https://twitter.com/DavidRayAmos/with_replies





David Raymond Amos‏ @DavidRayAmos
Replying to @DavidRayAmos@Kathryn98967631 and 49 others
I never heard of Marilyn Gladu so I called her to explain why MacKay made my day but her assistant was too busy to check my Twitter account to verify what I was saying was true so I told her to enjoy my email


https://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.com/2020/01/peter-mackay-set-to-enter-conservative.html


#nbpoli#cdnpoli



https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mackay-tweets-leadership-1.5427544





David Raymond Amos‏ @DavidRayAmos
Replying to @DavidRayAmos@Kathryn98967631 and 49 others
Methinks everybody knows why MacKay just made my day Trudeau The Younger cannot deny that Petey Baby answered this lawsuit while Harper was still the boss N'esy Pas?

https://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.com/2015/09/v-behaviorurldefaultvmlo.html



 #nbpoli#cdnpoli



https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mackay-tweets-leadership-1.5427544

Peter MacKay set to enter the Conservative leadership race today

MacKay's leadership run has been in the rumour mill for months

Catherine Cullen· CBC News· Posted: Jan 15, 2020 12:11 PM ET





Peter MacKay shakes hands with Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer during a campaign stop in Little Harbour, N.S., October 17, 2019. MacKay, a former cabinet minister in the Harper government, is announcing he's running for the Conservative Party leadership today. (Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press)

Peter MacKay will confirm that he is jumping into the Conservative leadership with a tweet later today, CBC News has confirmed.

MacKay is expected to formally launch his campaign late next week.

The tweet will publicly confirm work that has been going on behind the scenes for some time. MacKay has recruited former Conservative MP Alex Nuttall as his campaign manager. Nuttall was an organizer for Maxime Bernier during the Conservative leadership race in 2017.

Michael Diamond, who ran Ontario Premier Doug Ford's PC leadership campaign in 2018, will be MacKay's director of communications.

MacKay will be running to lead the party he helped to create. He took the reins of the Progressive Conservative Party and quickly merged it with Stephen Harper's Canadian Alliance to form the Conservative Party in 2003.

And he may well wind up running against a former political mentor, Jean Charest. The ex-premier of Quebec, who led the federal Progressive Conservative party from 1993 to 1998, is said to be considering a run at the Conservative leadership.

MacKay and MP Marilyn Gladu are the only Conservatives to date to publicly signal leadership runs. Gladu is the only caucus member to declare so far, but her colleagues Erin O'Toole and Pierre Poilievre are widely expected to announce soon.

Charest is reportedly close to a decision on a possible leadership run, as is MP Michael Chong, who ran in 2017. Former Conservative interim leader Rona Ambrose is said to be still actively considering a run.
More to come ...


MacKay joins Marilyn Gladu as the second Conservative to formally signal they are entering the race.

CBC's Journalistic Standards and Practices





1213 Comments 





David Sampson
But will intelligent "progressive" conservatives ever forgive Peter for giving away a once proud national political institution to a horde of western based reform fundamentalists?


Eugene Peabody 

Craig Hall
Reply to @David Sampson: Nobody cares except the Liberals. And David Orchard.


David Raymond Amos 

David Linkletter
















Angela Kung
Judas returns in a helicopter this time.


Michael Trebych 

















John McLane
The Conservatives are not a federal party since they have been taken over by the reformers. They are a special interest party controlled by Alberta oil. And after seeing what big oil and the conservatives of Alberta have done to there province of boom and bust I do not want to see them anyware near ottawa, thank you!


















Lon Chaney (Alonzo Hastings Chaney)
This dude sold the cons to the reformacons....


Jim Taylor 

















Ray Boychuk
Wow tough times for conservatives...



















Bert Van
Wasn’t it Mac Kay and Toews Who muzzled the RCMP in 2012 and made it impossible for them to speak to MPs without ministerial approval. This is what you get if you vote for this secretive, closed door crew


Angela Kung 









---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "MinFinance / FinanceMin (FIN)"<fin.minfinance-financemin.fin@canada.ca>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2020 17:55:17 +0000
Subject: RE: YO Tom Freda Say Hey Sylvie Gadoury the General Counsel
of CBC for me will ya?
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@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.


