David Raymond Amos >> 902 800 0369 >> >> 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 essential for the security and tranquility of the developed world. An ISIS “caliphate,” in the Middle East, no matter how small, is a clear and present danger to the entire world. This “occupied state,” or“failed state” will prosecute an unending Islamic inspired war of terror against not only the “western world,” but Arab states “moderate” or not, as well. The security, safety, and tranquility of Canada and Canadians are just at risk now with the emergence of an ISIS“caliphate” no matter how large or small, as it was with the Taliban and Al Quaeda “marriage” in Afghanistan. One of the everlasting “legacies” of the “Trudeau the Elder’s dynasty was Canada and successive Liberal governments cowering behind the amerkan’s nuclear and conventional military shield, at the same time denigrating, insulting them, opposing them, and at the same time self-aggrandizing ourselves as “peace keepers,” and progenitors of “world peace.” Canada failed. The United States of Amerka, NATO, the G7 and or G20 will no longer permit that sort of sanctimonious behavior from Canada or its government any longer. And Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Foreign Minister John Baird , and Cabinet are fully cognizant of that reality. Even if some editorial boards, and pundits are not. Justin, Trudeau “the younger” is reprising the time “honoured” liberal mantra, and tradition of expecting the amerkans or the rest of the world to do “the heavy lifting.” Justin Trudeau and his “butt buddy” David Amos are telling Canadians that we can guarantee our security and safety by expecting other nations to fight for us. That Canada can and should attempt to guarantee Canadians safety by providing “humanitarian aid” somewhere, and call a sitting US president a “war criminal.” This morning Australia announced they too, were sending tactical aircraft to eliminate the menace of an ISIS “caliphate.” In one sense Prime Minister Harper is every bit the scoundrel Trudeau “the elder” and Jean ‘the crook” Chretien was. Just As Trudeau, and successive Liberal governments delighted in diminishing, marginalizing, under funding Canadian Forces, and sending Canadian military men and women to die with inadequate kit and modern equipment; so too is Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Canada’s F-18s are antiquated, poorly equipped, and ought to have been replaced five years ago. But alas, there won’t be single RCAF fighter jock that won’t go, or won’t want to go, to make Canada safe or safer. My Grandfather served this country. My father served this country. My Uncle served this country. And I have served this country. Justin Trudeau has not served Canada in any way. Thomas Mulcair has not served this country in any way. Liberals and so called social democrats haven’t served this country in any way. David Amos, and other drooling fools have not served this great nation in any way. Yet these fools are more than prepared to ensure their, our safety to other nations, and then criticize them for doing so. Canada must again, now, “do our bit” to guarantee our own security, and tranquility, but also that of the world. Canada has never before shirked its responsibility to its citizens and that of the world. Prime Minister Harper will not permit this country to do so now From: dnd_mdn@forces.gc.ca Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 14:17:17 -0400 Subject: RE: Re Greg Weston, The CBC , Wikileaks, USSOCOM, Canada and the War in Iraq (I just called SOCOM and let them know I was still alive To: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com This is to confirm that the Minister of National Defence has received your email and it will be reviewed in due course. Please do not reply to this message: it is an automatic acknowledgement. >>>> ---------- Original message ---------- From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 13:55:30 -0300 Subject: Re Greg Weston, The CBC , Wikileaks, USSOCOM, Canada and the War in Iraq (I just called SOCOM and let them know I was still alive To: DECPR@forces.gc.ca, Public.Affairs@socom.mil, Raymonde.Cleroux@mpcc-cppm.gc.ca, john.adams@cse-cst.gc.ca, william.elliott@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, stoffp1 <stoffp1@parl.gc.ca>, dnd_mdn@forces.gc.ca, media@drdc-rddc.gc.ca, information@forces.gc.ca, milner@unb.ca, charters@unb.ca, lwindsor@unb.ca, sarah.weir@mpcc-cppm.gc.ca, birgir <birgir@althingi.is>, smari < smari@immi.is>, greg.weston@cbc.ca, pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>, susan@blueskystrategygroup.com, Don@blueskystrategygroup.com, eugene@blueskystrategygroup.com, americas@aljazeera.net Cc: "Edith. Cody-Rice" <Edith.Cody-Rice@cbc.ca>, "terry.seguin" < terry.seguin@cbc.ca>, acampbell <acampbell@ctv.ca>, whistleblower < whistleblower@ctv.ca> I talked to Don Newman earlier this week before the beancounters David Dodge and Don Drummond now of Queen's gave their spin about Canada's Health Care system yesterday and Sheila Fraser yapped on and on on CAPAC during her last days in office as if she were oh so ethical.. To be fair to him I just called Greg Weston (613-288-6938) I suggested that he should at least Google SOUCOM and David Amos It would be wise if he check ALL of CBC's sources before he publishes something else about the DND EH Don Newman? Lets just say that the fact that your old CBC buddy, Tony Burman is now in charge of Al Jazeera English never impressed me. The fact that he set up a Canadian office is interesting though http://www.blueskystrategygroup.com/index.php/team/don-newman/ http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/media/story/2010/05/04/al-jazeera-english-launch.html Anyone can call me back and stress test my integrity after they read this simple pdf file. BTW what you Blue Sky dudes pubished about Potash Corp and BHP is truly funny. Perhaps Stevey Boy Harper or Brad Wall will fill ya in if you are to shy to call mean old me. http://www.scribd.com/doc/2718120/Integrity-Yea-Right The Governor General, the PMO and the PCO offices know that I am not a shy political animal Veritas Vincit David Raymond Amos 902 800 0369 Enjoy Mr Weston http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/2011/05/15/weston-iraq-invasion-wikileaks.html "But Lang, defence minister McCallum's chief of staff, says military brass were not entirely forthcoming on the issue. For instance, he says, even McCallum initially didn't know those soldiers were helping to plan the invasion of Iraq up to the highest levels of command, including a Canadian general. That general is Walt Natynczyk, now Canada's chief of defence staff, who eight months after the invasion became deputy commander of 35,000 U.S. soldiers and other allied forces in Iraq. Lang says Natynczyk was also part of the team of mainly senior U.S. military brass that helped prepare for the invasion from a mobile command in Kuwait." http://baconfat53.blogspot.com/2010/06/canada-and-united-states.html "I remember years ago when the debate was on in Canada, about there being weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Our American 'friends" demanded that Canada join into "the Coalition of the Willing. American "veterans" and sportscasters loudly denounced Canada for NOT buying into the US policy. At the time I was serving as a planner at NDHQ and with 24 other of my colleagues we went to Tampa SOUCOM HQ to be involved in the planning in the planning stages of the op....and to report to NDHQ, that would report to the PMO upon the merits of the proposed operation. There was never at anytime an existing target list of verified sites where there were deployed WMD. Coalition assets were more than sufficient for the initial strike and invasion phase but even at that point in the planning, we were concerned about the number of "boots on the ground" for the occupation (and end game) stage of an operation in Iraq. We were also concerned about the American plans for occupation plans of Iraq because they at that stage included no contingency for a handing over of civil authority to a vetted Iraqi government and bureaucracy. There was no detailed plan for Iraq being "liberated" and returned to its people...nor a thought to an eventual exit plan. This was contrary to the lessons of Vietnam but also to current military thought, that folks like Colin Powell and "Stuffy" Leighton and others elucidated upon. "What's the mission" how long is the mission, what conditions are to met before US troop can redeploy? Prime Minister Jean Chretien and the PMO were even at the very preliminary planning stages wary of Canadian involvement in an Iraq operation....History would prove them correct. The political pressure being applied on the PMO from the George W Bush administration was onerous American military assets were extremely overstretched, and Canadian military assets even more so It was proposed by the PMO that Canadian naval platforms would deploy to assist in naval quarantine operations in the Gulf and that Canadian army assets would deploy in Afghanistan thus permitting US army assets to redeploy for an Iraqi operation....The PMO thought that "compromise would save Canadian lives and liberal political capital.. and the priority of which ....not necessarily in that order. " You can bet that I called these sneaky Yankees again today EH John Adams? of the CSE within the DND? http://www.socom.mil/SOCOMHome/Pages/ContactUSSOCOM.aspx ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 20:18:44 -0300 Subject: Fwd: 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: jill.chisholm@justice.gc.ca, bill.pentney@justice.gc.ca, "Wayne.Gallant" <Wayne.Gallant@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "dominic.leblanc.a1" < dominic.leblanc.a1@parl.gc.ca>, Dominic LeBlanc < dominic.leblanc@nb.aibn.com>, "justin.trudeau.a1" < justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca>, "justmin@gov.ns.ca" < justmin@gov.ns.ca>, barry bachrach <bbachrach@bachrachlaw.net>, minjus <minjus@leg.gov.mb.ca>, suzanne.anton.mla@leg.bc.ca, attorneygeneral@ontario.ca, pillaytp@gov.ns.ca, tilly.pillay@novascotia.ca, lawreform@gov.mb.ca, georgemurphy@gov.nl.ca, tosborne@gov.nl.ca, william.baer@usdoj.gov, randyedmunds@gov.nl.ca, ministryofjustice < ministryofjustice@gov.ab.ca>, ministre <ministre@justice.gouv.qc.ca>, ministers <ministers@hm-treasury.gov.uk>, minister < minister@justice.gov.sk.ca>, Evi Quaid <shipshore44@gmail.com>, "Dale.Morgan" <Dale.Morgan@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca" <warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "john.green" <john.green@gnb.ca>, Mad Ape <chiefape@gmail.com>, "madelaine.dube" <madelaine.dube@gnb.ca>, "oldmaison@yahoo.com" < oldmaison@yahoo.com>, "leanne.murray" < leanne.murray@mcinnescooper.com>, "Leanne.Fitch" < Leanne.Fitch@fredericton.ca> Cc: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>, "peter.mackay" < peter.mackay@justice.gc.ca>, "david.hansen" < David.Hansen@justice.gc.ca>, "peacock.kurt" < peacock.kurt@telegraphjournal.com>, robert.frater@justice.gc.ca, greg@gregdelbigio.com, joyce.dewitt-vanoosten@gov.bc.ca, joan.barrett@ontario.ca, jean-vincent.lacroix@gouv.qc.ca, Saint Croix Courier <editor@stcroixcourier.ca> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vugUalUO8YY Published on Apr 4, 2013 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 CLEARLY THE RCMP/GRC AND THE KPMG PALS DO NOT KNOW HOW TO READ LET ALONE COUNT BEANS EH? Warren McBeath warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca wrote: Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:34:53 < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vugUalUO8YY#> -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 n 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 and the US. These issues do not fall into the purvue of Detachment 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 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:35 AM Subject: 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.Hansen@justice.gc.ca, "peter.mackay" <peter.mackay@justice.gc.ca>, "peacock.kurt" <peacock.kurt@telegraphjournal.com>, "mclaughlin.heather" < mclaughlin.heather@dailygleaner.com>, "david.akin" <david.akin@sunmedia.ca>, "robert.frater" <robert.frater@justice.gc.ca>, paul.riley@ppsc-sppc.gc.ca, greg@gregdelbigio.com, joyce.dewitt-vanoosten@gov.bc.ca, joan.barrett@ontario.ca, jean-vincent.lacroix@gouv.qc.ca, peter.rogers@mcinnescooper.com, mfeder@mccarthy.ca, mjamal@osler.com Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, gopublic <gopublic@cbc.ca>, Whistleblower <Whistleblower@ctv.ca> https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14439/index.do http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/WebDocuments-DocumentsWeb/35072/FM030_Respondent_Attorney-General-of-Canada-on-Behalf-of-the-United-States-of-America.pdf http://thedavidamosrant.blogspot.ca/2013/10/re-glen-greenwald-and-brazilian.html I repeat what the Hell do I do with the Yankee wiretapes taps sell them on Ebay or listen to them and argue them with you dudes in Feferal Court? Petey Baby loses all parliamentary privelges in less than a month but he still supposed to be an ethical officer of the Court CORRECT? Veritas Vincit David Raymond Amos 902 800 0369 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 12:32:30 -0400 Subject: Andre meet Biil Csapo of Occupy Wall St He is a decent fellow who can be reached at (516) 708-4777 Perhaps you two should talk ASAP To: wcsapo <wcsapo@gmail.com> Cc: occupyfredericton <occupyfredericton@gmail.com> From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com> Subject: Your friends in Corridor or the Potash Corp or Bruce Northrup or the RCMP should have told you about this stuff not I To: "khalid" <khalid@windsorenergy.ca>, "Wayne.Lang" < Wayne.Lang@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "bruce.northrup@gnb.ca" < bruce.northrup@gnb.ca>, "oldmaison@yahoo.com" <oldmaison@yahoo.com>, "thenewbrunswicker" <thenewbrunswicker@gmail.com>, "chiefape" < chiefape@gmail.com>, "danfour" <danfour@myginch.com>, "evelyngreene" < evelyngreene@live.ca>, "Barry.MacKnight" < Barry.MacKnight@fredericton.ca>, "tom_alexander" < tom_alexander@swn.com> Cc: "thepurplevioletpress" <thepurplevioletpress@gmail.com>, "maritime_malaise" <maritime_malaise@yahoo.ca> Date: Tuesday, November 15, 2011, 4:16 PM http://www.archive.org/details/PoliceSurveilanceWiretapTape139 http://www.archive.org/details/FedsUsTreasuryDeptRcmpEtc http://davidamos.blogspot.com/ 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: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 14:10:14 -0400 Subject: Yo Mr Bauer say hey to your client Obama and his buddies in the USDOJ for me will ya? To: RBauer <RBauer@perkinscoie.com>, sshimshak@paulweiss.com, cspada@lswlaw.com, msmith <msmith@svlaw.com>, bginsberg < bginsberg@pattonboggs.com>, "gregory.craig" < gregory.craig@skadden.com>, pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>, "bob.paulson" < bob.paulson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "bob.rae" < bob.rae@rogers.blackberry.net>, MulcaT <MulcaT@parl.gc.ca>, leader < leader@greenparty.ca> Cc: alevine@cooley.com, David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, michael.rothfeld@wsj.com, remery@ecbalaw.com QSLS Politics By Location Visit Detail Visit 29,419 Domain Name usdoj.gov ? (U.S. Government) IP Address 149.101.1.# (US Dept of Justice) ISP US Dept of Justice Location Continent : North America Country : United States (Facts) State : District of Columbia City : Washington Lat/Long : 38.9097, -77.0231 (Map) Language English (U.S.) en-us Operating System Microsoft WinXP Browser Internet Explorer 8.0 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; InfoPath.2; DI60SP1001) Javascript version 1.3 Monitor Resolution : 1024 x 768 Color Depth : 32 bits Time of Visit Nov 17 2012 6:33:08 pm Last Page View Nov 17 2012 6:33:08 pm Visit Length 0 seconds Page Views 1 Referring URL http://www.google.co...wwWJrm94lCEqRmovPXJg Search Engine google.com Search Words david amos bernie madoff Visit Entry Page http://qslspolitics....-wendy-olsen-on.html Visit Exit Page http://qslspolitics....-wendy-olsen-on.html Out Click Time Zone UTC-5:00 Visitor's Time Nov 17 2012 12:33:08 pm Visit Number 29,419 http://qslspolitics.blogspot.com/2009/03/david-amos-to-wendy-olsen-on.html > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Amos" <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com> > To: "Rob Talach" <rtalach@ledroitbeckett.com> > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 10:59 PM > Subject: Re: Attn Robert Talach and I should talk ASAP about my suing > the Catholic Church Trust that Bastarache knows why > > The date stamp on about page 134 of this old file of mine should mean > a lot to you > > http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/2619437-CROSS-BORDER-txt-.pdf > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> > Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 15:37:08 -0400 > Subject: To Hell with the KILLER COP Gilles Moreau What say you NOW > Bernadine Chapman?? > To: Gilles.Moreau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, phil.giles@statcan.ca, > maritme_malaise@yahoo.ca, Jennifer.Nixon@ps-sp.gc.ca, > bartman.heidi@psic-ispc.gc.ca, Yves.J.Marineau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, > david.paradiso@erc-cee.gc.ca, desaulniea@smtp.gc.ca, > denise.brennan@tbs-sct.gc.ca, anne.murtha@vac-acc.gc.ca, webo > < webo@xplornet.com>, julie.dickson@osfi-bsif.gc.ca, > rod.giles@osfi-bsif.gc.ca, flaherty.j@parl.gc.ca, toewsv1 > < toewsv1@parl.gc.ca>, "Nycole.Turmel" <Nycole.Turmel@parl.gc.ca>, > Clemet1 <Clemet1@parl.gc.ca>, maritime_malaise > < maritime_malaise@yahoo.ca>, oig <oig@sec.gov>, whistleblower > < whistleblower@finra.org>, whistle <whistle@fsa.gov.uk>, david > < david@fairwhistleblower.ca> > Cc: j.kroes@interpol.int, David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, > bernadine.chapman@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, "justin.trudeau.a1" > < justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca>, "Juanita.Peddle" > < Juanita.Peddle@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, oldmaison <oldmaison@yahoo.com>, > "Wayne.Lang" <Wayne.Lang@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Robert.Trevors" > < Robert.Trevors@gnb.ca>, "ian.fahie" <ian.fahie@rcmp-grc.gc.ca> > > http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/nb/news-nouvelles/media-medias-eng.htm > > http://nb.rcmpvet.ca/Newsletters/VetsReview/nlnov06.pdf > > From: Gilles Moreau <Gilles.Moreau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca> > Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 08:03:22 -0500 > Subject: Re: Lets ee if the really nasty Newfy Lawyer Danny Boy > Millions will explain this email to you or your boss Vic Toews EH > Constable Peddle??? > To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> > > Please cease and desist from using my name in your emails. > > Gilles Moreau, Chief Superintendent, CHRP and ACC > Director General > HR Transformation > 73 Leikin Drive, M5-2-502 > Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0R2 > > Tel 613-843-6039 > Cel 613-818-6947 > > Gilles Moreau, surintendant principal, CRHA et ACC > Directeur général de la Transformation des ressources humaines > 73 Leikin, pièce M5-2-502 > Ottawa, ON K1A 0R2 > > tél 613-843-6039 > cel 613-818-6947 > gilles.moreau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca > >>>> David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> 2012-11-21 00:01 >>> Could ya tell I am investigating your pension plan bigtime? Its because no member of the RCMP I have ever encountered has earned it yet ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 00:46:06 -0400 Subject: This is a brief as I can make my concerns Cst Peddle ask the nasty Newfy lawyer Tommy Boy Marshall why that is To: "Wayne.Lang" <Wayne.Lang@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, toewsv1 < toewsv1@parl.gc.ca>, georgemurphy@gov.nl.ca, tosborne@gov.nl.ca, william.baer@usdoj.gov, randyedmunds@gov.nl.ca, yvonnejones@gov.nl.ca, gerryrogers@gov.nl.ca Cc: Juanita.Peddle@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, tommarshall@gov.nl.ca, "bob.paulson" <bob.paulson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, David Amos < david.raymond.amos@gmail.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:36:04 -0400 Subject: This is a brief as I can make my concerns Randy To: randyedmunds <randyedmunds@gov.nl.ca> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com> In a nutshell my concerns about the actions of the Investment Industry affect the interests of every person in every district of every country not just the USA and Canada. I was offering to help you with Emera because my work with them and Danny Williams is well known and some of it is over eight years old and in the PUBLIC Record. All you have to do is stand in the Legislature and ask the MInister of Justice why I have been invited to sue Newfoundland by the Conservatives Obviously I am the guy the USDOJ and the SEC would not name who is the link to Madoff and Putnam Investments Here is why http://banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=90f8e691-9065-4f8c-a465-72722b47e7f2 Notice the transcripts and webcasts of the hearing of the US Senate Banking Commitee are still missing? Mr Emory should at least notice Eliot Spitzer and the Dates around November 20th, 2003 in the following file http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/2526023-DAMOSIntegrity-yea-right.-txt.pdf http://occupywallst.org/users/DavidRaymondAmos/ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Hansen, David" <David.Hansen@justice.gc.ca> Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 19:28:44 +0000 Subject: RE: I just called again Mr Hansen To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> Hello Mr. Amos, I manage the Justice Canada civil litigation section in the Atlantic region. We are only responsible for litigating existing civil litigation files in which the Attorney General of Canada is a named defendant or plaintiff. If you are a plaintiff or defendant in an existing civil litigation matter in the Atlantic region in which Attorney General of Canada is a named defendant or plaintiff please provide the court file number, the names of the parties in the action and your question. I am not the appropriate contact for other matters. Thanks David A. Hansen Regional Director \| Directeur régional General Counsel \|Avocat général Civil Litigation and Advisory \| Contentieux des affaires civiles et services de consultation Department of Justice \| Ministère de la Justice Suite 1400 – Duke Tower \| Pièce 1400 – Tour Duke 5251 Duke Street \| 5251 rue Duke Halifax, Nova Scotia \| Halifax, Nouvelle- Écosse B3J 1P3 david.hansen@justice.gc.ca Telephone \| Téléphone (902) 426-3261 / Facsimile \| Télécopieur (902) 426-2329 This e-mail is confidential and may be protected by solicitor-client privilege. Unauthorized distribution or disclosure is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us and delete this entire e-mail. Before printing think about the Environment Thinking Green, please do not print this e-mail unless necessary. Pensez vert, svp imprimez que si nécessaire. -----Original Message----- From: David Amos [mailto:motomaniac333@gmail.com] Sent: August 1, 2013 12:04 PM To: justmin; Hansen, David; macpherson.don; stoffp1 Cc: David Amos; justin.trudeau.a1; leader Subject: I just called again Mr Hansen David,Hansen, Justice Canada, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3J 1P3. Phone: 902-426-3261. Fax: 902-426-2329. Email: david.hansen@justice.gc.ca ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Hansen, David" <David.Hansen@justice.gc.ca> Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 18:19:29 +0000 Subject: Automatic reply: Re Election Canada and hard copy and emails sent to them and the RCMP and my calls,Duncan Toswell and Ronald.Lamothe just now To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> I am currently away from the office. Please contact Ginette Mazerolle if you require assistance. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Hansen, David" <David.Hansen@justice.gc.ca> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 18:46:27 +0000 Subject: Automatic reply: RE My calls to Jim Prentice, Mike Duffy's lawyer and your Ministries please find hereto attached some of the PDF files I promised before I argue the CROWN in Federal Court To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> I will be away from the office from August 1st to September 2nd. Please contact Ginette Mazerolle if you require assistance. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 14:55:29 -0300 Subject: Fwd: Here is my latest complaint about the SEC, Banksters and Taxmen To: hbrady@berkeley.edu, gsppdean@berkeley.edu, swinfo@scottwalker.com Cc: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> Henry E. Brady Goldman School Dean Class of 1941 Monroe Deutsch Professor of Political Science and Public Policy 103 GSPP Main hbrady@berkeley.edu < javascript:void(location.href='mailto: '+String.fromCharCode(104,98,114,97,100,121,64,98,101,114,107,101,108,101,121,46,101,100,117))> gsppdean@berkeley.edu < javascript:void(location.href='mailto: '+String.fromCharCode(103,115,112,112,100,101,97,110,64,98,101,114,107,101,108,101,121,46,101,100,117))> Assistant: Beth McCleary (510) 642-5116 Email Beth McCleary < javascript:void(location.href='mailto: '+String.fromCharCode(98,109,99,99,108,101,97,114,121,64,98,101,114,107,101,108,101,121,46,101,100,117))> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 4:34 PM Subject: Fwd: Here is my latest complaint about the SEC, Banksters and Taxmen To: jmwilson@mta.ca, alaina@alainalockhart.ca, stephanie.coburn@greenparty.ca Cc: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> http://james4fundyroyal.weebly.com/ https://alainalockhart.liberal.ca/ http://www.greenparty.ca/en/content/federal-council-new-brunswick-stephanie-coburn ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 4:16 PM Subject: Fwd: Here is my latest complaint about the SEC, Banksters and Taxmen To: Saint Croix Courier <editor@stcroixcourier.ca>, Duncan Matheson < duncan@bissettmatheson.com>, infoacadie@radio-canada.ca Cc: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> * https://player.fm/series/shift-nb/nursing-home-policy-change-and-federal-election < https://player.fm/series/shift-nb/nursing-home-policy-change-and-federal-election > * Michelle LeBlanc, Vern Faulkner and Duncan Matheson look at the big political stories of the week. - See more at: https://player.fm/series/shift-nb/nursing-home-policy-change-and-federal-election#sthash.RYRFiC5P.dpuf https://twitter.com/mleblanc_RC Keep up with Duncan 506-457-1627 Editor: Vern Faulkner Phone: (506) 466-3220 ext. 1307; CELL (506) 467-5203 Email: editor@stcroixcourier.ca ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 10:18:04 -0300 Subject: Fwd: Here is my latest complaint about the SEC, Banksters and Taxmen To: nicolas@allvotes.ca, pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>, brendan@brendanmiles.ca Cc: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>, Tim.Moen@libertarian.ca, info@democraticadvancementparty.ca ENJOY https://www.scribd.com/doc/281544801/Federal-Court-Seal https://www.scribd.com/doc/281442628/Me-Versus-the-Crown

