Erik Andersen responds to the Bank of Canada Governor's request for suggestions on modernization of the Consumer Price Index
Erik Andersen, Gabriola Island, BC
I did not try to bully the BoC Governor, but I am trying to head off what I think could come. History shows that politicians use “low hanging fruit” as targets when times get difficult. The episode of 1975 to early 80s was very unfair to Canadians who were being held responsible for creating inflation. We are in a K-Winter right now as then, but politicians and business people can only think linearly so they become dangerous to the population. If anyone wishes to use my letter go ahead. Likely currency devaluation will be difficult enough but add inflation and we don’t know if those conditions might end up with a lot of us being thrown under the bus.
Mr.
Tiff Macklem
Governor
of the Bank of Canada
234
Wellington Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A
0G9
Dear Sir,
You asked for suggestions relating to the modernization of the Consumer Price Index (CPI). This request brought a flood of not so pleasant memories for me, so I thought a reply covering this topic and more might help. These are my suggestions, as a concerned citizen, that address the CPI issue and, maybe more importantly, economic and financial unfairness in Canada.
Before I get to unfairness, I thought to first start with the Bank of Canada’s three pages titled “Understanding the consumer price index” August 13, 2020 (App. A). The first page has about 25 lines describing what the CPI captures to create the index. At the end of that page and over to page two is a 7 line footnote about a very few examples of what is not captured. Thereafter there are descriptions to help the reader understand uses made of the index.
Because Stats Can deliberately passes over all living costs where the prices are not market determined, the CPI is misleading. From personal experience and perhaps for other Canadians, our cost of living would be better defined by what is not market-determined than what is. For example, our taxes, income taxes, GST, property taxes are ineligible, our electricity rates are not eligible because the Provincial Utility is supervised by the BCUC. According to the BC Auditor General, BC Hydro had almost $60 billion in contractual obligations that most certainly are incorporated into the customer’s rate base. The proportion of non-market determined living costs is growing, making the shrinking market-determined proportion, shown by the CPI, less honest/fair. I think full and honest disclosure should be the social gold standard in Canada but it is not. A partial illustration of this condition is shown by the BC Auditor General’s report of February 2017 (App. B). The term “self-supported” is meant to distract the reader from the important but unspecified conditions of the obligations. Little thought is needed to have the understanding that these mostly secret contracts, must have capital repayment provisions regardless of production or the initial capital would never show up. (App C & D)
App. E is a copy of the work by Norm Farrell. The message from his charts is that revenue from BC Hydro domestic customers increased by 100% from 2006 to 2020, without any increase in need, as measured by units sold. With respect to the CPI, a personal cost increase of 100% over 15 years is not shown, yet the electricity cost is a significant item in everyone’s annual living costs.
This type of financial gaming the Canadian population is creating unwanted stress and it is my hope that Stats Can will find a way to help citizens better understand the process that has and is happening. If the CPI continues to be used in the ways the Bank of Canada describes, then with these inadequacies, it changes from being an objective tool to a social weapon of unfairness.
My first suggestion is that there be found a way of capturing and
showing all living costs in a modernized CPI.
[END OF EXTRACT INCLUDED IN THE PRINT EDITION of Dialogue, Vol. 34, No. 2]
I next wish to write about “fairness” as a social gold standard for Canada. It is as Robert Fisk and Leonard Cohen write and sing: hope is the drug we all carry on with.
During the
early 60s, the Government of Canada responded to political pressure and
convened a Royal Commission on Taxation.
Mr. Carter and team dutifully did a thorough job and presented their 7-volume
report with recommendations in 1966 (App. F). On page one of Volume 1, the very
first finding was:-
“1. The present system does not afford fair treatment for all Canadians. People
in essentially similar circumstances do not bear the same taxes. People in
essentially different circumstances do not bear appropriately different tax
burdens.”
The third finding was that-
“3. The fiscal system has not been used as effectively as it could have been used to maintain full employment, contain inflationary increases in the price level, and encourage Canadian ownership and control of Canadian industry.”
As a young student, this report was my first exposure to the Canadian DNA and at that time I did not process the Carter findings adequately. These words from our country’s history are clear and to the point. Taxation in Canada was not egalitarian. The shameful follow-on was well chronicled by Linda McQuaig in her 1987 book “Behind Closed Doors”.
Another Canadian author, Maurice Lamontagne, economist and Canadian Senator, added a more global perspective by writing “Business Cycles in Canada: The Postwar Experience and Policy Directions” (App. G). The good Senator’s narrative captured my attention because he was the first person to introduce me to the concept of economic and financial cycles. Up until then I had lived and worked in a world dominated by linear thinking. What was the biggest shock for me was the public admission in 1980, in Montreal, by the former Gov. Bank of Canada, Gerald Bouey, who admitted “It is a matter of regret that this policy was not accompanied in recent years by a reduction in inflation”. He went on to double down on blaming inflation in Canada on the demands of workers.
My experience as a young economist took an interesting direction in 1975 when PM Trudeau decided to step away from democracy by directing that all federally licensed holders must impose “Wages and Price Controls”; in some places that is evidence of a “command “economy (App. H)
In the aviation industry we were confronted by this order at the same time we were trying to introduce our customers to higher fares. To get through this federal obstacle we had to separate our operating costs between controllable and uncontrollable, leaving us then able to get fare increases approved, but only for the latter. An investigation of this kind gets one up close to those costs creating “inflation” and of course it was only jet fuel, under the cartel control of OPEC. Yes, I was in the hearing room and the CPI was featured in the Government’s narrative at that time.
What I thought was a mistake cost the Canadian public a lot of money but nothing like the wreckage created by the Bank of Canada presiding over the increase in mortgage rates. By the mid 1980s I was trying to help clients prepare for retirement just at the same time residential real estate prices collapsed by as much as 50%. I could never see why the interest rate curves had to be so sharply inverted. All normal business was placed on hold waiting for the normal yield curve to return. It must have occurred to your colleagues at the Bank that high rates in the 80s and 90s caused a lot of Canadians to be dispossessed and their retirements deferred. Hopefully lessons from then and contributors like the good Senator will be remembered when next dealing with fiscal challenges.
This brings me my second suggestion. Should there be yet unknown consequences from the Federal and Provincial deficits of 2020 please don’t only turn to the Canadian work force to get salvation, as was done by Trudeau Senior and Governor Bouey.
I want to finish this letter by providing further evidence of unfairness in Canada.
In September of 2011 the BC Law Institute delivered a “Report on Proposals for Unfair Contracts Relief” (App. I). From what I wrote above, you will understand my interest. The important message here is the recognition that contract law does not give citizens fairness, at least in BC. After numerous tries I have only succeeded in getting the interest and attention of “green” parliamentarians. I hope you find this shortcoming as disturbing as I do. [A second item on the same topic attached as App. J.]
My third suggestion is that the Bank of Canada use its reputation for objectivity to give guidance to parliamentarians in redressing legal unfairness in Canada.
A more sinister way of unfairly treating Canadians might be by the tolerance of what looks like a cartel, specifically Canadian Banks. App. K is a copy of my letter to Minister Morneau two summers ago when I compared 5 year bond yields and 5 year fixed mortgage rates. The standout is the markup comparison and differences between all nations with a similar credit rating as Canada, except with the USA.
My last topic is more by way of a small suggestion.
In the heat of the last financial turbulence the following article was brought to my attention (App. L). It is about the off-shore P3 industry so could have relevance for the Bank of Canada. Buying a copy of the RiskMetrics Group report was too costly for me but your team might like it to read if not already done.
Sincerely,
Erik Andersen
October 21, 2020
cc.
Members of the Federal Finance Committee
Paul Manly
MP
Bridge to Gabriola Island too costly says report
Report finds bridge would cost $258 million to $520 million
Residents of Gabriola Island are going to be depending on BC Ferries for the foreseeable future, after a new report concluded replacing the service with a bridge would be too expensive to justify.
"There is simply not enough compelling evidence to proceed with further work on a fixed link to Gabriola Island," said Transportation and Infrastructure Minister Todd Stone.
"Our goal is ensure coastal communities are connected in an affordable, efficient and sustainable manner. This study shows that continuation of a coastal ferry service for Gabriola Island residents is the best way to achieve that goal."
The government says the engineering report, which was commissioned in 2014, found the cost of a bridge would range between $258 million and $520 million, depending on the route chosen.
The report was commissioned after many islanders signed a petition asking the government to look into building a bridge after BC Ferries cut back service to the island.
The study attempted to measure several social, economic, environmental and cultural factors when determining the impact of a bridge, including travel time, emergency access, property impacts, greenhouse gas emissions, aquatic impacts, archaeological impacts and business growth.
Even with the projected increase in traffic to the island with a bridge, the report estimated the cost of the project would exceed all the estimated benefits by $113 million.
"A fixed link from Vancouver Island to Gabriola Island appears to be technically feasible. However current costs of constructing a fixed link exceed that of the user benefits that have been measured," said the report, which was prepared by CH2M Hill, a multi-national engineering company.
Mixed reaction from islanders
Erik Andersen — the president of the Gabriola Ratepayers Association that led the petition drive asking for the bridge study — was disappointed by the results and questioned some of the assumptions the engineers made.
"Some of these assumptions do not [make sense]. First of all the amount of money to build a bridge has been extremely exaggerated," he said.
He suspects the main reason the project was rejected was financial constraints.
"But I think the minister was told by the finance minister, 'We don't have any room in our budget for this kind of stuff.'"
"There was some hope that [the government] would see this as a project that would be considered to be shovel ready and someone would march off to Ottawa and say, 'We are ready to go Mr. Trudeau, how about helping out?' But it isn't going to be the case."
But not everyone shared his disappointment. Melanie Mamoser. a local trustee for Gabriola on the Islands Trust, welcomed the finding.
"I have to say that I am not surprised. Not only is it contrary to the will of the majority of Gabriola and Mudge islanders, who knew in their hearts that the social and environmental costs of a fixed link would be devastating, but now we know that it doesn't make economic sense either," said Mamoser.
The B.C. government is still looking at replacing ferry service between West Vancouver and the Sunshine Coast with a fixed road.
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Move to fairer property taxation model
To the editor,
With the delivery of property assessment notices, especially for rural properties/homes, citizens are experiencing the reality of an ‘asset bubble’ and a taxation design formally known as regressive.
In democracies there are two prevailing tax designs. The first is called progressive. In Canada the most familiar is the determination and payment of income taxes, where those who earn more, pay more.
The second taxation method is one where there is no distinction as to an individual’s capacity to pay. A regressive tax is one where the average tax burden decreases with income. Low-income taxpayers pay a disproportionate share of the tax burden, while middle- and high-income taxpayers shoulder a relatively small tax burden. Examples of a regressive tax are most sales taxes, payroll taxes, excise taxes and property taxes.
In local terms, rural assessments treat all structures as if built new last year. This approach dismisses the idea that the operating cost per square foot of a wood-frame home of 30 years is the same as for a new home, which is nonsense of course.
Since we know progressive taxation is fairer and can encourage a more peaceful society, perhaps the property taxation design now being deployed should first start with the use of personal federal/provincial incomes as the amounts in determining the cash burden of property assessments and taxation.
Erik Andersen, Gabriola Island
From: Janet Hicks King <dialogue@dialogue.ca>
Date: Fri, Jan 3, 2025 at 6:47 PM
Subject: RE: David Raymond Amos Versus The Crown T-1557-15
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
David, thanks very much for your phone call and the very interesting documents!!
I will studying them closely – and see what we might be able to include in a future issue of the magazine.
Congratulations on your successes in your lawsuits – and on your determination and perseverance – and wealth of knowledge!!
Happy New Year,
Janet
Volunteer editor, Dialogue magazine
6227 Groveland Drive
Nanaimo, BC V9V 1B1
Tel. 250-758-9877
From: David Amos [mailto:david.raymond.amos333@
Sent: January 3, 2025 2:24 PM
To: dialogue@dialogue.ca
Subject: Fwd: David Raymond Amos Versus The Crown T-1557-15
http://www.dialogue2.ca/about-dialogue-magazine.html#
Canada's Independent Voices!
Since 1987 - Currently in our 34th year
The readers and writers of Dialogue
believe it is...
‘better to light a candle
than to
stand and curse the dark…’
Maurice J. King (1927-2019)
co-founder of Dialogue in 1987
YOU CAN REQUEST A FREE ISSUE TO BE SENT TO ANYONE IN CANADA
Maurice and Penny in 2018,
enjoying their daily walk
in one of Nanaimo's
beautiful wooded
parks.
Dialogue's Purpose:
Dialogue is a venue for communication & empowerment
- through a not-for-profit, volunteer-based format -
enabling individuals to share their insights and
inspirations through words, art & humour.
For 33+ years, dialogue has been helping Canadians to “tell it the way they see it”! You will read news, views & history from many varied perspectives ~ or share your own!
dialogue keeps Canadians informed and allows us to communicate with each other, about
the things that matter to us and to our communities.
The readers and writers of dialogue form a vital national network of people who value their freedom of speech and who are interested in issues affecting the future of our community, province, country and our magnificent planet.
dialogue is an alternative media, offering
Canadians the opportunity to express their views and
exchange ideas without regard for ‘political correctness’ or corporate
censorship.
* * *
Special Projects...
Dialogue's "Alphabet Challenge" - with a letter of the alphabet inspiring a cover theme for each issue, started in 2013 and completed with the Winter 2019-20 issue in December 2019.
"Project Perpetuate" - initiated at the end of our 30th year, in 2017, to explore the sustainability and long-term continuation of the magazine beyond its current volunteer editor and publisher.
Dialogue Legacy Fund in memory of Maurice
- a fund-raising initiative, started in 2020, to raise annual donations
of $2000 to replace the amount that Maurice was donating to Dialogue
every year. A heartfelt thank you to all readers who have donated to the
Legacy Fund. The goal has been met for 2020 - and the dedication and
commitment of Dialogue readers and writers will ensure that the magazine
will continue for years to come.
* * *
What you will find in Dialogue magazine:
In dialogue,
you
will read many points of view:
– from across Canada and around the world – of well-informed, concerned and passionate citizens, on a wide
variety of subjects,
such as...
- politics, policies and political ethics (or the lack thereof!)
- environment, sustainability, holistic health & well-being
- philosophy, history, religion, spirituality
- poetry, painting, art, photography
- personal stories, cartoons, humour, recipes
- economics, banking & monetary policies
- democracy, electoral & constitutional reform
- provincial and local perspectives & issues
- globalization, trade, military and
international affairs, etc.
Plus… Short stories, feature essays and regular columnists.
We invite you to join the thousands of Canadians who exchange ideas
through the pages of dialogue magazine - in print and on-line.
Bertrand Russell once said:
“Be
isolated, be ignored,
be attacked,
be in doubt,
be frightened…
… but do not be silenced.”
dialogue and its readers and writers accept this challenge! Do You?
Dialogue's Purpose:
Communication & Empowerment!
The communication and empowerment mission of Dialogue magazine is to provide venues whereby Canadians can express their views on the topics that are important to them and also have the opportunity to read the views that others share, so that our understanding of complex issues may deepen and our imagining of possibilities may expand.
Today, as never before, communication in Canada – and elsewhere – is being dominated by political, corporate and special
interest agendas. And the ownership
of media is becoming increasingly concentrated in a few hands. The result is
that the Canadian public is often exposed to only one-sided
(and often self-serving) views of the
issues facing our country, or worse – NOT exposed at all to
politically-sensitive or 'politically-incorrect' topics.
If you think the media has a
responsibility to challenge the political process, then you will want to read dialogue: where you will find writers who are not afraid to challenge politically-correct views and the agendas of the political elites. Dialogue is an independent, not-for-profit
publication (not controlled by a media
corporation, nor beholden to advertisers!)
If you believe you have a right to know what is really going on and how it affects all of us, then you won't want to miss a single issue! You will want to read the letters, articles and exposés written by well-informed Canadians across the country & from around the world.
If you value the English language and want to encourage Canadian writers of essays, stories, poetry and articles, then you will want to subscribe today (see below) – and treat yourself to the varied menu of letters, essays, poetry and other creative writing in dialogue.
