---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <
motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 06:37:20 -0400
Subject: Re: For the record Mr Dumville is the only person to call me
back from PEI since 2007
To:
info@pronpei.vote,
sthorne@gov.pe.ca,
psmith@charlottetown.ca,
jbrown@gov.pe.ca,
samyers@assembly.pe.ca,
omcrane@assembly.pe.ca,
jsjaylward@assembly.pe.ca,
crlavie@assembly.pe.ca,
twright@theguardian.pe.ca, pm <
pm@pm.gc.ca>, MulcaT
<
MulcaT@parl.gc.ca>, leader <
leader@greenparty.ca>, "Jacques.Poitras"
<
Jacques.Poitras@cbc.ca>, "andrew.scheer"<
andrew.scheer@parl.gc.ca>,
Hebell@assembly.pe.ca, premier <
premier@gov.pe.ca>
Cc: David Amos <
david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
, "Brenda.Lucki"
<
Brenda.Lucki@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Jack.Keir"<
Jack.Keir@gnb.ca>,
"Dominic.Cardy"<
Dominic.Cardy@gnb.ca>
On 5/12/18, David Amos <
motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Hannah Bell <
Hebell@assembly.pe.ca>
> Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 11:16:00 -0300
> Subject: Re: Fwd: Hey folks remember the emails I sent in in 2014 when
> Ghiz quit? If not scroll down
> To: David Amos <
motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
> Thank you for your email. As I was elected in November 2017 I did not
> receive emails from 2014. I have scrolled through your mail and am not
> clear what you are asking, however. I understand you have also called
> the office - please note that we are happy to hear from the public but
> that does not extend to threats.
>
> best regards
>
>
> Hannah Bell
> MLA District 11 Charlottetown-Parkdale
>
> Office of the Third Party / Bureau du troisième parti
> Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island / Assemblée législative de
> l'Île-du-Prince-Édouard
>
>
www.thirdpartypei.ca> Tel/Tél. : 902-620-3977
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Gallant, Premier Brian (PO/CPM)"<
Brian.Gallant@gnb.ca>
> Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 17:05:07 +0000
> Subject: RE: So what does Premier Gallant and Minister Doucet et al
> think of my lawsuit? How about David Coon and his blogging buddy
> Chucky joking about being illegally barred from parliamentary property
> To: David Amos <
motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
> Thank you for writing to the Premier of New Brunswick.
> Please be assured that your email has been received, will be reviewed,
> and a response will be forthcoming.
> Once again, thank you for taking the time to write.
>
> Merci d'avoir communiqué avec le premier ministre du Nouveau-Brunswick.
> Soyez assuré que votre courriel a bien été reçu, qu'il sera examiné
> et qu'une réponse vous sera acheminée.
> Merci encore d'avoir pris de temps de nous écrire.
>
> Sincerely, / Sincèrement,
> Mallory Fowler
> Correspondence Manager / Gestionnaire de la correspondance
> Office of the Premier / Cabinet du premier ministre
>
>
> On 1/19/18, David Amos <
motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: David Amos
motomaniac333@gmail.com>>> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 09:32:09 -0400
>>> Subject: Attn Integrity Commissioner Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C.,
>>> To:
coi@gnb.ca>>> Cc:
david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>>>
>>> Good Day Sir
>>>
>>> After I heard you speak on CBC I called your office again and managed
>>> to speak to one of your staff for the first time
>>>
>>> Please find attached the documents I promised to send to the lady who
>>> answered the phone this morning. Please notice that not after the Sgt
>>> at Arms took the documents destined to your office his pal Tanker
>>> Malley barred me in writing with an "English" only document.
>>>
>>> These are the hearings and the dockets in Federal Court that I
>>> suggested that you study closely.
>>>
>>> This is the docket in Federal Court
>>>
>>>
http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=T-1557-15&select_court=T>>>
>>> These are digital recordings of the last three hearings
>>>
>>> Dec 14th
https://archive.org/details/BahHumbug>>>
>>> January 11th, 2016
https://archive.org/details/Jan11th2015>>>
>>> April 3rd, 2017
>>>
>>>
https://archive.org/details/April32017JusticeLeblancHearing>>>
>>>
>>> This is the docket in the Federal Court of Appeal
>>>
>>>
http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=A-48-16&select_court=All>>>
>>>
>>> The only hearing thus far
>>>
>>> May 24th, 2017
>>>
>>>
https://archive.org/details/May24thHoedown>>>
>>>
>>> This Judge understnds the meaning of the word Integrity
>>>
>>> Date: 20151223
>>>
>>> Docket: T-1557-15
>>>
>>> Fredericton, New Brunswick, December 23, 2015
>>>
>>> PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Bell
>>>
>>> BETWEEN:
>>>
>>> DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
>>>
>>> Plaintiff
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
>>>
>>> Defendant
>>>
>>> ORDER
>>>
>>> (Delivered orally from the Bench in Fredericton, New Brunswick, on
>>> December 14, 2015)
>>>
>>> The Plaintiff seeks an appeal de novo, by way of motion pursuant to
>>> the Federal Courts Rules (SOR/98-106), from an Order made on November
>>> 12, 2015, in which Prothonotary Morneau struck the Statement of Claim
>>> in its entirety.
>>>
>>> At the outset of the hearing, the Plaintiff brought to my attention a
>>> letter dated September 10, 2004, which he sent to me, in my then
>>> capacity as Past President of the New Brunswick Branch of the Canadian
>>> Bar Association, and the then President of the Branch, Kathleen Quigg,
>>> (now a Justice of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal). In that letter
>>> he stated:
>>>
>>> As for your past President, Mr. Bell, may I suggest that you check the
>>> work of Frank McKenna before I sue your entire law firm including you.
>>> You are your brother’s keeper.
>>>
>>> Frank McKenna is the former Premier of New Brunswick and a former
>>> colleague of mine at the law firm of McInnes Cooper. In addition to
>>> expressing an intention to sue me, the Plaintiff refers to a number of
>>> people in his Motion Record who he appears to contend may be witnesses
>>> or potential parties to be added. Those individuals who are known to
>>> me personally, include, but are not limited to the former Prime
>>> Minister of Canada, The Right Honourable Stephen Harper; former
>>> Attorney General of Canada and now a Justice of the Manitoba Court of
>>> Queen’s Bench, Vic Toews; former member of Parliament Rob Moore;
>>> former Director of Policing Services, the late Grant Garneau; former
>>> Chief of the Fredericton Police Force, Barry McKnight; former Staff
>>> Sergeant Danny Copp; my former colleagues on the New Brunswick Court
>>> of Appeal, Justices Bradley V. Green and Kathleen Quigg, and, retired
>>> Assistant Commissioner Wayne Lang of the Royal Canadian Mounted
>>> Police.
>>>
>>> In the circumstances, given the threat in 2004 to sue me in my
>>> personal capacity and my past and present relationship with many
>>> potential witnesses and/or potential parties to the litigation, I am
>>> of the view there would be a reasonable apprehension of bias should I
>>> hear this motion. See Justice de Grandpré’s dissenting judgment in
>>> Committee for Justice and Liberty et al v National Energy Board et al,
>>> [1978] 1 SCR 369 at p 394 for the applicable test regarding
>>> allegations of bias. In the circumstances, although neither party has
>>> requested I recuse myself, I consider it appropriate that I do so.
>>>
>>>
>>> AS A RESULT OF MY RECUSAL, THIS COURT ORDERS that the Administrator of
>>> the Court schedule another date for the hearing of the motion. There
>>> is no order as to costs.
>>>
>>> “B. Richard Bell”
>>> Judge
>>>
>>>
>>> Below after the CBC article about your concerns (I made one comment
>>> already) you will find the text of just two of many emails I had sent
>>> to your office over the years since I first visited it in 2006.
>>>
>>> I noticed that on July 30, 2009, he was appointed to the the Court
>>> Martial Appeal Court of Canada Perhaps you should scroll to the
>>> bottom of this email ASAP and read the entire Paragraph 83 of my
>>> lawsuit now before the Federal Court of Canada?
