David Raymond Amos@DavidRayAmos Replying to @DavidRayAmos @alllibertynews and 49 others Content disabled Methinks lots of politicians can still recall all the tricks the FBI and their RCMP buddies pulled in order to secure the illegal extraditions of the First Nations activists Leonard Peltier and John Graham Too bad that Madame Meng's lawyers can't N'esy Pas?
Methinks Trudeau et al know why I called David Hartman and left him a wicked voicemail then began calling all his cohorts beginning with his new boss Minister Champagne N'esy Pas?
A heartfelt congratulations to @BobRae48 on your appointment! We’re all looking forward to working with you in your new role! @CanadaFP@FP_Champagne@CanadianPM@CanadaUN twitter.com/canadianpm/sta…
Proud of you and your Global Affairs Cabada team's commitment to helping Canadians get home. Your Ottawa colleagues thank and applaud you all. Stay safe and healthy. twitter.com/KirstenHillman…
Global Affairs official says giving Meng Wanzhou CSIS documents could hurt Canada
David Hartman swore federal court affidavit in AG's fight for redactions to extradition documents
Jason Proctor· CBC News· Posted: Jul 13, 2020 1:00 AM PT
Meng Wanzhou is seen prior to an appearance in B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver. The Huawei executive is fighting for disclosure of CSIS documents in her bid to avoid extradition to the United States on charges of fraud. (Ben Nelms/CBC)
The director general for Global Affairs Canada in South Asia says disclosing sensitive information from CSIS to Meng Wanzhou as part of her battle against extradition could risk Canadian lives, further damage Chinese-Canadian relations and even compromise the fight against COVID-19.
David Hartman warned against giving the Huawei executive's lawyers unredacted copies of documents from Canada's spy agency in an affidavit sworn as part of a proceeding that will be heard in federal court later this month.
The affidavit was filed in late June in support of the attorney general, who is fighting to keep from public view communication about Meng's arrest between CSIS and the FBI.
"Generally speaking, such disclosure would inflame tensions between the governments of Canada and China, and would, necessarily, provoke a response harmful to bilateral relations and Canadian interests," Hartman's affidavit says.
"Given the consular considerations, disclosure could also risk causing harm to individual Canadian lives."
Hartman served as Global Affairs' executive director for greater China until August 2017. He and CSIS intelligence officer Michel Guay both filed affidavits in the federal court case, which will be heard during four days of hearings at the end of the month.
The first day of proceedings will be held in public on July 27; the remaining three days will be behind closed doors.
The fight centres on six heavily redacted CSIS documents the attorney general disclosed to Meng's lawyers after an order from the B.C. Supreme Court judge overseeing her extradition case.
The U.S. wants the Huawei chief financial officer sent to New York to face fraud charges in relation to an allegation that she lied to an HSBC executive in August 2013 about her company's control of a firm accused of violating U.S. economic sanctions against Iran.
Prosecutors claim Meng's alleged lies put the bank in danger of violating the same sanctions themselves, risking prosecution and loss as a result.
Meng's lawyers plan to argue that the FBI and Canadian authorities mounted a "covert criminal investigation" against their client, sharing technical information about her electronic devices and conspiring to have Canadian border officers detain and question her without a lawyer for three hours before RCMP placed her under arrest.
CSIS released these heavily redacted documents to lawyers for Meng as part of extradition proceedings. The Huawei executive's legal team is fighting in federal court to have the redactions lifted. (Jason Proctor/CBC)
'Perception of influence'
The CSIS documents include an email, operational notes, a report and three so-called "situation reports" written before and after Meng's arrest at Vancouver's airport on Dec. 1, 2018.
The situation reports state that CSIS received word from the FBI the day before Meng's arrest and that the U.S. agency would "not be present in an effort to avoid the perception of influence."
The reports say the RCMP recognized the "highly political nature of the arrest" and predicted from the outset that Meng's detention would "be of great consequence internationally and bilaterally."
Large portions of all the documents have been redacted.
In their affidavits, both Hartman and Guay stress that they have not viewed the unredacted portions of the documents themselves, so that they won't be at risk of inadvertently disclosing sensitive information during the public proceeding.
Michael Spavor, left, and Michael Kovrig are in Chinese custody, both having been charged with spying. (The Associated Press/International Crisis Group/The Canadian Press)
Hartman describes the damage Meng's extradition case has already caused Canadian-Chinese relations, including the suspension of canola seed imports and the arbitrary detentions of former diplomat Michael Kovrig and entrepreneur Michael Spavor.