If you like to express your ideas in writing or images, you will want to join the dialogue between Canadians – and let your views be shared with readers across the country (and around the world, through our digital editions).
If you support freedom of expression, then you will want to support dialogue. Even if you do not have a lot of time to read, you will see the need for Dialogue to thrive – so that everyone has the opportunity to be one of… “Canada’s Independent Voices!”
Dialogue was started and is still published as a not-for-profit publication, by Maurice King, who was the initiator and author of the successful 1993 appeal to the United Nations against Quebec’s discriminatory language law. He is the author of The First Step, a book about the conflict between Quebec nationalism and Canadian values.
Please reply to Dialogue Magazine:
6227 Groveland Dr. Nanaimo, BC V9V 1B1
Tel: (250) 758-9877; Fax: (250) 758-9855;
E-mail: dialogue@dialogue.ca
www.dialogue.ca
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Date: Fri, Jan 3, 2025 at 4:22 PM
Subject: David Raymond Amos Versus The Crown T-1557-15
To: twolabradors@shaw.ca <twolabradors@shaw.ca>
FORM 18-K
For Foreign Governments and Political Subdivisions Thereof
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
ANNUAL REPORT
of
CANADA
(Name of Registrant)
Date of end of last fiscal year: March 31, 2002
SECURITIES REGISTERED*
(As of the close of the fiscal year)
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
Time of Issue |
| Amounts as to |
| Name of |
N/A |
| N/A |
| N/A |
Name and address of person authorized to receive notices
and communications from the Securities and Exchange Commission:
HIS EXCELLENCY MICHAEL KERGIN
Canadian Ambassador to the United States of America
Canadian Embassy
501 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
Copies to:
|
|
|
|
|
BILL MITCHELL |
| DAVID MURCHISON |
| ROBERT W. MULLEN, JR. |
* The Registrant is filing this annual report on a voluntary basis.
Table of Contents
The information set forth below is to be furnished:
1. | In respect of each issue of securities of the registrant registered, a brief statement as to: |
| (a) | The general effect of any material modifications, not previously reported, of the rights of the holders of such securities. |
No such modifications.
| (b) | The title and the material provisions of any law, decree or administrative action, not previously reported, by reason of which the security is not being serviced in accordance with the terms hereof. |
No such provisions.
| (c) | The circumstances of any other failure, not previously reported, to pay principal, interest, or any sinking fund or amortization installment. |
No such failure.
2. | A statement as of the close of the last fiscal year of the registrant giving the total outstanding of: |
| (a) | Internal funded debt of the registrant. (Total to be stated in the currency of the registrant. If any internal funded debt is payable in a foreign currency, it should not be included under this paragraph (a) but under paragraph (b) of this item). |
Reference is made to pages 25-27 of Exhibit D.
| (b) | External funded debt of the registrant. (Totals to be stated in the respective currencies in which payable). No statement need be furnished as to inter-governmental debt. |
Reference is made to pages 25-27 of Exhibit D.
3. | A statement giving the title, date of issue, date of maturity, interest rate and amount outstanding, together with the currency or currencies in which payable, of each issue of funded debt of the registrant outstanding as of the close of the last fiscal year of the registrant. |
Reference is made to pages 34-47 of Exhibit D.
4. (a) | As to each issue of securities of the registrant which is registered, there should be furnished a breakdown of the total amount outstanding, as shown in Item 3, into the following: |
| (1) | Total amount held by or for the account of the registrant. |
As at December 1, 2002, the registrant held a de minimis amount.
| (2) | Total estimated amount held by nationals of the registrant (or if registrant is other than a national government, by the nationals of its national government); this estimate need be furnished only if it is practicable to do so. |
Not practicable to furnish.
| (3) | Total amount otherwise outstanding. |
Not applicable.
| (b) | If a substantial amount is set forth in answer to paragraph (a)(1) above, describe briefly the method employed by the registrant to reacquire such securities. |
Not applicable.
5. | A statement as of the close of the last fiscal year of the registrant giving the estimated total of: |
| (a) | Internal floating indebtedness of the registrant. (Total to be stated in the currency of the registrant). |
Reference is made to pages 25-27 of Exhibit D.
| (b) | External floating indebtedness of the registrant. (Total to be stated in the respective currencies in which payable). |
Reference is made to pages 25-27 of Exhibit D.
Table of Contents
6. | Statements of the receipts, classified by source, and of the expenditures, classified by purpose, of the registrant for each fiscal year of the registrant ended since the close of the latest fiscal year for which such information was previously reported. These statements should be so itemized as to be reasonably informative and should cover both ordinary and extraordinary receipts and expenditures; there should be indicated separately, if practicable, the amount of receipts pledged or otherwise specifically allocated to any issue registered, indicating the issue. |
Reference is made to pages 18-24 of Exhibit D.
7. (a) | If any foreign exchange control, not previously reported, has been established by the registrant (or if the registrant is other than a national government, by its national government), briefly describe such foreign exchange control. |
No foreign exchange controls have been established by the registrant.
| (b) | If any foreign exchange control previously reported has been discontinued or materially modified, briefly describe the effect of any such action, not previously reported. |
Not applicable.
8. | Brief statements as of a date reasonably close to the date of the filing of this report (indicating such date) in respect of the note issue and gold reserves of the central bank of issue of the registrant, and of any further gold stocks held by the registrant. |
Reference is made to page 17 of Exhibit D.
9. | Statements of imports and exports of merchandise for each year ended since the close of the latest year for which such information was previously reported. Such statements should be reasonably itemized so far as practicable as to commodities and as to countries. They should be set forth in terms of value and of weight or quantity; if statistics have been established only in terms of value, such will suffice. |
Reference is made to pages 12-14 of Exhibit D.
10. | The balances of international payments of the registrant for each year ended since the close of the latest year for which such information was previously reported. The statements of such balances should conform, if possible, to the nomenclature and form used in the “Statistical Handbook of the League of Nations.” (These statements need be furnished only if the registrant has published balances of International payments.) |
Reference is made to pages 15-16 of Exhibit D.
On March 12, 1996, Canada established a program for the offering, from time to time, of its Canada Notes due nine months or more from date of issue (“Canada Notes”). During the period from December 1, 2001 through November 30, 2002, Canada did not file with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission any pricing supplements relating to the sale of Canada Notes. Consequently, the portion of Canada Notes sold or to be sold during that period in the United States or in circumstances where registration of the Canada Notes is required through November 30, 2002 was U.S.$0.
Cautionary statement for purposes of the “safe harbor” provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
This annual report, including the exhibits hereto, contains various forward-looking statements and information that are based on Canada’s belief as well as assumptions made by and information currently available to Canada. When used in this document, the words “anticipate”, “estimate”, “project”, “expect”, “should” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Such statements are subject to certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions. Should one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize, or should underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual results may vary materially from those anticipated, estimated or projected. Among the key factors that have or will have a direct bearing on Canada are the world-wide economy in general and the actual economic, social and political conditions in or affecting Canada.
Table of Contents
This annual report comprises:
| (a) | Pages numbered 1 to 5 consecutively. |
| ||
| (b) | The following exhibits: |
|
|
|
Exhibit A: |
| None |
Exhibit B: |
| None |
Exhibit C-1: |
| Copy of the 2001 Budget of Canada (incorporated by reference from Exhibit C-4 to Canada’s Amendment No. 3 to Form 18-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2000) |
Exhibit C-2: |
| Copy of the Economic and Fiscal Update October 30, 2002, Department of Finance, Canada (incorporated by reference from Exhibit C-2 to Canada’s Amendment No. 1 to Form 18-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2001 on Form 18-K/A dated November 1, 2002) |
Exhibit D: |
| Current Canada Description |
Exhibit E: |
| Consent of Deputy Minister of Finance |
This annual report is filed subject to the instructions for Form 18-K for Foreign Governments and Political Subdivisions Thereof.
Table of Contents
SIGNATURE
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this annual report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized, at Ottawa, Canada, on the 20th day of December, 2002.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| CANADA | ||
| ||||
|
| By: |
| /s/ Rob Stewart |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Rob Stewart |
|
|
|
| Senior Chief |
|
|
|
| Financial Markets Division |
|
|
|
| Financial Sector Policy Branch |
|
|
|
| Department of Finance, Canada |
Table of Contents
EXHIBIT INDEX
|
|
|
Exhibit No. | ||
Exhibit A: |
| None |
Exhibit B: |
| None |
Exhibit C-1: |
| Copy of the 2001 Budget of Canada (incorporated by reference from Exhibit C-4 to Canada’s Amendment No. 3 to Form 18-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2000) |
Exhibit C-2: |
| Copy of the Economic and Fiscal Update October 30, 2002, Department of Finance, Canada (incorporated by reference from Exhibit C-2 to Canada’s Amendment No. 1 to Form 18-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2001 on Form 18-K/A dated November 1, 2002) |
Exhibit D: |
| Current Canada Description |
Exhibit E: |
| Consent of Deputy Minister of Finance |
Table of Contents
Exhibit D
DESCRIPTION OF CANADA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
|
|
Page | ||
General Information |
| 3 |
The Canadian Economy |
| 6 |
External Trade |
| 12 |
Balance of Payments |
| 15 |
Foreign Exchange and International Reserves |
| 17 |
Government Finances |
| 18 |
Debt Record |
| 28 |
Monetary and Banking System |
| 29 |
Tables and Supplementary Information |
| 34 |
Unless otherwise indicated, dollar amounts hereafter in this document are expressed in Canadian dollars. On December 16, 2002 the noon buying rate in New York City payable in Canadian dollars (“$”), as reported by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, was $1.00 = $0.6399 United States dollars (“U.S.$”). See “Foreign Exchange and International Reserves”.
Table of Contents
2
Table of Contents
The information contained herein has been reviewed by Kevin G. Lynch, Deputy Minister of Finance, Canada and is included herein on his authority. Certain information contained in this Exhibit has been extracted or compiled from public official documents of Canada, which include statistical data subject to revision. Canada is sometimes referred to as the “Government of Canada” or the “Government” in this Exhibit.
CANADA
Area and Population
Canada is the second largest country in the world, with an area of 9,984,670 square kilometers of which about 891,163 square kilometers are covered by fresh water. The occupied farm land is about 7% and the productive forest land is about 24% of the total area. The population on July 1, 2002 was estimated to be 31.4 million. Approximately 64% of Canada’s population lives in metropolitan areas of which Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver are the largest. Most of Canada’s population lives within 325 kilometers of the United States border.
Form of Government
Canada is a federal state composed of ten provinces and three territories. In 1867, the United Kingdom Parliament adopted the British North America Act, which established the Canadian federation comprised of, at that time, the Provinces of Ontario, Québec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Since then, six additional provinces (Manitoba, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador), along with the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories and the new territory of Nunavut (which was carved out of the Northwest Territories on April 1, 1999), have become parts of Canada.
The British North America Act (which has been renamed the Constitution Act, 1867) gave the Parliament of Canada legislative power in relation to a number of matters including all matters not assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces. These powers now include matters such as defense, the raising of money by any mode or system of taxation, the regulation of trade and commerce, the public debt, money and banking, interest, bills of exchange and promissory notes, navigation and shipping, extra-provincial transportation, aerial navigation and, with some exceptions, telecommunications. The provincial legislatures have exclusive jurisdiction in such areas as education, municipal institutions, property and civil rights, administration of justice, direct taxation for provincial purposes and other matters of purely provincial or local concern.
The executive power of the federal Government is vested in the Queen, represented by the Governor General, whose powers are exercised on the advice of the federal Cabinet, which is responsible to the House of Commons. The legislative branch at the federal level, Parliament, consists of the Crown, the Senate and the House of Commons. The Senate has 105 seats. There are 24 seats each for the Maritime Provinces, Québec, Ontario and Western Canada, 6 for Newfoundland and 1 each for the three territories. Senators are appointed by the Governor General on the advice of the federal Cabinet and hold office until age 75. The House of Commons has 301 members, elected by voters in single-member constituencies. The leader of the political party that gains the most seats in each general election is usually invited by the Governor General to be Prime Minister and to form the Government. The Prime Minister selects the members of the federal Cabinet from among the members of the House of Commons and the Senate (in practice almost entirely from the former). The House of Commons is elected for a period of five years, subject to earlier dissolution upon the recommendation of the Prime Minister or because of the Government’s defeat in the House of Commons on a vote of no confidence.
The most recent general election was held on November 27, 2000. As a result of that election the Liberal Party forms the Government. The distribution of seats in the House of Commons is as follows: the Liberal Party has 169 seats, the Canadian Alliance Party has 63 seats, the Bloc Québécois has 35 seats, the New Democratic Party has 14 seats and the Progressive Conservative Party has 14 seats. There are 3 independent members and 3 vacant seats.
The executive power in each province is vested in the Lieutenant Governor, appointed by the Governor General on the advice of the federal Cabinet. The Lieutenant Governor’s powers are exercised on the advice of the provincial cabinet, which is responsible to the legislative assembly. Each provincial legislature is composed of a Lieutenant Governor and a legislative assembly made up of members elected for a period of five years. The practice of selecting the provincial premier and the provincial cabinet in each province follows that described for the federal level, as does dissolution of a legislature.
3
Table of Contents
The judicial branch of government in Canada is composed of an integrated set of courts created by federal and provincial law. At the federal level there are two principal courts, the Supreme Court of Canada which is the highest appeal court in Canada and the Federal Court of Canada which, among other things, deals with federal revenue laws and claims involving the Government. Judges of the two federally constituted courts and those of the provincial superior and county courts are appointed by the Governor General on the advice of the federal Cabinet and hold office during good behavior until age 70 or 75. Judges of the magistrates courts (commonly now known as provincial courts) are appointed by the provincial government and usually hold office until age 65 or 70.
Constitutional Reform
In April 1982, Her Majesty the Queen proclaimed the Constitution Act, 1982, terminating British legislative jurisdiction over Canada’s Constitution. The Constitution Act, 1982 provides that Canada’s Constitution may be amended pursuant to an amending formula contained therein and contains the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including the linguistic rights of Canada’s two major language groups.
The government of Québec did not sign the constitutional agreement which led to the repatriation of the Canadian Constitution and the proclamation of the Constitution Act, 1982. Although Québec is legally bound by the Constitution Act, 1982, the government of Québec set out five conditions for accepting the legal legitimacy of the Act. Discussions on those principles led on April 30, 1987 at Meech Lake to a unanimous agreement by First Ministers on principles respecting each of Québec’s conditions.
A constitutional resolution to give effect to the Meech Lake Accord was adopted by Parliament and eight provinces before the deadline for ratification on June 23, 1990. In the absence of ratification by Newfoundland and Manitoba, the amendment was not adopted. In the wake of this event, the most extensive series of public consultations on constitutional matters ever to occur in Canada began through the work of both provincial and federal commissions and committees, among other things. Recommendations produced by this process were then assessed by a series of multilateral negotiations involving the federal, provincial and territorial governments and four national Aboriginal organizations, held from April to July 1992. Agreement was reached on a wide range of constitutional issues through the multilateral process which led to a First Ministers’ Conference held in Charlottetown in August 1992.
The Charlottetown Accord was an extensive package of reforms agreed upon by the federal, provincial and territorial governments and the four Aboriginal organizations. On October 26, 1992 Canadians were asked in a referendum if they agreed that the Constitution of Canada should be renewed on the basis of the Charlottetown agreement. A majority of Canadians in a majority of the provinces, including a majority in Québec and a majority of Status Indians living on reserves, declined to provide such a mandate. Consequently, governments set aside the constitutional issue and announced their intention to concentrate on social and economic initiatives that do not require constitutional change.
Québec
Since September 1994, Québec has been governed by the Parti Québécois, whose platform calls for Québec’s accession to independence. On October 30, 1995, the government of Québec held a consultative referendum under provincial law, seeking a mandate to secede from Canada and proclaim Québec’s independence, after having made a formal offer of a new economic and political partnership between Québec and the rest of Canada. The government’s proposal was rejected by a vote of 50.6% against and 49.4% in favour, with a participation rate of 93%. While all sides accepted the 1995 referendum results, the Parti Québécois has not abandoned the goal of achieving independence for Québec.
