Pat King gets 3-month conditional sentence plus time served
Organizer of 2022 convoy protest was convicted of 5 of 9 charges late last year
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Ottawa defends use of Emergencies Act during convoy protests before Federal Court of Appeal
Civil liberties group argued Liberals triggered emergency measures without sound statutory grounds
A lawyer for the federal government says a judge mistakenly concluded it was unreasonable for the government to use the Emergencies Act in 2022 to quell protests in the national capital and at key border points.
In his January 2024 ruling, Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley said he revisited the events with the benefit of a more extensive record of the facts and the law than the government had when it proclaimed a public order emergency.
Ultimately, there "was no national emergency justifying the invocation of the Emergencies Act," he wrote.
Lawyer Michael Feder, representing the government, told the Federal Court of Appeal on Thursday it was unfair of the judge to fault federal decision-making using "20/20 hindsight."
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government invoked the Emergencies Act on Feb. 14, 2022, after thousands of protesters angry with the government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including vaccine requirements, gridlocked downtown Ottawa for nearly a month and blocked border points elsewhere across the country.
While many demonstrated against COVID-19 health restrictions, the gathering attracted people with a variety of grievances against Trudeau and the Liberal government.
The act gave law enforcement extraordinary powers to remove and arrest protesters and gave the government the power to freeze the finances of those connected to the protests. The temporary emergency powers also gave authorities the ability to commandeer tow trucks to remove vehicles belonging to protesters.
Inquiry came to a different conclusion
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association and several other groups and individuals argued in Federal Court that Ottawa ushered in the emergency measures without sound statutory grounds.
A mandatory inquiry reviewed the government's use of the Emergencies Act in the fall of 2022 and came to a different conclusion than Mosley.
Commissioner Paul Rouleau concluded the federal government met the "very high" threshold needed to invoke the Emergencies Act, citing "a failure in policing and federalism."
"Lawful protest descended into lawlessness, culminating in a national emergency," he wrote.
With files from CBC News
Geopolitical Updates w/ Eddie Cornell & Michael Yon
The Emergencies Act Appeal & Panama’s Changing Alliances
Date & Time
Tuesday, February 4th
Live at 6 PM MT (8 PM ET)
Livestream
Watch on TheLavigneShow.com, Locals, X, Rumble, Facebook, and more.
The Mosely Decision Appeal
Eddie Cornell, a plaintiff in the ongoing Mosely decision appeal, joins us to share insights from Day 1 of the hearing. At stake is the Canadian government’s justification for invoking emergency powers—particularly whether it was warranted to freeze bank accounts and label peaceful citizens as potential threats. Eddie recounts key exchanges in court, including:
Crown Arguments
How
government lawyers defended using emergency powers by citing
unreasonable paranoia and ignoring contrary evidence from CSIS, RCMP,
and local police.
Judicial Scrutiny
Judges
questioned why the government continued enforcing the Emergencies Act
even after blockades were cleared and whether freezing bank accounts
constituted an unlawful seizure.
Charter & Accountability
The government acknowledges it breached Canadians’ Charter rights yet insists these measures were “demonstrably justified.”
Date: Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 12:16 PM
Subject: Watch us in court TOMORROW
To: <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Good morning David,
I wanted to give you a very quick reminder: we will be in court TOMORROW on February 4th arguing that Justin Trudeau illegally and unconstitutionally used the Emergencies Act.
You can live stream the hearing on Tuesday, February 4, beginning at 9:30 a.m. Here is the link: https://cas-satj.zoom.us/
We are fighting to preserve our victory in this once-in-a-generation civil liberties case. Like so many other Canadians, I know this is a case you care about so I wanted to make sure you can watch us in court tomorrow.
See you there, and wish us luck!
Christine Van Geyn | Litigation Director
Canadian Constitution Foundation
P: 1.888.695.9105 x103
theCCF.ca
PS – For this appeal the Trudeau government hired fancy new lawyers from Vancouver. We have some of the best in the business to go toe-to-toe with them. If you are able, please consider helping us cover some of the costs associated with our fight against the abuse of the Emergencies Act by making a donation at the https://theccf.ca/donate/
|
---------- Original message ---------
Date: Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 5:38 PM
Subject: Watch us in court fighting back against the Emergencies Act abuse
To: <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Dear David,
I am excited to share with you the livestream link so that you can watch our lawyers in the Federal Court of Appeal defending our historic victory against Trudeau’s use of the Emergencies Act against the Freedom Convoy protests in 2022!
You can live stream the hearing on Tuesday, February 4, beginning at 9:30 a.m. Here is the link: https://cas-satj.zoom.us/
This is a case that thousands of Canadians have been watching carefully, because it will have long lasting impacts for civil liberties in Canada. It really is a once-in-a-generation case. We will be arguing in front of a three-judge panel at the Federal Court of Appeal that the lower court was correct in finding Trudeau’s use of the Emergencies Act was illegal and the regulations freezing bank accounts and banning protests on Parliament Hill were unconstitutional.
I know this is an issue you care a lot about, which is why I wanted
to give you this advance notice about the hearing so you can watch. Of
course, if you can’t watch during the day, you can still watch my live
recap of everything that happened that day on our YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/@
The lower court decision held that Trudeau had not met the high threshold to use that extraordinary law in response to the Freedom Convoy. The court found that there was no national emergency, and no threat to the security of Canada. The law exists to deal with wars, terrorist attacks, and massive natural disasters—not Canadians protesting on the steps of Parliament, even if they are especially noisy and stubborn. That just isn’t what this law was created for.
When Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act, he was able to create new criminal laws by executive order. He froze bank accounts and banned protests all across the country. The lower court rightly found that this went too far, and violated those precious rights protected by Canada’s constitution – the supreme law of our country.
This decision is a vital one to protect, because it sets a precedent that will stop governments from abusing this law in the future. But the Trudeau government is trying to set back our civil liberties by having that decision overturned. We are fighting back hard, and we want to make sure you can see how hard we are fighting by sharing the livestream link. I hope you are able to watch, and if you can’t watch live, I hope you can catch my recap on YouTube.
Fighting back against the overreach by the Trudeau government comes at a price. Our generous lawyers have agreed to represent us at a reduced fee, but the fight has still cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars. We think it’s a fight worth paying for. If you do too, please consider making a tax deductible charitable donation at https://theccf.ca/donate/
You can specify that you want your donation to be directed towards the Emergencies Act case.
If you do watch the hearing, please let me know what you think. I’m always interested in hearing from you.
Thanks for everything you do,
Christine Van Geyn | Litigation Director
Canadian Constitution Foundation
P: 1.888.695.9105 x103
theCCF.ca
PS – you can help us cover some of the costs associated with our fight against the abuse of the Emergencies Act by making a donation at the https://theccf.ca/donate/
| Canadian Constitution Foundation | 6025 12 Street SE, #215, Calgary, AB T2H 2K1 Canada | |||
|
|||
|
|
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>> From: "Kulik, John" <john.kulik@mcinnescooper.com>
>>>>> Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 17:37:49 +0000
>>>>> Subject: McInnes Cooper
>>>>> To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com" <motomaniac333@gmail.com>,
>>>>> "david.raymond.amos@gmail.com" <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Mr. Amos:
>>>>>
>>>>> I am General Counsel for McInnes Cooper. If you need to communicate
>>>>> with our firm, please do so through me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>
>>>>> John Kulik
>>>>> [McInnes Cooper]<http://www.mcinnescooper.com/>
>>>>>
>>>>> John Kulik Q.C.
>>>>> Partner & General Counsel
>>>>> McInnes Cooper
>>>>>
>>>>> tel +1 (902) 444 8571 | fax +1 (902) 425 6350
>>>>>
>>>>> 1969 Upper Water Street
>>>>> Suite 1300
>>>>> Purdy's Wharf Tower II Halifax, NS, B3J 2V1
>>>>>
>>>>> asst Cathy Ohlhausen | +1 (902) 455 8215
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Notice This communication, including any attachments, is confidential
>>>>> and may be protected by solicitor/client privilege. It is intended
>>>>> only for the person or persons to whom it is addressed. If you have
>>>>> received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by e-mail or
>>>>> telephone at McInnes Cooper's expense. Avis Les informations contenues
>>>>> dans ce courriel, y compris toute(s) pièce(s) jointe(s), sont
>>>>> confidentielles et peuvent faire l'objet d'un privilège avocat-client.
>>>>> Les informations sont dirigées au(x) destinataire(s) seulement. Si
>>>>> vous avez reçu ce courriel par erreur, veuillez en aviser l'expéditeur
>>>>> par courriel ou par téléphone, aux frais de McInnes Cooper.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
>>>>> Date: Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:35 AM
>>>>> Subject: RE My complaint against the CROWN in Federal Court Attn David
>>>>> Hansen and Peter MacKay If you planning to submit a motion for a
>>>>> publication ban on my complaint trust that you dudes are way past too
>>>> late
>>>>> To: David.Hansen@justice.gc.ca, peter.mackay@justice.gc.ca
>>>>> peacock.kurt@telegraphjournal.com,
>>>> mclaughlin.heather@dailygleaner.com,
>>>>> david.akin@sunmedia.ca, robert.frater@justice.gc.ca,
>>>> paul.riley@ppsc-sppc.gc.ca,
>>>>> greg@gregdelbigio.com, joyce.dewitt-vanoosten@gov.bc.ca,
>>>>> joan.barrett@ontario.ca, jean-vincent.lacroix@gouv.qc.ca,
>>>>> peter.rogers@mcinnescooper.com, mfeder@mccarthy.ca, mjamal@osler.com
>>>>> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, gopublic@cbc.ca,
>>>>> Whistleblower@ctv.ca
>>>>>
>>>>> https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14439/index.do
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/WebDocuments-DocumentsWeb/35072/FM030_Respondent_Attorney-General-of-Canada-on-Behalf-of-the-United-States-of-America.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> http://thedavidamosrant.blogspot.ca/2013/10/re-glen-greenwald-and-brazilian.html
>>>>>
>>>>> I repeat what the Hell do I do with the Yankee wiretapes taps sell
>>>>> them on Ebay or listen to them and argue them with you dudes in
>>>>> Feferal Court?
>>>>>
>>>>> Petey Baby loses all parliamentary privelges in less than a month but
>>>>> he still supposed to be an ethical officer of the Court CORRECT?
>>>>>
>>>>> Veritas Vincit
>>>>> David Raymond Amos
>>>>> 902 800 0369
>>>>>
>>>>>
COURT RECAP: Legal challenge to Trudeau's use of the Emergencies Act against the Freedom convoy
Canadian Constitution Foundation COURT RECAP DAY 2: Legal Challenge to Trudeau's use of Emergencies Act Against the Freedom Convoy
Christine Van Geyn: Court ruling condemning use of Emergencies Act must be upheld
Trudeau government seeks to overturn landmark decision regarding Freedom Convoy
The Federal Court of Appeal is hearing a once-in-a-generation civil liberties case Feb. 4 and 5 — the appeal in the legal challenge to the Emergencies Act. This is the appeal of a landmark decision of the federal court from January 2024. In that lower court decision, Justice Richard Mosley sided with the legal charity, the Canadian Constitution Foundation, which had challenged Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s invocation of that extraordinary legislation in response to the 2022 Freedom Convoy.
Justice Mosley found that there was no national emergency and no threat to the security of Canada, which are legal requirements built into the act to prevent it from being abused. He also found that the orders freezing bank accounts violated the constitutional right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, and that the restrictions on protests violated the right to freedom of expression.
The decision was a blow to the Trudeau government, which announced its intention to appeal within minutes of the release of the nearly 200-page decision. The Trudeau government had spent over $2.2 million fighting the CCF in that case, only to lose on almost every measure. For the appeal, the government has hired new private-sector lawyers whose high hourly rates will be paid with taxpayer money.
This appeal will be heard by a three-judge panel in Toronto. The focus of the CCF’s argument to dismiss the appeal is the fact that the definition of “threats to the security of Canada,” which the Emergencies Act makes clear means the same thing that it means under the CSIS Act, was not met. Then-CSIS director David Vigneault had informed the government that the definition was not met, and cabinet failed to wait for an alternative assessment of the facts before invoking the act. Another focus of the appeal is the level of deference owed to cabinet in its decision to invoke the act. The government is claiming that cabinet essentially has unfettered discretion. This goes against the actual text of the Emergencies Act as well as the history and context of the legislation, which was enacted to ensure there were proper guardrails on the legislation so it could not be abused like its predecessor, the War Measures Act.
The Trudeau government’s decision to invoke this law, and its argument on appeal, shows wilful historic blindness. While Justin Trudeau is no constitutional scholar, the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act shows an unsettling ignorance of not just Canadian history but his own family history. The Emergencies Act was created to replace the War Measures Act, a piece of legislation that was abused by Justin Trudeau’s own father, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, when he was prime minister.
Trudeau Senior used the War Measures Act to suspend basic civil rights and liberties in the wake of the FLQ crisis. In contrast to the Freedom Convoy, which was a group of stubborn, noisy, but non-violent protesters on the steps of Parliament and at some border towns, the Front de libération du Québec crisis in 1970 involved bombings, kidnapping and murder. In response, Trudeau Sr. invoked the War Measures Act, allowing for police searches and arrests without warrants, and prolonged detentions without charges and without the right to see a lawyer. A few hours after the War Measures Act came into effect, almost 500 Quebecers were arrested and many more were searched without warrants. In the end, even in the context of actual violence, the use of the War Measures Act was an overreaction. The Duchaine Report concluded there were only 35 active members of the FLQ when the Quebec government had suggested the existence of thousands.
When the Emergencies Act was introduced to replace the discredited War Measures Act, it was designed intentionally to prevent abuse. To be used for public order emergencies, the threshold for use is especially high. It requires a “threat to the security of Canada,” which is defined to have the same meaning as the CSIS Act, which had been debated and passed by Parliament. This definition had been thoroughly vetted. So when CSIS director Vigneault found that there was no threat to the security of Canada, the federal government needed to pay attention. CSIS said no threat existed, and even confirmed this assessment after the cache of weapons was found at Coutts, Alta. — which was the only real “whiff of danger” during the entire Freedom Convoy. The Coutts cache was discovered through regular policing and arrests were made, and the CSIS threat assessment did not change. If Trudeau and his cabinet reached a different decision than CSIS, they needed to explain why. Instead they have hidden behind cabinet confidentiality, claimed they cannot disclose why they reached any different conclusion from CSIS, and demanded the public accept the use of this extraordinary legislation to freeze the bank accounts of Canadian protesters for unknown mysterious reasons.
The Canadian Constitution Foundation argued in federal court that this is not good enough, and the federal court agreed. For the sake of our country’s civil liberties, for transparency, and for government accountability, this decision must be upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal.
National Post
Christine Van Geyn is Litigation Director for the Canadian Constitution Foundation.
UPDATED: Appeals court hears Trudeau's lawyers fight unlawful Emergencies Act decision
Justice Richard Mosley in January 2024 ruled Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal cabinet’s use of the historical Emergencies Act (originally named the War Measures Act — which was only ever used once in the history of Canada: under Trudeau’s father, former Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau) on peaceful protesters in Ottawa was “unlawful” and “unnecessary.”
Trudeau’s lawyers immediately submitted an appeal in the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) legal challenge to the Emergencies Act case, to be heard Tuesday and Wednesday of this week by a panel of three judges in Toronto.
The Emergencies Act has two legal requirements to prevent authoritarian abuse: the situation must meet the criteria of a “national emergency” and a “threat to national security.”
Mosley found there was no national emergency and no threat to national security.
The Attorney General in arguing the government's appeal on Tuesday justified the invocation of the Emergencies Act with the following claims (which have not been upheld by the court):
• The Freedom Convoy fuelled fear, unrest and harassment of citizens
• Protesters brought their children to serve as "human shields," The AG claimed 25% of protesters brought their kids, without providing evidence for either claim
• The Convoy had links to "white supremacy" and "anti-vaccine" groups, claiming there were yellow Star of David flags (with the word "unvaxxed" written across them), Nazi flags, SS-affiliated flags and Confederate flags.
• Economic damage, in the form of $400M in Canada-US trade (and a claim there were "now border blockade popping up every other day," listing Coutts, Manitoba, Windsor, Sarnia and Lake Eerie.
Despite all these allegations, CSIS did not deem any of it a national security threat.
The Emergencies Act was declared on February 14, 2022, during the 2022 Freedom Convoy in Ottawa, where Canadians from across the country gathered to protest COVID-19 mandates.
In invoking the act, Trudeau’s Liberals instructed Canadian banks to freeze the accounts of anyone who participated, or even donated to, the Freedom Convoy.
Mosley found the orders to freeze bank accounts were a violation of the “constitutional right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, and that the restrictions on protests violated the right to freedom of expression,” according to CCP Litigation Director Christine Van Geyn.
Van Geyn says the Trudeau government spent more than $2.2 million fighting the CCF legal challenge against the invocation of the Emergencies Act, “only to lose on almost every measure.”
“For the appeal, the government has hired new private sector lawyers whose high hourly rates will be paid with taxpayer money,” said Van Geyn.
The CCF argues the appeal in case A-73-24 Attorney General of Canada v. Canadian Civil Liberties Association et al. should be dismissed because the Emergencies Act legal requirements were not met, rendering the invocation unlawful.
The definition of “threats to the security of Canada” under the Emergencies Act is the same as that under the CSIS Act.
CSIS Director David Vigneault in February 2022 had informed the Trudeau government the definition was not met and cabinet “failed to wait for an alternative assessment of the facts before invoking the Emergencies Act,” wrote Van Geyn.
The CCF challenge also focuses on the “level of deference owed to cabinet in their decision to invoke the act … the government is claiming that cabinet essentially has unfettered discretion.”
“This goes against the actual text of the Emergencies Act as well as the history and context of the legislation, which was enacted to ensure there were proper guardrails on the legislation so it could not be abused like its predecessor, the War Measures Act,” said Van Geyn.
“The Trudeau government’s decision to invoke this law, and their argument on appeal, shows willful historic blindness. While Justin Trudeau is no constitutional scholar, the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act shows an unsettling ignorance of not just Canadian history but his own family history. The Emergencies Act was created to replace the War Measures Act, a piece of legislation that was abused by Justin Trudeau’s own father, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, when he was Prime Minister.”
Due to the abuse by Pierre Trudeau’s use of the War Measures Act, the Emergencies Act was designed with an especially high threshold — one vetted and voted on by Parliament.
Vigneault’s conclusion that there was no threat to the security of Canada was pivotal — an assessment that was confirmed even after the “cache of weapons” was found at Coutts, AB.
“If Trudeau and his cabinet reached a different conclusion from CSIS, they needed to explain why,” said Van Geyn.
“Instead they have hidden behind cabinet confidentiality, claimed they cannot disclose why they reached any different conclusion from CSIS, and demanded the public accept the use of this extraordinary legislation to freeze the bank accounts of Canadian protesters for unknown mysterious reasons.”
From: info@nationalcitizensinquiry <info@nationalcitizensinquiry.ca>
Date: Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 1:04 PM
Subject: Re: Auto: Re: Announcement from Vincent Gircys.
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 6:52 PM
Subject: Auto: Re: Announcement from Vincent Gircys.
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Thank you for reaching out to the National Citizens Inquiry. We are grateful for all your messages. Due to the
volume of correspondence we are receiving, it may take time to respond. Thank you for your patience.
You may find the answer you’re looking for on our website, please visit https://nationalcitizensinquir
Commissioners Report:
https://nationalcitizensinquir
Follow NCI on Social Media:
https://nationalcitizensinquir
Media Inquiries:
https://nationalcitizensinquir
Help share the Commissioners Report! Learn more at https://nationalcitizensinquir
To stay updated on all things NCI, please sign-up for our e-newsletter:
https://nationalcitizensinquir
Yours sincerely,
NCI Support Team
PS The National Citizens Inquiry relies on the gracious support of volunteers to help with our correspondence. If
your question was not fully answered, or you have additional questions or concerns, please reach out to us again
for assistance.
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: Announcement from Vincent Gircys.
To: <Vincent.gircys@gmail.com>, <prontoman1@protonmail.com>, <senseirude@hotmail.com>, <newsnotnoise@protonmail.com>, <Chidakash@protonmail.com>, <paulajtucci@gmail.com>, <Tom@icareinsurance.ca>, <educatorsforhumanrights@protonmail.com>, <nancyobee@protonmail.com>, <vickie@vaccinechoicecanada.com>, <gisele@vaccinechoicecanada.com>, <tino@lcddash.com>, <anyakreynes@gmail.com>, <Shirley.guertin@protonmail.com>, <alanbrough@prontonmail.com>, <sciencej@protonmail.com>, <dione@librti.com>, <roman@librti.com>, <drpierremilot@protonmail.com>, mcu <mcu@justice.gc.ca>, Marco.Mendicino <Marco.Mendicino@parl.gc.ca>, fin.minfinance-financemin.fin <fin.minfinance-financemin.fin@canada.ca>, pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>, pierre.poilievre <pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca>, Katie.Telford <Katie.Telford@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>, kingpatrick278 <kingpatrick278@gmail.com>, Michael.Duheme <Michael.Duheme@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, <Denis.Beaudoin@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, <ngroot@investigationcounsel.com>, <tim.wilbur@keymedia.com>, <bkofman@ksvadvisory.com>, <info@nationalcitizensinquiry.ca>, jcarpay <jcarpay@jccf.ca>, jagmeet.singh <jagmeet.singh@parl.gc.ca>, <media.medias@fintrac-canafe.gc.ca>, blaine.higgs <blaine.higgs@gnb.ca>, premier <premier@ontario.ca>, premier <premier@gov.ab.ca>, PREMIER <PREMIER@gov.ns.ca>, Office of the Premier <scott.moe@gov.sk.ca>, premier <premier@gov.pe.ca>, premier <premier@gov.nl.ca>, premier <premier@leg.gov.mb.ca>, premier <premier@gov.bc.ca>, <jcooper@torontolegalresearch.com>, <ministryofjustice@gov.ab.ca>, <czwibel@ccla.org>, <contact@fedsforfreedom.ca>, ian <ian@mccuaiglaw.ca>, <mjackson@fieldlaw.com>, freedomreport.ca <freedomreport.ca@gmail.com>, <chris.scott@whistlestoptruckstop.ca>, sheilagunnreid <sheilagunnreid@gmail.com>, stefanos.karatopis <stefanos.karatopis@gmail.com>, Lametti, David - M.P. <David.Lametti@parl.gc.ca>
Cc: <LGrey@gwsllp.ca>, <info@lawyers4truth.ca>, <brianpeckford@gmail.com>, <ted@vaccinechoicecanada.com>, <alanjm@idirect.com>, <benitapedersen@hotmail.com>, <KMartin@postmedia.com>
https://rumble.com/v4a92j0-cla
Class Action w/ Vincent Gircys
The Lavigne Show
2.61K followers
Streamed on: Jan 30, 8:00 am EST
https://rumble.com/v49a1pu-wak
Wake-up Alberta! w/ Pat King & Vincent Gircys
The Lavigne Show
2.61K followers
Streamed on:
Jan 25, 6:00 pm EST
It’s time Alberta, wake-up!
Vincent Gircys, one of two plaintiffs from the Federal Court decision
that declared the use of the EA unlawful.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.c
Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 12:46:09 -0300
Subject: Fwd: Hey Higgy perhaps you or Brian Peckford or Derek Sloan’s
Yankee pal Roger Stone can explain to Leighton Grey QC and the FEDS
FOR FREEDOM etc why I sued the Queen in 2015
To: jcooper@torontolegalresearch.c
Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
https://www.facebook.com/derek
Freedom Report Final Show James Cooper and More
James Cooper is a lawyer out of r8chmond Ontario. He has vowed to make
all health ministers accountable for their part in this pandemic. Find
out more live at Freedom Report.
Final Show
special guests
Chris Sky
Danny DeSantis
Michael Arana
Anti-Maskers Club
April Lajune
If you enjoy the content we bring, please help us out with a couple of
bucks. Help us to keep the show going, Donate Today!
We Accept interact e-transfer @ derekstorie85@gmail.com
https://selfreplawyer.ca/about
A Legal Professional Helping You With Your Litigation Needs
James Cooper, a GTA-based lawyer, specializes in the provision of
unbundled legal services (legal research, drafting of pleadings,
motions, affidavits, factums, settlement negotiations, court
appearances, etc.) in respect of any and all litigation matters. He
has devised winning strategies and legal arguments for lawyers, law
firms, and members of the public across the Greater Toronto Area and
throughout the Province of Ontario. Mr. Cooper has sought to educate
law firms and mediators toward taking a more evidence-focused approach
in the application of case law research, as a means of "war-gaming" a
client's prospects for success or failure in any given legal action.
Mr. Cooper is also a member of Self-Rep Navigators, a group of lawyers
with a common interest in assisting self-represented litigants.
Mr. Cooper is an experienced lecturer and instructor, having conducted
Law Society CPD accredited presentations on the subject of Legal
Research and Practice Management.
He offers a free initial phone consultation and quote for his
unbundled legal services, with flexible retainer arrangements
customized to a client's budget.
https://calgaryherald.com/news
Anti-vaxxer Kevin J. Johnston sentenced to time served for attempt to
flee to U.S. after skipping out on Calgary jail sentence
Johnston, 50, pleaded guilty to being unlawfully at large for failing
to show up to complete a weekends-only jail term
Author of the article:
Kevin Martin
Publishing date:
Mar 08, 2022
Kevin J. Johnston Photo by Postmedia
One-time fugitive Kevin J. Johnston was handed the equivalent of a
30-day jail term Tuesday for his ill-fated flight from Canadian
justice in January.
Johnston, 50, pleaded guilty to being unlawfully at large for failing
to show up to complete a weekends-only jail term after being convicted
of contempt of court for ignoring orders he comply with COVID-19
restrictions.
Crown prosecutor Peter Mackenzie told provincial court Judge Harry Van
Harten that Johnston was supposed to show up at the Calgary
Correctional Centre on Dec. 24 to complete the final weekend of the
40-day sentence handed him by Justice Adam Germain.
Mackenzie said Johnston was arrested Jan. 4 after illegally crossing
into the U.S. near the Montana/North Dakota border.
Both Mackenzie and Toronto defence lawyer Ian McCuaig, who appeared
via video link, agreed a 30-day sentence was warranted.
But McCuaig argued the remand time Johnston served before he was
granted bail, the equivalent of 17 days when given enhanced credit,
coupled with his onerous bail conditions that were equivalent to house
arrest, should result in a sentence of time served.
Mackenzie argued only Johnston’s jail time should be counted and Van
Harten should order the former fringe mayoral candidate to serve
another 13 days, but the judge agreed with McCuaig’s argument.
At one point Van Harten questioned Johnston on whether he’d been
vaccinated and whether he should consider more jail time if he wasn’t,
but after a brief adjournment and consultation between the offender
and McCuaig, the judge didn’t pursue the issue further.
After Johnston’s Jan. 4 arrest, he issued a statement through his
lawyer indicating he went to the U.S. because he was fleeing
persecution by the Canadian government.
The same day Johnston was arrested in the U.S. he was supposed to
appear at a Toronto courthouse to turn himself in to begin serving an
18-month sentence for contempt of court there.
KMartin@postmedia.com
Twitter: @KMartinCourts
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.c
Date: Sun, 22 May 2022 16:16:14 -0300
Subject: Hey Higgy perhaps you or Brian Peckford or Derek Sloan’s
Yankee pal Roger Stone can explain to Leighton Grey QC and the FEDS
FOR FREEDOM etc why I sued the Queen in 2015
To: Blaine.Higgs@gnb.ca, premier <premier@ontario.ca>, "Brenda.Lucki"
<Brenda.Lucki@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Bill.Blair" <Bill.Blair@parl.gc.ca>,
premier <premier@gov.ab.ca>, derekstorie85@gmail.com, cps
<cps@calgarypolice.ca>, ministryofjustice@gov.ab.ca, "Kaycee.Madu"
<Kaycee.Madu@gov.ab.ca>, "hugh.flemming" <hugh.flemming@gnb.ca>,
"Bill.Hogan" <Bill.Hogan@gnb.ca>, pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>, "Katie.Telford"
<Katie.Telford@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>, "Ian.Shugart"
<Ian.Shugart@pco-bcp.gc.ca>, jcarpay <jcarpay@jccf.ca>,
"jagmeet.singh" <jagmeet.singh@parl.gc.ca>, "robert.mckee"
<robert.mckee@gnb.ca>, "andrea.anderson-mason"
<andrea.anderson-mason@gnb.ca>
<Anita.Anand@parl.gc.ca>, oldmaison <oldmaison@yahoo.com>, Office of
the Premier <scott.moe@gov.sk.ca>, czwibel@ccla.org,
David.Aaron@justice.gc.ca, John.Provart@justice.gc.ca,
Nur.Muhammed-Ally@justice.gc.c
<Marco.Mendicino@parl.gc.ca>, "Mark.Blakely"
<Mark.Blakely@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "martin.gaudet"
<martin.gaudet@fredericton.ca>
mbublitz@lutheranchurch.ca, dhaberstock@lutheranchurch.ca,
rmohns@lutheranchurch.ca, president@lutheranchurch.ca, "wayne.eyre"
<wayne.eyre@forces.gc.ca>, "greg.byrne" <greg.byrne@gnb.ca>,
"Greta.Bossenmaier" <Greta.Bossenmaier@hq.nato.int
Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>, lgrey@gwsllp.ca,
contact@fedsforfreedom.ca, ian <ian@mccuaiglaw.ca>,
mjackson@fieldlaw.com, "freedomreport.ca"
<freedomreport.ca@gmail.com>, chris.scott@whistlestoptruckst
sheilagunnreid <sheilagunnreid@gmail.com>, "stefanos.karatopis"
<stefanos.karatopis@gmail.com>
"Lex deficere non potest Justitia exhibenda" ???? YEA RIGHT
How about the Motto of my Clan Veritas Vincit
Go figue why I am enjoyng this nonsense
Court File No. T-382-22
FEDERAL COURT
B E T W E E N:
JEREMIAH JOST, EDWARD CORNELL, VINCENT GIRCYS, and HAROLD
RISTAU
Applicants
and
GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL, HER MAJESTY IN RIGHT OF CANADA,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, and MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY
AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Respondents
Go Figure why I find this rather comical
WRITTEN REPRESENTATION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Motion to Strike
April 11, 2022
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Department of Justice Canada
Ontario Regional Office
National Litigation Sector
120 Adelaide Street West, Suite 400
Toronto, ON M5H 1T1
Fax: (416) 973-0809
David Aaron / John Provart / Nur Muhammed-Ally
Tel: (343) 804-9782 / (647) 256-0784 / (647) 256-0776
David.Aaron@justice.gc.ca / John.Provart@justice.gc.ca /
Nur.Muhammed-Ally@justice.gc.c
Recorded Entry Information : T-382-22
Type : Federal Court
Nature of Cause : S. 18.1 Application for Judicial Review
Office : Calgary Language : English
Type of Action : Federal Court
Filing Date : 2022-02-24
Recorded Entry Summary Information
Copies of public documents which are already in electronic format can
be sent by e-mail, upon request to the Registry:
fc_reception_cf@cas-satj.gc.ca
subject of your email. In the text, you must clearly identify the
document number and its name (this information is located in the
Recorded Entry Summary column).