>>>
>>> "FYI This is the text of the lawsuit that should interest Trudeau the
>>> most
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Original message ----------
>>> From:
justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca>>> Date: Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:18 PM
>>> Subject: Réponse automatique : RE My complaint against the CROWN in
>>> Federal Court Attn David Hansen and Peter MacKay If you planning to
>>> submit a motion for a publication ban on my complaint trust that you
>>> dudes are way past too late
>>> To:
david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>>>
>>> Veuillez noter que j'ai changé de courriel. Vous pouvez me rejoindre à
>>>
lalanthier@hotmail.com>>>
>>> Pour rejoindre le bureau de M. Trudeau veuillez envoyer un courriel à
>>>
tommy.desfosses@parl.gc.ca>>>
>>> Please note that I changed email address, you can reach me at
>>>
lalanthier@hotmail.com>>>
>>> To reach the office of Mr. Trudeau please send an email to
>>>
tommy.desfosses@parl.gc.ca>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> Merci ,
>>>
>>>
>>>
http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2015/09/v-behaviorurldefaultvmlo.html>>>
>>>
>>> 83. The Plaintiff states that now that Canada is involved in more war
>>> in Iraq again it did not serve Canadian interests and reputation to
>>> allow Barry Winters to publish the following words three times over
>>> five years after he began his bragging:
>>>
>>> January 13, 2015
>>> This Is Just AS Relevant Now As When I wrote It During The Debate
>>>
>>> December 8, 2014
>>> Why Canada Stood Tall!
>>>
>>> Friday, October 3, 2014
>>> Little David Amos’ “True History Of War” Canadian Airstrikes And
>>> Stupid Justin Trudeau
>>>
>>> Canada’s and Canadians free ride is over. Canada can no longer hide
>>> behind Amerka’s and NATO’s skirts.
>>>
>>> When I was still in Canadian Forces then Prime Minister Jean Chretien
>>> actually committed the Canadian Army to deploy in the second campaign
>>> in Iraq, the Coalition of the Willing. This was against or contrary to
>>> the wisdom or advice of those of us Canadian officers that were
>>> involved in the initial planning phases of that operation. There were
>>> significant concern in our planning cell, and NDHQ about of the dearth
>>> of concern for operational guidance, direction, and forces for
>>> operations after the initial occupation of Iraq. At the “last minute”
>>> Prime Minister Chretien and the Liberal government changed its mind.
>>> The Canadian government told our amerkan cousins that we would not
>>> deploy combat troops for the Iraq campaign, but would deploy a
>>> Canadian Battle Group to Afghanistan, enabling our amerkan cousins to
>>> redeploy troops from there to Iraq. The PMO’s thinking that it was
>>> less costly to deploy Canadian Forces to Afghanistan than Iraq. But
>>> alas no one seems to remind the Liberals of Prime Minister Chretien’s
>>> then grossly incorrect assumption. Notwithstanding Jean Chretien’s
>>> incompetence and stupidity, the Canadian Army was heroic,
>>> professional, punched well above it’s weight, and the PPCLI Battle
>>> Group, is credited with “saving Afghanistan” during the Panjway
>>> campaign of 2006.
>>>
>>> What Justin Trudeau and the Liberals don’t tell you now, is that then
>>> Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien committed, and deployed the
>>> Canadian army to Canada’s longest “war” without the advice, consent,
>>> support, or vote of the Canadian Parliament.
>>>
>>> What David Amos and the rest of the ignorant, uneducated, and babbling
>>> chattering classes are too addled to understand is the deployment of
>>> less than 75 special operations troops, and what is known by planners
>>> as a “six pac cell” of fighter aircraft is NOT the same as a
>>> deployment of a Battle Group, nor a “war” make.
>>>
>>> The Canadian Government or The Crown unlike our amerkan cousins have
>>> the “constitutional authority” to commit the Canadian nation to war.
>>> That has been recently clearly articulated to the Canadian public by
>>> constitutional scholar Phillippe Legasse. What Parliament can do is
>>> remove “confidence” in The Crown’s Government in a “vote of
>>> non-confidence.” That could not happen to the Chretien Government
>>> regarding deployment to Afghanistan, and it won’t happen in this
>>> instance with the conservative majority in The Commons regarding a
>>> limited Canadian deployment to the Middle East.
>>>
>>> President George Bush was quite correct after 911 and the terror
>>> attacks in New York; that the Taliban “occupied” and “failed state”
>>> Afghanistan was the source of logistical support, command and control,
>>> and training for the Al Quaeda war of terror against the world. The
>>> initial defeat, and removal from control of Afghanistan was vital and
>>>
>>> P.S. Whereas this CBC article is about your opinion of the actions of
>>> the latest Minister Of Health trust that Mr Boudreau and the CBC have
>>> had my files for many years and the last thing they are is ethical.
>>> Ask his friends Mr Murphy and the RCMP if you don't believe me.
>>>
>>> Subject:
>>> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:02:35 -0400
>>> From: "Murphy, Michael B. \(DH/MS\)"
MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca>>> To:
motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com>>>
>>> January 30, 2007
>>>
>>> WITHOUT PREJUDICE
>>>
>>> Mr. David Amos
>>>
>>> Dear Mr. Amos:
>>>
>>> This will acknowledge receipt of a copy of your e-mail of December 29,
>>> 2006 to Corporal Warren McBeath of the RCMP.
>>>
>>> Because of the nature of the allegations made in your message, I have
>>> taken the measure of forwarding a copy to Assistant Commissioner Steve
>>> Graham of the RCMP “J” Division in Fredericton.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> Honourable Michael B. Murphy
>>> Minister of Health
>>>
>>> CM/cb
>>>
>>>
>>> Warren McBeath
warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca wrote:
>>>
>>> Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:34:53 -0500
>>> From: "Warren McBeath"
warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>>> To:
kilgoursite@ca.inter.net,
MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca,
>>>
nada.sarkis@gnb.ca,
wally.stiles@gnb.ca,
dwatch@web.net,
>>>
motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com>>> CC:
ottawa@chuckstrahl.com,
riding@chuckstrahl.com,
John.Foran@gnb.ca,
>>>
Oda.B@parl.gc.ca,"Bev BUSSON"
bev.busson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
>>> "Paul Dube"
PAUL.DUBE@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>>> Subject: Re: Remember me Kilgour? Landslide Annie McLellan has
>>> forgotten me but the crooks within the RCMP have not
>>>
>>> Dear Mr. Amos,
>>>
>>> Thank you for your follow up e-mail to me today. I was on days off
>>> over the holidays and returned to work this evening. Rest assured I
>>> was not ignoring or procrastinating to respond to your concerns.
>>>
>>> As your attachment sent today refers from Premier Graham, our position
>>> is clear on your dead calf issue: Our forensic labs do not process
>>> testing on animals in cases such as yours, they are referred to the
>>> Atlantic Veterinary College in Charlottetown who can provide these
>>> services. If you do not choose to utilize their expertise in this
>>> instance, then that is your decision and nothing more can be done.
>>>
>>> As for your other concerns regarding the US Government, false
>>> imprisonment and Federal Court Dates in the US, etc... it is clear
>>> that Federal authorities are aware of your concerns both in Canada
>>> the US. These issues do not fall into the purvue of Detachment
>>> and policing in Petitcodiac, NB.
>>>
>>> It was indeed an interesting and informative conversation we had on
>>> December 23rd, and I wish you well in all of your future endeavors.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> Warren McBeath, Cpl.
>>> GRC Caledonia RCMP
>>> Traffic Services NCO
>>> Ph: (506) 387-2222
>>> Fax: (506) 387-4622
>>> E-mail
warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C.,
>>> Office of the Integrity Commissioner
>>> Edgecombe House, 736 King Street
>>> Fredericton, N.B. CANADA E3B 5H1
>>> tel.: 506-457-7890
>>> fax: 506-444-5224
>>>
e-mail:coi@gnb.ca>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: David Amos
motomaniac333@gmail.com>>> Date: Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:35 AM
>>> Subject: RE My complaint against the CROWN in Federal Court Attn David
>>> Hansen and Peter MacKay If you planning to submit a motion for a
>>> publication ban on my complaint trust that you dudes are way past too
>>> late
>>> To:
David.Hansen@justice.gc.ca,
peter.mackay@justice.gc.ca>>>
peacock.kurt@telegraphjournal.com,
mclaughlin.heather@dailygleaner.com,
>>>
david.akin@sunmedia.ca,
robert.frater@justice.gc.ca,
>>>
paul.riley@ppsc-sppc.gc.ca,
>>>
greg@gregdelbigio.com,
joyce.dewitt-vanoosten@gov.bc.ca,
>>>
joan.barrett@ontario.ca,
jean-vincent.lacroix@gouv.qc.ca,
>>>
peter.rogers@mcinnescooper.com,
mfeder@mccarthy.ca,
mjamal@osler.com>>> Cc:
david.raymond.amos@gmail.com,
gopublic@cbc.ca,
>>>
Whistleblower@ctv.ca>>>
>>>
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14439/index.do>>>
>>>
http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/WebDocuments-DocumentsWeb/35072/FM030_Respondent_Attorney-General-of-Canada-on-Behalf-of-the-United-States-of-America.pdf>>>
>>>
http://thedavidamosrant.blogspot.ca/2013/10/re-glen-greenwald-and-brazilian.html>>>
>>> I repeat what the Hell do I do with the Yankee wiretapes taps sell
>>> them on Ebay or listen to them and argue them with you dudes in
>>> Feferal Court?