https://theccf.ca/staff/

STAFF

Joanna Baron has been the CCF’s Executive Director since 2019. Previous to that, Joanna was the founding Director of the Runnymede Society. A native of Toronto, Joanna studied classical liberal arts at St. John’s College, MD, and earned civil and common law degrees at McGill University. She clerked at the Court of Appeal for Ontario and was called to the bar in Ontario in 2013. Following her clerkship, Joanna worked in barrister’s chambers in London, UK as a Harold G. Fox Scholar. Following her return to Canada in 2014, Joanna practiced criminal law with the late Edward L. Greenspan, appearing at all levels of court in Ontario, including the Supreme Court of Canada.

Christine Van Geyn is an outspoken advocate for freedom in Canada and was appointed the CCF Director of Litigation in 2020. Christine earned her undergraduate degree in Political Science and Ethics, Society and Law at the University of Toronto, Trinity College. She earned her JD at Osgoode Hall Law school, and also studied at New York University School of Law. She was called to the bar in Ontario in 2012. Before joining CCF, Christine practiced commercial litigation, and then was the Ontario Director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, where she was involved in several high profile constitutional challenges.

Adam Revay joined the CCF in 2008 and has held several roles within the organization. As the CCF’s Operations Director, Adam oversees the day-to-day operations of the organization. He also coordinates the CCF’s fundraising efforts. Adam earned a B.A. in Political Science from the University of Calgary in 2006. He enjoys the great outdoors and is an experienced skier and hiker. He is also a computer hobbyist and an avid gamer. Adam lives in Calgary with his wife, son, and labradoodle.

Russell became the CCF’s Communications Director in 2021, having been with the CCF since 2014. Russell holds degrees in Economics (2021) and Policy Studies (2013) from the University of Calgary and Mount Royal University respectively. A true believer in individual freedom and classical liberalism, Russell manages the CCF’s website, social media and supports the Foundation’s fundraising and event planning.

Board of Directors

Andy Crooks
CCF Chairman, Lawyer and Businessman, Calgary

Dr. Glenn Fox
Professor, University of Guelph

Will Johnston, MD
Doctor, Vancouver

Dwight Newman
Professor, University of Saskatchewan

The Hon. Tony Clement, P.C.

Port Sydney

ATTN Edward Gillis I called again to try to speak to you about the CRA auditors, the CBC and the PIPSC but was directed to a Mr Campbell's voicemail

Howard Anglin <hanglin@theccf.ca>	Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 3:08 PM
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