52 records found
Doc Date Filed Office Recorded Entry Summary
24 2022-05-18 Toronto Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of
Brenden Miller confirming service of Doc 23 upon Respondent by email
on 18-MAY-2022 filed on 18-MAY-2022
23 2022-05-18 Toronto Written Examination questions for Rebecca
Coleman filed on 18-MAY-2022
22 2022-05-18 Toronto Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of
Denis Beaudoin confirming service of Doc 21 upon Respondent by email
on 18-MAY-2022 filed on 18-MAY-2022
21 2022-05-18 Toronto Written Examination questions of Denis Beaudoin
filed on 18-MAY-2022
20 2022-05-16 Toronto Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of
Brenden Miller confirming service of Written examination questions
upon Respondent by email on 16-MAY-2022 filed on 16-MAY-2022
null 2022-05-16 Toronto Written examination questions received
on 16-MAY-2022
null 2022-05-09 Toronto Toronto 09-MAY-2022 BEFORE Martha Milczynski,
Prothonotary Language: E Before the Court: Case Management Conference
Result of Hearing: Parties discuss expert timelines held by way of
video conference Duration per day: 09-MAY-2022 from 11:00 to 11:40
Courtroom : Judge's Chambers - Toronto Court Registrar: Andrew Murray
Total Duration: 40min Appearances: Brenden Miller N/A representing
Applicant Jeff Anderson N/A representing Respondent Kathleen Kohlman
N/A representing Respondent Comments: Recorded on zoom cloud. The
parties discuss expert timelines. Minutes of Hearing entered in Vol.
1078 page(s) 227 - 228 Abstract of Hearing placed on file
null 2022-05-04 Toronto Copy of oral direction dated 04-MAY-2022
rendered by Martha Milczynski, Prothonotary placed on file. Original
filed on Court File No. T-306-22
null 2022-04-29 Toronto Copy of a letter on behalf of Respondent dated
28-APR-2022 placed on file on 29-APR-2022 Original placed on Court
File No. T-306-22
null 2022-04-28 Toronto Copy of a letter on behalf of Respondent dated
28-APR-2022 placed on file on 28-APR-2022 Original placed on Court
File No. T-306-22
null 2022-04-11 Toronto Toronto 11-APR-2022 BEFORE Martha Milczynski,
Prothonotary Language: E Before the Court: Case Management Conference
Result of Hearing: minutes found on T-306-22 held by way of video
conference Duration per day: 11-APR-2022 from 11:05 to 12:25 Courtroom
: Toronto (Zoom) Court Registrar: Shaun Nelson Total Duration: 1h
20min Appearances: Brenden Miller, Beth-Sheba van den Berg na
representing Applicant Kathleen Kohlman, Beth Tait na representing
Respondent Minutes of Hearing entered in Vol. 1078 page(s) 66 - 67
Abstract of Hearing placed on file
null 2022-04-25 Toronto Copy of a letter on behalf of Respondent dated
25-APR-2022 placed on file on 25-APR-2022 Original placed on Court
File No. T-306-22
null 2022-04-25 Toronto Letter from Applicant dated 22-APR-2022 This
letter provides the applicant's position on various matters received
on 25-APR-2022
null 2022-04-21 Toronto Copy of a letter on behalf of Respondent dated
21-APR-2022 placed on file on 21-APR-2022 Original placed on Court
File No. T-306-22
null 2022-04-20 Toronto Copy of a letter on behalf of Respondent dated
19-APR-2022 placed on file on 20-APR-2022 Original placed on Court
File No. T-306-22
null 2022-04-19 Toronto Copy of oral direction dated 19-APR-2022 dated
19-APR-2022 rendered by Martha Milczynski, Prothonotary placed on
file. Original filed on Court File No. T-306-22
null 2022-04-12 Toronto Copy of a letter on behalf of Respondent dated
12-APR-2022 placed on file on 12-APR-2022 Original placed on Court
File No. T-306-22
null 2022-04-12 Toronto Copy of Motion Record on behalf of Respondent
dated 12-APR-2022 placed on file on 12-APR-2022 Original filed on
Court File No. T-306-22
null 2022-04-12 Toronto Copy of Oral directions dated 12-APR-2022
dated 12-APR-2022 rendered by Martha Milczynski, Prothonotary placed
on file. Original filed on Court File No. T-306-22
19 2022-04-05 Toronto Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of
Nur Muhammed Ally confirming service of Doc 18 upon Applicant by email
on 04-APR-2022 filed on 05-APR-2022
18 2022-04-05 Toronto Affidavit of Rebecca Coleman sworn on
04-APR-2022 contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Respondent
in opposition to Notice of Application Doc. No. 1 with Exhibits
A-RRRRR filed on 05-APR-2022
17 2022-04-04 Ottawa Affidavit of service of Kathleen
Kohlman sworn on
04-APR-2022 on behalf of Respondent confirming service of the
affidavit of Steven Shragge upon Applicant by e-mail on 04-APR-2022
with Exhibits A-D filed on 04-APR-2022
16 2022-04-04 Ottawa Affidavit of Steven Shragge sworn on 04-APR-2022
on behalf of Respondent in opposition to Notice of Application Doc.
No. 1 with Exhibits A-D filed on 04-APR-2022
15 2022-04-04 Ottawa Affidavit of Denis Beaudoin sworn on 04-APR-2022
on behalf of Respondent in opposition to Notice of Application Doc.
No. 1 with Exhibits A-D filed on 04-APR-2022
14 2022-04-04 Ottawa Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of
Kathleen Kohlman confirming service of the Affidavit of Denis Beaudoin
upon Applicant by e-mail on 04-APR-2022 filed on 04-APR-2022
null 2022-04-04 Toronto Letter from Respondent dated 04-APR-2022 This
letter discuss the s. 39 certificate on T-306-22 and T-347-22 received
on 04-APR-2022
null 2022-04-01 Ottawa Letter from Respondents dated 01-APR-2022
"Please deliver this letter to the attention of Prothonotary
Milczynski concerning this proceeding." (see electronic document)
-sent to attention of CMJ(Milczynski,P) for consideration received on
01-APR-2022
null 2022-03-25 Toronto Toronto 25-MAR-2022 BEFORE Martha Milczynski,
Prothonotary Language: E Before the Court: Case Management Conference
Result of Hearing: Parties discuss r. 317 material held by way of
video conference Duration per day: 25-MAR-2022 from 11:00 to 11:32
Courtroom : Judge's Chambers - Toronto Court Registrar: Andrew Murray
Total Duration: 32min Appearances: Brenden Miller N/A representing
Applicant Beth-Sheba van den Berg N/A representing Applicant Kathleen
Kohlman N/A representing Respondent Beth Tait N/A representing
Respondent Comments: Recorded on zoom cloud. The parties discuss r.
317 material Minutes of Hearing entered in Vol. 1076 page(s) 354 - 355
Abstract of Hearing placed on file
null 2022-03-11 Toronto Toronto 11-MAR-2022 BEFORE Martha Milczynski,
Prothonotary Language: E Before the Court: Case Management Conference
Result of Hearing: minutes found on T-306-22 held by way of video
conference Duration per day: 11-MAR-2022 from 10:00 to 11:00 Courtroom
: Toronto (Zoom) Court Registrar: Shaun Nelson Total Duration: 1h
Appearances: Bath-Sheba van den Berg, Brenden Miller na representing
Applicant Kathleen Kohlman, Beth Tait na representing Respondent
Minutes of Hearing entered in Vol. 1076 page(s) 339 - 340 Abstract of
Hearing placed on file
null 2022-03-23 Toronto Oral directions received from the Court:
Martha Milczynski, Prothonotary dated 23-MAR-2022 directing that A
case management teleconference shall be conducted on Friday March 25,
2022 at 11am by Zoom. The purpose of the call is to discuss the Rule
317 requests, responses and next steps. If any party has anything to
add to the correspondence already submitted, they shall file their
submissions by 3pm March 24th." placed on file on 23-MAR-2022
Confirmed in writing to the party(ies)
null 2022-03-18 Toronto Letter from Applicant dated 17-MAR-2022 This
letter is in regards to the r. 317 submissions received on 18-MAR-2022
13 2022-03-14 Toronto Affidavit of service of Bethany DeWolfe sworn on
14-MAR-2022 on behalf of Applicant confirming service of Doc 12 upon
all parties by telecopier on 14-MAR-2022 with Exhibits A, B filed on
14-MAR-2022
12 2022-03-14 Toronto Notice of a constitutional question on behalf of
Applicant filed on 14-MAR-2022
null 2022-03-15 Ottawa Letter from Respondent dated 15-MAR-2022 AGC's
response to Rule 317 request, Encl. Certified Tribunal Record received
on 15-MAR-2022
null 2022-03-15 Ottawa ****** CANCELLED ****** Certified copy of
original material received from Privy Council Office on 15-MAR-2022
placed on file on this file
null 2022-03-11 Toronto Copy of Oral Direction dated 11-MAR-2022
rendered by Martha Milczynski, Prothonotary concerning Schedule placed
on file. Original filed on Court File No. T-306-22
11 2022-03-11 Toronto Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of
Brenden Miller confirming service of Doc 10 upon Respondent by email
on 09-MAR-2022 filed on 11-MAR-2022
10 2022-03-11 Toronto Affidavit of Jermiah Jost sworn on 09-MAR-2022
on behalf of Applicant in support of Notice of Application Doc. No. 1
with Exhibits A-K filed on 11-MAR-2022
9 2022-03-09 Calgary Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of
Brendan M. Miller confirming service of Affidavit of Edward Cornell,
Vincent Gircys, Harold Ristau upon Respondents by e-mail on
09-MAR-2022 filed on 09-MAR-2022
8 2022-03-09 Calgary Affidavit of Harold Ristau sworn on 09-MAR-2022
on behalf of Applicant in support of Notice of Application Doc. No. 1
with Exhibits A filed on 09-MAR-2022
7 2022-03-09 Calgary Affidavit of Vincent Gircys sworn on 08-MAR-2022
on behalf of Applicant in support of Notice of Application Doc. No. 1
with Exhibits A-D filed on 09-MAR-2022
6 2022-03-09 Calgary Affidavit of Edward Cornell sworn on 23-FEB-2022
on behalf of Applicant in support of Notice of Application Doc. No. 1
with Exhibits A-D filed on 09-MAR-2022
null 2022-03-10 Toronto Letter from Applicant dated 10-MAR-2022 This
letter discusses a possible motion being heard, and proposes a
schedule received on 10-MAR-2022
5 2022-03-02 Calgary Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of
Brendan M. Miller confirming service of Notice of Application upon
Respondents by e-mail on 23-FEB-2022 filed on 02-MAR-2022
null 2022-03-02 Ottawa Acknowledgment of Receipt received from all
parties with respect to the Order of the Court dated february 24, 2022
placed on file on 02-MAR-2022
null 2022-03-01 Toronto Oral directions received from the Court:
Martha Milczynski, Prothonotary dated 01-MAR-2022 directing that
"Further to the case management teleconference conducted this day:
-the Respondent AG shall submit an update on any preliminary issues
including standing and mootness by March 2, 2022; -the AG's response
to the Rule 317 requests shall be delivered by March 15, 2022; -the
Applicants in T-382-22 shall serve and file their affidavits by noon
on March 10, 2022; and -the Respondent's affidavits shall b e served
and filed by April 4, 2022 -A case management teleconference in Court
files T-347-22 and T-382-22 shall be conducted on March 11, 2022
(together with T-306-22 and T-316-22, as previously scheduled) The
purpose of the call will be to discuss next steps, including any
preliminary motions regarding standing and mootness and the status of
the Rule 317 requests." placed on file on 01-MAR-2022 Confirmed in
writing to the party(ies)
null 2022-03-01 Toronto Toronto 01-MAR-2022 BEFORE Martha Milczynski,
Prothonotary Language: E Before the Court: Case Management Conference
Result of Hearing: Heard with T-347-22, parties discuss scheduling
held by way of video conference Duration per day: 01-MAR-2022 from
10:00 to 10:24 Courtroom : Judge's Chambers - Toronto Court Registrar:
Andrew Murray Total Duration: 24min Appearances: Bath-Sheba van den
Berg N/A representing Applicant Brenden Miller N/A representing
Applicant Kathleen Kohlman N/A representing Respondent Beth Tait N/A
representing Respondent Comments: Recorded on Zoom cloud, heard with
T-347-22. Parties discuss scheduling. Minutes of Hearing entered in
Vol. 1075 page(s) 272 - 273 Abstract of Hearing placed on file
4 2022-02-24 Calgary Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of
Kathleen Kohlman confirming service of Notice of Appearance upon
Applicants by e-mail on 24-FEB-2022 filed on 24-FEB-2022
3 2022-02-24 Calgary Notice of appearance on behalf of Respondent
filed on 24-FEB-2022
2 2022-02-24 Ottawa Order dated 24-FEB-2022 rendered by
Chief Justice
Crampton Matter considered with personal appearance The Court's
decision is with regard to Order dated 24-FEB-2022 Result: "IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. This proceeding shall continue as a specially
managed proceeding. 2. Pursuant to Rule 383, Justice Richard G. Mosley
and Prothonotary Martha Milczynski are assigned as Case Management
Judges in this matter." Filed on 24-FEB-2022 entered in J. & O. Book,
volume 1528 page(s) 239 - 240 Interlocutory Decision
null 2022-02-24 Calgary Certified copy of Doc. 1 sent to Respondent
pursuant to Rule 133 of the Federal Courts Rules placed on file on
24-FEB-2022
1 2022-02-24 Calgary Notice of application and 2 copies
with regard to
Judicial Review (s.18) filed on 24-FEB-2022 Certified
copy(ies)/copy(ies) transmitted to Director of the Regional Office of
the Department of Justice Tariff fee of $50.00 received: yes
https://tbof.ca/about-us/vinc
About Us
Home » About Us
Taking Back Your Freedoms was initiated by a group of concerned
citizens with a specific goal to equip and to mobilize citizens
towards taking back their Constitutional and God given Freedoms.
Chairman Of The TBOF Board: Statesman Brian Peckford
Statesman Brian Peckford is the Former Premier of
Newfoundland-Labrador and he is the last living First Minister who
helped negotiate (with 12 other First Ministers of Canada) and sign
the Constitution of Canada to include the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms (1982).
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Leighton Grey <LGrey@gwsllp.ca>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2022 18:48:17 +0000
Subject: Re: Methinks YOU and many FEDS FOR FREEDOM cannot deny that I
crossed paths with their lawyer Leighton Grey QC just over a year ago
N'esy Pas Higgy??
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.c
This is a business email address, and you are not my client. I
therefore request that you please remove me from this thread. I would
prefer not to receive any further unsolicited emails.
Thanks,
“Lex deficere non potest Justitia exhibenda”
Leighton B. U. Grey, Q.C.
Senior Counsel
GWSLLP
---------- Original message ----------
From: "Higgs, Premier Blaine (PO/CPM)" <Blaine.Higgs@gnb.ca>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2022 18:07:57 +0000
Subject: RE: Hey Leighton Grey QC if that were remotely true then how
to you explain the FEDS FOR FREEDOM CEASE & DESIST BULLSHIT BEARING
YOUR SIGNATURE???
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.c
Hello,
Thank you for taking the time to write.
Due to the volume of incoming messages, this is an automated response
to let you know that your email has been received and will be reviewed
at the earliest opportunity.
If your inquiry more appropriately falls within the mandate of a
Ministry or other area of government, staff will refer your email for
review and consideration.
Merci d'avoir pris le temps de nous écrire.
En raison du volume des messages reçus, cette réponse automatique vous
informe que votre courriel a été reçu et sera examiné dans les
meilleurs délais.
Si votre demande relève plutôt du mandat d'un ministère ou d'un autre
secteur du gouvernement, le personnel vous renverra votre courriel
pour examen et considération.
If this is a Media Request, please contact the Premier’s office at
(506) 453-2144 or by email
media-medias@gnb.ca<mailto:med
S’il s’agit d’une demande des médias, veuillez communiquer avec le
Cabinet du premier ministre au 506-453-2144.
Office of the Premier/Cabinet du premier ministre
P.O Box/C. P. 6000 Fredericton New-Brunswick/Nouveau-Brunswic
Tel./Tel. : (506) 453-2144
Email/Courriel: premier@gnb.ca <mailto:premier@gnb.ca%20> /
premierministre@gnb.ca<mailto:
From: Russell Phillips <rphillips@theccf.ca>
Date: Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 5:12 PM
Subject: Good and bad news: Our legal challenge to vaccine mandates in Canada
To: <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Michael Kempa: Federal Court changed my mind — the feds were wrong on emergency powers
Emergencies Act should be updated to cover economic harms, but that's not for the courts to change
The Federal Court’s ruling that the Liberal government broke the law by invoking the emergencies act to quell the freedom convoy protests of 2022 is the best possible legal decision — and sets the stage for the overhaul of the Emergencies Act and system for governing mass protest.
Justice Richard Mosley of the Federal Court, who authored Tuesday’s decision, both agreed with — and departed from — the conclusions reached by Justice Paul Rouleau in his inquiry into the invocation of the act.
Both justices made clear that the Freedom Convoy protest was a multilayered movement that converged at border crossings and urban centres across Canada, mostly completely in Ottawa, at the Ambassador Bridge at Windsor, Ont. and at the border crossing at Coutts, Alta. Both agreed that most people in attendance were there for perfectly legal purposes.
Both made clear that these protests — and clusters of extremists and dangers that attached to them over time, especially at Coutts, where arms were recovered and some protestors were charged with conspiracy to murder police officers — were effectively managed by municipal and provincial governments across Canada other than Ottawa and Ontario.
Each emphasized that the province of Ontario — and the city of Ottawa, Ottawa Police Service and civilian oversight board, along with the Ontario Provincial Police, all of which are its legal creatures and ultimate responsibilities — did not use the powers that exist on the books to maintain order, nor did the province provide aid that was requested or directly intervene when the situation demanded it.
Such lack of decisive action and use of available authority — whether wittingly or dim-wittedly — is what put a threat to public safety that was concentrated in the province of Ontario at the feet of the Liberal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
The lasting echoes of this unanimity must now be accountability for the above parties and the assurance that the laws that govern protest will never again be left on the shelf.
While respecting Charter rights to peaceful assembly and free expression, cities and their police must enforce laws prohibiting the incitement of hatred against identifiable groups, counselling terrorism or other crimes, preventing people from accessing medical treatment and employment for unreasonable periods of time (mischief) and intimidating people from accessing public space.
Where cities may be unable or unwilling to carry out such responsibilities, provinces must step in, first with offers of support and later with intervention if the need arises.
If provinces duck for cover, as Doug Ford did in this instance, Trudeau fils and subsequent prime ministers should take a vertebra from Trudeau pere’s spine and call them out publicly rather than engage in the type of high school footsie we have learned was played with Ottawa’s then-mayor, Jim Watson, to try to subtly shame the premier into action.
Justices Mosley and Rouleau diverged, however, on the legality of what the federal government did with the crisis. The Emergencies Act can be invoked in a “national emergency” tied to “threats to the security of Canada,” and because each judge took these terms to mean different things, they arrived at different outcomes.
The law defines a national emergency as an “urgent and critical situation that exceeds the capacity or authority of the provinces to deal with it, and that cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.”
Here, Rouleau was persuaded by the government’s argument that a “national emergency” persisted despite the relative calm that had been restored at Coutts and the Ambassador Bridge prior to invocation, as there remained a possibility of copycat blockades and violence across the country. He put much related stock into the government’s argument that the unwillingness of Ontario and its legal creatures to exercise authority justified the invocation of emergency powers.
Mosley was unimpressed on these points. He noted that Coutts and the Ambassador Bridge had been resolved through a combination of the enforcement of ordinary laws, court injunctions and threat of action under provincial emergency orders. As such, there was no reason to believe that possible copycat protests could not be addressed through similar means.
For Mosley, there simply was no emergency beyond Ottawa, where he regarded the protest as illegal and an unacceptable breakdown in public order. The fact that Ontario and its municipal and policing subsidiaries were not using existing laws was irrelevant.
The invocation of the Emergencies Act also requires that the government faces “threats to the security of Canada,” as defined in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) Act. The government has argued that jeopardizing the Ontario — and broader Canadian — economy constitutes a form of “serious violence” (in the sense that it damages people’s livelihoods and property) towards a political purpose.
Rouleau considered that “violence for a political purpose” as it applies to CSIS would usually refer to acts of terrorism that would cause “bodily harm” — which can include direct physical or psychological damages to people (sometimes by the explosive destruction of physical property). He reasoned that the federal government does not limit its concerns to terrorism, and therefore might reasonably understand the “violence” standard to mean large and systematic efforts to disrupt people’s livelihoods.
While sympathetic to this position, Mosley avoided any modicum of judicial activism to stick to his interpretation of the “black-letter law.” Namely, he accepted that “threats to the security of Canada” meant the same thing in the Emergencies Act as it did in the CSIS Act. If the drafters of the Emergencies Act intended for the terms to have different meanings for CSIS and the federal government, there simply would have been no reference to the CSIS Act in the Emergencies Act.
Given this, Mosley opined, “violence for a political purpose” did not include economic harms.
It will have to be on these matters of law that the government will bring forward an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal, and, possibly, to the Supreme Court of Canada. Their hope will be to argue that a restricted interpretation of the law ties an elected government’s hands such that it cannot deal with broader, unforeseen problems beyond the considerations of a clandestine intelligence agency.
-
Michael Kempa: Using the Emergencies Act was necessary, if regrettable -
Michael Kempa: How Trudeau (barely) made his case for using the Emergencies Act
As a criminology professor, it will be easier for me than the government to swallow a little humble pie and accept that my legal reading of the Emergencies Act, aligned as it may have been with Rouleau’s more aspirational interpretation, has been corrected by the binding precedent of a learned judge’s strict reading of the law.
A little boost in personal humility through being shown wrong once does, however, now allow me to predict (and offer the immodest albeit provisional advice to the government) that the Federal Court of Appeal and Supreme Court will likely see it Mosley’s way.
And this is probably a good thing.
Mosley acknowledged that the government may need updated legislation to address threats to economic stability, which can only come about through the public legislative process. He is not letting them squeeze any new powers into existing legislation behind the cloak of cabinet confidences.
I am a hawkish academic foil to the dove-like rights focus of civil liberties associations, and as such would argue along with Rouleau (and many of the experts who informed his report, including former CSIS head Richard Fadden) that the act should be overhauled, starting with removal of CSIS Act-constrained definitions to bring economic harms in scope.
Canadians owe civil liberties litigants a debt of gratitude for taking the government to task: They highlighted the people responsible for allowing the devolution of the Freedom Convoy protests into occupation — and forced a public debate between the hawks and doves on how best to reform our laws to balance collective security with the protection of individual liberties to face a future certain to be marked by mass protest.
National Post
Michael Kempa is an associate professor of criminology at the University of Ottawa. His book on the Canadian state’s response to the freedom convoy will appear via Cormorant publishing in the coming months. @michaelkempa1
Jamie Sarkonak: Liberals had no place freezing funds of Freedom Convoy protesters
Tuesday's Federal Court decision found the 'economic measures' taken to quell the protest were too broad and harsh to be justified
No, it wasn’t OK for the federal government to commandeer banks and perform account seizures in the face of protest two years ago. The Federal Court ruled Tuesday that the “economic measures” taken to quell 2022’s Freedom Convoy violated the Charter rights of those impacted.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is great news. We now have it on good authority that the government, facing a political crisis and the logistical nightmare of a sudden truck migration, cannot legally de-bank dissidents without a court order. The decision, written by Justice Richard Mosley of the federal court, is an important reminder that the state is not entitled to keep a tight financial leash on its citizens.
That leash was previously yanked by the feds, who triggered the Emergencies Act on Feb. 15, 2022 and slapped down a number of regulations to dissuade protesting. One of these rules mobilized the entirety of Canada’s financial apparatus — banks, credit unions, insurance providers, loan and trust companies, securities dealers, investors and even donation platforms — to monitor their clients on behalf of the government and report any accounts of suspected protesters to the RCMP and CSIS.
Any such accounts were required, by this law, to be frozen. Dissidents were not given due process, either: no warrants were required to delve into their accounts, no notice was required to be given and no routes of appeal were set out. There’s only one problem: every Canadian citizen has a right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. And as Mosley explained Tuesday, Canadians were owed that protection back when their accounts were frozen in 2022.
If you’re wondering how such a harsh regulation, now declared unconstitutional by the Federal Court, made it through the drafting process, perhaps it’s because government legal experts at the time insisted that the measures didn’t amount to a seizure at all, let alone an unreasonable one.
“The Emergency Economic Measures Order does not seize any assets,” wrote Timothy Huyer, federal lawyer of 16 years, on Twitter in late February 2022. “It does provide that financial service providers cease providing services to anyone who is engaged in the prohibited activities.”
The feds argued this point later in court, maintaining that the financial restrictions issued under the Emergencies Act weren’t “seizures” in the first place. The notion was dispelled by the judge.
“While the purpose of Charter (Section 8) is to protect privacy rights and not property, governmental action that results in the content of a bank account being unavailable to the owner of the said account would be understood by most members of the public to be a ‘seizure’ of that account,” wrote Mosley.
“Alternatively, I am satisfied that the disclosure of information about the bank and credit card accounts of the ‘designated persons’ by the financial institutions to the RCMP constituted a ‘seizure’ of that information by the government.”
Another over-reach noted by the judge was just how easy it was to de-bank a person with next to no evidence. Police, at the time, would send names of account holders to banks if they had only a “bare belief” that the account holder was protesting in downtown Ottawa. (Normally, in Canada, police need to have “reasonable grounds to believe” an offence has been committed to arrest and charge a person; to detain a person, a lower standard of “reasonable suspicion” must be met.)
“I find that the failure to require that some objective standard be satisfied before the accounts were frozen breached (the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure),” wrote Mosley.
Charter rights aren’t absolute, of course, and the state can legally override them — but only if the reason for doing so is urgent and important enough, and only if the state’s action (in this case, the bank seizure) is proportionate to the state’s goal (in this case, ending the protest). The federal government tried to justify the bank freezes accordingly, but failed.
Why? Mosley said the emergency bank freezes applied too widely (the rules targeted protesters at blockades, but applied throughout the country), and pointed out that softer alternatives could have been used.
“There is no evidence that the financial institutions would have refused to cooperate with the implementation of the measures if, for example, their account holders resided in Prince Edward Island or the Territories which had no illegal protests and had travelled to Ottawa to participate in the blockade,” he said.
On top of that, Mosley was troubled by the fact that there was no process for a person to question their account being flagged, and the fact that joint account holders could be punished for their partners’ actions.
“Thus someone who had nothing to do with the protests could find themselves without the means to access necessaries for household and other family purposes while the accounts were suspended,” he wrote. “There appears to have been no effort made to find a solution to that problem while the measures were in effect.”
Finally, validation. About 280 accounts were seized during the Ottawa protests, and Canada became internationally known for being the place that punishes by taking away people’s means to buy food and pay rent without a warrant. Now that the Federal Court has set out exactly why that was wrong, Canadians have a solid precedent to point back to should any tyrannical move be embraced again.
Now, we just have to hope the Supreme Court of Canada is just as reasonable, because this challenge is probably headed all the way to the top.
National Post
Bureaucrats who froze bank accounts of Freedom Convoy leaders weren't trying to 'get at the family'
Three top Finance Canada officials grilled at Public Order Emergency Commission
OTTAWA — In freezing the bank accounts of Freedom Convoy protesters, Finance Canada bureaucrats said they did not intend to hurt protesters’ families’ ability to buy groceries or pay child support, though they admitted that may have ultimately happened, the Emergencies Act inquiry heard Thursday.
In hindsight, the department could have better circumscribed the power to freeze Freedom Convoy organizers’ bank accounts because “the intent was not to unduly affect payments of child support or other payments,” Finance Canada assistant deputy minister Isabelle Jacques told the commission.
She was one of three top Finance Canada officials, alongside deputy minister Michael Sabia and assistant deputy minister Rhys Mendes, who were grilled at the Public Order Emergency Commission on Thursday about the federal government’s controversial use of the Emergencies Act to freeze key Freedom Convoy participants’ financial accounts.
Jacques, who led the team that developed the financial tools that were used with the invocation of the act on Feb. 14, admitted that there might have been some unintended consequences for people who were not involved in the protests against pandemic restrictions last winter.
“The intent was not to get at the family, or to have any of those impacts. That was not the focus. The focus was to be able to act quickly,” said Jacques.
The Emergencies Act allowed not only for bank accounts to be frozen without a court order but also enabled federal and provincial governments to share information with financial institutions about individuals or entities funding the protests or blockades. That information could also be shared with the RCMP and CSIS.
She said the goal was “to stop the flow of funds to fund those illegal activities” but also for it “to act as a deterrent” for people protesting in Ottawa and at border crossings. “The goal was to ensure that people that were involved would make a decision to leave,” she added.