>>>
>>> Petey Baby loses all parliamentary privelges in less than a month but
>>> he still supposed to be an ethical officer of the Court CORRECT?
>>>
>>> Veritas Vincit
>>> David Raymond Amos
>>> 902 800 0369
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: David Amos
motomaniac333@gmail.com>>> Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 14:10:14 -0400
>>> Subject: Yo Mr Bauer say hey to your client Obama and his buddies in
>>> the USDOJ for me will ya?
>>> To:
RBauer@perkinscoie.com,
sshimshak@paulweiss.com,
>>>
cspada@lswlaw.com,
msmith@svlaw.com,
bginsberg@pattonboggs.com,
>>>
gregory.craig@skadden.com,
pm@pm.gc.ca,
bob.paulson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
>>>
bob.rae@rogers.blackberry.net,
MulcaT@parl.gc.ca,
leader@greenparty.ca>>> Cc:
alevine@cooley.com,
david.raymond.amos@gmail.com,
>>>
michael.rothfeld@wsj.com,
remery@ecbalaw.com>>>
>>> QSLS Politics
>>> By Location Visit Detail
>>> Visit 29,419
>>> Domain Name
usdoj.gov ? (U.S. Government)
>>> IP Address 149.101.1.# (US Dept of Justice)
>>> ISP US Dept of Justice
>>> Location Continent : North America
>>> Country : United States (Facts)
>>> State : District of Columbia
>>> City : Washington
>>> Lat/Long : 38.9097, -77.0231 (Map)
>>> Language English (U.S.) en-us
>>> Operating System Microsoft WinXP
>>> Browser Internet Explorer 8.0
>>> Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET
>>> CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; InfoPath.2;
>>> DI60SP1001)
>>> Javascript version 1.3
>>> Monitor Resolution : 1024 x 768
>>> Color Depth : 32 bits
>>> Time of Visit Nov 17 2012 6:33:08 pm
>>> Last Page View Nov 17 2012 6:33:08 pm
>>> Visit Length 0 seconds
>>> Page Views 1
>>> Referring URL
http://www.google.co...
wwWJrm94lCEqRmovPXJg
>>> Search Engine
google.com>>> Search Words david amos bernie madoff
>>> Visit Entry Page
http://qslspolitics....-wendy-
olsen-on.html
>>> Visit Exit Page
http://qslspolitics....-wendy-
olsen-on.html
>>> Out Click
>>> Time Zone UTC-5:00
>>> Visitor's Time Nov 17 2012 12:33:08 pm
>>> Visit Number 29,419
>>>
>>>
http://qslspolitics.blogspot.com/2009/03/david-amos-to-wendy-olsen-on.html>>>
>>>
>>> Could ya tell I am investigating your pension plan bigtime? Its
>>> because no member of the RCMP I have ever encountered has earned it yet
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: David Amos
motomaniac333@gmail.com>>> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:36:04 -0400
>>> Subject: This is a brief as I can make my concerns Randy
>>> To:
randyedmunds@gov.nl.ca>>> Cc:
david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>>>
>>> In a nutshell my concerns about the actions of the Investment Industry
>>> affect the interests of every person in every district of every
>>> country not just the USA and Canada. I was offering to help you with
>>> Emera because my work with them and Danny Williams is well known and
>>> some of it is over eight years old and in the PUBLIC Record.
>>>
>>> All you have to do is stand in the Legislature and ask the MInister of
>>> Justice why I have been invited to sue Newfoundland by the
>>> Conservatives
>>>
>>>
>>> Obviously I am the guy the USDOJ and the SEC would not name who is the
>>> link to Madoff and Putnam Investments
>>>
>>> Here is why
>>>
>>>
http://banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=90f8e691-9065-4f8c-a465-72722b47e7f2>>>
>>> Notice the transcripts and webcasts of the hearing of the US Senate
>>> Banking Commitee are still missing? Mr Emory should at least notice
>>> Eliot Spitzer and the Dates around November 20th, 2003 in the
>>> following file
>>>
>>>
http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/2526023-DAMOSIntegrity-yea-right.-txt.pdf>>>
>>>
http://occupywallst.org/users/DavidRaymondAmos/>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: "Hansen, David"
David.Hansen@justice.gc.ca>>> Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 19:28:44 +0000
>>> Subject: RE: I just called again Mr Hansen
>>> To: David Amos
motomaniac333@gmail.com>>>
>>> Hello Mr. Amos,
>>>
>>> I manage the Justice Canada civil litigation section in the Atlantic
>>> region. We are only responsible for litigating existing civil
>>> litigation files in which the Attorney General of Canada is a named
>>> defendant or plaintiff. If you are a plaintiff or defendant in an
>>> existing civil litigation matter in the Atlantic region in which
>>> Attorney General of Canada is a named defendant or plaintiff please
>>> provide the court file number, the names of the parties in the action
>>> and your question. I am not the appropriate contact for other
>>> matters.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> David A. Hansen
>>> Regional Director | Directeur régional
>>> General Counsel |Avocat général
>>> Civil Litigation and Advisory | Contentieux des affaires civiles et
>>> services de consultation
>>> Department of Justice | Ministère de la Justice
>>> Suite 1400 – Duke Tower | Pièce 1400 – Tour Duke
>>> 5251 Duke Street | 5251 rue Duke
>>> Halifax, Nova Scotia | Halifax, Nouvelle- Écosse
>>> B3J 1P3
>>>
david.hansen@justice.gc.ca>>> Telephone | Téléphone (902) 426-3261 / Facsimile | Télécopieur (902)
>>> 426-2329
>>> This e-mail is confidential and may be protected by solicitor-client
>>> privilege. Unauthorized distribution or disclosure is prohibited. If
>>> you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us and delete
>>> this entire e-mail.
>>> Before printing think about the Environment
>>> Thinking Green, please do not print this e-mail unless necessary.
>>> Pensez vert, svp imprimez que si nécessaire.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: David Amos
motomaniac333@gmail.com>>>> Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 02:23:24 -0300
>>>> Subject: ATTN FBI Special Agent Richard Deslauriers Have you talked to
>>>> your buddies Fred Wyshak and Brian Kelly about the wiretap tapes YET?
>>>> To:
boston@ic.fbi.gov,
washington.field@ic.fbi.gov,
>>>>
bob.paulson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
Kevin.leahy@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
>>>>
Brian.Kelly@usdoj.gov,
us.marshals@usdoj.gov,
Fred.Wyshak@usdoj.gov,
>>>>
jcarney@carneybassil.com,
bbachrach@bachrachlaw.net>>>> Cc:
david.raymond.amos@gmail.com,
birgittaj@althingi.is,
>>>>
shmurphy@globe.com,
redicecreations@gmail.com>>>>
>>>> FBI Boston
>>>> One Center Plaza
>>>> Suite 600
>>>> Boston, MA 02108
>>>> Phone: (617) 742-5533
>>>> Fax: (617) 223-6327
>>>> E-mail:
Boston@ic.fbi.gov>>>>
>>>> Hours
>>>> Although we operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, our normal
>>>> "walk-in" business hours are from 8:15 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday
>>>> through Friday. If you need to speak with a FBI representative at any
>>>> time other than during normal business hours, please telephone our
>>>> office at (617) 742-5533.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: David Amos
motomaniac333@gmail.com>>>> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 01:20:20 -0300
>>>> Subject: Yo Fred Wyshak and Brian Kelly your buddy Whitey's trial is
>>>> finally underway now correct? What the hell do I do with the wiretap
>>>> tapes Sell them on Ebay?
>>>> To:
Brian.Kelly@usdoj.gov,
us.marshals@usdoj.gov,
>>>>
Fred.Wyshak@usdoj.gov,
jcarney@carneybassil.com,
>>>>
bbachrach@bachrachlaw.net,
wolfheartlodge@live.com,
shmurphy@globe.com,
>>>> >>
jonathan.albano@bingham.com,
mvalencia@globe.com>>>> Cc:
david.raymond.amos@gmail.com,
oldmaison@yahoo.com,
>>>>
PATRICK.MURPHY@dhs.gov,
rounappletree@aol.com>>>>
>>>>
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/06/05/james-whitey-bulger-jury-selection-process-enters-second-day/KjS80ofyMMM5IkByK74bkK/story.html>>>>
>>>>
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/06/09/nsa-leak-guardian.html>>>>
>>>> As the CBC etc yap about Yankee wiretaps and whistleblowers I must ask
>>>> them the obvious question AIN'T THEY FORGETTING SOMETHING????