Please remove me from this list. I have no idea who you are or what you are on about. On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 12:07 PM, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote: Message blocked Your message to Gerald.Butts@pmo-cpm.gc.ca has been blocked. See technical details below for more information. LEARN MORE On 8/17/18, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote: > Need I say that Minister Diane Lebouthillier and Bill Morneau know > that the greedy people within the CRA and the CBC can cry me river for > all I care now? > > http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cra-tax-avoidance-evasion-1.4787781 > > Most CRA auditors polled say Canada's tax system is skewed to protect > the wealthy > > > A new survey of more than 1,700 tax professionals at CRA suggests > agency lacks tools to make the rich pay > Dean Beeby · CBC News · Posted: Aug 17, 2018 4:00 AM ET > > Trust that I alread had a pit and chew with the greedy UTE dudes > > Your media people find this email published within my blog ASAP > > http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.com/2018/08/most-cra-auditors-polled-say-canadas.html > > Edward Gillis > Chief Operating Officer & Executive Secretary > Telephone : (613)228-6310 / 1(800)267-0446 ext: 5005 > E-mail : egillis@pipsc.ca > Ryan Campbell Economist > Telephone : (613)228-6310 / 1(800)267-0446 ext: 4732 > E-mail : rcampbell@pipsc.ca > > 250 Tremblay Road > Ottawa, ON K1G 3J8 > > > Paul Hartigan > Manager, Atlantic Region > > Portfolio : > > Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) > Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) > Correctional Service Canada (CSC) > Employment and Social Development Canada > Library and Archives Canada (LAC) > National Energy Board (NEB) > National Research Council > New-Brunswick Groups: Agriculture (AG) - Engineering, Land Surveying > and Architectures (EN) - Veterinary (VS) > Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB) > Public Safety Canada (PSC) > > Suite 200 > 1718 Argyle St > Halifax, NS B3J 3N6 > > Telephone : (902)420-1519 / 1-800-565-0727 ext: 3522 > E-mail : phartigan@pipsc.ca > > https://www.ute-sei.org/en/about > > We’re the Union of Taxation Employees (UTE), representing more than > 25,000 employees of Canada Revenue Agency. We exist to maintain and > advance the workplace rights of our members – a big task in today’s > federal public service! > > It’s a job we take very seriously. The UTE believes in fostering a > constructive relationship with Agency management. But, we’re > aggressive in protecting our members’ interests – from the office > floor to Parliament Hill. > > As a progressive, innovative union, our vision extends into the > future. At the same time, our roots go back more than half a century. > In 1943, employees working for the then Taxation Department first > organized themselves into the Dominion Income Tax Staff Association. > Then, as now, federal workers recognized that unionizing is the best > insurance policy against unfair and unreasonable employer actions. > > In 1966, with the advent of free collective bargaining in the federal > public service, the UTE joined the Public Service Alliance of Canada > (PSAC) as the “Taxation Component”. Our 1987 convention voted to > adopt our current name. With the passage of the CCRA Act, we moved > from a department of the federal public service to an agency. This > Agency was proclaimed on November 1, 1999. On December 12, 2003, the > Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) became the Canada Revenue > Agency (CRA). > > UTE members work in such areas as Taxpayer Services, Debt Management, > Audit, Finance and Administration, Human Resources, Information > Technology (IT), Compensation, Enforcement, Appeals, and the > Legislative Policy and Regulatory Affairs Branch (LPRAB). They fall > into either the SP or the MG Classifications. > > These groups are covered under one collective agreement (the Program > and Administration Services agreement). > > > Marc was elected National President for the Union of Taxation > Employees at the July 2017 Triennial Convention in Ottawa. > Union Involvement > > Since 2004, Marc has been actively involved with the union in various > capacities. He was the Treasurer of Local 10028 in Laval from June > 2004 until his election as President of the same Local in May 2007. > Marc was reelected to this position by acclamation in 2009 and 2011. > As of July 2011, he was also elected as the Alternate RVP for the > Montreal Region. Marc was elected 1st National Vice-President for the > Union of Taxation Employees in July 2012 and re-elected at the July > 2014 Triennial Convention in Windsor. > > Email: marcbriere@ute-sei.org > Telephone: (613) 235-6704 x228 > Cellphone: (613) 882-6287 > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> > Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2018 12:25:18 -0400 > Subject: Methinks somebody should talk the CRA AGENTS Steve 0673ONT > Colleen 204802PAC ASAP N'esy Pas? > To: "Diane.Lebouthillier" <Diane.Lebouthillier@cra-arc.gc.ca>, > "Brenda.Lucki" <Brenda.Lucki@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Pat.Kelly" > < Pat.Kelly@parl.gc.ca>, "Murray.Rankin" <Murray.Rankin@parl.gc.ca> > Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com> > > https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-di-sano-06a31b44/ > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> > Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2018 13:19:04 -0400 > Subject: Fwd: I called again to try to speak to the Tax Ombudsman Paul > Dube and quickly was informed that he no longer works there and there > is no replacement yet > To: mcu <mcu@justice.gc.ca>, Sherra.Profit@oto-boc.gc.ca, > "andrew.scheer" <andrew.scheer@parl.gc.ca>, > Claude.Dubois@oto-boc.gc.ca > Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, "Michael.Wernick" > < Michael.Wernick@pco-bcp.gc.ca>, "Michael.Duheme" > < Michael.Duheme@rcmp-grc.gc.ca> > > https://www.canada.ca/en/taxpayers-ombudsman/news/2018/02/the_taxpayers_ombudsmanreleasesherofficesnewestsystemicexaminati.html > > Media relations - Office of the Taxpayers’ Ombudsman > 613-946-2974 > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> > Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 13:16:09 -0400 > Subject: Fwd: I called again to try to speak to the Tax Ombudsman Paul > Dube and quickly was informed that he no longer works there and there > is no replacement yet > To: mcu <mcu@justice.gc.ca>, Sherra.Profit@oto-boc.gc.ca > Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com> > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> > Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 15:27:35 -0400 > Subject: Fwd: I called again to try to speak to the Tax Ombudsman Paul > Dube and quickly was informed that he no longer works there and there > is no replacement yet > To: Sherra.Profit@oto-boc.gc.ca > Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com> > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> > Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 12:16:15 -0700 > Subject: I called again to try to speak to the Tax Ombudsman Paul Dube > and quickly was informed that he no longer works there and there is no > replacement yet > To: Linda.Desrochers@taxpayersrights.gc.ca, > pierre.poilievre.a1@parl.gc.ca, shelly.glover.a1@parl.gc.ca, > janet.campbell@pch.gc.ca, fraser.patricia@psic-ispc.gc.ca, > pierre.poilievre@hrsdc-rhdcc.gc.ca, "steven.blaney" > < steven.blaney.a1@parl.gc.ca>, media@hrsdc-rhdcc.gc.ca, "peter.mackay" > < peter.mackay@justice.gc.ca>, Laurent.Marcoux@pco-bcp.gc.ca, > Louise.Levonian@hrsdc-rhdcc.gc.ca, "dan. bussieres" > < dan.bussieres@gnb.ca>, "danny.copp" <danny.copp@fredericton.ca>, > "roger.l.brown" <roger.l.brown@rcmp-grc.gc.ca> > Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, media@pch.gc.ca, sean > < sean@canadalandshow.com>, Newsroom <Newsroom@globeandmail.com>, > "macpherson.don" <macpherson.don@dailygleaner.com> > > http://www.oto-boc.gc.ca/cntct/gnrlnqrs-eng.html > > https://quinte.cioc.ca/record/OCR3226 > > Linda Desrochers, Taxpayers' Ombudsman > >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com> >>>> Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:15:12 -0400 >>>> Subject: I called again to try to speak to the tax Ombudsman Paul >>>> Dube >>>> and many others. Need I say that I was not surprised that nobody >>>> called me back to talk to me? >>>> To: pm@pm.gc.ca, Mackay.P@forces.gc.ca, >>>> Paul.Dube@taxpayersrights.gc.ca, >>>> roxanne.daoust@taxpayersrights.gc.ca, >>>> blackj1b@parl.gc.ca, ministerofstate@acoa-aperca.gc.ca, >>>> L.Cannon@international.gc.ca, Stockwell.Day@international.gc.ca, >>>> jhii@lghc-lgcc.gc.ca, Minister@cic.gc.ca, >>>> Peter.Kent@international.gc.ca, minister@acdi-cida.gc.ca, >>>> Jim.Prentice@ec.gc.ca, Minister@ainc-inac.gc.ca, >>>> gregory.thompson@vac-acc.gc.ca, KerrG1a@parl.gc.ca, ceo@cmha.ca, >>>> Barry >>>> Winters <sunrayzulu@shaw.ca>, dean Ray <deanr0032@hotmail.com> >>>> Cc: Washington-im-enquiry@international.gc.ca, >>>> classactioncra@gmail.com, minfam@leg.gov.mb.ca, >>>> kevin.lamoureux@leg.gov.mb.ca, premier@leg.gov.mb.ca, >>>> jon.gerrard@leg.gov.mb.ca, mc.blais@pcnb.org, ndpnpd@nbnet.nb.ca, >>>> communications@protectchildren.ca, chimo1@nb.aibn.com >>>> >>>> Gordon O'Conner who appointed a lawyer from New Brunswick to be the >>>> Tax Ombudsmancan ask his former underlings such as legions of taxmen >>>> or Keith Ashfield, Pat Lynch, Greg Thompson, Brent Babcock or better >>>> the very evil lawyer Ward Elcock explain my troubles with corrupt >>>> taxmen and their many cohorts to the shy Ombudsman before we meet >>>> in a >>>> Federal Court. Nobody should deny that the former Governor General >>>> suggested that I take my concerns to court over five years ago. >>>> Perhaps O'Conner's purported fellow exmilitary man "Barry Winters" >>>> aka >>>> baconfat53.blogspot.com will continue with his obvious malice in an >>>> effort explain to the world why my concerns about lawsuits against >>>> the >>>> CROWN have no merit whatsoever. Cybersace has lots of room for many >>>> agruments but the PMO and the PCO offices should agree that the >>>> proper >>>> veneue for important arguments involving taxation and the CRIOWN is >>>> the Federal Court in Fredericton New Brunswick. Whereas Paul Dube >>>> and >>>> his help wish to play dumb about the accountibilty of the CRA etc >>>> since he moved to Ottawa with the rest of the federal boyz he can >>>> send >>>> lawyers to New Brunswick to argue me about my right to no false >>>> imprisonment etc. >>>> >>>> Need I repeat myself to explain why this Youtube channel of Dean >>>> Roger >>>> Ray and the blog of his associate in Alberta "Barry Winters " in >>>> particular offend my family the most and will cause the CROWN to >>>> pagreat y out a deal of money in the form of releif for its willful >>>> support of such obvious malice or my name ain't "Just Dave"? >>>> >>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2CZ5tJCVzM&feature=related >>>> >>>> http://baconfat53.blogspot.com/2009_11_01_archive.html >>>> >>>> Veritas Vincit >>>> David Raymond Amos >>>> > > > On 2/20/15, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote: >> The one pdf file hereto attached speaks volumes in only ONE Official >> Language >> >> As you all know I am still a Canadian citizen who has every right to >> file many lawsuits to seek relief and compensation. Even though I have >> no SIN # or fixed address the RCMP and CSIS always know where to find >> me in order to harass me >> and the PMO and the PCO offices etc have had many of my documents for >> manny many years Correct? >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> >> Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 10:12:45 -0700 >> Subject: Attn Jeffrey Brennan I just called and spoke to you as I said >> I have had enough harassment by the RCMP and their cohorts If the >> Canadian government wishes to settle with me outside of court now >> would be the time >> To: Jeffrey.Brennan@pmo.gc.ca >> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, "bob.paulson" >> < bob.paulson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "peter.mackay" >> < peter.mackay@justice.gc.ca> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Info <info@ndp.ca> >> Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 16:55:22 +0000 >> Subject: Automatic reply: Re Worldwide Public Corruption BTW Methinks >> this is the real reason Johnny "Never Been Good" Baird suddenly bailed >> on his boss Harper >> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> >> >> Le français suit >> >> Hello, >> >> Thank you for sending your inquiry to Canada’s NDP. >> >> We will reply to your email as soon as possible. If you have >> previously left a voicemail message – please be assured your call will >> be addressed. We are working to respond to each message as quickly as >> possible. >> >> Thank you for your patience during this busy – but exciting – time. >> >> Have a nice day, >> >> Canada’s New Democrats >> _______________________________________________________ >> >> 300-279 Laurier West/Ouest Ottawa, ON K1P 5J9 >> (TÉL) 866.525.2555 \| (TÉLÉC/FAX) 613.230.9950 >> ndp.ca \| npd.ca >> Cope 225:js >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Bonjour/Bonsoir, >> >> Merci de votre courriel. >> >> Nous répondrons à votre courrier électronique dès que possible. Si >> vous nous avez déjà laissé un message vocal, s'il vous plaît soyez >> assuré que nous vous retournerons l’appel. Nous travaillons afin de >> pouvoir répondre à chaque message vocal et courrier électronique aussi >> vite que possible. >> >> Nous vous remercions de faire preuve de patience au cours de cette >> période occupée mais fort passionnante. >> >> Bonne journée, >> >> Le NPD du Canada >> _______________________________________________________ >> >> 300-279 Laurier West/Ouest Ottawa, ON K1P 5J9 >> (TÉL) 866.525.2555 \| (TÉLÉC/FAX) 613.230.9950 >> ndp.ca \| npd.ca >> Cope 225:js >> >> Just Dave >> By Location Visit Detail >> Visit 21,977 >> Domain Name gc.ca ? (Canada) >> IP Address 198.103.111.# (Privy Council Office) >> ISP GTIS >> Location >> Continent : North America >> Country : Canada (Facts) >> State/Region : Ontario >> City : Ottawa >> Lat/Long : 45.4167, -75.7 (Map) >> Language English (Canada) >> en-ca >> Operating System Microsoft WinXP >> Browser Internet Explorer 8.0 >> Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; >> GTB7.5; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648; .NET CLR >> 3.5.21022; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C; >> .NET4.0E) >> Javascript version 1.3 >> Monitor >> Resolution : 1440 x 900 >> Color Depth : 16 bits >> Time of Visit Feb 5 2015 1:12:14 pm >> Last Page View Feb 5 2015 1:12:14 pm >> Visit Length 0 seconds >> Page Views 1 >> Referring URL http://www.google.ca...nRm5CfJR9k7DU3s_2_WA >> Visit Entry Page http://davidamos.blogspot.ca/ >> Visit Exit Page http://davidamos.blogspot.ca/ >> Out Click >> Time Zone UTC-5:00 >> Visitor's Time Feb 5 2015 12:12:14 pm >> Visit Number 21,977 >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> >> Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 09:54:33 -0700 >> Subject: Re Worldwide Public Corruption BTW Methinks this is the real >> reason Johnny "Never Been Good" Baird suddenly bailed on his boss >> Harper >> To: Daniel.Nadeau@priv.gc.ca, fraser.patricia@psic-ispc.gc.ca, >> ian.fine@chrc-ccdp.ca, Craig.MacMillan@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, >> mdoucet@pco-bcp.gc.ca, sue.greaves@cse-cst.gc.ca, >> bobby.matheson@ps-sp.gc.ca, Gregory.Gauthier@fin.gc.ca, >> louis-philippe.rouillard@forces.gc.ca, >> marie-josee.thivierge@justice.gc.ca, >> Barbara.Carswell@international.gc.ca, james.gallo@ag.ny.gov, oig >> < oig@sec.gov>, "dean.buzza" <dean.buzza@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, >> "joe.oliver.a1" <joe.oliver.a1@parl.gc.ca>, >> NYAG.Pressoffice@ag.ny.gov, "ed.pilkington" >> < ed.pilkington@guardian.co.uk>, jesse <jesse@jessebrown.ca>, Newsroom >> < Newsroom@globeandmail.com>, bbachrach <bbachrach@bachrachlaw.net>, >> "Terry.Milewski" <Terry.Milewski@cbc.ca>, "paul.dewar.a1" >> < paul.dewar.a1@parl.gc.ca>, coleen@coleenrowley.com, "Drew.Barnes" >> < Drew.Barnes@assembly.ab.ca>, premier <premier@gov.ab.ca>, oig >> < oig@ftc.gov>, bairdj <bairdj@parl.gc.ca>, "hugh.flemming" >> < hugh.flemming@gnb.ca>, premier <premier@gnb.ca>, "Wayne.Gallant" >> < Wayne.Gallant@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "George.Soros" >> < George.Soros@opensocietyfoundations.org>, "george.osborne.mp" >> < george.osborne.mp@parliament.uk>, Karine Fortin <info@ndp.ca> >> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, Raynald Lampron >> < Lampron.Raynald@psic-ispc.gc.ca>, Joe Friday >> < Friday.Joe@psic-ispc.gc.ca>, eric.schneiderman@ag.ny.gov, >> public.integrity@ag.ny.gov, "justin.trudeau.a1" >> < justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca>, "thomas.mulcair.a1" >> < thomas.mulcair.a1@parl.gc.ca>, "Thomas.Lawson" >> < Thomas.Lawson@forces.gc.ca>, dnd_mdn <dnd_mdn@forces.gc.ca> >> >> http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ve/snrs1-eng.asp >> >> To put it simply too many people around the world read this blog >> recently and started checking my work. Nobody dares to deny that the >> PCO did acknowledge the email in 2013 and the various sitemeters tell >> a very interesting tale to say the least Correct Daniel Nadeau?. >> >> http://thedavidamosrant.blogspot.ca/2013/10/re-glen-greenwald-and-brazilian.html >> >> That NOBODY should forget your boss" Mario Dion's last email to me >> before he quit EH Raynald Lampron and Joe Friday? >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Mario Dion <Dion.Mario@psic-ispc.gc.ca> >> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 06:05:25 -0500 >> Subject: Re: Fwd: Yo Mario Dion it been over a year since your last >> response and 7 years since I talked to the evil lawyer Manon Hardy so >> tell me another one will ya? >> To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com" <motomaniac333@gmail.com>, >> "manon.hardy@chrc-ccdp.ca" <manon.hardy@chrc-ccdp.ca>, >> "Clemet1@parl.gc.ca" <Clemet1@parl.gc.ca>, >> "Errington.john@forces.gc.ca" <Errington.john@forces.gc.ca>, >> "Christine.Salt@forces.gc.ca" <Christine.Salt@forces.gc.ca>, >> "Mackap@parl.gc.ca" <Mackap@parl.gc.ca>, "bourdap@halifax.ca" >> < bourdap@halifax.ca>, "Helen.Banulescu@crcc-ccetp.gc.ca" >> < Helen.Banulescu@crcc-ccetp.gc.ca>, Edith Lachapelle >> < Lachapelle.Edith@psic-ispc.gc.ca>, "peter.dauphinee@gmail.com" >> < peter.dauphinee@gmail.com>, "upriverwatch@gmail.com" >> < upriverwatch@gmail.com>, "donald.bowser@smu.ca" >> < donald.bowser@smu.ca>, "kedgwickriver@gmail.com" >> < kedgwickriver@gmail.com>, "oldmaison@yahoo.com" >> < oldmaison@yahoo.com>, "COCMoncton@gmail.com" <COCMoncton@gmail.com>, >> "Davidc.Coon@gmail.com" <Davidc.Coon@gmail.com>, >> "stephen.horsman@nbliberal.ca" <stephen.horsman@nbliberal.ca>, >> "forest@conservationcouncil.ca" <forest@conservationcouncil.ca>, >> "water@ccnbaction.ca" <water@ccnbaction.ca> >> Cc: "david.raymond.amos@gmail.com" <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, >> Raynald Lampron <Lampron.Raynald@psic-ispc.gc.ca>, Joe Friday >> < Friday.Joe@psic-ispc.gc.ca> >> >> I will ask my staff to verify your status and someone will get back to >> you. I would appreciate it however if you could be a little bit more >> polite when drafting emails adressed to me. >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> >> Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 03:42:28 -0700 >> Subject: It appears that I must thank Ray Novak's computer for showing >> a little INTEGRITY I have not had a response from Harper's office >> since election time in 2005 >> To: Jeffrey.Brennan@pmo.gc.ca, ed.fast@parl.gc.ca, ed@edfast.ca, >> rick.roth@international.gc.ca, gary.dyck@edmonton.ca, "Anne.Jarman" >> < Anne.Jarman@edmonton.ca>, "don.marshall" <don.marshall@edmonton.ca>, >> "don.iveson" <don.iveson@edmonton.ca>, "scott.mckeen" >> < scott.mckeen@edmonton.ca>, "ben.henderson" >> < ben.henderson@edmonton.ca>, "rod.knecht" >> < rod.knecht@edmontonpolice.ca>, "Marianne.Ryan" >> < Marianne.Ryan@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, premier <premier@gov.ab.ca>, >> "David.Swann" <David.Swann@assembly.ab.ca>, "Laurie.Blakeman" >> < Laurie.Blakeman@assembly.ab.ca>, michael.oshry@edmonton.ca, >> g.smith@aupe.org, renouf <renouf@renouflaw.com>, campaign >> < campaign@randyboissonnault.ca>, "graham.hicks" >> < graham.hicks@hicksbiz.com>, "geoff.crowe" >> < geoff.crowe@edmontonpolice.ca>, andre <andre@jafaust.com>, oldmaison >> < oldmaison@yahoo.com>, premier <premier@gov.bc.ca>, premier >> < premier@gnb.ca>, premier <premier@leg.gov.mb.ca>, PREMIER >> < PREMIER@gov.ns.ca>, Karine Fortin <info@ndp.ca>, "info@pco-bcp.gc.ca" >> < info@pco-bcp.gc.ca>, deepak.chopra@canadapost.ca, >> bonnie.boretsky@canadapost.ca, jag.sumra@canadapost.ca, >> dlemelin@cupw-sttp.org, NAT-PRES@psac-afpc.com, >> NATEXEC-VP@psac-afpc.com, meranis@psac-afpc.com, >> NH01FGIMA@mail.house.gov >> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, "victor.boudreau" >> < victor.boudreau@gnb.ca>, pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>, bairdj >> < bairdj@parl.gc.ca>, "Alan.Kessel" <Alan.Kessel@lnternational.gc.ca>, >> "Rob.Merrifield" <Rob.Merrifield@gov.ab.ca>, "peter.mackay" >> < peter.mackay@justice.gc.ca>, winston.fogarty@lnternational.gc.ca, >> Ray.Novak@pmo-cpm.gc.ca, marjory.l.eBreton@sen.parl.gc.ca, >> "Drew.Barnes" <Drew.Barnes@assembly.ab.ca>, kilgoursite@ca.inter.net, >> sunrayzulu <sunrayzulu@shaw.ca>, "joshua.skurnik" >> < joshua.skurnik@hotmail.com>, lgunter <lgunter@shaw.ca> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: "Novak, Ray" <Ray.Novak@pmo-cpm.gc.ca> >> Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 05:34:45 -0500 >> Subject: Out of Office AutoReply: Methinks Mayor Iveson should have a >> long talk with Ben Henderson His grumpy wifey Laurie.Blakeman, Jimmy >> Prentice, Stevey Boy Harper, a few lawyers and cops should talk about >> what they should have done about YOU long ago EH Mr Baconfat? >> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> >> >> Thank you for your email. >> >> If your matter is urgent, please contact Jeff Brennan at 613.992.4211 >> or Jeffrey.Brennan@pmo.gc.ca. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Ray Novak >> Office of the Prime Minister >> >> *** >> Je vous remercie de votre courriel. >> >> S'il s'agit d'une urgence, veuillez communiquer avec Jeff Brennan, au >> 613-992-4211 ou à l'adresse Jeffrey.Brennan@pmo.gc.ca. >> >> Sincères salutations, >> >> Ray Novak >> Cabinet du Premier ministre >> >> >> -- Howard Anglin \| Executive Director Canadian Constitution Foundation Second Floor \| 514 11 Ave SW \| Calgary \| AB \| T2R 0C8 P: 1.888.695.9105 x101 F: 1.888.695.9105 Charitable Number: 86617 6654 RR0001 theCCF.ca Follow the CCF: FaceBook \| Twitter \| YouTube Sign up for Email Updates:** Freedom Update

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/christine-van-geyn-college-of-psychologists-attacks-jordan-peterson-in-court

Christine Van Geyn: College of Psychologists attacks Jordan Peterson in court

But the clinical psychologist is fighting back

Christine Van Geyn, Special to National Post

Published Jun 26, 2023

1337 Comments

Jordan Peterson speaks to a crowd during a stop in Sherwood Park Alta, on Sunday February 11, 2018. Photo by THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jason Franson

On June 21, in a hot, crowded courtroom at Old Osgoode Hall in downtown Toronto, the fight between Dr. Jordan Peterson and the College of Psychologists of Ontario played out.

The fight stems from an investigation by the regulator for clinical psychologists into statements Dr. Peterson had made on Twitter and on the Joe Rogan Podcast. The regulator ordered him to participate in a coaching program about professionalism in public comments, at his own expense, and for an indeterminate amount of time. He is now challenging that order for training (or as Dr. Peterson calls it, “re-education”) in a judicial review, which took place in the hearing last week. (A judicial review is when a court reviews an administrative decision, like the college’s decision to order training.)

During the hearing, the lawyers hired by the College of Psychologists made great hay of the controversy of those statements by Dr. Peterson, which were no doubt controversial. While arguing with Trudeau’s former chief of staff and an Ottawa city councillor, Dr. Peterson used rude epithets. He called the physician who performed gender affirming surgery on transgender actor Elliot Page “criminal” and “deadnamed” him using female pronouns and his pre-transition name. Dr. Peterson made comments about the changing nature of aesthetic beauty by referring to a plus size model as “not beautiful.”

But he also was unfairly taken to task for a joke pointing out the hypocrisy of western progressive climate activists for ignoring harm to “poor children” and for describing a former client as “vindictive” because she had made false allegations against him — allegations for which he was exonerated by the college.

It is difficult to see how the last two comments could offend anyone. There is no principle of law that professionals cannot point out that allegations against them are false, or criticize certain types of politics using jokes. The complaints about those comments appear to be bad faith misinterpretations of Dr. Peterson’s intent. But even the other comments, which could lead to offence, do not fall within the scope of the regulator.

There is no right not to be offended, and the potential to offend does not mean any harm has been caused. None of the people Dr. Peterson was commenting on were the source of the complaints. The complaints were mostly made informally by strangers to Dr. Peterson, who had tagged the college on Twitter. In two cases, formal complaints were made by people falsely claiming to be current or former clients of Dr. Peterson’s.

While professional regulators are entitled to regulate speech of their members to some degree, there must be a clear nexus between the speech and the profession. For example, a physician cannot prescribe and sell snake oil. A lawyer cannot lie to court. But there must be a connection to the profession, and the regulator must give weight to the right to freedom of expression.

This issue was considered in a case called Strom v Saskatchewan Registered Nurses Association where a nurse, identifying herself as such, posted on Facebook about what she considered inadequate care her grandfather had received while in a long term care facility. The nurses’ regulator disciplined Strom, but the discipline was overturned on appeal, where the court found that the regulator had given little to no weight to Strom’s right to freedom of expression.

Like Strom, Dr. Peterson identifies himself as a professional. But this is not enough to put his comments within the scope of the regulator, as his comments did not relate to the practice of psychology. Although controversial, they are about social and political issues. Because these comments are not about the practice of psychology, they are just like everyone else’s speech: protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Professionals are entitled to private lives. A professional regulator, whether it be of psychologists, nurses, physicians, accountants or teachers, should not police its members’ political opinions.

While Dr. Peterson can afford this fight, most professionals cannot. And we do not want to create a world where regulated professionals must soft pedal their public speech for fear of activists weaponizing their professional regulator. Like everyone in Canada, members of regulated professions enjoy freedom of expression under the charter. Public commentary on social and political issues, including controversial commentary, lies at the core of this freedom.