Commission lawyer Gordon Cameron put to her that she or her department must have realized there would be wider effects, including on family members with whom they may share a bank account but who had nothing to do with the protests.
Two weeks ago, some Freedom Convoy organizers testified their spouses were cut off from their money and couldn’t make vehicle payments or purchase groceries and medication because joint bank accounts were frozen.
“That was not the focus of the policy development, we understand that … maybe some people were impacted,” admitted Jacques. “Our focus was certainly on these people involved in the activity.”
Sabia said approximately 280 accounts were frozen, with most of them targeted by the RCMP.
Another testy exchange followed with the lawyer for the convoy leaders, Brendan Miller, who repeatedly asked the bureaucrats if they considered the participants in last winter’s protests to be terrorists. The officials remained evasive and kept repeating they received no information to that effect.
“Well, I’m not going to give you a yes or no answer,” said Sabia, after some insistence from Miller.
The officials seemed unfazed when lawyer Sujit Choudhry from the Canadian Constitution Foundation pressed them on the effect that decisions from the government of Canada — such as freezing bank accounts — could have on individuals’ credit histories and credit scores.
“You’re talking about people involved in unlawful activities,” said Jacques.
Sabia added that the government was very clear when it invoked the Emergencies Act on Feb. 14, that individuals could have their bank accounts frozen as a consequence of their actions and they could prevent that from happening by leaving the protests.
“All that those individuals had to do was to leave,” he said.
The bureaucrats revealed that before the act was invoked, they considered a host of other tools to act against the Freedom Convoy funds (more than $10 million had been raised through crowdfunding) such as changes to the Bank Act or the Proceeds of Crime and Terrorist Finance Act.
But those were cast aside because they either did not apply or required time-consuming legislative changes.
-
Border agency's concern that convoy doing economic damage added to report the day Emergencies Act invoked -
U.S., other countries very concerned about convoy protests, diplomats testify
Ultimately, Finance Canada officials said the short length of the protests limited their negative economic impact.
“I think that it’s fair to say that the economic impact was limited. But it was limited because the duration of the blockades was limited,” Finance Canada assistant deputy minister Rhys Mendes said.
Sabia described how the Freedom Convoy protests and blockades occurred at a crucial time for the Canadian economy as well as for the U.S.-Canada trade relationship.
“It was a very, very delicate time,” he began. “Our economy was just exiting from all of the COVID lockdowns, and we were very concerned about the extent of that recovery,” he noted, adding the government was focused on damages to supply chains, rising inflation and the “chronic issue” of business investment in Canada.
But another “first-tier issue” was the country’s trade relationship with the United States, particularly at a time when there were significant negotiations over a new American electric vehicle tax credit that excluded those assembled in Canada.
“There was no doubt that these disruptions coming when they did, in that process, brought with them the risk that we would not be able to get the ‘North American treatment’ that we were eventually able to negotiate with the Americans with respect to electric vehicles,” Sabia said.
“So, if we had not succeeded in doing that, then the particular consequences of that for central Canadian-based automotive industry would have been very, very serious,” he added.
Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our politics newsletter, First Reading, here.
Pat King apologizes for role in Freedom Convoy, faces sentencing next month
Fallout from actions in Ottawa left him unable to sleep and fearing safety, King says
UPDATE | On Jan. 24, King's sentencing was moved to Feb. 19.
Freedom Convoy figurehead Pat King has apologized for his role in the 2022 protests, saying the fallout from his actions in Ottawa has left him unable to sleep, fearing for his safety, enduring online harassment, and facing financial ruin.
"I am extremely sorry for what happened to the City of Ottawa, and for that, I absolutely apologize for my actions," he said, adding that he "can relate" to what downtown residents experienced during the weeks-long gridlock and constant horn honking.
King made the comments at the conclusion of sentencing submissions to determine whether he will go to jail – and for how long – for his role as one of the protest leaders. A decision is expected on Feb. 7.
In November, King was convicted in Ontario Superior Court on five criminal charges: mischief, counselling to commit mischief, counselling to obstruct a public or peace officer, and two counts of disobeying a court order.
'Worst kind of mischief'
Crown prosecutor Moiz Karimjee called King's offending of the "worst kind" and asked for a 10-year sentence, the maximum penalty for mischief.
King's defence requested time-served, citing the days he spent behind bars after his February 2022 arrest.
Victim impact statements, a pre-sentencing report on King's history, letters from supporters, and a jailhouse interview he gave in July 2022 were included as part of the sentencing submissions.
Superior Court Justice Charles Hackland previously wrote that King's "moral culpability" was "significant" as an "organizer and leader who aimed to gridlock, or bear hug the capital."
Near the end of Friday's court proceedings, Hackland indicated he was likely to consider a sentence ranging from time-served to two years in jail.
King's sentence will set precedent as the first convicted leader of the Freedom Convoy to face significant punishment. Others, including Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, are awaiting the outcomes of their trials.
Freedom
Convoy organizer Pat King is surrounded by supporters as he leaves
court in Ottawa on Friday, Nov. 22, 2024. King, one of the most
prominent figures of the 2022 convoy in Ottawa, has been found guilty on
five counts including mischief and disobeying a court order. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)
Karimjee said King committed the "worst kind of mischief," pointing to the cost to city officials and the impact on the community.
He argued that there is a "concrete" fear King might repeat his law-breaking behaviour and said King promoted a "dangerous idea" of inflicting pain on citizens to bring about societal change.
In a July 2022 interview King gave to a supporter from jail, he credited the Freedom Convoy for ending COVID-19 mandates.
Karimjee asked for a "powerful" and "chilling" sentence, arguing that King's comments in the interview showed he still believed in "extorting political change" through lawbreaking.
Karimjee told the court it was "pure fiction" to suggest the protests simply got out of control, because King orchestrated the occupation of Ottawa from the start.
Convoy protest organizer Pat King outside the Ottawa Courthouse on May 16, 2024. (Spencer Colby/The Canadian Press)
The Crown highlighted comments King made as early as Jan. 12, 2022 – weeks before arriving in Ottawa – where he spoke about bringing "fear" and "scaring" people, which, Karimjee argued revealed King's intentions.
He described King's actions as "an attack on the rule of law and democratic process" because King tried to change government policy by gridlocking the city.
Court pushback against proposed sentence
Hackland repeatedly suggested Karimjee's proposed sentence was too high, flatly stating at one point he "did not agree" that King's conviction met the high threshold for a 10-year sentence, while making clear he was still deliberating.
The judge's comments elicited smiles and looks of encouragement from King and a handful of his supporters.
King's conviction was "not a minor mischief" however, Hackland said, noting that King did not appear to regret his actions.
As the proceedings wrapped up Friday, Hackland said the range he had to consider was between time-served and a jail term of more than two years. "That's my impression," he said.
Defence opposes imprisonment
The defence argues that King has already spent enough time in jail and should serve any sentence in the community.
King's lawyer, Natasha Calvinho, called the prospect of a 10-year sentence "absolutely outrageous", accusing the Crown of seeking to punish King for the "sum total of the result of the Freedom Convoy."
During his statement, King said he now struggles to find employment and spoke about the harsh conditions he faced while in custody, saying he was "threatened" and "constantly under threats of violence."
King says he owes around $250,000 in legal fees.
While King accepted his guilt, he argued that there was no court injunction against parking trucks on residential streets when he helped organize the protests.
He blamed police for deciding where protesters could park and the media for slandering him.
"I don't want to live in a country where I get 10 years for standing up for what I believe in," King said.
Impact on vulnerable communities
During Thursday's sentencing submissions, Hackland acknowledged the impact the protests had on vulnerable communities.
A victim impact statement was read into the record from a representative of a women's shelter, who described the trauma experienced by those affected by the protests.
"The women expressed, often, that it was like experiencing the abuse all over again," said Sarah Davis, the former executive director of Cornerstone Housing for Women.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
A tale of two convoy trials
Pat King’s courtroom drama differs from Tamara Lich and Chris Barber’s
The three of them once stood side-by-side as road captains of a historic protest.
Now, more than two years after thousands of honking vehicles rolled through Ottawa in what became known as the Freedom Convoy, two narratives are emerging in court — potentially splitting the fates of Pat King, Tamara Lich and Chris Barber.
Factually, they are separate cases. King is being tried alone, whereas Lich and Barber are co-accused in their trial.
And while the two trials share many similarities, including the nature of the charges and some of the fundamental legal arguments being mounted, they've also played out in markedly different ways.
Whereas the joint trial of Lich and Barber drags on, punctuated by starts and stops that have forced the duo to make multiple trips back to Ottawa, the case involving King is more or less running smoothly and on schedule.
Key to both trials is less about what Lich, Barber and King did. The evidence, particularly the statements they made in early 2022, were well-documented on social media and are largely self-explanatory.
At issue instead is the legality of each of their actions. And in both trials, the Crown argues they crossed the line.
But how prosecutors go about making that argument — and how they've been countered by the defence teams — has varied between the two trials.
Chris Barber walks into court on Sept. 5. (Francis Ferland/CBC)
Underpinning those differences is the fact that one case is better funded, more closely scrutinized and arguably more symbolic than the other.
For many convoy supporters, the case against Lich and Barber is about ideas — that the government, in their view, is trying to persecute an entire movement after already trampling the constitutional rights of Canadians when it invoked the Emergencies Act and arrested more than 200 people.
It's why Lich and Barber's defence has the backing of two high-profile civil liberties groups: The Democracy Fund (TDF) and the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JFFC).
Meanwhile King, a more polarizing figure, is largely left to fight his own battle.
His following on social media, some 334,000 strong, is nothing to sneeze at. But among sympathizers, his case is generally seen more as the plight of a single individual.
As such, it's playing out more like the countless other misdemeanor-type trials unfolding in courtrooms across the country.
Pat King arrives for his trial at the Ottawa Courthouse on May 16, 2024. (Spencer Colby/The Canadian Press)
Prosecutor recused himself
Lich and Barber are pleading not guilty to charges of mischief, intimidation and offences related to counselling others to break the law during the massive protests that engulfed downtown streets for more than three weeks in 2022.
One month before the trial was set to begin in August 2023, the lead Crown prosecutor assigned to the case, Moiz Karimjee, recused himself.
According to materials filed in court, Karimjee did so after reading Lich's memoir for trial preparation, which contained "60 references to Moiz Karimjee by name, some of them defamatory."
If Karimjee prosecuted the case, it could have presented a conflict down the line were he to pursue any legal action against Lich.
Tim Radcliffe and his co-counsel were then handed the file, with a little less than a month to prepare for what would be a highly-publicized trial.
And they would have to face off against two of Ottawa's most formidable defence attorneys.
Lawrence Greenspon and Diane Magas — each with at least one additional lawyer accompanying them in court — are both veterans of Ontario courts with extensive experience across the justice spectrum.
They've been supported by fundraisers and donations, much of which continue to be funnelled through TDF and JCCF, entities with deep ties to libertarian and right-wing causes.
Lich, Barber trial slowed by delays
It's been apparent throughout the trial that there would be delays and multiple hiccups for the Crown to overcome.
The trial has extended far beyond the 16 days initially allotted, requiring Lich and Barber to travel back to Ottawa at least four times from Medicine Hat, Alta., and Swift Current, Sask., respectively since the fall.
In opening statements, prosecutors argued Barber and Lich had committed crimes, trying to establish the two as leaders who used their control and influence over supporters to break the law.
But this hinged on the premise that the protests were not at all peaceful – an assertion which prosecutors spent the early days trying to establish through videos, social media posts, police and witness testimonies.
Highlights include Lich's use of the infamous "hold the line" catchphrase, and Barber's exhortations to his audience to "grab that horn switch" and "let it roll as long as possible" if police tried to dislodge them.
Tamara Lich speaks with police liaison officers during the convoy protests in February 2022. (Patrick Doyle/Reuters)
Objections became regular occurrences, however, as lawyers for Barber and Lich tried to poke holes in the Crown's case at every turn — even picking apart choices like using the word "occupation" to describe what happened.
They attempted to show another side of the convoy: a downtown core filled with peace, love and unity — bouncy castles, pig roasts, street hockey and all.
Still, the trial soon became less about the arguments inside the courtroom and more about the stops-and-starts of the process itself.
The defence would file applications to block witnesses, to access additional disclosure, to prevent specific social media evidence from being used and to access third-party records. They found success in some instances. Other efforts were abandoned.
All of it took up valuable court time, gumming up the Crown's efforts to make a clear and concise argument against Barber and Lich.
Through it all, Justice Heather Perkins-McVey has shown a willingness to take great strides to ensure the proceedings are fair. She's been amenable to at least hearing out anything the defence brings up, including the early spectre of the whole case being tossed for delays.
It's likely being done to leave little room for future appeals.
And still, one of the most contentious aspects of this trial remains to be settled. It concerns whether Lich and Barber acted as "co-conspirators," a complicating factor that makes the trial of Pat King seem simple by comparison.
Police move in to clear downtown Ottawa of protesters after weeks of
demonstrations on Feb. 19, 2022. (Cole Burston/The Canadian Press)
King trial on track
King, from Red Deer, Alta., is facing charges of mischief, intimidation, obstructing police, disobeying a court order and other offences for his role in the protest. He has pleaded not guilty to all nine charges.
To pay for his defence, King held a motorcycle rally and sought permission from court prior to his trial to host online fundraisers.
Unlike Lich and Barber, he is not bankrolled by any well-mobilized organization and does not have the resources to afford a long, drawn-out court case.
Nevertheless, he's found an experienced lead counsel in Natasha Calvinho, a familiar face around the Ottawa Courthouse with a reputation for being a strong orator.
Calvinho sought more time last November to review the disclosure she had received from the Crown, which pushed King's trial to May of this year and made him opt for a judge-alone trial to move it along. It was a sign that, with fewer resources available, she would be hard-pressed at times.
On several occasions, she has turned to X, the online platform formerly known as Twitter, to solicit evidence from the public, seemingly reacting to the Crown's case on the fly.
The lead prosecutor in King's trial is none other than Karimjee, the lawyer who recused himself from Lich and Barber's trial.
Within the first two weeks, Karimjee and his co-counsel walked the court through nearly 40 videos of King, marking a significant change in speed at which this case would go.
Like in the Lich-Barber trial, the Crown is trying to establish King as a leader of the protests who used his control and influence to commit many of the crimes he is accused of.
Videos seen in the judge-alone trial include declarations by King he had no intention of leaving the city, even after the federal government called in the RCMP.
"We'll leave when we get the mandates lifted," King said in one such video.
Several Ottawa residents have also testified, with few interruptions. That's allowed the Crown to build a cogent argument that King had intentionally rounded up trucks to clog up downtown and encouraged drivers to honk their horns and disobey police orders to leave.
The defence has pushed back with a different narrative of King's character and actions, but Calvinho never once filed any application to block evidence or alter court proceedings.
All of this means the Crown was able to wrap up its case within nine days, about a third of the time it took prosecutors in Lich and Barber's trial.
Pat King, left, poses for photos in front of Parliament Hill during the
convoy protests in February 2022. (Patrick Doyle/Reuters)
Trials diverging further
The two convoy trials are now technically in the same stage, with the Crown having completed their turn calling witnesses.
However, while testimony is expected to continue in one trial, the other is slated to go straight to closing arguments.
Lich and Barber's lawyers are forgoing their turn to call evidence and witnesses. After devoting considerable energy to objecting the Crown's argument at every turn, the defence team seemed confident in deciding to skip ahead to the final round.
"We've reviewed the evidence that's been tendered by the Crown. It's been all subject to cross-examination," Greenspon said in March.
"We're of the view that there's nothing that really needs to be added or that should be added by the defence to the body of evidence that the Crown has presented."
The
trial of Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, who are seen here in November
2022, is proceeding at a much slower pace than that of fellow convoy
protest organizer Pat King. (Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press)
By contrast, King's lawyer is expected to call a few witnesses, including at least two controversial convoy participants whose testimonies will undoubtedly fall under scrutiny during cross-examinations.
The potential outcomes of the two trials might also look quite different.
In King's case, the Crown has been more outspoken in asserting it wants a roughly five-year sentence for the 46-year-old.
Originally co-accused alongside Tyson "Freedom George" Billings, King went to trial while Billings took a plea deal. Signage around the courthouse still reads "Kings/Billings", but King's co-accused pled out, had charges withdrawn and got time served after being jailed for four months.
When it comes to Lich and Barber, prosecutors have stayed mum, leaving the door open for a reduced sentence for time served in the event of a conviction.
Looming over Lich and Barber's case, too, is another technicality that could derail the entire thing.
Under what's known as a Jordan application, trials must be heard within an established timeline from when charges are laid.
The spectre of the Lich-Barber case being tossed altogether because of court delays is unlikely, but a real one.
Regardless of what happens, Lich and Barber will have more capacity — some might even call luxury — to continue their fight. After all, they're perceived by their financial and moral backers as victims of constitutional rights abuses.
Whereas King's case could potentially wrap ahead of summer, final submissions for the Lich-Barber trial are scheduled for mid-August.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 11:13:09 -0400
Subject: YO Pierre Poilievre Methinks Mario Dion's minions should
remember me N'esy Pas?
To: Philippe.Joly@cie.parl.gc.ca, pierre.poilievre.a3@parl.gc.ca,
michael.chong.a1@parl.gc.ca, David.Lametti.a1@parl.gc.ca,
Jody.Wilson-Raybould.a1@parl.gc.ca, maxime.bernier@parl.gc.ca,
andrew.scheer@parl.gc.ca, charlie.angus@parl.gc.ca,
Amarjeet.Sohi.a1@parl.gc.ca, hannelie.stockenstrom@snclavalin.com,
charles.nieto@snclavalin.com, Hartland.Paterson@snclavalin.com,
PETER.MACKAY@bakermckenzie.com, tony.clement.a1@parl.gc.ca,
scott.bardsley@canada.ca, mcu@justice.gc.ca, JUSTWEB
<JUSTWEB@novascotia.ca>, fiacobucci@torys.com,
justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca, coi@gnb.ca,
MRichard@lawsociety-barreau.nb.ca, David.Eidt@gnb.ca,
Newsroom@globeandmail.com, Jacques.Poitras@cbc.ca,
sfine@globeandmail.com, editorial <editorial@thecanadianpress.com>,
irwincotler@rwchr.org, "darrow.macintyre" <darrow.macintyre@cbc.ca>,
Arif.Virani@parl.gc.ca, Iqra.Khalid@parl.gc.ca,
Ali.Ehsassi@parl.gc.ca, Ron.McKinnon@parl.gc.ca,
Michael.Cooper@parl.gc.ca, dave.mackenzie@parl.gc.ca,
Michael.Barrett@parl.gc.ca, "lisa.raitt" <lisa.raitt@parl.gc.ca>,
rfife <rfife@globeandmail.com>, "David.Akin"
<David.Akin@globalnews.ca>, "steve.murphy" <steve.murphy@ctv.ca>,
joan.bryden@thecanadianpress.com, Marco.Mendicino@parl.gc.ca,
"Carla.Qualtrough" <Carla.Qualtrough@parl.gc.ca>,
pierre-hugues.boisvenu@sen.parl.gc.ca, serge.joyal@sen.parl.gc.ca,
peter.harder@sen.parl.gc.ca, "Beverley.Busson"
<Beverley.Busson@sen.parl.gc.ca>, "kathleen.roussel"
<kathleen.roussel@ppsc-sppc.gc.ca>, "Nathalie.Drouin"
<Nathalie.Drouin@justice.gc.ca>, "hon.ralph.goodale"
<hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca>, "Catherine.Tait"
<Catherine.Tait@cbc.ca>, "Catherine.McKenna"
<Catherine.McKenna@parl.gc.ca>, "Bill.Morneau"
<Bill.Morneau@canada.ca>, "hon.melanie.joly"
<hon.melanie.joly@canada.ca>
Cc: david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com, "Katie.Telford"
<Katie.Telford@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>, "Karen.Ludwig"
<Karen.Ludwig@parl.gc.ca>, "Alaina.Lockhart"
<Alaina.Lockhart@parl.gc.ca>, "Ginette.PetitpasTaylor"
<Ginette.PetitpasTaylor@parl.gc.ca>
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mario-dion-ethics-leave-1.5053442
Ethics watchdog probing SNC-Lavalin affair taking 'prolonged' medical leave
Social Sharing
Mario Dion 'will resume his duties as soon as he is able,' says his office
Catharine Tunney · CBC News · Posted: Mar 12, 2019 3:31 PM ET
1956 Comments
David Amos
@Alex Norris Methinks folk should ask me why this news does not
surprise me Nesy Pas?
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 19:49:09 -0400
Subject: Fwd: Your December 15, 2016 email
To: Michael.Cooper@parl.gc.ca, MP@michaelcoopermp.ca,
"Hon.Dominic.LeBlanc" <Hon.Dominic.LeBlanc@canada.ca>, min
<min@dfo-mpo.gc.ca>, lyse.ricard@sen.parl.gc.ca,
jacques.lalonde@sen.parl.gc.ca, louise.dalphy@sen.parl.gc.ca,
deborah.palumbo@sen.parl.gc.ca, willard.dionne@sen.parl.gc.ca,
rosa.galvez@sen.parl.gc.ca, marc.gold@sen.parl.gc.ca,
Diane.Griffin@sen.parl.gc.ca, peter.harder@sen.parl.gc.ca,
Nancy.Hartling@sen.parl.gc.ca, Frances.Lankin@sen.parl.gc.ca
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, "rona.ambrose"
<rona.ambrose@parl.gc.ca>, leader <leader@greenparty.ca>, MulcaT
<MulcaT@parl.gc.ca>, gopublic <gopublic@cbc.ca>, "steve.murphy"
<steve.murphy@ctv.ca>, oldmaison <oldmaison@yahoo.com>, andre
<andre@jafaust.com>, jbosnitch <jbosnitch@gmail.com>, "leanne.murray"
<leanne.murray@mcinnescooper.com>, "martin.gaudet"
<martin.gaudet@fredericton.ca>, "dan. bussieres"
<dan.bussieres@gnb.ca>, premier <premier@gnb.ca>, "brian.gallant"
<brian.gallant@gnb.ca>, "Jacques.Poitras" <Jacques.Poitras@cbc.ca>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Philippe.Joly@cie.parl.gc.ca
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 16:53:18 +0000
Subject: Your December 15, 2016 email
To: motomaniac333@gmail.com
Good Day Mr. Amos,
Please find attached a self-explanatory letter.
Regards,
Philippe Joly
Enquêteur principal / Senior investigator
Commissariat aux conflits d'intérêts et à l'éthique / Office of the
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Parlement du Canada / Parliament of Canada
66 rue Slater, 22e étage, Ottawa (Ontario) K1A 0A6
Téléphone : 613-996-6012 Télécopieur / Fax : 613-995-7308
Courriel / Email :
philippe.joly@cie.parl.gc.ca<mailto:philippe.joly@cie.parl.gc.ca>
________________________________
This communication, and any files or attachments transmitted with it,
is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which or
to whom it is addressed. This communication may contain information
that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under
applicable law. If you have received this communication in error,
please notify the sender by return email, telephone or fax
immediately, and delete this communication and destroy all copies. We
thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Cette communication, ainsi que tout fichier ou toute pièce qui y est
joint, est à l'intention du destinataire seulement. Cette
communication peut contenir des renseignements protégés, confidentiels
et soustraits à la divulgation en vertu de la loi applicable. Si vous
avez reçu ce message par erreur, vous êtes prié d'en aviser
immédiatement l'expéditeur par courriel, téléphone ou télécopieur, et
d'effacer la communication et d'éliminer toute copie. Nous vous
remercions de votre collaboration.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 06:12:41 -0400
Subject: Re: : DAVID RAYMOND AMOS v. HMQ - COURT FILE NO.: A-48-16 ,
Attn Lorri Warner have you and your bosses talked the RCMP and the FBI
YET???
To: NotificationPGC-AGC.Civil@justice.gc.ca, "jan.jensen"
<jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca>, "lorri.warner"
<lorri.warner@justice.gc.ca>, "clare.barry"
<clare.barry@justice.gc.ca>, "Nathalie.Drouin"
<Nathalie.Drouin@justice.gc.ca>, "daniel.gosselin"
<daniel.gosselin@cas-satj.gc.ca>, "andrew.baumberg"
<andrew.baumberg@fct-cf.gc.ca>, "Bruce.Preston"
<Bruce.Preston@cas-satj.gc.ca>, ethics-ethique@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, "hon.ralph.goodale"
<hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca>, "Liliana.Longo"
<Liliana.Longo@justice.ca>, "Brenda.Lucki"
<Brenda.Lucki@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Frank.McKenna" <Frank.McKenna@td.com>,
"Larry.Tremblay" <Larry.Tremblay@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Liliana.Longo"
<Liliana.Longo@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, mcu <mcu@justice.gc.ca>,
"Jody.Wilson-Raybould" <Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca>,
"David.Lametti" <David.Lametti@parl.gc.ca>, "Mark.Blakely"
<Mark.Blakely@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Gilles.Blinn"
<Gilles.Blinn@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, washington field
<washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, "Boston.Mail" <Boston.Mail@ic.fbi.gov>,
Newsroom <Newsroom@globeandmail.com>, "brian.gallant"
<brian.gallant@gnb.ca>, "blaine.higgs" <blaine.higgs@gnb.ca>,
"David.Coon" <David.Coon@gnb.ca>, "kris.austin" <kris.austin@gnb.ca>,
"Gilles.Cote" <Gilles.Cote@gnb.ca>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Drouin, Nathalie (BRQ)" <Nathalie.Drouin@justice.gc.ca>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 10:07:03 +0000
Subject: Réponse automatique : RE:: DAVID RAYMOND AMOS v. HMQ - COURT
FILE NO.: A-48-16 , Attn Lorri Warner have you and your bosses talked
the RCMP and the FBI YET???
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Veuillez noter que je suis absente jusqu'au 25 janvier 2019, avec
accès limité à mes courriels. Pour toute question qui ne peut
attendre mon retour, je vous invite à communiquer avec mon adjointe
Irène Ghobril au 514-283-5687. Merci.
Please note that I am away until January 25, 2019, with limited access
to my e-mails. For assistance, please contact Irène Ghobril at
514-283-5687. Thank you.
NOTIFICATION ÉLECTRONIQUE: NotificationPGC-AGC.Civil@justice.gc.ca
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 10:07:59 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: RE:: DAVID RAYMOND AMOS v. HMQ - COURT FILE
NO.: A-48-16 , Attn Lorri Warner have you and your bosses talked the
RCMP and the FBI YET???
To: motomaniac333@gmail.com
Thank you for writing to the Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, Member
of Parliament for Vancouver Granville.
This message is to acknowledge that we are in receipt of your email.
Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence, there
may be a delay in processing your email. Rest assured that your
message will be carefully reviewed.
To help us address your concerns more quickly, please include within
the body of your email your full name, address, and postal code.
Thank you
-------------------
Merci d'?crire ? l'honorable Jody Wilson-Raybould, d?put?e de
Vancouver Granville.
Le pr?sent message vise ? vous informer que nous avons re?u votre
courriel. En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de
correspondance, il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de
votre courriel. Sachez que votre message sera examin? attentivement.
Pour nous aider ? r?pondre ? vos pr?occupations plus rapidement,
veuillez inclure dans le corps de votre courriel votre nom complet,
votre adresse et votre code postal.
Merci
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Newsroom <newsroom@globeandmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 10:09:12 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: RE:: DAVID RAYMOND AMOS v. HMQ - COURT FILE
NO.: A-48-16 , Attn Lorri Warner have you and your bosses talked the
RCMP and the FBI YET???
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Thank you for contacting The Globe and Mail.
If your matter pertains to newspaper delivery or you require technical
support, please contact our Customer Service department at
1-800-387-5400 or send an email to customerservice@globeandmail.com
If you are reporting a factual error please forward your email to
publiceditor@globeandmail.com<mailto:publiceditor@globeandmail.com>
Letters to the Editor can be sent to letters@globeandmail.com
This is the correct email address for requests for news coverage and
press releases.
On 1/23/19, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [22] Mr. Amos also included with his submissions a CD. He
>> stated in his affidavit dated June 26, 2017 that there is a “true copy
>> of an American police surveillance wiretap entitled 139” on this CD.
>> He has also indicated that he has “provided a true copy of the CD
>> entitled 139 to many American and Canadian law enforcement authorities
>> and not one of the police forces or officers of the court are willing
>> to investigate it”. Since he has indicated that this is an “American
>> police surveillance wiretap”, this is a matter for the American law
>> enforcement authorities and cannot create, as Mr. Amos suggests, a
>> conflict of interest for any judge to whom he provides a copy.
>>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> [30] The Judge determined that he could not strike the Claim
>> on the same jurisdictional basis as the Prothonotary. The Judge noted
>> that the Federal Court has jurisdiction over claims based on the
>> liability of Federal Crown servants like the RCMP and that the actors
>> who barred Mr. Amos from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004
>> included the RCMP (Federal Court Judgment at para. 23). In considering
>> the viability of these allegations de novo, the Judge identified
>> paragraph 14 of the Claim as containing “some precision” as it
>> identifies the date of the event and a RCMP officer acting as
>> Aide-de-Camp to the Lieutenant Governor (Federal Court Judgment at
>> para. 27).
>>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Ministerial Correspondence Unit - Justice Canada <mcu@justice.gc.ca>
> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 17:58:23 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: C'yall in Court
> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
> Thank you for writing to the Honourable David Lametti, Minister of
> Justice and Attorney General of Canada.
>
> Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence
> addressed to the Minister, please note that there may be a delay in
> processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be
> carefully reviewed.
>
> -------------------
>
> Merci d'avoir écrit à l'honorable David Lametti, ministre de la
> Justice et procureur général du Canada.
>
> En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de la correspondance
> adressée à la ministre, veuillez prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir
> un retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Nous tenons à vous
> assurer que votre message sera lu avec soin.