>>>>
>>>>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vugUalUO8YY>>>>
>>>> What the hell does the media think my Yankee lawyer served upon the
>>>> USDOJ right after I ran for and seat in the 39th Parliament baseball
>>>> cards?
>>>>
>>>>
http://www.archive.org/details/FedsUsTreasuryDeptRcmpEtc>>>>
>>>>
http://archive.org/details/ITriedToExplainItToAllMaritimersInEarly2006>>>>
>>>>
http://davidamos.blogspot.ca/2006/05/wiretap-tapes-impeach-bush.html>>>>
>>>>
http://www.archive.org/details/PoliceSurveilanceWiretapTape139>>>>
>>>>
http://archive.org/details/Part1WiretapTape143>>>>
>>>> FEDERAL EXPRES February 7, 2006
>>>> Senator Arlen Specter
>>>> United States Senate
>>>> Committee on the Judiciary
>>>> 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
>>>> Washington, DC 20510
>>>>
>>>> Dear Mr. Specter:
>>>>
>>>> I have been asked to forward the enclosed tapes to you from a man
>>>> named, David Amos, a Canadian citizen, in connection with the matters
>>>> raised in the attached letter.
>>>>
>>>> Mr. Amos has represented to me that these are illegal FBI wire tap
>>>> tapes.
>>>>
>>>> I believe Mr. Amos has been in contact with you about this previously.
>>>>
>>>> Very truly yours,
>>>> Barry A. Bachrach
>>>> Direct telephone: (508) 926-3403
>>>> Direct facsimile: (508) 929-3003
>>>> Email:
bbachrach@bowditch.com>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "David Amos"
david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>>>> To: "Rob Talach"
rtalach@ledroitbeckett.com>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 10:59 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: Attn Robert Talach and I should talk ASAP about my suing
>>>> the Catholic Church Trust that Bastarache knows why
>>>>
>>>> The date stamp on about page 134 of this old file of mine should mean
>>>> a lot to you
>>>>
>>>>
http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/2619437-CROSS-BORDER-txt-.pdf>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: David Amos
motomaniac333@gmail.com>>>> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 15:37:08 -0400
>>>> Subject: To Hell with the KILLER COP Gilles Moreau What say you NOW
>>>> Bernadine Chapman??
>>>> To:
Gilles.Moreau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
phil.giles@statcan.ca,
>>>>
maritme_malaise@yahoo.ca,
Jennifer.Nixon@ps-sp.gc.ca,
>>>>
bartman.heidi@psic-ispc.gc.ca,
Yves.J.Marineau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
>>>>
david.paradiso@erc-cee.gc.ca,
desaulniea@smtp.gc.ca,
>>>>
denise.brennan@tbs-sct.gc.ca,
anne.murtha@vac-acc.gc.ca,
>>>>
webo@xplornet.com,
julie.dickson@osfi-bsif.gc.ca,
>>>>
rod.giles@osfi-bsif.gc.ca,
flaherty.j@parl.gc.ca,
toewsv1@parl.gc.ca,
>>>>
Nycole.Turmel@parl.gc.ca,
Clemet1@parl.gc.ca,
maritime_malaise@yahoo.ca,
>>>> >>
oig@sec.gov,
whistleblower@finra.org,
whistle@fsa.gov.uk,
>>>>
david@fairwhistleblower.ca>>>> Cc:
j.kroes@interpol.int,
david.raymond.amos@gmail.com,
>>>>
bernadine.chapman@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca,
>>>>
Juanita.Peddle@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
oldmaison@yahoo.com,
>>>>
Wayne.Lang@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
Robert.Trevors@gnb.ca,
>>>>
ian.fahie@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>
>>>>
>>>>
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/nb/news-nouvelles/media-medias-eng.htm>>>>
>>>>
http://nb.rcmpvet.ca/Newsletters/VetsReview/nlnov06.pdf>>>>
>>>> From: Gilles Moreau
Gilles.Moreau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>>>> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 08:03:22 -0500
>>>> Subject: Re: Lets ee if the really nasty Newfy Lawyer Danny Boy
>>>> Millions will explain this email to you or your boss Vic Toews EH
>>>> Constable Peddle???
>>>> To: David Amos
motomaniac333@gmail.com>>>>
>>>> Please cease and desist from using my name in your emails.
>>>>
>>>> Gilles Moreau, Chief Superintendent, CHRP and ACC
>>>> Director General
>>>> HR Transformation
>>>> 73 Leikin Drive, M5-2-502
>>>> Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0R2
>>>>
>>>> Tel 613-843-6039
>>>> Cel 613-818-6947
>>>>
>>>> Gilles Moreau, surintendant principal, CRHA et ACC
>>>> Directeur général de la Transformation des ressources humaines
>>>> 73 Leikin, pièce M5-2-502
>>>> Ottawa, ON K1A 0R2
>>>>
>>>> tél 613-843-6039
>>>> cel 613-818-6947
>>>>
gilles.moreau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>>>>
>>
>
>
>
http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2017/11/federal-court-of-appeal-finally-makes.html>
> Sunday, 19 November 2017
> Federal Court of Appeal Finally Makes The BIG Decision And Publishes
> It Now The Crooks Cannot Take Back Ticket To Try Put My Matter Before
> The Supreme Court
>
>
https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/236679/index.do>
>
> Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
>
> Amos v. Canada
> Court (s) Database
>
> Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
> Date
>
> 2017-10-30
> Neutral citation
>
> 2017 FCA 213
> File numbers
>
> A-48-16
> Date: 20171030
>
> Docket: A-48-16
> Citation: 2017 FCA 213
> CORAM:
>
> WEBB J.A.
> NEAR J.A.
> GLEASON J.A.
>
>
> BETWEEN:
> DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
> Respondent on the cross-appeal
> (and formally Appellant)
> and
> HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
> Appellant on the cross-appeal
> (and formerly Respondent)
> Heard at Fredericton, New Brunswick, on May 24, 2017.
> Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 30, 2017.
> REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:
>
> THE COURT
>
>
>
> Date: 20171030
>
> Docket: A-48-16
> Citation: 2017 FCA 213
> CORAM:
>
> WEBB J.A.
> NEAR J.A.
> GLEASON J.A.
>
>
> BETWEEN:
> DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
> Respondent on the cross-appeal
> (and formally Appellant)
> and
> HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
> Appellant on the cross-appeal
> (and formerly Respondent)
> REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY THE COURT
>
> I. Introduction
>
> [1] On September 16, 2015, David Raymond Amos (Mr. Amos)
> filed a 53-page Statement of Claim (the Claim) in Federal Court
> against Her Majesty the Queen (the Crown). Mr. Amos claims $11 million
> in damages and a public apology from the Prime Minister and Provincial
> Premiers for being illegally barred from accessing parliamentary
> properties and seeks a declaration from the Minister of Public Safety
> that the Canadian Government will no longer allow the Royal Canadian
> Mounted Police (RCMP) and Canadian Forces to harass him and his clan
> (Claim at para. 96).
>
> [2] On November 12, 2015 (Docket T-1557-15), by way of a
> motion brought by the Crown, a prothonotary of the Federal Court (the
> Prothonotary) struck the Claim in its entirety, without leave to
> amend, on the basis that it was plain and obvious that the Claim
> disclosed no reasonable claim, the Claim was fundamentally vexatious,
> and the Claim could not be salvaged by way of further amendment (the
> Prothontary’s Order).
>
>
> [3] On January 25, 2016 (2016 FC 93), by way of Mr.
> Amos’ appeal from the Prothonotary’s Order, a judge of the Federal
> Court (the Judge), reviewing the matter de novo, struck all of Mr.
> Amos’ claims for relief with the exception of the claim for damages
> for being barred by the RCMP from the New Brunswick legislature in
> 2004 (the Federal Court Judgment).
>
>
> [4] Mr. Amos appealed and the Crown cross-appealed the
> Federal Court Judgment. Further to the issuance of a Notice of Status
> Review, Mr. Amos’ appeal was dismissed for delay on December 19, 2016.
> As such, the only matter before this Court is the Crown’s
> cross-appeal.
>
>
> II. Preliminary Matter
>
> [5] Mr. Amos, in his memorandum of fact and law in
> relation to the cross-appeal that was filed with this Court on March
> 6, 2017, indicated that several judges of this Court, including two of
> the judges of this panel, had a conflict of interest in this appeal.