The regulator’s lawyers’ listing of Dr. Peterson’s comments in court, and emphasizing how caustic or rude they may be, is a classic tactic of any government trying to suppress speech. It is always government’s argument that the speech they seek to silence is of little value and not worthy of protection.

But freedom of expression isn’t needed to protect popular speech. Speech that can offend is not at the periphery of protection. And when it engages political and social issues, it is at the core of freedom of expression even if it is caustic or rude. We cannot lose sight of that.

National Post

Christine Van Geyn is the litigation director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, which was an intervener in this case (Jordan Peterson v College of Psychologists of Ontario).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cx5NBd83nqw&ab_channel=CanadianConstitutionFoundation

Townhall on Jordan Peterson - CCF Lawyer's take on the freedom of expression fight (plus public Q&A)

Canadian Constitution Foundation

59K subscribers

31,212 views Jul 7, 2023

https://theccf.ca/dr-peterson-freedom-of-expression-dispute/

CCF granted intervenor status in Dr. Jordan Peterson freedom of expression dispute with College of Psychologists

Post author:The CCF
Post published:March 28, 2023
Post category:Articles / News / Press Releases

TORONTO: The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) has been granted intervenor status in the legal dispute between Canadian psychologist, author and media personality Dr. Jordan Peterson and the College of Psychologists of Ontario.

Some complaints were made to the College of Psychologists of Ontario by members of the public about provocative statements on social media made by Dr Peterson. Those statements related to Dr Peterson’s opinion regarding things like politics, public figures, the Freedom Convoy and climate change. The comments did not relate to the practice of psychology.

The College conducted an investigation and found that Dr. Peterson’s statements violated the Code of Ethics for Psychologists (the “Code”) and therefore the Standards of Professional Conduct (the “Standards”). The College ordered Dr Peterson to complete an education program to address issues regarding professionalism in public statements. Dr. Peterson refused to participate in what he has described as a “re-education program”, and brought an application for judicial review at Ontario Divisional Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Code and the Standards, which are enacted under provincial law.

“This is a classic freedom of expression case. There appears to be growing interest in self-governing professional regulators sanctioning their members for unpopular speech,” said CCF Litigation Director, Christine Van Geyn. “The point the CCF wants to make in our intervention is that it doesn’t matter whether you like or dislike what Dr. Peterson says. It’s about whether his statements can be sanctioned by a professional regulator when they realistically have nothing to do with the practice of psychology and the complaints were brought by members of the public who basically just don’t like Dr Peterson. We say that granting such an expansive power to regulate the speech of their members to the College of Psychologists would violate the Charter protected right to free expression.”

The CCF is represented in this case by George Avraam, Ahmed Shafey and Ajanthana Anandarajah of Baker McKenzie LLP. The CCF is grateful for their hard work and diligence on this case. The hearing will take place in the summer of 2023.

Members of the public interested in supporting the costs associated with this case can make a tax deductible charitable donation at theCCF.ca/donate/

Image by Gage Skidmore and used under CC 2.0.

https://www.bakermckenzie.com/en/people/a/avraam-george

George Avraam
Partner
Baker & McKenzie LLP

T + 1 416 865 6935
george.avraam@bakermckenzie.com

https://www.bakermckenzie.com/en/people/s/shafey-ahmed

Ahmed Shafey
Partner
Baker & McKenzie LLP

T + 1 416 865 6964
ahmed.shafey@bakermckenzie.com

https://www.bakermckenzie.com/en/people/a/anandarajah-ajanthana

Ajanthana Anandarajah
Associate
Baker & McKenzie LLP

T + 1 416 814 3315
Ajanthana.Anandarajah@bakermckenzie.com

https://ccla.org/fundamental-freedoms/ccla-in-court-to-address-regulatory-overreach-and-defend-freedom-of-expression/

CCLA in Court to Address Regulatory Overreach and Defend Freedom of Expression

By Tashi Alford-Duguid June 22, 2023

The CCLA spoke before Ontario’s Divisional Court on June 21, 2023 to address overreach by professional regulators into the realm of free expression. CCLA intervened in an application for judicial review where a regulated professional (a psychologist) was required to undergo a continuing education and remedial program based on tweets as well as comments made when being interviewed for a podcast. The psychologist does not maintain an active practice and his comments were largely unrelated to his profession.

The figure at the centre of the case, Dr. Jordan Peterson, is a highly controversial figure and often uses social media to express his views, many of which are offensive, particularly to certain minority communities. While the CCLA disagrees strongly with the views of Dr. Peterson, his case highlights the broad scope and discretion that professional regulators have to chill or silence expression that is unpopular. Requiring an individual to undergo a remedial “coaching” program because of controversial messages largely unrelated to the practice of the profession takes regulators beyond their proper roles. We argued that while professionals can and will be constrained by their decision to pursue their profession, their right to free expression should not be unduly limited. Professional regulators only have authority over expression that is clearly connected to professional practice and must exercise their powers in accordance with their core function of regulating the profession in the public interest. CCLA’s factum is available here.

We are grateful to Nadia Effendi, Teagan Markin and Erica McLachlan of BLG LLP for their excellent pro bono representation in this case.

About the Canadian Civil Liberties Association

The CCLA is an independent, non-profit organization with supporters from across the country. Founded in 1964, the CCLA is a national human rights organization committed to defending the rights, dignity, safety, and freedoms of all people in Canada.

For the Media

For further comments, please contact us at media@ccla.org.

https://healthlawfirm.ca/intervention

Divisional Court Intervention

Association of Aggrieved Regulated Professionals of Ontario

Calling Regulated Professionals in Ontario: Time to Stand Up and Protect Yourself!

The Association of Aggrieved Regulated Professionals of Ontario has been granted leave (permission) to intervene in the case of Jordan Peterson and College of Psychologists of Ontario, to be heard at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court.

We invite all regulated professionals in Ontario to join in our fight.

See Updates Below.

Submit the form below to inquire how you can participate, support or help protect our fundamental Charter rights from Regulatory College overreach.

Please consider contributing to the fundraising campaign.

The Association of Aggrieved Regulated Professionals of Ontario are a growing group of nurses, massage therapists, teachers, doctors, psychologists, and other professionals silenced by their government regulators under threat of expulsion from their respective professions. They have been silenced by their regulators for voicing their personal views. This affects us all. If you are a regulated professional, patient, or client of any professional in Ontario, this case affects you and your fundamental rights and freedoms.

No one should lose the ability to practice their profession because of their personal beliefs that are unrelated to their respective professional practice.

Mar 23, 2023: Justice Matheson granted leave to intervene in the Application of Jordan Peterson at the Divisional Court. AARPO will now participate as a friend of the court to provide its insight and information to help in a fair hearing of the Application.

Mar 1, 2023: We have filed our motion for leave to intervene with the Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court, requesting permission to intervene as a friend of the court. We will post our filed materials here in due course. We expect to hear from the court soon whether we are permitted to make submissions to the court.

About the Firm

Weinman, Arnold LLP is a boutique Toronto law firm. Jonah Arnold, a law partner with Weinman, Arnold LLP has represented regulated professionals in Ontario before boards, tribunals and courts. Mark Arnold, counsel to Weinman, Arnold LLP, certified specialist in civil litigation, work on complex matters involving constitutional and human rights issues.

Weinman, Arnold LLP

Jonah Arnold
jonah@healthlawfirm.ca
416-640-0508

BLG Factum

https://ccla.org › wp-content › uploads › 2023/06

Court File No. 714/22

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
(DIVISIONAL COURT)

B E T W E E N:
JORDAN PETERSON
Applicant

and

COLLEGE OF PSYCHOLOGISTS OF ONTARIO

Respondent

EGALE CANADA AND JUSTICETRANS, COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ONTARIO, CANADIAN CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION, CANADIAN CONSTITUTION FOUNDATION, ASSOCIATION OF AGGRIEVED REGULATED PROFESSIONALS OF ONTARIO Interveners

TO:
HENEIN HUTCHISON ROBITAILLE LLP
235 King Street East, 1st Floor
Toronto, ON M5A 1J9
T: 416.368.5000
F: 416.368.6640

Peter J. Henein (LSO# 49330K)
phenein@hhllp.ca

Matthew R. Gourlay (LSO# 57685H)
mgourlay@hhllp.ca

Ewa Krajewska (LSO# 57704D)
ekrajewska@hhllp.ca

Lawyers for the Applicant, Jordan Peterson

AND TO:

McCARTHY TÉTRAULT LLP
66 Wellington Street West
Suite 5300, TD Bank Tower
Toronto, ON M5K 1E6

Caroline Zayid (LSO# 30928C)
czayid@mccarthy.ca
T: 416.601.7768

Robin McKechney (LSO# 45466G)
rmckechney@mccarthy.ca
T: 416.601.4313

Lawyers for the Respondent,
College of Psychologists of Ontario

John McIntyre (LSO# 68507G)
Tel: 647-522-5520
john@mcintyrehealthlaw.com

Gregory Ko (LSO# 62244E)
Tel: 416-655-3044 x809
gko@kastnerlam.com

Lawyers for the Interveners, Egale Canada and JusticeTrans

George Avraam (LSO# 41616S)
Tel: 416-865-6935
george.avraam@bakermckenzie.com

Ahmed Shafey (LSO# 54663R)
Tel: 416-865-6964
ahmed.shafey@bakermckenzie.com

Ajanthana Anandarajah (LSO# 77891L)
Tel: 416-814-3315
ajanthana.anandarajah@bakermckenzie.com

Lawyers for the Intervenor, Canadian Constitution Foundation

Nadia Effendi (LSO# 49004T)
neffendi@blg.com

T: 416.367.6728
Teagan Markin (LSO# 74337R)
tmarkin@blg.com
T: 416.367.6379

Erica McLachlan (LSO# 85584U)
emclachlan@blg.com
T: 416.350.2587

Lawyers for the Intervener, Canadian Civil Liberties Association

https://www.blg.com/en/people/e/effendi-nadia

Nadia Effendi

Partner

Email NEffendi@blg.com
Phone 416.367.6728

Prior to joining BLG, Nadia served as a law clerk at the Supreme Court of Canada to The Honourable Mr. Justice Bastarache.

The Honourable Thomas Albert Cromwell can never deny that I tried to inform him of what the RCMP, the CBC and his latest client Jody Wilson-Raybould knows Correct Me Butts?

Hon.Ralph.Goodale (PS/SP) <Hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca>	Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 1:50 PM
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

Merci d’avoir écrit à l’honorable Ralph Goodale, ministre de la Sécurité publique et de la Protection civile. En raison d’une augmentation importante du volume de la correspondance adressée au ministre, veuillez prendre note qu’il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Soyez assuré que votre message sera examiné avec attention. Merci! L’Unité de la correspondance ministérielle Sécurité publique Canada ********* Thank you for writing to the Honourable Ralph Goodale, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence addressed to the Minister, please note there could be a delay in processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be carefully reviewed. Thank you! Ministerial Correspondence Unit Public Safety Canada

Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca <Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca>	Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 1:50 PM
To: motomaniac333@gmail.com

Thank you for writing to the Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, Member of Parliament for Vancouver Granville. This message is to acknowledge that we are in receipt of your email. Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence, there may be a delay in processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be carefully reviewed. To help us address your concerns more quickly, please include within the body of your email your full name, address, and postal code. Thank you ------------------- Merci d'?crire ? l'honorable Jody Wilson-Raybould, d?put?e de Vancouver Granville. Le pr?sent message vise ? vous informer que nous avons re?u votre courriel. En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de correspondance, il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Sachez que votre message sera examin? attentivement. Pour nous aider ? r?pondre ? vos pr?occupations plus rapidement, veuillez inclure dans le corps de votre courriel votre nom complet, votre adresse et votre code postal. Merci

David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>	Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 1:50 PM
To: TCromwell@blg.com, catharine.tunney@cbc.ca, "Jody.Wilson-Raybould" <Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca>, "Brenda.Lucki" <Brenda.Lucki@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Gerald.Butts" <Gerald.Butts@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>, "andrew.scheer" <andrew.scheer@parl.gc.ca>, JagmeetForBurnaby <JagmeetForBurnaby@ndp.ca>, "maxime.bernier" <maxime.bernier@parl.gc.ca>, "charlie.angus" <charlie.angus@parl.gc.ca>, "elizabeth.may" <elizabeth.may@parl.gc.ca>, "Hunter.Tootoo" <Hunter.Tootoo@parl.gc.ca>, "tony.clement.a1" <tony.clement.a1@parl.gc.ca>, "hon.ralph.goodale" <hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca>, "Hon.Dominic.LeBlanc" <Hon.Dominic.LeBlanc@canada.ca>, "Larry.Tremblay" <Larry.Tremblay@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Gilles.Blinn" <Gilles.Blinn@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Mark.Blakely" <Mark.Blakely@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "martin.gaudet" <martin.gaudet@fredericton.ca>
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, "darrow.macintyre" <darrow.macintyre@cbc.ca>, "jp.lewis" <jp.lewis@unb.ca>, "Jacques.Poitras" <Jacques.Poitras@cbc.ca>, "David.Akin" <David.Akin@globalnews.ca>, "steve.murphy" <steve.murphy@ctv.ca>, Newsroom <Newsroom@globeandmail.com>, news <news@kingscorecord.com>