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Warner, Lorri <lorri.warner@justice.gc.ca>,
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 5:45 AM
> To: mailto:david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
> Cc: Jensen, Jan <jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca>,
> Subject: DAVID RAYMOND AMOS v. HMQ - COURT FILE NO.: A-48-16
>
> Good morning Mr. Amos
>
>
>
> Please find attached correspondence on behalf of Jan Jensen.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
>
> Lorri Warner
>
>
>
> Legal Assistant
>
> Atlantic Regional Office
>
> Suite 1400, Duke Tower
>
> 5251 Duke Street
>
> Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 1P3
>
> National Litigation Sector
>
> Department of Justice Canada
>
> Government of Canada
>
>
>
> lorri.warner@justice.gc.ca
>
> tel: (902) 407-7461
>
> fax: (902) 426-2329
>
>
>
>
>
> This communication contains information that may be
> confidential, exempt from disclosure, subject to litigation privilege
> or protected by the privilege that exists between lawyers or notaries
> and their clients. If you are not the intended recipient, you should
> not read, rely on, retain, or distribute it. Please delete or
> otherwise destroy this communication and all copies of it immediately,
> and contact the sender at (902) 407-7461 or by email at
> lorri.warner@justice.gc.ca.
>
>
>
>
> Lorri Warner
>
>
>
> Assistante Juridique
>
> Bureau régional de l’Atlantique
>
> pièce 1400, tour Duke
>
> 5251 rue Duke
>
> Halifax (Nouvelle-Écosse) B3J 1P3
>
> Secteur national du contentieux
>
> Ministère de la Justice Canada
>
> Gouvernement du Canada
>
>
>
> lorri.warner@justice.gc.ca
>
> tél : (902) 407-7461
>
> téléc : (902) 426-2329
>
>
>
>
>
> Ce message contient des renseignements qui pourraient être
> confidentiels, soustraits à la communication, ou protégés par le
> privilège relatif au litige ou par le secret professionnel liant
> l’avocat ou le notaire à son client. S’il ne vous est pas destiné,
> vous êtes priés de ne pas le lire, l’utiliser, le conserver ou le
> diffuser. Veuillez sans tarder le supprimer et en détruire toute
> copie, et communiquer avec l’expéditeur au (902) 407-7461 ou par
> courriel à lorri.warner@justice.gc.ca.
>
>
>
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>
>
>
>
>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 06:13:01 -0400
Subject: YO Larry Campbell It aint over til the fat lady sings about
what is on the Yankee wiretap tapes Nesy Pas?
To: "Campbell, Larry W" <Larry.Campbell@sen.parl.gc.ca>,
"Larry.Tremblay" <Larry.Tremblay@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Gilles.Blinn"
<Gilles.Blinn@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "PETER.MACKAY"
<PETER.MACKAY@bakermckenzie.com>, "peter.harder"
<peter.harder@sen.parl.gc.ca>, "hon.ralph.goodale"
<hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca>, "Frank.McKenna" <Frank.McKenna@td.com>
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>, "Brenda.Lucki"
<Brenda.Lucki@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, washington field
<washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, "Boston.Mail" <Boston.Mail@ic.fbi.gov>,
"Liliana.Longo" <Liliana.Longo@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Dale.Morgan"
<Dale.Morgan@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "andrew.scheer"
<andrew.scheer@parl.gc.ca>, "maxime.bernier"
<maxime.bernier@parl.gc.ca>, "Mark.Blakely"
<Mark.Blakely@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "martin.gaudet"
<martin.gaudet@fredericton.ca>, "Leanne.Fitch"
<Leanne.Fitch@fredericton.ca>
On 3/13/19, Campbell, Larry W <Larry.Campbell@sen.parl.gc.ca> wrote:
> I expected nothing les from a loser.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Mar 13, 2019, at 1:55 PM, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/13/19, Campbell, Larry W <Larry.Campbell@sen.parl.gc.ca> wrote:
>>> Yo David Amos. Go bother someone else and seek help for your obvious
>>> problems. No reply necessary.
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>> On Mar 13, 2019, at 12:33 PM, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Biography
>>>>
>>>> Born and raised in Brantford, Ontario, Campbell became a steelworker
>>>> in Hamilton in the 1960s. In his first career move, he joined the
>>>> Royal Canadian Mounted Police and was transferred to Vancouver in
>>>> 1969, later joining the RCMP drug squad in 1973.
>>>>
>>>> After more than a decade with the RCMP, Campbell transitioned into
>>>> death investigation, establishing Vancouver’s first District Coroner’s
>>>> Office in 1981 and becoming the Chief Coroner for British Columbia in
>>>> 1996. In this capacity, he became the inspiration behind the popular
>>>> CBC drama Da Vinci’s Inquest, as well as its spin-off, Da Vinci’s City
>>>> Hall.
>>>>
>>>> In 2002 he was elected Mayor by the citizens of Vancouver under the
>>>> banner of the Coalition of Progressive Electors (COPE). Mayor Campbell
>>>> spearheaded the approval and establishment of North America’s first
>>>> legal safe injection site and continued to champion the Four Pillars
>>>> Drug strategy. In addition to drug and crime prevention, he was also
>>>> instrumental in the successful Vancouver bid to host the 2010 Winter
>>>> Olympic and Paralympic Games; and the redevelopment of the Woodlands
>>>> site.
>>>>
>>>> In August 2005, Campbell was summoned to the Senate of Canada by Prime
>>>> Minister Paul Martin. As a Senator, Campbell has continued his work on
>>>> drug policy, mental health, and aboriginal issues.
>>>>
>>>> In 2009, Campbell co-authored a book titled A Thousand Dreams:
>>>> Vancouver's Downtown Eastside and the Fight for its Future with Neil
>>>> Boyd and Lori Culbert.
>>>>
>>>> He holds a Master’s Degree in Business Administration (MBA) from City
>>>> University in Vancouver.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>>> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 15:10:25 -0400
>>>> Subject: Bev Busson should not deny that I called again
>>>> To: "Bev.Busson" <Bev.Busson@sen.parl.gc.ca>, "hon.ralph.goodale"
>>>> <hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca>, Newsroom <Newsroom@globeandmail.com>,
>>>> "Frank.McKenna" <Frank.McKenna@td.com>
>>>> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
>>>> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 13:02:40 -0400
>>>> Subject: I read the news today about the RCMP lawsuits and just shook
>>>> my head at the malicious nonsense but when Guy Versailles laughed at
>>>> me I got truly pissed off
>>>> To: gversailles@merlodavidson.ca, Hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca,
>>>> washington.field@ic.fbi.gov, Boston.Mail@ic.fbi.gov,
>>>> clare.barry@justice.gc.ca, Gib.vanErt@scc-csc.ca,
>>>> andrew.scheer@parl.gc.ca, maxime.bernier@parl.gc.ca,
>>>> Erin.Weir@parl.gc.ca, bill.pentney@justice.gc.ca,
>>>> jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca, Nathalie.Drouin@justice.gc.ca,
>>>> Hon.Chrystia.Freeland@canada.ca, Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca,
>>>> complaints@crcc-ccetp.gc.ca, attorneygeneral@ontario.ca,
>>>> matthew.giovinazzo@ontario.ca, martin.gaudet@fredericton.ca,
>>>> Leanne.Fitch@fredericton.ca, ian.fahie@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
>>>> premier@ontario.ca, daniel.gosselin@cas-satj.gc.ca,
>>>> andrew.baumberg@fct-cf.gc.ca, Bruce.Preston@cas-satj.gc.ca,
>>>> Beatriz.Winter@cas-satj.gc.ca, warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
>>>> Gilles.Moreau@forces.gc.ca, Jonathan.Vance@forces.gc.ca,
>>>> Gilles.Blinn@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, mark.vespucci@ci.irs.gov,
>>>> Mark.Blakely@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, Dominic.Cardy@gnb.ca, greg.byrne@gnb.ca,
>>>> Gerald.Butts@pmo-cpm.gc.ca, pm@pm.gc.ca, Katie.Telford@pmo-cpm.gc.ca,
>>>> David.Coon@gnb.ca, robert.gauvin@gnb.ca, kris.austin@gnb.ca,
>>>> Gilles.Cote@gnb.ca, dan.bussieres@gnb.ca, oldmaison@yahoo.com,
>>>> andre@jafaust.com, jbosnitch@gmail.com, birgitta@this.is,
>>>> birgittajoy@gmail.com, editor@wikileaks.org,
>>>> ed.pilkington@guardian.co.uk, djtjr@trumporg.com,
>>>> Beverley.Busson@sen.parl.gc.ca, Guy.Bujold@crcc-ccetp.gc.ca,
>>>> Lesley.McCoy@crcc-ccetp.gc.ca, Karen.Leibovici@crcc-ccetp.gc.ca,
>>>> complaints@cpc-cpp.gc.ca
>>>> Cc: motomaniac333@gmail.com, David.Raymond.Amos@gmail.com,
>>>> catharine.tunney@cbc.ca, Newsroom@globeandmail.com,
>>>> john.kulik@mcinnescooper.com, Frank.McKenna@td.com,
>>>> blaine.higgs@gnb.ca, brian.gallant@gnb.ca
>>>>
>>>> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-merlo-davidson-settlement-money-1.4905758
>>>>
>>>> RCMP's sexual harassment suit bigger and more expensive than predicted
>>>>
>>>> Mounties expected 1,000 claims in Merlo-Davidson settlement — so far,
>>>> they've got 3,131
>>>> Catharine Tunney · CBC News · Posted: Nov 20, 2018 4:00 AM ET
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Guy Versailles, a spokesperson for the assessor's office, said the
>>>> office isn't ready to provide a breakdown of how many claimants have
>>>> been assessed at each level so far.
>>>>
>>>> "We do not give numbers beyond those on our website. Complete
>>>> breakdown by categories will be given in our final report," he said in
>>>> an email to CBC News.
>>>>
>>>> Versailles said the assessor's office expects it will take another 18
>>>> to 20 months to process all the claims.
>>>>
>>>> The RCMP could be on the hook for even more money if a second class
>>>> action is approved. Earlier this year, lawyers for two veteran male
>>>> RCMP officers filed a $1.1 billion class action claim in federal court
>>>> that seeks compensation for thousands of past and present employees
>>>> for what they claim is widespread "bullying, harassment and
>>>> intimidation."
>>>>
>>>> https://merlodavidson.ca/en/contact-us/
>>>>
>>>> Office of the Independent Assessor
>>>> 130 Albert Street
>>>> Suite 1103
>>>> Ottawa (ON)
>>>> K1P 5G4
>>>>
>>>> For the media:
>>>> Guy Versailles (514) 386-9774
>>>> gversailles@merlodavidson.ca
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: Complaints <complaints@crcc-ccetp.gc.ca>
>>>> Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 20:33:51 +0000
>>>> Subject: RE: Attn Madame Mulroney say hey to sneaky assiant Nabeel and
>>>> your many Crown Counsels for me will ya?
>>>> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> Good afternoon David Amos,
>>>>
>>>> The Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP (the
>>>> "Commission") is in receipt of your three emails of October 29, thank
>>>> you.
>>>>
>>>> Your emails were thoroughly reviewed, but no information on a new
>>>> public complaint against a member of the RCMP could be located. The
>>>> only RCMP interaction about which you may have wanted to lodge a
>>>> complaint which was identified, appears to have occurred in 2004, when
>>>> RCMP members removed you from the New Brunswick legislature. Due to
>>>> the time which has passed, and your several opportunities to bring
>>>> this up with Commission staff in the past (and with staff from the
>>>> Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP, which the current
>>>> Commission replaces), a public complaint will not be accepted
>>>> regarding this incident.
>>>>
>>>> Should you have a complaint you would like to make regarding the
>>>> conduct of an on-duty RCMP member, for an incident occurring within
>>>> the last year, the Commission invites you to submit a complaint using
>>>> our online complaint form at
>>>> https://www.crcc-ccetp.gc.ca/en/make-complaint-form. Alternatively,
>>>> you may contact our Intake Office at our toll-free number listed
>>>> below.
>>>>
>>>> Your October 29th emails will be kept on file for information purposes
>>>> only.
>>>>
>>>> Respectfully,
>>>>
>>>> Intake Office, Operations
>>>> Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP / Government of
>>>> Canada
>>>> complaints@crcc-ccetp.gc.ca / Tel: 1-800-665-6878
>>>>
>>>> Bureau de réception des plaintes, Opérations
>>>> Commission civile d’examen et de traitement des plaintes relatives à
>>>> la GRC / Gouvernement du Canada
>>>> plaintes@crcc-ccetp.gc.ca / Tél : 1-800-665-6878
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>>> Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 08:39:12 -0400
>>>> Subject: ATT Guy Bujold RE The Commission for Public Complaints
>>>> against RCMP - #2013-2824 Why did your people lie to me AGAIN
>>>> yesterday?
>>>> To: Guy.Bujold@crcc-ccetp.gc.ca, Lesley.McCoy@crcc-ccetp.gc.ca,
>>>> Karen.Leibovici@crcc-ccetp.gc.ca, complaints@cpc-cpp.gc.ca,
>>>> "Brenda.Lucki" <Brenda.Lucki@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "hon.ralph.goodale"
>>>> <hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca>, "Gunther.Schonfeldt"
>>>> <Gunther.Schonfeldt@crcc-ccetp.gc.ca>, Newsroom
>>>> <Newsroom@globeandmail.com>, gopublic <gopublic@cbc.ca>, Whistleblower
>>>> <Whistleblower@ctv.ca>
>>>> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, "ian.mcphail"
>>>> <ian.mcphail@crcc-ccetp.gc.ca>, "Kevin.leahy"
>>>> <Kevin.leahy@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Stephen.Horsman"
>>>> <Stephen.Horsman@gnb.ca>, "Larry.Tremblay"
>>>> <Larry.Tremblay@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, erin.seeds@justice.gc.ca, mcu
>>>> <mcu@justice.gc.ca>, "Jody.Wilson-Raybould"
>>>> <Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca>, "bill.pentney"
>>>> <bill.pentney@justice.gc.ca>, "jan.jensen" <jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca>,
>>>> "david.hansen" <david.hansen@justice.gc.ca>, "Bill.Morneau"
>>>> <Bill.Morneau@canada.ca>, lkelly <lkelly@nam.org>, ptolsdorf
>>>> <ptolsdorf@nam.org>, washington field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>,
>>>> "Boston.Mail" <Boston.Mail@ic.fbi.gov>
>>>>
>>>> http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.com/2018/07/ian-mcphail-chairman-of-civilian-review.html
>>>>
>>>> Thursday, 5 July 2018
>>>>
>>>> Ian McPhail, chairman of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission
>>>> for the RCMP, has left the post to resume his law practice
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Original message ----------
>>>> From: PCC Complaints <complaints@cpc-cpp.gc.ca>
>>>> Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 15:48:26 +0000
>>>> Subject: RE: Re Call from 613 995 3466 Please view Pdf file hereto
>>>> attached
>>>> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>>> Cc: PCC Complaints
>>>>
>>>> Dear Mr. Amos,
>>>>
>>>> This will acknowledge receipt of the documents you sent to this office
>>>> and to advise you that I was unable to identify specific issues
>>>> related to the conduct of an RCMP member. I am, therefore, writing to
>>>> clarify for you the mandate of the Commission for Public Complaints
>>>> Against the RCMP.
>>>>
>>>> This Commission was established by Parliament to oversee the public
>>>> policing activities of the RCMP. Part VII of the Royal Canadian
>>>> Mounted Police Act (“RCMP Act”) describes the mandate of this
>>>> Commission. Its mandate is to review “the conduct, in performance of
>>>> any duty or function under the [RCMP] Act, of any member [of the RCMP]
>>>> …” Taken as a whole, the concerns outlined in your letter do not
>>>> appear to qualify as conduct of the RCMP in the performance of a duty
>>>> or function under the Act and, therefore, do not fall within this
>>>> Commission’s mandate.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As a result, this Commission has no role to play in resolving the
>>>> issues you have raised in your letter. Accordingly, we will be unable
>>>> to process your concerns as a public complaint under Part VII of the
>>>> RCMP Act.
>>>>
>>>> If your intention is to submit a complaint regarding the on-duty
>>>> conduct of a member(s) of the RCMP, you will need to provide specific
>>>> details, such as the date, time and city of each incident, names of
>>>> the members you wish to complain about and the details of the improper
>>>> conduct as it relates to each of them.
>>>>
>>>> You can do so through our online complaint form located at:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cpc-cpp.gc.ca/cnt/srv/mac/index-eng.aspx
>>>>
>>>> Alternatively, we can also be reached by:
>>>>
>>>> E-mail: complaints@cpc-cpp.gc.ca
>>>> Fax : 604-501-4095
>>>> Telephone : 1-800-665-6878
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>> Tammy Wright
>>>> A/Intake Officer / Agent d’Information de Liaison
>>>> Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP | Commission des
>>>> plaintes du public contre la GRC
>>>> Tel/Tél : (604) 501-4080 | Fax/Téléc : (604) 501-4095
>>>> complaints@cpc-cpp.gc.ca
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: David Amos [mailto:motomaniac333@gmail.com]
>>>> Sent: July-17-14 11:50 AM
>>>> To: general@oic-ci.gc.ca; ORG; MulcaT; leader; justin.trudeau.a1; pm;
>>>> Mackap; steven.blaney
>>>> Cc: david.hansen; David Amos; Marianne.Ryan; mclellana
>>>> Subject: Fwd: Re Call from 613 995 3466 Please view Pdf file hereto
>>>> attached
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>>> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 12:23:52 -0600
>>>> Subject: Re: Re Call from 613 995 3466 Please view Pdf file hereto
>>>> attached
>>>> To: "Seeds, Erin" <Erin.Seeds@justice.gc.ca>
>>>> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> Cya'll in Court then
>>>>
>>>> On 7/17/14, Seeds, Erin <Erin.Seeds@justice.gc.ca> wrote:
>>>> > Mr. Amos,
>>>> >
>>>> > I have no means of retaining these documents until you submit your
>>>> request.
>>>> > You will see when you get to the website, that you can attach
>>>> relevant
>>>> > documents to your request. Please do so at that time. Please also
>>>> note that
>>>> > the Access to Information Office is only capable of providing
>>>> records
>>>> held
>>>> > at the Department of Justice. We have no investigative powers and
>>>> while we
>>>> > do not dismiss your concerns, we have no means of taking action
>>>> on them. Any
>>>> > documents you provide will be used only to better fulfill the
>>>> Access
>>>> to
>>>> > Information or Personal Information requests you submit them with.
>>>> Below is
>>>> > a list of offices that may be better suited to investigate your
>>>> concerns:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
>>>> > 30 Victoria Street
>>>> > Gatineau, Quebec
>>>> > K1A 1H3
>>>> > Toll-free: 1-800-282-1376
>>>> > Phone: (819) 994-5444
>>>> > Fax: (819) 994-5424
>>>> > http://www.priv.gc.ca/cu-cn/index_e.asp
>>>> >
>>>> > Office of the Information Commissioner
>>>> > 30 Victoria Street
>>>> > Gatineau, Québec K1A 1H3
>>>> > Tel: 1-800-267-0441
>>>> > Fax: 819-994-1768
>>>> > For general enquiries e-mail: general@oic-ci.gc.ca
>>>> >
>>>> > Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP
>>>> > National Intake Office
>>>> > P.O. Box 88689
>>>> > Surrey, BC V3W 0X1
>>>> > From anywhere in Canada: 1-800-665-6878
>>>> > org@cpc-cpp.gc.ca
>>>> >
>>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>>> > From: David Amos [mailto:motomaniac333@gmail.com]
>>>> > Sent: 2014-Jul-17 1:37 PM
>>>> > To: Seeds, Erin
>>>> > Cc: David Amos
>>>> > Subject: Re: Re Call from 613 995 3466 Please view Pdf file hereto
>>>> attached
>>>> >
>>>> > Yes Please (I just called as well). I did not fill out a form yet
>>>> >
>>>> > However I have asked the various Justice Ministers on the phone
>>>> and
>>>> in
>>>> > writing about my files since Irwin Cotler had the job Not one soul
>>>> has
>>>> > ever responded ethically until you did today. Thankyou for that
>>>> >
>>>> > Best regards
>>>> > Dave Raymond Amos
>>>> >
>>>> > On 7/17/14, Seeds, Erin <Erin.Seeds@justice.gc.ca> wrote:
>>>> >> Thank you Mr. Amos. Do you want me to attach this to your
>>>> personal
>>>> >> information request? I haven't seen of your request yet; did
>>>> you
>>>> submit
>>>> >> it
>>>> >> to Justice on the website I mentioned?
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Erin Seeds
>>>> >> Junior ATIP Analyst
>>>> >> Jusctice Canada
>>>> >> Phone: 613-941-4189
>>>> >> erin.seeds@justice.gc.ca
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Original message ----------
>>>> From: PCC Complaints <complaints@cpc-cpp.gc.ca>
>>>> Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 17:59:52 +0000
>>>> Subject: The Commission for Public Complaints against RCMP - #2013-2824
>>>> To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com" <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> Dear Mr. Amos:
>>>>
>>>> This is further to your recent communications with the Commission.
>>>> From September 18, 2013 to the present, our office has received 6
>>>> electronic messages from you. Many of these e-mails are not related to
>>>> RCMP conduct.
>>>>
>>>> On October 1, 2013, you called our office and spoke with an Intake
>>>> Officer. You wished to enquire about three complaint files. When the
>>>> Intake Officer attempted to inform you that you have three enquiry
>>>> files with the Commission, you became agitated and insisted otherwise.
>>>> You raised your voice and spoke over the Intake Officer. You then
>>>> demanded the name of the Intake Officer, and subsequently yelled "see
>>>> you in federal court" and hung up the telephone line.
>>>>
>>>> As a reminder, we request that all future correspondence with our
>>>> office must be courteous in tone and that you are respectful of the
>>>> requests that are made of you. While it is clearly not the intention
>>>> of the Commission to prevent you from making complaints against
>>>> members of the RCMP, your recent emails and telephone call have been
>>>> unproductive for both you and for Commission staff. In the future, we
>>>> request that all communication with our office be respectful in
>>>> language and related to our mandate. In the event that this request
>>>> is not respected, the Commission will consider imposing restrictions
>>>> on how you may communicate with our office.
>>>>
>>>> Should you have a complaint about a specific RCMP member surrounding a
>>>> specific incident, I invite you to visit the Commission's website
>>>> (www.cpc-cpp.gc.ca<http://www.cpc-cpp.gc.ca>) to submit an online
>>>> complaint, rather than to send an email that is difficult to follow or
>>>> a copy of a letter you have sent to many others. The complaint form
>>>> will guide you through the information required that will enable the
>>>> Commission to process your complaint. Should you have difficulty in
>>>> accessing the complaint form and wish to have one sent to you, you may
>>>> provide your mailing address and a form will be mailed to you via
>>>> Canada Post.
>>>>
>>>> I would also invite you to send your correspondence regarding any new
>>>> or existing complaints (quoting the appropriate Commission file
>>>> number) by letter mail to:
>>>>
>>>> Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP
>>>> National Intake Office
>>>> PO Box 88689
>>>> Surrey, BC V3W 0X1
>>>>
>>>> Yours truly,
>>>>
>>>> Günther Schönfeldt
>>>> Intake Officer / Agent d'information de liaison
>>>> Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP /
>>>> Commission des plaintes du public contre la Gendarmerie royale du
>>>> Canada
>>>> Tel/Tél : 1-800-665-6878 | Fax/Téléc : (604) 501-4095
>>>> complaints@cpc-cpp.gc.ca<mailto:complaints@cpc-cpp.gc.ca>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [Description: Description: cid:image001.jpg@01CCF6DA.65AE7FE0]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Original message ----------
>>>> From: PCC Complaints <complaints@cpc-cpp.gc.ca>
>>>> Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 21:14:53 +0000
>>>> Subject: RE: Oh my did theOffice of the Mayor of High River piss me
>>>> off today EH Staff Sgt Ian Shardlow? Say Hey to Ms Smith at the
>>>> Townhall Meeting tonight for me will ya...
>>>> To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com" <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> Hello Mr. Amos:
>>>>
>>>> This e-mail is to acknowledge your recent communication with our
>>>> office about the RCMP.
>>>>
>>>> If you wish to submit a complaint regarding the on-duty conduct of a
>>>> member(s) of the RCMP, you can do so through our online complaint form
>>>> located at:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.cpc-cpp.gc.ca/cnt/srv/mac/index-eng.aspx
>>>>
>>>> Alternatively, we can also be reached by:
>>>>
>>>> Telephone : 1-800-665-6878
>>>> E-mail: complaints@cpc-cpp.gc.ca
>>>>
>>>> Fax : 604-501-4095
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>
>>>> Günther Schönfeldt
>>>>
>>>> Intake Officer / Agent d'information de liaison
>>>> Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP /
>>>> Commission des plaintes du public contre la Gendarmerie royale du
>>>> Canada
>>>> Tel/Tél : 1-800-665-6878 | Fax/Téléc : (604) 501-4095
>>>>
>>>> complaints@cpc-cpp.gc.ca
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>>> Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 11:38:58 -0400
>>>> Subject: ATTN Senator Bev Busson I just called your office to make
>>>> certain that you would remember me
>>>> To: Beverley.Busson@sen.parl.gc.ca, "Brenda.Lucki"
>>>> <Brenda.Lucki@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
>>>> "serge.rousselle" <serge.rousselle@gnb.ca>, "Stephen.Horsman"
>>>> <Stephen.Horsman@gnb.ca>, "hon.ralph.goodale"
>>>> <hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca>, "Gilles.Blinn"
>>>> <Gilles.Blinn@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Mark.Blakely"
>>>> <Mark.Blakely@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Dale.Morgan"
>>>> <Dale.Morgan@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "dale.drummond"
>>>> <dale.drummond@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Ian.McPhail"
>>>> <Ian.McPhail@cpc-cpp.gc.ca>, "Larry.Tremblay"
>>>> <Larry.Tremblay@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, washington field
>>>> <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, "Boston.Mail" <Boston.Mail@ic.fbi.gov>,
>>>> "martin.gaudet" <martin.gaudet@fredericton.ca>, "Leanne.Fitch"
>>>> <Leanne.Fitch@fredericton.ca>, "ian.fahie" <ian.fahie@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>,
>>>> "ian.mcphail" <ian.mcphail@crcc-ccetp.gc.ca>, "Frank.McKenna"
>>>> <Frank.McKenna@td.com>, "brian.gallant" <brian.gallant@gnb.ca>,
>>>> "blaine.higgs" <blaine.higgs@gnb.ca>, "Dominic.Cardy"
>>>> <Dominic.Cardy@gnb.ca>, "greg.byrne" <greg.byrne@gnb.ca>,
>>>> "Gerald.Butts" <Gerald.Butts@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>, pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>,
>>>> "Katie.Telford" <Katie.Telford@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>, "andrew.scheer"
>>>> <andrew.scheer@parl.gc.ca>, "maxime.bernier"
>>>> <maxime.bernier@parl.gc.ca>, "charlie.angus"
>>>> <charlie.angus@parl.gc.ca>, "Murray.Rankin" <Murray.Rankin@parl.gc.ca>
>>>> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, Newsroom
>>>> <Newsroom@globeandmail.com>, news <news@kingscorecord.com>, news
>>>> <news@dailygleaner.com>
>>>>
>>>> Please enjoy the attachment and say Hey to Ralph Goodale and Frank
>>>> McKenna for me will ya?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: "Hon.Ralph.Goodale (PS/SP)" <Hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca>
>>>> Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 15:27:06 +0000
>>>> Subject: Automatic reply: ATTN Senator Bev Busson Remember me?
>>>> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> Merci d'avoir ?crit ? l'honorable Ralph Goodale, ministre de la
>>>> S?curit? publique et de la Protection civile.
>>>> En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de la correspondance
>>>> adress?e au ministre, veuillez prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir un
>>>> retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Soyez assur? que votre
>>>> message sera examin? avec attention.
>>>> Merci!
>>>> L'Unit? de la correspondance minist?rielle
>>>> S?curit? publique Canada
>>>> *********
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for writing to the Honourable Ralph Goodale, Minister of
>>>> Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.
>>>> Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence
>>>> addressed to the Minister, please note there could be a delay in
>>>> processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be
>>>> carefully reviewed.
>>>> Thank you!
>>>> Ministerial Correspondence Unit
>>>> Public Safety Canada
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/9/18, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Senator Bev Busson
>>>>> Province: British Columbia (British Columbia)
>>>>> Affiliation: Non-affiliated
>>>>> Telephone: 613-944-3453
>>>>> Fax: 613-992-7959
>>>>> Email: Beverley.Busson@sen.parl.gc.ca
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vugUalUO8YY
>>>>>
>>>>> RCMP Sussex New Brunswick
>>>>> 1,995 views
>>>>> David Amos
>>>>> Published on Apr 4, 2013
>>>>> January 30, 2007
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> WITHOUT PREJUDICE
>>>>>
>>>>> Mr. David Amos
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Mr. Amos:
>>>>>
>>>>> This will acknowledge receipt of a copy of your e-mail of December 29,
>>>>> 2006 to Corporal Warren McBeath of the RCMP.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because of the nature of the allegations made in your message, I have
>>>>> taken the measure of forwarding a copy to Assistant Commissioner Steve
>>>>> Graham of the RCMP °J" Division in Fredericton.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>
>>>>> Honourable Michael B. Murphy
>>>>> Minister of Health
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> CM/cb
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> CLEARLY THE RCMP/GRC AND THE KPMG PALS DO NOT KNOW
>>>>>
>>>>> HOW TO READ LET ALONE COUNT BEANS EH?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Warren McBeath warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:34:53 -0500
>>>>> From: "Warren McBeath" warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>>>>> To: kilgoursite@ca.inter.net, MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca,
>>>>> nada.sarkis@gnb.ca, wally.stiles@gnb.ca, dwatch@web.net,
>>>>> motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com
>>>>> CC: ottawa@chuckstrahl.com, riding@chuckstrahl.com,
>>>>> John.Foran@gnb.ca, Oda.B@parl.gc.ca,
>>>>> "Bev BUSSON" bev.busson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
>>>>> "Paul Dube" PAUL.DUBE@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>>>>> Subject: Re: Remember me Kilgour? Landslide Annie McLellan has
>>>>> forgotten me but the crooks within the RCMP have n
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Mr. Amos,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for your follow up e-mail to me today. I was on days off
>>>>>
>>>>> over the holidays and returned to work this evening. Rest assured I
>>>>>
>>>>> was not ignoring or procrastinating to respond to your concerns.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As your attachment sent today refers from Premier Graham, our position
>>>>>
>>>>> is clear on your dead calf issue: Our forensic labs do not process
>>>>>
>>>>> testing on animals in cases such as yours, they are referred to the
>>>>>
>>>>> Atlantic Veterinary College in Charlottetown who can provide these
>>>>>
>>>>> services. If you do not choose to utilize their expertise in this
>>>>>
>>>>> instance, then that is your decision and nothing more can be done.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As for your other concerns regarding the US Government, false
>>>>>
>>>>> imprisonment and Federal Court Dates in the US, etc... it is clear
>>>>>
>>>>> that Federal authorities are aware of your concerns both in Canada and
>>>>>
>>>>> the US. These issues do not fall into the purvue of Detachment
>>>>>
>>>>> policing in Petitcodiac, NB.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It was indeed an interesting and informative conversation we had on
>>>>>
>>>>> December 23rd, and I wish you well in all of your future endeavors.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>
>>>>> Warren McBeath, Cpl.