The Government of Canada and the governments of a number of provinces outside Québec have taken a series of initiatives since the 1995 referendum aimed at reinforcing Canadian unity, including non-constitutional measures (notably on provincial responsibility for labour market programs), demonstrating openness to Québecers’ aspirations, as well as making efforts to clarify the rules governing any future referendum and the possible consequences of a Québec secession.
4
Table of Contents
In September 1996, the Government of Canada referred a series of legal questions to the Supreme Court of Canada with a view to clarifying, at both domestic and international law, whether the government of Québec has the right to secede from Canada unilaterally. On August 20, 1998, the Supreme Court rendered judgment, ruling that the government of Québec cannot, under either the Constitution of Canada or international law, legally effect the unilateral secession of Québec from Canada. The Supreme Court also stated that, if a clear majority of Québecers were to clearly and unambiguously express their will to secede, all governments in Canada would then have a constitutional obligation to enter into negotiations to address the potential act of secession as well as its possible terms should, in fact, secession proceed.
On June 29, 2000, the Government of Canada enacted a law to give effect to the requirement for clarity set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court. That law requires the House of Commons to assess, prior to any future referendum on the secession of a province, whether the referendum question made clear that the province would cease to be part of Canada and become an independent country. The law further requires that, after the vote itself, the House of Commons also assess whether there appeared to be a clear majority in support of the question. Only if both these conditions were met would the Government of Canada be authorized to enter into negotiations which might lead to the constitutional amendments required to effect secession.
In September 1997, the Premiers of the nine provinces other than Québec met in Calgary to launch public consultations on a set of declaratory principles, including a recognition of the unique character of Québec society within Canada, which seek to frame the fundamental values underlying the Canadian federation. Over the winter and spring of 1998, the legislatures of all nine provinces participating in the Calgary process passed resolutions of support for the principles set out in the Calgary declaration.
On November 30, 1998, the Parti Québecois government was re-elected with a majority of seats (75 out of 125) in Québec’s National Assembly, though with a vote count of 42% of the votes cast, slightly below that received by the main opposition party, the federalist Liberal Party of Québec, which won 48 seats. A third party, the Action Démocratique du Québec, which advocates a moratorium on further referenda on secession, took 12% of the votes cast and won 1 seat.
5
Table of Contents
General
The following chart shows the distribution of real gross domestic product (“GDP”) at basic prices (1997 constant dollars) in 2001, which is indicative of the structure of the economy.
DISTRIBUTION OF REAL GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT AT BASIC PRICES(1)
Percentage Distribution in 2001(2)
Source: Statistics Canada, Gross Domestic Product by Industry.
(1) GDP is a measure of production originating within the geographic boundaries of Canada, regardless of whether factors of production are Canadian or non-resident owned, whereas gross national product (“GNP”) measures the value of Canada’s total production of goods and services — that is, the earnings of all Canadian owned factors of production. Quantitatively, GDP is obtained from GNP by adding investment income paid to non-residents and deducting investment income received from non-residents. GDP at basic prices represents the value added by each of the factors of production and is equivalent to GDP at market prices less indirect taxes (net), plus other production taxes (net). Moreover, these differences in GDP measures explain any perceived discrepancies in GDP growth rates in this document.
(2) May not add to 100.0% due to rounding.
(3) The agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting, mining and oil and gas extraction sectors include a service component.
The volume of industry and sector output in the following discussion provides “constant dollar” measures of the contribution of each industry to GDP at basic prices. The share of service-producing industries in real GDP was 68.7% in 2001 while the remaining 31.3% was attributed to goods-producing industries.
* | Annual figures and year-over-year changes are based upon data that are not seasonally adjusted, except where otherwise indicated. Quarterly and semi-annual figures or changes are based upon seasonally adjusted data, except where otherwise indicated. |
Table of Contents
Exhibit E
CONSENT
I hereby consent to the use of my name in the Canada description attached as Exhibit D to the Form 18-K of Canada. I acknowledge that such description may from time to time be incorporated by reference into one or more Registration Statements, and in the related prospectuses, of Canada and/or one or more Crown Corporations of Canada. I consent to the use of my name in any such Registration Statements and related prospectuses in connection with the information so incorporated.
| /s/ Kevin G. Lynch | ||
| Kevin G. Lynch | ||
| Deputy Minister of Finance |
Ottawa, Canada
David Raymond Amos Versus The Crown T-1557-15
FEDERAL COURT
BETWEEN:
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
The Parties
1. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crown) is Elizabeth II, the Queen of England, the Protector of the Faith of the Church of England, the longest reigning monarch of the United Kingdom and one of the wealthiest persons in the world. Canada pays homage to the Queen because she remained the Head of State and the Chief Executive Officer of Canada after the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.) 1982, c. 11 came into force on April 17, 1982. The standing of the Queen in Canada was explained within the 2002 Annual Report FORM 18-K filed by Canada with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). It states as follows:
“The executive power of the federal Government is vested in the Queen, represented by the Governor General, whose powers are exercised on the advice of the federal Cabinet, which is responsible to the House of Commons. The legislative branch at the federal level, Parliament, consists of the Crown, the Senate and the House of Commons.”
“The executive power in each province is vested in the Lieutenant Governor, appointed by the Governor General on the advice of the federal Cabinet. The Lieutenant Governor’s powers are exercised on the advice of the provincial cabinet, which is responsible to the legislative assembly. Each provincial legislature is composed of a Lieutenant Governor and a legislative assembly made up of members elected for a period of five years.”
2. Her Majesty the Queen is the named defendant pursuant to sections 23(1) and 36 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act. Some of the state actors whose duties and actions are at issue in this action are the Prime Minister, Premiers, Governor General, Lieutenant Governors, members of the Canadian Forces (CF), and Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), federal and provincial Ministers of Public Safety, Ministers of Justice, Ministers of Finance, Speakers, Clerks, Sergeants-at-Arms and any other person acting as Aide-de-Camp providing security within and around the House of Commons, the legislative assemblies or acting as security for other federal, provincial and municipal properties.
3. Her Majesty the Queen’s servants the RCMP whose mandate is to serve and protect Canadian citizens and assist in the security of parliamentary properties and the protection of public officials should not deny a correspondence from a former Deputy Prime Minister who was appointed to be Canada’s first Minister of Public Safety in order to oversee the RCMP and their cohorts. The letter that helped to raise the ire of a fellow Canadian citizen who had never voted in his life to run for public office four times thus far is quoted as follows:
“Mr. David R. Amos
153Alvin Avenue
Milton, MA U.S.A. 02186
Dear Mr. Amos
Thank you for your letter of November 19th, 2003, addressed to
my predecessor, the Honourble Wayne Easter, regarding your safety.
I apologize for the delay in responding.
If you have any concerns about your personal safety, I can only
suggest that you contact the police of local jurisdiction. In addition, any
evidence of criminal activity should be brought to their attention since the
police are in the best position to evaluate the information and take action
as deemed appropriate.
I trust that this information is satisfactory.
4. DAVID RAYMOND AMOS (Plaintiff), a Canadian Citizen and the first Chief of the Amos Clan, was born in Sackville, New Brunswick (NB) on July 17th, 1952.
5. The Plaintiff claims standing in this action as a citizen whose human rights and democratic interests are to be protected by due performance of the obligations of Canada’s public officials who are either elected or appointed and all servants of the Crown whose mandate is to secure the public safety, protect public interests and to uphold and enforce the rule of law. The Crown affirms his right to seek relief for offences to his rights under section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter). Paragraphs 6 to 13 explain the delay in bringing this action before Federal Court and paragraphs 25 to 88 explain this matter.
6. The Plaintiff states that pursuant to the democratic rights found in Section 3 of the Charter he was a candidate in the elections of the membership of the 38th and 39th Parliaments in the House of Commons and a candidate in the elections of the memberships of the legislative assemblies in Nova Scotia (NS) and NB in 2006.
7. The Plaintiff states that if he is successful in finding a Chartered Accountant to audit his records as per the rules of Elections Canada, he will attempt to become a candidate in the election of the membership of the 42nd Parliament.
8. The Plaintiff states that beginning in January of 2002, he made many members of the RCMP and many members of the corporate media including employees of a Crown Corporation, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) well aware of the reason why he planned to return to Canada and become a candidate in the next federal election. In May of 2004, all members seated in the 37th Parliament before the writ was dropped for the election of the 38th Parliament and several members of the legislative assemblies of NB and Newfoundland and Labrador (NL) knew the reason is the ongoing rampant public corruption. Evidence of the Plaintiff’s concerns can be found within his documents that the Office of the Governor General acknowledged were in its possession ten years ago before the Speech from the Throne in 2004. The Governor General’s letter is as follows:
Dear Mr. Amos,
On behalf of Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson,
I acknowledge receipt of two sets of documents and CD regarding corruption,
one received from you directly, and the other forwarded to us by the Office of
the Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick.
I regret to inform you that the Governor General cannot intervene in
matters that are the responsibility of elected officials and courts of Justice of
Canada. You already contacted the various provincial authorities regarding
your concerns, and these were the appropriate steps to take.
9. The Plaintiff states that the documents contain proof that the Crown by way of the RCMP and the Minister of Public Safety/Deputy Prime Minister knew that he was the whistleblower offering his assistance to Maher Arar and his lawyers in the USA. The Governor General acknowledged his concerns about the subject of this complaint and affirmed that the proper provincial authorities were contacted but ignored the Plaintiff’s faxes and email to the RCMP and the Solicitor General in November of 2003 and his tracked US Mail to the Solicitor General and the Commissioner of the RCMP by way of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) in December of 2003 and the response he received from the Minister of Public Safety/Deputy Prime Minister in early 2004. One document was irrefutable proof that there was no need whatsoever to create a Commission of Inquiry into Maher Arar concerns at about the same point in time. That document is a letter from the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office Inspector General (OIG complaint no. C04-01448) admitting contact with his office on November 21, 2003 within days of the Plaintiff talking to the office of Canada’s Solicitor General while he met with the US Attorney General and one day after the former Attorney General of New York (NY) and the former General Counsel of the SEC testified at a public hearing before the US Senate Banking Committee about investigations of the mutual fund industry.
10. The Plaintiff states that another document that the Plaintiff received during the election of the 39th Parliament further supported the fact he was a whistleblower about financial crimes. In December of 2006 a member of the RCMP was ethical enough to admit that he understood the Plaintiff’s concerns and forwarded his response to the acting Commissioner of the RCMP and others including a NB Cabinet Minister Michael B. Murphy QC. The Crown is well aware that any member sitting in the last days of the 37th Parliament through to the end of the 41st Parliament could have stood in the House of Commons and asked the Speaker if the Crown was aware of the Plaintiff’s actions. All parliamentarians should have wondered why his concerns and that of Mr. Arar’s were not heard by a committee within the House of Commons in early 2004. Instead, the Crown created an expensive Commission to delay the Arar matter while he sued the governments of Canada and the USA and his wife ran in the election of the 38th Parliament. In 2007, Arar received a $10-million settlement from the Crown and the Prime Minister gave him an official apology yet the US government has never admitted fault. A month after the writ was dropped for the election of the 42nd Parliament and CBC is reporting Syrian concerns constantly, Mr. Arar’s lawyer announced that the RCMP will attempt to extradite a Syrian intelligence officer because it had laid a charge in absentia and a Canada-wide warrant and Interpol notice were issued. The Plaintiff considers such news to be politicking practiced by the Minister of Public Safety. He noticed the usually outspoken Mr. Arar made no comment but his politically active wife had lots to say on CBC. Meanwhile, the RCMP continues to bar a fellow citizen from parliamentary properties because he exercised the same democratic rights after he had offered his support to Arar by way of his American lawyers. The aforementioned letter about financial crimes was from the Inspector General for Tax Administration in the US Department of the Treasury. Mr Arar’s lawyers, the RCMP, the Canadian Revenue Agency and the US Internal Revenue Service still refuse to even admit TIGTA complaint no. 071-0512-0055-C exists. However, the Commissioner of Federal Court, the Queen’s Privy Council Office and other agencies were made well aware of it before the Speech from the Throne in 2006.
11. The Plaintiff states that from June 24, 2004 until the day he signed this complaint he has diligently tried to resolve the breach of his rights under the Charter that are the subject of this complaint with any public official in Canada whom he believed had the mandate or the ability to request that the Crown investigate and correct the malicious actions and inactions of the RCMP, Sergeants-at-Arms and Aides-de-Camp in all jurisdictions. Until June 16, 2006 the Plaintiff did not have irrefutable proof to support this complaint. Time did not permit him to address it immediately in Federal Court in 2006 because his slate was full. For instance on June 16, 2006 while dealing with deeply troubling private family matters, he was running against the Attorney General for his seat in the NS provincial election while arguing members of the RCMP about strange calls he got from someone in Ottawa who claimed the Department of Public Safety as her client, dealing with many liberal party members who were about to witness in Moncton NB the first debate of all those who wished to become their new leader, assisting a farmer in his attempt to get some authority to properly investigate the demise of his cattle and discussing with members of the Saint John NB City Council the actions of a sergeant in the Saint John Police Force who was calling friends of the Plaintiff and claiming that he was drug dealing member of a bike gang that they should stay away from while he was preparing to intervene in pipeline matter that was about to heard by the National Energy Board in Saint John .
12. The Plaintiff states that in April of 2007 he wrote a complaint about this matter and returned to the Capital District of NB in order to file it and argue the Crown before the Federal Court if it did not wish to settle. A clerk of this court informed him that his complaint was not composed correctly, so he began to rewrite this complaint. However, as soon as it was known what the Plaintiff was about to file he was subject to further police harassment and his family began to suffer from constant slander, sexual harassment and death threats on the Internet and on the telephone that continues to this very day while the RCMP, the FBI and many other law enforcement authorities continue to ignored the obvious evidence of cybercrime practiced against many people including his minor children.
13. The Plaintiff states that the Crown’s only response has been further harassment by the RCMP including false arrest and imprisonment and theft of his property by the Fredericton Police Force supported by other law enforcement authorities in Canada and the USA. The Governor General has had the Plaintiff’s documents for over ten years to study. The Crown now has one of the complaints that the RCMP has been delaying since 2003. It is as follows:
The Complaint
14. The Plaintiff states that on June 24, 2004 during the election of the membership of the 38th Parliament the Crown breached his right to peaceful assembly and association under Section 2(c) and (d) of the Charter. The Sergeant-at-Arms of the Legislative Assembly of NB (a former member of the RCMP) supported by the Fredericton Police Force (FPF), the Corps of Commissionaires (COC) and at least one RCMP officer acting as Aide-de-Camp to the NB Lieutenant Governor barred the Plaintiff under threat of arrest from the legislative properties in NB.
15. The Plaintiff states that whereas the Crown refused to put anything in writing to either confirm or deny that he was in fact barred from the legislative properties in NB, he returned to the public property whenever he deemed it necessary to do so as he ran for public office three more times. For example, when the Plaintiff was a candidate in the election of the 39th Parliament for the riding of Fredericton, he was asked to come into the legislative building of NB to record a live interview for an Atlantic Television (ATV) news cast shortly before polling day. On that occasion, the Sergeant-at-Arms and his Aides-de-Camp did not attempt to bar the Plaintiff from access to legislative property quite possibly because they did not wish their actions to be recorded by ATV. However, the Crown made matters worse in short order. CBC barred the Plaintiff from an all-candidates’ debate on the University of New Brunswick (UNB) campus and on polling day two District Returning Officers on the UNB campus after viewing identification threatened to have the Plaintiff arrested stating that they did not believe he was on the ballot.
16. The Plaintiff states that the NB Sergeant-at-Arms continued with his threat of arrest after the election 39th Parliament. In response, the Plaintiff challenged the Sergeant-at-Arms to either put his threat in writing or arrest him so he could at least argue the Crown about the offences against his rights under the Charter.