---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 10:07:59 +0000 Subject: Automatic reply: RE:: DAVID RAYMOND AMOS v. HMQ - COURT FILE NO.: A-48-16 , Attn Lorri Warner have you and your bosses talked the RCMP and the FBI YET??? To: motomaniac333@gmail.com Thank you for writing to the Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, Member of Parliament for Vancouver Granville. This message is to acknowledge that we are in receipt of your email. Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence, there may be a delay in processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be carefully reviewed. To help us address your concerns more quickly, please include within the body of your email your full name, address, and postal code. Thank you ------------------- Merci d'?crire ? l'honorable Jody Wilson-Raybould, d?put?e de Vancouver Granville. Le pr?sent message vise ? vous informer que nous avons re?u votre courriel. En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de correspondance, il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Sachez que votre message sera examin? attentivement. Pour nous aider ? r?pondre ? vos pr?occupations plus rapidement, veuillez inclure dans le corps de votre courriel votre nom complet, votre adresse et votre code postal. Merci The Honourable Thomas Albert Cromwell C.C. Senior Counsel Phone: 604.632.3460 Fax: 604.662.5327 TCromwell@blg.com https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wilson-rayboul-snc-lavalin-1.5015755 Jody Wilson-Raybould resigns from cabinet after SNC-Lavalin allegations Catharine Tunney · CBC News · Posted: Feb 12, 2019 11:39 AM ET "Wilson-Raybould, who plans to stay on as MP for Vancouver-Granville, has been quiet since the Globe and Mail story broke, saying she can't comment because she's bound by solicitor-client privilege. In her resignation letter, she said she has retained the services of lawyer Thomas Cromwell, a former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, to advise her on "topics that I am legally permitted to discuss on this matter." In an email to CBC News, Cromwell said he would not be making any statements or doing any interviews." > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Gallant, Premier Brian (PO/CPM)" <Brian.Gallant@gnb.ca> > Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 17:05:07 +0000 > Subject: RE: So what does Premier Gallant and Minister Doucet et al > think of my lawsuit? How about David Coon and his blogging buddy > Chucky joking about being illegally barred from parliamentary property > To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> > > Thank you for writing to the Premier of New Brunswick. > Please be assured that your email has been received, will be reviewed, > and a response will be forthcoming. > Once again, thank you for taking the time to write. > > Merci d'avoir communiqué avec le premier ministre du Nouveau-Brunswick. > Soyez assuré que votre courriel a bien été reçu, qu'il sera examiné > et qu'une réponse vous sera acheminée. > Merci encore d'avoir pris de temps de nous écrire. > > Sincerely, / Sincèrement, > Mallory Fowler > Correspondence Manager / Gestionnaire de la correspondance > Office of the Premier / Cabinet du premier ministre > > > On 1/19/18, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> >>> ---------- 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 ---------- >>> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com >>> Date: Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:35 AM >>> Subject: 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.Hansen@justice.gc.ca, peter.mackay@justice.gc.ca >>> peacock.kurt@telegraphjournal.com, mclaughlin.heather@dailygleaner.com, >>> david.akin@sunmedia.ca, robert.frater@justice.gc.ca, >>> paul.riley@ppsc-sppc.gc.ca, >>> greg@gregdelbigio.com, joyce.dewitt-vanoosten@gov.bc.ca, >>> joan.barrett@ontario.ca, jean-vincent.lacroix@gouv.qc.ca, >>> peter.rogers@mcinnescooper.com, mfeder@mccarthy.ca, mjamal@osler.com >>> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, gopublic@cbc.ca, >>> Whistleblower@ctv.ca >>> >>> https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14439/index.do >>> >>> http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/WebDocuments-DocumentsWeb/35072/FM030_Respondent_Attorney-General-of-Canada-on-Behalf-of-the-United-States-of-America.pdf >>> >>> http://thedavidamosrant.blogspot.ca/2013/10/re-glen-greenwald-and-brazilian.html >>> >>> I repeat what the Hell do I do with the Yankee wiretapes taps sell >>> them on Ebay or listen to them and argue them with you dudes in >>> Feferal Court? >>> >>> Petey Baby loses all parliamentary privelges in less than a month but >>> he still supposed to be an ethical officer of the Court CORRECT? >>> >>> Veritas Vincit >>> David Raymond Amos >>> 902 800 0369 >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com >>> Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 14:10:14 -0400 >>> Subject: Yo Mr Bauer say hey to your client Obama and his buddies in >>> the USDOJ for me will ya? >>> To: RBauer@perkinscoie.com, sshimshak@paulweiss.com, >>> cspada@lswlaw.com, msmith@svlaw.com, bginsberg@pattonboggs.com, >>> gregory.craig@skadden.com, pm@pm.gc.ca, bob.paulson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, >>> bob.rae@rogers.blackberry.net, MulcaT@parl.gc.ca, leader@greenparty.ca >>> Cc: alevine@cooley.com, david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, >>> michael.rothfeld@wsj.com, remery@ecbalaw.com >>> >>> QSLS Politics >>> By Location Visit Detail >>> Visit 29,419 >>> Domain Name usdoj.gov ? (U.S. Government) >>> IP Address 149.101.1.# (US Dept of Justice) >>> ISP US Dept of Justice >>> Location Continent : North America >>> Country : United States (Facts) >>> State : District of Columbia >>> City : Washington >>> Lat/Long : 38.9097, -77.0231 (Map) >>> Language English (U.S.) en-us >>> Operating System Microsoft WinXP >>> Browser Internet Explorer 8.0 >>> Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET >>> CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; InfoPath.2; >>> DI60SP1001) >>> Javascript version 1.3 >>> Monitor Resolution : 1024 x 768 >>> Color Depth : 32 bits >>> Time of Visit Nov 17 2012 6:33:08 pm >>> Last Page View Nov 17 2012 6:33:08 pm >>> Visit Length 0 seconds >>> Page Views 1 >>> Referring URL http://www.google.co...wwWJrm94lCEqRmovPXJg >>> Search Engine google.com >>> Search Words david amos bernie madoff >>> Visit Entry Page http://qslspolitics....-wendy-olsen-on.html >>> Visit Exit Page http://qslspolitics....-wendy-olsen-on.html >>> Out Click >>> Time Zone UTC-5:00 >>> Visitor's Time Nov 17 2012 12:33:08 pm >>> Visit Number 29,419 >>> >>> http://qslspolitics.blogspot.com/2009/03/david-amos-to-wendy-olsen-on.html >>> >>> >>> Could ya tell I am investigating your pension plan bigtime? Its >>> because no member of the RCMP I have ever encountered has earned it yet >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com >>> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:36:04 -0400 >>> Subject: This is a brief as I can make my concerns Randy >>> To: randyedmunds@gov.nl.ca >>> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com >>> >>> In a nutshell my concerns about the actions of the Investment Industry >>> affect the interests of every person in every district of every >>> country not just the USA and Canada. I was offering to help you with >>> Emera because my work with them and Danny Williams is well known and >>> some of it is over eight years old and in the PUBLIC Record. >>> >>> All you have to do is stand in the Legislature and ask the MInister of >>> Justice why I have been invited to sue Newfoundland by the >>> Conservatives >>> >>> >>> Obviously I am the guy the USDOJ and the SEC would not name who is the >>> link to Madoff and Putnam Investments >>> >>> Here is why >>> >>> http://banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=90f8e691-9065-4f8c-a465-72722b47e7f2 >>> >>> Notice the transcripts and webcasts of the hearing of the US Senate >>> Banking Commitee are still missing? Mr Emory should at least notice >>> Eliot Spitzer and the Dates around November 20th, 2003 in the >>> following file >>> >>> http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/2526023-DAMOSIntegrity-yea-right.-txt.pdf >>> >>> http://occupywallst.org/users/DavidRaymondAmos/ >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: "Hansen, David" David.Hansen@justice.gc.ca >>> Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 19:28:44 +0000 >>> Subject: RE: I just called again Mr Hansen >>> To: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com >>> >>> Hello Mr. Amos, >>> >>> I manage the Justice Canada civil litigation section in the Atlantic >>> region. We are only responsible for litigating existing civil >>> litigation files in which the Attorney General of Canada is a named >>> defendant or plaintiff. If you are a plaintiff or defendant in an >>> existing civil litigation matter in the Atlantic region in which >>> Attorney General of Canada is a named defendant or plaintiff please >>> provide the court file number, the names of the parties in the action >>> and your question. I am not the appropriate contact for other >>> matters. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> David A. Hansen >>> Regional Director \| Directeur régional >>> General Counsel \|Avocat général >>> Civil Litigation and Advisory \| Contentieux des affaires civiles et >>> services de consultation >>> Department of Justice \| Ministère de la Justice >>> Suite 1400 – Duke Tower \| Pièce 1400 – Tour Duke >>> 5251 Duke Street \| 5251 rue Duke >>> Halifax, Nova Scotia \| Halifax, Nouvelle- Écosse >>> B3J 1P3 >>> david.hansen@justice.gc.ca >>> Telephone \| Téléphone (902) 426-3261 / Facsimile \| Télécopieur (902) >>> 426-2329 >>> This e-mail is confidential and may be protected by solicitor-client >>> privilege. Unauthorized distribution or disclosure is prohibited. If >>> you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us and delete >>> this entire e-mail. >>> Before printing think about the Environment >>> Thinking Green, please do not print this e-mail unless necessary. >>> Pensez vert, svp imprimez que si nécessaire. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com >>>> Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 02:23:24 -0300 >>>> Subject: ATTN FBI Special Agent Richard Deslauriers Have you talked to >>>> your buddies Fred Wyshak and Brian Kelly about the wiretap tapes YET? >>>> To: boston@ic.fbi.gov, washington.field@ic.fbi.gov, >>>> bob.paulson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, Kevin.leahy@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, >>>> Brian.Kelly@usdoj.gov, us.marshals@usdoj.gov, Fred.Wyshak@usdoj.gov, >>>> jcarney@carneybassil.com, bbachrach@bachrachlaw.net >>>> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, birgittaj@althingi.is, >>>> shmurphy@globe.com, redicecreations@gmail.com >>>> >>>> FBI Boston >>>> One Center Plaza >>>> Suite 600 >>>> Boston, MA 02108 >>>> Phone: (617) 742-5533 >>>> Fax: (617) 223-6327 >>>> E-mail: Boston@ic.fbi.gov >>>> >>>> Hours >>>> Although we operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, our normal >>>> "walk-in" business hours are from 8:15 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday >>>> through Friday. If you need to speak with a FBI representative at any >>>> time other than during normal business hours, please telephone our >>>> office at (617) 742-5533. >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com >>>> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 01:20:20 -0300 >>>> Subject: Yo Fred Wyshak and Brian Kelly your buddy Whitey's trial is >>>> finally underway now correct? What the hell do I do with the wiretap >>>> tapes Sell them on Ebay? >>>> To: Brian.Kelly@usdoj.gov, us.marshals@usdoj.gov, >>>> Fred.Wyshak@usdoj.gov, jcarney@carneybassil.com, >>>> bbachrach@bachrachlaw.net, wolfheartlodge@live.com, shmurphy@globe.com, >>>> >> jonathan.albano@bingham.com, mvalencia@globe.com >>>> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, oldmaison@yahoo.com, >>>> PATRICK.MURPHY@dhs.gov, rounappletree@aol.com >>>> >>>> http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/06/05/james-whitey-bulger-jury-selection-process-enters-second-day/KjS80ofyMMM5IkByK74bkK/story.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://www.archive.org/details/FedsUsTreasuryDeptRcmpEtc >>>> >>>> http://archive.org/details/ITriedToExplainItToAllMaritimersInEarly2006 >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "David Amos" david.raymond.amos@gmail.com >>>> To: "Rob Talach" rtalach@ledroitbeckett.com >>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 10:59 PM >>>> Subject: Re: Attn Robert Talach and I should talk ASAP about my suing >>>> the Catholic Church Trust that Bastarache knows why >>>> >>>> The date stamp on about page 134 of this old file of mine should mean >>>> a lot to you >>>> >>>> http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/2619437-CROSS-BORDER-txt-.pdf >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com >>>> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 15:37:08 -0400 >>>> Subject: To Hell with the KILLER COP Gilles Moreau What say you NOW >>>> Bernadine Chapman?? >>>> To: Gilles.Moreau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, phil.giles@statcan.ca, >>>> maritme_malaise@yahoo.ca, Jennifer.Nixon@ps-sp.gc.ca, >>>> bartman.heidi@psic-ispc.gc.ca, Yves.J.Marineau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, >>>> david.paradiso@erc-cee.gc.ca, desaulniea@smtp.gc.ca, >>>> denise.brennan@tbs-sct.gc.ca, anne.murtha@vac-acc.gc.ca, >>>> webo@xplornet.com, julie.dickson@osfi-bsif.gc.ca, >>>> rod.giles@osfi-bsif.gc.ca, flaherty.j@parl.gc.ca, toewsv1@parl.gc.ca, >>>> Nycole.Turmel@parl.gc.ca,Clemet1@parl.gc.ca, maritime_malaise@yahoo.ca, >>>> >> oig@sec.gov, whistleblower@finra.org, whistle@fsa.gov.uk, >>>> david@fairwhistleblower.ca >>>> Cc: j.kroes@interpol.int, david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, >>>> bernadine.chapman@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca, >>>> Juanita.Peddle@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, oldmaison@yahoo.com, >>>> Wayne.Lang@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, Robert.Trevors@gnb.ca, >>>> ian.fahie@rcmp-grc.gc.ca> >>>> >>>> http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/nb/news-nouvelles/media-medias-eng.htm >>>> >>>> http://nb.rcmpvet.ca/Newsletters/VetsReview/nlnov06.pdf >>>> >>>> From: Gilles Moreau Gilles.Moreau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca >>>> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 08:03:22 -0500 >>>> Subject: Re: Lets ee if the really nasty Newfy Lawyer Danny Boy >>>> Millions will explain this email to you or your boss Vic Toews EH >>>> Constable Peddle??? >>>> To: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com >>>> >>>> Please cease and desist from using my name in your emails. >>>> >>>> Gilles Moreau, Chief Superintendent, CHRP and ACC >>>> Director General >>>> HR Transformation >>>> 73 Leikin Drive, M5-2-502 >>>> Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0R2 >>>> >>>> Tel 613-843-6039 >>>> Cel 613-818-6947 >>>> >>>> Gilles Moreau, surintendant principal, CRHA et ACC >>>> Directeur général de la Transformation des ressources humaines >>>> 73 Leikin, pièce M5-2-502 >>>> Ottawa, ON K1A 0R2 >>>> >>>> tél 613-843-6039 >>>> cel 613-818-6947 >>>> gilles.moreau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca >>>> >> >

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnSArVoBXRQ&ab_channel=CanadianConstitutionFoundation

Dr Jordan Peterson - LIVE court summary

Canadian Constitution Foundation

59K subscribers

517,479 views Streamed live on Jun 22, 2023

Im going live to tell you everything that happened in court in the dispute between Dr Jordan Peterson and the College of Psychologists

3,906 Comments

@davidamos7114

I called again Correct?

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/jordan-peterson-college-of-psychologists-of-ontario

Ontario court to decide if Jordan Peterson can be ordered to get social media training

The psychologist went to the courts to stop the College of Psychologists of Ontario from putting him through social media training

Tyler Dawson

Published Aug 22, 2023 • 3 minute read

353 Comments

Jordan Peterson will soon find out if the courts will stop the College of Psychologists of Ontario from requiring him to undergo social media training, which was ordered in response to public complaints about his online conduct.

The Ontario Divisional Court will release its decision on Wednesday.

In January, Peterson posted a document on social media that detailed a number of complaints that had been made to the college, which raised concerns about how Peterson, who’s a regular media commentator on current affairs, was comporting himself online.

In particular, there were complaints about his tweets regarding a plus-sized Sports Illustrated model, who Peterson said was “not beautiful,” Elliot Page’s gender transition, about which Peterson said Page’s breasts were “removed by a criminal physician.” That tweet got him suspended from Twitter for hateful conduct; Peterson said he would “rather die” than apologize. As well, Peterson’s skeptical views on climate change, and conduct during a heated exchange with Gerald Butts, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s former principal secretary, resulted in public complaints.

Several other complaints, detailed in the document, had to do with psychological practices, such as mandatory reporting of child abuse or neglect, and treatment of eating disorders and gender dysphoria and the discussion of suicide.

The college is responsible for governing psychologists in Ontario. In response to the complaints about Peterson’s conduct, the college ordered Peterson to undergo social media training, at his own expense, or risk the suspension of his licence to practice in Ontario, after asking him to do so voluntarily, and being met with refusal.

Peterson has argued that his political commentary is not subject to the college’s authority.

Peterson, who’s a professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Toronto, remains registered as a clinical psychologist, although he has not practised since 2017.

In response to the college’s findings, Peterson sued.

“We decided that the best way to challenge this would be in the courts on constitutional grounds,” Peterson, who is also a podcast host on the right-wing Daily Wire network, told Postmedia in January. “I don’t trust the process at the college and no one should.”

The legal application Peterson filed quotes the college as being “very concerned that looked at cumulatively, (Peterson’s) public statements may reasonably be regarded by members of the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable and/or unprofessional.” Personal behaviour, the college notes, is only of concern if that behaviour “undermines public trust in the discipline as a whole or if it raises questions about the psychologist’s ability to” carry out their duties.

The report from the college is 446 pages. In January, Peterson posted 56 pages online. It’s unclear what information has been redacted. Peterson alleges in the document that some of the complainants have falsely claimed that they are his clients. Their names are redacted.

The legal document Peterson’s lawyers filed argues that Peterson’s statements are “far removed from the practice of psychology,” and, as such, the College’s decision “was unreasonable and unduly infringes upon (Peterson’s) free expression in contravention of his Charter rights.”

“Regulating this type of speech from College members, including disciplining College members for making these types of statements, is an inherently and categorically unreasonable limitation of members’ freedom of expression,” the application says.

Peterson is “a proponent of free and open expression, frank dialogue, and political commentary,” the document says. The comments that concerned the college were brought to the attention of the college “not by patients or colleagues, but members of the public who object to (Peterson’s) opinions.”

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.

Fwd: I just called to discuss my false imprisonment and my lawsuits in MA, Senator Brian Joyce, the US Senate and its Elections, the SEC, the IRS, the FBI, the wiretap tapes I have, the appointment of Joseph Berman as General Counsel of the BBO and his position within the BBA Ethics Committee

MacKay, Peter <Peter.MacKay@bakermckenzie.com>	Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 7:23 PM
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>

Thank you for your email. I am currently out of the country and may not have access to email or voicemail during my absence. I will respond to your inquiries upon my return on July 9th. If your matter is urgent, please contact my assistant, Nicole Bruni at nicole.bruni@bakermckenzie.com or at (416) 865-3861. Please note that this email will only be sent to you once during my absense. Peter MacKay Partner, Litigation Baker & McKenzie LLP 181 Bay Street, Suite 2100 Toronto, ON M5J 2T3 Canada Tel: +1 416 863 1221 peter.mackay@bakermckenzie.com<mailto:peter.mackay@bakermckenzie.com> ACRITAS SHARPLEGAL 2017 #1 Most Considered for Litigation and Multi-Jurisdictional Litigation 2018 GLOBAL COMPETITION REVIEW Top 5 Global Elite Practice bakermckenzie.com<http://www.bakermckenzie.com/en/> \| LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/company/baker-&-mckenzie> \| Twitter<https://twitter.com/bakermckenzie> This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If it has been sent to you in error, please reply to advise the sender of the error and then immediately delete this message. Please visit www.bakermckenzie.com/disclaimers for other important information concerning this message.

xxxLitt, xxxMarc <xxxMarc.xxxLitt@bakermckenzie.com>	Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 7:23 PM
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>

Thank you for your message. Please note that as of 1/11/2018, Marc Litt is no longer employed at Baker McKenzie. For any client-related matters please contact David Zaslowsky at (212) 891-3518 or via e-mail at David.Zaslowsky@bakermckenzie.com<mailto:David.Zaslowsky@bakermckenzie.com> and William Devaney at (212) 626-4337 or via email at William.Devaney@bakermckenzie.com. This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If it has been sent to you in error, please reply to advise the sender of the error and then immediately delete this message. Please visit <http://www.bakermckenzie.com/disclaimers> www.bakermckenzie.com/disclaimers<http://www.bakermckenzie.com/disclaimers> for other important information concerning this message.

Newsroom

<newsroom@globeandmail.com>

Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 7:26 PM

To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@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

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.

David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>	Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 6:00 AM
To: sheri.dillon@morganlewis.com, mdcohen212 <mdcohen212@gmail.com>, hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca, Liliana.Longo@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, oigfoia@usdoj.gov, Michael.e.horowitz@usdoj.gov, usms.foia@usdoj.gov, editor@theduran.com, foiparequest@ic.fbi.gov, USAEO.FOIA.Requests@usdoj.gov, oig <oig@sec.gov>, "jan.jensen" <jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca>, Newsroom <Newsroom@globeandmail.com>, "dave.seglins" <dave.seglins@cbc.ca>, "Gib.vanErt" <Gib.vanErt@scc-csc.ca>, "Bill.Morneau" <Bill.Morneau@canada.ca>, pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>
Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>, "Jacques.Poitras" <Jacques.Poitras@cbc.ca>, oldmaison <oldmaison@yahoo.com>, andre <andre@jafaust.com>, jbosnitch <jbosnitch@gmail.com>, "Norman.Sabourin" <Norman.Sabourin@cjc-ccm.gc.ca>, "David.Akin" <David.Akin@globalnews.ca>, "David.Coon" <David.Coon@gnb.ca>, "serge.rousselle" <serge.rousselle@gnb.ca>, "Larry.Tremblay" <Larry.Tremblay@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "martin.gaudet" <martin.gaudet@fredericton.ca>, "mark.vespucci" <mark.vespucci@ci.irs.gov>, "Mark.Blakely" <Mark.Blakely@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Gilles.Moreau" <Gilles.Moreau@forces.gc.ca>, "Gilles.Blinn" <Gilles.Blinn@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "dan. bussieres" <dan.bussieres@gnb.ca>, "chris.collins" <chris.collins@gnb.ca>, tj <tj@burkelaw.ca>, "Kevin.leahy" <Kevin.leahy@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>


Trust that I Tweeted the sneaky lawyer Gib van Ert and many others the link to my brief filed in the Federal Court of Appeal one year ago and obviously BEFORE you dudes in the CBC reported anything N'esy Pas Dave Seglins? https://twitter.com/DavidRayAmos/with_replies David Raymond Amos‏ @DavidRayAmos 13 hours ago Replying to @gibvanert @pauldalyesq and Mr van Ert I called last week to tell you to recuse yourself after I file my application No doubt you & @SCC_eng know the document I sent Chief Justice McLachlin in 2005 is under Tab 2 (Page 25 of this file) of my brief in the @FedCourtApp_en N'esy Pas? https://www.scribd.com/document/354470191/36-1-June-23rd-2017-FCA-Brief https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/rcmp-bullying-harassment-claims-lawsuit-1.4720126 RCMP faces $1.1B lawsuit over bullying, harassment claims dating back decades Potential class action could represent thousands of officers, civilian employees, students and volunteers Rachel Houlihan, Dave Seglins · CBC News · Posted: Jun 25, 2018 4:00 AM ET \| Canada's national police force is facing a mammoth $1.1 billion lawsuit — believed to be the biggest in the force's history — over bullying and harassment claims that could eventually represent thousands of male and female RCMP officers, civilian staff, and even volunteers dating back decades. Two veteran male RCMP officers are the lead plaintiffs. They recount workplace horror stories and health problems they claim stem from pervasive and "systematic bullying, intimidation and harassment" within the force, according to the 44-page suit filed Friday in federal court. https://oig.justice.gov/testimony/t180619.pdf Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 4706 Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 Phone: (202) 514-3435 Email: Michael.e.horowitz@usdoj.gov Office of the General Counsel Room 4726 Phone: (202) 616-0646 Email: oigfoia@usdoj.gov Executive Office for United States Attorneys Phone: (202) 252-6020 Email: USAEO.FOIA.Requests@usdoj.gov Federal Bureau of Investigation Phone: (540) 868-1535 Email: foiparequest@ic.fbi.gov United States Marshals Service Phone: (202) 307-9054 Email: usms.foia@usdoj.gov https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6nklV44gqk&t=518s IG Horowitz drops tons of "Hillary/FBI" BOMBSHELLS during testimony 55,076 views The Duran Published on Jun 22, 2018 http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.com/2018/06/23234i-just-called-to-discuss-my-false.html Friday, 22 June 2018 I just called to discuss my false imprisonment and my lawsuits in MA, Senator Brian Joyce, the US Senate and its Elections, the SEC, the IRS, the FBI, the wiretap tapes I have, the appointment of Joseph Berman as General Counsel of the BBO and his position within the BBA Ethics Committee ---------- Original message ---------- From: Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2018 03:06:50 +0000 Subject: Automatic reply: I just called to discuss my false imprisonment and my lawsuits in MA, Senator Brian Joyce, the US Senate and its Elections, the SEC, the IRS, the FBI, the wiretap tapes I have, the appointment of Joseph Berman as General Counsel of the... To: david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com Thank you for writing to the Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, Member of Parliament for Vancouver Granville. This message is to acknowledge that we are in receipt of your email. Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence, there may be a delay in processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be carefully reviewed. To help us address your concerns more quickly, please include within the body of your email your full name, address, and postal code. Please note that your message will be forwarded to the Department of Justice if it concerns topics pertaining to the member's role as the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. For all future correspondence addressed to the Minister of Justice, please write directly to the Department of Justice at mcu@justice.gc.camcu@justice.gc.ca > or call 613-957-4222. Thank you ------------------- Merci d'?crire ? l'honorable Jody Wilson-Raybould, d?put?e de Vancouver Granville. Le pr?sent message vise ? vous informer que nous avons re?u votre courriel. En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de correspondance, il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Sachez que votre message sera examin? attentivement. Pour nous aider ? r?pondre ? vos pr?occupations plus rapidement, veuillez inclure dans le corps de votre courriel votre nom complet, votre adresse et votre code postal. Veuillez prendre note que votre message sera transmis au minist?re de la Justice s'il porte sur des sujets qui rel?vent du r?le de la d?put?e en tant que ministre de la Justice et procureure g?n?rale du Canada. Pour toute correspondance future adress?e ? la ministre de la Justice, veuillez ?crire directement au minist?re de la Justice ? mcu@justice.gc.ca ou appelez au 613-957-4222.