> This was the first time that he identified the judges whom he believed
> had a conflict of interest in a document that was filed with this
> Court. In his notice of appeal he had alluded to a conflict with
> several judges but did not name those judges.
>
> [6] Mr. Amos was of the view that he did not have to
> identify the judges in any document filed with this Court because he
> had identified the judges in various documents that had been filed
> with the Federal Court. In his view the Federal Court and the Federal
> Court of Appeal are the same court and therefore any document filed in
> the Federal Court would be filed in this Court. This view is based on
> subsections 5(4) and 5.1(4) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985,
> c. F-7:
>
>
> 5(4) Every judge of the Federal Court is, by virtue of his or her
> office, a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal and has all the
> jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Federal Court of
> Appeal.
> […]
>
> 5(4) Les juges de la Cour fédérale sont d’office juges de la Cour
> d’appel fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs que
> les juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale.
> […]
> 5.1(4) Every judge of the Federal Court of Appeal is, by virtue of
> that office, a judge of the Federal Court and has all the
> jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Federal Court.
>
> 5.1(4) Les juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale sont d’office juges de la
> Cour fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs que les
> juges de la Cour fédérale.
>
>
> [7] However, these subsections only provide that the
> judges of the Federal Court are also judges of this Court (and vice
> versa). It does not mean that there is only one court. If the Federal
> Court and this Court were one Court, there would be no need for this
> section.
> [8] Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Courts Act provide that:
> 3 The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the Federal Court
> — Appeal Division is continued under the name “Federal Court of
> Appeal” in English and “Cour d’appel fédérale” in French. It is
> continued as an additional court of law, equity and admiralty in and
> for Canada, for the better administration of the laws of Canada and as
> a superior court of record having civil and criminal jurisdiction.
>
> 3 La Section d’appel, aussi appelée la Cour d’appel ou la Cour d’appel
> fédérale, est maintenue et dénommée « Cour d’appel fédérale » en
> français et « Federal Court of Appeal » en anglais. Elle est maintenue
> à titre de tribunal additionnel de droit, d’equity et d’amirauté du
> Canada, propre à améliorer l’application du droit canadien, et
> continue d’être une cour supérieure d’archives ayant compétence en
> matière civile et pénale.
> 4 The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the Federal Court
> — Trial Division is continued under the name “Federal Court” in
> English and “Cour fédérale” in French. It is continued as an
> additional court of law, equity and admiralty in and for Canada, for
> the better administration of the laws of Canada and as a superior
> court of record having civil and criminal jurisdiction.
>
> 4 La section de la Cour fédérale du Canada, appelée la Section de
> première instance de la Cour fédérale, est maintenue et dénommée «
> Cour fédérale » en français et « Federal Court » en anglais. Elle est
> maintenue à titre de tribunal additionnel de droit, d’equity et
> d’amirauté du Canada, propre à améliorer l’application du droit
> canadien, et continue d’être une cour supérieure d’archives ayant
> compétence en matière civile et pénale.
>
>
> [9] Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Courts Act create
> two separate courts – this Court (section 3) and the Federal Court
> (section 4). If, as Mr. Amos suggests, documents filed in the Federal
> Court were automatically also filed in this Court, then there would no
> need for the parties to prepare and file appeal books as required by
> Rules 343 to 345 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 in relation
> to any appeal from a decision of the Federal Court. The requirement to
> file an appeal book with this Court in relation to an appeal from a
> decision of the Federal Court makes it clear that the only documents
> that will be before this Court are the documents that are part of that
> appeal book.
>
>
> [10] Therefore, the memorandum of fact and law filed on
> March 6, 2017 is the first document, filed with this Court, in which
> Mr. Amos identified the particular judges that he submits have a
> conflict in any matter related to him.
>
>
> [11] On April 3, 2017, Mr. Amos attempted to bring a motion
> before the Federal Court seeking an order “affirming or denying the
> conflict of interest he has” with a number of judges of the Federal
> Court. A judge of the Federal Court issued a direction noting that if
> Mr. Amos was seeking this order in relation to judges of the Federal
> Court of Appeal, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Federal Court.
> Mr. Amos raised the Federal Court motion at the hearing of this
> cross-appeal. The Federal Court motion is not a motion before this
> Court and, as such, the submissions filed before the Federal Court
> will not be entertained. As well, since this was a motion brought
> before the Federal Court (and not this Court), any documents filed in
> relation to that motion are not part of the record of this Court.
>
>
> [12] During the hearing of the appeal Mr. Amos alleged that
> the third member of this panel also had a conflict of interest and
> submitted some documents that, in his view, supported his claim of a
> conflict. Mr. Amos, following the hearing of his appeal, was also
> afforded the opportunity to provide a brief summary of the conflict
> that he was alleging and to file additional documents that, in his
> view, supported his allegations. Mr. Amos submitted several pages of
> documents in relation to the alleged conflicts. He organized the
> documents by submitting a copy of the biography of the particular
> judge and then, immediately following that biography, by including
> copies of the documents that, in his view, supported his claim that
> such judge had a conflict.
>
>
> [13] The nature of the alleged conflict of Justice Webb is
> that before he was appointed as a Judge of the Tax Court of Canada in
> 2006, he was a partner with the law firm Patterson Law, and before
> that with Patterson Palmer in Nova Scotia. Mr. Amos submitted that he
> had a number of disputes with Patterson Palmer and Patterson Law and
> therefore Justice Webb has a conflict simply because he was a partner
> of these firms. Mr. Amos is not alleging that Justice Webb was
> personally involved in or had any knowledge of any matter in which Mr.
> Amos was involved with Justice Webb’s former law firm – only that he
> was a member of such firm.
>
>
> [14] During his oral submissions at the hearing of his
> appeal Mr. Amos, in relation to the alleged conflict for Justice Webb,
> focused on dealings between himself and a particular lawyer at
> Patterson Law. However, none of the documents submitted by Mr. Amos at
> the hearing or subsequently related to any dealings with this
> particular lawyer nor is it clear when Mr. Amos was dealing with this
> lawyer. In particular, it is far from clear whether such dealings were
> after the time that Justice Webb was appointed as a Judge of the Tax
> Court of Canada over 10 years ago.
>
>
> [15] The documents that he submitted in relation to the
> alleged conflict for Justice Webb largely relate to dealings between
> Byron Prior and the St. John’s Newfoundland and Labrador office of
> Patterson Palmer, which is not in the same province where Justice Webb
> practiced law. The only document that indicates any dealing between
> Mr. Amos and Patterson Palmer is a copy of an affidavit of Stephen May
> who was a partner in the St. John’s NL office of Patterson Palmer. The
> affidavit is dated January 24, 2005 and refers to a number of e-mails
> that were sent by Mr. Amos to Stephen May. Mr. Amos also included a
> letter that is addressed to four individuals, one of whom is John
> Crosbie who was counsel to the St. John’s NL office of Patterson
> Palmer. The letter is dated September 2, 2004 and is addressed to
> “John Crosbie, c/o Greg G. Byrne, Suite 502, 570 Queen Street,
> Fredericton, NB E3B 5E3”. In this letter Mr. Amos alludes to a
> possible lawsuit against Patterson Palmer.
> [16] Mr. Amos’ position is that simply because Justice Webb
> was a lawyer with Patterson Palmer, he now has a conflict. In Wewaykum
> Indian Band v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2003 SCC 45, [2003] 2 S.C.R.
> 259, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that disqualification of a
> judge is to be determined based on whether there is a reasonable
> apprehension of bias:
> 60 In Canadian law, one standard has now emerged as the
> criterion for disqualification. The criterion, as expressed by de
> Grandpré J. in Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy
> Board, …[[1978] 1 S.C.R. 369, 68 D.L.R. (3d) 716], at p. 394, is the
> reasonable apprehension of bias:
> … the apprehension of bias must be a reasonable one, held by
> reasonable and right minded persons, applying themselves to the
> question and obtaining thereon the required information. In the words
> of the Court of Appeal, that test is "what would an informed person,
> viewing the matter realistically and practically -- and having thought
> the matter through -- conclude. Would he think that it is more likely
> than not that [the decision-maker], whether consciously or
> unconsciously, would not decide fairly."
>
> [17] The issue to be determined is whether an informed
> person, viewing the matter realistically and practically, and having
> thought the matter through, would conclude that Mr. Amos’ allegations
> give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. As this Court has
> previously remarked, “there is a strong presumption that judges will
> administer justice impartially” and this presumption will not be
> rebutted in the absence of “convincing evidence” of bias (Collins v.