>>>>> GRC Caledonia RCMP
>>>>> Traffic Services NCO
>>>>> Ph: (506) 387-2222
>>>>> Fax: (506) 387-4622
>>>>> E-mail warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2018/09/24/prime-minister-announces-appointment-two-senators
>>>>>
>>>>> rime Minister announces the appointment of two Senators
>>>>>
>>>>> Ottawa, Ontario - September 24, 2018
>>>>>
>>>>> The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, today announced that the Governor
>>>>> General appointed the following independent Senators to fill vacancies
>>>>> in the Senate:
>>>>>
>>>>> Beverley Busson (British Columbia)
>>>>> Martin Klyne (Saskatchewan)
>>>>>
>>>>> Mrs. Busson is a champion of women in the workforce and enjoyed a
>>>>> distinguished career in the RCMP. Her efforts to push gender-based
>>>>> barriers and her expertise in security led to her becoming the first
>>>>> woman to lead the RCMP, when she was named Commissioner in 2006.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mr. Klyne is a proud member of the Cree Métis with extensive business
>>>>> experience. He focused much of his career and volunteer efforts on
>>>>> advancing the economic development of Indigenous communities.
>>>>>
>>>>> Both of these individuals were recommended by the Independent Advisory
>>>>> Board for Senate Appointments and chosen using the process open to all
>>>>> Canadians. This process ensures Senators are independent, reflect
>>>>> Canada’s diversity, and are able to tackle the broad range of
>>>>> challenges and opportunities facing the country.
>>>>> Quote
>>>>>
>>>>> “I am pleased to welcome two new members to the Senate who have
>>>>> done tremendous work in their professional lives and as active members
>>>>> of their communities. I am confident that they will work diligently
>>>>> and with integrity to serve the best interests of the country and all
>>>>> Canadians.”
>>>>> —The Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada
>>>>>
>>>>> Quick Facts
>>>>>
>>>>> There have been 40 appointments to the Senate made on the advice
>>>>> of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
>>>>> Under the Canadian Constitution, the Governor General appoints
>>>>> individuals to the Senate. By convention, Senators are appointed on
>>>>> the advice of the Prime Minister.
>>>>> Once appointed by the Governor General and summoned to the Senate,
>>>>> the new Senators join their peers to examine and revise legislation,
>>>>> investigate national issues, and represent regional, provincial, and
>>>>> minority interests –important functions in a modern democracy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Biographical Notes
>>>>>
>>>>> Beverley Busson
>>>>> Martin Klyne
>>>>>
>>>>> Associated Links
>>>>>
>>>>> Frequently Asked Questions – Senate appointments process
>>>>> Independent Advisory Board for Senate Appointments
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2018/09/24/beverley-busson
>>>>>
>>>>> Beverley Busson is a champion for women in the workforce. With a law
>>>>> degree from the University of British Columbia, her career as a law
>>>>> enforcement officer was a career of firsts. A member of the first
>>>>> class of women to enter the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), she
>>>>> has worked in various positions, including investigating frauds,
>>>>> drugs, and serious crimes, and she was among the first women to work
>>>>> in plain clothes and undercover.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mrs. Busson rose steadily through the ranks, becoming the first woman
>>>>> commissioned officer, the first woman criminal operations officer, the
>>>>> first woman commanding officer, and the first woman deputy
>>>>> commissioner of a region. Her efforts to push gender-based barriers
>>>>> and her increasing expertise in security led to the pinnacle of her
>>>>> career in law enforcement when she was named Commissioner of the RCMP
>>>>> in 2006. She was the first woman to hold the position.
>>>>>
>>>>> Following her retirement from the force, Mrs. Busson served as a
>>>>> member of the RCMP Reform Implementation Council. She has also
>>>>> volunteered her time as a director with the Justice Institute of
>>>>> British Columbia and the Okanagan College Foundation, as well as with
>>>>> the Women’s Executive Network mentorship program.
>>>>>
>>>>> For her long-standing contributions to Canadian security and advancing
>>>>> women in the workforce, Mrs. Busson was invested as a Commander of the
>>>>> Order of Merit of Police Forces, awarded the Canadian Forces Vice
>>>>> Chief of Defence Staff Commendation and the Order of British Columbia,
>>>>> and appointed as a Member of the Order of Canada.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: Brenda Lucki <brenda.lucki@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>
>>>> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 13:06:51 -0400
>>>> Subject: Re: RE My calls AGAIN today about WAR, MURDER, MONEY,
>>>> TAXATION and George Soros and Iggy versus Sebastian Kurz and Viktor
>>>> Orbán etc (Away on Leave - En congé)
>>>> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> Bonjour - Hello
>>>>
>>>> I am currently away on holidays, and will return Tuesday, March 27th.
>>>> If
>>>> you require assistance during my absence, please contact Cpl. Roshan
>>>> Pinto at 639-625-3577 or Nicole Yandon at 639-625-3066. I will be
>>>> checking my e-mails periodically.
>>>>
>>>> Je suis présentement en congé de retour au bureau mardi, le 27 mars.
>>>> Pour toute demande urgente, veuillez communiquer avec Cap. Roshan Pinto
>>>> au 639-625-3577 ou Nicole Yandon au 639-625-3066. Je vais vérifier mon
>>>> courrier électronique périodiquement.
>>>>
>>>> Brenda
>>>>
>>>>>>> David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> 03/12/18 11:06 >>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/abt-apd/org.html
>>>>
>>>> Paul Rochon Deputy Minister:
>>>> Finance Canada
>>>> 90 Elgin St.
>>>> Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0G5
>>>> Phone: 613-369-4434
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: "MinFinance / FinanceMin (FIN)"
>>>> <fin.minfinance-financemin.fin@canada.ca>
>>>> Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 18:55:47 +0000
>>>> Subject: RE: RE My calls today about George Soros versus Sebastian
>>>> Kurz and Viktor Orbán
>>>> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> The Department of Finance acknowledges receipt of your electronic
>>>> correspondence. Please be assured that we appreciate receiving your
>>>> comments.
>>>>
>>>> Le ministère des Finances accuse réception de votre correspondance
>>>> électronique. Soyez assuré(e) que nous apprécions recevoir vos
>>>> commentaires.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: Póstur FOR <postur@for.is>
>>>> Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 18:56:26 +0000
>>>> Subject: Re: RE My calls today about George Soros versus Sebastian
>>>> Kurz and Viktor Orbán
>>>> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> Erindi þitt hefur verið móttekið / Your request has been received
>>>>
>>>> Kveðja / Best regards
>>>> Forsætisráðuneytið / Prime Minister's Office
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>>> Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 15:11:34 -0400
>>>> Subject: Fwd: RE My calls today about George Soros versus Sebastian
>>>> Kurz and Viktor Orbán
>>>> To: informacio.was@mfa.gov.hu
>>>> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> Address not found
>>>> Your message wasn't delivered to Was.missions@kum.hu because the
>>>> address couldn't be found, or is unable to receive mail.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>>> Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 15:05:51 -0400
>>>> Subject: Fwd: RE My calls today about George Soros versus Sebastian
>>>> Kurz and Viktor Orbán
>>>> To: Was.missions@kum.hu, washington field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>
>>>> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, djtjr
>>>> <djtjr@trumporg.com>, lionel <lionel@lionelmedia.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>>> Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 14:54:06 -0400
>>>> Subject: RE My calls today about George Soros versus Sebastian Kurz
>>>> and Viktor Orbán
>>>> To: "mission.ott" <mission.ott@mfa.gov.hu>, ottawa-ob@bmeia.gv.at,
>>>> austrianconsulatehfx@breakhouse.ca, miniszterelnok@mk.gov.hu,
>>>> mk@mk.gov.hu
>>>> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, "George.Soros"
>>>> <George.Soros@opensocietyfoundations.org>, mdcohen212@gmail.com,
>>>> postur <postur@for.is>, "Bill.Morneau" <Bill.Morneau@canada.ca>,
>>>> "bill.pentney" <bill.pentney@justice.gc.ca>, rmellish
>>>> <rmellish@cbcl.ca>
>>>>
>>>> https://twitter.com/sebastiankurz/with_replies
>>>>
>>>> Sebastian Kurz
>>>> Verified account @sebastiankurz
>>>> 6 hours ago
>>>>
>>>> Konnte mich heute erstmals mit der Personalvertretung im
>>>> Bundeskanzleramt treffen. Danke für den guten Austausch - freue mich
>>>> sehr auf die Zusammenarbeit!
>>>> Translated from German by Bing
>>>>
>>>> Could meet today for the first time with the staff in the Chancellor's
>>>> Office. Thank you for sharing good - look forward to cooperation!
>>>> 2 replies 2 retweets 15 likes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://twitter.com/DavidRayAmos/with_replies
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> David Raymond Amos
>>>> @DavidRayAmos 5 hours ago
>>>> Replying to @sebastiankurz
>>>>
>>>> Did anyone mention my name yet?
>>>>
>>>> David Raymond Amos
>>>> @DavidRayAmos 8 hours ago
>>>> Replying to @sebastiankurz
>>>>
>>>> I just called your Foreign Minister's Office +43 50 11 50 0 to offer
>>>> my assistance & his staff refused to listen Perhaps sor Viktor Orban
>>>> should call back 902 800 0369 so I can explain
>>>> @realDonaldTrump #FBI & missing hearing records ASAP
>>>>
>>>> https://www.banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings?ID=90F8E691-9065-4F8C-A465-72722B47E7F2
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.bmeia.gv.at/en/contact-us/
>>>>
>>>> Federal Ministry for Europe, Integration and Foreign Affairs
>>>>
>>>> Minoritenplatz 8, 1010 Vienna
>>>>
>>>> Tel. +43 (0) 50 11 50 - 0
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: "Ügyfélszolgálat (BM)" <ugyfelszolgalat@bm.gov.hu>
>>>> Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 13:06:36 +0000
>>>> Subject: Valasz
>>>> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> Tisztelt Feladó!
>>>>
>>>> Tájékoztatjuk, hogy elektronikus levelét fogadta a Belügyminisztérium
>>>> levelezőrendszere, megérkezett az
>>>> ugyfelszolgalat@bm.gov.hu<mailto:ugyfelszolgalat@bm.gov.hu> címre.
>>>> A jogszabályban meghatározott időn belül válaszolunk levelére, illetve
>>>> továbbítjuk a címzett személynek vagy hivatali szervezetnek.
>>>> Kérjük szíves türelmét a válasz megérkezéséig.
>>>>
>>>> Ez egy automatikus üzenet, kérjük, ne válaszoljon rá!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> BM Ügyfélszolgálat
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>
>>>> Ezen üzenet és annak bármely csatolt anyaga bizalmas, jogi védelem
>>>> alatt áll, a nyilvános közléstől védett. Az üzenetet kizárólag a
>>>> címzett, illetve az általa meghatalmazottak használhatják fel. Ha Ön
>>>> nem az üzenet címzettje, úgy kérjük, hogy telefonon, vagy e-mail-ben
>>>> értesítse erről az üzenet küldőjét és törölje az üzenetet, valamint
>>>> annak összes csatolt mellékletét a rendszeréből. Ha Ön nem az üzenet
>>>> címzettje, abban az esetben tilos az üzenetet vagy annak bármely
>>>> csatolt mellékletét lemásolnia, elmentenie, az üzenet tartalmát
>>>> bárkivel közölnie vagy azzal visszaélnie.
>>>>
>>>> This message and any attachment are confidential and are legally
>>>> privileged. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or
>>>> entity to whom it is addressed and others authorised to receive it. If
>>>> you are not the intended recipient, please telephone or email the
>>>> sender and delete this message and any attachment from your system.
>>>> Please note that any dissemination, distribution, copying or use of or
>>>> reliance upon the information contained in and transmitted with this
>>>> e-mail by or to anyone other than the recipient designated above by
>>>> the sender is unauthorised and strictly prohibited.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Viktor Orbán Prime Minister
>>>> Postal address: 1357 Budapest, Pf. 6.
>>>> E-mail: miniszterelnok@mk.gov.hu
>>>> Website: www.orbanviktor.hu
>>>>
>>>> http://www.kormany.hu/hu/elerhetosegek
>>>>
>>>> Antal Rogán
>>>> Head of Cabinet of the Prime Minister
>>>> Postal address: 1357 Budapest, Pf. 1.
>>>> Phone: +36 1 896 1747
>>>> Fax: +36 1 795 0893
>>>> E-mail: mk@mk.gov.hu
>>>>
>>>> https://ottawa.mfa.gov.hu/eng/contact/generated
>>>>
>>>> Ambassador Dr. Bálint Ódor
>>>> Phone +1 (613) 230-2717
>>>> Email mission.ott@mfa.gov.hu
>>>> Trade and Investment +1 (613) 230-2717/210
>>>>
>>>> https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/print_2149.html
>>>>
>>>> Hungary Washington DC Embassy.
>>>> Address: 3910 Shoemaker Street, N.W..
>>>> Washington ,DC 20008.
>>>> Phone: 1-202--362-6730
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>>> Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:24:08 -0400
>>>> Subject: Fwd: ATTN Péter Szijjártó RE Trump and George Soros et al I
>>>> have
>>>> been trying to talk to people working for Hungarian Prime Minister for
>>>> years
>>>> To: sajto@keh.hu, sonja.wintersberger@unvienna.org,
>>>> anne.thomas@unvienna.org
>>>> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/en/pressrels/2011/unisinf410.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: "MinFinance / FinanceMin (FIN)"
>>>> <fin.minfinance-financemin.fin@canada.ca>
>>>> Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:09:13 +0000
>>>> Subject: RE: ATTN Péter Szijjártó RE Trump and George Soros et al I
>>>> have
>>>> been trying to talk to people working for Hungarian Prime Minister for
>>>> years
>>>> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> The Department of Finance acknowledges receipt of your electronic
>>>> correspondence. Please be assured that we appreciate receiving your
>>>> comments.
>>>>
>>>> Le ministère des Finances accuse réception de votre correspondance
>>>> électronique. Soyez assuré(e) que nous apprécions recevoir vos
>>>> commentaires.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: Póstur FOR <postur@for.is>
>>>> Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:10:40 +0000
>>>> Subject: Re: ATTN Péter Szijjártó RE Trump and George Soros et al I
>>>> have
>>>> been trying to talk to people working for Hungarian Prime Minister for
>>>> years
>>>> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Erindi þitt hefur verið móttekið / Your request has been received
>>>>
>>>> Kveðja / Best regards
>>>> Forsætisráðuneytið / Prime Minister's Office
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Original message ----------
>>>> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>>> Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 08:07:54 -0400
>>>> Subject: ATTN Péter Szijjártó RE Trump and George Soros et al I have
>>>> been
>>>> trying to talk to people working for Hungarian Prime Minister for years
>>>> To: intcomm@mk.gov.hu, "George.Soros"
>>>> <George.Soros@opensocietyfoundations.org>, "Bill.Morneau"
>>>> <Bill.Morneau@canada.ca>, mcohen <mcohen@trumporg.com>,
>>>> "Diane.Lebouthillier" <Diane.Lebouthillier@cra-arc.gc.ca>,
>>>> "Diane.Lebouthillier" <Diane.Lebouthillier@parl.gc.ca>, RT-US
>>>> <RT-US@rttv.ru>, gopublic <gopublic@cbc.ca>, birgittaj
>>>> <birgittaj@althingi.is>, postur <postur@for.is>, pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>,
>>>> president <president@whitehouse.gov>, "boris.johnson.mp"
>>>> <boris.johnson.mp@parliament.uk>, "Andrew.Bailey"
>>>> <Andrew.Bailey@fca.org.uk>, oig <oig@sec.gov>, newsroom
>>>> <newsroom@globeandmail.ca>, news-tips <news-tips@nytimes.com>, news
>>>> <news@kingscorecord.com>, jacques_poitras <jacques_poitras@cbc.ca>
>>>> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> Whereas you were appointed to State Secretary for Foreign Affairs and
>>>> External Economic Relations of the Prime Minister’s Office.you above
>>>> all should understand why I have an issue with Banksters since well
>>>> before George W Bush was first elected while Trump judged Beauty
>>>> Queens and managed marry one from your neck of the woods
>>>>
>>>> http://thedavidamosrant.blogspot.ca/2013/08/hungary-sheds-bankers-shackles-by.html
>>>>
>>>> Tuesday, 27 August 2013
>>>> Hungary Sheds Bankers' Shackles | By Ronald L. Ray
>>>>
>>>> You are also saying some very important things lately about politcs
>>>> and George Soros and Donald Trump
>>>>
>>>> BREAKING : George Soros ARREST On The Table ? Hungarian Foreign
>>>> Minister
>>>> TNTV Total News T.V
>>>> Published on Jan 30, 2017
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kin3r_H8w8
>>>>
>>>> HOWEVER SO AM I AND I DID CALL YOUR OFFICE TODAY FROM A POOR
>>>> CONNECTION AND WAS TOLD TO CALL THESE NUMBERS
>>>>
>>>> 36 1 458 1240
>>>> 36 1 458 1844
>>>>
>>>> PLEASE SCROLL DOWN OR CHECK YOUR TWITTER ACCOUNT AND MINE ASAP
>>>>
>>>> Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
>>>> Head office: 1027 Budapest, Bem rakpart 47.
>>>> Postal address: 1027 Budapest, Bem rakpart 47.
>>>> Phone: +36-1-458-1000
>>>> Fax: +36-1-212-5918
>>>> Péter Szijjártó, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade
>>>>
>>>> Postal address: 1027 Budapest, Bem rakpart 47.
>>>> Phone: +36-1-458-1178, +36-1-458-1253
>>>> Fax: +36-1-375-3766
>>>>
>>>> International Communications Office
>>>>
>>>> E-mail: intcomm@mk.gov.hu
>>>> Phone:
>>>> +36 1 896 1905
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: "MinFinance / FinanceMin (FIN)"
>>>> <fin.minfinance-financemin.fin@canada.ca>
>>>> Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 08:45:26 +0000
>>>> Subject: RE: Yo Billy Morneau RE FATCA and NAFTA Perhaps you and your
>>>> friend Mikey Cohen or even big talking Sherry Peel Jackson should talk
>>>> to me before Trump and Trudeau upset the Mexicans even more EH?
>>>> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> The Department of Finance acknowledges receipt of your electronic
>>>> correspondence. Please be assured that we appreciate receiving your
>>>> comments.
>>>>
>>>> Le ministère des Finances accuse réception de votre correspondance
>>>> électronique. Soyez assuré(e) que nous apprécions recevoir vos
>>>> commentaires.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Original message ----------
>>>> From: Michael Cohen <mcohen@trumporg.com>
>>>> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:15:14 +0000
>>>> Subject: Automatic reply: RE FATCA ATTN Pierre-Luc.Dusseault I just
>>>> called and lefTo: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> Effective January 20, 2017, I have accepted the role as personal
>>>> counsel to President Donald J. Trump. All future emails should be
>>>> directed to mdcohen212@gmail.com and all future calls should be
>>>> directed to 646-853-0114.
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> This communication is from The Trump Organization or an affiliate
>>>> thereof and is not sent on behalf of any other individual or entity.
>>>> This email may contain information that is confidential and/or
>>>> proprietary. Such information may not be read, disclosed, used,
>>>> copied, distributed or disseminated except (1) for use by the intended
>>>> recipient or (2) as expressly authorized by the sender. If you have
>>>> received this communication in error, please immediately delete it and
>>>> promptly notify the sender. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed
>>>> to be received, secure or error-free as emails could be intercepted,
>>>> corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late, incomplete, contain viruses
>>>> or otherwise. The Trump Organization and its affiliates do not
>>>> guarantee that all emails will be read and do not accept liability for
>>>> any errors or omissions in emails. Any views or opinions presented in
>>>> any email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
>>>> represent those of The Trump Organization or any of its
>>>> affiliates.Nothing in this communication is intended to operate as an
>>>> electronic signature under applicable law.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------- Original message ----------
>>>>> From: "MinFinance / FinanceMin (FIN)"
>>>>> <fin.minfinance-financemin.fin@canada.ca
>>>>> Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 00:14:35 +000
>>>>> Subject: RE: Here ya go folks please enjoy the hearing today in
>>>>> Federal Court and the notes I read from as I argued the Queen's sneaky
>>>>> little minions who think they are above the law and the rest of us as
>>>> well
>>>>> To: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
>>>>>
>>>>> The Department of Finance acknowledges receipt of your electronic
>>>>> correspondence. Please be assured that we appreciate receiving your
>>>>> comments.
>>>>>
>>>>> Le ministère des Finances accuse réception de votre correspondance
>>>>> électronique. Soyez assuré(e) que nous apprécions recevoir vos
>>>>> commentaires.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------- Original message ----------
>>>>> From: Póstur FOR postur@for.is
>>>>> Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 00:15:21 +0000
>>>>> Subject: Re: Here ya go folks please enjoy the hearing today in
>>>>> Federal Court and the notes I read from as I argued the Queen's sneaky
>>>>> little minions who think they are above the law and the rest of us as
>>>>> well
>>>>> To: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
>>>>>
>>>>> Erindi þitt hefur verið móttekið / Your request has been received
>>>>>
>>>>> Kveðja / Best regards
>>>>> Forsætisráðuneytið / Prime Minister's Office
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
>>>>> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 09:32:09 -0400
>>>>> Subject: Attn Integrity Commissioner Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C.,
>>>>> To: coi@gnb.ca
>>>>> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>>>>>
>>>>> Good Day Sir
>>>>>
>>>>> After I heard you speak on CBC I called your office again and managed
>>>>> to speak to one of your staff for the first time
>>>>>
>>>>> Please find attached the documents I promised to send to the lady who
>>>>> answered the phone this morning. Please notice that not after the Sgt
>>>>> at Arms took the documents destined to your office his pal Tanker
>>>>> Malley barred me in writing with an "English" only document.
>>>>>
>>>>> These are the hearings and the dockets in Federal Court that I
>>>>> suggested that you study closely.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the docket in Federal Court
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=T-1557-15&select_court=T
>>>>>
>>>>> These are digital recordings of the last three hearings
>>>>>
>>>>> Dec 14th https://archive.org/details/BahHumbug
>>>>>
>>>>> January 11th, 2016 https://archive.org/details/Jan11th2015
>>>>>
>>>>> April 3rd, 2017
>>>>>
>>>>> https://archive.org/details/April32017JusticeLeblancHearing
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the docket in the Federal Court of Appeal
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=A-48-16&select_court=All
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The> https://archive.org/details/May24thHoedown
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This Judge understnds the meaning of the word Integrity
>>>>>
>>>>> Date: 20151223
>>>>>
>>>>> Docket: T-1557-15
>>>>>
>>>>> Fredericton, New Brunswick, December 23, 2015
>>>>>
>>>>> PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Bell
>>>>>
>>>>> BETWEEN:
>>>>>
>>>>> DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
>>>>>
>>>>> Plaintiff
>>>>>
>>>>> and
>>>>>
>>>>> HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
>>>>>
>>>>> Defendant
>>>>>
>>>>> ORDER
>>>>>
>>>>> (Delivered orally from the Bench in Fredericton, New Brunswick, on
>>>>> December 14, 2015)
>>>>>
>>>>> The Plaintiff seeks an appeal de novo, by way of motion pursuant to
>>>>> the Federal Courts Rules (SOR/98-106), from an Order made on November
>>>>> 12, 2015, in which Prothonotary Morneau struck the Statement of Claim
>>>>> in its entirety.
>>>>>
>>>>> At the outset of the hearing, the Plaintiff brought to my attention a
>>>>> letter dated September 10, 2004, which he sent to me, in my then
>>>>> capacity as Past President of the New Brunswick Branch of the Canadian
>>>>> Bar Association, and the then President of the Branch, Kathleen Quigg,
>>>>> (now a Justice of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal). In that letter
>>>>> he stated:
>>>>>
>>>>> As for your past President, Mr. Bell, may I suggest that you check the
>>>>> work of Frank McKenna before I sue your entire law firm including you.
>>>>> You are your brother’s keeper.
>>>>>
>>>>> Frank McKenna is the former Premier of New Brunswick and a former
>>>>> colleague of mine at the law firm of McInnes Cooper. In addition to
>>>>> expressing an intention to sue me, the Plaintiff refers to a number of
>>>>> people in his Motion Record who he appears to contend may be witnesses
>>>>> or potential parties to be added. Those individuals who are known to
>>>>> me personally, include, but are not limited to the former Prime
>>>>> Minister of Canada, The Right Honourable Stephen Harper; former
>>>>> Attorney General of Canada and now a Justice of the Manitoba Court of
>>>>> Queen’s Bench, Vic Toews; former member of Parliament Rob Moore;
>>>>> former Director of Policing Services, the late Grant Garneau; former
>>>>> Chief of the Fredericton Police Force, Barry McKnight; former Staff
>>>>> Sergeant Danny Copp; my former colleagues on the New Brunswick Court
>>>>> of Appeal, Justices Bradley V. Green and Kathleen Quigg, and, retired
>>>>> Assistant Commissioner Wayne Lang of the Royal Canadian Mounted
>>>>> Police.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the circumstances, given the threat in 2004 to sue me in my
>>>>> personal capacity and my past and present relationship with many
>>>>> potential witnesses and/or potential parties to the litigation, I am
>>>>> of the view there would be a reasonable apprehension of bias should I
>>>>> hear this motion. See Justice de Grandpré’s dissenting judgment in
>>>>> Committee for Justice and Liberty et al v National Energy Board et al,
>>>>> [1978] 1 SCR 369 at p 394 for the applicable test regarding
>>>>> allegations of bias. In the circumstances, although neither party has
>>>>> requested I recuse myself, I consider it appropriate that I do so.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> AS A RESULT OF MY RECUSAL, THIS COURT ORDERS that the Administrator of
>>>>> the Court schedule another date for the hearing of the motion. There
>>>>> is no order as to costs.
>>>>>
>>>>> “B. Richard Bell”
>>>>> Judge
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Below after the CBC article about your concerns (I made one comment
>>>>> already) you will find the text of just two of many emails I had sent
>>>>> to your office over the years since I first visited it in 2006.
>>>>>
>>>>> I noticed that on July 30, 2009, he was appointed to the the Court
>>>>> Martial Appeal Court of Canada Perhaps you should scroll to the
>>>>> bottom of this email ASAP and read the entire Paragraph 83 of my
>>>>> lawsuit now before the Federal Court of Canada?
>>>>>
>>>>> "FYI This is the text of the lawsuit that should interest Trudeau the
>>>> most
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2015/09/v-behaviorurldefaultvmlo.html
>>>>>
>>>>> 83 The Plaintiff states that now that Canada is involved in more war
>>>>> in Iraq again it did not serve Canadian interests and reputation to
>>>>> allow Barry Winters to publish the following words three times over
>>>>> five years after he began his bragging:
>>>>>
>>>>> January 13, 2015
>>>>> This Is Just AS Relevant Now As When I wrote It During The Debate
>>>>>
>>>>> D> Little David Amos’ “True History Of War” Canadian Airstrikes And
>>>>> Stupid Justin Trudeau?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Vertias Vincit
>>>>> David Raymond Amos
>>>>> 902 800 0369
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>> From: "Kulik, John" <john.kulik@mcinnescooper.com>
>>>>> Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 17:37:49 +0000
>>>>> Subject: McInnes Cooper
>>>>> To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com" <motomaniac333@gmail.com>,
>>>>> "david.raymond.amos@gmail.com" <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Mr. Amos:
>>>>>
>>>>> I am General Counsel for McInnes Cooper. If you need to communicate
>>>>> with our firm, please do so through me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>
>>>>> John Kulik
>>>>> [McInnes Cooper]<http://www.mcinnescooper.com/>
>>>>>
>>>>> John Kulik Q.C.
>>>>> Partner & General Counsel
>>>>> McInnes Cooper
>>>>>
>>>>> tel +1 (902) 444 8571 | fax +1 (902) 425 6350
>>>>>
>>>>> 1969 Upper Water Street
>>>>> Suite 1300
>>>>> Purdy's Wharf Tower II Halifax, NS, B3J 2V1
>>>>>
>>>>> asst Cathy Ohlhausen | +1 (902) 455 8215
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Notice This communication, including any attachments, is confidential
>>>>> and may be protected by solicitor/client privilege. It is intended
>>>>> only for the person or persons to whom it is addressed. If you have
>>>>> received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by e-mail or
>>>>> telephone at McInnes Cooper's expense. Avis Les informations contenues
>>>>> dans ce courriel, y compris toute(s) pièce(s) jointe(s), sont
>>>>> confidentielles et peuvent faire l'objet d'un privilège avocat-client.