On 1/9/20, David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> wrote:
> For media comments or interviews, please contact (phone or text message):
> Tom Freda - (Head Office, Toronto) - (416)705-5660 or
> tfreda@canadian-republic.ca
> Pierre Vincent (Calgary) - (587)834-1964 info@republique-canadienne.ca
> (anglais et en français)
> Kara Cardinal (Vancouver) - info@canadian-republic.ca
> Jamie Bradley (Halifax) - (902) 488-7838  jbradley@canadian-republic.ca
>
> Maritime Noon @CBCMaritimeNoon
> Are you a loyal monarchist, or ready for a republic? Today we're
> asking whether you want Canada to remain a monarchy. 1-800-565-1940
> @MonarchisteCA
>  @CanRepublic
>
>
> Enjoy
>
> https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/230098/000113031902001603/m08476e18vk.htm
>
>
>
>
> https://www.banking.senate.gov/hearings/review-of-current-investigations-and-regulatory-actions-regarding-the-mutual-fund-industry
>
>
>  Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding the
> Mutual Fund Industry
>
> Date:   Thursday, November 20, 2003 Time:   02:00 PM
> Topic
> 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.”
> Witnesses
> Witness Panel 1
>
>     Mr. Stephen M. Cutler
>     Director - Division of Enforcement
>     Securities and Exchange Commission
>           Cutler - November 20, 2003
>     Mr. Robert Glauber
>     Chairman and CEO
>     National Association of Securities Dealers
>           Glauber - November 20, 2003
>     Eliot Spitzer
>     Attorney General
>     State of New York
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca
> Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 01:24:19 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: RE SNC-Lavalin Trudeau and the OECD Attn Don
> Houle, Denis Jasmin, William McNamara and Stephen LeDrew pursuant to
> my calls you will find this email at the bottom of my blog about you
> dudes
> 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: Ministerial Correspondence Unit - Justice Canada
>> <mcu@justice.gc.ca>
>> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 17:35:05 +0000
>> Subject: Automatic reply: RE FATCA, the CRA and the IRS YO Donald J.
>> Trump Jr. why does your ex lawyer Mr Cohen and the Canadain FEDS
>> continue lie after all this time???
>> 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.
>>
>> We do not respond to correspondence that contains offensive language.
>>
>> -------------------
>>
>> Merci d'avoir écrit à l'honorable David Lametti, ministre de la
>> Justice et procureur général du Canada.
>>
>> En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de la correspondance
>> adressée au ministre, veuillez prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir un
>> retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Nous tenons à vous
>> assurer que votre message sera lu avec soin.
>>
>> Nous ne répondons pas à la correspondance contenant un langage offensant.
>>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: "LSD / DSJ (JUS/JUS)"<BPIB-DGPAA@justice.gc.ca>
> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 19:25:31 +0000
> Subject: RE: YO Pierre Poilievre I just called and tried to reason
> with David Lametti's minions and got nowhere fast Surprise Surprise
> Surprise N'esy Pas Petev Baby Mackay?
> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
> This confirms receipt of the message that you recently sent to the
> Legal Systems Division or to the Justipedia Team of the Legal
> Practices Branch. We will review your message and reply within
> forty-eight (48) hours. Please do not reply to this email.
>
> ***
>
> La présente confirme réception du message que vous avez fait parvenir
> à la Division des systèmes juridiques ou à l’équipe de Justipédia de
> la Direction générale des pratiques juridiques. Nous réviserons votre
> message et vous répondrons dans les quarante-huit (48) heures.  Prière
> de ne pas répondre au présent courriel.
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 15:25:26 -0400
> Subject: Fwd: YO Pierre Poilievre I just called and tried to reason
> with David Lametti's minions and got nowhere fast Surprise Surprise
> Surprise N'esy Pas Petev Baby Mackay?
> To: Support@viafoura.com, darrow.macintyre@cbc.ca,
> carrie@viafoura.com, allison@viafoura.com
> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, LPMD-DGPD@justice.gc.ca,
> Mark.Blakely@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, Gilles.Blinn@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 15:00:58 -0400
> Subject: YO Pierre Poilievre I just called and tried to reason with
> David Lametti's minions and got nowhere fast Surprise Surprise
> Surprise N'esy Pas Petev Baby Mackay?
> To: pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca, olad-dlo@justice.gc.ca,
> David.Lametti.a1@parl.gc.ca, maxime.bernier@parl.gc.ca,
> andrew.scheer@parl.gc.ca, charlie.angus@parl.gc.ca,
> PETER.MACKAY@bakermckenzie.com, tony.clement.a1@parl.gc.ca
> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, scott.bardsley@canada.ca,
> scott.brison@parl.gc.ca, scott.macrae@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
> warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, Beverley.Busson@sen.parl.gc.ca
>
> Official Languages Directorate
>
> Telephone: 613-957-4967
> Fax: 613-948-6924
> Email: olad-dlo@justice.gc.ca
> Address: Official Languages Directorate
> Department of Justice Canada
> 350 Albert Street, 3rd floor
> Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H8
>
> ---------- Original 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.
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: Ministerial Correspondence Unit - Justice Canada <mcu@justice.gc.ca>
> Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 22:18:45 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: Methinks David Lametti should go back to law
> school too N'esy Pas Pierre Poilievre?
> 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: Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca
> Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 22:18:49 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: Methinks David Lametti should go back to law
> school too N'esy Pas Pierre Poilievre?
> 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: michael.chong@parl.gc.ca
> Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 22:18:49 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: Methinks David Lametti should go back to law
> school too N'esy Pas Pierre Poilievre?
> To: motomaniac333@gmail.com
>
> Thanks very much for getting in touch with me!
>
> This email is to acknowledge receipt of your message and to let you
> know that every incoming email is read and reviewed.  A member of my
> Wellington-Halton Hills team will be in touch with you shortly if
> follow-up is required.
> Due to the high volume of email correspondence, priority is given to
> responding to residents of Wellington-Halton Hills and to emails of a
> non-chain (or "forwards") variety.
>
> In your email, if you:
>
> *         have verified that you are a constituent by including your
> complete residential postal address and a phone number, a response
> will be provided in a timely manner.
> *         have not included your residential postal mailing address,
> please resend your email with your complete residential postal address
> and phone number, and a response will be forthcoming.
>
> If you are not a constituent of Wellington Halton-Hills, please
> contact your Member of Parliament.  If you are unsure who your MP is,
> you can find them by searching your postal code at
> http://www.ourcommons.ca/en
>
> Any constituents of Wellington-Halton Hills who require urgent
> attention are encouraged to call the constituency office at
> 1-866-878-5556 (toll-free in riding). Please rest assured that any
> voicemails will be returned promptly.
>
> Once again, thank you for your email.
>
> The Hon. Michael Chong, M.P.
> Wellington-Halton Hills
> toll free riding office:1-866-878-5556
> Ottawa office: 613-992-4179
> E-mail: michael.chong@parl.gc.ca<mailto:michael.chong@parl.gc.ca>
> Website : www.michaelchong.ca<http://www.michaelchong.ca>
>
> THIS MESSAGE IS ONLY INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT(S)
> AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY AND/OR
> CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
> notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution,
> copying, conversion to hard copy or other use of this communication is
> strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have
> received this message in error, please notify me by return e-mail and
> delete this message from your system.
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 18:18:40 -0400
> Subject: Methinks David Lametti should go back to law school too N'esy
> Pas Pierre Poilievre?
> To: David.Lametti@parl.gc.ca, Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca,
> pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca,mcu@justice.gc.ca,
> michael.chong@parl.gc.ca, Michael.Wernick@pco-bcp.gc.ca
> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, Newsroom@globeandmail.com,
> Jacques.Poitras@cbc.ca, serge.rousselle@gnb.ca
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 15:44:16 -0400
> Subject: Jagmeet Singh says that maybe Jay Shin should go back to law
> school??? Too Too Funny Indeed EH Karen Wang and Laura-Lynn Tyler
> Thompson?
> To: info@jayshin.ca, jay@lonsdalelaw.ca, karenwang@liberal.ca,
> lauralynnlive@gmail.com
> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>,
> jmaclellan@burnabynow.com, kgawley@burnabynow.com
>
> Jagmeet Singh on Tory opponent: 'Maybe he should go back to law school'
> Conservative candidate Jay Shin said Singh was 'keeping criminals out
> of jail' during his days as a criminal defence lawyer
> Kelvin Gawley Burnaby Now January 13, 2019 10:27 AM
>
> Julie MacLellan
> Assistant editor, and newsroom tip line
> jmaclellan@burnabynow.com
> Phone: 604 444 3020
> Kelvin Gawley
> kgawley@burnabynow.com
> Phone: 604 444 3024
>
> Jay Shin
> Direct: 604-980-5089
> Email: jay@lonsdalelaw.ca
> By phone: 604-628-0508
> By e-mail: info@jayshin.ca
>
> Karen Wang
> 604.531.1178
> karenwang@liberal.ca
>
> Now if Mr Shin scrolls down he will know some of what the fancy NDP
> lawyer has known for quite sometime
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Singh - QP, Jagmeet"<JSingh-QP@ndp.on.ca>
> Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 16:39:35 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: Re Federal Court File # T-1557-15 and the
> upcoming hearing on May 24th I called a lot of your people before High
> Noon today Correct Ralph Goodale and Deputy Minister Malcolm Brown?
> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
>
> For immediate assistance please contact our Brampton office at
> 905-799-3939 or jsingh-co@ndp.on.ca
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Kennedy.Stewart@parl.gc.ca
> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 18:18:35 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: Attn Minister Ralph Goodale and Pierre
> Paul-Hus Trust that I look forward to arguing the fact that fhe Crown
> filed my Sept 4th email to you and your buddies
> To: motomaniac333@gmail.com
>
> Many thanks for your message. Your concerns are important to me. If
> your matter is urgent, an invitation or an immigration matter please
> forward it to burnabysouth.A1@parl.gc.ca or
> burnabysouth.C1@parl.gc.ca. This email is no longer being monitored.
>
> The House of Commons of Canada provides for the continuation of
> services to the constituents of a Member of Parliament whose seat has
> become vacant.  The party Whip supervises the staff retained under
> these circumstances.
>
> Following the resignation of the Member for the constituency of
> Burnaby South, Mr. Kennedy Stewart, the constituency office will
> continue to provide services to constituents.
>
> You can reach the Burnaby South constituency office by telephone at
> (604) 291-8863 or by mail at the following address: 4940 Kingsway,
> Burnaby BC.
>
> Office Hours:
>
> Tuesday - Thursday: 10am - 12pm & 1pm - 4pm
> Friday 10am - 12pm
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Michael Cohen <mcohen@trumporg.com>
> Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 05:54:40 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: ATTN Blair Armitage You acted as the Usher
> of the Black Rod twice while Kevin Vickers was the Sergeant-at-Arms
> Hence you and the RCMP must know why I sued the Queen Correct?
> To: 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.
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Justice Website <JUSTWEB@novascotia.ca>
> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:21:11 +0000
> Subject: Emails to Department of Justice and Province of Nova Scotia
> To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com"<motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
> Mr. Amos,
> We acknowledge receipt of your recent emails to the Deputy Minister of
> Justice and lawyers within the Legal Services Division of the
> Department of Justice respecting a possible claim against the Province
> of Nova Scotia.  Service of any documents respecting a legal claim
> against the Province of Nova Scotia may be served on the Attorney
> General at 1690 Hollis Street, Halifax, NS.  Please note that we will
> not be responding to further emails on this matter.
>
> Department of Justice
>
>
>> ---------- 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
>>
>
>
> On 8/3/17, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If want something very serious to download and laugh at as well Please
>> Enjoy and share real wiretap tapes of the mob
>>
>> http://thedavidamosrant.blogspot.ca/2013/10/re-glen-greenwald-and-braz
>> ilian.html
>>
>>> http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/06/09/nsa-leak-guardian.html
>>>
>>> As the CBC etc yap about Yankee wiretaps and whistleblowers I must
>>> ask them the obvious question AIN'T THEY FORGETTING SOMETHING????
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vugUalUO8YY
>>>
>>> What the hell does the media think my Yankee lawyer served upon the
>>> USDOJ right after I ran for and seat in the 39th Parliament baseball
>>> cards?
>>>
>>> http://archive.org/details/ITriedToExplainItToAllMaritimersInEarly200
>>> 6
>>>
>>> http://davidamos.blogspot.ca/2006/05/wiretap-tapes-impeach-bush.html
>>>
>>> http://www.archive.org/details/PoliceSurveilanceWiretapTape139
>>>
>>> http://archive.org/details/Part1WiretapTape143
>>>
>>> FEDERAL EXPRES February 7, 2006
>>> Senator Arlen Specter
>>> United States Senate
>>> Committee on the Judiciary
>>> 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
>>> Washington, DC 20510
>>>
>>> Dear Mr. Specter:
>>>
>>> I have been asked to forward the enclosed tapes to you from a man
>>> named, David Amos, a Canadian citizen, in connection with the matters
>>> raised in the attached letter.
>>>
>>> Mr. Amos has represented to me that these are illegal FBI wire tap
>>> tapes.
>>>
>>> I believe Mr. Amos has been in contact with you about this previously.
>>>
>>> Very truly yours,
>>> Barry A. Bachrach
>>> Direct telephone: (508) 926-3403
>>> Direct facsimile: (508) 929-3003
>>> Email: bbachrach@bowditch.com
>>>
>>
>
> 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
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: "Media Relations-PAB / Relation avec les médias-DGAP (CRA/ARC)"
> <cra-arc.media@cra-arc.gc.ca>
> Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2020 21:41:35 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: Hey Sylvie Gadoury RE KPMG etc Methinks CBC
> and the Justice Dept should know that I just got a call from John
> Williamson's office (613 995 5550) Perhaps somebody should ask my MP
> how that call concluded N'esy Pas?
> To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
>
> Thank you for contacting the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) Media
> Relations team. Our office hours are Monday to Friday between 9 a.m.
> and 5 p.m. (Eastern time).
>
> Please note that if you are not a news reporter, your email will not
> be addressed.
>
> You can write to the Minister
> here<https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/cjid/prot/ntr.action>.
>
> If you wish to speak with a CRA agent, please use the phone numbers below.
>
> 1.             1-800-959-8281 (Individual tax enquiries)
> 2.             1-800-387-1193 (Benefit enquiries)
> 3.             1-800-959-5525 (Businesses and self-employed individuals)
> 4.             1-613-940-8495 (if calling from outside Canada/USA)
>
> For other commonly used CRA phone numbers please visit our contact
> page.<https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/corporate/contact-information/telephone-numbers.html>
>
> For information on scams or to report deceptive telemarketing, contact
> the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre (CAFC) online at
> www.antifraudcentre.ca<http://www.antifraudcentre.ca/> or toll free at
> 1-888-495-8501.
>
> If you believe you may be the victim of fraud or have given personal
> or financial information by mistake, contact your local police
> service. For more information, go to
> www.canada.ca/taxes-fraud-prevention<http://www.canada.ca/taxes-fraud-prevention>.
>
> ********************************************************************************************
> Merci d'avoir contacté l'équipe des Relations avec les Medias de
> l'Agence du revenu du Canada. Nos heures de service sont du lundi au
> vendredi, de 9 h à 17 h (heure de l'Est).
>
> Veuillez noter que si vous n’êtes pas un journaliste, votre courriel
> ne sera pas traité.
>
> Vous pouvez écrire à la ministre
> ici<https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/cjid/prot/ntr.action?request_locale=fr_CA>.
>
> Si vous souhaitez parler à un agent de l'Agence, composez l’un des
> numéros de téléphone suivant:
>
> 1.             1-800-959-7383 (Impôt sur le revenu des particuliers)
> 2.             1-800-387-1194 (Prestations fiscales)
> 3.             1-800-959-7775 (Renseignments des entreprises)
> 4.             1-613-940-8496 (Appels provenant de l'extérieur du Canada et
> É-U)
>
> Pour les autres numéros de téléphone courrant de l'Agence, veuillez
> consulter notre page de
> coordonnées<https://www.canada.ca/fr/agence-revenu/organisation/coordonnees/numeros-telephone.html>.
>
> Pour obtenir des informations sur les fraudes ou le télémarketing
> trompeur, contactez le Centre antifraude du Canada au
> www.centreantifraude.ca<http://www.centreantifraude.ca/> ou en
> composant le numéro sans frais 1-888-495-8501.
>
> Si vous croyez avoir été victime d'une fraude ou si vous avez fourni
> par erreur des renseignements personnels ou financiers, contactez
> votre service de police local. Pour plus de renseignements, consultez
> la page Protégez-vous contre la
> fraude<https://www.canada.ca/fr/agence-revenu/organisation/securite/protegez-vous-contre-fraude.html>.
>
> https://geds-sage.gc.ca/en/GEDS?pgid=015&dn=cn%3DCarr%5C%2C+Brandon%2Cou%3D92445-92445%2Cou%3D224-224%2Cou%3DHOC-CDC%2Co%3Dgc%2Cc%3Dca
>
>
> Brandon Carr - Parliamentary Assistant
> Telephone : 613-995-5550
> Fax : 613-995-5226
> 249 Wellington Street
> Ottawa, Ontario  K1A 0A6
> Canada
> Organizations
> Canada
> House of Commons
> Members of the House of Commons
> John Williamson
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: "Carr, Jeff Hon. (ELG/EGL)"<Jeff.Carr@gnb.ca>
> Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2020 21:40:03 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: Hey Sylvie Gadoury RE KPMG etc Methinks CBC
> and the Justice Dept should know that I just got a call from John
> Williamson's office (613 995 5550) Perhaps somebody should ask my MP
> how that call concluded N'esy Pas?
> To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
>
> I will be away from the office until January 6th, 2020.
>
> Je serai absent du bureau jusqu'au 6 janvier 2020.
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: "Coon, David (LEG)"<David.Coon@gnb.ca>
> Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2020 21:40:04 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: Hey Sylvie Gadoury RE KPMG etc Methinks CBC
> and the Justice Dept should know that I just got a call from John
> Williamson's office (613 995 5550) Perhaps somebody should ask my MP
> how that call concluded N'esy Pas?
> To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
>
> Thank you for your email. / Merci pour votre courriel.
>
> I am currently out of the office. I will be back on Monday, January
> 6th. / Je suis hors du bureau.  Je serai de retour le lundi 6 janvier.
>
> I will respond as soon as possible.  / Je vous répondrai dès que possible.
>
> Please note that from December 23rd, 2019 until January 6th, 2020 the
> Constituency Office for Fredericton-South will be closed. Emails and
> telephone messages sent during this time will receive a response in
> early January. The office will re-open Monday, January 6th. /
> Veuillez noter que du 23 décembre 2019 au 6 janvier 2020, le bureau de
> circonscription de Fredericton-Sud sera fermé. Les courriels et les
> messages téléphoniques envoyés pendant cette période recevront une
> réponse au début de janvier. Le bureau ouvrira le lundi 6 janvier.
>
> If this is a media request for MLAs Megan Mitton or Kevin Arseneau or
> myself, please call (506) 429-2285. / Pour toute demande de médias
> avec les député.e.s Megan Mitton et Kevin Arseneau ou moi-même,
> veuillez appeler le (506) 429-2285.
>
> Have a safe and joyous holiday season! / Passez de joyeuses fêtes en
> toute sécurité !
>
> David Coon
> MLA Fredericton South & Leader of the Green Party/
> Député de Fredericton Sud et chef du Parti Vert
>
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2020 17:33:37 -0400
> Subject: Hey Sylvie Gadoury RE KPMG etc Methinks CBC and the Justice
> Dept should know that I just got a call from John Williamson's office
> (613 995 5550) Perhaps somebody should ask my MP how that call
> concluded N'esy Pas?
> To: John.Williamson@parl.gc.ca, rob.moore@parl.gc.ca,
> cra-arc.media@cra-arc.gc.ca, pierre.poilievre.a1@parl.gc.ca,
> Chuck.Thompson@cbc.ca, steve.murphy@ctv.ca, David.Akin@globalnews.ca,
> mcu@justice.gc.ca, David.Lametti@parl.gc.ca, news@dailygleaner.com,
> nben@nben.ca, premier@gnb.ca,  mike.holland@gnb.ca,
> blaine.higgs@gnb.ca, dominic.leblanc.c1@parl.gc.ca,
> Dominic.Cardy@gnb.ca, jeff.carr@gnb.ca, oldmaison@yahoo.com,
> andre@jafaust.com,  Ginette.PetitpasTaylor@parl.gc.ca,
> Sherry.Wilson@gnb.ca, Ross.Wetmore@gnb.ca, megan.mitton@gnb.ca,
> David.Coon@gnb.ca,  Kevin.A.Arseneau@gnb.ca,
> Newsroom@globeandmail.com,  sturgeon.nathalie@brunswicknews.com,
> nick.brown@gnb.ca, robert.mckee@gnb.ca, Kevin.Vickers@gnb.ca,
> Tim.RICHARDSON@gnb.ca, Trevor.Holder@gnb.ca, rick.desaulniers@gnb.ca,
> michelle.conroy@gnb.ca,  Mike.Comeau@gnb.ca, "carl.davies@gnb.ca,