> Canada, 2011 FCA 140 at para. 7, [2011] 4 C.T.C. 157 [Collins]. See
> also R. v. S. (R.D.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484 at para. 32, 151 D.L.R.
> (4th) 193).
>
> [18] The Ontario Court of Appeal in Rando Drugs Ltd. v.
> Scott, 2007 ONCA 553, 86 O.R. (3d) 653 (leave to appeal to the Supreme
> Court of Canada refused, 32285 (August 1, 2007)), addressed the
> particular issue of whether a judge is disqualified from hearing a
> case simply because he had been a member of a law firm that was
> involved in the litigation that was now before that judge. The Ontario
> Court of Appeal determined that the judge was not disqualified if the
> judge had no involvement with the person or the matter when he was a
> lawyer. The Ontario Court of Appeal also explained that the rules for
> determining whether a judge is disqualified are different from the
> rules to determine whether a lawyer has a conflict:
> 27 Thus, disqualification is not the natural corollary to a
> finding that a trial judge has had some involvement in a case over
> which he or she is now presiding. Where the judge had no involvement,
> as here, it cannot be said that the judge is disqualified.
>
>
> 28 The point can rightly be made that had Mr. Patterson been
> asked to represent the appellant as counsel before his appointment to
> the bench, the conflict rules would likely have prevented him from
> taking the case because his firm had formerly represented one of the
> defendants in the case. Thus, it is argued how is it that as a trial
> judge Patterson J. can hear the case? This issue was considered by the
> Court of Appeal (Civil Division) in Locabail (U.K.) Ltd. v. Bayfield
> Properties Ltd., [2000] Q.B. 451. The court held, at para. 58, that
> there is no inflexible rule governing the disqualification of a judge
> and that, "[e]verything depends on the circumstances."
>
>
> 29 It seems to me that what appears at first sight to be an
> inconsistency in application of rules can be explained by the
> different contexts and in particular, the strong presumption of
> judicial impartiality that applies in the context of disqualification
> of a judge. There is no such presumption in cases of allegations of
> conflict of interest against a lawyer because of a firm's previous
> involvement in the case. To the contrary, as explained by Sopinka J.
> in MacDonald Estate v. Martin (1990), 77 D.L.R. (4th) 249 (S.C.C.),
> for sound policy reasons there is a presumption of a disqualifying
> interest that can rarely be overcome. In particular, a conclusory
> statement from the lawyer that he or she had no confidential
> information about the case will never be sufficient. The case is the
> opposite where the allegation of bias is made against a trial judge.
> His or her statement that he or she knew nothing about the case and
> had no involvement in it will ordinarily be accepted at face value
> unless there is good reason to doubt it: see Locabail, at para. 19.
>
>
> 30 That brings me then to consider the particular circumstances
> of this case and whether there are serious grounds to find a
> disqualifying conflict of interest in this case. In my view, there are
> two significant factors that justify the trial judge's decision not to
> recuse himself. The first is his statement, which all parties accept,
> that he knew nothing of the case when it was in his former firm and
> that he had nothing to do with it. The second is the long passage of
> time. As was said in Wewaykum, at para. 85:
> To us, one significant factor stands out, and must inform
> the perspective of the reasonable person assessing the impact of this
> involvement on Binnie J.'s impartiality in the appeals. That factor is
> the passage of time. Most arguments for disqualification rest on
> circumstances that are either contemporaneous to the decision-making,
> or that occurred within a short time prior to the decision-making.
> 31 There are other factors that inform the issue. The Wilson
> Walker firm no longer acted for any of the parties by the time of
> trial. More importantly, at the time of the motion, Patterson J. had
> been a judge for six years and thus had not had a relationship with
> his former firm for a considerable period of time.
>
>
> 32 In my view, a reasonable person, viewing the matter
> realistically would conclude that the trial judge could deal fairly
> and impartially with this case. I take this view principally because
> of the long passage of time and the trial judge's lack of involvement
> in or knowledge of the case when the Wilson Walker firm had carriage.
> In these circumstances it cannot be reasonably contended that the
> trial judge could not remain impartial in the case. The mere fact that
> his name appears on the letterhead of some correspondence from over a
> decade ago would not lead a reasonable person to believe that he would
> either consciously or unconsciously favour his former firm's former
> client. It is simply not realistic to think that a judge would throw
> off his mantle of impartiality, ignore his oath of office and favour a
> client - about whom he knew nothing - of a firm that he left six years
> earlier and that no longer acts for the client, in a case involving
> events from over a decade ago.
> (emphasis added)
>
> [19] Justice Webb had no involvement with any matter
> involving Mr. Amos while he was a member of Patterson Palmer or
> Patterson Law, nor does Mr. Amos suggest that he did. Mr. Amos made it
> clear during the hearing of this matter that the only reason for the
> alleged conflict for Justice Webb was that he was a member of
> Patterson Law and Patterson Palmer. This is simply not enough for
> Justice Webb to be disqualified. Any involvement of Mr. Amos with
> Patterson Law while Justice Webb was a member of that firm would have
> had to occur over 10 years ago and even longer for the time when he
> was a member of Patterson Palmer. In addition to the lack of any
> involvement on his part with any matter or dispute that Mr. Amos had
> with Patterson Law or Patterson Palmer (which in and of itself is
> sufficient to dispose of this matter), the length of time since
> Justice Webb was a member of Patterson Law or Patterson Palmer would
> also result in the same finding – that there is no conflict in Justice
> Webb hearing this appeal.
>
> [20] Similarly in R. v. Bagot, 2000 MBCA 30, 145 Man. R.
> (2d) 260, the Manitoba Court of Appeal found that there was no
> reasonable apprehension of bias when a judge, who had been a member of
> the law firm that had been retained by the accused, had no involvement
> with the accused while he was a lawyer with that firm.
>
> [21] In Del Zotto v. Minister of National Revenue, [2000] 4
> F.C. 321, 257 N.R. 96, this court did find that there would be a
> reasonable apprehension of bias where a judge, who while he was a
> lawyer, had recorded time on a matter involving the same person who
> was before that judge. However, this case can be distinguished as
> Justice Webb did not have any time recorded on any files involving Mr.
> Amos while he was a lawyer with Patterson Palmer or Patterson Law.
>
> [22] Mr. Amos also included with his submissions a CD. He
> stated in his affidavit dated June 26, 2017 that there is a “true copy
> of an American police surveillance wiretap entitled 139” on this CD.
> He has also indicated that he has “provided a true copy of the CD
> entitled 139 to many American and Canadian law enforcement authorities
> and not one of the police forces or officers of the court are willing
> to investigate it”. Since he has indicated that this is an “American
> police surveillance wiretap”, this is a matter for the American law
> enforcement authorities and cannot create, as Mr. Amos suggests, a
> conflict of interest for any judge to whom he provides a copy.
>
> [23] As a result, there is no conflict or reasonable
> apprehension of bias for Justice Webb and therefore, no reason for him
> to recuse himself.
>
> [24] Mr. Amos alleged that Justice Near’s past professional
> experience with the government created a “quasi-conflict” in deciding
> the cross-appeal. Mr. Amos provided no details and Justice Near
> confirmed that he had no prior knowledge of the matters alleged in the
> Claim. Justice Near sees no reason to recuse himself.
>
> [25] Insofar as it is possible to glean the basis for Mr.
> Amos’ allegations against Justice Gleason, it appears that he alleges
> that she is incapable of hearing this appeal because he says he wrote
> a letter to Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien in 2004. At that time,
> both Justice Gleason and Mr. Mulroney were partners in the law firm
> Ogilvy Renault, LLP. The letter in question, which is rude and angry,
> begins with “Hey you two Evil Old Smiling Bastards” and “Re: me suing
> you and your little dogs too”. There is no indication that the letter
> was ever responded to or that a law suit was ever commenced by Mr.
> Amos against Mr. Mulroney. In the circumstances, there is no reason
> for Justice Gleason to recuse herself as the letter in question does
> not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.
>
>
> III. Issue
>
> [26] The issue on the cross-appeal is as follows: Did the
> Judge err in setting aside the Prothonotary’s Order striking the Claim
> in its entirety without leave to amend and in determining that Mr.
> Amos’ allegation that the RCMP barred him from the New Brunswick
> legislature in 2004 was capable of supporting a cause of action?