>>>>> Les informations sont dirigées au(x) destinataire(s) seulement. Si
>>>>> vous avez reçu ce courriel par erreur, veuillez en aviser l'expéditeur
>>>>> par courriel ou par téléphone, aux frais de McInnes Cooper.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
>>>>> Date: Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:35 AM
>>>>> Subject: RE My complaint against the CROWN in Federal Court Attn David
>>>>> Hansen and Peter MacKay If you planning to submit a motion for a
>>>>> publication ban on my complaint trust that you dudes are way past too
>>>> late
>>>>> To: David.Hansen@justice.gc.ca, peter.mackay@justice.gc.ca
>>>>> peacock.kurt@telegraphjournal.com,
>>>> mclaughlin.heather@dailygleaner.com,
>>>>> david.akin@sunmedia.ca, robert.frater@justice.gc.ca,
>>>> paul.riley@ppsc-sppc.gc.ca,
>>>>> greg@gregdelbigio.com, joyce.dewitt-vanoosten@gov.bc.ca,
>>>>> joan.barrett@ontario.ca, jean-vincent.lacroix@gouv.qc.ca,
>>>>> peter.rogers@mcinnescooper.com, mfeder@mccarthy.ca, mjamal@osler.com
>>>>> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, gopublic@cbc.ca,
>>>>> Whistleblower@ctv.ca
>>>>>
>>>>> https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14439/index.do
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/WebDocuments-DocumentsWeb/35072/FM030_Respondent_Attorney-General-of-Canada-on-Behalf-of-the-United-States-of-America.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> http://thedavidamosrant.blogspot.ca/2013/10/re-glen-greenwald-and-brazilian.html
>>>>>
>>>>> I repeat what the Hell do I do with the Yankee wiretapes taps sell
>>>>> them on Ebay or listen to them and argue them with you dudes in
>>>>> Feferal Court?
>>>>>
>>>>> Petey Baby loses all parliamentary privelges in less than a month but
>>>>> he still supposed to be an ethical officer of the Court CORRECT?
>>>>>
>>>>> Veritas Vincit
>>>>> David Raymond Amos
>>>>> 902 800 0369
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
>>>>> Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 14:10:14 -0400
>>>>> Subject: Yo Mr Bauer say hey to your client Obama and his buddies in
>>>>> the USDOJ for me will ya?
>>>>> To: RBauer@perkinscoie.com, sshimshak@paulweiss.com,
>>>>> cspada@lswlaw.com, msmith@svlaw.com, bginsberg@pattonboggs.com,
>>>>> gregory.craig@skadden.com, pm@pm.gc.ca, bob.paulson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
>>>>> bob.rae@rogers.blackberry.net, MulcaT@parl.gc.ca,
>>>> leader@greenparty.ca
>>>>> Cc: alevine@cooley.com, david.raymond.amos@gmail.com,
>>>>> michael.rothfeld@wsj.com, remery@ecbalaw.com
>>>>>
>>>>> QSLS Politics
>>>>> By Location Visit Detail
>>>>> Visit 29,419
>>>>> Domain Name usdoj.gov ? (U.S. Government)
>>>>> IP Address 149.101.1.# (US Dept of Justice)
>>>>> ISP US Dept of Justice
>>>>> Location Continent : North America
>>>>> Country : United States (Facts)
>>>>> State : District of Columbia
>>>>> City : W> Operating System Microsoft WinXP
>>>>> Browser Internet Explorer 8.0
>>>>> Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET
>>>>> CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; InfoPath.2;
>>>>> DI60SP1001)
>>>>> Javascript version 1.3
>>>>> Monitor Resolution : 1024 x 768
>>>>> Color Depth : 32 bits
>>>>> Time of Visit Nov 17 2012 6:33:08 pm
>>>>> Last Page View Nov 17 2012 6:33:08 pm
>>>>> Visit Length 0 seconds
>>>>> Page Views 1
>>>>> Referring URL http://www.google.co...wwWJrm94lCEqRmovPXJg
>>>>> Search Engine google.com
>>>>> Search Words david amos bernie madoff
>>>>> Visit Entry Page http://qslspolitics....-wendy-olsen-on.html
>>>>> Visit Exit Page http://qslspolitics....-wendy-olsen-on.html
>>>>> Out Click
>>>>> Time Zone UTC-5:00
>>>>> Visitor's Time Nov 17 2012 12:33:08 pm
>>>>> Visit Number 29,419
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> http://qslspolitics.blogspot.com/2009/03/david-amos-to-wendy-olsen-on.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Could ya tell I am investigating your pension plan bigtime? Its
>>>>> because no member of the RCMP I have ever encountered has earned it
>>>> yet
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
>>>>> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:36:04 -0400
>>>>> Subject: This is a brief as I can make my concerns Randy
>>>>> To: randyedmunds@gov.nl.ca
>>>>> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>>>>>
>>>>> In a nutshell my concerns about the actions of the Investment Industry
>>>>> affect the interests of every person in every district of every
>>>>> country not just the USA and Canada. I was offering to help you with
>>>>> Emera because my work with them and Danny Williams is well known and
>>>>> some of it is over eight years old and in the PUBLIC Record.
>>>>>
>>>>> All you have to do is stand in the Legislature and ask the MInister of
>>>>> Justice why I have been invited to sue Newfoundland by the
>>>>> Conservatives
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously I am the guy the USDOJ and the SEC would not name who is the
>>>>> link to Madoff and Putnam Investments
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is why
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> http://banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=90f8e691-9065-4f8c-a465-72722b47e7f2
>>>>>
>>>>> Notice the transcripts and webcasts of the hearing of the US Senate
>>>>> Banking Commitee are still missing? Mr Emory should at least notice
>>>>> Eliot Spitzer and the Dates around November 20th, 2003 in the
>>>>> following file
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/2526023-DAMOSIntegrity-yea-right.-txt.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> http://occupywallst.org/users/DavidRaymondAmos/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>> From: "Hansen, David" David.Hansen@justice.gc.ca
>>>>> Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 19:28:44 +0000
>>>>> Subject: RE: I just called again Mr Hansen
>>>>> To: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello Mr. Amos,
>>>>>
>>>>> I manage the Justice Canada civil litigation section in the Atlantic
>>>>> region. We are only responsible for litigating existing civil
>>>>> litigation files in which the Attorney General of Canada is a named
>>>>> defendant or plaintiff. If you are a plaintiff or defendant in an
>>>>> existing civil litigation matter in the Atlantic region in which
>>>>> Attorney General of Canada is a named defendant or plaintiff please
>>>>> provide the court file number, the names of the parties in the action
>>>>> and your question. I am not the appropriate contact for other
>>>>> matters.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> David A. Hansen
>>>>> Regional Director | Directeur régional
>>>>> General Counsel |Avocat général
>>>>> Civil Litigation and Advisory | Contentieux des affaires civiles et
>>>>> services de consultation
>>>>> Department of Justice | Ministère de la Justice
>>>>> Suite 1400 – Duke Tower | Pièce 1400 – Tour Duke
>>>>> 5251 Duke Street | 5251 rue Duke
>>>>> Halifax, Nova Scotia | Halifax, Nouvelle- Écosse
>>>>> B3J 1P3
>>>>> david.hansen@justice.gc.ca
>>>>> Telephone | Téléphone (902) 426-3261 / Facsimile | Télécopieur (902)
>>>>> 426-2329
>>>>> This e-mail is confidential and may be protected by solicitor-client
>>>>> privilege. Unauthorized distribution or disclosure is prohibited. If
>>>>> you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us and delete
>>>>> this entire e-mail.
>>>>> Before printing think about the Environment
>>>>> Thinking Green, please do not print this e-mail >> ----------
>>>>> Forwarded
>>>>> message ----------
>>>>>> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
>>>>>> Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 02:23:24 -0300
>>>>>> Subject: ATTN FBI Special Agent Richard Deslauriers Have you talked
>>>> to
>>>>>> your buddies Fred Wyshak and Brian Kelly about the wiretap tapes YET?
>>>>>> To: boston@ic.fbi.gov, washington.field@ic.fbi.gov,
>>>>>> bob.paulson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, Kevin.leahy@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
>>>>>> Brian.Kelly@usdoj.gov, us.marshals@usdoj.gov, Fred.Wyshak@usdoj.gov,
>>>>>> jcarney@carneybassil.com, bbachrach@bachrachlaw.net
>>>>>> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, birgittaj@althingi.is,
>>>>>> shmurphy@globe.com, redicecreations@gmail.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FBI Boston
>>>>>> One Center Plaza
>>>>>> Suite 600
>>>>>> Boston, MA 02108
>>>>>> Phone: (617) 742-5533
>>>>>> Fax: (617) 223-6327
>>>>>> E-mail: Boston@ic.fbi.gov
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hours
>>>>>> Although we operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, our normal
>>>>>> "walk-in" business hours are from 8:15 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday
>>>>>> through Friday. If you need to speak with a FBI representative at any
>>>>>> time other than during normal business hours, please telephone our
>>>>>> office at (617) 742-5533.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
>>>>>> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 01:20:20 -0300
>>>>>> Subject: Yo Fred Wyshak and Brian Kelly your buddy Whitey's trial is
>>>>>> finally underway now correct? What the hell do I do with the wiretap
>>>>>> tapes Sell them on Ebay?
>>>>>> To: Brian.Kelly@usdoj.gov, us.marshals@usdoj.gov,
>>>>>> Fred.Wyshak@usdoj.gov, jcarney@carneybassil.com,
>>>>>> bbachrach@bachrachlaw.net, wolfheartlodge@live.com,
>>>> shmurphy@globe.com, >> jonathan.albano@bingham.com,
>>>> mvalencia@globe.com
>>>>>> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, oldmaison@yahoo.com,
>>>>>> PATRICK.MURPHY@dhs.gov, rounappletree@aol.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/06/05/james-whitey-bulger-jury-selection-process-enters-second-day/KjS80ofyMMM5IkByK74bkK/story.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/06/09/nsa-leak-guardian.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As the CBC etc yap about Yankee wiretaps and whistleblowers I must
>>>> ask
>>>>>> them the obvious question AIN'T THEY FORGETTING SOMETHING????
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vugUalUO8YY
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What the hell does the media think my Yankee lawyer served upon the
>>>>>> USDOJ right after I ran for and seat in the 39th Parliament baseball
>>>>>> cards?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.archive.org/details/FedsUsTreasuryDeptRcmpEtc
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> http://archive.org/details/ITriedToExplainItToAllMaritimersInEarly2006
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://davidamos.blogspot.ca/2006/05/wiretap-tapes-impeach-bush.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.archive.org/details/PoliceSurveilanceWiretapTape139
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://archive.org/details/Part1WiretapTape143
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FEDERAL EXPRES February 7, 2006
>>>>>> Senator Arlen Specter
>>>>>> United States Senate
>>>>>> Committee on the Judiciary
>>>>>> 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
>>>>>> Washington, DC 20510
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Mr. Specter:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have been asked to forward the enclosed tapes to you from a man
>>>>>> named, David Amos, a Canadian citizen, in connection with the matters
>>>>>> raised in the attached letter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. Amos has represented to me that these are illegal FBI wire tap
>>>> tapes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe Mr. Amos has been in contact with you about this
>>>> previously.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Very truly yours,
>>>>>> Barry A. Bachrach
>>>>>> Direct telephone: (508) 926-3403
>>>>>> Direct facsimile: (508) 929-3003
>>>>>> Email: bbachrach@bowditch.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> From: "David Amos" david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>>>>>> To: "Rob Talach" rtalach@ledroitbeckett.com
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 10:59 PM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Attn Robert Talach and I should talk ASAP about my suing
>>>>>> the Catholic Church Trust that Bastarache knows why
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The date stamp on about page 134 of this old file of mine should mean
>>>>>> a lot to you
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/2619437-CROSS-BORDER-txt-.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
>>>>>> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 15:37:08 -0400
>>>>>> Subject: To Hell with the KILLER COP Gilles Moreau Wh>>
>>>>>> maritme_malaise@yahoo.ca, Jennifer.Nixon@ps-sp.gc.ca,
>>>>>> bartman.heidi@psic-ispc.gc.ca, Yves.J.Marineau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
>>>>>> david.paradiso@erc-cee.gc.ca, desaulniea@smtp.gc.ca,
>>>>>> denise.brennan@tbs-sct.gc.ca, anne.murtha@vac-acc.gc.ca,
>>>>>> webo@xplornet.com, julie.dickson@osfi-bsif.gc.ca,
>>>>>> rod.giles@osfi-bsif.gc.ca, flaherty.j@parl.gc.ca, toewsv1@parl.gc.ca,
>>>>>> Nycole.Turmel@parl.gc.ca,Clemet1@parl.gc.ca,
>>>> maritime_malaise@yahoo.ca, >> oig@sec.gov, whistleblower@finra.org,
>>>> whistle@fsa.gov.uk,
>>>>>> david@fairwhistleblower.ca
>>>>>> Cc: j.kroes@interpol.int, david.raymond.amos@gmail.com,
>>>>>> bernadine.chapman@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca,
>>>>>> Juanita.Peddle@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, oldmaison@yahoo.com,
>>>>>> Wayne.Lang@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, Robert.Trevors@gnb.ca,
>>>>>> ian.fahie@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/nb/news-nouvelles/media-medias-eng.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://nb.rcmpvet.ca/Newsletters/VetsReview/nlnov06.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Gilles Moreau Gilles.Moreau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>>>>>> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 08:03:22 -0500
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Lets ee if the really nasty Newfy Lawyer Danny Boy
>>>>>> Millions will explain this email to you or your boss Vic Toews EH
>>>>>> Constable Peddle???
>>>>>> To: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please cease and desist from using my name in your emails.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gilles Moreau, Chief Superintendent, CHRP and ACC
>>>>>> Director General
>>>>>> HR Transformation
>>>>>> 73 Leikin Drive, M5-2-502
>>>>>> Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0R2
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tel 613-843-6039
>>>>>> Cel 613-818-6947
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gilles Moreau, surintendant principal, CRHA et ACC
>>>>>> Directeur général de la Transformation des ressources humaines
>>>>>> 73 Leikin, pièce M5-2-502
>>>>>> Ottawa, ON K1A 0R2
>>>>>>
>>>>>> tél 613-843-6039
>>>>>> cel 613-818-6947
>>>>>> gilles.moreau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> First things first have a Look at the 3 documents hereto attached (Not
>>>>> a big read)
>>>>>
>>>>> Listen to these old voicemails from interesting FEDS at about the
>>>>> same point in time (Won't take long)
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.archive.org/details/FedsUsTreasuryDeptRcmpEtc
>>>>>
>>>>> then ask youselves or the lawyers Senator Shelby or Spizter or Cutler
>>>>> or Bernie madoff's old buddy Robert Glauber where the webcast and
>>>>> transcript went for a very important hearing held in late 2003 by the
>>>>> United States Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> http://www.banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings?ID=90F8E691-9065-4F8C-A465-72722B47E7F2
>>>>>
>>>>> Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding the
>>>>> Mutual Fund Industry
>>>>>
>>>>> November 20, 2003 02:00 PM
>>>>> The Committee will meet in OPEN SESSION to conduct the second in a
>>>>> series of hearings on the “Review of Current Investigations and
>>>>> Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry.”
>>>>>
>>>>> Archived Webcast
>>>>>
>>>>> Witness Panel 1
>>>>>
>>>>> Mr. Stephen M. Cutler
>>>>> Director - Division of Enforcement
>>>>> Securities and Exchange Commission
>>>>> cutler.pdf (175.5 KBs)
>>>>>
>>>>> Mr. Robert Glauber
>>>>> Chairman and CEO
>>>>> National Association of Securities Dealers
>>>>> glauber.pdf (171.1 KBs)
>>>>>
>>>>> Eliot Spitzer
>>>>> Attorney General
>>>>> State of New York
>>>>> spitzer.pdf (68.2 KBs)
>>>>>
>>>>> Permalink:
>>>>>
>>>> http://www.banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2003/11/review-of-current-investigations-and-regulatory-actions-regarding-the-mutual-fund-industry
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Trust that the evil women and men that PM Trudeau "The Younger"
>>>>> appointed to to his cabinet will continue to play dumb because of
>>>>> their oath to The Privy Council. However it does not follow that
>>>>> everybody who works for them are dumb and they have no such oath to
>>>>> uphold N'esy Pas?.
>>>>>
>>>>> Veritas Vincit
>>>>> David Raymond Amos
>>>>> 902 800 0369
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>> From: Lisa Porteous <lporteous@kleinlyons.com>
>>>>> Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 14:46:22 +0000
>>>>> Subject: RCMP
>>>>> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> David,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for your email inquiring about our class action against the
>>>>> RCMP. As you may know, the Notice of Claim was filed in the Brit>
>>>>> brought
>>>>> by former RCMP constable Janet Merlo on behalf of female RCMP
>>>>> members. Unfortunately, we cannot assist you with your claim.
>>>>>
>>>>> We recommend that you contact Mr. Barry Carter of Mair Jensen Blair
>>>>> LLP to discuss any claim you may have against the RCMP for harassment.
>>>>> His contact information is as follows:
>>>>>
>>>>> Mr. Barry Carter
>>>>> Mair Jensen Blair LLP
>>>>> 1380-885 W. Georgia Street
>>>>> Vancouver, BC V6C 3E8
>>>>> Phone: 604-682-6299
>>>>> Fax 1-604-374-6992
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not intended to be an opinion concerning the merits of your
>>>>> case. In declining to represent you, we are not expressing an opinion
>>>>> as to whether you should take further action in this matter.
>>>>>
>>>>> You should be aware that there may be strict time limitations within
>>>>> which you must act in order to protect your rights. Failure to begin
>>>>> your lawsuit by filing an action within the required time may mean
>>>>> that you could be barred forever from pursuing a claim. Therefore, you
>>>>> should immediately contact another lawyer ( as indicated above) to
>>>>> obtain legal advice/representation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you again for considering our firm.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yours truly,
>>>>>
>>>>> Lisa Porteous
>>>>> Case Manager/Paralegal
>>>>>
>>>>> lporteous@kleinlyons.com
>>>>> www.kleinlyons.com
>>>>>
>>>>> KLEIN ∙ LYONS
>>>>> Suite 400-1385 West 8th Avenue
>>>>> Vancouver BC V6H 3V9 Canada
>>>>> Office 604.874.7171
>>>>> Fax 604.874.7180
>>>>> Direct 604.714.6533
>>>>>
>>>>> This email is confidential and may be protected by solicitor-client
>>>>> privilege. It is intended only for the use of the person to whom it is
>>>>> addressed. Any distribution, copying or other use by anyone else is
>>>>> strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
>>>>> telephone us immediately and destroy this e-mail.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>>>>>
>>>
>
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 12:04 PM
Subject: Methinks I should take up my concerns with the wannabe lawyer Stefanos Karatopis in Federal Court Correct David A. Hansen?
To: Kevin.leahy <Kevin.leahy@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, <warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, <stefanos.karatopis@gmail.com>, <jayward0111@gmail.com>, <allen.libertarian@gmail.com>, <libertywatchman9@gmail.com>, David Amos <David.Raymond.Amos333@gmail.com>, <premier@ontario.ca>, warren <warren@daisygroup.ca>, <andrew.scheer@parl.gc.ca>, <George.Soros@opensocietyfoundations.org>, <briangallant10@gmail.com>, <john.e.kelly@tsa.dhs.gov>, <David.Hansen@justice.gc.ca>, <robert.frater@justice.gc.ca>, <paul.riley@ppsc-sppc.gc.ca>, <greg@gregdelbigio.com>, <joyce.dewitt-vanoosten@gov.bc.ca>, <joan.barrett@ontario.ca>, <jean-vincent.lacroix@gouv.qc.ca>, <peter.rogers@mcinnescooper.com>, <mfeder@mccarthy.ca>, <mjamal@osler.com>, <gopublic@cbc.ca>, <Whistleblower@ctv.ca>, <gregory.craig@skadden.com>, <boston@ic.fbi.gov>, <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, <Brian.Kelly@usdoj.gov>, <us.marshals@usdoj.gov>, <Fred.Wyshak@usdoj.gov>, <jcarney@carneybassil.com>, <bbachrach@bachrachlaw.net>, <PATRICK.MURPHY@dhs.gov>
Cc: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>, ethics-ethique <ethics-ethique@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, <ombuds@uottawa.ca>, <recteur@uottawa.ca>, <pm@pm.gc.ca>, <president@uottawa.ca>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stefanos Karatopis <stefanos.karatopis@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 18:10:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Methinks I should take up my concerns with its Attorney
General after it is Yasir Naqvi or his replacement I will argue in
Federal Court Correct?
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Cc: libertywatchman9@gmail.com, jayward0111@gmail.com,
allen.libertarian@gmail.com, David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Take notice.
Any further defamatory statements, harassment and intrusion upon seclusion
in emails showing my email address and about myself will be brought to the
courts in a claim against all in this email.
Remove my email address immediately.
Cease and desist immediately.
Govern yourself accordingly.
On Tue, 8 May 2018 at 21:27, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote:
> https://libertarian.on.ca/Char
>
> https://libertarian.on.ca/Stef
>
> https://libertarian.on.ca/Jay_
>
> http://www.allensmall.yolasite
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 18:03:58 -0400
> Subject: Fwd: Methinks I should take up my concerns with its Attorney
> General after it is Yasir Naqvi or his replacement I will argue in
> Federal Court Correct?
> To: info@nota.ca, doug <doug@fordnation.ca>, premier
> <premier@ontario.ca>, warren <warren@daisygroup.ca>
> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
>
> Email info@nota.ca
> Facebook Facebook.com/NoneOfTheAboveX
> Twitter Twitter.com/NoneOfTheAboveX
> YouTube YouTube.com/NoneOfTheAboveX
> Phone (905) 501-0010
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 15:36:02 -0400
> Subject: Fwd: Methinks I should take up my concerns with its Attorney
> General after it is Yasir Naqvi or his replacement I will argue in
> Federal Court Correct?
> To: yasir.naqvi@ontario.ca, ethics-ethique <ethics-ethique@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.c
> Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 19:18:48 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: Methinks I should take up my concerns with
> its Attorney General after it is Yasir Naqvi or his replacement I will
> argue in Federal Court Correct?
> To: motomaniac333@gmail.com
>
> Thank you for writing to the Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, Member
> of Parliament for Vancouver Granville.
>
> This message is to acknowledge that we are in receipt of your email.
> Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence, there
> may be a delay in processing your email. Rest assured that your
> message will be carefully reviewed.
>
> To help us address your concerns more quickly, please include within
> the body of your email your full name, address, and postal code.
>
> Please note that your message will be forwarded to the Department of
> Justice if it concerns topics pertaining to the member's role as the
> Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. For all future
> correspondence addressed to the Minister of Justice, please write
> directly to the Department of Justice at
> mcu@justice.gc.ca<mailto:mcu@j
>
> Thank you
>
> -------------------
>
> Merci d'?crire ? l'honorable Jody Wilson-Raybould, d?put?e de
> Vancouver Granville.
>
> Le pr?sent message vise ? vous informer que nous avons re?u votre
> courriel. En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de
> correspondance, il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de
> votre courriel. Sachez que votre message sera examin? attentivement.
>
> Pour nous aider ? r?pondre ? vos pr?occupations plus rapidement,
> veuillez inclure dans le corps de votre courriel votre nom complet,
> votre adresse et votre code postal.
>
> Veuillez prendre note que votre message sera transmis au minist?re de
> la Justice s'il porte sur des sujets qui rel?vent du r?le de la
> d?put?e en tant que ministre de la Justice et procureure g?n?rale du
> Canada. Pour toute correspondance future adress?e ? la ministre de la
> Justice, veuillez ?crire directement au minist?re de la Justice ?
> mcu@justice.gc.ca ou appelez au 613-957-4222.
>
> Merci
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 15:18:27 -0400
> Subject: Methinks I should take up my concerns with its Attorney
> General after it is Yasir Naqvi or his replacement I will argue in
> Federal Court Correct?
> To: ynaqvi.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org, "Jody.Wilson-Raybould"
> <Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.
> recteur@uottawa.ca, pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>, "Gerald.Butts"
> <Gerald.Butts@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>, "andrew.scheer"
> <andrew.scheer@parl.gc.ca>
> Cc: David Amos <myson333@yahoo.com>, "serge.rousselle" <
> serge.rousselle@gnb.ca>
>
> Yasir Naqvi
> 109 Catherine Street
> Ottawa, ON
> K2P 0P4
> Email: ynaqvi.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
> Phone: 613-722-6414
> Fax: 613-722-6703
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Ombudsman - Ombudsperson <ombuds@uottawa.ca>
> Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 18:46:47 +0000
> Subject: RE: You cannot deny that I am a taxpayer who is compelled to
> support "Canada's University" Correct?
> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
> Dear Mr. Amos,
>
> I have no doubt that you are a citizen. The mandate of my office does
> not extend to people outside the university community. If you think
> your question may be under the jurisdiction of an ombudsman, you may
> contact the Ontario ombudsman office to see whether they can help with
> your inquiry.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Martine Conway, Ombudsman / Ombudsperson
>
> Bureau de l'Ombudsman / Office of the Ombudsperson
> Université d'Ottawa/ University of Ottawa
> (613) 562-5342 [ext. 5342]
> 85 Université (Centre Universitaire) pièce 307/ 85 University
> (University Centre) Room 307
> Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6N5
> www.uottawa.ca/ombudsman
>
> Veuillez prendre note que nous ne pouvons assurer la confidentialité
> des courriels. Il est nécessaire de téléphoner si vous souhaitez
> communiquer avec nous de manière confidentielle.
> Please note that we cannot guarantee the confidentiality of the
> content of email messages. In order to communicate with us on a
> confidential basis, you must phone us.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Amos [mailto:motomaniac333@gmail.co
> Sent: May-07-18 5:36 PM
> To: Ombudsman - Ombudsperson <ombuds@uottawa.ca>
> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
> Office of the President <recteur@uottawa.ca>; pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>;
> Gerald.Butts <Gerald.Butts@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>; andrew.scheer
> <andrew.scheer@parl.gc.ca>
> Subject: You cannot deny that I am a taxpayer who is compelled to
> support "Canada's University" Correct?
>
> On 5/7/18, Ombudsman - Ombudsperson <ombuds@uottawa.ca> wrote:
> > Dear Mr. Amos,
> >
> > Thank you for your email and attached documentation. Please note that my
> > Office has a mandate to receive university-related inquiries and
> complaints
> > from members of the university community (i.e. staff, students,
> > post-doctoral fellows, affiliated researchers, professors and
> administrators
> > at the University of Ottawa). More specifically, I review complaints to
> > ensure fair treatment of university community members.
> >
> > You did not indicate that you were a university community member, and
> while
> > I note the concerns you express about a connection between the current
> > president and the foundation you mentioned, this is not an issue under
> the
> > mandate of my office. I also note that the documentation you attached
> > relates to issues outside the university.
> >
> > I hope this clarifies what I was explaining over the phone. If you are a
> > member of the university community (as described above) with a specific
> > inquiry or complaint about a university process, please feel free to
> contact
> > my office and explain the situation to me.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Martine Conway, Ombudsman / Ombudsperson
> >
> > Bureau de l'Ombudsman / Office of the Ombudsperson
> > Université d'Ottawa/ University of Ottawa
> > (613) 562-5342 [ext. 5342]
> > 85 Université (Centre Universitaire) pièce 307/ 85 University (University
> > Centre) Room 307
> > Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6N5
> > www.uottawa.ca/ombudsman
> >
> > Veuillez prendre note que nous ne pouvons assurer la confidentialité des
> > courriels. Il est nécessaire de téléphoner si vous souhaitez communiquer
> > avec nous de manière confidentielle.
> > Please note that we cannot guarantee the confidentiality of the content
> of
> > email messages. In order to communicate with us on a confidential basis,
> > you must phone us.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Amos [mailto:motomaniac333@gmail.co
> > Sent: May-04-18 2:17 PM
> > To: Ombudsman - Ombudsperson <ombuds@uottawa.ca>
> > Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
> > <George.Soros@opensocietyfound
> of
> > the President <recteur@uottawa.ca>
> > Subject: We just talked I tried to explain to you my concerns about
> Jacques
> > Frémont and his connection with George Soros and the Open Society
> > Foundation
> >
> > University Centre, Room 307
> > 85 University Private, Ottawa ON K1N6N5
> > Tel.: 613-562-5342
> > Toll-free: 1-877-868-8292 ext. 5342
> > Fax: 613-562-5386
> > ombudsperson@uOttawa.ca
> >
> > Jacques Frémont, head of Quebec human rights commission, named next
> > uOttawa president
> > CBC News · Posted: Dec 02, 2015 3:28 PM ET |
> >
> > The current head of Quebec's human rights commission has been named
> > the next president of the University of Ottawa.
> >
> > Jacques Frémont will succeed outgoing president Allan Rock when his
> > term expires at the end of June 2016, the university announced
> > Wednesday afternoon.
> >
> > In addition to becoming the university's 30th president, Frémont will
> > also serve as vice-chancellor, the university said.
> >
> > Frémont, an emeritus professor of law at the University of Montreal,
> > became president of the Commission des droits de la personne et des
> > droits de la jeunesse in 2013.
> >
> > He was appointed unanimously, the university said.
> >
> > Frémont takes over for Rock, who has been the University of Ottawa's
> > president since 2008.
> >
> >
> >
> > Biography
> >
> > Jacques Frémont is President and Vice-Chancellor of the University of
> > Ottawa. In 2013, Quebec’s legislative assembly appointed him to chair
> > the Quebec Human Rights and Youth Rights Commission. Prior to this
> > appointment, he worked at the Open Society Foundations, in New York,
> > as Director of the International Higher Education Support Program.
> >
> > Mr. Frémont was formerly at the University of Montreal, where he was
> > Dean of the School of Law, as well as Provost and Vice-Rector
> > (Academic Affairs) until 2010. He has also been a visiting professor
> > at many Quebec, Canadian, European and Asian universities, and is the
> > author of several books, articles and book chapters on constitutional
> > law and public law. In 2012, he was named professor emeritus of the
> > University of Montreal.
> >
> > Throughout his career, Mr. Frémont has advised various international
> > organizations on issues involving human rights, good governance and
> > democracy, and has directed major international cooperation projects
> > in the fields of human rights and judicial training. He has also been
> > very active in higher education in Canada and abroad.