> carl.urquhart@gnb.ca,  Cathy.Rogers@gnb.ca, robert.gauvin@gnb.ca,
> roger.l.melanson@gnb.ca, Roger.Brown@fredericton.ca,
> ron.tremblay2@gmail.com
> Cc: motomaniac333@gmail.com, jlrisdon@gmail.com,
> govcarrier@hotmail.com, darrow.macintyre@cbc.ca,
> sylvie.gadoury@radio-canada.ca
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: Ministerial Correspondence Unit - Justice Canada <mcu@justice.gc.ca>
> Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 17:35:08 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: KPMG
> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
> Thank you for writing to the Honourable David Lametti, Minister of
> Justice and Attorney General of Canada.
>
> Due to the volume of correspondence addressed to the Minister, please
> note that there may be a delay in processing your email. Rest assured
> that your message will be carefully reviewed.
>
> We do not respond to correspondence that contains offensive language.
>
> -------------------
>
> Merci d'avoir écrit à l'honorable David Lametti, ministre de la
> Justice et procureur général du Canada.
>
> En raison du volume de correspondance adressée au ministre, veuillez
> prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de
> votre courriel. Nous tenons à vous assurer que votre message sera lu
> avec soin.
>
> Nous ne répondons pas à la correspondance contenant un langage offensant.
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 13:35:02 -0400
> Subject: Fwd: KPMG
> To: John.Williamson@parl.gc.ca, rob.moore@parl.gc.ca,
> cra-arc.media@cra-arc.gc.ca, pierre.poilievre.a1@parl.gc.ca,
> Chuck.Thompson@cbc.ca, steve.murphy@ctv.ca, David.Akin@globalnews.ca,
> mcu@justice.gc.ca, David.Lametti@parl.gc.ca
> Cc: david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com
>
> https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/news/newsroom/media-contact-list.html
>
> Media contact list – Canada Revenue Agency
>
>
> General media email cra-arc.media@cra-arc.gc.ca
> General media phone line 613-948-8366
>
>
> Media Relations (National)
>
>
> Media Relations (National) contacts
>
> Etienne Biram 613-952-9184
> Dany Morin 613-957-3522
>
>
>
> Atlantic contacts
>
> Melanie Terrio-Lamothe 902-426-6310
>
>
>
> Quebec contacts
>
> Julie Pronovost 514-283-2226
> Frédérick Fink 514-283-2628
>
>
>
> Ontario contacts
>
> Paul Murphy 416-952-8105
> Jelica Zdero 416-952-9883
>
>
> Prairies (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Northwest Territories) contacts
>
> TJ Madigan 587-475-3816
> Joanne De Waal 306-517-0515
> Randy Westerman 780-495-4771
>
>
> Pacific (British Columbia and Yukon) contacts
>
> Gurm Kundan 604-666-0457
> Cheryl Yeung 604-666-9261
> Heidi Hofstad 604-666-9389
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Min.Mail / Courrier.Min (CRA/ARC)"<PABMINMAILG@cra-arc.gc.ca>
> Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2019 18:43:30 +0000
> Subject: KPMG
> To:
>
> Dear Taxpayer:
>
> Thank you for your correspondence regarding the KPMG case, which
> attracted media attention. Thank you also for your understanding
> regarding the delay of this response.
>
> As Minister of National Revenue, my goal is to make sure the Canada
> Revenue Agency (CRA) offers services that are fair, helpful, and easy
> to use. This continues to be my priority and my focus as I devote my
> efforts to delivering tangible results to taxpayers.
>
> Although I cannot comment on a specific case, I can give you the
> following general information. Settlements are concluded independently
> from the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister's Office to
> ensure the integrity of the tax system. They involve an independent
> process within the CRA, in collaboration with the Department of
> Justice.
>
> In tax disputes, there is limited flexibility on settlement amounts
> because CRA tax disputes are subject to the legal principles set out
> in the Income Tax Act. The CRA is bound by the principles of tax law
> and the rules arising from Canadian tax legislation. For example, when
> a tax dispute involves an amount of $50,000, the taxpayer and the CRA
> can agree on a lesser amount only if the determination of this amount
> is based in law.
>
> Settlements can also resolve tax issues that are not before the Court.
> These settlements are carried out through an agreement called "minutes
> of settlement," which is signed by a CRA official and the taxpayer.
> Because this agreement is not public, taxpayers may see the use of
> settlements as a lack of transparency. This is why I have asked the
> CRA to review its procedures to find ways it can ensure greater
> transparency regarding why it enters into settlements. Taxpayers
> expect the tax system to be fair and equitable, and the CRA works
> continuously to make sure that it is.
>
> The CRA remains committed to combatting tax evasion and aggressive tax
> avoidance. Individuals who participate in illegal tax strategies must
> face the consequences of their actions, and taxpayers expect nothing
> less.
>
> I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your concerns and trust the
> information I have provided is helpful.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
>
>
> The Honourable Diane Lebouthillier
> Minister of National Revenue
>
>
>
>
> http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.com/2019/05/cra-signs-secret-settlement-with.html
>
>
>
> Thursday, 30 May 2019
>
> CRA signs secret settlement with wealthy KPMG clients involved in
> offshore tax scheme
>
>
> https://twitter.com/DavidRayAmos/with_replies
>
>
> David Raymond Amos‏ @DavidRayAmos
>  Replying to @DavidRayAmos @Kathryn98967631 and 48 others
> Methinks the CRA and Harvey Cashore should review their emails N'esy Pas?
>
>
> https://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.com/2019/05/cra-signs-secret-settlement-with.html
>
>
> #cdnpoli #nbpoli
>
>
>  https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cra-kmpg-settlement-taxes-1.5154610
>
>
>
> CRA signs secret settlement with wealthy KPMG clients involved in
> offshore tax scheme
>
>
>
>
>
> 2142 Comments
> Commenting is now closed for this story.
>
>
>
>
> David Amos
> Methinks the Feds and KPMG or all theri lawyers and beancounters will
> never explain how their actions generated this file long ago N'esy
> Pas?
>
> https://www.scribd.com/doc/2718120/integrity-yea-right
>
>
>
>
> David Amos
> Methinks my fellow taxpayers should Google the following sometime soon
> then pick up the phone and call their MP N'esy Pas?
>
>  Diane Lebouthillier David Amos KPMG
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Troy Bodi
> For the rest of us they'll hound you for months for that $16 you owe them.
>
>
> David Amos
> Reply to @Troy Bodi: Methinks the CRA and Harvey Cashore should review
> their emails N'esy Pas?
>
>
> Troy Bodi
> Reply to @Jim Roth: Who cares which government is complicit. It
> shouldn't be happening period.
>
>
> David Amos
> Reply to @Troy Bodi: Methinks the CRA and Harvey Cashore should have
> reviewed their emails by now particularly after I made a few calls as
> well N'esy Pas?
>
>
> Mo Bennett
> Reply to @David Amos: this is what happens when you put a former
> social worker in charge of money.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Richard Dekkar
> No surprise, especially when you consider the head of KPMG’s public
> sector practice was the chief fundraiser for the Liberals.
>
>
> David Amos
> Reply to @Richard Dekkar: Methinks my fellow taxpayers should Google
> the following sometime soon then pick up the phone and call their MP
> N'esy Pas?
>
>  Diane Lebouthillier David Amos KPMG
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Lily O'Loughlin
> Once again the wealthy get away with not paying their fair share of
> taxes, but CRA is very quick to track down anybody who owes them $50.
>
>
> Michael Philips
> Reply to @Lily O'Loughlin: I know of an elderly Lady who owed the CRA
> past taxes.
>  If she paid the taxes she could not buy her medicine, the CRA rep
> told her to pay the tax bill .
>
>
> Bill Dixon
> Reply to @Lily O'Loughlin: A buddy of mine is an investigator and
> auditor with the CRA.
>
>  Years ago, they brought in a performance criterion based on the
> number of closed files, as opposed to the value of recovered taxes. My
> guess is that CRA leaders wanted to be able to brag about how many
> files and investigations are successfully closed (e.g., "We
> successfully recover tax in 97% of cases!", as opposed to "In the 97%
> of cases we close, we recover 9% of money owed to the Govt of
> Canada... because unfortunately the 3% of files we don't close are
> whales that are worth 93% of the money owed... Oops.") [- this is a
> purely fictitious scenario I just made up, but you see my point]
>
>  He's always been involved in investigating large criminal tax dodges
> that take years to unravel and bring to a close. Consequently, he was
> always been ranked quite low in year-end reviews, relative to his
> colleagues who follow up on very small files and small amounts owed.
>
>  In his words, that system in CRA incentivizes auditors to vigorously
> chase small fish and files, and ignore the big files and large amounts
> that are exclusively the result of the illicit behaviour of the rich
> and the accountants they employ to avoid paying tax
>
>
> Sebastian Scheele
> Reply to @Bill Dixon: That is also easier for the CRA, to harass the
> small fish that does not have the means to fight back... :(
>
>
> Sour PJ
> Reply to @Bill Dixon: WOW...
>
>
> David Amos
> Reply to @Sebastian Scheele: "That is also easier for the CRA, to
> harass the small fish that does not have the means to fight back... :(
> "
>
>  True but sometimes there are small fish with very sharp teeth that
> can make the boss of the taxman have a panic attack and quit his fancy
> job. Methinks the other little fish should Google my name along with
> KPMG, CRA and IRS N'esy Pas?
>
>
> David Amos
> Reply to @Bill Dixon: "In his words, that system in CRA incentivizes
> auditors to vigorously chase small fish and files, and ignore the big
> files and large amounts that are exclusively the result of the illicit
> behaviour of the rich and the accountants they employ to avoid paying
> tax."
>
>  BINGO
>
>  FYI The snobby accountants the rich employ call themelves
> "Gatekeepers" and are always attached to powerful law firm just like
> KPMG beancounters are,
>
>  Surf the net and you will see that I am a whistleblower against them
> all. Try Googling "Harper and Bankers'
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ed Riley
> WOW just WOW
>  This Liberal government sure loves secret out of court deals.
>  Second one reported JUST TODAY.
>  Oct. can't come soon enough !!!!
>
>
> David Amos
> Reply to @Ed Riley: "Oct. can't come soon enough !!!! "
>
>  I concur
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Greg Crompton
> And the hits just keep on coming. Why isn't this on the first page?
>
>
> David Amos
>
>
>   Reply to @Greg Crompton: "Why isn't this on the first page?"
>
>  Methinks whereas the circus has been so busy lately this is
> considered a sideshow N'esy Pas?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> CRA signs secret settlement with wealthy KPMG clients involved in
> offshore tax scheme
>
> Watchdog group accuses the Liberals of covering up the KPMG affair
>
>
>
>
> Harvey Cashore · CBC News · Posted: May 30, 2019 12:26 PM ET
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  The Canada Revenue Agency has made an out-of-court settlement with
> wealthy KPMG clients caught using an offshore tax scheme that it
> previously said was 'intended to deceive' tax authorities. (CBC)
>
>
> The Canada Revenue Agency has once again made a secret out-of-court
> settlement with wealthy KPMG clients caught using what the CRA itself
> had alleged was a "grossly negligent" offshore "sham" set up to avoid
> detection by tax authorities, CBC's The Fifth Estate and
> Radio-Canada's Enquête have learned.
>
>  This, despite the Liberal government's vow to crack down on high
> net-worth taxpayers who used the now-infamous Isle of Man scheme. The
> scheme orchestrated by accounting giant KPMG enabled clients to dodge
> tens of millions of dollars in taxes in Canada by making it look as if
> multimillionaires had given away their fortunes to anonymous overseas
> shell companies and get their investment income back as tax-free
> gifts.
>
>  KPMG is a global network of accounting and auditing firms
> headquartered out of the Netherlands and is one of the top firms in
> Canada.
>
>
>
>
>
> "Tax cheats can no longer hide," National Revenue Minister Diane
> Lebouthillier promised in 2017.
>
>  Now, tax court documents obtained by CBC News/Radio-Canada show two
> members of the Cooper family in Victoria, as well as the estate of the
> late patriarch Peter Cooper, reached an out-of-court settlement on May
> 24 over their involvement in the scheme.
>
>  Details of the settlement and even minutes of the meetings discussing
> it are under wraps. A CBC News/Radio-Canada reporter who showed up to
> one such meeting this spring was asked to leave.
>  Journalists discovered references to the final settlement agreement
> in tax court documents only by chance.
>
>
> CRA cites privacy in keeping settlement details secret
>
>  The Canada Revenue Agency says strict privacy provisions of Canadian
> tax law make it difficult to disclose minutes describing individual
> taxpayer information.
>
>  The Isle of Man tax dodge had been active as far back as 1999 and,
> according to documents filed in court by the CRA in 2015, had
> "intended to deceive" federal regulators.
>
>  Still, significant details of the scheme remain a mystery, including
> the role played by the KPMG's senior executives. With no public trial,
> those details may continue to remain secret.
>
>  Toby Sanger, executive director of the advocacy group Canadians for
> Tax Fairness, says the CRA should never have agreed to settle the
> case.
>
>  "I think it's outrageous," he said. "We've had a lot of tough talk
> and promises from this minister about how they will crack down on tax
> evasion by the wealthy and corporations, but unfortunately we've seen
> no evidence of this so far."
>
>
>
> National Revenue Minister Diane Lebouthillier called out tax cheats in
> 2017 and stated her intention to clamp down on the KPMG scheme.
> (Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press)
>
>
>
>
>
>  Revenue Minister Diane Lebouthlier said in an email statement to The
> Fifth Estate/Enquête that while she cannot comment on specific cases,
> she finds the lack of transparency about settlements brokered by her
> agency "problematic."
>
>  "I have instructed the CRA to review its processes to allow for more
> transparency with respect to the reasons for which a settlement is
> reached," she said.
>
>
>
> KPMG took 15% cut of taxes dodged
>
>  One member of the Cooper family, Marshall Cooper, previously told The
> Fifth Estate that he was unaware of Canadian tax laws when he
> emigrated from South Africa in the mid-1990s and that it was KPMG that
> came up with the offshore tax plan.
>
>  Documents show KPMG planned to take a 15 per cent cut of the taxes
> dodged, including $300,000 from the Cooper family. Internal records
> show the scheme was marketed across the country, with successful KPMG
> sales agents and accountants referred to as product "champions."
>
>  In all, more than 20 wealthy families participated in the offshore scheme.
>
>  Two years ago, Lebouthillier issued a news release on her intention
> to clamp down on the KPMG scheme, publicly stating that those involved
> could even face criminal charges over possible "tax fraud."
>
>
> •
> Exclusive
> KPMG tax 'sham' used by at least 25 wealthy Canadians, document says
> •Tax cheats in KPMG Isle of Man avoidance scheme could face criminal
> charges: minister
> "The case of KPMG is before the courts right now, and we continue to
> pursue action against KPMG," Lebouthillier said in 2017.
>
>  "We will see this to the end as Canadians have asked us to do."
>  She said at the time that her government took the matter "very seriously."
>
>  "Those who choose to participate in these schemes must face the
> consequences of their actions," she said.
>  Yet more than two years after that pledge, participants in the KPMG
> scheme, namely, members of the Cooper family, were offered a secret
> out-of-court settlement.
>
>  In her statement to The Fifth Estate/Enquête this week, Lebouthillier
> said the decision to settle was not hers to make and that she had
> instructed the CRA to review its settlements to "allow for more
> transparency."
>
>
> 'We will continue to make systemic changes': minister
>
>  To "ensure integrity of our tax system," Lebouthillier said,
> out-of-court settlements are made by the CRA and the Department of
> Justice "at arm's length" from the minister and the minister's office.
>
>  "Canadians deserve a fair and equitable tax system, and we will
> continue to make systemic changes within the CRA to make sure that
> this is the case," she said in her statement.
>
>
> •
> CBC Investigates
> Canada Revenue offered amnesty to wealthy KPMG clients in offshore tax
> 'sham'
> •How Canada got into bed with tax havens
> CBC News/Radio-Canada first revealed four years ago that KPMG, one of
> the largest accounting firms in Canada, with tens of millions in
> federal contracts, had for years been running a massive offshore tax
> dodge for wealthy clients it had kept hidden from federal
> investigators.
>
>  The Trudeau government's previous tough talk on the so-called KPMG
> sham had come after a document leaked to The Fifth Estate/Enquête
> showed the CRA itself had offered a secret "no penalties" amnesty in
> May 2015 to many of the other KPMG clients involved in the scheme.
>
>  The CRA offered to have them simply pay the back taxes owed — but
> with the condition they not tell the public about the offer.
>
>
>
> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau vowed to do a 'better job of getting tax
> avoiders and tax frauders' in 2017. (Jonathan Hayward/The Canadian
> Press)
>
>
>  Stung by those revelations, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said in
> 2017 that the government had learned a lesson from the KPMG affair and
> promised to do a "better job of getting tax avoiders and tax
> frauders."
>
>  Since then, the Liberal government vowed to make sure those kinds of
> offshore tax dodges were in the past.
>
>  In fact, it was concerns over future KPMG court cases that prompted
> the Liberal-dominated Commons finance committee to shut down its own
> investigation into the embattled accounting firm back in 2016.
>
>  Documents had already began to emerge detailing the extent to which
> KPMG was helping clients not only dodge taxes but also hide money from
> potential creditors, including circumventing the Canadian Divorce Act
> by "protecting" assets from ex-spouses.
>
>
> •
> CBC Investigates
> KPMG promoted hiding money from wealthy clients' ex-spouses in offshore
> 'sham'
> Lawyers for KPMG had argued that the ongoing finance committee
> investigation could prejudice cases before the court.
>
>  Several KPMG executives had been named to testify in the spring of
> 2016, but Liberal MPs voted to shut down the inquiry, arguing that any
> more testimony and documents should be produced in court and not in
> Parliament.
>
>  Now, it appears that those future court cases cited as a reason for
> shutting down the investigation might never materialize.
>
> The Fifth Estate and Enquête also later revealed that in June 2016,
> around the same time the Liberal MPs shut down their investigation
> into the accounting giant, a former senior KPMG executive was
> appointed to the Liberal Party's national board of directors.
>
>  "There is no reason why the finance committee shouldn't restart their
> hearings," Canadians for Tax Fairness's Sanger said.
>
>
> Settlements offer 'substantial savings to the public'
>
>  Sanger said it all seems like a Liberal "coverup" to close down the
> KPMG investigation.
>
>  Canadians still do not know who were the key people at KPMG involved
> in running the investigation, for example, how high up it went within
> the organization, or all the names of the wealthy clients who
> participated.
>
>
>
> Liberal MPs halted a parliamentary finance committee investigation in
> 2016 after KPMG argued the investigation could prejudice court cases.
> Now, it looks like those court cases might never happen. (CBC)
>
>
>
>
>
>  Max Weder, the lawyer for the wealthy Cooper family, said he "can't
> comment on the settlement."
>
>  Documents show the family paid virtually no tax over a span of eight
> years — and even obtained federal and provincial tax credits — despite
> receiving nearly $6 million from an offshore company worth $26 million
> that KPMG helped set up.
>
>  KPMG has always maintained the scheme was legal. The firm's lawyers
> claimed any money the Coopers received were gifts and therefore
> non-taxable. Nevertheless, KPMG now says it would not set up this type
> of offshore structure anymore.
>
>  For its part, the CRA said that the settlement was made in accordance
> with the law and is "supported by the facts of this particular case."
> The agency also said it "maximized revenue" by making a decision to
> settle out of court, instead of facing an uncertain ruling in tax
> court.
>
>  "There is generally substantial savings to the public and a benefit
> to the justice system when cases are resolved through a settlement," a
> CRA spokesperson said in a statement.
>
>
>
>
> Please send confidential tips on this story to Harvey.Cashore@cbc.ca
> or call 416-526-4704. Follow @harveycashore on Twitter.
>
> About the Author
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Harvey Cashore
>
> The Fifth Estate
>
> Harvey Cashore is an investigative reporter with the CBC's weekly
> investigative program The Fifth Estate.
>
> With files from Fredric Zalac, Kimberly Ivany
>
>
>
> CBC's Journalistic Standards and Practices
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: Diane.Lebouthillier@parl.gc.ca
> Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 18:31:53 +0000
> Subject: Réponse automatique : Methinks that CBC can never deny that
> it loves to ignore abusive tax schemes for years N'esy Pas Sylvie
> Gadoury, Diane Lebouthillier, Dominic Cardy and
> Chucky Leblanc?
> To: motomaniac333@gmail.com
>
>
> Merci d'avoir écrit à l'honorable Diane Lebouthillier, députée
> deGaspésie-Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine.
>  Votre courriel sera lu avec soin et recevra toute l'attention
> voulue.Si votre courriel porte sur une demande ou un commentaire
> concernant
>  l'Agence du Revenu du Canada (ARC), sachez que votre correspondance a
>  été acheminée au cabinet de la ministre du Revenu national. Toute