David Amos

<david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>

Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 10:58 PM

To: mdstern@toddweld.com, FALibby@libbyhoopes.com, mlitt@wmllp.com, David.Zaslowsky@bakermckenzie.com, William.Devaney@bakermckenzie.com, TPeisch@connkavanaugh.com, CStarkey@connkavanuagh.com, tminer@demeollp.com, mpearlstein@mwe.com, dmarx@fickmarx.com, wfick@fickmarx.com, brien.o'connor@ropesgray.com, splopez@lawson-weitzen.com, emily.schulman@wilmerhale.com, joshua.levy@ropesgray.com, william.lee@wilmerhale.com, iroffman@nutter.com, thoopes@libbyhoopes.com, ntheodorou@foleyhoag.com, jkotlier@nutter.com, amirenda@foleyhoag.com, drichlin@foley.hoag.com, hussey@murphyrudolf.com, mkeating@foleyhoag.com, geraldinehines24k@gmail.com, dhoose@strhlaw.com, gribouski@gskandg.com, frongillo@fr.com, pettenberg@gouldettenberg.com, Paul.Kelly@jacksonlewis.com, robert.peabody@jacksonlewis.com, cunha@cunhaholcomb.com, tdwyer@dwyer-llc.com, harshbarger@casneredwards.com, John.commisso@jacksonlewis.com, mtearney@choate.com, Colbert@casneredwards.com, dlloyd@choate.com, csavage@choate.com, rjcinquegrana@choate.com, ehodge@choate.com, peb@fitchlp.com, dbrooks@libbyhoopes.com, jrehnquist@goodwinlaw.com, jsavage@goodwinlaw.com, mangelini@bowditch.com, bbachrach <bbachrach@bachrachlaw.net>, dapfel@goodwinlaw.com, butters@buttersbrazilian.com, mconnolly@hinckleyallen.com, jamabile@abpclaw.com, langelini@hinckleyallen.com, motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

Cc: "David.Raymond.Amos" <David.Raymond.Amos@gmail.com>, lionel <lionel@lionelmedia.com>, "Liliana.Longo" <Liliana.Longo@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Jody.Wilson-Raybould" <Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca>

http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.com/2018/06/23234i-just-called-to-discuss-my-false.html

Friday, 22 June 2018

I just called to discuss my false imprisonment and my lawsuits in MA,
Senator Brian Joyce, the US Senate and its Elections, the SEC, the
IRS, the FBI, the wiretap tapes I have, the appointment of Joseph
Berman as General Counsel of the BBO and his position within the BBA
Ethics Committee

http://www.patriotledger.com/news/20180416/former-sen-brian-joyce-fighting-to-keep-his-lawyer-in-federal-case

Former Sen. Brian Joyce fighting to keep his lawyer in federal case

"Joyce’s fight to keep his lawyer has won the support of much of the
Boston legal community. In a motion filed earlier this motion, a group
including the Massachusetts Bar Association, the Massachusetts
Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the American Civil Liberties
Union of Massachusetts and 71 individual attorneys argued that the
prosecutors’ request had “far-reaching and troubling Sixth Amendment
implications,” potentially opening the door for prosecutors to have
defense attorneys removed from a case by claiming that they had
previously presented inaccurate information on their client’s behalf.
The Boston Bar Association is seeking to file a separate amicus
brief."

Methinks all the corrupt FEDS etc should review this old document
slowing and Senator Brian Joyce's mindless lawyer buddies should check
out page 71 in particular

https://www.scribd.com/document/2619437/CROSS-BORDER

https://www.massbar.org/docs/default-source/publications-document-library/ejournal/2017-18/04-02-18-joyce-motion-and-brief.pdf?Status=Temp&sfvrsn=2

---------- Original message ----------
From: Emma Quinn-Judge <equinn-judge@zalkindlaw.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 22:24:45 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: I just called to discuss my false imprisonment and
my lawsuits in MA, Senator Brian Joyce, the US Senate and its Elections,
the SEC, the IRS, the FBI, the wiretap tapes I have, the appointment of
Joseph Berman as General Counsel of the...
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>

I am out of the office until Monday, July 9, 2018. If you need
immediate assistance, you can reach other attorneys in my office at
(617) 742-6020. You can also reach my assistant, Rebecca Hutchinson,
at rhutchinson@zalkindlaw.com.

---------- Original message ----------
From: EHoulding@peabodyarnold.com
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 20:53:44 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: I just called to discuss my false
imprisonment and my lawsuits in MA, Senator Brian Joyce, the US Senate
and its Elections, the SEC, the IRS, the FBI, the wiretap tapes I
have, the appointment of Joseph Berman as General Counsel of the...
To: david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com

I am out of the office and will return on Thursday, June 28. I will
not have frequent access to email and voicemail. If you need
immediate assistance, please contact my assistant Patricia Crickard at
pcrickard@peabodyarnold.com or 617-261-5150.

This transmission is intended only for the designated recipient(s). It
contains confidential information that may be subject to the
attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections under
applicable law. If you are not a designated recipient, you must not
read, use, copy or distribute this message. If you received this
transmission in error, please notify the sender by telephone
(617-951-2100) or by reply e-mail and delete this message.

IRS Circular 230 requires that we inform you that if this
communication (including any attachments) contains tax advice, it is
not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes
of avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or promoting
marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter
addressed herein.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: paul.lannon@hklaw.com
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 20:53:36 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: I just called to discuss my false
imprisonment and my lawsuits in MA, Senator Brian Joyce, the US Senate
and its Elections, the SEC, the IRS, the FBI, the wiretap tapes I
have, the appointment of Joseph Berman as General Counsel of the...
To: david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com

Thank you for your email. I will be out of the office traveling from
June 22-27. I will be checking email periodically. If this matter is
urgent, please contact my assistant, Karen Dost. Thank you for
contacting Holland & Knight.

________________________________

NOTE: This e-mail is from a law firm, Holland & Knight LLP ("H&K"),
and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is
addressed. If you believe you received this e-mail in error, please
notify the sender immediately, delete the e-mail from your computer
and do not copy or disclose it to anyone else. If you are not an
existing client of H&K, do not construe anything in this e-mail to
make you a client unless it contains a specific statement to that
effect and do not disclose anything to H&K in reply that you expect it
to hold in confidence. If you properly received this e-mail as a
client, co-counsel or retained expert of H&K, you should maintain its
contents in confidence in order to preserve the attorney-client or
work product privilege that may be available to protect
confidentiality.

---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 14:52:24 -0400
Subject: Do ya think the Wacky Yankee Howie Carr has two clues between
his ears yet?
To: howie@howiecarrshow.com, newsroom <newsroom@globeandmail.ca>,
newsonline <newsonline@bbc.co.uk>, news <news@dailymail.co.uk>,
news-tips <news-tips@nytimes.com>, newsdesk
<newsdesk@independent.co.uk>, editor <editor@wikileaks.org>,
"ed.pilkington" <ed.pilkington@guardian.co.uk>, newstips
<newstips@cnn.com>, frontline@wgbh.org, web <web@wcvb.com>,
"Marc.Litt" <Marc.Litt@bakermckenzie.com>, "PETER.MACKAY"
<PETER.MACKAY@bakermckenzie.com>, william.weinreb@usdoj.gov,
Joel.Garland@ci.irs.gov, "Boston.Mail" <Boston.Mail@ic.fbi.gov>,
jtodd@toddweld.com, hcooper@toddweld.com,
internalaffairs@pd.boston.gov, jason_turesky@wgbh.org,
phillip_martin@wgbh.org, edgar_herwick@wgbh.org, phil_redo@wgbh.org,
marilyn_schairer@wgbh.org, Stephanie.malin@cbp.dhs.gov,
dante.ramos@globe.com, d.medwed@northeastern.edu, phillips@globe.com
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>

https://howiecarrshow.com/howie-carr/

David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>	Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 5:53 PM
To: Matt_mcghie@slc.senate.gov, j.Russell.George@tigta.treas.gov, richard.p.theis@usdoj.gov, PublicInfo@sjc.state.ma.us, adaniel@bostonbar.org, paul.tremblay@bc.edu, paul.lannon@hklaw.com, mlarsen@publiccounsel.net, abenedetti@publiccounsel.net, martinnewhouse@nelfonline.org, jmsgibbons@yahoo.com, dmanning@gbls.org, ehoulding@peabodyarnold.com, Nate@oliplaw.com, mcmoschella@sherin.com, mov@miamimaritimelaw.com, amarconi@thorpeshwer.com, salsburg@laredosmith.com, roman@sugarmanrogers.com, ldwyer@barrettsingal.com, BARBARA <_MORSE@mad.uscourts.gov>, Lon.Povich@state.ma.us
Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>, governor@governor.state.ms.gov, jfalvey@goodwinlaw.com, cwood@woodnathanson.com, cmcdaniel@senate.ms.gov, "marc.giroux" <marc.giroux@fja-cmf.gc.ca>, "mark.vespucci" <mark.vespucci@ci.irs.gov>

Governor Phil Bryant
governor@govoff.state.ms.us,
601-359-3150

https://www.massbar.org/docs/default-source/publications-document-library/ejournal/2017-18/04-02-18-joyce-motion-and-brief.pdf?Status=Temp&sfvrsn=2

http://www.fedbar.org/Leadership/Sections-And-Divisions-Counsil-.aspx

Matthew McGhie
U.S. Senate Office of the Legislative Council
9519 Kings Grant Rd
Laurel, MD 20723
(202)224-6494
Matt_mcghie@slc.Senate.gov

Richard Theis
US Dept of Justice
145 N St NE
Washington, DC 20530
(202)307-0116
richard.p.theis@usdoj.gov

CHAIR
Matthew Moschella
Sherin & Lodgen LLP
101 Federal St 30th Fl
Boston, MA 02110
(617) 646-2245
mcmoschella@sherin.com

https://www.mass.gov/news/supreme-judicial-court-announces-new-general-counsel-to-the-board-of-bar-overseers

http://www.bostonbar.org/public-policy/ethics-opinions/ethics-committee

http://www.mad.uscourts.gov/attorneys/pdf/ProgramOverview.pdf

https://www.publiccounsel.net/dir/management/

The Boston Municipal Court Department of the Trial Court,
of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, United States.
Address: 24 New Chardon St, Boston, MA 02114, USA
Phone: +1 617-788-8600

Jurisdiction: Suffolk County, Massachusetts

Dorchester District Court
510 Washington St
+1 617-288-9500

---------- Original message ----------
From: "Albano, Jonathan M." <jonathan.albano@morganlewis.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 16:26:27 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Collapse all Print New window Methinks one
of Trump's many lawyers should call the FBI dudes in DC and Beantown
ASAP They are far too chicken to talk to me or you N'esy Pas Mikey
Gill?
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>

I will be out of the office until mid-afternoon on June 22, 2018 and
will respond to your email as soon as possible.

Jon Albano

DISCLAIMER
This e-mail message is intended only for the personal use
of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an
attorney-client communication and as such privileged and
confidential and/or it may include attorney work product.
If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review,
copy or distribute this message. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by
e-mail and delete the original message.

Sheri A. Dillon
1111 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20004-2541
United States
Phone +1.202.739.5749
sheri.dillon@morganlewis.com

---------- Original message ----------
From: Premier of Ontario | Première ministre de l’Ontario <Premier@ontario.ca>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 13:21:16 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: The LIEbranos latest Constitutional and
Legal Adviser Michael Fenrick denied receiving this email but several
computers did not
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

Thank you for your email. Your thoughts, comments and input are greatly valued.

You can be assured that all emails and letters are carefully read,
reviewed and taken into consideration.

There may be occasions when, given the issues you have raised and the
need to address them effectively, we will forward a copy of your
correspondence to the appropriate government official. Accordingly, a
response may take several business days.

Thanks again for your email.
______

Merci pour votre courriel. Nous vous sommes très reconnaissants de
nous avoir fait part de vos idées, commentaires et observations.

Nous tenons à vous assurer que nous lisons attentivement et prenons en
considération tous les courriels et lettres que nous recevons.

Dans certains cas, nous transmettrons votre message au ministère
responsable afin que les questions soulevées puissent être traitées de
la manière la plus efficace possible. En conséquence, plusieurs jours
ouvrables pourraient s’écouler avant que nous puissions vous répondre.

Merci encore pour votre courriel.

---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 09:21:12 -0400
Subject: Fwd: The LIEbranos latest Constitutional and Legal Adviser
Michael Fenrick denied receiving this email but several computers did
not
To: jagmeet.singh@ndp.ca, sfeinman <sfeinman@fahrllc.com>, premier
<premier@ontario.ca>, PREMIER <PREMIER@gov.ns.ca>, premier
<premier@gov.ab.ca>, premier <premier@gov.pe.ca>, premier
<premier@gov.sk.ca>, premier <premier@gov.yk.ca>, premier
<premier@gov.nt.ca>, premier <premier@gov.bc.ca>, "premier.ministre"
<premier.ministre@cex.gouv.qc.ca>, premier <premier@gov.nl.ca>
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, doug
<doug@fordnation.ca>, "francis.scarpaleggia"
<francis.scarpaleggia@parl.gc.ca>

---------- Original message ----------
From: "Gallant, Premier Brian (PO/CPM)" <Brian.Gallant@gnb.ca>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 12:51:40 +0000
Subject: RE: The LIEbranos latest Constitutional and Legal Adviser
Michael Fenrick denied receiving this email but several computers did
not
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

Thank you for writing to the Premier of New Brunswick. Please be
assured that your email will be reviewed.

If this is a media request, please forward your email to
media-medias@gnb.ca<mailto:media-medias@gnb.ca>. Thank you!

*************************************

Nous vous remercions d’avoir communiqué avec le premier ministre du
Nouveau-Brunswick. Soyez assuré(e) que votre courriel sera examiné.

Si ceci est une demande médiatique, prière de la transmettre à
media-medias@gnb.ca<mailto:media-medias@gnb.ca>. Merci!

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Justice Website <JUSTWEB@novascotia.ca>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:21:11 +0000
Subject: Emails to Department of Justice and Province of Nova Scotia
To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com" <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

Mr. Amos,
We acknowledge receipt of your recent emails to the Deputy Minister of
Justice and lawyers within the Legal Services Division of the
Department of Justice respecting a possible claim against the Province
of Nova Scotia. Service of any documents respecting a legal claim
against the Province of Nova Scotia may be served on the Attorney
General at 1690 Hollis Street, Halifax, NS. Please note that we will
not be responding to further emails on this matter.