>
> IV. Analysis
>
> A. Standard of Review
>
> [27] Following the Judge’s decision to set aside the
> Prothonotary’s Order, this Court revisited the standard of review to
> be applied to discretionary decisions of prothonotaries and decisions
> made by judges on appeals of prothonotaries’ decisions in Hospira
> Healthcare Corp. v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, 2016 FCA 215,
> 402 D.L.R. (4th) 497 [Hospira]. In Hospira, a five-member panel of
> this Court replaced the Aqua-Gem standard of review with that
> articulated in Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235
> [Housen]. As a result, it is no longer appropriate for the Federal
> Court to conduct a de novo review of a discretionary order made by a
> prothonotary in regard to questions vital to the final issue of the
> case. Rather, a Federal Court judge can only intervene on appeal if
> the prothonotary made an error of law or a palpable and overriding
> error in determining a question of fact or question of mixed fact and
> law (Hospira at para. 79). Further, this Court can only interfere with
> a Federal Court judge’s review of a prothonotary’s discretionary order
> if the judge made an error of law or palpable and overriding error in
> determining a question of fact or question of mixed fact and law
> (Hospira at paras. 82-83).
>
> [28] In the case at bar, the Judge substituted his own
> assessment of Mr. Amos’ Claim for that of the Prothonotary. This Court
> must look to the Prothonotary’s Order to determine whether the Judge
> erred in law or made a palpable and overriding error in choosing to
> interfere.
>
>
> B. Did the Judge err in interfering with the
> Prothonotary’s Order?
>
> [29] The Prothontoary’s Order accepted the following
> paragraphs from the Crown’s submissions as the basis for striking the
> Claim in its entirety without leave to amend:
>
> 17. Within the 96 paragraph Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff
> addresses his complaint in paragraphs 14-24, inclusive. All but four
> of those paragraphs are dedicated to an incident that occurred in 2006
> in and around the legislature in New Brunswick. The jurisdiction of
> the Federal Court does not extend to Her Majesty the Queen in right of
> the Provinces. In any event, the Plaintiff hasn’t named the Province
> or provincial actors as parties to this action. The incident alleged
> does not give rise to a justiciable cause of action in this Court.
> (…)
>
>
> 21. The few paragraphs that directly address the Defendant
> provide no details as to the individuals involved or the location of
> the alleged incidents or other details sufficient to allow the
> Defendant to respond. As a result, it is difficult or impossible to
> determine the causes of action the Plaintiff is attempting to advance.
> A generous reading of the Statement of Claim allows the Defendant to
> only speculate as to the true and/or intended cause of action. At
> best, the Plaintiff’s action may possibly be summarized as: he
> suspects he is barred from the House of Commons.
> [footnotes omitted].
>
>
> [30] The Judge determined that he could not strike the Claim
> on the same jurisdictional basis as the Prothonotary. The Judge noted
> that the Federal Court has jurisdiction over claims based on the
> liability of Federal Crown servants like the RCMP and that the actors
> who barred Mr. Amos from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004
> included the RCMP (Federal Court Judgment at para. 23). In considering
> the viability of these allegations de novo, the Judge identified
> paragraph 14 of the Claim as containing “some precision” as it
> identifies the date of the event and a RCMP officer acting as
> Aide-de-Camp to the Lieutenant Governor (Federal Court Judgment at
> para. 27).
>
>
> [31] The Judge noted that the 2004 event could support a
> cause of action in the tort of misfeasance in public office and
> identified the elements of the tort as excerpted from Meigs v. Canada,
> 2013 FC 389, 431 F.T.R. 111:
>
>
> [13] As in both the cases of Odhavji Estate v Woodhouse, 2003 SCC
> 69 [Odhavji] and Lewis v Canada, 2012 FC 1514 [Lewis], I must
> determine whether the plaintiffs’ statement of claim pleads each
> element of the alleged tort of misfeasance in public office:
>
> a) The public officer must have engaged in deliberate and unlawful
> conduct in his or her capacity as public officer;
>
> b) The public officer must have been aware both that his or her
> conduct was unlawful and that it was likely to harm the plaintiff; and
>
> c) There must be an element of bad faith or dishonesty by the public
> officer and knowledge of harm alone is insufficient to conclude that a
> public officer acted in bad faith or dishonestly.
> Odhavji, above, at paras 23, 24 and 28
> (Federal Court Judgment at para. 28).
>
> [32] The Judge determined that Mr. Amos disclosed sufficient
> material facts to meet the elements of the tort of misfeasance in
> public office because the actors, who barred him from the New
> Brunswick legislature in 2004, including the RCMP, did so for
> “political reasons” (Federal Court Judgment at para. 29).
>
> [33] This Court’s discussion of the sufficiency of pleadings
> in Merchant Law Group v. Canada (Revenue Agency), 2010 FCA 184, 321
> D.L.R (4th) 301 is particularly apt:
>
> …When pleading bad faith or abuse of power, it is not enough to
> assert, baldly, conclusory phrases such as “deliberately or
> negligently,” “callous disregard,” or “by fraud and theft did steal”.
> “The bare assertion of a conclusion upon which the court is called
> upon to pronounce is not an allegation of material fact”. Making bald,
> conclusory allegations without any evidentiary foundation is an abuse
> of process…
>
> To this, I would add that the tort of misfeasance in public office
> requires a particular state of mind of a public officer in carrying
> out the impunged action, i.e., deliberate conduct which the public
> officer knows to be inconsistent with the obligations of his or her
> office. For this tort, particularization of the allegations is
> mandatory. Rule 181 specifically requires particularization of
> allegations of “breach of trust,” “wilful default,” “state of mind of
> a person,” “malice” or “fraudulent intention.”
> (at paras. 34-35, citations omitted).
>
> [34] Applying the Housen standard of review to the
> Prothonotary’s Order, we are of the view that the Judge interfered
> absent a legal or palpable and overriding error.
>
> [35] The Prothonotary determined that Mr. Amos’ Claim
> disclosed no reasonable claim and was fundamentally vexatious on the
> basis of jurisdictional concerns and the absence of material facts to
> ground a cause of action. Paragraph 14 of the Claim, which addresses
> the 2004 event, pleads no material facts as to how the RCMP officer
> engaged in deliberate and unlawful conduct, knew that his or her
> conduct was unlawful and likely to harm Mr. Amos, and acted in bad
> faith. While the Claim alleges elsewhere that Mr. Amos was barred from
> the New Brunswick legislature for political and/or malicious reasons,
> these allegations are not particularized and are directed against
> non-federal actors, such as the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Legislative
> Assembly of New Brunswick and the Fredericton Police Force. As such,
> the Judge erred in determining that Mr. Amos’ allegation that the RCMP
> barred him from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004 was capable of
> supporting a cause of action.
>
> [36] In our view, the Claim is made up entirely of bare
> allegations, devoid of any detail, such that it discloses no
> reasonable cause of action within the jurisdiction of the Federal
> Courts. Therefore, the Judge erred in interfering to set aside the
> Prothonotary’s Order striking the claim in its entirety. Further, we
> find that the Prothonotary made no error in denying leave to amend.
> The deficiencies in Mr. Amos’ pleadings are so extensive such that
> amendment could not cure them (see Collins at para. 26).
>
> V. Conclusion
> [37] For the foregoing reasons, we would allow the Crown’s
> cross-appeal, with costs, setting aside the Federal Court Judgment,
> dated January 25, 2016 and restoring the Prothonotary’s Order, dated
> November 12, 2015, which struck Mr. Amos’ Claim in its entirety
> without leave to amend.
> "Wyman W. Webb"
> J.A.
> "David G. Near"
> J.A.
> "Mary J.L. Gleason"
> J.A.
>
>
>
> FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
> NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
>
> A CROSS-APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SOUTHCOTT DATED
> JANUARY 25, 2016; DOCKET NUMBER T-1557-15.
> DOCKET:
>
> A-48-16
>
>
>
> STYLE OF CAUSE:
>
> DAVID RAYMOND AMOS v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
>
>
>
> PLACE OF HEARING:
>
> Fredericton,
> New Brunswick
>
> DATE OF HEARING:
>
> May 24, 2017
>
> REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:
>
> WEBB J.A.
> NEAR J.A.
> GLEASON J.A.
>
> DATED:
>
> October 30, 2017
>
>
>
>
>
> APPEARANCES:
> David Raymond Amos
>
>
> For The Appellant / respondent on cross-appeal
> (on his own behalf)
>
> Jan Jensen
>
>
> For The Respondent / appELLANT ON CROSS-APPEAL
>
> SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
> Nathalie G. Drouin
> Deputy Attorney General of Canada
>
> For The Respondent / APPELLANT ON CROSS-APPEAL
>
>
>
>
>> From: magicJack <
voicemail@magicjack.com>
>> Subject: New VM (2) - 0:26 minutes in your magicJack mailbox from
>> 9026287810
>> To: "DAVID AMOS"
>> Date: Friday, May 11, 2018, 8:32 PM
>> Dear magicJack User:
>>
>> You received a new 0:26 minutes voicemail message, on
>> Friday, May 11, 2018 at 08:32:48 PM in mailbox 9028000369
>> from 9026287810.