17. The Plaintiff states that on June 16th, 2006 he was on a sidewalk on Queen Street in Fredericton NB waiting for a friend who was meeting with the Premier of NB and others inside the legislative assembly building. Within minutes of his arrival the Sergeant-at-Arms and two members of the FPF marched out of the building and served a signed document barring him from public places overseen by the Crown because some unnamed parties found him in ”Contempt of the House”. The Sergeant-at-Arms then ordered the Plaintiff off legislative property. When the Plaintiff pointed out that he was not on legislative property but on a sidewalk on Queen Street, the Sergeant-at-Arms claimed that his jurisdiction extended to the middle of the street. The two members of the FPF identified themselves and agreed that if the Plaintiff did not cross the street they would arrest him.
18. The Plaintiff states that after he crossed Queen Street he took a photograph of the Sergeant-at-Arms and the FPF marching back into the building to prove date and time of their malice. He sent a photograph of their barring notice to many people particularly liberal party members gathering in Moncton, NB that day to hear a debate by those who wished to replace the former Prime Minister as their party leader. It was important to do so because a liberal mandate created the Charter in 1982 compelling all New Brunswickers including the Sergeant-at-Arms and the police to abide the law within Canada’s only bilingual province. Any citizen or public official who understands the Charter and received a copy of the barring notice should have noticed the Crown had barred a citizen from the legislative properties in NB in only one official language. No police officer or politician or Language Commissioner at either a federal or provincial level ever responded to any inquiry about that fact. The Sergeant-at-Arms of NB did acknowledge the receipt of a copy of his barring notice years later but he did so in French only.
19. The Plaintiff states that the NB Sergeant-at-Arms and his cohorts in the FPF, RCMP and the COC are well aware that as soon as the Plaintiff’s friend came out of legislative building on June 16, 2006, he was given the barring notice to take back inside in order to inquire about it and the reasons behind it. The COC are clearly named at the bottom of the document yet the Commissionaires and all the politicians he encountered that day claimed that they were not allowed to discuss the barring notice and never would ever since. The Plaintiff finds that the police, politicians and bureaucrats etc. are maintaining their oath to the Crown rather than uphold the law and Sections 2(c) (d), 16(2), 18(2) and 20(2) of the Charter and are relying on the Crown’s legal counsel to stop him from seeking relief.
20. The Plaintiff states that the RCMP and the members of the FPF who harassed the Plaintiff in September of 2006 while he was a candidate in the NB provincial election would not explain why the NB Sergeant-at-Arms and the COC had barred him with a document written in English only or why it was not published in the Royal Gazette. Members of the FPF who violated the Plaintiff’s privacy trying to read an email that he was composing on a laptop within his car parked on private property refused to explain why they thought they had the right do so as they attempted to interrogate him without a warrant or due process of law. Members of the FPF refused to take the same documents the RCMP had so that their major crimes unit could finally investigate after they demanded that the Plaintiff identify himself so they could check for warrants for his arrest. The FPF would not discuss what they would do if he returned to the UNB campus or if he parked a vehicle and put money in a parking meter on the side of Queen Street claimed by the Sergeant-at-Arms. In February of 2007 after a Cabinet Minister of NB acknowledged his concerns with the RCMP, his children took pictures of the Plaintiff standing on the legislative property and the Sergeant-at-Arms and the FPF did nothing that day. However, the police harassment got worse afterwards. The FPF tried to call him a criminal while the Plaintiff waited for answers before he argued the Crown in court about his property that the FPF had illegally seized. The text of two emails that the Crown and the FPF sent in 2007 are as follows:
“Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:02:35 -0400
From: "Murphy, Michael B. \(DH/MS\)" MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca
To: motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com
Subject:
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”
“From: “Lafleur, Lou” lou.lafleur@fredericton.ca
To: motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com,
Subject: Fredericton Police Force
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:21:13 -0300
Dear Mr. Amos
My Name is Lou LaFleur and I am a Detective with the Fredericton Police Major Crime Unit. I would like to talk to you regarding files that I am investigating and that you are alleged to have involvement in.
Please call me at your earliest convenience and leave a message and a phone number on my secure and confidential line if I am not in my office.
yours truly,
Cpl. Lou LaFleur
Fredericton Police Force
311 Queen St.
Fredericton, NB
506-460-2332
21. The Plaintiff states that by September of 2007, he was told by police officers and others that he was barred from the town of Woodstock, the House of Commons, the National Capital District including Rideau Hall and the University of Ottawa, the Capital District of NB including the Lieutenant Governor’s residence and the University of NB, all other legislative properties in Canada and that a photograph of him was posted inside the NB legislative building, the Fredericton airport and at least one mining property guarded by the Corps of Commissionaires.
22. The Plaintiff states that on or about September 13, 2007 during a conversation with the office of the Speaker of the House of Commons he was referred to the Sergeant-at-Arms in order to find out if the Plaintiff was truly barred from the House of Commons and if he had been sent an answer to the documentation the Speaker and the government of Iceland received in May of 2006. The Sergeant-at-Arms was apparently well aware of his concerns because he said he knew the Plaintiff from a past life and quickly hung up the telephone. The Sergeant-at-Arms never did answer the Plaintiff and ignored all his contacts ever since.
23. The Plaintiff states that the odd response from Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Commons caused him to research how they knew each other. The public record states that in June of 2005 the RCMP officer acting as Aide-de-Camp to the NB Lieutenant Governor retired and joined the House of Commons as Director of Security Operations. On September 1, 2006, he became the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Commons. Therefore, because of all three of his positions from June of 2004 to December of 2014, the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Commons must have agreed and seconded his fellow Sergeant-at-Arms in NB and his threats to arrest Plaintiff if he reappeared on parliamentary property.
24. The Plaintiff states that with regards to this complaint about being illegally barred from parliamentary properties, the most recent contact from the Crown was the three members of the RCMP who harassed the Plaintiff at 1:30 AM on December 16, 2014 not long after he had received an email from a former CSIS agent who is the current Sergeant-at-Arms of the legislative assembly of Alberta.
The Facts of this Matter
25. The Plaintiff states that on June 24, 2004 within minutes of his being barred, the Sergeant-at-Arms, two members of the FPF and one Commissionaire witnessed him deliver a large number of documents to the attention of two lawyers in the office of the opposition next door. He suspects that the Sergeant-at-Arms read at least the cover letter when his documents were in his care because to support his right to bar a citizen in front two members of the FPF he falsely accused the Plaintiff of attempting to serve documents while in the legislative building.
26. The Plaintiff states that within the hour of being barred, the Plaintiff visited the headquarters of the FPF and attempted to meet with its Chief in order to discuss the false allegations and the threat of arrest. Whereas a Corporal denied access to his Chief, the Plaintiff contacted the City Solicitor of Fredericton because he knew him personally in younger days. After waiting one week for someone to get back to him, the Plaintiff visited the constituency office of the Premier and the law office of a former Premier of NB and gave them many documents with the same cover letter addressing his concern about being barred from the legislative properties amongst other issues. One month later the Attorney General of NB sent an answer similar to what the Deputy Prime Minister sent eight months earlier telling him to take up his concerns with the police and ignored the issue of a citizen being barred and threatened by the police. A lawyer acting as the NB Ombudsman did not wish deal with the government on his behalf suggested that the Plaintiff take up his concerns with the New Brunswick Police Commission (NBPC) and introduced them. The Plaintiff, his wife and a lawyer met with the NBPC. The NBPC acknowledged the complaint and asked the FPF to investigate their questionable actions. In the eleven years since the NBPC never responded and the Plaintiff knows why. The NBPC and Governor General have many of his documents and one is a letter to the Commissioner of the RCMP. The Plaintiff is well aware the Chair of the NBPC in 2004 was also the Chief Coroner whom he testified before on July 15, 1982 and he clearly informed the Crown he assisted in a successful civil lawsuit against the RCMP about a wrongful death.
27. The Plaintiff states that the Sergeant-at-Arms, two Commissionaires, a librarian, and two members of the FPF knew that the Plaintiff was in legislative assembly on June 24, 2004 looking for the “blogger” Charles Leblanc. While the Plaintiff was waiting for Charles Leblanc to arrive that day he exercised his democratic right to witness the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly from the gallery.
28. The
Plaintiff states that apparently a friend of the Crown put a new spin
on this matter the following day. The Crown’s corporate media has never
said anything about the Crown’s malicious actions barring him it has had
lots to say about the barring the blogger Charles Leblanc two years
later and it has made the arrests and prosecutions of him well known. On
June 25, 2004 Charles Leblanc a well-known friend of the MLAs, the
Sergeant-at-Arms, the Commissionaires, the RCMP and the Fredericton
Police Force falsely reported in the social media that the Plaintiff had
been “shown the door” claiming that he had attempted to
interrupt the proceedings in the Legislature by speaking from the
gallery. The Crown knows if that were true it would have been recorded
in the legislative records. The words of Charles Leblanc an important
witness to be called to testify as to what he knows about this matter
are as follows
“IS ELVY ROBICHAID SEEING THE LIGHT????
by Charles LeBlanc Friday, Jun. 25, 2004 at 10:56 AM
Fredericton updates from Charles
“There’s always undercovers cops around but only when the House is in session. As God as my witness I hope nothing happens but it’s just a matter of time till someone is push over the edge. I guess a guy name David Amos was shown the door yesterday at the Legislature. This guy is running as an Independent candidate in the riding of Fundy Royal. I met the guy over the net and he has a beef with our political bureaucrats. I admire people fighting for what they believe in but you can’t get carried away. I guess in this case? He wanted to speak from the Gallery and that’s a big faux pas!”
29. The Plaintiff states that he was not surprised that for the benefit of his political opponents, servants of the Crown would practice such malice against a citizen seeking public office. Three weeks before the Plaintiff was barred in 2004 Elections Canada’s lawyers waited until the very last minute to admit that section 3 of the Charter existed and that it affirmed his right to run as an Independent.
30. The Plaintiff states that he has studied the actions of journalists, politicians and their lawyers for many years and has argued many. He has no doubt that during the time of a federal election the Crown would not have barred any member of a wealthy well known political party from any parliamentary property in Canada without dealing with a Charter argument in court and a host of journalists almost immediately. With that in mind the Plaintiff gathered the evidence to support this claim and waited until the CBC reported that the Prime Minister had asked the Governor General to drop a writ. Now history tells us all that the writ has been dropped early in order for the Prime Minister to cause the most expensive and one of the longest federal elections in the history of Canada on a date mandated by a law that his wealthy political party created for its benefit. Now that the stock markets are in a turmoil again the Office of the Inspector General of the SEC is acknowledging the Plaintiff’s emails but only after they were made aware that he received an ethical answer from a global organization that oversees auditors. Recent events have proven to the Plaintiff that it is important that he file this action in Federal Court as soon as possible in order see if the Harer government wishes to continue barring him from parliamentary property before polling day.
31. The Plaintiff states that during the election of the 38th Parliament not one of the employees of the CBC denied the fact that it had acted in a deliberate partisan fashion and ignored the Crown Corporation’s mandate. CBC reported that there were five candidates on the ballot in Fundy but failed to name the Plaintiff in their website or on the television and the radio. Nothing surprised the Plaintiff about the actions of the CBC but they should not have laughed at him when he pointed out other citizens should be afforded equal opportunity to hear of him.
32. The Plaintiff states that many politicians knew that the CBC had hard copy of two lawsuits of his since 2002 and their journalists had been laughing at him for two years. It was a profound mistake for CBC to ignore his candidacy now that he did as he promised in a statement of one lawsuit and was running for public office in Canada. As CBC continued serving the interests of the politicians who provided the funding sourced from the Canadian taxpayer other citizens noticed that the CBC was ignoring his candidacy. One journalist who had laughed at him called back and tried to make a deal after the Plaintiff had called the Ombudsman for CBC complaining of him and his associates only to be laughed at some more and invited to sue CBC. CBC continued to ignore the Plaintiff even though the popular former CBC reporter Mike Duffy was now employed by their largest corporate competitor, CTV and they claimed Fundy was a riding to watch and at least three newspapers and even the CBC’s blogger friend Charles Leblanc had chosen to put his strange spin the actions and words of the Plaintiff while calling him a Hells Angel. However, the aforementioned CBC journalist did not keep his job very long after his boss and three directors of CBC received the very same documents and CD that the Plaintiff’s political opponents had in their possession. (The former CBC journalist did get a job with the government of NB and has continued with his obvious malice ever since)
33. The Plaintiff states that the CBC would not have ignored its mandate and the standing of a candidate if he or she were a member of the Liberal Party or the newly merged Conservative parties or the Bloc Quebecois Party or the Green Party or the New Democratic Party without expecting to deal with legions of lawyers. CBC had no legal right whatsoever to ignore the Plaintiff merely because he was an Independent. In fact the mandate of CBC as a publicly owned broadcaster dictates that he must not be ignored whether he be a member of a powerful political party or not. With regards to this complaint, on June 24, 2004 there were many journalists inside the legislative properties of NB not just CBC. They published nothing about the Plaintiff of his running for public office or his being barred or even after their blogger friend, Charles Leblanc certainly did.
34. The Plaintiff states that in June of 2006 Charles Leblanc was also barred from the same legislative properties but not the Public Documents Building on the UNB campus. More importantly the Sergeant-at-Arms was clever enough not to sign or date the English only document this time. Thus Charles Leblanc who usually demands things in French from the government when he is in trouble was never barred at all. The CBC immediately reported the barring of Charles Leblanc falsely claiming that the Sergeant-at-Arms had signed the Barring Notice. CBC wrote the Sergeant-at-Arms admitted that he had barred about six others but did not disclose as to who they were. CBC did not ask who who the other citizens were because they knew they would have to name the Plaintiff as well. Many people have protested the barring of Charles Leblanc and a petition to have it revoked was placed in the public record of the legislative assembly to no avail. In 2006 Charles Leblanc was arrested in Saint John and in 2011 in Fredericton. In 2009 and 2012 the FPF arrested their blogging friend Charles Leblanc on the legislative properties. The CBC reported each time but failed to follow up and investigate and report why the Crown refused to charge Charles Leblanc in both instances. The CBC knows that as soon as the Plaintiff contacted the politicians and police to remind them that he would appreciate being called to testify at Charles Leblanc’s trial as a hostile but ethical witness about the barring actions of the Crown it would never go forward with the charges. Leblanc was arrested by the FPF two other times in recent years and he is on trial right now. The CBC knows the Plaintiff has talked to members of the RCMP, the FPF, the Saint John Police Force, the Miramichi Police Force and the Edmundston Police Force who were investigating Leblanc for various reasons since 2006. The police usually denied knowing who the Plaintiff was as they refused to answer his emails. The Plaintiff knows the reason why Charles Leblanc was barred from legislative property. He agrees with the Crown doing so but it failed to allow the nasty blogger the right to due process of law just like it did with and several others. He has never understood why the Crown has not charged Leblanc under sections 300 and 319 of the Criminal Code in lieu of arresting him for protesting too loudly or possible child porn or trespass or punching an equally nasty poetic beggar.
35. The Plaintiff states that by the end of November of 2004 a lawyer in the employ of the Attorney General of NB had answered him in writing and the FPF, two lawyers, the Mayor and a city councilor of Fredericton had some very serious email exchanges with the Plaintiff. The only responses to the Plaintiff about the breach of his right to peaceful assembly came from the (NBPC) on September 14, 2004 acknowledging his complaint (File no 2110-04-11) and two letters byway of email from the FPF. On September 30, 2004 a Staff Sergeant of the FPF wrote that he was in possession of the complaint and requested evidence to support the Plaintiff’s statement that he had been barred from the legislative properties for “political reasons not legal reasons” The Plaintiff responded and suggested that the FPF listen to the tape of the interview he had with the NBPC and study all the evidence he gave to the NBPC in the presence of a lawyer as a witness. The Staff Sergeant responded on October 29, 2004 stating that he had detailed reports from fellow members of the FPF and he had interviewed the Sergeant-at-Arms. He claimed that his fellow police officers acted appropriately and he would inform the Chief of the FPF that he did not have sufficient cause under the Police Act to investigate the complaint the Plaintiff registered with the NBPC against the FPF. The Plaintiff pointed out that the conflict of interest but grateful the FPF acknowledged the incident. The Mayor of Fredericton found no humour in that fact and sent the Plaintiff many emails within minutes no doubt in an effort to overload his email account. In 2003 the Plaintiff had demanded the Crown investigate the actions of RCMP now the RCMP should do the same with the Crown because that para-military police force has jurisdiction everywhere in Canada including all public and private property controlled by the Crown even military bases. The words of the Sergeant-at-Arms, Commissionaires and police were witnessed by only the Plaintiff. A legal action about their offences against his rights under the Charter would boil down to their word against his. Evidence was required because he was outnumbered and attacked by people the Crown employed to understand the law. It was doubtful they would act ethically and until June 16, 2006 the Crown refused to put anything in writing to prove this claim about the fact that the Plaintiff is barred from parliamentary properties.