>  l'attention nécessaire y sera accordée et le suivi approprié sera
>  effectué par son cabinet dans les meilleurs délais.
>
>  Si votre courriel porte sur une demande de rencontre ou une invitation
>  à une activité particulière, nous tenons à vous assurer que votre
>  demande a été notée et transmise à notre adjointe à l'agenda.
>
>  ***************************
>
>  Thank you for writing to the Honourable Diane Lebouthillier, member of
>  parliament for Gaspésie-Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine. Your email will be
>  read with care and will receive every consideration.
>
>  If your email is about a concern or a comment related to the Canada
>  Revenue Agency (CRA), please note that your correspondence has been
>  forwarded to the Office of the Minister of National Revenue. Your
>  email is receiving necessary consideration and the appropriate
>  follow-up will be made by the Minister's Office as soon as possible.
>
>  If your email relates to a meeting request or an invitation to a
>  specific event, please be assured that your request has been noted and
>  sent to our scheduling assistant.
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: "Office, Press"<Press@bankofengland.co.uk>
> Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 18:31:41 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: Methinks that CBC can never deny that it
> loves to ignore abusive
> tax schemes for years N'esy Pas Sylvie Gadoury, Diane Lebouthillier,
> Dominic Cardy and
> Chucky Leblanc?
> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>The Press Office mailbox is
> monitored between 08:30-17:30 Monday-Friday.
>
>  Emails received outside of these hours will not be responded to until
>  the next working day.
>
>  If your message is urgent, please ring 020 3461 4411 and you will be
>  connected to the duty Press Officer.
>
>  Thanks
>
>
>
>
>  ---------- Original message ----------
>  From: Premier of Ontario | Premier ministre de l’Ontario
> <Premier@ontario.ca>
>  Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 18:31:34 +0000
>  Subject: Automatic reply: Methinks that CBC can never deny that it
> loves to ignore abusive
> tax schemes for years N'esy Pas Sylvie Gadoury, Diane Lebouthillier,
> Dominic Cardy and
> Chucky Leblanc?
>  To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
>  Thank you for your email. Your thoughts, comments and input are greatly
> valued.
>
>  You can be assured that all emails and letters are carefully read,
>  reviewed and taken into consideration.
>
>  There may be occasions when, given the issues you have raised and the
>  need to address them effectively, we will forward a copy of your
>  correspondence to the appropriate government official. Accordingly, a
>  response may take several business days.
>
>  Thanks again for your email.
>  ______­­
>
> Merci pour votre courriel. Nous vous sommes très reconnaissants de
>  nous avoir fait part de vos idées, commentaires et observations.
>
>  Nous tenons à vous assurer que nous lisons attentivement et prenons en
>  considération tous les courriels et lettres que nous recevons.
>
>  Dans certains cas, nous transmettrons votre message au ministère
>  responsable afin que les questions soulevées puissent être traitées de
>  la manière la plus efficace possible. En conséquence, plusieurs jours
>  ouvrables pourraient s’écouler avant que nous puissions vous répondre.
>
>  Merci encore pour votre courriel.
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>  Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 14:31:30 -0400
>  Subject: Methinks that CBC can never deny that it loves to ignore
> abusive tax schemes for years
>  N'esy Pas Sylvie Gadoury, Diane Lebouthillier, Dominic Cardy and
> Chucky Leblanc?
>  To: Harvey.Cashore@cbc.ca, diana.gibson@taxfairness.ca,
> erika.beauchesne@taxfairness.ca, office@taxfairness.ca,
> wayne.easter@parl.gc.ca, atlantic.director@taxpayer.com,
> Frederic.Zalac@cbc.ca, rick.desaulniers@gnb.ca, kris.austin@gnb.ca,
> michelle.conroy@gnb.ca, lynn.king@gnb.ca
>  Cc: david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com, premier@gnb.ca,
> PREMIER@gov.ns.ca, premier@gov.ab.ca,  premier@ontario.ca,
> premier@gov.sk.ca, premier@gov.pe.ca, premier@gov.yk.ca,
> premier@gov.nt.ca, premier.ministre@cex.gouv.qc.ca, premier@gov.nl.ca,
> serge.rousselle@gnb.ca,  dave.seglins@cbc.ca, jfurey@nbpower.com,
> Dominic.Cardy@gnb.ca, blaine.higgs@gnb.ca, Michael.Gorman@cbc.ca,
> news@hilltimes.com, news@kingscorecord.com, tj@burkelaw.ca,
> leanne.murray@mcinnescooper.com, Leanne.Fitch@fredericton.ca,
> steve.murphy@ctv.ca, washington.field@ic.fbi.gov,
> Boston.Mail@ic.fbi.gov, stateofcorruptionnh1@gmail.com,
> oldmaison@yahoo.com, andre@jafaust.com, jbosnitch@gmail.com,
> David.Coon@gnb.ca, David.Akin@globalnews.ca, andrew.scheer@parl.gc.ca,
> maxime.bernier@parl.gc.ca, BrianThomasMacdonald@gmail.com,
> votejohnw@gmail.com, Diane.Lebouthillier@parl.gc.ca,
> warren@daisygroup.ca, bill.pentney@justice.gc.ca,
> Doug.Gaetz@cra-arc.gc.ca, Diane.Lebouthillier@cra-arc.gc.ca,
> PABMINMAILG@cra-arc.gc.ca, sylvie.gadoury@radio-canada.ca,
> David.Raymond.Amos@gmail.com, press@larouchepac.com,
> Press@bankofengland.co.uk, rachel.houlihan@cbc.ca
>
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cra-kmpg-settlement-taxes-1.5154610
>
> CRA signs secret settlement with wealthy KPMG clients involved in
> offshore tax scheme
> Watchdog group accuses the Liberals of covering up the KPMG affair
> Harvey Cashore · CBC News · Posted: May 30, 2019 12:26 PM ET
>
>
>  369 Comments
>
> Troy Bodi
> For the rest of us they'll hound you for months for that $16 you owe them.
>
>
> David Amos
> Reply to @Troy Bodi: Methinks the CRA and Harvey Cashore should review
> their emails N'esy Pas?
>
>
> https://www.taxfairness.ca/en/page/contact-us
>
>  Toby Sanger, Executive Director
> office@taxfairness.ca
> Mobile: 613 720 6955
>
> Sasha Caldera, Program Manager, Beneficial Ownership Project
> sasha.caldera@taxfairness.ca
> Mobile: 647-861-6425
>
> Erika Beauchesne, Communications Coordinator
> erika.beauchesne@taxfairness.ca
> Mobile: 613-315-8679
>
> Office:
>
> 193 Richmond Road
> Ottawa ON K1Z 6W4
>
> Mail:
>
> Canadians for Tax Fairness
> 192 Main Street,
> PO Box 12015
> Ottawa, ON K1S 3M1
>
>
> Diana Gibson, Canadians for Tax Fairness Communications Coordinator
>
> diana.gibson@taxfairness.ca
> Mobile: 780 910 0665
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 10:21:52 -0400
> Subject: Well so much for YOUR ethics and that of, the CBC, the RCMP,
> KPMG and the Tax Man et al Nesy Pas Billy Morneau?
> To: office@taxfairness.ca, "wayne.easter"<wayne.easter@parl.gc.ca>,
> atlantic.director@taxpayer.com, leader <leader@greenparty.ca>,
> "Bill.Morneau"<Bill.Morneau@canada.ca>,
> WhistleblowerProtection@tigta.treas.gov, Marwah.Rizqy@usherbrooke.ca,
> fin.minfinance-financemin.fin@canada.ca, Frederic.Zalac@cbc.ca
> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, "Dale.Morgan"
> <Dale.Morgan@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Larry.Tremblay"
> <Larry.Tremblay@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>
>
> Message blocked
> Your message to Bill.Morneau@canada.ca has been blocked. See technical
> details below for more information.
> LEARN MORE
>
>
> The response was:
>
> Message rejected. See https://support.google.com/mail/answer/69585 for
> more information.
>
>
>
> Final-Recipient: rfc822; Bill.Morneau@canada.ca
> Action: failed
> Status: 5.0.0
> Diagnostic-Code: smtp; Message rejected.  See
> https://support.google.com/mail/answer/69585 for more information.
> Last-Attempt-Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 05:44:49 -0800 (PST)
>
>
>  Andre Lareau should have their lawyers talk to Wayne Easter ASAP EH?
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 09:44:46 -0400
> Subject: Re: Well I watched the Fifth Estate about KPMG and the Tax
> Man et al Perhaps CBC, Dennis Howlett and Andre Lareau should have
> their lawyers talk to Wayne Easter ASAP EH?
> To: cbcinvestigates <cbcinvestigates@cbc.ca>, "natalie.clancy"
> <natalie.clancy@cbc.ca>, leader <leader@greenparty.ca>, MulcaT
> <MulcaT@parl.gc.ca>, "charlie.angus"<charlie.angus@parl.gc.ca>,
> cmcinnis@osc.gov.on.ca, sylvie.anctil-bavas@lautorite.qc.ca,
> lara.gaede@asc.ca, chait@bcsc.bc.ca, ElenaChurikova@ifac.org,
> janice.leahy@gnb.ca, "Michael.Ferguson"
> <Michael.Ferguson@oag-bvg.gc.ca>, Kim.MacPherson@gnb.ca,
> washington.field@ic.fbi.gov, Russell.George@tigta.treas.gov,
> WhistleblowerProtection@tigta.treas.gov, investigations@cbc.ca,
> media@publicintegrity.org, wfitzgibbon@publicintegrity.org,
> tips@publicintegrity.org, jinquan.xiao@dentons.cn,
> xuefeng.peng@dentons.cn, Istvan.Reczicza@dentons.com,
> ddale@thestar.ca, pandrews@guelphmercury.com, halifaxmedia@state.gov,
> Karen.Kraushaar@tigta.treas.gov, Complaints@tigta.treas.gov,
> steve.roberge@gnb.ca, loyalistlaw@gmail.com,
> Friday.Joe@psic-ispc.gc.ca, Catherine.Harrop@cbc.ca, "john.green"
> <john.green@gnb.ca>, chiefape <chiefape@gmail.com>, plynch
> <plynch@kpmg.ca>, dconache@uottawa.ca, eluongo@kpmg.ca
> Cc: office@taxfairness.ca, gail.dugas@taxfairness.ca,
> atlantic.director@taxpayer.com, federal.director@taxpayer.com, David
> Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, "mark.vespucci"
> <mark.vespucci@ci.irs.gov>, maritime_malaise
> <maritime_malaise@yahoo.ca>, justin.ling@vice.com,
> jfraser@mediacouncil.ca, tmaccharles <tmaccharles@thestar.ca>,
> newsroom <newsroom@globeandmail.ca>, "ed.pilkington"
> <ed.pilkington@guardian.co.uk>, j.russell.george@tigta.treas.gov
>
>
> On 6/25/18, David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Trust that you people will find this email posted right here ASAP EH?
>>
>> http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.com/2018/06/canada-revenue-agency-falling-behind-as.html
>>
>> Monday, 25 June 2018
>>
>> Canada Revenue Agency falling behind as uncollected taxes owed rise to
>> $44 billion
>> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tax-debt-liberal-budget-collections-1.4715967
>>
>>
>> ---------- Original message ----------
>> From: "MinFinance / FinanceMin (FIN)"
>> <fin.minfinance-financemin.fin@canada.ca>
>> Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 20:48:25 +0000
>> Subject: RE: Your various correspondence about abusive tax schemes -
>> 2017-02631
>> 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: Green Party of Canada | Parti vert du Canada <info@greenparty.ca>
>> Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 20:48:45 +0000
>> Subject: Re: Fwd: Your various correspondence about abusive tax
>> schemes - 2017-02631
>> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>
>> -- Please reply above this line --
>>
>>
>> (Français à suivre)
>>
>> Thank you for contacting the Green Party of Canada. Due to the high
>> volume of email we receive, we cannot guarantee that all inquiries
>> will be answered. With our small team, we do our best to respond as
>> staffing and resources permit.
>>
>> In the meantime, you might find the answer you're looking for in
>> Vision Green [1], which lays out our plan to move Canada forward.
>>
>>
>> ---------- Original message ----------
>> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>> Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 16:48:20 -0400
>> Subject: Fwd: Your various correspondence about abusive tax schemes -
>> 2017-02631
>> To: Doug.Gaetz@cra-arc.gc.ca, "Diane.Lebouthillier"
>> <Diane.Lebouthillier@cra-arc.gc.ca>, PABMINMAILG@cra-arc.gc.ca,
>> "andrew.scheer"<andrew.scheer@parl.gc.ca>, leader
>> <leader@greenparty.ca>, lisa <lisa@daisygroup.ca>
>> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, "Bill.Morneau"
>> <Bill.Morneau@canada.ca>, "bill.pentney"<bill.pentney@justice.gc.ca>,
>> "jan.jensen"<jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca>
>>
>>
>> ---------- Original message ----------
>> From: Diane.Lebouthillier@parl.gc.ca
>> Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 22:23:12 +0000
>> Subject: Réponse automatique : YO Jean-Yves Duclos Re My Old Age
>> pension etc Well May 24th came and went and I just called you (819 654
>> 5546) and your Deputy Ms Levonian (819 9535603) about my right to to
>> sue you and your minions in Federal Court
>> To: motomaniac333@gmail.com
>>
>> Merci d'avoir écrit à l'honorable Diane Lebouthillier, députée de
>> Gaspésie - Îles-de-la-Madeleine. Votre courriel recevra toute
>> l'attention voulue.
>>
>> Thank you for writing to the Hon. Diane Lebouthillier, Member of
>> Parliament for Gaspésie - îles-de-la-Madeleine. Please be assured that
>> your correspondence will receive every consideration.
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------- Original message ----------
>> From: "Min.Mail / Courrier.Min (CRA/ARC)"<PABMINMAILG@cra-arc.gc.ca>
>> Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 13:10:52 +0000
>> Subject: Your various correspondence about abusive tax schemes -
>> 2017-02631
>> To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com"<motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>
>> Mr. David Raymond Amos
>> motomaniac333@gmail.com
>>
>>
>> Dear Mr. Amos:
>>
>> Thank you for your various correspondence about abusive tax schemes,
>> and for your understanding regarding the delay of this response.
>>
>> This is an opportunity for me to address your concerns about the way
>> the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) deals with aggressive tax planning,
>> tax avoidance, and tax evasion by targeting individuals and groups
>> that promote schemes intended to avoid payment of tax. It is also an
>> opportunity for me to present the Government of Canada’s main
>> strategies for ensuring fairness for all taxpayers.
>>
>> The CRA’s mission is to preserve the integrity of Canada’s tax system,
>> and it is taking concrete and effective action to deal with abusive
>> tax schemes. Through federal budget funding in 2016 and 2017, the
>> government has committed close to $1 billion in cracking down on tax
>> evasion and combatting tax avoidance at home and through the use of
>> offshore transactions. This additional funding is expected to generate
>> federal revenues of $2.6 billion over five years for Budget 2016, and
>> $2.5 billion over five years for Budget 2017.
>>
>> More precisely, the CRA is cracking down on tax cheats by hiring more
>> auditors, maintaining its underground economy specialist teams,
>> increasing coverage of aggressive goods and service tax/harmonized
>> sales tax planning, increasing coverage of multinational corporations
>> and wealthy individuals, and taking targeted actions aimed at
>> promoters of abusive tax schemes.
>>
>> On the offshore front, the CRA continues to develop tools to improve
>> its focus on high‑risk taxpayers. It is also considering changes to
>> its Voluntary Disclosures Program following the first set of program
>> recommendations received from an independent Offshore Compliance
>> Advisory Committee. In addition, the CRA is leading international
>> projects to address the base erosion and profit shifting initiative of
>> the G20 and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
>> Development, and is collaborating with treaty partners to address the
>> Panama Papers leaks.
>>
>> These actions are evidence of the government’s commitment to
>> protecting tax fairness. The CRA has strengthened its intelligence and
>> technical capacities for the early detection of abusive tax
>> arrangements and deterrence of those who participate in them. To
>> ensure compliance, it has increased the number of actions aimed at
>> promoters who use illegal schemes. These measures include increased
>> audits of such promoters, improved information gathering, criminal
>> investigations where warranted, and better communication with
>> taxpayers.
>>
>> To deter potential taxpayer involvement in these schemes, the CRA is
>> increasing notifications and warnings through its communications
>> products. It also seeks partnerships with tax preparers, accountants,
>> and community groups so that they can become informed observers who
>> can educate their clients.
>>
>> The CRA will assess penalties against promoters and other
>> representatives who make false statements involving illegal tax
>> schemes. The promotion of tax schemes to defraud the government can
>> lead to criminal investigations, fingerprinting, criminal prosecution,
>> court fines, and jail time.
>>
>> Between April 1, 2011, and March 31, 2016, the CRA’s criminal
>> investigations resulted in the conviction of 42 Canadian taxpayers for
>> tax evasion with links to money and assets held offshore. In total,
>> the $34 million in evaded taxes resulted in court fines of $12 million
>> and 734 months of jail time.
>>
>> When deciding to pursue compliance actions through the courts, the CRA
>> consults the Department of Justice Canada to choose an appropriate
>> solution. Complex tax-related litigation is costly and time consuming,
>> and the outcome may be unsuccessful. All options to recover amounts
>> owed are considered.
>>
>> More specifically, in relation to the KPMG Isle of Man tax avoidance
>> scheme, publicly available court records show that it is through the
>> CRA’s efforts that the scheme was discovered. The CRA identified many
>> of the participants and continues to actively pursue the matter. The
>> CRA has also identified at least 10 additional tax structures on the
>> Isle of Man, and is auditing taxpayers in relation to these
>> structures.
>>
>> To ensure tax fairness, the CRA commissioned an independent review in
>> March 2016 to determine if it had acted appropriately concerning KPMG
>> and its clients. In her review, Ms. Kimberley Brooks, Associate
>> Professor and former Dean of the Schulich School of Law at Dalhousie
>> University, examined the CRA’s operational processes and decisions in
>> relation to the KPMG offshore tax structure and its efforts to obtain
>> the names of all taxpayers participating in the scheme. Following this
>> review, the report, released on May 5, 2016, concluded that the CRA
>> had acted appropriately in its management of the KPMG Isle of Man
>> file. The report found that the series of compliance measures the CRA
>> took were in accordance with its policies and procedures. It was
>> concluded that the procedural actions taken on the KPMG file were
>> appropriate given the facts of this particular case and were
>> consistent with the treatment of taxpayers in similar situations. The
>> report concluded that actions by CRA employees were in accordance with
>> the CRA’s Code of Integrity and Professional Conduct. There was no
>> evidence of inappropriate interaction between KPMG and the CRA
>> employees involved in the case.
>>
>> Under the CRA’s Code of Integrity and Professional Conduct, all CRA
>> employees are responsible for real, apparent, or potential conflicts
>> of interests between their current duties and any subsequent
>> employment outside of the CRA or the Public Service of Canada.
>> Consequences and corrective measures play an important role in
>> protecting the CRA’s integrity.
>>
>> The CRA takes misconduct very seriously. The consequences of
>> misconduct depend on the gravity of the incident and its repercussions
>> on trust both within and outside of the CRA. Misconduct can result in
>> disciplinary measures up to dismissal.
>>
>> All forms of tax evasion are illegal. The CRA manages the Informant
>> Leads Program, which handles leads received from the public regarding
>> cases of tax evasion across the country. This program, which
>> coordinates all the leads the CRA receives from informants, determines
>> whether there has been any non-compliance with tax law and ensures
>> that the information is examined and conveyed, if applicable, so that
>> compliance measures are taken. This program does not offer any reward
>> for tips received.
>>
>> The new Offshore Tax Informant Program (OTIP) has also been put in
>> place. The OTIP offers financial compensation to individuals who
>> provide information related to major cases of offshore tax evasion
>> that lead to the collection of tax owing. As of December 31, 2016, the
>> OTIP had received 963 calls and 407 written submissions from possible
>> informants. Over 218 taxpayers are currently under audit based on
>> information the CRA received through the OTIP.
>>
>> With a focus on the highest-risk sectors nationally and
>> internationally and an increased ability to gather information, the
>> CRA has the means to target taxpayers who try to hide their income.
>> For example, since January 2015, the CRA has been collecting
>> information on all international electronic funds transfers (EFTs) of
>> $10,000 or more ending or originating in Canada. It is also adopting a
>> proactive approach by focusing each year on four jurisdictions that
>> raise suspicion. For the Isle of Man, the CRA audited 3,000 EFTs
>> totalling $860 million over 12 months and involving approximately 800
>> taxpayers. Based on these audits, the CRA communicated with
>> approximately 350 individuals and 400 corporations and performed 60
>> audits.
>>
>> In January 2017, I reaffirmed Canada’s important role as a leader for
>> tax authorities around the world in detecting the structures used for
>> aggressive tax planning and tax evasion. This is why Canada works
>> daily with the Joint International Tax Shelter Information Centre
>> (JITSIC), a network of tax administrations in over 35 countries. The
>> CRA participates in two expert groups within the JITSIC and leads the
>> working group on intermediaries and proponents. This ongoing
>> collaboration is a key component of the CRA’s work to develop strong
>> relationships with the international community, which will help it
>> refine the world-class tax system that benefits all Canadians.
>>
>> The CRA is increasing its efforts and is seeing early signs of
>> success. Last year, the CRA recovered just under $13 billion as a
>> result of its audit activities on the domestic and offshore fronts.
>> Two-thirds of these recoveries are the result of its audit efforts
>> relating to large businesses and multinational companies.
>>
>> But there is still much to do, and additional improvements and
>> investments are underway.
>>
>> Tax cheats are having a harder and harder time hiding. Taxpayers who
>> choose to promote or participate in malicious and illegal tax
>> strategies must face the consequences of their actions. Canadians
>> expect nothing less. I invite you to read my most recent statement on
>> this matter at canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/news/2017/03/
>> statement_from_thehonourabledianelebouthillierministerofnational.
>>
>> Thank you for taking the time to write. I hope the information I have
>> provided is helpful.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> The Honourable Diane Lebouthillier
>> Minister of National Revenue
>>
>