>>
>
>
>
http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/news/local/exclusive-bush-dumville-breaks-his-silence-on-decision-to-leave-the-liberal-caucus-183949/>
>
> EXCLUSIVE: Bush Dumville breaks his silence on decision to leave the
> Liberal caucus
> Teresa Wright (
Teresa.Wright@theguardian.pe.ca)
> Published: Feb 07 at 5:57 a.m.
>
> It was 10 a.m. on Wednesday morning last week when Bush Dumville
> walked into the Shaw Building unannounced, holding his letter of
> resignation from the Liberal caucus, ready to hand-deliver it to
> Premier Wade MacLauchlan.
>
> “Give him hell,” the commissionaire said to Dumville as he let him
> through security.
>
> Little did he know that Dumville planned to do just that.
>
> Dumville finally broke his silence Tuesday in an exclusive interview
> with the Guardian. The West Royalty-Springvale MLA detailed the full
> account of events that led to his decision to resign from the
> government side of the house and sit as an independent last week.
>
> Dumville has been an MLA for over 10 years, beginning his term in
> office under former premier Robert Ghiz in 2007 and re-elected in 2011
> and in 2015.
>
> But, it was the lead-up to the 2015 provincial election that proved to
> be the beginning of the end of Dumville’s stomach for remaining part
> of the current Liberal team.
>
> RELATED: MLA Bush Dumville resigns from Liberal caucus to sit as
> independent
>
> In January 2015, he learned he would be challenged for the nomination
> in his district – something that raised many eyebrows at the time.
> Dumville and his supporters were convinced the party was supporting
> his challenger, Windsor Wight.
>
> So, Dumville says he decided to visit MacLauchlan at his home. At that
> time, it was still unclear what riding MacLauchlan would run in. In
> fact, he still hadn’t been officially declared leader of the Liberal
> Party, although he was the only candidate.
>
> The two went for a walk with MacLauchlan’s dogs, when Dumville says he
> offered to step aside and let MacLauchlan run in his district.
> MacLauchlan told him it was a generous offer, he had other plans.
>
> “Then a few minutes later, we were up a little way around the corner
> and he said, ‘By the way Bush, you will not be in cabinet.”
>
> He took this as a blow.
>
> TIMELINE:
>
> Jan. 2015 – Dumville says he was told by Wade MacLauchlan he would
> never be in cabinet
>
> March 6, 2015 – Dumville wins contested nomination in District 15
> West Royalty-Springvale
>
> April 6, 2015 – Provincial election is called
>
> May 4, 2015 – Liberals win third term government with Wade
> MacLauchlan as new premier
>
> Feb. 2017 – Dumville tells the premier he will resign from caucus
> but reconsiders
>
> Jan. 25, 2018 – Founding meeting for new District 15 Brackley-Hunter
> River
>
> Jan. 31, 2018 – Dumville resigns from Liberal caucus
>
> “How would it make you feel if a premier told you wouldn’t be in
> cabinet before you were nominated? That’s when something snapped
> inside. Then I was running, and I was running hard.”
>
> He spent the next two months working his district to win the Liberal
> nomination, which he did on March 6, 2015, by 11 votes. He says 600
> people attended this meeting, of which 255 people voted.
>
> One month later, MacLauchlan dropped the election writ, and Dumville
> was back on doorsteps to fight for re-election to the legislature,
> which he also accomplished.
>
> Now he was a member of MacLauchlan’s caucus, where he says he never
> felt welcome.
>
> His first dustup with the premier’s office came when he became one of
> three Liberal MLAs who ran for the role of House Speaker.
>
> After he was quoted in a Guardian article about the race, Dumville
> says MacLauchlan’s chief of staff, Robert Vessey, chastised him for
> speaking to the press “without permission.”
>
> “He said, ‘You’ve got a bad attitude,’ ” Dumville recalls, saying
> Vessey told him he had better go see the premier.
>
> Dumville refused and told Vessey he would speak to the press anytime he
> wanted.
>
> BUSH DUMVILLE AT A GLANCE
>
> S. Forrest (Bush) Dumville was elected to the legislature in 2007.
> He was re-elected in 2011 and again in 2015.
>
> Prior to entering politics, Dumville was a local businessman,
> community volunteer and a member of the RCMP. He has served for over
> 30 years with the Rotary Club of Charlottetown. He opened the Burger
> King restaurants in Charlottetown and Summerside.
>
> He is past Master of the P.E.I. Masonic Order and a member of the
> Island Shrine Club and Philae Temple of Nova Scotia and P.E.I.
>
>
> “After that, here’s Bush, sitting over there in the corner, being
> requested to hold the party line, vote on the party line, chair
> committees with never a thank you, nothing,” he said.
>
> “I felt like a junkyard dog chained up in the corner… They just wanted
> me to be docile. They needed me to work and to vote their way.”
>
> He was unhappy, but he stayed put, waiting for the right time to make a
> move.
>
> “It’s hard to be in a situation where you’re not wanted, but I’ll be
> damned if I was going to quit over it.”
>
> He cited several other incidents over the last three years that
> further convinced him to consider his options. The biggest came after
> Alberton-Roseville MLA Pat Murphy spoke out against school closures in
> February 2017 and was then promoted to cabinet.
>
> Following this appointment, Dumville says MacLauchlan met with all his
> MLAs to “hand out little goodies.”
>
> He asked Dumville to accept a position on a cabinet committee – which
> would give him a $6,500 boost to his salary, a fact he says the
> premier noted.
>
> “I looked at him and said, ‘You’ve just made Pat Murphy a minister.
> Gave him a $30,000 or $40,000 raise and a car. I’m not really
> interested in a $6,000 consolation prize. Premier, I’m resigning from
> caucus.’ You should have seen his eyes.”
>
> Dumville says the premier asked him to reconsider, which he did.
>
> RELATED: Dumville decision disappoints elector
>
> Then, earlier this month, after once again being overlooked in a
> January cabinet shuffle, Dumville says he decided to finally follow
> through with his resignation after what he believes was a deliberate
> attempt by the party to once again move in on his district.
>
> During a founding meeting for his newly redrawn District 15 to elect a
> new executive, two positions were contested, and the person Dumville
> was supporting for president did not win.
>
> “The straw that broke the camel’s back was that farce of a meeting,
> pulling the same old tricks that they did in 2015,” Dumville said.
>
> “These things happen in Russia and in Third World countries, and who
> would ever imagine that a learned person would ever resort to these
> types of tactics.”
>
> That’s why, last Wednesday, he walked into the premier’s office and
> handed him his letter of resignation.
>
> “I said, ‘I’ll be a federal Liberal in good standing. I’d like to be a
> provincial Liberal in good standing, however I’ll not be in your
> Liberal caucus because I do not support you.’”
>
> He then dismissed himself, describing the feeling of walking back down
> the hallway to “walking the gauntlet.”
>
> Last week, MacLauchlan dismissed the notion his party was behind
> contested executive positions. He said he expects his caucus MLAs to
> respect the values of inclusiveness and democracy and that it "has
> been clear for some time that Mr. Dumville has struggled to share the
> values of our Liberal caucus and Liberal party."
>
> "It's an open and inclusive and democratic process, and I'm delighted
> to walk into a meeting and find the hall full or to see them putting
> out additional chairs," MacLauchlan said last week.
>
> Going forward, Dumville says he will remain an “independent Liberal”
> until the next election, explaining that he owes it to his
> constituents to serve out his mandate as a Liberal.
>
> But when asked if he would consider running for another party in the
> next election, he suggested he’d be willing to examine his options.
>
> “As we get closer to an election, people will be looking for their
> nominees and then I’ll have to make a decision if there’s a nomination
> open somewhere for me in some party. I don’t know.”
>
> One thing is certain, Dumville says he will not resign his seat,
> vowing to use his time in the legislature in the spring to challenge
> the premier on questions of character and ethics.
>
> His biggest concern is that his constituents could suffer now that he
> is no longer in government and left on poor terms.
>
> Dumville admits the last week has been a rollercoaster of emotions.
>
> “I don’t know what’s going to happen. This may be the end of my
> political career or it could be the beginning of my political career.
> Only time will tell.”
>
If she had she would have been in the lobby singing-up a storm with Lord Justin of Embarrassment.