36. The Plaintiff states that the Crown is aware that far greater offences have been practiced within the Capital District of NB by the FPF and the RCMP against the Plaintiff. Many servants of the Crown have challenged him to seek relief in a Canadian provincial court. The Plaintiff will not oblige Crown attorneys of thier desires he will file in a court of a country at a time he chooses. Time is on the Plaintiff’s side even though he getting old and was finally allowed to collect his Canada Pension. His children and grandchildren are still very young. Whatever was done against the Plaintiff was done against his Clan as well. All of the Plaintiff’s heirs are Canadian citizens and two of them are American citizens as well. The Crown, INTERPOL and the American law enforcement authorities cannot deny that there is no statute of limitations on certain crimes. The problem the Plaintiff is finding an ethical journalist to report about the legal actions that he and the Crown have already been involved in since 1982.
37. The Plaintiff states that in October of 2004 if the Staff Sergeant of the FPF had listened to the tape of his interview with the NBPC and studied the documents they have in their possession he would not have been so quick to dismiss the Plaintiff and his concerns in such a fashion. Their many lawyers hardly ever allow corrupt police officers to admit that the Plaintiff exists or put their malice towards him in writing. The Plaintiff had explained to the NBPC what transpired on June 24th, 2004. To explain briefly the police should have known instantly the Sergeant-at-Arms actions were for political reasons as soon as he turned in the guest pass and picked up his documents as he stepped outside the building. While the Plaintiff was inside the legislative building he spoke to only three employees two Commissionaires and the librarian. He did not interfere with the proceedings in the House as he watched the MLAs and their assistants from the gallery, some of whom he knew personally. He did notice political pundits in the building. One Cabinet Minister’s assistant had been following him for a couple of days. His political foes wanted him off the property immediately but they knew that he was not shy of litigation if the Crown attempted to place a malicious charge against him. Therefore they elected the Sergeant-at-Arms to try bully the Plaintiff.
38. The Plaintiff states that he satisfied himself as to the reasons behind the blatant malice once he asked Sergeant-at-Arms and the police three questions as follows:
(1) The Plaintiff first asked was why he was being barred from the legislative property. The Sergeant-at-Arms falsely claimed in front of the police that the Plaintiff had tried to serve documents on somebody inside the parliamentary building. The Commissionaires and police knew that was untrue because they all witnessed the fact that the Plaintiff had left all the documents in his possession with the Commissionaire at the entrance before he was allowed into the building and they all watched him pick up the same documents as he turned in a visitor’s pass after he was asked to step outside of the building.
(2) The second question was to the police to see if they agreed to the false claim of the Sergeant-at-Arms and if they would identify themselves. After the Sergeant-at-Arms said something quickly in French and both police officers stated that they agreed with him but only one would state his name and rank.
(3) The Plaintiff then asked the Sergeant-at-Arms and the police if they thought they had jurisdiction over him. They all said yes but refused to take any documents from the Plaintiff just as the Deputy Prime Minister suggested.
39. The Plaintiff states that three people who were mentioned during the aforesaid meeting with the NBPC were Charles Leblanc, Byron Prior and the most wanted American gangster Whitey Bulger. All three were well aware of the Plaintiff and his actions. More importantly the NBPC were made well aware of the RCMP’s knowledge of his possession of many American police surveillance wiretap tapes. The NBPC were shown the very same tapes that he had promised to give to the Suffolk County District Attorney in the Dorchester District Court of Boston Massachusetts before a hearing to discuss an illegal summons to answer a malicious unsigned criminal complaint (Docket no. 0407CR004623). When the Plaintiff did so he was falsely imprisoned under the charges of “other”.
40. The Plaintiff states that an NBPC Commissioner did ask if they should take the original wiretap tapes. The Plaintiff said no and that the RCMP already had some but the NBPC could make copies of the ones before them. The NBPC declined and said they did not have jurisdiction over the RCMP and that they only wished to investigate why the FPF had threatened to arrest him on June 24th, 2004.
41. The Plaintiff states that read a few legal actions involving the NBPC. He truly believes that NBPC has a mandate to oversee the actions of the RCMP in the employ of municipalities and the government of NB. On April 12, 2013 an employee denied that the NBPC it has any concerns with the RCMP, so he forwarded the NBPC a judgment with an important statement. Whenever he called the NBPC afterwards she did not allow him to speak to anyone and denied receiving any emails even though several were published on the Internet. The judgment pertains to Miramichi Agricultural Exhibition Association Ltd. v. Chatham (Town) 1995 CanLII 3862 (NB QB). The statement reads as follows:
“Section 20 of the Police Act authorizes the Police Commission to assess the adequacy of each police force and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and determine whether each municipality and the Province is discharging its responsibility for the maintenance of an adequate level of policing.”
42. The Plaintiff states that in 2014 a confidential letter from the lawyer who is now the chair of the NBPC was published by Charles Leblanc. Within the aforesaid letter by a lawyer who was an officer in the Canadian Forces when the Plaintiff was illegally barred in 2004 explained why he and some other unnamed lawyers claimed that the Chief of the FPF and the NBPC did not have jurisdiction over the legislative properties in order to investigate the wrongs of the members of FPF under the Police Act. The lawyers claimed that whereas the police were acting under the orders of the Sergeant-at-Arms the immunity afforded them by parliamentary privilege would be undermined if the Chief of the FPF and the NBPC upheld the law and the Charter.
43. The Plaintiff states that as soon as he read the aforesaid letter he had a deeper understanding as to why the NBPC and the FPF had ignored his concerns for ten years and have refused to answer hard copy or an email or even come to the phone or return a call for ten years. He did manage to talk the lawyer who wrote the letter. The lawyer just like another lawyer who was the Chair of the NBPC since 2004 was offended that the Plaintiff would dare to call his law office instead of the NBPC. They both knew the reason was because every time he called the NBPC, the Commissioners and their executive directors were never available. They definitely did not return calls or answer emails from the Plaintiff. The assistant who had denied receiving any emails during his last conversation with her in May of 2015 said that NBPC was never going to talk to him again. It appears the NBPC believe that parliamentary privileges extend to them as well. Whether or not that is true the NBPC must agree that the RCMP have no civilian oversight whatsoever and that it is the only police force that has jurisdiction to investigate the actions of the Crown on parliamentary properties, the Canadian Forces and their semi-retired cohorts within the Corps of Commissionaires. It appears to the Plaintiff that the NBPC will not investigate the RCMP and in return the RCMP will not investigate them. However, they do report to the Crown and the Crown answers to the citizens it purportedly serves and protects.
44. The Plaintiff states that claimed parliamentary privileges of public officials are not above the rule of law just because some unnamed lawyers deem it to be so. Some of the privileges parliamentarians lay claim to cannot be found in the Constitution or any other Act. They are implied by longstanding parliamentary traditions and seldom challenged in a court of law.
45. The Plaintiff states that claimed parliamentary privileges must not be exercised secretly by the Crown against a citizen of an open and just democracy because he visited parliamentary properties while exercising his rights under the Charter and attempting to unseat its political friends. He vividly recalls the last encounter with the Sergeant-at-Arms that caused the Crown to create a “Barring Notice”.
46. The Plaintiff states that on or about March 24th, 2006 he went to the Office of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner of NB to give him the same documents he had promised the Commissioner of Federal Judicial Affairs, the Clerk of the Privy Council, Independent MP Andre Arthur, Independent MLA Tanker O’Malley and many others. The Commissionaire guarding door would not allow him in the building or take the documents. The Sergeant-at-Arms must have been notified because he was soon to appear and threatened to have the Plaintiff arrested again. He asked why this time. The Sergeant-at-Arms said he had already been warned to stay off legislative property. The Plaintiff pointed out the fact that he was not on the legislative property across the street but if the Crown wished to press false charges against him the police should be called then he would look forward to arguing the Sergeant-at-Arms in a court of law. The Sergeant-at-Arms claimed that they were standing on parliamentary property but did not call the police.
47. The Plaintiff states that he then informed the Sergeant-at-Arms if he thought he had a legal right to bar a citizen from parliamentary properties he should have the Crown put the reasons to do so in writing just like the NBPC had demanded of him when he complained of the Sergeant-at-Arms and the FPF about their malevolent actions against him two years before. There was no response from the Sergeant-at-Arms to that simple statement.
48. The Plaintiff states that he then asked the Sergeant-at-Arms in front of witnesses if he still thought he had jurisdiction over him on King Street and the response was yes. So the Plaintiff gave him the documents and a CD destined for the Conflict of Interest Commissioner and demanded an answer in writing. The Sergeant-at-Arms took the documents but refused to sign a receipt for them. He tried to take picture but the Sergeant-at-Arms crossed King Street and around the corner too quickly. The Plaintiff received no answer from Conflict of Interest Commissioner about his concerns. He called and emailed a copy of the cover letter to the Commissioner’s office to see if it received his documents and was ignored. The Commissionaire watching that day knows who took the documents.
49. The Plaintiff states that whereas there was no federal oversight of the securities exchange business and no civilian oversight of the RCMP, he took his concerns to the highest officials of each province who represented their governments and the Crown. By the end of July in 2005, he emailed and called the offices of the Premiers and Lieutenant Governors eight provinces. The Premier of Alberta did speak to the Plaintiff after he staged a parade on Wall Street in order to promote his province and that conversation did not go well. In early August 2005 he met the Alberta Premier’s challenge and included all provinces in their argument. The Premiers and Lieutenant Governors received by way of their Attorney General hard copy of many documents and a CD similar to those acknowledged by the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governors of NB and NL in 2004. They were sent by registered US mail (signature required). Since that time not one Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General or Premier has responded to the Plaintiff other than the occasional insulting email. Over the past ten years the offices of the Attorney Generals for Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and Newfoundland admitted on the telephone that his documents are in their files. However, not one would person was willing to explain why and who had determined his communication and evidence did not deserve an answer. The offices of the Attorney Generals for Canada, Ontario, Quebec and Prince Edward Island denied having anything from the Plaintiff. Those offices could not explain how registered mail sent signature required to their boss could get lost. Ten years later several provinces are attempting to join with the other provinces to oversee the securities exchange business through one corporation. The Crown must admit that corruption can be the only reason why all the Attorney Generals in Canada would continue to ignore a Canadian whistleblower’s documents that employees and Inspector Generals of the US Treasury Dept. and agents of the Crown in the United Kingdom have acknowledged beginning in January of 2002. All of the Attorney Generals of Canada should have noticed that the Plaintiff was capable of creating and arguing lawsuits against the Attorney General of Massachusetts and embarrassing the US Attorney when he attempted to make the complaints illegally evaporate “Ex Parte”. This complaint proves this statement is true.
50. The Plaintiff states that he has had many conversations with many Canadian law enforcement authorities etc. about his documentation etc. and he was usually the one to make first contact. However, in 2008 he was rather surprised when the office of the Auditor General of Canada called him on their own accord not long after he had received a response from the Commission of Public Sector Integrity to a complaint he made in 2007. The person who called was very elusive about the reason the Auditor General was contacting him but he gathered from the brief conversation someone was talking to the Commission of Public Sector Integrity. So he called the lawyer who just sent him the very strange response to see if she had changed her mind. She recognized the Plaintiff voice even though it had been six months since they had talked and asked him to hold the line. Thus the Plaintiff surmised she was expecting his call. Apparently she was because the Plaintiff was surprised once again when a man who would not identify himself came on the line claiming to be corporate security and threatened to have him arrested if the Plaintiff ever called their Commission again. The Plaintiff was not surprised to hear in late 2010 that the Auditor General had been auditing the Commission of Public Sector Integrity. The Plaintiff contacted the person in charge of the Freedom of Information to see if the Auditor General had his complaint. He was not surprised to see the Office of Auditor General claim that they did not have his file. What surprised him was the fact that Auditor General dared to deny it in writing.
51. The Plaintiff states that the Crown is well aware that the last responses that he received from the Office of the Auditor General, the Privy Council Office, the Commission of Public Complaints Against the RCMP, the Commission of Public Sector Integrity and actions of the RCMP against the Plaintiff in 2014 and 2015 have caused him quit looking for ethical conduct to come from anyone employed in the public service of Canada. In March of 2015 byway of an ethical lawyer in British Columbia the Plaintiff, the Commissioner of the RCMP and his legal department that whereas the RCMP has refused to investigate itself then it should at least stop harassing his family and wait to this lawsuit and his next one.
52. The Plaintiff states that from July of 1982 until July of 2008 the wrongful actions of the Crown and its cohorts against him were usually covert and very difficult to prove because it typically involved the word of the several police officers against his alone. The Crown should have noticed that amongst the documents that the Plaintiff provided it in 2004 there are two documents from the Attorney General of NY. One document was labeled “Re corruption” (reference no. 04/000233). The Plaintiff forwarded the Attorney General of Canada amongst others emails containing his recent communications in 2015 with the Attorney General of NY about that file. The Crown should be aware that the Attorney General of NY in 2004 became the Governor of NY and that he was arrested by the FBI in 2008 while he was outside of his jurisdiction in the US Capital but never prosecuted for any offence. The RCMP falsely arrested the Plaintiff when he returned to the Capital District of NB shortly afterwards. The RCMP practiced their wrongs on private property without a warrant or due process of law and never placed any charges against the Plaintiff as well. The downturn of the stock market in NY within months of both arrests caused a major worldwide recession. On October 8, 2008 the Plaintiff finally received an answer from the Prime Minister of Iceland whose Canadian Ambassador received exactly the same documents the Speaker in the House of Commons received in May of 2006 that his Sergeant-At- Arms refused to answer. In December of 2008 Bernie Madoff was arrested by the FBI in NY and by March of 2008 the US Attorney in NY and the SEC in Washington admitted in writing that the Plaintiff was involved in the Madoff matter and that his documents had been filed under seal and against the Plaintiff’s wishes. On September 8, 2015, the Office of the Inspector General of the SEC sent the Plaintiff and email suggesting that the Plaintiff file a new complaint within their website. The Plaintiff was quick to inform the SEC and many law enforcement authorities in Canada of his indignation as the news broke about the possible criminal actions of KPMG, the very auditors he was complaining of with regards to his family’s interests and the Madoff matter. The Plaintiff as usual has been ignored as of this date. However the Plaintiff has noticed a sudden upturn in visits to websites where his words and work are published. It is no coincidence.
53. The Plaintiff states that the Crown cannot deny that the Arar matter proved that the Canadian and American law enforcement authorities have had an agreement to share their questionable information and that Canadians do suffer from their unconfirmed suspicions. The very same law enforcement authorities attacked a whistleblower when he gave them irrefutable evidence to cause an investigation of their wrongs. A recent judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC), Wakeling v United States of America, 2014 SCC 72, allows the RCMP to share their surveillance wiretap tapes of Canadian citizens with Americans. However, the RCMP and the FBI etc. do not wish to deal with American wiretap tapes of a mob that definitely practices its crimes across many borders. The lawyer working for the Plaintiff’s wife in a sincere effort to see justice served sent several of the original wiretap tapes to a US Senator who was a chair of the US Judiciary Committee after polling day for the election of the 39th Parliament. The lawyer did so on or about day the Governor General witnessed the first Conservative Cabinet Ministers of the current Canadian government swear an oath to the Crown. The Plaintiff sent proof of this statement to many members of the 39th Parliament before a confidence vote on its first budget. An opposition member acknowledged it but ignored it and only answered in a fashion that his opinions about sending the Canadian Forces into combat agreed with the Plaintiff’s.