Department of Justice

On 8/3/17, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> 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?
>
>
> Vertias Vincit
> David Raymond Amos
> 902 800 0369
>
> 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
>
>
> http://www.archive.org/details/PoliceSurveilanceWiretapTape139
>
> http://www.archive.org/details/FedsUsTreasuryDeptRcmpEtc
>
>
> FEDERAL EXPRES February 7, 2006
> Senator Arlen Specter
> United States Senate
> Committee on the Judiciary
> 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
> Washington, DC 20510
>
> Dear Mr. Specter:
>
> I have been asked to forward the enclosed tapes to you from a man
> named, David Amos, a Canadian citizen, in connection with the matters
> raised in the attached letter. Mr. Amos has represented to me that
> these are illegal FBI wire tap tapes. I believe Mr. Amos has been in
> contact
> with you about this previously.
>
> Very truly yours,
> Barry A. Bachrach
> Direct telephone: (508) 926-3403
> Direct facsimile: (508) 929-3003
> Email: bbachrach@bowditch.com
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/new-brunswick-integrity-commissioner-conflict-of-interest-boudreau-1.4154004
>
> Integrity commissioner calls for tougher conflict-of-interest law
> N.B. legislation should apply to apparent conflicts, not just actual
> ones, Alexandre Deschênes says
> By Jacques Poitras, CBC News Posted: Jun 12, 2017 6:30 AM AT
>
> Alexandre Deschênes's first act as commissioner was to deal with
> Victor Boudreau's 20 per cent investment in Shediac Campground Ltd., a
> proposed 700-site facility that has generated local opposition.
> (Jacques Poitras/CBC)
>
> New Brunswick's integrity commissioner says the conflict-of-interest
> law for politicians should be toughened to clarify cases such as
> cabinet minister Victor Boudreau's former investment in a proposed
> campground near Parlee Beach.
>
> Alexandre Deschênes said earlier this year that Boudreau's stake in
> the project did not put him in a conflict of interest but that the
> appearance of a conflict was "inevitable."
>
> Unlike other conflict-of-interest laws, "our act does not apply to an
> apparent conflict of interest," he said in an interview with CBC News.
> "It's not in there."
>
> Previous commissioners suggested law
>
> Boudreau recused himself from Parlee Beach issues anyway, even though
> he didn't technically have to. The law said ministers aren't in a
> conflict if decisions that affect their private interests also apply
> to the general public.
>
> Boudreau recuses himself from Parlee Beach controversy
> Victor Boudreau case shows 'huge loophole' in conflict law, ethics
> group says
>
> "Mr. Boudreau could have gone on and said, 'I'm the minister of health
> and I'm going to make decisions that apply to the general public and
> the act allows it,'" Deschênes said.
>
> "If you'd had the words 'apparent conflict of interest' [in the law]
> it would have been clear."
>
> Deschênes pointed out two of his predecessors as conflict-of-interest
> commissioner, Pat Ryan and Stuart Stratton, recommended expanding the
> act to include the appearance of conflicts.
>
> "It started out way back," he said. "We're looking at almost a decade
> here where the suggestion has been made that apparent conflict of
> interest ought to be included in the act. It's not been done.
>
> "But as a commissioner, I will be following what they've been doing
> and I will be recommending it when I file a report."
>
> Updated conflict act
>
> The Gallant Liberals passed amendments to update the Members Conflict
> of Interest Act during the spring session of the legislature, but they
> did not include a ban on perceived conflicts.
>
> Progressive Conservative MLA Brian MacDonald has also called for the
> Liberals to fix what he calls "a gap in the law."
>
> 'Gap in the law': PC critic suggests review of conflict law
> Premier backs Victor Boudreau's involvement in Parlee Beach issue
>
> Deschênes was appointed the province's integrity commissioner last
> year. The new role incorporates the role of conflict-of-interest
> watchdog and registrar of lobbyists, and in September it will also
> include the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
>
> Victor
>
> Cabinet minister Victor Boudreau recused himself from the Parlee Beach
> issues anyway, even though the law said ministers aren't in a conflict
> if decisions that affect their private interests also apply to the
> general public. (CBC)
>
> Deschênes's first act as commissioner was to deal with Boudreau's 20
> per cent investment in Shediac Campground Ltd., a proposed 700-site
> facility that has generated local opposition.
>
> As health minister, Boudreau oversees the public health offices, and
> his department was part of a working group looking at how to deal with
> fecal contamination at Parlee Beach. One option the group looked at
> was a moratorium on new development near the beach.
>
> That would have affected the proposed campground.
>
> 'I told him, and he made it public, that the appearance of
> conflict in this case was absolutely inevitable. He couldn't get
> around it. It was there.'
>
> - Alexandre Deschênes
>
> The law bans ministers from making decisions that affect their
> "private interest," but it makes an exception if the decision applies
> to the broader public, even if the minister would still benefit.
>
> Deschênes said in his letter to Boudreau in March that "one could
> argue" a decision on a moratorium would affect the broader public.
>
> "Under the act, he might have been entitled to continue to have
> discussions that applied to the general population, even though he was
> part of [the project] at that point," Deschênes said in an interview
> last week.
>
> "I told him, and he made it public, that the appearance of conflict in
> this case was absolutely inevitable. He couldn't get around it. It was
> there."
> An MP's perceived conflict matters
>
> The federal conflict of interest code for MPs also includes an
> exception for decisions that affect the general public, but it
> includes an explicit reference to perceived conflicts.
>
> Boudreau put his investment in a blind trust in 2014, which meant he
> had no role in the running of the business. But the value of his stake
> would have been affected by a moratorium on future development.
>
> Parlee beach
>
> In May, Victor Boudreau announced he was giving up his investment in
> the campground on Parlee Beach altogether.
>
> He said in March he learned of the potential moratorium Feb. 28 and
> met with Deschênes March 2, the first date they could arrange it.
>
> "That perception is the issue," Boudreau said at the time. "And if the
> perception is the issue, and the perception is what's going to be
> prevent us from getting to the bottom of it, then I'm prepared to
> recuse myself from all activities relating to this committee."
>
> Last month he announced that he was giving up his investment in the
> campground altogether.
>
> Deschênes said he believes most ministers and MLAs would do the same
> thing if he told them there was an apparent, but not actual, conflict.
>
> "In most cases I think they will listen and they will do what has to
> be done to put an end to an apparent conflict of interest, although
> technically they could continue to do what they want to do."
>
>
>
> 6 Comments
>
> David Raymond Amos
>
> I sure hope the new integrity commissioner finally does his job and
> answers me in writing
>
>
>
> 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
>
> Hon. Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C.
> Integrity Commissioner
>
> Hon. Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C., who resides in Bathurst, N.B., is a
> native of Kedgwick, N.B., and is married to Huguette (Savoie)
> Deschênes. They have two sons.
>
> He studied at Saint-Joseph University (now Université de Moncton) from
> 1960 to 1962, University of Ottawa from 1962-1965 (B.A.), and
> University of New Brunswick (LL.B., 1968). He was admitted to the Law
> Society of New Brunswick in 1968. He was legal counsel to the
> Department of Justice in Fredericton from 1968 to 1971. He was in
> private practice from 1972 to 1982 and specialized in civil litigation
> as a partner in the law firm of Michaud, Leblanc, Robichaud, and
> Deschênes. While residing in Shediac, N.B., he served on town council
> and became the first president of the South East Economic Commission.
> He is a past president of the Richelieu Club in Shediac.
>
> In 1982, he was appointed a judge of the Court of Queen’s Bench of New
> Brunswick and of the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick in 2000.
>
> On July 30, 2009, he was appointed to the Court Martial Appeal Court of
> Canada.
>
> While on the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick, he was appointed
> President of the provincial Judicial Council and in 2012 Chairperson
> of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of New
> Brunswick for the 2015 federal election.
>
> He was appointed Conflict of Interest Commissioner in December 2016
> and became New Brunswick’s first Integrity Commissioner on December
> 16, 2016 with responsibilities for conflict of interest issues related
> to Members of the Legislative Assembly. As of April 1, 2017 he
> supervises lobbyists of public office holders under the Lobbyists’
> Registration Act.
>
> As of September 1, 2017, he will be assuming the functions presently
> held by the Access to Information and Privacy Commissioner.
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 16:22:25 -0400
> Subject: Thank you for your signature Frenchy
> To: Andre Murray <andremurraynow@gmail.com>, "marie-claude.blais"
> <marie-claude.blais@gnb.ca>, sallybrooks25 <sallybrooks25@yahoo.ca>,
> evelyngreene <evelyngreene@live.ca>, law <law@stevenfoulds.ca>,
> "danny.copp" <danny.copp@fredericton.ca>, nbpc <nbpc@gnb.ca>, nbombud
> <nbombud@gnb.ca>, coi <coi@gnb.ca>, "Wayne.Lang"
> <Wayne.Lang@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>
> Cc: "dan. bussieres" <dan.bussieres@gnb.ca>, oldmaison
> <oldmaison@yahoo.com>, andre <andre@jafaust.com>
>
> From: "Bussières, Dan (LEG)" <Dan.Bussieres@gnb.ca>
> Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 15:47:49 -0400
> Subject: RE: I just called all three of your offices
> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
> Oui je vois
>
>
>
> On 12/6/12, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't take orders well ask the corrupt ex cop Bussieres why that is
>>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 13:46:11 -0400
> Subject: Attn premier Brian Gallant and Kirk MacDonald I just called
> your friends in the Law Society of New Brunswick for the last time
> From now on we argue before the courts
> To: george.filliter@gmail.com, lcmarcou@mccain.ca,
> cmichaud@coxandpalmer.com, tross@judicom.ca, coi@gnb.ca,
> m.pelletier@nb.aibn.com, "Kim.Poffenroth" <Kim.Poffenroth@gnb.ca>,
> nbpc <nbpc@gnb.ca>, "Gilles.Blinn" <Gilles.Blinn@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>,
> "bruce.northrup" <bruce.northrup@gnb.ca>, "brian.keirstead"
> <brian.keirstead@gnb.ca>, "blaine.higgs" <blaine.higgs@gnb.ca>,
> "Davidc.Coon" <Davidc.Coon@gmail.com>, "David.Coon"
> <David.Coon@gnb.ca>, "david.eidt" <david.eidt@gnb.ca>, "jan.jensen"
> <jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca>, "bill.pentney"
> <bill.pentney@justice.gc.ca>, mcu <mcu@justice.gc.ca>, postur
> <postur@for.is>, postur <postur@irr.is>, birgittaj
> <birgittaj@althingi.is>
> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, "kirk.macdonald"
> <kirk.macdonald@gnb.ca>, briangallant10 <briangallant10@gmail.com>,
> "Jacques.Poitras" <Jacques.Poitras@cbc.ca>, premier <premier@gnb.ca>
>
> Methinks if Kik MacDonald were truly wise he would make another speech
> before Xmass but this time he should tell the awful truth instead of
> just making fun of our trubles with LIEBRANOS N'esy Pas Davey Baby
> Coon?
>
> Trust that watching this politite nonsense is truly offensive to any
> Maritmer with two clues between their ears.
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/political-panel-dec-8-1.3888331
>
> Conflict of Interest 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
>
> Michèle Pelletier
> Arseneault & Pelletier
> 568A Ave. des Pionniers
> Balmoral, New Brunswick E8E 1E3
> Phone: 506-826-1819
> Fax: 506-826-1817
> Email: m.pelletier@nb.aibn.com
>
> KIM POFFENROTH
> Assistant Deputy Attorney General
> Legislative Services (Branch)
> Office of the Attorney General
> Phone : (506) 453-2855
> Fax : (506) 457-7342
> Email : Kim.POFFENROTH@gnb.ca
>
>
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/integrity-commissioner-named-1.3885165
>
> The Gallant government has introduced legislation to merge several
> legislative watchdog positions into a single job and has chosen a
> retired judge to take on the newly expanded role.
>
> Alexandre Deschênes
>
> Alexandre Deschênes, a retired New Brunswick Court of Appeal justice,
> is to be the first integrity commissioner in New Brunswick.
>
> Retired New Brunswick Court of Appeal justice Alexandre Deschênes will
> become the province's first integrity commissioner, an appointment
> supported by the opposition Progressive Conservatives and Green Party
> Leader David Coon.
>
> Premier Brian Gallant introduced a bill Wednesday to create the position.
>
> For now, Deschênes fills the vacant position of conflict-of-interest
> commissioner and will also oversee legislation governing the privacy
> of personal health records.
>
> Next July, Deschênes will add responsibility for the lobbyist registry
> to his duties.
>
> The Liberals say they will proclaim legislation to set up the registry
> by next July. The law was passed by the previous PC government in 2014
> but not enacted.
>
> Conflict of interest commissioner, MLAs have conflicting views on
> transparency
> Commissioner wants mandatory privacy breach reporting
> N.B. legislature will study cutting independent watchdogs
>
> And next September, after Anne Bertrand, the information and privacy
> commissioner, finishes her seven-year term, that job will become part
> of Deschênes's job as integrity commissioner.
>
> An independent study, done as part of the government's program
> review, recommended the merging of the legislative officer positions.
>
> All parties in the legislature agreed on two other appointments
> Wednesday: lawyer Michèle Pelletier as consumer advocate for insurance
> and assistant deputy attorney general Kim Poffenroth as chief
> electoral officer.J
>
>
> http://lawsociety-barreau.nb.ca/en/about/council/council
>
> At its Annual General Meeting on Saturday, June 25th, 2016, the Law
> Society of New Brunswick elected its new Executive for the 2016-2017
> term:
>
> New Executive
>
> George P. Filliter, Q.C.
> President
> 68 Avonlea Court
> Fredericton, NB E3C 1N8
> Tel: (506) 454-7678
> Fax: (506) 454-6983
> george.filliter@gmail.com
>
> Luc Marcoux, Q.C.
> Vice-President
> McCain Foods Limited
> 8800 Main Street
> Florenceville-Bristol, NB E7L 1B2
> Tel: (506) 375-5353
> Fax: (506) 375-5058
> lcmarcou@mccain.ca
>
> Christian E. Michaud, Q.C.
> Treasurer
> Cox & Palmer
> Blue Cross Center
> 644 Main Street, Suite 500
> Moncton, NB E1C 1E2
> Tel: (506) 863-1131
> Fax: (506) 856-8150
> cmichaud@coxandpalmer.com
>
>
> Law Society of New Brunswick
> 68 Avonlea Court
> Fredericton, New Brunswick
> E3C 1N8
> (506) 458-8540
> (506) 451-1421
>
> general@lawsociety-barreau.nb.ca
>
> http://lawsociety-barreau.nb.ca/en/for-lawyers/queen-counsel-nominations
>
> October 24, 2016
>
> Eleven New Brunswick lawyers were appointed Queen’s Counsel by the
> Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick, the Honourable Jocelyne Roy
> Vienneau, on Monday, October 24, 2016, at the Legislative Assembly in
> Fredericton.
>
> Christa Bourque, Q.C., of Moncton
> Krista Lynn Colford, Q.C., of Fredericton
> The Honourable Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C., of Bathurst
> Edward L. Derrah, Q.C., of Fredericton
> Shannon Doran, Q.C., of Fredericton
> Nathalie L. Godbout, Q.C., of Saint John
> Stephen J. Hutchison, Q.C., of Saint John
> The Honourable Dominic A. J. LeBlanc, Q.C., of Shediac
> Luc Marcoux, Q.C., of Florenceville-Bristol
> D. Andrew Rouse, Q.C., of Fredericton
> John R. Williamson, Q.C., of Fredericton
>
> The distinction of Queen’s Counsel is conferred upon experienced
> lawyers in recognition of their commitment to the principles of the
> legal profession and contributions to their communities. Eligible
> lawyers include those who have been members of the Law Society of New
> Brunswick and have been engaged in the active practice of law in the
> province for at least 15 years with extensive experience before the
> courts or have demonstrated exceptional service to the profession.
>
> In the fall of this year, a committee consisting of the Chief Justice
> of New Brunswick, J. Ernest Drapeau, the Attorney General of New
> Brunswick and the President of the Law Society of New Brunswick, will
> consider candidates for the next Queen’s Counsel appointments.
>
> The distinction of Queen’s Counsel is conferred upon experienced
> lawyers in recognition of their commitment to the principles of the
> legal profession and contributions to their communities. The criteria
> for these appointments are:
>
> A regular member of the Law Society of New Brunswick who:
>
> a) has been engaged in the active practice of law in the Province of
> New Brunswick for at least fifteen years, with extensive experience
> before the courts;
>
> b) in the opinion of the Committee, merits the appointment by reason
> of exceptional service to the legal profession.
>
> It should be noted that past practice indicates that Queen’s Counsel
> appointments typically have more than seventeen years at the Bar.
>
> The Law Society encourages members to forward a letter and a resume in
> order to be considered as a candidate for a Queen’s Counsel
> appointment. Persons may either apply personally or may nominate a
> member of the Law Society. All applicants will be treated equally by
> the Committee whether they are nominated, or whether they apply
> personally.
>
> In your letter, you may wish to identify two individuals, either
> within or outside the Law Society who might provide additional
> information to assist the Committee in considering this matter. If
> letters of reference are provided, they may be identified for this
> purpose.
>
> Your application or nomination should be received by Chief Justice J.
> Ernest Drapeau no later than Friday, June 24, 2016, at 4:00 p.m.
>
> It may be sent via email to tross@judicom.ca or sent/delivered to:
>
> Committee on Queen’s Counsel Appointments
> c/o The Hon. Chief Justice J. Ernest Drapeau
> Court of Appeal of New Brunswick
> Justice Building
> 427 Queen Street, Room 311
> Fredericton, NB E3B 1B7
>
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/kirk-macdonald-dominic-leblanc-judge-moving-bill-1.3866450
>
>
> Judge-moving bill aims to help Dominic LeBlanc, Tory MLA charges
> Kirk MacDonald says Liberals drafted bill to help put Jolène Richard
> and André Richard on court
>
> By Jacques Poitras, CBC News Posted: Nov 24, 2016 6:03 PM AT
>
> A Progressive Conservative MLA has taken the unusual step of naming
> names — including that of a sitting provincial court judge — in his
> attack on a proposed law on how Court of Queen's Bench judges are
> transferred.
>
> Kirk MacDonald told the legislature last week that he believes the
> government bill was drafted to help the spouse and the brother-in-law
> of federal Liberal MP Dominic LeBlanc, a close ally of Premier Brian
> Gallant.
> nb-andre-richard-jolene-richard
>
> A Progressive Conservative MLA believes the Liberal government's
> judge-moving bill was drafted to help have André Richard and Jolène
> Richard appointed to the Court of Queen's Bench. (CBC)
>
> "I will give you two names. I will give you Jolène Richard and André
> Richard, two people I believe are looking for judicial appointments
> here in New Brunswick," MacDonald said during second-reading debate on
> the bill.
>
> In fact, Jolène Richard is already a provincial court judge. André
> Richard is her brother and a senior lawyer at Stewart McKelvey.
>
> Province names new judge, wife of MP Dominic LeBlanc
>
> "Dominic LeBlanc has some judges that he wants to appoint in New
> Brunswick, and the framework as it currently exists does not allow for
> that to happen," MacDonald said.
>
> André Richard stated Thursday he "had no involvement in the
> government's decision to propose changes to the Judicature Act."
>
> "As you know, my sister is already a judge who sits in Moncton. I fail
> to understand why our names are being brought into this debate."
> Bill gives veto to minister
>
> The Liberal bill would amend the Judicature Act, which governs how
> courts operate, to give the justice minister a veto over Chief Justice
> David Smith of the Court of Queen's Bench transferring judges from one
> court to another.
> nb-chief-justice-david-smith
>
> Court of Queen's Bench Chief Justice David Smith has transferred 13
> judges since becoming chief justice in 1998. (Acadia University)
>
> PC MLAs have hinted in the past about who they believe the bill was
> designed to help. But until now, no one was willing to name them.
>
> It's rare for politicians to draw sitting judges into partisan
> debates, and the veteran Tory MLA did not offer any evidence to back
> up his allegations. He turned down a request to explain his views in
> an interview.
> Parliamentary privilege
>
> Parliamentary privilege protects members of the legislature from being
> sued for defamation or held in contempt of court for comments they
> make during proceedings. No such protection exists for things they say
> outside the legislature.
>
> Provincial court judges such as Richard are appointed by the province,
> but Court of Queen's Bench justices are named by Ottawa. Both courts
> are administered by the province, but the current law gives Smith the
> power to move judges on his court on his own.
>
> Smith has argued the bill would threaten the independence of the
> courts, which could make it unconstitutional.
> Bill brought back
>
> The Liberals introduced the bill during the last session, but it
> didn't pass before the session ended. They brought it back last week.
>
> Justice Minister Denis Landry said last week the bill was designed to
> bring "best practices" to court administration and end the pattern of
> justices being named to smaller courthouses and then being transferred
> soon after.
>
> Judge-moving legislation introduced again
> 2 chief justices appear at odds over judge-moving bill
> 7 things list reveals about controversial judge-moving bill
>
> "This is what we want to correct," he said. "If we name a judge, they
> should reside there, for a long period of time, not just two or three
> months then move them where they want to go."
>
> Asked whether he'd veto such a transfer, Landry said, "This is what we'll
> see."
>
> Landry's department said Thursday it would not comment on MacDonald's
> accusation.
> Larger locations favoured
>
> MacDonald said during last week's debate that it's true Court of
> Queen's Bench justices are often appointed to smaller locations and
> are then moved to one of the three largest cities.
> Dominic LeBlanc
>
> Federal Fisheries Minister Dominic LeBlanc is a close ally of New
> Brunswick Premier Brian Gallant. (CBC)
>
> He said that court postings in Moncton, Fredericton, and Saint John
> are "The positions that everyone seems to want."
>
> And he said the current system for moving judges, "which is controlled
> by the chief justice, does not work for Dominic LeBlanc and the
> Liberal Party of New Brunswick," MacDonald said.
>
> Upside to judge-moving bill touted by ex-constitutional lawyer
> Gallant government's judge-moving bill questioned by legal expert
>
> "They want to change it. They want to have a situation where they have
> a mechanism to control that decision and to effect change on that
> decision."
>
> In June, Smith transferred Justice Tracey DeWare from Woodstock to
> Moncton and Justice Richard Petrie from Saint John to Woodstock.
>
> DeWare was moved to fill a vacancy after Justice Brigitte Robichaud
> switched to supernumerary, or part-time, status.
>
> Jolène Richard did not respond to interview requests.
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: Póstur FOR <postur@for.is>
> Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 22:05:47 +0000
> Subject: Re: Hey Premier Gallant please inform the questionable
> parliamentarian Birigtta Jonsdottir that although NB is a small "Have
> Not" province at least we have twice the population of Iceland and
> that not all of us are as dumb as she and her Prime Minister pretends
> to be..
> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
>
> Erindi þitt hefur verið móttekið / Your request has been received
>
> Kveðja / Best regards
> Forsætisráðuneytið / Prime Minister's Office
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: Póstur IRR <postur@irr.is>
> Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 22:05:47 +0000
> Subject: Re: Hey Premier Gallant please inform the questionable
> parliamentarian Birigtta Jonsdottir that although NB is a small "Have
> Not" province at least we have twice the population of Iceland and
> that not all of us are as dumb as she and her Prime Minister pretends
> to be..
> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
>
> Erindi þitt hefur verið móttekið. / Your request has been received.
>
> Kveðja / Best regards
> Innanríkisráðuneytið / Ministry of the Interior
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Póstur FOR <postur@for.is>
> Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 21:43:50 +0000
> Subject: Re: After crossing paths with them bigtime in 2004 Davey Baby
> Coon and his many Green Meanie and Fake Left cohorts know why I won't
> hold my breath waiting for them to act with any semblance of integrity
> now N'esy Pas Chucky Leblanc??
> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
>
> Erindi þitt hefur verið móttekið / Your request has been received
>
> Kveðja / Best regards
> Forsætisráðuneytið / Prime Minister's Office
>
>
> This is the docket
>
> 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 two hearings
>
> Dec 14th https://archive.org/details/BahHumbug
>
> Jan 11th https://archive.org/details/Jan11th2015
>
> This me running for a seat in Parliament again while CBC denies it again
>
> Fundy Royal, New Brunswick Debate – Federal Elections 2015 - The Local
> Campaign, Rogers TV
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cFOKT6TlSE
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/fundy-royal-riding-profile-1.3274276
>
> Veritas Vincit
> David Raymond Amos
> 902 800 0369
>
> FYI This is the text of the lawsuit that should interest Trudeau the most
>
>
> 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
> essential for the security and tranquility of the developed world. An
> ISIS “caliphate,” in the Middle East, no matter how small, is a clear
> and present danger to the entire world. This “occupied state,”
> or“failed state” will prosecute an unending Islamic inspired war of
> terror against not only the “western world,” but Arab states
> “moderate” or not, as well. The security, safety, and tranquility of
> Canada and Canadians are just at risk now with the emergence of an
> ISIS“caliphate” no matter how large or small, as it was with the
> Taliban and Al Quaeda “marriage” in Afghanistan.
>
> One of the everlasting “legacies” of the “Trudeau the Elder’s dynasty
> was Canada and successive Liberal governments cowering behind the
> amerkan’s nuclear and conventional military shield, at the same time
> denigrating, insulting them, opposing them, and at the same time
> self-aggrandizing ourselves as “peace keepers,” and progenitors of
> “world peace.” Canada failed. The United States of Amerka, NATO, the
> G7 and or G20 will no longer permit that sort of sanctimonious
> behavior from Canada or its government any longer. And Prime Minister
> Stephen Harper, Foreign Minister John Baird , and Cabinet are fully
> cognizant of that reality. Even if some editorial boards, and pundits
> are not.
>
> Justin, Trudeau “the younger” is reprising the time “honoured” liberal
> mantra, and tradition of expecting the amerkans or the rest of the
> world to do “the heavy lifting.” Justin Trudeau and his “butt buddy”
> David Amos are telling Canadians that we can guarantee our security
> and safety by expecting other nations to fight for us. That Canada can
> and should attempt to guarantee Canadians safety by providing
> “humanitarian aid” somewhere, and call a sitting US president a “war
> criminal.” This morning Australia announced they too, were sending
> tactical aircraft to eliminate the menace of an ISIS “caliphate.”
>
> In one sense Prime Minister Harper is every bit the scoundrel Trudeau
> “the elder” and Jean ‘the crook” Chretien was. Just As Trudeau, and
> successive Liberal governments delighted in diminishing,
> marginalizing, under funding Canadian Forces, and sending Canadian
> military men and women to die with inadequate kit and modern
> equipment; so too is Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Canada’s F-18s are
> antiquated, poorly equipped, and ought to have been replaced five
> years ago. But alas, there won’t be single RCAF fighter jock that
> won’t go, or won’t want to go, to make Canada safe or safer.
>
> My Grandfather served this country. My father served this country. My
> Uncle served this country. And I have served this country. Justin
> Trudeau has not served Canada in any way. Thomas Mulcair has not
> served this country in any way. Liberals and so called social
> democrats haven’t served this country in any way. David Amos, and
> other drooling fools have not served this great nation in any way. Yet
> these fools are more than prepared to ensure their, our safety to
> other nations, and then criticize them for doing so.
>
> Canada must again, now, “do our bit” to guarantee our own security,
> and tranquility, but also that of the world. Canada has never before
> shirked its responsibility to its citizens and that of the world.
>
> Prime Minister Harper will not permit this country to do so now
>
> From: dnd_mdn@forces.gc.ca
> Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 14:17:17 -0400
> Subject: RE: Re Greg Weston, The CBC , Wikileaks, USSOCOM, Canada and
> the War in Iraq (I just called SOCOM and let them know I was still
> alive
> To: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>
> This is to confirm that the Minister of National Defence has received
> your email and it will be reviewed in due course. Please do not reply
> to this message: it is an automatic acknowledgement.
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 13:55:30 -0300
> Subject: Re Greg Weston, The CBC , Wikileaks, USSOCOM, Canada and the
> War in Iraq (I just called SOCOM and let them know I was still alive
> To: DECPR@forces.gc.ca, Public.Affairs@socom.mil,
> Raymonde.Cleroux@mpcc-cppm.gc.ca, john.adams@cse-cst.gc.ca,
> william.elliott@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, stoffp1 <stoffp1@parl.gc.ca>,
> dnd_mdn@forces.gc.ca, media@drdc-rddc.gc.ca, information@forces.gc.ca,
> milner@unb.ca, charters@unb.ca, lwindsor@unb.ca,
> sarah.weir@mpcc-cppm.gc.ca, birgir <birgir@althingi.is>, smari
> <smari@immi.is>, greg.weston@cbc.ca, pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>,
> susan@blueskystrategygroup.com, Don@blueskystrategygroup.com,
> eugene@blueskystrategygroup.com, americas@aljazeera.net
> Cc: "Edith. Cody-Rice" <Edith.Cody-Rice@cbc.ca>, "terry.seguin"
> <terry.seguin@cbc.ca>, acampbell <acampbell@ctv.ca>, whistleblower
> <whistleblower@ctv.ca>
>
> I talked to Don Newman earlier this week before the beancounters David
> Dodge and Don Drummond now of Queen's gave their spin about Canada's
> Health Care system yesterday and Sheila Fraser yapped on and on on
> CAPAC during her last days in office as if she were oh so ethical.. To
> be fair to him I just called Greg Weston (613-288-6938) I suggested
> that he should at least Google SOUCOM and David Amos It would be wise
> if he check ALL of CBC's sources before he publishes something else
> about the DND EH Don Newman? Lets just say that the fact that your
> old CBC buddy, Tony Burman is now in charge of Al Jazeera English
> never impressed me. The fact that he set up a Canadian office is
> interesting though
>
> http://www.blueskystrategygroup.com/index.php/team/don-newman/
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/media/story/2010/05/04/al-jazeera-english-launch.html
>
> Anyone can call me back and stress test my integrity after they read
> this simple pdf file. BTW what you Blue Sky dudes pubished about
> Potash Corp and BHP is truly funny. Perhaps Stevey Boy Harper or Brad
> Wall will fill ya in if you are to shy to call mean old me.
>
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/2718120/Integrity-Yea-Right
>
> The Governor General, the PMO and the PCO offices know that I am not a
> shy political animal
>
> Veritas Vincit
> David Raymond Amos
> 902 800 0369
>
> Enjoy Mr Weston
> http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/2011/05/15/weston-iraq-invasion-wikileaks.html
>
> "But Lang, defence minister McCallum's chief of staff, says military
> brass were not entirely forthcoming on the issue. For instance, he
> says, even McCallum initially didn't know those soldiers were helping
> to plan the invasion of Iraq up to the highest levels of command,
> including a Canadian general.
>
> That general is Walt Natynczyk, now Canada's chief of defence staff,
> who eight months after the invasion became deputy commander of 35,000
> U.S. soldiers and other allied forces in Iraq. Lang says Natynczyk was
> also part of the team of mainly senior U.S. military brass that helped
> prepare for the invasion from a mobile command in Kuwait."
>
> http://baconfat53.blogspot.com/2010/06/canada-and-united-states.html
>
> "I remember years ago when the debate was on in Canada, about there
> being weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Our American 'friends"
> demanded that Canada join into "the Coalition of the Willing. American
> "veterans" and sportscasters loudly denounced Canada for NOT buying
> into the US policy.
>
> At the time I was serving as a planner at NDHQ and with 24 other of my
> colleagues we went to Tampa SOUCOM HQ to be involved in the planning
> in the planning stages of the op....and to report to NDHQ, that would
> report to the PMO upon the merits of the proposed operation. There was
> never at anytime an existing target list of verified sites where there
> were deployed WMD.
>
> Coalition assets were more than sufficient for the initial strike and
> invasion phase but even at that point in the planning, we were
> concerned about the number of "boots on the ground" for the occupation
> (and end game) stage of an operation in Iraq. We were also concerned
> about the American plans for occupation plans of Iraq because they at
> that stage included no contingency for a handing over of civil
> authority to a vetted Iraqi government and bureaucracy.
>
> There was no detailed plan for Iraq being "liberated" and returned to
> its people...nor a thought to an eventual exit plan. This was contrary
> to the lessons of Vietnam but also to current military thought, that
> folks like Colin Powell and "Stuffy" Leighton and others elucidated
> upon. "What's the mission" how long is the mission, what conditions
> are to met before US troop can redeploy? Prime Minister Jean Chretien
> and the PMO were even at the very preliminary planning stages wary of
> Canadian involvement in an Iraq operation....History would prove them
> correct. The political pressure being applied on the PMO from the
> George W Bush administration was onerous
>
> American military assets were extremely overstretched, and Canadian
> military assets even more so It was proposed by the PMO that Canadian
> naval platforms would deploy to assist in naval quarantine operations
> in the Gulf and that Canadian army assets would deploy in Afghanistan
> thus permitting US army assets to redeploy for an Iraqi
> operation....The PMO thought that "compromise would save Canadian
> lives and liberal political capital.. and the priority of which
> ....not necessarily in that order. "
>
> You can bet that I called these sneaky Yankees again today EH John
> Adams? of the CSE within the DND?
>
> http://www.socom.mil/SOCOMHome/Pages/ContactUSSOCOM.aspx
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 09:20:29 -0400
> Subject: Hey before you Red Coats swear an Oath to the Queen and the
> 42nd Parliament begins perhaps the turncoat Big Bad Billy Casey the
> Yankee carpetbagger David Lutz or some Boyz from NB should explain
> this lawsuit to you real slow.
> To: alaina@alainalockhart.ca, david <david@lutz.nb.ca>,
> "daniel.mchardie" <daniel.mchardie@cbc.ca>, info@waynelong.ca,
> info@ginettepetitpastaylor.ca, rarseno@nbnet.nb.ca,
> matt@mattdecourcey.ca, info@sergecormier.ca, pat@patfinnigan.ca,
> tj@tjharvey.ca, karen.ludwig.nb@gmail.com
> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, "Frank.McKenna"
> <Frank.McKenna@td.com>, info@votezsteve.ca, info@billcasey.ca,
> "justin.trudeau.a1" <justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca>,
> "dominic.leblanc.a1" <dominic.leblanc.a1@parl.gc.ca>, oldmaison
> <oldmaison@yahoo.com>, jacques_poitras <jacques_poitras@cbc.ca>,
> "Jacques.Poitras" <Jacques.Poitras@cbc.ca>, "peter.mackay"
> <peter.mackay@justice.gc.ca>
>
>
>