> >
> > Mr. Frémont is a graduate of Laval University, in Quebec City, and
> > pursued graduate studies at York University in Toronto. He has been
> > awarded prizes and honours, including being named to the Order of the
> > French Academic Palms in 2009 and receiving an honorary doctorate from
> > Paul Cézanne University in Aix-en-Provence in 2010.
> >
> >
> > Office of the President
> > Tabaret Hall (map)
> > 550 Cumberland, Room 212
> > Ottawa ON K1N 6N5
> > Canada
> >
> > Tel.: 613-562-5809
> > Fax: 613-562-5103
> > president@uOttawa.ca
> >
> >
> >
> >
> http://davidraymondamos3.blogs
> >
> >
> > Sunday, 19 November 2017
> > Federal Court of Appeal Finally Makes The BIG Decision And Publishes
> > It Now The Crooks Cannot Take Back Ticket To Try Put My Matter Before
> > The Supreme Court
> >
> > https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca
> >
> >
> > Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
> >
> > Amos v. Canada
> > Court (s) Database
> >
> > Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
> > Date
> >
> > 2017-10-30
> > Neutral citation
> >
> > 2017 FCA 213
> > File numbers
> >
> > A-48-16
> > Date: 20171030
> >
> > Docket: A-48-16
> > Citation: 2017 FCA 213
> > CORAM:
> >
> > WEBB J.A.
> > NEAR J.A.
> > GLEASON J.A.
> >
> >
> > BETWEEN:
> > DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
> > Respondent on the cross-appeal
> > (and formally Appellant)
> > and
> > HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
> > Appellant on the cross-appeal
> > (and formerly Respondent)
> > Heard at Fredericton, New Brunswick, on May 24, 2017.
> > Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 30, 2017.
> > REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:
> >
> > THE COURT
> >
> >
> >
> > Date: 20171030
> >
> > Docket: A-48-16
> > Citation: 2017 FCA 213
> > CORAM:
> >
> > WEBB J.A.
> > NEAR J.A.
> > GLEASON J.A.
> >
> >
> > BETWEEN:
> > DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
> > Respondent on the cross-appeal
> > (and formally Appellant)
> > and
> > HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
> > Appellant on the cross-appeal
> > (and formerly Respondent)
> > REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY THE COURT
> >
> > I. Introduction
> >
> > [1] On September 16, 2015, David Raymond Amos (Mr. Amos)
> > filed a 53-page Statement of Claim (the Claim) in Federal Court
> > against Her Majesty the Queen (the Crown). Mr. Amos claims $11 million
> > in damages and a public apology from the Prime Minister and Provincial
> > Premiers for being illegally barred from accessing parliamentary
> > properties and seeks a declaration from the Minister of Public Safety
> > that the Canadian Government will no longer allow the Royal Canadian
> > Mounted Police (RCMP) and Canadian Forces to harass him and his clan
> > (Claim at para. 96).
> >
> > [2] On November 12, 2015 (Docket T-1557-15), by way of a
> > motion brought by the Crown, a prothonotary of the Federal Court (the
> > Prothonotary) struck the Claim in its entirety, without leave to
> > amend, on the basis that it was plain and obvious that the Claim
> > disclosed no reasonable claim, the Claim was fundamentally vexatious,
> > and the Claim could not be salvaged by way of further amendment (the
> > Prothontary’s Order).
> >
> >
> > [3] On January 25, 2016 (2016 FC 93), by way of Mr.
> > Amos’ appeal from the Prothonotary’s Order, a judge of the Federal
> > Court (the Judge), reviewing the matter de novo, struck all of Mr.
> > Amos’ claims for relief with the exception of the claim for damages
> > for being barred by the RCMP from the New Brunswick legislature in
> > 2004 (the Federal Court Judgment).
> >
> >
> > [4] Mr. Amos appealed and the Crown cross-appealed the
> > Federal Court Judgment. Further to the issuance of a Notice of Status
> > Review, Mr. Amos’ appeal was dismissed for delay on December 19, 2016.
> > As such, the only matter before this Court is the Crown’s
> > cross-appeal.
> >
> >
> > II. Preliminary Matter
> >
> > [5] Mr. Amos, in his memorandum of fact and law in
> > relation to the cross-appeal that was filed with this Court on March
> > 6, 2017, indicated that several judges of this Court, including two of
> > the judges of this panel, had a conflict of interest in this appeal.
> > This was the first time that he identified the judges whom he believed
> > had a conflict of interest in a document that was filed with this
> > Court. In his notice of appeal he had alluded to a conflict with
> > several judges but did not name those judges.
> >
> > [6] Mr. Amos was of the view that he did not have to
> > identify the judges in any document filed with this Court because he
> > had identified the judges in various documents that had been filed
> > with the Federal Court. In his view the Federal Court and the Federal
> > Court of Appeal are the same court and therefore any document filed in
> > the Federal Court would be filed in this Court. This view is based on
> > subsections 5(4) and 5.1(4) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985,
> > c. F-7:
> >
> >
> > 5(4) Every judge of the Federal Court is, by virtue of his or her
> > office, a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal and has all the
> > jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Federal Court of
> > Appeal.
> > […]
> >
> > 5(4) Les juges de la Cour fédérale sont d’office juges de la Cour
> > d’appel fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs que
> > les juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale.
> > […]
> > 5.1(4) Every judge of the Federal Court of Appeal is, by virtue of
> > that office, a judge of the Federal Court and has all the
> > jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Federal Court.
> >
> > 5.1(4) Les juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale sont d’office juges de la
> > Cour fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs que les
> > juges de la Cour fédérale.
> >
> >
> > [7] However, these subsections only provide that the
> > judges of the Federal Court are also judges of this Court (and vice
> > versa). It does not mean that there is only one court. If the Federal
> > Court and this Court were one Court, there would be no need for this
> > section.
> > [8] Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Courts Act provide
> that:
> > 3 The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the Federal Court
> > — Appeal Division is continued under the name “Federal Court of
> > Appeal” in English and “Cour d’appel fédérale” in French. It is
> > continued as an additional court of law, equity and admiralty in and
> > for Canada, for the better administration of the laws of Canada and as
> > a superior court of record having civil and criminal jurisdiction.
> >
> > 3 La Section d’appel, aussi appelée la Cour d’appel ou la Cour d’appel
> > fédérale, est maintenue et dénommée « Cour d’appel fédérale » en
> > français et « Federal Court of Appeal » en anglais. Elle est maintenue
> > à titre de tribunal additionnel de droit, d’equity et d’amirauté du
> > Canada, propre à améliorer l’application du droit canadien, et
> > continue d’être une cour supérieure d’archives ayant compétence en
> > matière civile et pénale.
> > 4 The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the Federal Court
> > — Trial Division is continued under the name “Federal Court” in
> > English and “Cour fédérale” in French. It is continued as an
> > additional court of law, equity and admiralty in and for Canada, for
> > the better administration of the laws of Canada and as a superior
> > court of record having civil and criminal jurisdiction.
> >
> > 4 La section de la Cour fédérale du Canada, appelée la Section de
> > première instance de la Cour fédérale, est maintenue et dénommée «
> > Cour fédérale » en français et « Federal Court » en anglais. Elle est
> > maintenue à titre de tribunal additionnel de droit, d’equity et
> > d’amirauté du Canada, propre à améliorer l’application du droit
> > canadien, et continue d’être une cour supérieure d’archives ayant
> > compétence en matière civile et pénale.
> >
> >
> > [9] Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Courts Act create
> > two separate courts – this Court (section 3) and the Federal Court
> > (section 4). If, as Mr. Amos suggests, documents filed in the Federal
> > Court were automatically also filed in this Court, then there would no
> > need for the parties to prepare and file appeal books as required by
> > Rules 343 to 345 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 in relation
> > to any appeal from a decision of the Federal Court. The requirement to
> > file an appeal book with this Court in relation to an appeal from a
> > decision of the Federal Court makes it clear that the only documents
> > that will be before this Court are the documents that are part of that
> > appeal book.
> >
> >
> > [10] Therefore, the memorandum of fact and law filed on
> > March 6, 2017 is the first document, filed with this Court, in which
> > Mr. Amos identified the particular judges that he submits have a
> > conflict in any matter related to him.
> >
> >
> > [11] On April 3, 2017, Mr. Amos attempted to bring a motion
> > before the Federal Court seeking an order “affirming or denying the
> > conflict of interest he has” with a number of judges of the Federal
> > Court. A judge of the Federal Court issued a direction noting that if
> > Mr. Amos was seeking this order in relation to judges of the Federal
> > Court of Appeal, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Federal Court.
> > Mr. Amos raised the Federal Court motion at the hearing of this
> > cross-appeal. The Federal Court motion is not a motion before this
> > Court and, as such, the submissions filed before the Federal Court
> > will not be entertained. As well, since this was a motion brought
> > before the Federal Court (and not this Court), any documents filed in
> > relation to that motion are not part of the record of this Court.
> >
> >
> > [12] During the hearing of the appeal Mr. Amos alleged that
> > the third member of this panel also had a conflict of interest and
> > submitted some documents that, in his view, supported his claim of a
> > conflict. Mr. Amos, following the hearing of his appeal, was also
> > afforded the opportunity to provide a brief summary of the conflict
> > that he was alleging and to file additional documents that, in his
> > view, supported his allegations. Mr. Amos submitted several pages of
> > documents in relation to the alleged conflicts. He organized the
> > documents by submitting a copy of the biography of the particular
> > judge and then, immediately following that biography, by including
> > copies of the documents that, in his view, supported his claim that
> > such judge had a conflict.
> >
> >
> > [13] The nature of the alleged conflict of Justice Webb is
> > that before he was appointed as a Judge of the Tax Court of Canada in
> > 2006, he was a partner with the law firm Patterson Law, and before
> > that with Patterson Palmer in Nova Scotia. Mr. Amos submitted that he
> > had a number of disputes with Patterson Palmer and Patterson Law and
> > therefore Justice Webb has a conflict simply because he was a partner
> > of these firms. Mr. Amos is not alleging that Justice Webb was
> > personally involved in or had any knowledge of any matter in which Mr.
> > Amos was involved with Justice Webb’s former law firm – only that he
> > was a member of such firm.
> >
> >
> > [14] During his oral submissions at the hearing of his
> > appeal Mr. Amos, in relation to the alleged conflict for Justice Webb,
> > focused on dealings between himself and a particular lawyer at
> > Patterson Law. However, none of the documents submitted by Mr. Amos at
> > the hearing or subsequently related to any dealings with this
> > particular lawyer nor is it clear when Mr. Amos was dealing with this
> > lawyer. In particular, it is far from clear whether such dealings were
> > after the time that Justice Webb was appointed as a Judge of the Tax
> > Court of Canada over 10 years ago.
> >
> >
> > [15] The documents that he submitted in relation to the
> > alleged conflict for Justice Webb largely relate to dealings between
> > Byron Prior and the St. John’s Newfoundland and Labrador office of
> > Patterson Palmer, which is not in the same province where Justice Webb
> > practiced law. The only document that indicates any dealing between
> > Mr. Amos and Patterson Palmer is a copy of an affidavit of Stephen May
> > who was a partner in the St. John’s NL office of Patterson Palmer. The
> > affidavit is dated January 24, 2005 and refers to a number of e-mails
> > that were sent by Mr. Amos to Stephen May. Mr. Amos also included a
> > letter that is addressed to four individuals, one of whom is John
> > Crosbie who was counsel to the St. John’s NL office of Patterson
> > Palmer. The letter is dated September 2, 2004 and is addressed to
> > “John Crosbie, c/o Greg G. Byrne, Suite 502, 570 Queen Street,
> > Fredericton, NB E3B 5E3”. In this letter Mr. Amos alludes to a
> > possible lawsuit against Patterson Palmer.
> > [16] Mr. Amos’ position is that simply because Justice Webb
> > was a lawyer with Patterson Palmer, he now has a conflict. In Wewaykum
> > Indian Band v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2003 SCC 45, [2003] 2 S.C.R.
> > 259, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that disqualification of a
> > judge is to be determined based on whether there is a reasonable
> > apprehension of bias:
> > 60 In Canadian law, one standard has now emerged as the
> > criterion for disqualification. The criterion, as expressed by de
> > Grandpré J. in Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy
> > Board, …[[1978] 1 S.C.R. 369, 68 D.L.R. (3d) 716], at p. 394, is the
> > reasonable apprehension of bias:
> > … the apprehension of bias must be a reasonable one, held by
> > reasonable and right minded persons, applying themselves to the
> > question and obtaining thereon the required information. In the words
> > of the Court of Appeal, that test is "what would an informed person,
> > viewing the matter realistically and practically -- and having thought
> > the matter through -- conclude. Would he think that it is more likely
> > than not that [the decision-maker], whether consciously or
> > unconsciously, would not decide fairly."
> >
> > [17] The issue to be determined is whether an informed
> > person, viewing the matter realistically and practically, and having
> > thought the matter through, would conclude that Mr. Amos’ allegations
> > give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. As this Court has
> > previously remarked, “there is a strong presumption that judges will
> > administer justice impartially” and this presumption will not be
> > rebutted in the absence of “convincing evidence” of bias (Collins v.
> > Canada, 2011 FCA 140 at para. 7, [2011] 4 C.T.C. 157 [Collins]. See
> > also R. v. S. (R.D.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484 at para. 32, 151 D.L.R.
> > (4th) 193).
> >
> > [18] The Ontario Court of Appeal in Rando Drugs Ltd. v.
> > Scott, 2007 ONCA 553, 86 O.R. (3d) 653 (leave to appeal to the Supreme
> > Court of Canada refused, 32285 (August 1, 2007)), addressed the
> > particular issue of whether a judge is disqualified from hearing a
> > case simply because he had been a member of a law firm that was
> > involved in the litigation that was now before that judge. The Ontario
> > Court of Appeal determined that the judge was not disqualified if the
> > judge had no involvement with the person or the matter when he was a
> > lawyer. The Ontario Court of Appeal also explained that the rules for
> > determining whether a judge is disqualified are different from the
> > rules to determine whether a lawyer has a conflict:
> > 27 Thus, disqualification is not the natural corollary to a
> > finding that a trial judge has had some involvement in a case over
> > which he or she is now presiding. Where the judge had no involvement,
> > as here, it cannot be said that the judge is disqualified.
> >
> >
> > 28 The point can rightly be made that had Mr. Patterson been
> > asked to represent the appellant as counsel before his appointment to
> > the bench, the conflict rules would likely have prevented him from
> > taking the case because his firm had formerly represented one of the
> > defendants in the case. Thus, it is argued how is it that as a trial
> > judge Patterson J. can hear the case? This issue was considered by the
> > Court of Appeal (Civil Division) in Locabail (U.K.) Ltd. v. Bayfield
> > Properties Ltd., [2000] Q.B. 451. The court held, at para. 58, that
> > there is no inflexible rule governing the disqualification of a judge
> > and that, "[e]verything depends on the circumstances."
> >
> >
> > 29 It seems to me that what appears at first sight to be an
> > inconsistency in application of rules can be explained by the
> > different contexts and in particular, the strong presumption of
> > judicial impartiality that applies in the context of disqualification
> > of a judge. There is no such presumption in cases of allegations of
> > conflict of interest against a lawyer because of a firm's previous
> > involvement in the case. To the contrary, as explained by Sopinka J.
> > in MacDonald Estate v. Martin (1990), 77 D.L.R. (4th) 249 (S.C.C.),
> > for sound policy reasons there is a presumption of a disqualifying
> > interest that can rarely be overcome. In particular, a conclusory
> > statement from the lawyer that he or she had no confidential
> > information about the case will never be sufficient. The case is the
> > opposite where the allegation of bias is made against a trial judge.
> > His or her statement that he or she knew nothing about the case and
> > had no involvement in it will ordinarily be accepted at face value
> > unless there is good reason to doubt it: see Locabail, at para. 19.
> >
> >
> > 30 That brings me then to consider the particular circumstances
> > of this case and whether there are serious grounds to find a
> > disqualifying conflict of interest in this case. In my view, there are
> > two significant factors that justify the trial judge's decision not to
> > recuse himself. The first is his statement, which all parties accept,
> > that he knew nothing of the case when it was in his former firm and
> > that he had nothing to do with it. The second is the long passage of
> > time. As was said in Wewaykum, at para. 85:
> > To us, one significant factor stands out, and must inform
> > the perspective of the reasonable person assessing the impact of this
> > involvement on Binnie J.'s impartiality in the appeals. That factor is
> > the passage of time. Most arguments for disqualification rest on
> > circumstances that are either contemporaneous to the decision-making,
> > or that occurred within a short time prior to the decision-making.
> > 31 There are other factors that inform the issue. The Wilson
> > Walker firm no longer acted for any of the parties by the time of
> > trial. More importantly, at the time of the motion, Patterson J. had
> > been a judge for six years and thus had not had a relationship with
> > his former firm for a considerable period of time.
> >
> >
> > 32 In my view, a reasonable person, viewing the matter
> > realistically would conclude that the trial judge could deal fairly
> > and impartially with this case. I take this view principally because
> > of the long passage of time and the trial judge's lack of involvement
> > in or knowledge of the case when the Wilson Walker firm had carriage.
> > In these circumstances it cannot be reasonably contended that the
> > trial judge could not remain impartial in the case. The mere fact that
> > his name appears on the letterhead of some correspondence from over a
> > decade ago would not lead a reasonable person to believe that he would
> > either consciously or unconsciously favour his former firm's former
> > client. It is simply not realistic to think that a judge would throw
> > off his mantle of impartiality, ignore his oath of office and favour a
> > client - about whom he knew nothing - of a firm that he left six years
> > earlier and that no longer acts for the client, in a case involving
> > events from over a decade ago.
> > (emphasis added)
> >
> > [19] Justice Webb had no involvement with any matter
> > involving Mr. Amos while he was a member of Patterson Palmer or
> > Patterson Law, nor does Mr. Amos suggest that he did. Mr. Amos made it
> > clear during the hearing of this matter that the only reason for the
> > alleged conflict for Justice Webb was that he was a member of
> > Patterson Law and Patterson Palmer. This is simply not enough for
> > Justice Webb to be disqualified. Any involvement of Mr. Amos with
> > Patterson Law while Justice Webb was a member of that firm would have
> > had to occur over 10 years ago and even longer for the time when he
> > was a member of Patterson Palmer. In addition to the lack of any
> > involvement on his part with any matter or dispute that Mr. Amos had
> > with Patterson Law or Patterson Palmer (which in and of itself is
> > sufficient to dispose of this matter), the length of time since
> > Justice Webb was a member of Patterson Law or Patterson Palmer would
> > also result in the same finding – that there is no conflict in Justice
> > Webb hearing this appeal.
> >
> > [20] Similarly in R. v. Bagot, 2000 MBCA 30, 145 Man. R.
> > (2d) 260, the Manitoba Court of Appeal found that there was no
> > reasonable apprehension of bias when a judge, who had been a member of
> > the law firm that had been retained by the accused, had no involvement
> > with the accused while he was a lawyer with that firm.
> >
> > [21] In Del Zotto v. Minister of National Revenue, [2000] 4
> > F.C. 321, 257 N.R. 96, this court did find that there would be a
> > reasonable apprehension of bias where a judge, who while he was a
> > lawyer, had recorded time on a matter involving the same person who
> > was before that judge. However, this case can be distinguished as
> > Justice Webb did not have any time recorded on any files involving Mr.
> > Amos while he was a lawyer with Patterson Palmer or Patterson Law.
> >
> > [22] Mr. Amos also included with his submissions a CD. He
> > stated in his affidavit dated June 26, 2017 that there is a “true copy
> > of an American police surveillance wiretap entitled 139” on this CD.
> > He has also indicated that he has “provided a true copy of the CD
> > entitled 139 to many American and Canadian law enforcement authorities
> > and not one of the police forces or officers of the court are willing
> > to investigate it”. Since he has indicated that this is an “American
> > police surveillance wiretap”, this is a matter for the American law
> > enforcement authorities and cannot create, as Mr. Amos suggests, a
> > conflict of interest for any judge to whom he provides a copy.
> >
> > [23] As a result, there is no conflict or reasonable
> > apprehension of bias for Justice Webb and therefore, no reason for him
> > to recuse himself.
> >
> > [24] Mr. Amos alleged that Justice Near’s past professional
> > experience with the government created a “quasi-conflict” in deciding
> > the cross-appeal. Mr. Amos provided no details and Justice Near
> > confirmed that he had no prior knowledge of the matters alleged in the
> > Claim. Justice Near sees no reason to recuse himself.
> >
> > [25] Insofar as it is possible to glean the basis for Mr.
> > Amos’ allegations against Justice Gleason, it appears that he alleges
> > that she is incapable of hearing this appeal because he says he wrote
> > both Justice Gleason and Mr. Mulroney were partners in the law firm
> > Ogilvy Renault, LLP. The letter in question, which is rude and angry,
> > begins with “Hey you two Evil Old Smiling Bastards” and “Re: me suing
> > you and your little dogs too”. There is no indication that the letter
> > was ever responded to or that a law suit was ever commenced by Mr.
> > Amos against Mr. Mulroney. In the circumstances, there is no reason
> > for Justice Gleason to recuse herself as the letter in question does
> > not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.
> >
> >
> > III. Issue
> >
> > [26] The issue on the cross-appeal is as follows: Did the
> > Judge err in setting aside the Prothonotary’s Order striking the Claim
> > in its entirety without leave to amend and in determining that Mr.
> > Amos’ allegation that the RCMP barred him from the New Brunswick
> > legislature in 2004 was capable of supporting a cause of action?
> >
> > IV. Analysis
> >
> > A. Standard of Review
> >
> > [27] Following the Judge’s decision to set aside the
> > Prothonotary’s Order, this Court revisited the standard of review to
> > be applied to discretionary decisions of prothonotaries and decisions
> > made by judges on appeals of prothonotaries’ decisions in Hospira
> > Healthcare Corp. v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, 2016 FCA 215,
> > 402 D.L.R. (4th) 497 [Hospira]. In Hospira, a five-member panel of
> > this Court replaced the Aqua-Gem standard of review with that
> > articulated in Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235
> > [Housen]. As a result, it is no longer appropriate for the Federal
> > Court to conduct a de novo review of a discretionary order made by a
> > prothonotary in regard to questions vital to the final issue of the
> > case. Rather, a Federal Court judge can only intervene on appeal if
> > the prothonotary made an error of law or a palpable and overriding
> > error in determining a question of fact or question of mixed fact and
> > law (Hospira at para. 79). Further, this Court can only interfere with
> > a Federal Court judge’s review of a prothonotary’s discretionary order
> > if the judge made an error of law or palpable and overriding error in
> > determining a question of fact or question of mixed fact and law
> > (Hospira at paras. 82-83).
> >
> > [28] In the case at bar, the Judge substituted his own
> > assessment of Mr. Amos’ Claim for that of the Prothonotary. This Court
> > must look to the Prothonotary’s Order to determine whether the Judge
> > erred in law or made a palpable and overriding error in choosing to
> > interfere.
> >
> >
> > B. Did the Judge err in interfering with the
> > Prothonotary’s Order?
> >
> > [29] The Prothontoary’s Order accepted the following
> > paragraphs from the Crown’s submissions as the basis for striking the
> > Claim in its entirety without leave to amend:
> >
> > 17. Within the 96 paragraph Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff
> > addresses his complaint in paragraphs 14-24, inclusive. All but four
> > of those paragraphs are dedicated to an incident that occurred in 2006
> > in and around the legislature in New Brunswick. The jurisdiction of
> > the Federal Court does not extend to Her Majesty the Queen in right of
> > the Provinces. In any event, the Plaintiff hasn’t named the Province
> > or provincial actors as parties to this action. The incident alleged
> > does not give rise to a justiciable cause of action in this Court.
> > (…)
> >
> >
> > 21. The few paragraphs that directly address the Defendant
> > provide no details as to the individuals involved or the location of
> > the alleged incidents or other details sufficient to allow the
> > Defendant to respond. As a result, it is difficult or impossible to
> > determine the causes of action the Plaintiff is attempting to advance.
> > A generous reading of the Statement of Claim allows the Defendant to
> > only speculate as to the true and/or intended cause of action. At
> > best, the Plaintiff’s action may possibly be summarized as: he
> > suspects he is barred from the House of Commons.
> > [footnotes omitted].
> >
> >
> > [30] The Judge determined that he could not strike the Claim
> > on the same jurisdictional basis as the Prothonotary. The Judge noted
> > that the Federal Court has jurisdiction over claims based on the
> > liability of Federal Crown servants like the RCMP and that the actors
> > who barred Mr. Amos from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004
> > included the RCMP (Federal Court Judgment at para. 23). In considering
> > the viability of these allegations de novo, the Judge identified
> > paragraph 14 of the Claim as containing “some precision” as it
> > identifies the date of the event and a RCMP officer acting as
> > Aide-de-Camp to the Lieutenant Governor (Federal Court Judgment at
> > para. 27).
> >
> >
> > [31] The Judge noted that the 2004 event could support a
> > cause of action in the tort of misfeasance in public office and
> > identified the elements of the tort as excerpted from Meigs v. Canada,
> > 2013 FC 389, 431 F.T.R. 111:
> >
> >
> > [13] As in both the cases of Odhavji Estate v Woodhouse, 2003 SCC
> > 69 [Odhavji] and Lewis v Canada, 2012 FC 1514 [Lewis], I must
> > determine whether the plaintiffs’ statement of claim pleads each
> > element of the alleged tort of misfeasance in public office:
> >
> > a) The public officer must have engaged in deliberate and unlawful
> > conduct in his or her capacity as public officer;
> >
> > b) The public officer must have been aware both that his or her
> > conduct was unlawful and that it was likely to harm the plaintiff; and
> >
> > c) There must be an element of bad faith or dishonesty by the public
> > officer and knowledge of harm alone is insufficient to conclude that a
> > public officer acted in bad faith or dishonestly.
> > Odhavji, above, at paras 23, 24 and 28
> > (Federal Court Judgment at para. 28).
> >
> > [32] The Judge determined that Mr. Amos disclosed sufficient
> > material facts to meet the elements of the tort of misfeasance in
> > public office because the actors, who barred him from the New
> > Brunswick legislature in 2004, including the RCMP, did so for
> > “political reasons” (Federal Court Judgment at para. 29).
> >
> > [33] This Court’s discussion of the sufficiency of pleadings
> > in Merchant Law Group v. Canada (Revenue Agency), 2010 FCA 184, 321
> > D.L.R (4th) 301 is particularly apt:
> >
> > …When pleading bad faith or abuse of power, it is not enough to
> > assert, baldly, conclusory phrases such as “deliberately or
> > negligently,” “callous disregard,” or “by fraud and theft did steal”.
> > “The bare assertion of a conclusion upon which the court is called
> > upon to pronounce is not an allegation of material fact”. Making bald,
> > conclusory allegations without any evidentiary foundation is an abuse
> > of process…
> >
> > To this, I would add that the tort of misfeasance in public office
> > requires a particular state of mind of a public officer in carrying
> > out the impunged action, i.e., deliberate conduct which the public
> > officer knows to be inconsistent with the obligations of his or her
> > office. For this tort, particularization of the allegations is
> > mandatory. Rule 181 specifically requires particularization of
> > allegations of “breach of trust,” “wilful default,” “state of mind of
> > a person,” “malice” or “fraudulent intention.”
> > (at paras. 34-35, citations omitted).
> >
> > [34] Applying the Housen standard of review to the
> > Prothonotary’s Order, we are of the view that the Judge interfered
> > absent a legal or palpable and overriding error.
> >
> > [35] The Prothonotary determined that Mr. Amos’ Claim
> > disclosed no reasonable claim and was fundamentally vexatious on the
> > basis of jurisdictional concerns and the absence of material facts to
> > ground a cause of action. Paragraph 14 of the Claim, which addresses
> > the 2004 event, pleads no material facts as to how the RCMP officer
> > engaged in deliberate and unlawful conduct, knew that his or her
> > conduct was unlawful and likely to harm Mr. Amos, and acted in bad
> > faith. While the Claim alleges elsewhere that Mr. Amos was barred from
> > the New Brunswick legislature for political and/or malicious reasons,
> > these allegations are not particularized and are directed against
> > non-federal actors, such as the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Legislative
> > Assembly of New Brunswick and the Fredericton Police Force. As such,
> > the Judge erred in determining that Mr. Amos’ allegation that the RCMP
> > barred him from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004 was capable of
> > supporting a cause of action.
> >
> > [36] In our view, the Claim is made up entirely of bare
> > allegations, devoid of any detail, such that it discloses no
> > reasonable cause of action within the jurisdiction of the Federal
> > Courts. Therefore, the Judge erred in interfering to set aside the
> > Prothonotary’s Order striking the claim in its entirety. Further, we
> > find that the Prothonotary made no error in denying leave to amend.
> > The deficiencies in Mr. Amos’ pleadings are so extensive such that
> > amendment could not cure them (see Collins at para. 26).
> >
> > V. Conclusion
> > [37] For the foregoing reasons, we would allow the Crown’s
> > cross-appeal, with costs, setting aside the Federal Court Judgment,
> > dated January 25, 2016 and restoring the Prothonotary’s Order, dated
> > November 12, 2015, which struck Mr. Amos’ Claim in its entirety
> > without leave to amend.
> > "Wyman W. Webb"
> > J.A.
> > "David G. Near"
> > J.A.
> > "Mary J.L. Gleason"
> > J.A.
> >
> >
> >
> > FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
> > NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
> >
> > A CROSS-APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SOUTHCOTT DATED
> > JANUARY 25, 2016; DOCKET NUMBER T-1557-15.
> > DOCKET:
> >
> > A-48-16
> >
> >
> >
> > STYLE OF CAUSE:
> >
> > DAVID RAYMOND AMOS v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
> >
> >
> >
> > PLACE OF HEARING:
> >
> > Fredericton,
> > New Brunswick
> >
> > DATE OF HEARING:
> >
> > May 24, 2017
> >
> > REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:
> >
> > WEBB J.A.
> > NEAR J.A.
> > GLEASON J.A.