54. The Plaintiff states that the Crown is well aware that until July 15th, 1982 the Plaintiff held a great respect for her servants in the RCMP. The Crown cannot deny that he explained the reasons for his change of mind with regards to the RCMP in his communications to the Commissioner of the RCMP, the FBI, the US Treasury Department and the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) amongst many others byway of fax and certified US Mail in November and December of 2003. As the Plaintiff stated in paragraph 3 his ire was raised when the Deputy Prime Minister chose to acknowledge his concerns only after he received acknowledgment of a complaint on file with the US Department of Homeland Security.
55. The Plaintiff states that he knew in September of 2004 that the Crown and the Americans were never going to uphold the law in regards to his concerns as he saw his tracked US Mail to DFAIT being forwarded elsewhere and his tracked mail to the RCMP evaporated from the Canada Post records. Furthermore his home phone line was cut right after Byron Prior notified him he was being much harassed and his American lawyer Barry Bachrach called to say that recent actions of the FBI and others had frightened him and that for the benefit of his family he was staying away from the Plaintiff and not going to court with on October 1, 2004. The Plaintiff expecting foul play prepared his wife to notify his Septs who held his Durable Power of Attorney and to visit Josie Maguire, the same person in the Canadian Consulate in Boston whom he sent his documents to on December 16, 2003. On October 1, 2004 a judge acted ethically and recused himself after witnessing the Plaintiff sign an affidavit and file it in the docket of the court along with hundreds of supporting documents proving the malicious prosecution by a layman clerk with no mandate to create a criminal prosecution. On September 3, 2003, the Plaintiff gave the police surveillance wiretap tapes that he had shown to the NBPC to the Suffolk County District Attorney before he stood before a sub municipal court to demand that it prove jurisdiction to hear a criminal prosecution involving a prison term and what right did a clerk have to summon a Canadian citizen across an international border to answer unknown criminal charges after the Boston Police would not discuss anything with him and the District Attorney claimed in writing that they were not involved in the matter. The court then changed its plan and he was called before another judge who read the affidavit and immediately sent the Plaintiff to jail held under the charges of “other” in solitary confinement with no chance of bail. The actions of the Plaintiff’s wife in Boston and his Septs in Canada caused a member of the RCMP and Josie Maguire to meet with him inside the American jail to advise him that they could not help him and because he must obey the laws of other countries he visits and then gave him an amazing document signed by a judge that had been faxed to them by the very clerk who had him falsely imprisoned.
56. The Plaintiff states that in response he thanked the Crown’s representatives in the USA for the proof of malice and showed them a faxed copy of the letter from the Governor General dated September 11, 2004 that he had received just before his home phone line was cut. He informed them that perhaps the Crown should expect a few lawsuits against it in Canada and the USA then dismissed them.
57. The Plaintiff states that the Crown and the Americans have always demanded that the Plaintiff keep his interactions in confidence with the RCMP, the FBI, the US Treasury Dept. and other secretive law enforcement authorities. The Plaintiff as a whistleblower about financial crimes proved that he did keep his concerns with the federal agents in Canada and the USA in confidence until Canada Day 2002 when he began filing his exhibits supporting two lawsuits in an American court. He continued to keep in confidence with the FBI the fact that he was in possession of hundreds of police surveillance wiretap tapes until April 1, 2003 when the US Secret Service and the Milton Police Department appeared at his door in the middle of the night with false allegations of a presidential threat and threatening extraordinary rendition because the Plaintiff was a foreign national just like Maher Arar. The Plaintiff called the RCMP headquarters the following day to inquire if they were informed about the visit the night before by the Secret Service. Some lady who claimed she was a lawyer said the RCMP knew all about the Plaintiff. She hung the phone when she was asked if the RCMP had listened to the police surveillance wiretap tapes he had given to the FBI. The conversation with the RCMP lawyer caused the Plaintiff to begin sharing a true copy of only one wiretap tape with hundreds of members of the bar and other law enforcement authorities in Canada and the USA. He has received an incredible number of incompetent responses. He only sent a few of the responses with the Crown thus far. There are many more.
58. The Plaintiff states that it is important to inform the Federal Court what is on the CD that the Governor General’s office acknowledged having two copies of in paragraph 8. It is a true copy of an American police surveillance wiretap tape.
59. The Plaintiff states that in his opinion he sees no harm in it being heard in public in Federal Court. He published copies of it in two American Internet domains in 2008 after the RCMP falsely arrested him and attempted to have him certified as mentally ill. The actions of the RCMP caused the Crown to have the problem the American’s have had since 2004 when they tried the same malicious trick rather than uphold the law. The problem is that the Plaintiff’s health has no bearing on irrefutable hard evidence. He should not be in possession of police surveillance wiretap tapes that offend the civil rights of many American citizens. With regards to this complaint about being illegally barred from parliamentary properties, the plaintiff must point out that the Commissioner of the RCMP and the Minister of Public Safety knew of the American police surveillance wiretap tapes in 2003. Furthermore in 2004 the RCMP and a catholic priest had several original wiretap tapes and the FPF, the NBPC, many members of the bar and public officials received a true copy of CDs the Governor General acknowledged before the Plaintiff was falsely imprisoned in the USA. The aforesaid problem is getting worse because every day more people around the world are aware of the wiretap tapes and two of the tapes have been downloaded a number of times by unknown parties. The Plaintiff cannot take them back even if he wanted to. The public has always taken far more interest about what is recorded on the wiretap tapes than his whistleblowing efforts about financial crimes but that could change anytime. Sooner or later someone will recognize who the people recorded on the tapes are and it may generate many lawsuits in the USA without involving the Plaintiff but has many more he has yet to reveal. The Plaintiff still has a number of wiretap tapes in his possession and several were stolen by the FPF along with his motorcycle. Other tapes are scattered about in Canada and the USA with people he trusts far more than any member of the RCMP or the FBI. Others tapes are hidden. Many of the wiretap tapes were no longer in the Plaintiff’s possession for over ten years. He made certain no one gave him any idea as to where most of the wiretap tapes are hidden but he secured the proof of the wiretap tapes he had given to the RCMP and various law enforcement authorities placed in the public record of American courts and that his former lawyer sent to a US Senator.
60. The Plaintiff states that before he left the USA, the Plaintiff made the people he trusts far more than any other Yankee promise that the tapes would surface if his American family were in jeopardy. It was no longer safe for a family to live with its father in the USA or Canada, too many corrupt law enforcement authorities and lawyers working for mobsters knew he had the wiretap tapes. It was not his fault that his family lost their interests because of the illegal actions of family lawyers and their friends within the justice system. The Plaintiff did the best he could in his Clan’s defence of their homes and interests. He will die with a clear conscience about that fact. However, he knew if his Clan suffered in any fashion because of his actions trying to compel the RCMP and FBI to act ethically it would be his fault because he knew the federal agents in Canada and the USA were infinitely corrupt since 1982 when they began to call him a drug dealer etc.
61. The Plaintiff states that he and his wife agree that they should have moved to Canada as they planned when they wed in 1991 but it was a common decision to stay put in the USA. Simply put, the wiretap tapes that put his Clan in jeopardy also offered the only way that a proud but bankrupt father could protect his Clan in his forced absence from the people he loves far more than life itself. Eleven years later quite a number of the Yankee mobsters and their lawyers are now dead or imprisoned. More importantly, the Plaintiff’s children are now adults and live separately. The Plaintiff sees no need to keep any of the wiretap tapes in confidence anymore. After the election of the 42nd Parliament, he will begin publishing more wiretap tapes in the public domain. He will copyright them and consider them a form of entertainment about true history of the mob and offer them for sale. Any settlement of any future lawsuit about his knowledge of financial crimes and his Clan’s stolen assets will be for their benefit and that of their children. Their lawyers will need their father’s records in order to assist them to that end. The Crown must understand that this complaint is one many actions that are part of his records. The wiretap tapes insure that there will be no statute of limitations. With regards to this complaint, the Plaintiff reminds the Crown of paragraph 48 and the Sergeant-at-Arms took a CD and documents.
62. The Plaintiff states that the Clerk of Federal Court in the Capital District of NB for reasons he will never understand mailed the documents back to him instead of mailing them to the Commissioner of Federal Judicial Affairs who was expecting them. So the Plaintiff called that Commissioner’s office and then emailed a digital copy of the cover letter and the clerk’s response and was ignored as well.
63. The Plaintiff states that with regards to this complaint the Crown should obey Section 18(2) of the Charter and serve the document in two official languages. The “Barring Notice” should state who, when and why he was found to be in “Contempt of the House”. The Crown should not try to intimidate a citizen with a threat of arrest for an implied breach of a contract about trespass on public property not agreed to by him. The Crown should have published a proper “Barring Notice” in the Royal Gazette so that all Canadians could read it before attempting to arrest and charge any citizen for exercising his right to freedom of assembly in and around the most important public properties of all Canada.
64. The Plaintiff states that in 2004 during his research of the Crown barring citizens from parliamentary property, he found mention of Louis Riel being barred from the House of Commons despite the fact he had been democratically elected to the membership therein. However, the Plaintiff could not find anything within the Charter or the Constitution Act, 1967 or the Parliament of Canada Act, or the Criminal Code about how the Crown could take such an action against a citizen who had not been charged and found guilty with breaking an applicable law first. He recorded his opinion of the Crown barring citizens within the cover letters accompanying the documents sent to the Governor General, the Prime Minister, a Canadian Senator, the Arar Inquiry, the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, the Premier, Attorney General, Speaker of the House and Lieutenant Governor of NB, and the Premier and Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland and Labrador (NL) and many others. All the public officials ignored the subject of barring.
65. The Plaintiff states that in the summer of 2004 Byron Prior a Canadian citizen told the Plaintiff that he too was barred under threat of arrest from the legislative building of NL. Many parliamentarians knew that the Plaintiff supported Byron Prior’s pursuit of justice but he did not share his support of two newly merged federal Conservative parties. In return Byron Prior did not support his candidacy in the election of the 38th Parliament. They remained friends until April of 2005. They did not consider Byron Prior’s barring a coincidence so they decided to include Byron Prior in the Plaintiff’s matters in order to show their support of each other’s concerns about justice for their families. The Plaintiff has monitored Byron Prior’s actions ever since although they are no longer friends. Byron Prior enjoyed receiving a copy of one response in particular and he and his associates used copies of some the Plaintiff’s documents within at least five legal actions.
66. The Plaintiff states that the response from the Lieutenant Governor of NL is contrary to the opinions of the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada and the Attorney General of NB. Clearly he believed that the Attorney General of his province had the power to have crimes investigated. The text of the letter Crown’s vice regal representative in NL is as follows:
Dear Mr. Amos:
The Lieutenant Governor has asked me to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 2 September, addressed directly to him, the Honourable Danny Williams, the Honourable John Crosbie and Mr. Brian Furey. He has asked me to tell you that he has neither the authority nor the responsibility over matters such as those raised in your letter and the associated material.
Accordingly at his instructions, I have sent the material to the Honourable Thomas Marshall, QC, the Attorney General and Minister of Justice for Newfoundland and Labrador, with the request that he take whatever further action he considers necessary and appropriate to deal with it.
67. The Plaintiff states that in 2004 the 37th Parliament and many others in NB and NL were informed that he knew of Byron Prior and Charles Leblanc and that he supported their pursuit of justice byway of the social media. He called his fellow Maritimers after reading their words about politicians and listened to the reasons why they were collecting social assistance and could not afford computers. They did not care about his concerns with politicians but he believed them and offered his assistance by giving them computers. The Plaintiff asked that they publish the truth about his actions and to serve politicians copies of his documents. Leblanc publicly insulted the Plaintiff after receiving his computer and stole documents he promised to give to the Attorney General of NB and gave them to his activist friends instead. Leblanc was asked why behaved in such a fashion and he wrote back that he thought he was being funny and stated that he was not a sheriff then sent an email asking if the Plaintiff was a fair comparison to his dog. That email convinced the Plaintiff that Leblanc was a Conservative insider because he had apparently read a letter sent to the Attorney General. It did not take the Plaintiff long to figure out who his activist friends were because Leblanc had forwarded their email address along with pictures of his dog. Prior was difficult to deal with but he was true to his word. It was he who delivered the documents to the parties named in paragraph 53. In 2005 Prior was sued for libel within his website. The Plaintiff wrote his defence and counterclaim and it remained on the Internet until 2010. Prior’s one website had more visitors than all the blogs of Leblanc until late 2006 when the New York Times reported that a judge found Leblanc not guilty in a criminal trial and considered him to be a legitimate journalist. As the readership of his blog soared, Leblanc and all politicians became much better friends. In 2007 the Irving media empire complained of the Plaintiff and Leblanc to Google and Yahoo. In response the Plaintiff’s blog, two email accounts and all his legal documents stored within Yahoo’s domain were deleted. Leblanc’s blog was deleted then restored. The FPF arrested Leblanc again in 2012. The Plaintiff reminded the Crown of a judgment of Byron Prior finding Section 301 of the Criminal Code unconstitutional and law professors came to Leblanc’s aid. The Plaintiff caused Leblanc’s “other personality” blog to be deleted not the FPF.
68. The Plaintiff states that the Crown is well aware of three legal actions against Byron Prior. One action is a civil lawsuit for libel filed in Supreme Court of NL in January of 2005 against Byron Prior by a MP and that a publication ban was placed on the matter immediately. Two are criminal prosecutions of Byron Prior for libel. One prosecution under section 301 of the Criminal Code was found to be unconstitutional in 2008. The Plaintiff was falsely imprisoned by the RCMP in a mental ward of a hospital after he spread the word that the Crown had lost. The Plaintiff does not know the judgment in the second trial under section 300. He does know that in 2009 Byron Prior filed some of the Plaintiff’s documents in the docket before he was imprisoned in a mental hospital until early 2010.
69. The Plaintiff states that it was not logical that Crown considered Byron Prior’s actions on the legislative properties in NL criminal. The Crown was arresting and prosecuting him in NL while the RCMP were issuing him permits to do exactly the same thing in front of the House of Commons for months at a time from the spring of 2006 to at least the spring 2011. The Crown prosecutes and defends all criminal actions at a provincial and federal level. If the Crown was sincere in its prosecution of Byron Prior it should have arrested him on the grounds of the House of Commons in the spring of 2006. Instead the Crown had the RCMP and a lawyer whom the Plaintiff ran against in the election of the 38th Parliament investigate Byron Prior’s concerns at the request of his MP (Later appointed a Senator) and the Minister of Justice (Who his left seat in the 41st Parliament midterm as Minister of Public Safety and was appointed to be a judge).
70. The Plaintiff states that with regards to this complaint he knows for certain that because of his association with Byron Prior in early 2004 the Crown has had a conflict of interest that affects the interests of nearly all the federal and provincial political parties of Canada. The Crown is well aware that a law firm of a former Premier and a MP of NL represented Byron Prior in the past. The Prime Minister and his current Attorney General are well aware the Plaintiff published copies of letters from them to Byron Prior as they sat in opposition of the 37th Parliament.
71. The Plaintiff states that in his opinion banning the publication of legal documents after a public official sues a citizen for libel or when the Crown decides to prosecute the same citizen twice for libel does not serve the public interest and raises many questions about the actions of the Crown. Whereas the Plaintiff truly believes such actions only serve to protect the Crown and public officials from being embarrassed by their words and deeds since 2002 he has published on the Internet every document involving him that he has deemed necessary to expose the public corruption just like Byron Prior did beginning in 2002. That was how Byron Prior discovered the Plaintiff and contacted him in early 2004 and the Plaintiff discovered and contacted Charles Leblanc in Fredericton NB and later introduced them to Werner Bock of NB and his concerns. The Plaintiff believes that is why the Crown bars and imprisons its opponents who are adept with the social media. Corporate media protects privacy and never mentions the malice because like Louis Riel the Crown has deemed the poor souls to be mentally ill.