https://twitter.com/DavidRayAmos/with_replies




David Raymond Amos‏ @DavidRayAmos
Replying to @DavidRayAmos@Kathryn98967631 and 49 others



#nbpoli#cdnpoli


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/nb-power-catch-22-1.5428720





---------- Original message ----------
From: Philippe Dunsky <philippe@dunsky.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 15:39:01 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Methinks Minister Mikey Holland should pay
more attention to whats going with NB Power within the EUB and the CBC
N'esy Pas Higgy?
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>

[le français suit]
I'm out of the office Wednesday and Thursday this week, testifying at
a regulatory proceeding. I'll check emails occasionally, but my
response time will be longer than usual. If your email is urgent,
please let me know by resending with "URGENT" in the subject, and I'll
make sure to prioritize a quick response.
Philippe
------------------------------



https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/nb-power-catch-22-1.5428720

Expert says true smart meter value won't emerge until after they're approved

Day three of rate hearings concluded Wednesday

Robert Jones· CBC News· Posted: Jan 15, 2020 10:04 PM AT



A three person panel from the Energy and Utilities Board headed by Vice Chairman Francois Beaulieu is hearing NB Power's second application to acquire smart meters. The first application was rejected two years ago for not being cost effective. (Graham Thompson/CBC)

NB Power's application to buy and deploy advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) has been handicapped into presenting only a fraction of the benefits the devices can deliver, a hearing was told Wednesday.

An expert said the Energy and Utilities Board should look beyond NB Power's limited business case in deciding on the technology, which includes smart meters.

"One of the challenges inherent in assessing the value of AMI metering infrastructure is that only a portion of future benefits may be known at the time of initial investment," said Philippe Dunsky, a Montreal based energy expert hired by NB Power to testify about potential "unquantified benefits" of smart meters.

"Many of those (AMI) services and capabilities are difficult to quantify" he added. "Some are not yet even known and I would argue probably most are not yet known."

As an example Dunsky said if NB Power uses smart meters in the future to introduce different prices for electricity at different times of the day it could nudge enough power consumption away from expensive peak hours in the winter to save itself $52 million over 15 years.
But that potential saving is not included in NB Power's business case for smart meters because so called "time-varying rates" have not yet been approved in New Brunswick.

"This is a classic catch 22," said Dunsky.

"NB Power cannot propose a specific rate design until it knows what metering infrastructure it is working with and the EUB is reluctant to account for benefits for a rate design not yet proposed."

"While valued at zero in the business case I would encourage the EUB to give this benefit - with $52 million in potential rate payer savings in play, due consideration."

NB Power is in front of the Energy and Utilities Board seeking permission to spend $92 million to buy 360,000 smart meters and deploy them with most of its customer base.


Montreal based energy expert Philippe Dunsky listens to questions from NB Power lawyer John Furey. Dunsky testified Wednesday that millions of dollars in benefits NB Power will gain from smart meters are not in its business case, but the EUB should consider them when it renders a decision. (Robert Jones/CBC)

But it has been limited to presenting "quantified benefits" of the switch in its business case to try and win approval, like money it will save on meter reading and other efficiencies.

On that narrow basis it has claimed the meters will generate a net benefit to the utility of $31.1 million over 15 years but the hearing has been chipping away at that number.

Dunsky prepared a report suggesting there are at least 13 lucrative but currently unquantified benefits - like time varying rates - NB Power is prevented from counting.  He said that is making the case for smart meters seem less financially attractive than it really is.

Two years ago in its decision to reject NB Power's first application for smart meters the EUB explained it had decided against including possible future benefits of smart meters in its evaluation.

"The Board acknowledges that there may be a number of non-quantifiable benefits that AMI would accrue to ratepayers and the utility," read the decision.


Staff of the Energy and Utilities Board led by its lawyer Ellen Desmond listen to testimony about smart meters. Desmond questioned Wednesday how the EUB could consider unquantified benefits as an argument in favour of smart meters if there is no evidence to support what they are. (Graham Thompson/CBC)

"For the purposes of this application, however, the Board does not consider non-quantifiable benefits as a factor that would overcome a negative business case."

Under questioning from EUB lawyer Ellen Desmond, Dunsky acknowledged some of his examples were being given without evidence the hearing could look at and evaluate including a claim that a combination of time varying rates and expanding electric vehicle sales and charging would save NB Power another $51 million if smart meters were approved.

"Is there anything on the record that would allow interveners to test that ($51 million) evaluation," asked Desmond

"Could you point us to something where we could look at the details of that calculation, or anything of that nature?"

"I can't point to something that's currently in the record," said Dunsky, "I apologise. I put it in there.  I probably shouldn't have."


NB Power senior vice president Lori Clark told the EUB Monday that it's application for smart meters is based on "quantified benefits" of the technology but made a point of noting there are "many" unquantified benefits as well. (Graham Thompson/CBC)
 
Despite the EUB's ruling two years ago that unquantified benefits did not count in its decision on smart meters the issue has again become a significant matter of discussion.

Scott Stoll, a lawyer representing New Brunswick's municipal utilities has been asking witnesses whether, in a close call, the EUB should take potential but unquantified benefits into consideration.

And in its opening statement of the hearing NB Power made it a point to mention them prominently.

"Our business case is built on quantified benefits;" said senior NB Power vice president Lori Clark.

"However, we also noted the many non-quantified benefits that make AMI a worthy investment."


 


NEW BRUNSWICK ENERGY and UTILITIES BOARD
COMMISSION DE L’ENERGIE ET DES SERVICES PUBLICS N.-B.
Matter 452

IN THE MATTER OF an application by New Brunswick Power Corporation for approval and Advanced Metering Infrastructure capital project

Held at the Delta Hotel Saint John, N.B. on January 15th 2020.

Henneberry Reporting Service 24

INDEX
Mr. Erik Gilbert
Direct by Mr. Furey - page 395
Cross by Mr. Stoll - page 412
Cross by Ms. Black - page 420

Mr. Philippe Dunsky
Direct by Mr. Furey - page 444
Cross by Dr. Richard - page 471
Cross by Mr. Stoll - page 477
Cross by Ms. Black - page 487
Cross by Ms. Desmond - page 499
By the Board - page 504
Redirect by Mr. Furey - page 500

NBP
15.01 - Response to undertaking number 3
15.02 - Response to undertaking number 4

NEW BRUNSWICK ENERGY and UTILITIES BOARD 1
COMMISSION DE L’ENERGIE ET DES SERVICES PUBLICS N.-B.
Matter 452

IN THE MATTER OF an application by New Brunswick Power Corporation for approval and Advanced Metering Infrastructure capital project

Held at the Delta Hotel, Saint John, N.B. on January 15th 2020.

Members of the Board:
Mr. Francois Beaulieu - Vice-Chairman
Mr. Michael Costello - Member
Mr. Patrick Ervin - Member

NB Energy and Utilities Board:
Ms. Ellen Desmond, Q.C.
Mr. David Young
Mr. John Lawton
Mr. Michael Dickie
Chief Clerk: Ms. Kathleen Mitchell

Page 395

ERIK GILBERT, duly sworn.
VICE-CHAIRMAN: So for the record, Mr. Gilbert has been  sworn. So maybe just take your place there, Mr. Gilbert, and I think your counsel will have a few questions to ask you.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. FUREY:
Q. - Good morning, Mr. Gilbert.
A. Good morning.
Q. - I wonder if I could ask you to briefly introduce yourself to the Board, please?
VICE-CHAIRMAN: So, Mr. Gilbert, you need to push on the button in front of you so -- and you are going to see a red light.
WITNESS: Yes.
VICE-CHAIRMAN: So that enables Mrs. Farris to understand what you are saying.
WITNESS: Okay. Can you hear me? Good morning. My name is Erik Gilbert. I am a director at Navigant Guidehouse Consulting firm that deals with a broad range of energy consulting world-wide. I specialize in benefit cost analysis of grid modernization and AMI investments.

Page 395

VICE-CHAIRMAN: So any objections regarding the 2 qualification of Mr. Gilbert in the area of expertise 3 that Mr. Furey just raised? So hearing no objection, 4 Mr. Gilbert will be qualified as an expert.
DR. RICHARD: Monsieur président?
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Docteur Richard?
DR. RICHARD: Oui. Je me demandais comment impartiale est  Monsieur Gilbert?
VICE-CHAIRMAN: C’est une très bonne question. Mr. Furey, Dr. Richard is asking if Mr. -- before his qualification, if Mr. Gilbert is impartial, and I don’t think you asked that question.
MR. FUREY: Certainly. I was going to ask it after he was qualified, but I can ask it now.
VICE-CHAIRMAN: It’s an important question to ask, Mr. Furey, before we --
MR. FUREY: Sure. Yes.
VICE-CHAIRMAN: -- qualify him, because I think the case law is quite clear that that’s something that any court or tribunal needs to consider if Mr. -- whomever we are going to declare --
MR. FUREY: Absolutely.
VICE-CHAIRMAN: -- will provide and objective non-partisan evidence.
MR. FUREY: I have no problem. I have no problem asking the question now.
Q. - So, Mr. Gilbert, under the rules under which this Board operates there is a specific rule that states that an expert shall assist the Board by giving evidence that is impartial, fair and objective. And I wonder if you could describe for the Board how you see your role as an expert witness?
A. Yes. We were retained to do an independent and impartial review of NB Power’s business case and their benefit cost analysis, and that is how I view the role is to provide input to the Board, expert opinion to the Board, and the evidence that we have introduced as an impartial expert and to help the Board make an appropriate decision for New Brunswick.
MR. FUREY: So with that, Mr. Vice-Chair, I would again ask that Mr. Gilbert be qualified as requested.
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Est-ce que ça répond à votre question Docteur Richard?
DR. RICHARD : Comment est-ce qu’on définit impartialité?
VICE-CHAIRMAN: So he is asking how we define -- est-ce que vous objectez à la qualification Docteur Richard?
DR. RICHARD: Je sais que tous les experts ici sont, d’après moi, des experts, mais je ne peux pas concevoir que quelqu’un est totalement impartial. VICE-CHAIRMAN: So, Mr. Furey, there is a test that has been developed by the Supreme Court called the acid test. Are you familiar with that test?
MR. FUREY: I’m sorry. I didn’t quite hear you properly. The --
VICE-CHAIRMAN: It’s called the acid test.
MR. FUREY: This is the R. versus Mohan test for --
VICE-CHAIRMAN: No. There is another case law that comes from the Supreme Court and maybe you may want to have a reading of this case before we continue. It’s a case that comes -- that was issued by the Supreme Court. It’s called WBLI versus Abbott and Haliburton. It’s a 2015 case that comes out from the Supreme Court of Canada and they talk about it in this case, and also about the impartiality. So I’m wondering if you want to consider that before we continue.
MR. FUREY: Well I have no objection to -- you know, we will do as the Board pleases. I note that Dr. Richard took a motion in this matter to request having received appropriate notification under the rules that NB Power would challenge the qualification of his experts. He took a motion to request the basis on which NB Power was doing so and we provided him with that information in the context of the motion hearing. So Dr. Richard is well aware of the rules of this tribunal. So if the Board wants us to take an adjournment and go do that, we will absolutely do it. But I’m not sure where this is coming from. Dr. Richard is aware of the rules. He could have given us notification of this. But if it means an adjournment, we are prepared to take an adjournment. I will look up that case and we will come  back and deal with it.
VICE-CHAIRMAN: So there is -- maybe what we will do, Mr. Furey, is if you can just have a look at that case that I just talked about. And as I was just reading the headnotes, the -- that test that I was referring to may come from the Mohan case. So you may want to have a look at what that test is all about for impartiality and maybe ask that question to your witness and maybe that will satisfy Dr. Richard once you ask that specific question to your witness.
MR. FUREY: Could you provide me with the cite for the Haliburton case again, Mr. Vice-Chair?
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Yes. It’s 2015, 2 Supreme Court of Canada, and it’s at page 182.
MR. FUREY: Thank you.
MS. DESMOND: Mr. Vice-Chair, can I suggest that that case be circulated to all of the parties, just for the purposes of having all of the same information.
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Yes. So we will take maybe 15 minutes and -- or a break, and whenever you are ready, Mr. -- and just maybe inform the Chief Clerk and we will come back to deal with this issue.
MR. FUREY: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair.