> >
> > DATED:
> >
> > October 30, 2017
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > APPEARANCES:
> > David Raymond Amos
> >
> >
> > For The Appellant / respondent on cross-appeal
> > (on his own behalf)
> >
> > Jan Jensen
> >
> >
> > For The Respondent / appELLANT ON CROSS-APPEAL
> >
> > SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
> > Nathalie G. Drouin
> > Deputy Attorney General of Canada
> >
> > For The Respondent / APPELLANT ON CROSS-APPEAL
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------- Original message ----------
> > From: Brian Gallant <briangallant10@gmail.com>
> > Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2018 18:28:55 -0700
> > Subject: Merci / Thank you Re: ATTN John Kelly, Secretary US
> > Department of Homeland Security
> > To: motomaniac333@gmail.com
> >
> > (Français à suivre)
> >
> > If your email is pertaining to the Government of New Brunswick, please
> > email me at brian.gallant@gnb.ca
> >
> > If your matter is urgent, please email Greg Byrne at greg.byrne@gnb.ca
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Si votre courriel s'addresse au Gouvernement du Nouveau-Brunswick,
> > svp m'envoyez un courriel à brian.gallant@gnb.ca
> >
> > Pour les urgences, veuillez contacter Greg Byrne à greg.byrne@gnb.ca
> >
> > Merci.
> >
> >
> http://davidraymondamos3.blogs
> >
> > Saturday, 21 April 2018
> > Business as usual with the EVIL Yankee Department of Homeland Security
> > Need I say that this "News" item published by the Crown Corp commonly
> > known as the CBC pissed me off yesterday? In return I pounced on a
> > lots of evil Yankee FEDS today because of their tough talk about
> > upholding the law over weed of all things as their crazy Yankee boss
> > Mr Trump starts another COLD WAR.
> >
> > For the public record I attached a pdf of this file to the email I
> > sent to the people found below.
> >
> > https://www.scribd.com/documen
> >
> >
> > Obviously I explained a lot of the file above in front of the RCMP
> > office in June of 2007 and published it in YouTube immediately
> >
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?
> >
> > RCMP Sussex New Brunswick
> >
> > On 4/21/18, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> The Honorable John Kelly, Secretary
> >> Department of Homeland Security
> >> 20 Massachusetts Ave. NW
> >> Washington, D.C. 20528
> >> jkelly@hq.dhs.gov
> >> Fax: (202) 612-1976
> >>
> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> From: "Hon.Ralph.Goodale (PS/SP)" <Hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca>
> >> Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2018 22:29:57 +0000
> >> Subject: Automatic reply: ATTN Corey McPhee I talked to an "Officer
> >> Cruz" in Todd Owen's office then your minion in Calais called me back
> >> wanting to when I was returning to the USA
> >> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> >>
> >> Merci d'avoir ?crit ? l'honorable Ralph Goodale, ministre de la
> >> S?curit? publique et de la Protection civile.
> >> En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de la correspondance
> >> adress?e au ministre, veuillez prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir un
> >> retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Soyez assur? que votre
> >> message sera examin? avec attention.
> >> Merci!
> >> L'Unit? de la correspondance minist?rielle
> >> S?curit? publique Canada
> >> *********
> >>
> >> Thank you for writing to the Honourable Ralph Goodale, Minister of
> >> Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.
> >> Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence
> >> addressed to the Minister, please note there could be a delay in
> >> processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be
> >> carefully reviewed.
> >> Thank you!
> >> Ministerial Correspondence Unit
> >> Public Safety Canada
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> From: "Kelly, John" <john.e.kelly@tsa.dhs.gov>
> >> Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 14:13:19 +0000
> >> Subject: RE: YO Minister Jean-Yves.Duclos Once again you are welcome
> >> Now how about the RCMP, the LIEbranos and all the other
> >> parliamentarians start acting with some semblance of Integrity after
> >> all these years?
> >> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> >>
> >> Sir,
> >>
> >> I believe you have addressed and sent your email to the wrong John
> >> Kelly. I am not the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
> >>
> >> I suggest that you should seek out and identify the correct electronic
> >> message address for the intended recipient you want to address.
> >>
> >> Please note that, I am not at liberty to provide you with any email
> >> addresses and I respectfully ask you to remove my email address from
> >> your contact list and any distribution lists.
> >>
> >> Thank you in advance.
> >>
> >>
> >> V/r,
> >>
> >> John E. Kelly
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
> >> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 09:32:09 -0400
> >> Subject: Attn Integrity Commissioner Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C.,
> >> To: coi@gnb.ca
> >> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
> >>
> >> Good Day Sir
> >>
> >> After I heard you speak on CBC I called your office again and managed
> >> to speak to one of your staff for the first time
> >>
> >> Please find attached the documents I promised to send to the lady who
> >> answered the phone this morning. Please notice that not after the Sgt
> >> at Arms took the documents destined to your office his pal Tanker
> >> Malley barred me in writing with an "English" only document.
> >>
> >> These are the hearings and the dockets in Federal Court that I
> >> suggested that you study closely.
> >>
> >> This is the docket in Federal Court
> >>
> >>
> http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.
> >>
> >> These are digital recordings of the last three hearings
> >>
> >> Dec 14th https://archive.org/details/Ba
> >>
> >> January 11th, 2016 https://archive.org/details/Ja
> >>
> >> April 3rd, 2017
> >>
> >> https://archive.org/details/Ap
> >>
> >>
> >> This is the docket in the Federal Court of Appeal
> >>
> >>
> http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.
> >>
> >>
> >> The only hearing thus far
> >>
> >> May 24th, 2017
> >>
> >> https://archive.org/details/Ma
> >>
> >>
> >> This Judge understnds the meaning of the word Integrity
> >>
> >> Date: 20151223
> >>
> >> Docket: T-1557-15
> >>
> >> Fredericton, New Brunswick, December 23, 2015
> >>
> >> PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Bell
> >>
> >> BETWEEN:
> >>
> >> DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
> >>
> >> Plaintiff
> >>
> >> and
> >>
> >> HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
> >>
> >> Defendant
> >>
> >> ORDER
> >>
> >> (Delivered orally from the Bench in Fredericton, New Brunswick, on
> >> December 14, 2015)
> >>
> >> The Plaintiff seeks an appeal de novo, by way of motion pursuant to
> >> the Federal Courts Rules (SOR/98-106), from an Order made on November
> >> 12, 2015, in which Prothonotary Morneau struck the Statement of Claim
> >> in its entirety.
> >>
> >> At the outset of the hearing, the Plaintiff brought to my attention a
> >> letter dated September 10, 2004, which he sent to me, in my then
> >> capacity as Past President of the New Brunswick Branch of the Canadian
> >> Bar Association, and the then President of the Branch, Kathleen Quigg,
> >> (now a Justice of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal). In that letter
> >> he stated:
> >>
> >> As for your past President, Mr. Bell, may I suggest that you check the
> >> work of Frank McKenna before I sue your entire law firm including you.
> >> You are your brother’s keeper.
> >>
> >> Frank McKenna is the former Premier of New Brunswick and a former
> >> colleague of mine at the law firm of McInnes Cooper. In addition to
> >> expressing an intention to sue me, the Plaintiff refers to a number of
> >> people in his Motion Record who he appears to contend may be witnesses
> >> or potential parties to be added. Those individuals who are known to
> >> me personally, include, but are not limited to the former Prime
> >> Minister of Canada, The Right Honourable Stephen Harper; former
> >> Attorney General of Canada and now a Justice of the Manitoba Court of
> >> Queen’s Bench, Vic Toews; former member of Parliament Rob Moore;
> >> former Director of Policing Services, the late Grant Garneau; former
> >> Chief of the Fredericton Police Force, Barry McKnight; former Staff
> >> Sergeant Danny Copp; my former colleagues on the New Brunswick Court
> >> of Appeal, Justices Bradley V. Green and Kathleen Quigg, and, retired
> >> Assistant Commissioner Wayne Lang of the Royal Canadian Mounted
> >> Police.
> >>
> >> In the circumstances, given the threat in 2004 to sue me in my
> >> personal capacity and my past and present relationship with many
> >> potential witnesses and/or potential parties to the litigation, I am
> >> of the view there would be a reasonable apprehension of bias should I
> >> hear this motion. See Justice de Grandpré’s dissenting judgment in
> >> Committee for Justice and Liberty et al v National Energy Board et al,
> >> [1978] 1 SCR 369 at p 394 for the applicable test regarding
> >> allegations of bias. In the circumstances, although neither party has
> >> requested I recuse myself, I consider it appropriate that I do so.
> >>
> >>
> >> AS A RESULT OF MY RECUSAL, THIS COURT ORDERS that the Administrator of
> >> the Court schedule another date for the hearing of the motion. There
> >> is no order as to costs.
> >>
> >> “B. Richard Bell”
> >> Judge
> >>
> >>
> >> Below after the CBC article about your concerns (I made one comment
> >> already) you will find the text of just two of many emails I had sent
> >> to your office over the years since I first visited it in 2006.
> >>
> >> I noticed that on July 30, 2009, he was appointed to the the Court
> >> Martial Appeal Court of Canada Perhaps you should scroll to the
> >> bottom of this email ASAP and read the entire Paragraph 83 of my
> >> lawsuit now before the Federal Court of Canada?
> >>
> >> "FYI This is the text of the lawsuit that should interest Trudeau the
> >> most
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------- Original message ----------
> >> From: justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca
> >> Date: Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:18 PM
> >> Subject: Réponse automatique : RE My complaint against the CROWN in
> >> Federal Court Attn David Hansen and Peter MacKay If you planning to
> >> submit a motion for a publication ban on my complaint trust that you
> >> dudes are way past too late
> >> To: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
> >>
> >> Veuillez noter que j'ai changé de courriel. Vous pouvez me rejoindre à
> >> lalanthier@hotmail.com
> >>
> >> Pour rejoindre le bureau de M. Trudeau veuillez envoyer un courriel à
> >> tommy.desfosses@parl.gc.ca
> >>
> >> Please note that I changed email address, you can reach me at
> >> lalanthier@hotmail.com
> >>
> >> To reach the office of Mr. Trudeau please send an email to
> >> tommy.desfosses@parl.gc.ca
> >>
> >> Thank you,
> >>
> >> Merci ,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> http://davidraymondamos3.blogs
> >>
> >>
> >> 83. The Plaintiff states that now that Canada is involved in more war
> >> in Iraq again it did not serve Canadian interests and reputation to
> >> allow Barry Winters to publish the following words three times over
> >> five years after he began his bragging:
> >>
> >> January 13, 2015
> >> This Is Just AS Relevant Now As When I wrote It During The Debate
> >>
> >> December 8, 2014
> >> Why Canada Stood Tall!
> >>
> >> Friday, October 3, 2014
> >> Little David Amos’ “True History Of War” Canadian Airstrikes And
> >> Stupid Justin Trudeau
> >>
> >> Canada’s and Canadians free ride is over. Canada can no longer hide
> >> behind Amerka’s and NATO’s skirts.
> >>
> >> When I was still in Canadian Forces then Prime Minister Jean Chretien
> >> actually committed the Canadian Army to deploy in the second campaign
> >> in Iraq, the Coalition of the Willing. This was against or contrary to
> >> the wisdom or advice of those of us Canadian officers that were
> >> involved in the initial planning phases of that operation. There were
> >> significant concern in our planning cell, and NDHQ about of the dearth
> >> of concern for operational guidance, direction, and forces for
> >> operations after the initial occupation of Iraq. At the “last minute”
> >> Prime Minister Chretien and the Liberal government changed its mind.
> >> The Canadian government told our amerkan cousins that we would not
> >> deploy combat troops for the Iraq campaign, but would deploy a
> >> Canadian Battle Group to Afghanistan, enabling our amerkan cousins to
> >> redeploy troops from there to Iraq. The PMO’s thinking that it was
> >> less costly to deploy Canadian Forces to Afghanistan than Iraq. But
> >> alas no one seems to remind the Liberals of Prime Minister Chretien’s
> >> then grossly incorrect assumption. Notwithstanding Jean Chretien’s
> >> incompetence and stupidity, the Canadian Army was heroic,
> >> professional, punched well above it’s weight, and the PPCLI Battle
> >> Group, is credited with “saving Afghanistan” during the Panjway
> >> campaign of 2006.
> >>
> >> What Justin Trudeau and the Liberals don’t tell you now, is that then
> >> Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien committed, and deployed the
> >> Canadian army to Canada’s longest “war” without the advice, consent,
> >> support, or vote of the Canadian Parliament.
> >>
> >> What David Amos and the rest of the ignorant, uneducated, and babbling
> >> chattering classes are too addled to understand is the deployment of
> >> less than 75 special operations troops, and what is known by planners
> >> as a “six pac cell” of fighter aircraft is NOT the same as a
> >> deployment of a Battle Group, nor a “war” make.
> >>
> >> The Canadian Government or The Crown unlike our amerkan cousins have
> >> the “constitutional authority” to commit the Canadian nation to war.
> >> That has been recently clearly articulated to the Canadian public by
> >> constitutional scholar Phillippe Legasse. What Parliament can do is
> >> remove “confidence” in The Crown’s Government in a “vote of
> >> non-confidence.” That could not happen to the Chretien Government
> >> regarding deployment to Afghanistan, and it won’t happen in this
> >> instance with the conservative majority in The Commons regarding a
> >> limited Canadian deployment to the Middle East.
> >>
> >> President George Bush was quite correct after 911 and the terror
> >> attacks in New York; that the Taliban “occupied” and “failed state”
> >> Afghanistan was the source of logistical support, command and control,
> >> and training for the Al Quaeda war of terror against the world. The
> >> initial defeat, and removal from control of Afghanistan was vital and
> >>
> >> P.S. Whereas this CBC article is about your opinion of the actions of
> >> the latest Minister Of Health trust that Mr Boudreau and the CBC have
> >> had my files for many years and the last thing they are is ethical.
> >> Ask his friends Mr Murphy and the RCMP if you don't believe me.
> >>
> >> Subject:
> >> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:02:35 -0400
> >> From: "Murphy, Michael B. \(DH/MS\)" MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca
> >> To: motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com
> >>
> >> January 30, 2007
> >>
> >> WITHOUT PREJUDICE
> >>
> >> Mr. David Amos
> >>
> >> Dear Mr. Amos:
> >>
> >> This will acknowledge receipt of a copy of your e-mail of December 29,
> >> 2006 to Corporal Warren McBeath of the RCMP.
> >>
> >> Because of the nature of the allegations made in your message, I have
> >> taken the measure of forwarding a copy to Assistant Commissioner Steve
> >> Graham of the RCMP “J” Division in Fredericton.
> >>
> >> Sincerely,
> >>
> >> Honourable Michael B. Murphy
> >> Minister of Health
> >>
> >> CM/cb
> >>
> >>
> >> Warren McBeath warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca wrote:
> >>
> >> Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:34:53 -0500
> >> From: "Warren McBeath" warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
> >> To: kilgoursite@ca.inter.net, MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca,
> >> nada.sarkis@gnb.ca, wally.stiles@gnb.ca, dwatch@web.net,
> >> motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com
> >> CC: ottawa@chuckstrahl.com, riding@chuckstrahl.com,John.Fo
> >> Oda.B@parl.gc.ca,"Bev BUSSON" bev.busson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
> >> "Paul Dube" PAUL.DUBE@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
> >> Subject: Re: Remember me Kilgour? Landslide Annie McLellan has
> >> forgotten me but the crooks within the RCMP have not
> >>
> >> Dear Mr. Amos,
> >>
> >> Thank you for your follow up e-mail to me today. I was on days off
> >> over the holidays and returned to work this evening. Rest assured I
> >> was not ignoring or procrastinating to respond to your concerns.
> >>
> >> As your attachment sent today refers from Premier Graham, our position
> >> is clear on your dead calf issue: Our forensic labs do not process
> >> testing on animals in cases such as yours, they are referred to the
> >> Atlantic Veterinary College in Charlottetown who can provide these
> >> services. If you do not choose to utilize their expertise in this
> >> instance, then that is your decision and nothing more can be done.
> >>
> >> As for your other concerns regarding the US Government, false
> >> imprisonment and Federal Court Dates in the US, etc... it is clear
> >> that Federal authorities are aware of your concerns both in Canada
> >> the US. These issues do not fall into the purvue of Detachment
> >> and policing in Petitcodiac, NB.
> >>
> >> It was indeed an interesting and informative conversation we had on
> >> December 23rd, and I wish you well in all of your future endeavors.
> >>
> >> Sincerely,
> >>
> >> Warren McBeath, Cpl.
> >> GRC Caledonia RCMP
> >> Traffic Services NCO
> >> Ph: (506) 387-2222
> >> Fax: (506) 387-4622
> >> E-mail warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C.,
> >> Office of the Integrity Commissioner
> >> Edgecombe House, 736 King Street
> >> Fredericton, N.B. CANADA E3B 5H1
> >> tel.: 506-457-7890
> >> fax: 506-444-5224
> >> e-mail:coi@gnb.ca
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
> >> Date: Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:35 AM
> >> Subject: RE My complaint against the CROWN in Federal Court Attn David
> >> Hansen and Peter MacKay If you planning to submit a motion for a
> >> publication ban on my complaint trust that you dudes are way past too
> >> late
> >> To: David.Hansen@justice.gc.ca, peter.mackay@justice.gc.ca
> >> peacock.kurt@telegraphjournal.
> >> david.akin@sunmedia.ca, robert.frater@justice.gc.ca,
> >> paul.riley@ppsc-sppc.gc.ca,
> >> greg@gregdelbigio.com, joyce.dewitt-vanoosten@gov.bc.
> >> joan.barrett@ontario.ca, jean-vincent.lacroix@gouv.qc.c
> >> peter.rogers@mcinnescooper.com
> >> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, gopublic@cbc.ca,
> >> Whistleblower@ctv.ca
> >>
> >> https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-
> >>
> >>
> http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/WebDo
> >>
> >>
> http://thedavidamosrant.blogsp
> >>
> >> I repeat what the Hell do I do with the Yankee wiretapes taps sell
> >> them on Ebay or listen to them and argue them with you dudes in
> >> Feferal Court?
> >>
> >> Petey Baby loses all parliamentary privelges in less than a month but
> >> he still supposed to be an ethical officer of the Court CORRECT?
> >>
> >> Veritas Vincit
> >> David Raymond Amos
> >> 902 800 0369
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
> >> Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 14:10:14 -0400
> >> Subject: Yo Mr Bauer say hey to your client Obama and his buddies in
> >> the USDOJ for me will ya?
> >> To: RBauer@perkinscoie.com, sshimshak@paulweiss.com,
> >> cspada@lswlaw.com, msmith@svlaw.com, bginsberg@pattonboggs.com,
> >> gregory.craig@skadden.com, pm@pm.gc.ca, bob.paulson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
> >> bob.rae@rogers.blackberry.net, MulcaT@parl.gc.ca, leader@greenparty.ca
> >> Cc: alevine@cooley.com, david.raymond.amos@gmail.com,
> >> michael.rothfeld@wsj.com, remery@ecbalaw.com
> >>
> >> QSLS Politics
> >> By Location Visit Detail
> >> Visit 29,419
> >> Domain Name usdoj.gov ? (U.S. Government)
> >> IP Address 149.101.1.# (US Dept of Justice)
> >> ISP US Dept of Justice
> >> Location Continent : North America
> >> Country : United States (Facts)
> >> State : District of Columbia
> >> City : Washington
> >> Lat/Long : 38.9097, -77.0231 (Map)
> >> Language English (U.S.) en-us
> >> Operating System Microsoft WinXP
> >> Browser Internet Explorer 8.0
> >> Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET
> >> CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; InfoPath.2;
> >> DI60SP1001)
> >> Javascript version 1.3
> >> Monitor Resolution : 1024 x 768
> >> Color Depth : 32 bits
> >> Time of Visit Nov 17 2012 6:33:08 pm
> >> Last Page View Nov 17 2012 6:33:08 pm
> >> Visit Length 0 seconds
> >> Page Views 1
> >> Referring URL http://www.google.co...wwWJrm9
> >> Search Engine google.com
> >> Search Words david amos bernie madoff
> >> Visit Entry Page http://qslspolitics....-wendy-
> >> Visit Exit Page http://qslspolitics....-wendy-
> >> Out Click
> >> Time Zone UTC-5:00
> >> Visitor's Time Nov 17 2012 12:33:08 pm
> >> Visit Number 29,419
> >>
> >>
> http://qslspolitics.blogspot.c
> >>
> >>
> >> Could ya tell I am investigating your pension plan bigtime? Its
> >> because no member of the RCMP I have ever encountered has earned it yet
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
> >> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:36:04 -0400
> >> Subject: This is a brief as I can make my concerns Randy
> >> To: randyedmunds@gov.nl.ca
> >> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
> >>
> >> In a nutshell my concerns about the actions of the Investment Industry
> >> affect the interests of every person in every district of every
> >> country not just the USA and Canada. I was offering to help you with
> >> Emera because my work with them and Danny Williams is well known and
> >> some of it is over eight years old and in the PUBLIC Record.
> >>
> >> All you have to do is stand in the Legislature and ask the MInister of
> >> Justice why I have been invited to sue Newfoundland by the
> >> Conservatives
> >>
> >>
> >> Obviously I am the guy the USDOJ and the SEC would not name who is the
> >> link to Madoff and Putnam Investments
> >>
> >> Here is why
> >>
> >>
> http://banking.senate.gov/publ
> >>
> >> Notice the transcripts and webcasts of the hearing of the US Senate
> >> Banking Commitee are still missing? Mr Emory should at least notice
> >> Eliot Spitzer and the Dates around November 20th, 2003 in the
> >> following file
> >>
> >>
> http://www.checktheevidence.co
> >>
> >> http://occupywallst.org/users/
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> From: "Hansen, David" David.Hansen@justice.gc.ca
> >> Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 19:28:44 +0000
> >> Subject: RE: I just called again Mr Hansen
> >> To: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
> >>
> >> Hello Mr. Amos,
> >>
> >> I manage the Justice Canada civil litigation section in the Atlantic
> >> region. We are only responsible for litigating existing civil
> >> litigation files in which the Attorney General of Canada is a named
> >> defendant or plaintiff. If you are a plaintiff or defendant in an
> >> existing civil litigation matter in the Atlantic region in which
> >> Attorney General of Canada is a named defendant or plaintiff please
> >> provide the court file number, the names of the parties in the action
> >> and your question. I am not the appropriate contact for other
> >> matters.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> David A. Hansen
> >> Regional Director | Directeur régional
> >> General Counsel |Avocat général
> >> Civil Litigation and Advisory | Contentieux des affaires civiles et
> >> services de consultation
> >> Department of Justice | Ministère de la Justice
> >> Suite 1400 – Duke Tower | Pièce 1400 – Tour Duke
> >> 5251 Duke Street | 5251 rue Duke
> >> Halifax, Nova Scotia | Halifax, Nouvelle- Écosse
> >> B3J 1P3
> >> david.hansen@justice.gc.ca
> >> Telephone | Téléphone (902) 426-3261 / Facsimile | Télécopieur (902)
> >> 426-2329
> >> This e-mail is confidential and may be protected by solicitor-client
> >> privilege. Unauthorized distribution or disclosure is prohibited. If
> >> you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us and delete
> >> this entire e-mail.
> >> Before printing think about the Environment
> >> Thinking Green, please do not print this e-mail unless necessary.
> >> Pensez vert, svp imprimez que si nécessaire.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >>> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
> >>> Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 02:23:24 -0300
> >>> Subject: ATTN FBI Special Agent Richard Deslauriers Have you talked to
> >>> your buddies Fred Wyshak and Brian Kelly about the wiretap tapes YET?
> >>> To: boston@ic.fbi.gov, washington.field@ic.fbi.gov,
> >>> bob.paulson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, Kevin.leahy@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
> >>> Brian.Kelly@usdoj.gov, us.marshals@usdoj.gov, Fred.Wyshak@usdoj.gov,
> >>> jcarney@carneybassil.com, bbachrach@bachrachlaw.net
> >>> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, birgittaj@althingi.is,
> >>> shmurphy@globe.com, redicecreations@gmail.com
> >>>
> >>> FBI Boston
> >>> One Center Plaza
> >>> Suite 600
> >>> Boston, MA 02108
> >>> Phone: (617) 742-5533
> >>> Fax: (617) 223-6327
> >>> E-mail: Boston@ic.fbi.gov
> >>>
> >>> Hours
> >>> Although we operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, our normal
> >>> "walk-in" business hours are from 8:15 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday
> >>> through Friday. If you need to speak with a FBI representative at any
> >>> time other than during normal business hours, please telephone our
> >>> office at (617) 742-5533.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >>> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
> >>> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 01:20:20 -0300
> >>> Subject: Yo Fred Wyshak and Brian Kelly your buddy Whitey's trial is
> >>> finally underway now correct? What the hell do I do with the wiretap
> >>> tapes Sell them on Ebay?
> >>> To: Brian.Kelly@usdoj.gov, us.marshals@usdoj.gov,
> >>> Fred.Wyshak@usdoj.gov, jcarney@carneybassil.com,
> >>> bbachrach@bachrachlaw.net, wolfheartlodge@live.com, shmurphy@globe.com
> ,
> >>> >> jonathan.albano@bingham.com, mvalencia@globe.com
> >>> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, oldmaison@yahoo.com,
> >>> PATRICK.MURPHY@dhs.gov, rounappletree@aol.com
> >>>
> >>>
> http://www.bostonglobe.com/met
> >>>
> >>> http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/s
> >>>
> >>> As the CBC etc yap about Yankee wiretaps and whistleblowers I must ask
> >>> them the obvious question AIN'T THEY FORGETTING SOMETHING????
> >>>
> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v
> >>>
> >>> What the hell does the media think my Yankee lawyer served upon the
> >>> USDOJ right after I ran for and seat in the 39th Parliament baseball
> >>> cards?
> >>>
> >>> http://www.archive.org/details
> >>>
> >>> http://archive.org/details/ITr
> >>>
> >>> http://davidamos.blogspot.ca/2
> >>>
> >>> http://www.archive.org/details
> >>>
> >>> http://archive.org/details/Par
> >>>
> >>> FEDERAL EXPRES February 7, 2006
> >>> Senator Arlen Specter
> >>> United States Senate
> >>> Committee on the Judiciary
> >>> 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
> >>> Washington, DC 20510
> >>>
> >>> Dear Mr. Specter:
> >>>
> >>> I have been asked to forward the enclosed tapes to you from a man
> >>> named, David Amos, a Canadian citizen, in connection with the matters
> >>> raised in the attached letter.
> >>>
> >>> Mr. Amos has represented to me that these are illegal FBI wire tap
> >>> tapes.
> >>>
> >>> I believe Mr. Amos has been in contact with you about this previously.
> >>>
> >>> Very truly yours,
> >>> Barry A. Bachrach
> >>> Direct telephone: (508) 926-3403
> >>> Direct facsimile: (508) 929-3003
> >>> Email: bbachrach@bowditch.com
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: "David Amos" david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
> >>> To: "Rob Talach" rtalach@ledroitbeckett.com
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 10:59 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: Attn Robert Talach and I should talk ASAP about my suing
> >>> the Catholic Church Trust that Bastarache knows why
> >>>
> >>> The date stamp on about page 134 of this old file of mine should mean
> >>> a lot to you
> >>>
> >>> http://www.checktheevidence.co
> >>>
> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >>> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
> >>> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 15:37:08 -0400
> >>> Subject: To Hell with the KILLER COP Gilles Moreau What say you NOW
> >>> Bernadine Chapman??
> >>> To: Gilles.Moreau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, phil.giles@statcan.ca,
> >>> maritme_malaise@yahoo.ca, Jennifer.Nixon@ps-sp.gc.ca,
> >>> bartman.heidi@psic-ispc.gc.ca, Yves.J.Marineau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
> >>> david.paradiso@erc-cee.gc.ca, desaulniea@smtp.gc.ca,
> >>> denise.brennan@tbs-sct.gc.ca, anne.murtha@vac-acc.gc.ca,
> >>> webo@xplornet.com, julie.dickson@osfi-bsif.gc.ca,
> >>> rod.giles@osfi-bsif.gc.ca, flaherty.j@parl.gc.ca, toewsv1@parl.gc.ca,
> >>> Nycole.Turmel@parl.gc.ca,Cleme
> >>> >> oig@sec.gov, whistleblower@finra.org, whistle@fsa.gov.uk,
> >>> david@fairwhistleblower.ca
> >>> Cc: j.kroes@interpol.int, david.raymond.amos@gmail.com,
> >>> bernadine.chapman@rcmp-grc.gc.
> >>> Juanita.Peddle@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, oldmaison@yahoo.com,
> >>> Wayne.Lang@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, Robert.Trevors@gnb.ca,
> >>> ian.fahie@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>
> >>>
> >>> http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/nb/n
> >>>
> >>> http://nb.rcmpvet.ca/Newslette
> >>>
> >>> From: Gilles Moreau Gilles.Moreau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
> >>> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 08:03:22 -0500
> >>> Subject: Re: Lets ee if the really nasty Newfy Lawyer Danny Boy
> >>> Millions will explain this email to you or your boss Vic Toews EH
> >>> Constable Peddle???
> >>> To: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
> >>>
> >>> Please cease and desist from using my name in your emails.
> >>>
> >>> Gilles Moreau, Chief Superintendent, CHRP and ACC
> >>> Director General
> >>> HR Transformation
> >>> 73 Leikin Drive, M5-2-502
> >>> Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0R2
> >>>
> >>> Tel 613-843-6039
> >>> Cel 613-818-6947
> >>>
> >>> Gilles Moreau, surintendant principal, CRHA et ACC
> >>> Directeur général de la Transformation des ressources humaines
> >>> 73 Leikin, pièce M5-2-502
> >>> Ottawa, ON K1A 0R2
> >>>
> >>> tél 613-843-6039
> >>> cel 613-818-6947
> >>> gilles.moreau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
> >>>
> >
>
--
*Stefanos KaratopisMember Ontario Landowners
Associationhttp://store.ontari
<http://store.ontariolandowner
Ontario Libertarian Party <http://www.libertarian.on.ca/
The Party of Choice
T <http://thebrightlibertarian.b
<http://thebrightlibertarian.b
<http://thebrightlibertarian.b
No comments:
Post a Comment