72. The Plaintiff states that in early 2006 Saga Books of Calgary, Alberta published a book about Byron Prior and the MP whom the Plaintiff ran against in 2004 and hopefully again in 2014 had researched Byron Prior’s matters. His report to the Minister of Justice in late 2006 has not been made public. More importantly the lawyer who has been the MP representing Fundy Royal for the past eleven years and that the former Minister of Public Safety acknowledged an email from the Plaintiff about Byron Prior that contained the entire text of his website before the writ was dropped for the election of the 38th Parliament. The aforesaid email exchange has been published in the Internet for eleven years. Everything on the Internet published by Byron Prior beginning in 2002 has been removed. The last comments of Byron Prior that the Plaintiff could find published on the Internet was within a few videos a “Freeman” character named Max published within the YouTube domain. It was an interview of Byron Prior as he was protesting on the grounds of the House of Commons the day after the Prime Minister was found in “Contempt of Parliament” and his most contemptuous minority mandate became a matter of history. His majority mandate is history and the Plaintiff seeks relief.
73. The Plaintiff states that he did see a comment posted in a public Facebook of one of Byron Prior’s many associates in British Colombia claiming that Byron Prior had been arrested in Ottawa in 2012 as had several other of his associates across Canada for various reasons during 2012. The whereabouts of Byron Prior are not known to the Plaintiff but he does know that Charles Leblanc lives one block up the same street as the Federal Court in Fredericton is located. Leblanc is being prosecuted by the Crown and suing the FPF at the same time. It is unlikely he would move far from the city soon. If the Crown wishes to argue this complaint Byron Prior and Charles Leblanc should be summoned to testify about what they know of this matter and of their being illegally barred from parliament properties as well. Failing that the Plaintiff has collected a large amount of documentation including documents, videos and webpages etc. He can provide byway of digital media much evidence for the Crown to review about the concerns of Byron Prior and Charles Leblanc and their association with the Plaintiff and many others.
74. The Plaintiff states that in June of 2009 while Byron Prior was before the court a supporter of his, Robin Reid informed the Plaintiff that she was barred from the legislative properties of Alberta and while visiting a constituency office of a MP she had been arrested by the RCMP and assaulted in a locked cell of a hospital in the St Albert area of Alberta. Her arrest was after her visits to the constituency offices of the Prime Minister and an Edmonton MLA. Ms. Reid forwarded her emails to and from the Prime Minister’s office, the RCMP, a former Premier and the office of the Sergeant-at-Arms and asked the Plaintiff to support her. The Plaintiff introduced himself to all the aforementioned parties in order to assist Robin Reid and they were ignored for years. In 2012 the Plaintiff discovered he could no longer assist Ms. Reid because she agreed with the actions of Neo Nazis who supported Byron Prior and Werner Bock. The RCMP and many other law enforcement authorities in Canada and the USA are well aware of the reasons why the Plaintiff is not associated with such people in any fashion other than to attack them with his written words. Neo Nazis are not worthy of further mention in this complaint against the Crown but their Zionist foe, Barry Winters is.
75. The Plaintiff states that the RCMP is well aware of the libel, sexual harassment, and death threats practiced against his family that have been published on the Internet since 2005 by fans (Trolls) who supported Byron Prior. Four Trolls who live in Alberta are Barry Winters, Dean Roger Ray, Eddy Achtem and Patrick Doran They have many “Anonymous” cohorts throughout Canada, the USA and the United Kingdom. The actions of these Trolls created an important example of cyberbullying. Law enforcement officials have ignored these Trolls because of the Plaintiff’s standing as a whistleblower exposing corruption within the justice system. The Plaintiff is aware that several people complained about their actions over the years. In fact the mother of Dean Roger Ray recently her indignation in Barry Winter’s blog. Complaints about Barry Winters can be seen on the Internet by Glen Canning and Professor Kris Wells, two politically well-connected people who complain of cyberbullying often. Proof the Edmonton Police Force (EPS), RCMP, FBI and police in the UK have been ignoring the Plaintiff’s complaints about these Trolls can also viewed on the Internet. The Plaintiff fought fire with fire but did so in a legal fashion and kept the police fully informed of his actions. The Plaintiff was successful in causing numerous egregious videos and several blogs to be taken down after doing his best to find out who the “Anonymous” people were and reporting them. He saved all the blogs and videos published about his family before the malice was removed from public view. Three Trolls who continue to attack his family and others are Dean Roger Ray, Barry Winters and one government employee. A member of the legal dept. of Edmonton tried to claim that the Plaintiff was Barry Winters then complained to the EPS about the Plaintiff’s questions about her incompetence. Professor Kris Wells, who was associated with the Police Commission of Edmonton and Glen Canning, who lost his daughter to cyberbullying, said nothing. They were content that the Plaintiff managed to convince Google’s lawyers to remove one of Barry Winters’s blogs on October 23, 2014 and say nothing about his blog within WordPress that the Troll uses to continue his libel of them and their friends. Instead Glen Canning slandered the Plaintiff within Twitter after Kris Wells sent the Plaintiff an email stating his lawyer had advised him to ignore Barry Winters and his blogs.
76. The Plaintiff states that since the fall of 2014 he has given up on the notion that any police officer or Glen Canning and Professor Kris Wells would ever act with any semblance of integrity. All their actions appear to be for the purposes of self-promotion and personal gain. Canning and Wells received the same emails that were sent to politicians and law enforcement authorities and only Barry Winters responded to all and disputed the Plaintiff’s words. The EPS in June of 2015 informed the Plaintiff that they intend to prosecute Barry Winters for sending “False Messages” instead of prosecuting for his published malice under Sections 300 and 319 of the Criminal Code. That fact must be true because since June the Plaintiff has not received any emails from Barry Winters and within his blog he has slandered the EPS and often mentions the topic of “False Messages”. In the meantime Canning and Wells ignore the Plaintiff’s common concerns while continuing to profess of their abundant knowledge of bullying to university students and anyone else who will listen to them particularly members of the corporate media. The Plaintiff saves every word of Canning and Wells that they cause to be published on the topic cyberbullying and plans to file them as his exhibits to support a lawsuit to seek relief from the cyberbullying of his Clan. He considers the blogs of Barry Winters and the videos of his associates that remain published on the Internet to be important evidence of cyberbullying that the Crown will be arguing within a provincial court of his choice after the election of the 42nd Parliament. Therefore other than remind the Crown and others that he is recording the work of the Trolls, he has not reported their malice to Google and WordPress anymore because the RCMP should have done so long ago.
77. The Plaintiff states that in June of 2015 when a member of the EPS called him four times with an anonymous telephone number asking him to stop emailing public officials about Barry Winters’s blog and to file a formal complaint. The Plaintiff was offended by the anonymous talk of “False Messages”. He refused and stated that if the questionable public officials found his emails quoting the blog of Barry Winters upsetting then the EPS and the RCMP should uphold the law and do something about it in order to protect their reputations.
78. The Plaintiff states that until the EPS member clearly identified himself with his badge number in the fourth phone call and sent a follow up email to back up his words, the Plaintiff could not know for certain that a Troll or the EPS had been calling him. The Plaintiff has a record of two fraudulent calls to him during the same period of time, one using an RCMP phone number and the other used the phone number of Dana Durnford, a well-known Troll and friend of Byron Prior. The Plaintiff returned the calls. Dana Durnford in a predictable fashion denied knowing him and hung up but the Plaintiff did discuss the malice of Trolls with an ethical member of the RCMP. The RCMP and the FBI know that anyone can access several websites based in the USA and engage their free services to harass people with. The RCMP know that some programs allow cyberbullies to pretend to be anyone by having their telephone numbers (including that of the RCMP or the EPS) appear on their victims’ phone display. The Crown knows commercial programs assist in political deceit. Recently, it sent a former assistant of the MP the Plaintiff ran against Fundy-Royal in 2004 to jail because of robo calls.
79. The Plaintiff states that he has clearly explained his intentions to sue the EPS and the RCMP many times because they have been ignoring his complaints for eight years. It was obvious to him what the EPS was trying to do with him in June was trick. The RCMP has been trying to pull the same trick on the Plaintiff since 2003. The Crown knows that if the EPS managed to secure a complaint with the Plaintiff’s signature then it would delay his lawsuit because the EPS could claim that his complaint under investigation and that the EPS could say nothing about it until the matter had concluded. The Plaintiff informed the EPS that anyone could use an anonymous phone number and claim to be anyone if it wished to talk then it should do so from an identifiable telephone line or put it in writing just like he does. In fact the Plaintiff’s family have been getting anonymous calls for many years and the police claimed they could do nothing because the malicious calls came through the Internet. The RCMP would have acted ethically if the families of public officials were subject to the harassment his Clan has suffered instead of assisting in the illegal barring from the parliamentary properties of Canada.
80. The Plaintiff states that the subject of the Crown and Internet harassment became incredibly worse in 2007 long before the demise of two Canadian teenagers caused new cyber laws to be created and promptly ignored. In 2008 while the Plaintiff’s family and friends were being much harassed within many YouTube Channels by Trolls, the RCMP in NB created a YouTube channel of its own to use as tool to catch a local arsonist. As soon as the Plaintiff made a comment about eleven incidents of arson on his friend’s farm in the same area the Plaintiff and his friend were attacked by many Troll’s within the Crown’s domain within YouTube and the RCMP only laughed at the obvious malice that they were publishing for a year without attempting to moderate the comments. In early 2009 the comments within the RCMP YouTube channel change greatly with the arrest and imprisonment of members of the Tingley family pertaining to charges of “Organized Crime”. The libel continued until Werner Bock printed all the comments within the RCMP YouTube channel and delivered hard copy of it in hand to a local office of the RCMP. Once the Plaintiff had a conversation with a member of the RCMP in Moncton NB who was investigating Bock’s complaint, the RCMP took down their video with all the comments and said nothing further about it. The Plaintiff did manage to save most of the comments digitally before they were deleted by the Trolls and the RCMP. Years later the Crown stayed the “Organized Crime” charges against the Tingleys and a publication ban was placed on their concerns about malicious prosecution. The matter was put before the Supreme Court of Canada Rodney Tingley, et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen SCC Docket no. 34107 and the Plaintiff had no idea of any outcome. However in late 2014 he did speak with some of the Tingleys and they admitted to knowing about him and his common concerns with the RCMP. One Tingley stated that their lawyers have advised them not to speak to him because of the publication ban. The same holds true with his former friend Werner Bock and Hank Temper another German who moved to NB to farm. They had trouble with the RCMP acting against them. A search on the Internet with their names and the Plaintiff’s easily proves his assistance but they will never acknowledge it as they attack the Crown, Bock byway of social media and Tepper byway of lawsuit.
81. The Plaintiff states that matters of harassment that the police refuse to investigate would have entered the realm of ridiculous in 2012 if the reasons behind the suicides of teenagers did not become well known by the corporate media. In the summer of 2012 a new member of the FPS who as a former member of the EPS had inspired a lawsuit for beating a client in Edmonton called the Plaintiff and accused him of something he could not do even if he wanted to while he was arguing many lawyers byway of emails about a matter concerning cyber stalking that was before the SCC. The member of the FPF accused the Plaintiff of calling the boss of Bullying Canada thirty times. At that time his MagicJack account had been hacked and although he could receive incoming calls, the Plaintiff could not call out to anyone. The Plaintiff freely sent the FPF his telephone logs sourced from MagicJack after his account restored without the Crown having to issue a warrant to see his telephone records. He asked the FPF and the RCMP where did the records of his phone calls to and from the FPF and the RCMP go if his account had not been hacked. The police never responded. Years later a Troll sent Dean Roger Ray a message through YouTube providing info about the Plaintiff’s MagicJack account with the correct password. Dean Roger Ray promptly posted two videos in YouTube clearly displaying the blatant violation of privacy likely to protect himself from the crime. The Plaintiff quickly pointed out the videos to the RCMP and they refused to investigate as usual. At about the same point in time the Plaintiff noticed that the CBC had published a record of a access to information requests. On the list of requests he saw his name along with several employees of CBC and the boss of Bullying Canada. The Plaintiff called the CBC to make inquiries about what he saw published on the Internet. CBC told him it was none of his business and advised him if he thought his rights had been offended to file a complaint. It appears the Plaintiff that employees of CBC like other questionable Crown Corporations such as the RCMP rely on their attorneys far too much to defend them from litigation they invite from citizens they purportedly serve. The employees of CBC named within the aforementioned and the CBC Legal Dept. are very familiar with the Plaintiff and of the Crown barring him from legislative properties while he running for public office.
82. The Plaintiff states that any politician or police officer should have seen enough of Barry Winter’s WordPress blog by June 22, 2015 particularly after the very unnecessary demise of two men in Alberta because of the incompetence of the EPS. Barry Winters was blogging about the EPS using battering ram in order to execute a warrant for a 250 dollar bylaw offence at the same time Professor Kris Wells revealed in a televised interview that the EPS member who was killed was the one investigating the cyber harassment of him. It was obvious why the police and politicians ignored all the death threats, sexual harassment, cyberbullying and hate speech of a proud Zionist who claimed to be a former CF officer who now working for the Department of National Defence (DND). It is well known that no politician in Canada is allowed to sit in Parliament as a member of the major parties unless they support Israel. Since 2002 the Plaintiff made it well known that he does not support Israeli actions and was against the American plan to make war on Iraq. On Aril 1, 2003 within two weeks of the beginning of the War on Iraq, the US Secret Service threatened to practice extraordinary rendition because false allegations of a Presidential threat were made against him by an American court. However, the Americans and the Crown cannot deny that what he said in two courts on April 1, 2003 because he published the recordings of what was truly said as soon as he got the court tapes. The RCMP knows those words can still be heard on the Internet today. In 2009, the Plaintiff began to complain of Barry Winters about something far more important to Canada as nation because of Winters’ bragging of being one of 24 CF officers who assisted the Americans in the planning the War on Iraq in 2002. In the Plaintiff’s humble opinion the mandate of the DND is Defence not Attack. He is not so naive to think that such plans of war do not occur but if Barry Winters was in fact one of the CF officers who did so then he broke his oath to the Crown the instant he bragged of it in his blog. If Winters was never an officer in the CF then he broke the law by impersonating an officer. The Plaintiff downloaded the emails of the Privy Council about Wikileaks. The bragging of Barry Winters should have been investigated in 2009 before CBC reported that documents released by WikiLeaks supported his information about Canadian involvement in the War on Iraq.
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:
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.
william.elliott@rcmp-grc.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
eugene@blueskystrategygroup.
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.
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/
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/
"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.
"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?
84. The Plaintiff states that the RCMP is well aware that he went to western Canada in 2104 at the invitation of a fellow Maritimer in order to assist in his attempt to investigate the murders of many people in Northern BC. The Plaintiff has good reasons to doubt his fellow Maritimer’s motives. The fact that he did not tell the Plaintiff until he had arrived in BC that he had invited a Neo Nazi he knew the Plaintiff strongly disliked to the same protest that he was staging in front of the court house in Prince George on August 21, 2014. The Plaintiff was looking forward to meeting Lonnie Landrud so he ignored the Neo Nazi. Several months after their one and only meeting, Lonnie Landrud contacted the Plaintiff and asked him to publish a statement of his on the Internet and to forward it to anyone he wished. The Plaintiff obliged Landrud and did an investigation of his own as well. He has informed the RCMP of his opinion of their actions and has done nothing further except monitor the criminal proceedings the Crown has placed against the Neo Nazi in BC and save his videos and webpages and that of his associates. The words the Plaintiff stated in public in Prince George BC on August 21, 2014 were recorded by the Neo Nazi and published on the Internet and the RCMP knows the Plaintiff stands by every word. For the public record the Plaintiff truly believes what Lonnie Landrud told him despite the fact that he does not trust his Neo Nazi associates. Therefore the Plaintiff had no ethical dilemma whatsoever in publishing the statement Lonnie Landrud mailed to him in a sincere effort to assist Lonnie Landrud’s pursuit of justice. The Crown is well aware that Plaintiff’s former lawyer, Barry Bachrach once had a leader of the American Indian Movement for a client and that is why he ran against the former Minister of Indian Affairs for his seat in the 39th Parliament.