(Recess)

VICE-CHAIRMAN: Mr. Furey.
MR. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to review the case that has been referred to. Based on that I do -- I have a few questions for --
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
MR. FUREY: -- for Mr. Gilbert.
Q. - So, Mr. Gilbert, I have provided you with a copy of the case just a few moments ago and I don’t expect you to have read it. So I am going to refer you to a couple of parts more for ease of reference than anything else.
So if we could go to page 206 of this decision where the Supreme Court of Canada is actually rendering its decision in the matter, at paragraph 46. So do you have that reference, Mr. Gilbert?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. - So here the Supreme Court is saying the duty -- they are describing the duty owed by an expert witness to the court, in this case to this tribunal, to be fair, objective and non-partisan. That’s very consistent with the rule that I read to you earlier. And the court expresses agreement with a lower court justice saying that the common law has come to accept that expert witnesses have a duty to assist the court that overrides their obligation to the party calling them. So do you recognize that as part of your duty?
A. Yes.
Q. - And can you describe for the Board how you see that in terms of this particular proceeding?
A. Yes. I believe this means that I need to bring the expertise of myself and my firm and including judgment -- expert judgment on various matters in evidence that we have brought to provide the best judgment that we -- that I possibly can on these issues without bias towards one party or another, and to use my expertise again to help inform the Board to make the best decision possible for New Brunswick.
Q. - And to be more specific, if that means that you agree with a point that would tend to reduce the ratio of the benefit cost analysis, would you agree that that means you have a duty to express that to the Board?
A. Yes. Yes. Absolutely.
Q. - Okay. Now the court, throughout the decision, talks about a couple of particular areas where courts have recognized that there is a problem with an expert’s qualification. I’m going to ask you a few questions around each of those.
The first is where the expert has some type of interest, financial or otherwise, in the outcome of the matter before the tribunal or court. So maybe you can start by telling me how large an organization Navigant is?
A. Navigant -- now Navigant Guidehouse, because we just merged, is I believe on the order of 7,000 people and approximately -- I would have to check for sure, but approximately a billion dollars U.S. in global revenues.
Q. - Thank you. And let’s presume for a moment -- NB Power hopes not, but let’s presume for a moment that this Board were to disallow this application and not approve the AMI capital investment, what impact, if any, does that have on you or Navigant?
A. I would think none.
Q. - And in particular some of the obvious concerns that have been expressed in the case law is a circumstance where there is a financial interest even from a fee
perspective. Obviously you are being paid a fee by NB Power, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. - And is that fee contingent on the outcome of this  litigation?
A. No.
Q. - No. The other area where courts have expressed concern is where there is a close relationship between the expert and a litigant in the litigation or hearing. What connection, if any, do you have to NB Power?
A. Only through the work that I have done on this particular matter, that I have been engaged by NB Power. I have not done any other work for NB Power or in New Brunswick.
Q. - Okay. Thank you. Are you aware of any of the other 7,000 employees of Navigant who have done work for NB Power?
A. I am not aware of it. I would not be surprised if some of our -- in our Canadian operation has done work with NB Power, but I am not personally aware of that.
Q. - So you personally have -- have you ever met any of the NB Power witnesses in this matter?
A. No.
Q. - Before today?
A. Not before today.
Q. - Okay. Thank you. And finally the Vice-Chair, in his introduction to this case a little earlier, talked about the acid test. And if I could take you to page 184, I’m going to refer to the headnote of this case, and this is just a brief summary of the decision. The second paragraph -- do you see that -- starting with expert witnesses have a duty?
A. Yes.
Q. - And I’m not going to take you through all that, we have already talked about the duty, but toward the bottom the court refers to the acid test and says the acid test is whether the expert’s opinion would not change regardless of which party retained him or her. And I would just ask you to address that issue in the context of your duty.
A. Yes. My opinion in our analysis would not change regardless of who retained us. Part of our -- the reason people hire us is for impartial review and judgment, and if we lose that it’s -- frankly it’s bad for our business. But yes, the opinion and -- I want to say the evidence, I guess I can’t say that with 100 percent certainty -- but our opinion and our review would not change based on who hired us.
MR. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Gilbert. Those are all my questions, Mr. Vice-Chair, and I would ask that Mr. Gilbert be qualified as referenced earlier.
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Furey. Dr. Richard, au point de vue de votre objection relativement à son impartialité est-ce que vous avez des questions relativement à ce témoin qui met en doute son impartialité envers la Commission?
DR. RICHARD: Les revenues de sa compagnie vienne d’où?
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Are you able to answer that, Mr. Gilbert?
A. I can -- I can’t give you all the exact specifics, but yes, we are retained by energy companies, utilities, regulatory boards and other commercial entities to do consulting of various types in the field of energy and health care and financial services, and I could attempt to go into more detail but these are from memory. That’s -- is that sufficient or not? I can try and go into more detail.
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Est-ce que ça répond à votre question Docteur Richard?
DR. RICHARD: Oui, je n’ai pas de problème, monsieur président.
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Vous n’avez pas de problème que la Commission le déclare comme témoin expert?
DR. RICHARD: Oui, c’est correct avec moi.
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Okay. Merci. So the Board has considered the questions and will declare Mr. Gilbert -- or will qualify Mr. Gilbert as an expert in benefit cost analysis for grid modernization and specifically for  AMI. Mr. Furey.
MR. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair.
Q. - So, Mr. Gilbert, you have submitted two reports that have been filed in evidence in this matter. Could we bring up NBP 2.01. So this is a report dated August 1st  2019, and this report is a report on your initial review and assessment of the business case, is that correct?
A. Yes, that’s correct.
Q. - And did you prepare this report?
A. Yes. I prepared it. I had assistance from analysts at our firm. So together we prepared it but I reviewed it entirely.
Q. - So this is your evidence?
A. Yes.
Q. - And do you adopt it as your personal evidence?
A. Yes.
Q. - And to the best of your knowledge, information and belief, is that evidence true and accurate?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. - And in addition -- and if we could pull up NBP 13.01. In addition you filed some rebuttal evidence in this  matter?
A. Yes.
Q. - And I will ask you the same questions. This is your evidence?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. - And you adopt it as your own personal evidence?
A. Yes.
Q. - And to the best of your knowledge, information and belief, that is true and accurate?
A. That’s correct.
Q. - And starting with the first report, your initial review report, I wonder if you could very briefly for the Board summarize your conclusions?
A. Yes. We reviewed the business case -- NB Power’s business case with a focus on benefit cost analysis. We performed an assessment of the structure of the business case, so the integrity of the business case, the financial parameters and so on. We performed an assessment of the benefits, the motivation for the benefits, the rationale, the scope, the calculation methodologies, input assumptions and accrual timeframes and so on. We performed an assessment of the costs, so the scope, the magnitude, the calculation approach,  accrual timeframe and other various factors. We did a comparison with other business cases that we provided  and we performed a sensitivity analysis for some of the benefits, the costs, the financial parameters.
And we concluded that the business -- the BCA methodology in the business case is technically sound and consistent with approaches used in -- broadly in the industry and AMI business cases that have been applied in other jurisdictions. We found that on the balance and in many of the -- especially in the benefits categories -- conservative assumptions were used which we think is appropriate. And I guess that’s -- that’s enough summary, I think.
Q. - Okay. And with respect to the second report, the rebuttal evidence at exhibit NBP 13.01, can you just again give the very briefest of summaries of what that evidence states?
A. Yes. This is our response to some of the analysis done during the proceeding on the meter  accuracy benefit, and the various elements of that benefit and why we believe it is a valid benefit as a
part of the benefit cost analysis.
MR. FUREY: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Gilbert. I have no  further questions, Mr. Vice-Chair. Mr. Gilbert is available for cross-examination.
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Furey. Mr. Stewart, do you  have any questions for this witness?
MR. STEWART: No, Mr. Vice-Chair.
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Dr. Richard, est-ce que vous avez des questions pour ce témoin?
DR. RICHARD: Je pensais que je passerais demain matin?
VICE-CHAIRMAN: That’s right. Mr. Furey, I understand that Dr. Richard wants Dr. Tatoutchoup to be here when he questions and that we would go out of order with the questioning. Is that my -- is that a fair understanding?
MR. FUREY: Yes. I believe all parties have agreed to that.
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Stoll?
MR. STOLL: I have a few questions, sir.
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Maybe you could just move forward. Thank you.


http://davidamos.blogspot.com/2006/10/for-record.html


David Amos wrote:

Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 07:29:13 -0800 (PST)
From: David Amos
Subject: Good talking to you You should find this email interesting Mr Wells
To: dwells@hwlblaw.com

David Amos wrote:

Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 06:20:38 -0800 (PST)
From: David Amos
Subject: I just tried to call you people to ask some very serious questions and I was dismissed? Rest assured I will call back
To: RFischer@navigantconsulting.com, KKruska@navigantconsulting.com


David Amos wrote:

Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 06:12:26 -0800 (PST)
From: David Amos
Subject: I waited nearly two weeks for your lawyer to call me Paulette now I will email and post this as i promised
To: Paulette.Delaney-Smith@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, Louis.Lefebvre@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
oldmaison@yahoo.com, lou.lafleur@fredericton.ca
CC: NWilliams@perkinscoie.com, info@dennis4president.com,
info@mittromney.com, Barry.MacKnight@fredericton.ca,
Danny.Copp@fredericton.ca, ninkster@navigantconsulting.com

I understood your hints about KPMG and the ex RCMP dudes It was kinda a nobrainer to me after you selected that one email to respond too after all that I had sent but why should I help you people with your pensions while you people work hard to falsely imprison me once again?

This contains a true verison of he email I sent you over a month ago about the crooked KPMG crowd

You complain of the RCMP treatment of you and your family yet you take a new job trying to recruit new people for the RCMP to abuse. what gives with that? I thought you were more honest and professional than that. What do you tell the kids about your concerns with the the lack of integrity of the RCMP as you suggest that they join the force?

Norman Inkster
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Inkster

Norman David Inkster, OC, BA (hons.), Commander of the C.St.J., LL.D. (born August 19, 1938) served as 18th Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, from September 1, 1987 to June 24, 1994. From 1992 until 1994 he also served as President of Interpol. Born in Winnipeg, Manitoba, he was educated at the University of New Brunswick, where he studied sociology and psychology; during his studies he was continuously employed in the Human Resources department of the RCMP.

From 1994 to 2003 he was a partner with KPMG in Toronto, the latter part of which he was global managing partner of the forensic practice. In 1995 he was made an Officer of the Order of Canada. In 2003 he retired from KPMG and started Inkster Group. He was the President of the Inkster Group, which provides various security and policing services to a list of international clients, including the Province of Ontario. In 2006 Inkster Group was acquired by Navigant Consulting where Inkster is now a managing director.

David Amos myson333@yahoo.com wrote:

Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 10:57:48 -0800 (PST)
From: David Amos
Subject: What kind of Bullshit Response is that Paulette
To: Paulette Delaney-Smith Paulette.Delaney-Smith@rcmp-grc.gc.ca

We also talked at least twice recently because your fellow cops directed me to you instead of the dudes I wanted to speak to. You told me that you gave my material to Kevin Jackson and commented that you had not received any emails from me lately ( you never respnded to the ones I sent in the past anyway) and I told you that they had been blocked by your pals and I suggested that you talk to your incompetent lawyer Gilmour. Remember lady? Anyway I was so pissed off by your pals stalking me and putting the proof of their malice in Youtube that i sent you some emails from my son's email address (your cop pals killed my other email accounts) just to see if they would get through. Surprise surprise some did and some did not. However Iknew that you got yours Methinks there is some defections in your ranks. Perhaps you and your fellow whisleblowers who cry alot in the Media should pick up the phone and make a deal with a honest whistleblower and then tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth for the benefit of all Canadians EH? Everybody and his dog knows that the RCMP are as crooked as hell and they only care about the RCMP and their pensions not the interests of the people they were hired to serve and protect.

Vertias Vincit
David Raymond Amos

P.S. I will keep this email in confidence for one day then email it to politicians and the media and then post it on the web. Quit playing games and call me will ya? they may be a very importenat election in the near future and our affairs may become of interest to some smiling bastards loooking to get relected. Obviously nobody can deny that you and I did not cross paths before the 39th Parliament sat on April 4th, 2006 and you refused to act within the scope of your employment for some strange reason and shortly thereafter your former lawyer Richard Bell whom I had crossed paths with in 2004 became the first judge Stevey boy Harper appointed Surprise Surprise N'est Pas? 506 434 1379 Please use it tomorrow before I file my first complaints in Federal Court.

Paulette Delaney-Smith Paulette.Delaney-Smith@rcmp-grc.gc.ca wrote:
David,

I received your voice mail, I have been transferred to another unit and I am unaware of who is dealing with your complaints at this time.

Paulette Delaney-Smith, Cpl.
RCMPolice "J" DIvision HQ

David Amos 01/03/08 12:49 AM


Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 20:49:27 -0800 (PST)
From: David Amos
Subject: Fwd: Response to your emails
To: oldmaison@yahoo.com, lou.lafleur@fredericton.ca,
Paulette.Delaney-Smith@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, Louis.Lefebvre@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
CC: NWilliams@perkinscoie.com, info@dennis4president.com,
info@mittromney.com, Barry.MacKnight@fredericton.ca,
Danny.Copp@fredericton.ca

Whereas you RCMP people refused to act within the scope of your employment and investigate major crimes Tis time for me to sue many bankers too N'est Pas Ms. Paulette Delaney-Smith and your old buddy Louie Lefebvre?


US-KPMG FW Ombudsman Office us-ogcombudsman848@kpmg.com wrote:

Subject: Response to your emails
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 10:16:12 -0500
From: "US-KPMG FW Ombudsman Office"
To: ,

Dear Mr. Amos,

Thank you for contacting us. We have reviewed the information that you provided in your emails, and are not able to determine what specific issues you are raising that we should consider investigating. Thus, in order to conduct an investigation, we need to gather more specific information. Would you be willing to have a confidential conversation with me, the Ombudsman here at KPMG LLP (US) or would you be willing to provide me with a summary of your allegations as they relate to KPMG LLP or its clients and any evidence to support those allegations? Thank you for your continued assistance with this matter.

Thanks,

Michael Plansky
Ombudsman


The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. When addressed to our clients any opinions or advice contained in this email are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing KPMG client engagement letter.


Just Dave
By Location Visit Detail
Visit 3,428
Domain Name gc.ca ? (Canada)
IP Address 198.103.108.# (Solicitor General Canada)
ISP GTIS
Location Continent : North America
Country : Canada (Facts)
State/Region : Ontario
City : Ottawa
Lat/Long : 45.4167, -75.7 (Map)
Language English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System Microsoft WinXP
Browser Firefox
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.11) Gecko/20071127 Firefox/2.0.0.11
Javascript version 1.5
Monitor Resolution : 1152 x 864
Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit Feb 4 2008 2:34:42 pm
Last Page View Feb 4 2008 2:34:42 pm
Visit Length 0 seconds
Page Views 1
Referring URL
Visit Entry Page http://davidamos.blogspot.com/
Visit Exit Page http://davidamos.blogspot.com/
Out Click
Time Zone UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time Feb 4 2008 1:34:42 pm
Visit Number 3,428

Just Dave
By Location Visit Detail
Visit 3,427
Domain Name gc.ca ? (Canada)
IP Address 198.103.108.# (Solicitor General Canada)
ISP GTIS
Location Continent : North America
Country : Canada (Facts)
State/Region : Ontario
City : Ottawa
Lat/Long : 45.4167, -75.7 (Map)
Language English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System Microsoft WinXP
Browser Firefox
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.11) Gecko/20071127 Firefox/2.0.0.11
Javascript version 1.5
Monitor Resolution : 1152 x 864
Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit Feb 4 2008 12:23:34 pm
Last Page View Feb 4 2008 12:42:51 pm
Visit Length 19 minutes 17 seconds
Page Views 6
Referring URL
Visit Entry Page http://davidamos.blogspot.com/
Visit Exit Page http://davidamos.blogspot.com/
Out Click View my complete profile
http://www.blogger.c...15428735081915360609
Time Zone UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time Feb 4 2008 11:23:34 am
Visit Number 3,427







https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1019737/000095013103001359/dex231.htm

EX-23.1 5 dex231.htm CONSENT OF KPMG LLP

Exhibit 23.1

Consent of KPMG LLP

The Board of Directors
Navigant Consulting, Inc.

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-53506, 333-81680, 333-30267 and 333-103405) on Form S-8 of Navigant Consulting, Inc. of our report dated February 7, 2003 relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Navigant Consulting, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002 and 2001 and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2002, which report appears in the December 31, 2002 annual report on Form 10-K of Navigant Consulting, Inc.

Our report refers to a change in accounting for goodwill in the year ended December 31, 2002.

/s/    KPMG LLP

Chicago, Illinois
March 13, 2003







https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/former-rcmp-head-finds-a-new-beat/article1017209/



https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20031003005299/en/dot-Entertainment-Group-Announces-Plans-SEC-De-Registration

dot com Entertainment Group, Inc. Announces Plans for SEC De-Registration

TORONTO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 3, 2003--

dot com Entertainment Group, Inc. ("DCEG" or the "Company"), a leading supplier of software and services to the e-gaming industry, announced today that it intends to de-register its common stock pursuant to a Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") rule that allows companies with a limited number of shareholders to de-register, thereby avoiding costly SEC filing requirements. As a result of the de-registration the Company's shares will no longer be quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board. The Company's shares will continue to be quoted on the Pink Sheet Electronic Quotation Service under the present DCEG symbol. Market activity may be accessed at the PinkSheets.com website.

"This step is being taken to control costs and to permit the Company to concentrate its efforts and resources on serving its customer base and increasing sales, thereby enhancing profitability and growth," said Scott White, President and Chief Operating Officer. "Management believes this is the best way to build value for the long term".

The cost savings resulting from de-registration, including the reduction of legal, audit, registration, governance and related public-company fees, is part of the Company's overall corporate cost reduction plan to reduce its break-even point, conserve cash and adjust expenses. The Company believes that any benefits of continued SEC compliance are outweighed by the significant costs associated therewith.