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.

2 attachments — Scan and download all attachments

Integrity-yea-right.-txt.pdf
663K View as HTML Scan and download

FBI Boston.WAV
40K Scan and download

Tuesday 22 August 2023

RE theCCF intervenor status and Dr. Jordan Peterson's freedom to express the fact that Gerald Butts is a prick just like Howie Anglin

Claim of political motivation

Before Trudeau, Gerald Butts Abandoned Tar Sands Action As Head Of WWF

Re: UPDATED theCCF intervenor status and Dr. Jordan Peterson's freedom to express the fact that Gerald Butts is a prick just like Howie Anglin

Ministerial Correspondence Unit - Justice Canada

David Amos

LILLEY UNLEASHED: Dr.Jordan Peterson in a fighting mood after court ruling

4,991 Comments

Decision in Dr Jordan Peterson Freedom of Expression case

1,255 Comments

Jordan Peterson is being disciplined for his tweets. Why some say that raises free speech issues

College of Psychologists of Ontario launched investigation after complaints about Peterson's tweets

Controversial psychologist Jordan Peterson ordered to undergo media training over tweets

Tweets result in disciplinary action

Complaints to college

Claim of political motivation

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

RE theCCF intervenor status and Dr. Jordan Peterson's freedom to express the fact that Gerald Butts is a prick just like Howie Anglin

Moore, Rob - M.P.

David Amos

Ontario court rules against Jordan Peterson, upholds social media training order

Divisional court released its decision Wednesday

Peterson says he stands behind statements

Controversial figure wants to retain licence

Overview

Background and context

The Decision

Issues and standard of review

Doré and Vavilov – the legal framework

The ICRC applied a Doré analysis

Consideration of the statutory objectives

Balancing the statutory objectives and freedom of expression

The Decision meets Vavilov’s requirement of justification, intelligibility and transparency

Conclusion

Join us with your questions TOMORROW for our live meeting on the Jordan Peterson case

Russell Phillips

Thank you Colonel Douglas Macgregor Please check my work

David Amos

YO Howie Anglin I sue lawyers too Remember?

Higgs, Premier Blaine (PO/CPM)

More about Beer? Well lets just say that Howard Anglin one Harper's little buddies in short pants was not wise to brag that he was a research assistant for one of my Yankee enemies Prof. Alan Dershowitz EH?

David Amos

STAFF

Joanna Baron, B.C.L./LL.B

Christine Van Geyn, B.A./J.D.

Adam Revay, B.A.

Russell Philips, B.A.

Board of Directors

ATTN Edward Gillis I called again to try to speak to you about the CRA auditors, the CBC and the PIPSC but was directed to a Mr Campbell's voicemail

Howard Anglin

Christine Van Geyn: College of Psychologists attacks Jordan Peterson in court

Townhall on Jordan Peterson - CCF Lawyer's take on the freedom of expression fight (plus public Q&A)

CCLA in Court to Address Regulatory Overreach and Defend Freedom of Expression

About the Canadian Civil Liberties Association

For the Media

Divisional Court Intervention

Calling Regulated Professionals in Ontario: Time to Stand Up and Protect Yourself!

About the Firm

Weinman, Arnold LLP

BLG Factum

Nadia Effendi

Partner

The Honourable Thomas Albert Cromwell can never deny that I tried to inform him of what the RCMP, the CBC and his latest client Jody Wilson-Raybould knows Correct Me Butts?

Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca

David Amos

Dr Jordan Peterson - LIVE court summary

3,906 Comments

Ontario court to decide if Jordan Peterson can be ordered to get social media training

Fwd: I just called to discuss my false imprisonment and my lawsuits in MA, Senator Brian Joyce, the US Senate and its Elections, the SEC, the IRS, the FBI, the wiretap tapes I have, the appointment of Joseph Berman as General Counsel of the BBO and his position within the BBA Ethics Committee

No comments:

Post a Comment