85. The Plaintiff states that while he was out west he visited Edmonton AB several times and met many people. He visited the home of Barry Winters and all his favourite haunts in the hope of meeting in person the evil person who had been sexually harassing and threatening to kill him and his children for many years. The Crown cannot deny that Winters invited him many times. On June 13, 2015 Barry Winters admitted the EPS warned him the Plaintiff was looking for him.
86. The Plaintiff states that on December 15th, 2014 the Crown in Alberta contacted him byway of an email account he seldom uses since his last communications with the Sergeant-at-Arms and Robin Reid. The Sergeant-at-Arms wanted to know about a contact he had that day with the constituency office of a recently appointed Cabinet Minister. All the other statements in this complaint should prove that the Plaintiff knew why a political lawyer from NB was ignoring a new constituent’s contacts all summer after answering a message in Twitter promising to meet with him. It was obvious to the Plaintiff that as soon as the lawyer was a Cabinet Minister he was attempting to use his influence to intimidate the Plaintiff byway of the Sergeant-at-Arms like his political associates in NB did in 2004.
87. The Plaintiff states that before he had a chance to respond to the email from the Sergeant-at-Arms of Alberta, three members of the RCMP members in plain clothes were pounding on the basement entrance of a condo at 1:30 AM. They did not identify themselves as being the police as they attempted to harass the Plaintiff on private property in the middle of the night without a warrant. The Plaintiff was twice the age of the oldest one and considered them to be tough talking kids who were trying to enter a home in the middle of the night so as he closed the door he told them he was calling the cops. They hollered on the other side of the door that they were the cops as the Plaintiff called their headquarters and was immediately patched through to them. The Plaintiff refused their request when RCMP tried to con him into coming outside in freezing temperatures in the middle of the night so they could supposedly speak with him instead of saying what they needed to say over the telephone. If what the RCMP was saying was remotely true then they should have identified themselves and asked for him instead of someone else when he answered the door. The Plaintiff’s response to the RCMP’s trickery was that it was best that they communicate in writing and that he would be contacting their lawyers in the morning. The Crown received its very justifiable responses and the law was not upheld. The Plaintiff was ignored as the RCMP continued to harass his family deep into the New Year as he headed for the BC coast then back to the Maritimes to run for public office again.
88. The Plaintiff states that in regards to this complaint the actions and inactions of the Sergeant-at-Arms and the RCMP in Alberta affirmed to the Plaintiff that he is still barred under threat of arrest from all parliamentary properties in Canada because they did not deny it. The RCMP does not have the integrity to talk to or email him about anything because they know he tries to record everything just like they do. Instead of acting ethically the standard operating procedure of the RCMP since 2004 is to intimidate his friends and family in a malicious effort to impeach his character and separate them. That is the reason the Plaintiff stays away from most people most of the time. The actions of the RCMP towards the Plaintiff and many others and his experiences in the USA served to convince him that the Crown acts just like corrupt Americans. In order to cover up wrongs it would prefer to injure and imprison ethical citizens in mental wards rather than uphold the law or argue them publicly in a court of law. In 2002 the Plaintiff explained why he would seek public office in Canada to American lawyers he was suing within statements of a lawsuit about legal malpractice. Now he is doing the same to Canadian lawyers in the employ of the government whose wages are once again being paid by his fellow taxpayer. As the Plaintiff prepares to deal with a predicable motion to dismiss and a motion for a publication ban to delay and conceal this matter before polling day perhaps the lawyers working for the Crown should study the Plaintiff’s work found within documents in the Governor General’s office. Trust that he will look forward to talking to the first lawyer to answer this complaint because it has been years since he could get any lawyer in Canada to discuss anything with him. There is no ethical dilemma to be found in this statement, the Crown counsels should just do their job according to the law of the land, seek the documents in the possession of the lawyer who is the Governor General of Canada and let the political cards fall where they may. In closing the Plaintiff must remind the Crown that two members of the Canadian Forces acting as security for the Highland Games held on the grounds of the Lieutenant Governor’s residence in NB approached the Chief of the Amos Clan claiming that an unnamed party found him “overbearing”. He gave them a copy of the Governors General’s letter and freely left the parliamentary property.
Jurisdiction and Venue
89. The Plaintiff states that Federal Court has jurisdiction in this claim against the Crown pursuant to section 17 (1) of the Federal Courts Act and he proposes that this action be tried at Fredericton, New Brunswick.
90. The Plaintiff prays that the Federal Court does not strike this complaint against the Crown. It is not without merit nor is it abusing of the process of this Court. This claim is definitely not frivolous or vexatious or immaterial or redundant.
91. The Plaintiff states he is not a lawyer or studied law at any law school. This is a Pro Se complaint composed by him to the best of his ability as a layman after studying Canadian laws on his own for ten years. He is compelled to act Pro Se because not one lawyer of the many whom he has approached in Canada and the USA over the course of the past fifteen years would assist him in any complaint that would impeach the character of an auditor or a fellow member of the bar or embarrass a justice system in which they practice law for a fee. However, many lawyers have been paid from the Plaintiff’s interests as they worked diligently to cover up many wrongs practiced against his family for many years. The Plaintiff considers two of the most offensive to him are the lawyers who are the current Governor General and Attorney General of Canada. The Plaintiff is acting upon a suggestion of a former Governor General after diligently attempting to settle this matter with all the Attorney Generals of Canada and the RCMP for twelve years.
92. The Plaintiff states that must restate the simple truth of this matter. It still is as he explained to the NBPC in 2004. The Sergeant-at-Arms in NB illegally barred the Plaintiff for political reasons. His actions as a whistleblower the RCMP and the liberal federal government were the reasons. The Plaintiff met former Premiers Bernard Lord and David Alward (Consular in Boston) On October 3, 2006, Premier Lord studied the “Barring Notice” after being thanked for putting the Crown’s malice in writing. Alward and a RCMP member heard Lord claim he knew nothing about it and suggest that the Plaintiff sue the Sergeant-at-Arms.
93. The Plaintiff states that on October 3, 2006 he quickly proved what the political lawyer Bernard Lord had claimed in front of his former Cabinet Minister was not true by presenting him with a document signed by his former Attorney General. Bernard Lord quickly responded that the Plaintiff should sue him too. The former Premier had nothing further to say when he was shown a copy of the Plaintiff’s cover letter that came with the documents and CD given to his constituency office in Moncton NB in early July of 2004. The Plaintiff complained of Premier Lord expelling him from the legislature building for political reasons not legal within the first paragraph of the aforesaid cover letter. The Attorney General had answered the Plaintiff on the Crown’s behalf after admitting he had received the documents given to Premier Lord and another former Premier Frank McKenna the year before his was appointed to be the Canadian Ambassador to the USA.
94. The Plaintiff states that on October 30, 2006, after he had read the news and discussed Justice Dennis O’Connor’s report on the Arar matter with many people that he knew Wayne Easter and Commissioner Giuliano Zacardelli were profound liars he received a call from Sgt. Vaillancourt of J Division of the RCMP. The Plaintiff refused to make a deal with the RCMP and his reasons were published on the Internet for years. Wayne Easter’s words quoted by CBC were the reason the RCMP called. They are as follows:
“Wayne Easter, the former solicitor-general who presided during the Arar ordeal, appeared to contradict earlier testimony from RCMP head Giuliano Zacardelli today when he answered questions at a commons committee. Responding to Justice Dennis O’Connor’s report on the Arar case at the public safety and national security committee, Easter said he was never told the RCMP had passed on false information to the United States and was never told the RCMP tried to correct it, as claimed by Zacardelli.
“I was not informed that the RCMP had provided inaccurate information to the U.S.,” Easter told the MPs.”
95. The Plaintiff states that whereas the Prime Minister apologized to Maher Arar on behalf of Canada and made $10-million settlement after the government wasted several years and squandered an incredible amount of taxpayer funds on legal fees generating Justice Dennis O’Connor’s report, the Plaintiff deserves at least the same sort of settlement in this matter.
96. The Plaintiff states that whereas he has been barred from access to parliamentary properties for a period of eleven years and that the aforesaid properties include ten provinces and the Nation’s Capital District the apologies and amount he seeks in settlement is very reasonable and certainly justified.
The plaintiff therefore asks this court for the following relief:
(a) A public apology by the Prime Minister and each Premier for the illegal barring of a citizen from access to parliamentary properties.
(b) A declaration signed by the Minister of Public Safety and witnessed by the Governor General stating that the Canadian government will no longer allow the RCMP and the Canadian Forces to harass the Plaintiff and his Clan.
(c) A settlement of eleven million dollars ($11,000,000.00) in the form of relief and punitive damages for being barred from eleven parliamentary properties for eleven years.
(d) Costs to the Plaintiff in bringing this matter before the court
Dated at Fredericton, NB the 15th day of September 2015
______________________________
Plaintiff David Raymond Amos
P.O. Box 234
Apohaqui, NB, E5P 3G2
Telephone no.: (902) 800-0369
Fax no.: (506) 432-6089
Email : David.Raymond.Amos@gmail.com
 | David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> |
| IMHO
David McGuinty as our latest Minister of Public Safety MUST Review ALL
that has transpired between the CROWN and I since 1982 |
| Erik Andersen <twolabradors@shaw.ca> | Fri, Jan 3, 2025 at 6:37 PM | |||||||||||||
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> | ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
One attachment • Scanned by Gmail
Fwd: Dallas and Erik interview link...
| Jan 3, 2025, 6:51 PM (15 hours ago) |
| |||
Sent: Friday, January 3, 2025 2:35:28 PM
Subject: Fwd: Dallas and Erik interview link...
Hi Erik,
Here is the email with the link to your interview with Dallas Hill
LINK: https://rumble.com/v63sl8p-
(I am just starting to watch it now… )
j
Cheers,
J
Dear J,
how are you? …
Thought you would be interested in this video.
Our friend Dallas from Constitutional Conventions is interviewing Erik
Cheers,
Karen
https://rumble.com/v63sl8p-
(posted) 4 days ago
294
Greed is good?
After the IN-SIGHTS article BC Hydro second quarter report, fiscal year 2025, retired economist Erik Andersen provided the text shown below the separator line:
For personal survival in the Air Force, I learned in my 20s about the importance of situational awareness. Later, while practicing as an economist, I had to learn about matters that amounted to other kinds of situational awareness. In my professional world, it was important to find evidence of people walking their talk or not.
This interview shown below was taped years ago. I had evidence that demonstrated negative effects after major chartered banks took over the largest investment dealers in Canada. Concentration of economic power was their objective. Progressive impoverishment of Canadians had already been identified by the Royal Commission on Taxation headed by Kenneth Carter.
In 1966 the 6-volume report declared that fairness should be the foremost objective of the taxation system; the existing system was not only too complicated and inefficient, but under it, the poor paid more than their fair share while the wealthy avoided taxes through various loopholes. The commissioners proposed that the same tax be levied on increases in economic power of the same amount however acquired, for as Carter reputedly said, “a buck is a buck.” If its recommendations were implemented, the commission estimated, nearly 50% of taxpayers would have their taxes reduced by more than 15%; 10% would face increased tax Recommended liabilities of more than 15%, and the remaining taxpayers would notice little change. The wealthy, paying more taxes, would nevertheless share in the benefits of efficient taxation.
The Canadian Encyclopedia
After aggressive lobbying by business groups, particularly the oil and gas industry, fairness reforms suggested by the Carter Commission were never implemented. Instead of simplifying the tax system, the government made it more complex.
By the beginning of the present century, the “Greed is Good Gang” infected everything in North America. Before the mortgage-backed bonds fraud of 2008, Enron was the best example. The company shut down power generating capacity to create artificial energy shortages in the American West. Huge increases in prices paid by consumers resulted.
Co-conspirators in this fraud were more than sixty energy traders, including BC Hydro. This shameful conduct was stopped by American regulators and courts. Our provincial government and BC Hydro’s Directors were knowing parties to this fraud. Settling a court action over its illegal activities cost the public utility more than $750 million. Our disingenuous Energy Minister said this massive payout would not raise electrical rates paid by BC residents.
People like Rafe Mair successfully opposed the BC Liberal plan in the early 2000s to privatize BC Hydro. The “Greed is Good Gang” simply switched strategies. They loaded the utility with contracts worth tens of billions of dollars for private electricity, most of it created using public water on public lands. These deals were secret and shielded from public scrutiny. (Please, no arguments. I have a BCUC letter proving what I write.}
Years ago, I was one of the professional economists hearing about the latest BC Hydro service plan and the company’s demand expectations. I challenged the director of forecasting on the projections he used for population growth and for gross domestic product (GDP). He said they were required to accept input from a private, unnamed consultant when calculating how much new electricity the utility should purchase.
The above was what I had in my head going into the video interview below.
The best way to illustrate what all the above means today is to refer to the person who regularly features the reality of BC Hydro financials. We are all shareholders of BC Hydro and guarantors of debts and contracts of this crown corporation. I suggest reading the latest from IN-SIGHTS.CA.
Norm Farrell tells us that sales to heavy industry in the current fiscal year were at an average rate of 6.5¢ per kilowatt-hour. Compare that to the average residential sale price of 11.5¢ per kilowatt-hour. Norm also says that private power producers (IPPs) were paid an average of 10¢ per kilowatt-hour, a number that is 54% more than the average selling price charged heavy industry customers.
I trust the reader will connect the dots and realize that residential customers are paying to subsidize corporations that may not be paying taxes in BC or Canada.
CBC offered “pure propaganda”
After
a CBC radio offering that made little effort to provide a complete
story, economist Erik Andersen sent a message to CBC Early Edition. Erik
keeps a close eye on public policy, particularly when natural resources
are involved.
If one looks at economic disasters of the past, one thing is certain. Warning signs were obvious to people who paid close attention but were ignored by the rest.
Mervyn King, the former governor of the Bank of England, wrote this in the Wall Street Journal five months ago:
A decade ago, the global financial crisis was under way. A year later, the banking system of the industrialized world was on the verge of collapse. Before those events, I told a gathering of business leaders in London, “Excessive leverage is the common theme of many financial crises of the past. Are we really so much cleverer than the financiers of the past?”
Well, we weren’t. Excessive leverage once again proved to be the weak point of our financial system. And wisdom does not seem to be on an upward trend.
A decade on, one might expect that leverage would have been significantly reduced. And in the majority of large banks, that is indeed true.
But the opposite is the case for much of the rest of our economy. Indeed, total debt relative to gross domestic product is higher now than it was immediately before the crisis…
You can be sure that Erik’s concern arises from paying attention to rising debt levels and how the ordinary public will ultimately be left with an unaffordable burden. He wrote this to CBC:
Your morning business commentator, on a decision by Shell Oil to sell off a Canadian oil field position, left the listeners with the idea that Canadian politics were wanting when it comes to oil field developments. This is pure propaganda and I wish you reporters would start connecting the dots.
The seven largest global petroleum companies have had to confront the reality that they do business using a finite natural resource. This has been known about since the 1950s when “Peak Oil” was first publicly identified by an industry insider with the name King Hubbert.
More recently these seven producers have accumulated about US$500 billion of corporate debt, up from $60 billion only seven years ago. All but one is still paying a dividend and using borrowed money to do so.
The recent advice to the Norwegian Government has been to divest all its oil and gas investments from their sovereign wealth fund. This likely was the work of a consultant hired to conduct a “value at risk” analysis, something the CPP Fund has resisted doing for at least 5 years despite being asked by myself to do so on several occasions.
The future holds little to celebrate for the oil and gas sector yet in Canada we continue to think otherwise and feed the beast with our money. Please refrain from giving opinions that suggest the future is bright for this sector when the global centre of the industry is mostly trying desperately to find a way out from under huge debts. Canadian pension plans should not lend a hand, as I suspect has been the case with the CPP. The Bank of England has already targeted the pension industry for the role in being the saviours of the commercial banks holding non-credit worthy loans as bank assets. Saving the oil and gas sector is likely also in the mix.
Published with permission.
Contact
Message IN-SIGHTS.CA by email: normanfarrell.ca@gmail.com
https://www.facebook.com/norman.farrell.92/
No comments:
Post a Comment