The Company plans to file a Form 15. The Form 15 filing immediately suspends the Company's obligation to file periodic reports with the SEC, including Forms 10-KSB and 10-QSB. The de-registration is expected to be effective ninety (90) days after the filing of the Form 15. DCEG has also postponed its application for a listing on the TSX Venture Exchange in Canada. Shareholders may access information about the Company on the Company's website at www.dceg.com.

At a Board of Directors meeting held on October 1, 2003, the resignations of the following Board members were accepted: Mr. Robert Olsen (Chairman), Mr. David Outhwaite (Chief Executive Officer), Mr. Michael Lipton (Director), Mr. Norman Inkster (Director) and Mr. John Reilly (Director). The Company would very much like to thank all of these directors for their contributions.

The Board now consists of Mr. Perry Malone (Founder and Chief Technology Officer), Mr. Ted Colivas (Founder and Director of Strategic Business Planning), Mr. Scott White (Founder and President) and Mr. Tony De Werth (Chairman and Director). Mr. David Callander (Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary) and Mr. Andrew Branscombe (Director of Sales) remain incumbent in their positions.

About DCEG

DCEG is a leading software development company specializing in the creation and support of Internet gaming products and related services, which neither operates nor participates in its customers' on-line gaming sites. As one of the first companies to develop and license, multi-player, pay-for-play bingo technology on the Internet, DCEG is a leader in the on-line bingo market, and also offers a comprehensive suite of Java and Flash-based casino and lottery products.
There are presently approximately 10.9 million shares outstanding.

Certain statements in this news release, including, but not limited to, statements containing the words "anticipates", "believes", "expects", 'intends", "will", "may" and similar words constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such forward-looking statements are based on the Company's current expectations and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause actual results or performance to differ materially from any future results or performance expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. These risks, uncertainties and other factors include the uncertainty relating to the lawfulness of Internet gaming, dceg's ability to profitably expand its products and services to new markets and customers, continued industry acceptance of, and the risk of technological obsolescence related to, dceg's game systems and the risk associated with the generation by individual customers of a significant percentage of dceg's revenue, including the risk of non-payment of outstanding receivables, among others.

Contacts

dot com Entertainment Group, Inc.
Scott White, 905-337-8524
or
dot com Entertainment Group, Inc.
David Callander, 888-250-3312

https://twitter.com/DavidRayAmos/with_replies




David Raymond Amos‏ @DavidRayAmos
Replying to @DavidRayAmos@Kathryn98967631 and 49 others
Methinks Minister Mikey and all the other dudes he is talking to know NB Power gives an annual report to the Lt Governor every year Anyone can read it N'esy Pas? 



https://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.com/2020/01/more-transparency-needed-at-nb-power-to.html



#nbpoli#cdnpoli




https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/nb-power-political-panel-1.5430129

More transparency needed at NB Power to avoid Joi Scientific repeat, says political panel

Energy minister says balance needs to be struck between transparency and operational effectiveness

CBC News· Posted: Jan 16, 2020 7:35 PM AT




NB Power CEO Gaëtan Thomas posed with Joi Scientific executives Robert Koeneman and Traver Kennedy on a beach in Cape Canaveral, Florida. The utility has a multi-million-dollar licensing agreement with Joi Scientific. (Joi Scientific)

Listen to the full CBC New Brunswick Political Panel podcast by downloading from the CBC Podcast page or subscribing to the podcast in iTunes.

---

Improving transparency at NB Power was one of the highlights of this week's political panel, which included a wide ranging discussion on the crown corporation.

This comes after some controversial moves by the public utility, including the decision to invest in Joi Scientific.

The corporation poured $6.5 million into the Florida-based company, which claimed it had the technology to generate hydrogen gas from seawater to generate electricity on demand.

But it turned out the company hadn't perfected the technology on a large scale, putting the viability of the project in doubt.
NB Power does have to report some of the projects it funds to the Energy and Utilities board, but only if it exceeds a $50 million threshold.

Green Party leader David Coon said he doesn't think NB Power has enough oversight to avoid another Joi Scientific fiasco.

"What we've got to do is improve and strengthen the Electricity Act that guides NB Power and improve and strengthen the Energy Utility Support Act that guides the EUB," said Coon

Energy Minister Mike Holland said the $50 million threshold needs to be addressed to make the public utility more accountable, but warns that lowering it too far could have negative consequences.

Natural Resources and Energy Minister Mike Holland says he'd would like to see more oversight of NB Power, which has come under criticism for investing millions in an unproven technology. On the Political Panel this week, Holland, Liberal MLA Benoît Bourque, Green Party Leader and MLA David Coon and People's Alliance MLA Rick DeSaulniers debate a variety of issues related to NB Power. 35:19


"If we put them down to saying that they couldn't spend any more than $2 million without EUB approval, that would be a set of handcuffs that would make it very difficult," said Holland.

But Holland said he'd like borrow a private sector tactic to make NB Power more transparent, holding annual general meetings.

"So I'm trying to look at it, almost from like a private sector component, where the utility is accountable to the shareholder, with some form of a presentation similar to that."

Liberal MLA Benoit Bourque said there needs to be a higher degree of accountability and transparency, but even that won't completely erase the possibility of another Joi Scientific-style controversy.

"There's always an element of risk ...  there is never a 100 per cent guarantee when it comes to these things," said Bourque.







36 Comments





David Raymond Amos
Methinks there was somevery interesting things missing from this news item about NB Power N'esy Pas?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/nb-power-catch-22-1.5428720







David Raymond Amos 
Methinks folks who truly care should go to the EUB hearings and witness the circus for themselves I have never seen any of these big talkers attend any since I began intervening i 2017 Perhaps somebody should ask them how they have come to know so much N'esy Pas? 














David Raymond Amos
"Energy Minister Mike Holland said the $50 million threshold needs to be addressed to make the public utility more accountable, but warns that lowering it too far could have negative consequences."

Yea Right and who is gonna hold the EUB and KPMG accountable? 


Ben Haroldson
Reply to @David Raymond Amos: The least you think he could do was get them a new picture. Same old lampshade boys.


David Raymond Amos   

















Joe Rootliek
Does NB Power have the mandate to put millions in to energy projects that may or may not pan out?

Or do they just have the mandate to deliver electricity, make profit perhaps ( or break even to keep power bills low as in the 80s), and maintain their system.

What direction does the government want it to be in? I thought they were exposed to deliver power, keep bills as low as possible, not to reinvent the wheel. The latter is for private organizations.


David Raymond Amos 

https://twitter.com/DavidRayAmos/with_replies




David Raymond Amos‏ @DavidRayAmos
Replying to @DavidRayAmos@Kathryn98967631 and 49 others


---------- Original message ----------
From: "MinFinance / FinanceMin (FIN)"<fin.minfinance-financemin.fin@canada.ca>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2020 03:21:38 +0000
Subject: RE: Methinks the lawyers Pantea Jafari, Michael Greene and
Len Saunders should verify these documents then call me back N'esy Pas
Rob Moorre?
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>

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

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




---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 23:14:28 -0400
Subject: Methinks the lawyers Pantea Jafari, Michael Greene and Len Saunders
should verify these documents then call me back N'esy Pas Rob Moorre?
To: info@jafarilaw.ca, mgreene@sgimm.ca, media@blaineimmigration.com,Sophia.Harris@cbc.ca, Bill.Blair@parl.gc.ca, Bill.Morneau@canada.ca,  Mark.Blakely@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, martin.gaudet@fredericton.ca, mark.vespucci@ci.irs.gov, jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca, mcu@justice.gc.ca, carl.urquhart@gnb.ca, pm@pm.gc.ca, Gerald.Butts@pmo-cpm.gc.ca,

'I'm appalled': Lawyers alarmed as Ottawa gives more powers to U.S. border officers at Canadian airports

Federal government said new rules enhance border security and make U.S. travel easier

Concerns are mounting over added powers Ottawa has granted U.S. customs officers to strip-search, question and detain U.S.-bound travellers — on Canadian soil.
The changes are part of Canada's new preclearance act, which the federal government says will enhance border security and make travel to the U.S. easier.

But Pantea Jafari, an Iranian-Canadian immigration lawyer, fears it could make travel more difficult for her.

That's because the act gives U.S. customs officers in Canada broader interrogation powers — at a time when the U.S. has toughened its stance on immigration and has increasingly hostile relations with Iran."I will not allow a border officer to have access to me and have unfettered right to question me to no end," said Jafari, who's based in Toronto and serves many Iranian clients. 

Since the preclearance act took effect in August, she has stopped travelling to the U.S. and says the country's current standoff with Iran has only strengthened her resolve.

"My concerns of going to the U.S. have now 100 times increased."


Toronto immigration lawyer Pantea Jafari had laid out her concerns about the new preclearance act at a Senate committee hearing in 2017. (Senate of Canada)

Preclearance act explained

Canada's new preclearance act overrides a previous agreement with the United States that allowed travellers to clear U.S. customs in preclearance zones at Canadian airports, before flying across the border. Eight major Canadian airports already have preclearance areas — and the new act paves the way for more zones involving all modes of transport.

Proponents say preclearance offers many benefits, including allowing Canadians to clear U.S. customs in their own country.

"They land in the U.S. as a domestic passenger, so you don't have to go through long lineups," said Gerry Bruno, co-chair of the Beyond Preclearance Coalition, an industry group supporting efficient Canada-U.S. border travel.


A scene from a preclearance explainer video showing the benefits of clearing U.S. customs, before actually flying into the country. (Toronto Pearson Airport/YouTube)

While they don't dispute the benefits of preclearance, some immigration lawyers claim the new act could jeopardize Canadian rights.

The big concern is that American preclearance officers could now further interrogate Canadians who withdraw their application to enter the U.S., perhaps because they feel uncomfortable during a customs inspection.

Previously, law-abiding travellers could simply leave and return home, because they were still on Canadian soil.

Now they could be detained — even handed over to Canadian authorities to face charges — for refusing to answer questions about why they're withdrawing.

"You say, 'I think you're racially profiling me and I'm offended. I don't want to go to your country, I want to leave,'" said Calgary-based immigration lawyer Michael Greene. "[U.S. officers are] entitled to examine those reasons and if they think you're not being truthful, they're entitled to detain you."

Government defends changes

Jafari said the new rules are especially troubling for racialized populations, such as those of Middle Eastern descent, who could be targeted for questioning.

"We're the ones that are deemed the threat, right; the domestic threat of some sort that they need to data mine."

Public Safety Canada said the withdrawal rules were revamped to prevent bad actors from probing preclearance zones in search of a weak entry point.
"Allowing a traveller to withdraw without any type of examination creates challenges in terms of border security," spokesperson Tim Warmington said in an email.

He added that U.S. preclearance officers questioning travellers who opt to withdraw can't "unreasonably delay" them.

But what constitutes an "unreasonable" delay could be open to interpretation, argues Greene.

"When you look at it from the U.S. perspective of wanting to protect the security of the country, that could result in some very extensive questioning," he said.

Protected by Canadian rights?

Bruno said that law-abiding travellers shouldn't encounter problems at the preclearance zones, and maintains that it beats clearing customs in the U.S., where you "can't withdraw."

"You're there. You're subject to U.S. laws," he said.

U.S. preclearance officers in Canada must follow Canadian laws, including the charter and Human Rights Act. In 2017, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made this point when defending the new act — before it had become law.

"There is extra protection,"he told The Canadian Press.

However, Canada's privacy commissioner has argued that protection appears to be "hollow" due to Canada's State Immunity Act, which grants the U.S. government immunity in most cases.

"A Canadian who believes a U.S. customs official has broken Canadian law has little recourse in the courts,"states the Office of the Privacy Commissioner's website.

Right to strip-search?

Immigration lawyers are also concerned that under the new act, U.S. preclearance officers can now strip-search Canadian travellers.

Public Safety spokesperson Warmington said that U.S. officers must have reasonable grounds to do the search and that it will only happen in rare circumstances "where Canadian [border] officers are unable to respond or decline."
 

Immigration lawyer Len Saunders said he's been swamped with calls from Canadians distraught and confused over receiving a five-year ban at a Canada-U.S. land crossing. He's now worried about what might happen in airport preclearance zones.

Immigration lawyer Len Saunders said his concerns with the act are compounded by the fact that some customs officers appear to be getting tougher at U.S. land crossings along the country's northern border.

In 2019, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol doled out almost double the number of five-year bans to travellers crossing from Canada, compared to 2018.
"When the Americans are treating Canadians like this on American soil, why would you allow them so much autonomy on Canadian soil?" said Saunders, whose office sits close to the Canadian border in Blaine, Wash.

"I'm appalled by what the Canadian government has agreed to."

Travellers who feel mistreated can submit feedback to a "preclearance consultative group" set up to provide oversight, said Warmington.

He also pointed out that Canadian customs officers will have equal powers in U.S. preclearance zones.

Canada currently has no preclearance zones in the U.S., but Warmington said the government is "exploring the potential."

 





3728 Comments






Chuck Bremner
I'm not appalled or alarmed. Although if it cuts into the revenue stream
of lawyers, that could be a problem.


David Raymond Amos 
Content disabled  


William Kennedy
The disgustingly milquetoast Canadian politicians green lighting even more USA bullying and intrusion in Canada should be repudiated and fired this day.
















John Sollows
I'm with Jafari. What does giving American border officers the right to detain us on Canadian soil do for Canada?

Do our folks have the same rights in the U.S.?


Show 15 older replies


Glen Spryszak
Reply to @Art Rowe:
It's about drumming up business by an unknown lawyer. Free advertising .... 


Don Cheer 
















Bradley J Smith Jr
I thought it was suppose to be the Conservatives not Liberals that were American lap dogs. Too funny. 


 

Reply to @Don Cheer: Look in the link for the newspaper clipping about lapdogs

https://www.scribd.com/doc/2718120/integrity-yea-right

POLITICAL DOGMA

Harper's a lapdog for Bush, Martin's a German shepherd,
says former N.B. premier

Canadian Press

To hear former New Brunswick premier Frank McKenna tell it, political debate is going to the dogs.

In Regina, Sask., to help Finance Minister Ralph Goodale win re-election, Mr. McKenna suggested at a rally that opposition leaders offered up a dog's breakfast to voters during the televised leaders debates.

Mr. McKenna described NDP Leader Jack Layton as "an annoying yappy little terrier," Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe as a "French poodle," and Conservative Leader Stephen Harper as "a lapdog for George Bush."

Showing his true dogma, Mr. McKenna had nothing but praise Tuesday for his pet choice. The prime minister, Mr. McKenna said, was "a noble German shepherd standing up for the interests of Canada."

"What does Jack Layton have to lose? He can yap away. No one expects him to win Very much .. . No one attacks aim because he's irrelevant."















---------- Original message ----------
From: Ministerial Correspondence Unit - Justice Canada <mcu@justice.gc.ca>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 03:06:39 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Nearly one year ago you all know that the
liberals invited me to celebrate Alaina Lockhart's nomination with
Justin Trudeau Clearly Jody.Wilson-Raybould knew why I declined the
invite N'esy Pas?
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

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

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

We do not respond to correspondence that contains offensive language.

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

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

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

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



---------- Original message ----------
From: "Jensen, Jan"<jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 03:06:39 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Nearly one year ago you all know that the
liberals invited me to celebrate Alaina Lockhart's nomination with
Justin Trudeau Clearly Jody.Wilson-Raybould knew why I declined the
invite N'esy Pas?
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

I will be out of office until Monday January 17, 2020.  If you require
immediate assistance, please contact my assistant at (902) 407 7461 or
at Lorri.Warner@justice.gc.ca



---------- Original message ----------
From: Newsroom <newsroom@globeandmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 03:07:01 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Nearly one year ago you all know that the
liberals invited me to celebrate Alaina Lockhart's nomination with
Justin Trudeau Clearly Jody.Wilson-Raybould knew why I declined the
invite N'esy Pas?
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<
> or call 613-957-4222.

Thank you

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

Merci d'?crire ? l'honorable Jody Wilson-Raybould, d?put?e de
Vancouver Granville.

Le pr?sent message vise ? vous informer que nous avons re?u votre
courriel. En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de
correspondance, il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de
votre courriel. Sachez que votre message sera examin? attentivement.

Pour nous aider ? r?pondre ? vos pr?occupations plus rapidement,
veuillez inclure dans le corps de votre courriel votre nom complet,
votre adresse et votre code postal.

Veuillez prendre note que votre message sera transmis au minist?re de
la Justice s'il porte sur des sujets qui rel?vent du r?le de la
d?put?e en tant que ministre de la Justice et procureure g?n?rale du
Canada. Pour toute correspondance future adress?e ? la ministre de la
Justice, veuillez ?crire directement au minist?re de la Justice ?
mcu@justice.gc.ca ou appelez au 613-957-4222.

Merci



---------- Original message ----------
From: "Barry, Clare"<Clare.Barry@justice.gc.ca>
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2018 17:37:23 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Facing a divided province, a non-profit
strives for 'social cohesion' in New Brunswick ??? YEA RIGHT
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

Je serai absente du bureau entre le 27 decembre et le 2 janvier.  Dans
mon absence, veuillez contactez Sam Boorman ou Melissa Chan dans le
bureau regional.

I will be away from the office from December 27, 2018 to January 2,
2019. In my absence, kindly contact Sam Boorman or Melissa Chan of the
Atlantic Regional Office.


---------- Original message ----------
From: "Jensen, Jan"<jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca>
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2018 17:37:23 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Facing a divided province, a non-profit
strives for 'social cohesion' in New Brunswick ??? YEA RIGHT
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

I will be away from the office and not returning until Tuesday
December 27th, 2018.   If you require immediate assistance, please
contact my assistant at (902) 407 7461.


---------- Original message ----------
From: Bill.Blair@parl.gc.ca
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2018 17:37:57 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Facing a divided province, a non-profit
strives for 'social cohesion' in New Brunswick ??? YEA RIGHT
To: motomaniac333@gmail.com

Please be advised that the Constituency Office of Bill Blair will be
closed from December 24th to January 1st. The office will re-open on
January 2nd, 2019. During this time I will have limited access to
email.

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays and all the best for 2019.

Sincerely,

Jessica Bozzo



---------- Original message ----------
From: Justice Minister <JUSTMIN@novascotia.ca>
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2018 17:37:27 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Facing a divided province, a non-profit
strives for 'social cohesion' in New Brunswick ??? YEA RIGHT
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

Thank you for your email to the Minister of Justice. Please be assured
that it has been received by the Department. Your email will be
reviewed and addressed accordingly. Thank you.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 22:02:31 -0400
Subject: YO Brenda Lucki You know as well as I that the Civilian
Review and Complaints Commission has not done anything ethical since
we crossed paths in 2003 and obviously never will
To: daniel.gosselin@cas-satj.gc.ca, andrew.baumberg@fct-cf.gc.ca,
Bruce.Preston@cas-satj.gc.ca, Beatriz.Winter@cas-satj.gc.ca,
Gib.vanErt@scc-csc.ca, marc.giroux@fja-cmf.gc.ca,
Lorri.Warner@justice.gc.ca, jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca,
bill.pentney@justice.gc.ca, Nathalie.Drouin@justice.gc.ca,
Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca, mcu@justice.gc.ca,
Clare.Barry@justice.gc.ca, David.Hansen@justice.gc.ca,
Brenda.Lucki@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, liliana.longo@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca, Gerald.Butts@pmo-cpm.gc.ca,
Kevin.leahy@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, pm@pm.gc.ca, andrew.scheer@parl.gc.ca,
maxime.bernier@parl.gc.ca, "Michael.Wernick"
<Michael.Wernick@pco-bcp.gc.ca>, complaints@crcc-ccetp.gc.ca, Newsroom
<Newsroom@globeandmail.com>, "Gilles.Blinn"
<Gilles.Blinn@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Larry.Tremblay"
<Larry.Tremblay@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Dale.Morgan"
<Dale.Morgan@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, washington field
<washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, "Boston.Mail"<Boston.Mail@ic.fbi.gov>
Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>, "David.Raymond.Amos"
<David.Raymond.Amos@gmail.com>

- Hide quoted text -

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Complaints <complaints@crcc-ccetp.gc.ca>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 17:56:32 +0000
Subject: Civilian Review and Complaints Commission 2018-2861 David Amos
To: "david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com"<david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>

David Amos:

Please see the attached letter regarding your complaint against the RCMP.


Intake Office, Operations
Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP / Government of Canada
complaints@crcc-ccetp.gc.ca<mailto:complaints@crcc-ccetp.gc.ca> / Tel:
1-800-665-6878 /  TTY: 1-866-432-5827/
www.crcc-ccetp.gc.ca/en/make-complaint<http://www.crcc-ccetp.gc.ca/en/make-complaint>

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<mailto:plaintes@crcc-ccetp.gc.ca> / Tél :
1-800-665-6878 / ATS : 1-866-432-5827/
www.crcc-ccetp.gc.ca/fr/depot-dune-plainte<http://www.crcc-ccetp.gc.ca/fr/depot-dune-plainte>

[crcc-email-block]


http://davidamos.blogspot.com/2006/05/mariitime-and-yankee-arseholes.html



"Harper, Stephen - M.P."Harper.S@parl.gc.ca wrote:

Subject: RE: Re: Lets all go through the looking glass to check the
Integrity of the Talking Heads in BC tonight
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 15:32:54 -0500
From: "Harper, Stephen - M.P."Harper.S@parl.gc.ca
To: motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com

Thank you for your e-mail message to Stephen Harper, Leader of the
Opposition. Your views and suggestions are important to us. Once they
have been carefully considered, you may receive a further reply.

*Remember to include your mailing address if you would like a response.

If you prefer to send your thoughts by regular mail, please address them to:

Stephen Harper, M.P.
Leader of the Opposition
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6

Mail may be sent postage free to any Member of Parliament.

You can also reach Mr. Harper by fax at: (613) 947-0310
Martin Demands That Harper Must Come Clean on Notwithstanding Clause
by LPC Friday, 16 December 2005
Prime Minister Paul Martin demanded Conservative Leader Stephen Harper
come clean that he intends to use the notwithstanding clause to
overturn the Charter right to same-sex marriage.

Mr. Harper said during tonight’s leader’s debate in Vancouver on the
topic of abolishing same-sex marriage: "I will never use the
notwithstanding clause on that issue."

Prime Minister Martin asked that he be honest with the Canadian people
regarding his intention to override a Charter right.
"We're talking about integrity. That means being honest. Either Mr.
Harper is going to try to change the law of the country that protects
the rights and freedoms of gays and lesbians or he's not going to,"
said Prime Minister Martin.

"If he's going to use the notwithstanding clause, he should say so,
and the people will at least know what his position is."
The Prime Minister said Mr. Harper’s proposal would require the use of
the notwithstanding clause because it is not possible to have a vote
in the house that will overrule the Constitution and the courts
without using the notwithstanding clause.

This is borne out by a January 25 open letter from more than 100 legal
experts from across Canada to Mr. Harper regarding same-sex marriage
legislation.

Mr. Martin called on Mr. Harper to be "honest."

He made clear that the Liberal government does not believe that you
can pick and choose which Charter rights you will protect and he
affirmed that he will respect the Charter as a whole.
The Prime Minister said Mr. Harper’s proposal would require the use of
the notwithstanding clause because it is not possible to have a vote
in the house that will overrule the Constitution and the courts
without using the notwithstanding clause.

This is borne out by a January 25 open letter from more than 100 legal
experts from across Canada to Mr. Harper regarding same-sex marriage
legislation.

Mr. Martin called on Mr. Harper to be "honest."

He made clear that the Liberal government does not believe that you
can pick and choose which Charter rights you will protect and he
affirmed that he will respect the Charter as a whole.



On 12/12/18, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote:

> https://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-latest-public-safety-minister-carl.html
>
> Wednesday, 12 December 2018
>
> The latest Public Safety Minister Carl Urquhart yesterday the RCMP and
> many lawyers know Fat Fred City and the province are about to get sued
> BIGTIME
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: "Gallant, Brian (LEG)"<Brian.Gallant@gnb.ca>
> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 17:48:50 +0000
> Subject: RE: YO Deputy Premier Robert Gauvin Enjoy
> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
> Thank you for writing to the Leader of the Official Opposition of New
> Brunswick. Please be assured that your e-mail will be reviewed.
>
> If this is a media request, please forward your e-mail to
> ashley.beaudin@gnb.camedia-medias@gnb.ca>. Thank you!
>
> ---
>
> Nous vous remercions d’avoir communiqué avec le chef de l’opposition
> officielle du Nouveau-Brunswick.  Soyez assuré(e) que votre courriel
> sera examiné.
>
> Si ceci est une demande médiatique, prière de la transmettre à
> ashley.beaudin@gnb.camedia-medias@gnb.ca>.  Merci!
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: Premier of Ontario | Premier ministre de l’Ontario
> <Premier@ontario.ca>
> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 17:48:28 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: YO Deputy Premier Robert Gauvin Enjoy
> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
> Thank you for your email. Your thoughts, comments and input are greatly
> valued.
>
> You can be assured that all emails and letters are carefully read,
> reviewed and taken into consideration.
>
> There may be occasions when, given the issues you have raised and the
> need to address them effectively, we will forward a copy of your
> correspondence to the appropriate government official. Accordingly, a
> response may take several business days.
>
> Thanks again for your email.
> ______­­
>
> Merci pour votre courriel. Nous vous sommes très reconnaissants de
> nous avoir fait part de vos idées, commentaires et observations.
>
> Nous tenons à vous assurer que nous lisons attentivement et prenons en
> considération tous les courriels et lettres que nous recevons.
>
> Dans certains cas, nous transmettrons votre message au ministère
> responsable afin que les questions soulevées puissent être traitées de
> la manière la plus efficace possible. En conséquence, plusieurs jours
> ouvrables pourraient s’écouler avant que nous puissions vous répondre.
>
> Merci encore pour votre courriel.
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: "Gauvin, Serge (SNB)"<Serge.Gauvin@snb.ca>
> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 17:48:49 +0000
> Subject: Réponse automatique : YO Deputy Premier Robert Gauvin Enjoy
> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> 
> I am out of the office.  Please contact Patrick Windle at
> patrick.windle@snb.caPatrick.windle@snb.ca>
>
> Je suis absent du bureau.  Veuillez contacter Patrick Windle à
> patrick.windle@snb.caPatrick.windle@snb.ca>
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: "Cormier, Donna (JAG/JPG)"<donna.cormier@gnb.ca>
> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 20:15:11 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: Yp John Logan I just called
> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
> I'm away from the office until December 12, 2018. Should your matter
> require immediate attention, please contact Susan Butler at (506)
> 453-6309.
>
> Je suis à l'extérieur du bureau jusqu'au 12 décembre 2018.   Si votre
> matière est urgente, veuillez communiquer avec Susan Butler au (506)
> 453-6309.
>
> Merci / Thank you
> Donna Cormier
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:49:18 -0400
> Subject: Yp John Logan I just called
> To: donna.cormier@gnb.ca, John.Logan@gnb.ca
> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 02:04:52 -0400
> Subject: So Much for the Strong Ethics of the Strong Organization
> commonnly knows as the RCMP/GRC N'esy Pas?
> To: Newsroom <Newsroom@globeandmail.com>, "Jody.Wilson-Raybould"
> <Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca>, "Holland, Mike (LEG)"
> <mike.holland@gnb.ca>, "Mitton, Megan (LEG)"<megan.mitton@gnb.ca>,
> "carl.urquhart"<carl.urquhart@gnb.ca>, "Stephane.vaillancourt"
> <Stephane.vaillancourt@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "steve.murphy"
> <steve.murphy@ctv.ca>, news <news@kingscorecord.com>, "Gilles.Blinn"
> <Gilles.Blinn@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Michelle.Boutin"
> <Michelle.Boutin@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "michelle.conroy"
> <michelle.conroy@gnb.ca>, "michael.comeau"<michael.comeau@gnb.ca>,
> "Norman.Sabourin"<Norman.Sabourin@cjc-ccm.gc.ca>, "andrew.scheer"
> <andrew.scheer@parl.gc.ca>, "maxime.bernier"
> <maxime.bernier@parl.gc.ca>, "Gilles.Moreau"
> <Gilles.Moreau@forces.gc.ca>, "Gilles.Cote"<Gilles.Cote@gnb.ca>,
> "gerry.lowe"<gerry.lowe@gnb.ca>, "Gerald.Butts"
> <Gerald.Butts@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>, "Michael.Wernick"
> <Michael.Wernick@pco-bcp.gc.ca>, "Dale.Morgan"
> <Dale.Morgan@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "dale.drummond"
> <dale.drummond@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, DDrummond <DDrummond@google.com>,
> ddale <ddale@thestar.ca>, sfine <sfine@globeandmail.com>
> Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: ethics-ethique ethics-ethique <ethics-ethique@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>
> Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2018 00:22:30 -0500
> Subject: Re: Re My many calls to the Calgary Police Dept about their
> client Partick Doran and his many cohorts
> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
> This will confirm that we have received your enquiry and it has been
> placed in a priority sequence.
> ***********************************
> La présente confirme que nous avons bien reçu votre requête et qu'elle
> a été placée en ordre de priorité de réception.
>
> Thank you/Merci
>
> Professional Ethics Office / Bureau de l'éthique professionelle
> Royal Canadian Mounted Police / Gendarmerie royale du Canada
> 73 Leikin Dr., M5-3-101
> RCMP Mailstop #58/
> GRC Arrêt Postal #58
> Ottawa, Ontario
> K1A 0R2
>
> 1-866-206-0195 (off/bur)
>
> ethics-ethique@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>
> "Strong Ethics, Strong Organization"
> « Une éthique solide pour une organisation solide »
>
> This document is the property of the Government of Canada. It is
> loaned, in confidence, to your agency only and is not to be
> reclassified or further disseminated without the consent of the
> originator."
>
> « Ce document appartient au gouvernement du Canada. Il n'est transmis
> en confidence qu'à votre organisme et il ne doit pas être reclassifié
> ou transmis à d'autres sans le consentement de l'expéditeur. »
>
>
>
>
>
>> ---------- 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: Justice Website <JUSTWEB@novascotia.ca>
> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:21:11 +0000
> Subject: Emails to Department of Justice and Province of Nova Scotia
> To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com"<motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
> Mr. Amos,
> We acknowledge receipt of your recent emails to the Deputy Minister of
> Justice and lawyers within the Legal Services Division of the
> Department of Justice respecting a possible claim against the Province
> of Nova Scotia.  Service of any documents respecting a legal claim
> against the Province of Nova Scotia may be served on the Attorney
> General at 1690 Hollis Street, Halifax, NS.  Please note that we will
> not be responding to further emails on this matter.
>
> Department of Justice
>
> On 8/3/17, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If want something very serious to download and laugh at as well Please
>> Enjoy and share real wiretap tapes of the mob
>>
>> http://thedavidamosrant.blogspot.ca/2013/10/re-glen-greenwald-and-braz
>> ilian.html
>>
>>> http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/06/09/nsa-leak-guardian.html
>>>
>>> As the CBC etc yap about Yankee wiretaps and whistleblowers I must
>>> ask them the obvious question AIN'T THEY FORGETTING SOMETHING????
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vugUalUO8YY
>>>
>>> What the hell does the media think my Yankee lawyer served upon the
>>> USDOJ right after I ran for and seat in the 39th Parliament baseball
>>> cards?
>>>
>>> http://archive.org/details/ITriedToExplainItToAllMaritimersInEarly200
>>> 6
>>>
>>> http://davidamos.blogspot.ca/2006/05/wiretap-tapes-impeach-bush.html
>>>
>>> http://www.archive.org/details/PoliceSurveilanceWiretapTape139
>>>
>>> http://archive.org/details/Part1WiretapTape143
>>>
>>> FEDERAL EXPRES February 7, 2006
>>> Senator Arlen Specter
>>> United States Senate
>>> Committee on the Judiciary
>>> 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
>>> Washington, DC 20510
>>>
>>> Dear Mr. Specter:
>>>
>>> I have been asked to forward the enclosed tapes to you from a man
>>> named, David Amos, a Canadian citizen, in connection with the matters
>>> raised in the attached letter.
>>>
>>> Mr. Amos has represented to me that these are illegal FBI wire tap
>>> tapes.
>>>
>>> I believe Mr. Amos has been in contact with you about this previously.
>>>
>>> Very truly yours,
>>> Barry A. Bachrach
>>> Direct telephone: (508) 926-3403
>>> Direct facsimile: (508) 929-3003
>>> Email: bbachrach@bowditch.com
>>>
>>
>
> 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
>
>>>
>>
>> ---------- 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 : 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
>>>
>>
>> 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
>>     St...

[Message clipped]  View entire message