Kovrig and Spavor have been held in Chinese prisons since the days immediately following Meng's arrest. Last month, the Chinese formally charged them with spying. Canada hasn't had consular access to either man since January.
Souring public opinions
Hartman says the COVID-19 pandemic has only "underlined the necessity" for Canada to engage in bilateral relations with China.
"China has been an important supplier of personal protective equipment and pharmaceutical products in global supply chains and accounted for a significant portion of medical supplies procured by the Government of Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic," Hartman wrote.
He says "Canadian media coverage and public opinion on China has grown increasingly negative, reflecting public opinion trends globally."
The affidavit traces the change in sentiment to the introduction of a new national security law in Hong Kong, "reports of Chinese intimidation and harassment of human rights defenders in China as well as in Canada" and a "Chinese disinformation campaign around the origins of COVID-19."
A still from a video of Meng filed as part of a defence application for access to documents. The video was taken during her first few hours in custody. (Court proceedings)
As a result, Hartman says "it is in Canada's interest to ensure that the management of our necessary but complex engagement with China is not negatively affected even further by the public disclosure of sensitive information."
Guay's concerns about the redacted material are related solely to the impact it might have on national security. He writes about the importance of maintaining confidential sources and of the need CSIS has to share information on the understanding it will be kept confidential.
"If foreign agencies were to lose faith in the commitment of the service to protect confidential third party information, there would be significant impact on the willingness of those agencies to provide information to the service in the future," he says.
'An ongoing role in her arrest'
In federal court documents, Meng's lawyers say the unredacted portions of the CSIS documents make it plain that "not only was CSIS involved in communicating with the FBI and others regarding the planning of Ms. Meng's arrest prior to December 1, 2018, but that CSIS had an ongoing role in the arrest."
As such, they are also seeking emails, texts, telephone logs and briefing notes from CSIS as well as the identity of the authors of the reports.
Meng's lawyers hope to use that information in upcoming B.C. Supreme Court hearings to argue that she was the victim of abuses of process and breaches of charter rights so egregious that the extradition proceedings should be tossed.
The 48-year-old's case is predicted to extend well into 2021. Meng has denied all the allegations against her.
She has been living under a form of house arrest — trailed by security guards and ordered to wear a GPS-monitoring ankle bracelet — in one of two multimillion dollar homes she owns on Vancouver's west side, since her release on $10 million bail the week after her arrest.
Jason Proctor is a reporter in British Columbia for CBC News and has covered the B.C. courts and mental health issues in the justice system extensively.
Benjamin Twine Is to much to ask that the RCMP do something right ?
Monique Brookes
Reply to @Benjamin Twine: Too late now we have to follow what the court says and does. Fair is fair... Let's ask China the definition of justice, freedom and I like this one... Spying.
David Amos
Reply to @Benjamin Twine: "Maintain the Right" is just an expression
Dave Jones Well she won't get a fair trial in USA ....yet china is choking itself with its arm lock on our neck....trying to gets us to bow down to them...... Both of them are sabatoging themselves......
Reply to @Dave Jones: Right. She would get a way fairer trial in the USA than the two Micheals will get in China.
David Amos
Content disabled
Reply to @Dave Jones: Methinks lots of politicians and ordinary folks as well can still recall all the tricks the FBI and their RCMP buddies pulled in order to secure the illegal extraditions of the First Nations activists Leonard Peltier and John Graham Too bad that Madame Meng's lawyers can't N'esy Pas?
Jamie Ireland Drop her in Howe Sound, let the Orcas have a feast . Enough of this fiasco
David Amos
Content disabled
Reply to @Jamie Ireland: WOW
David Amos
Reply to @David Amos: Yet CBC blocks me???
Benjamin Twine
Reply to @David Amos: That is what I thought as well
David Amos
Reply to @Benjamin Twine: Need I say Bingo?
Wayne Ingman Were the countries reversed—Were it a Canadian on trial what would China divulge or redact, or give up at all? She is detained, and charged. Unless a document speaks directly to the charges in question, there ought to be no need extraneous documentation.
Benjamin Twine
Reply to @Wayne Ingman: The documents are directly related to her arrest. This is Canada not China,
David Amos
Reply to @Benjamin Twine: Exactly
_ Pitkänen_
Reply to @Benjamin Twine: Aw God, you're still here? I take a few months break and come back to you still playing China's fiddle.
Benjamin Twine
Reply to @_ Pitkänen_: I continue to want Canada to follow our own laws regardless of China or United States. That is all. But I will criticize our government as long as it willing to break our laws to appease United States.
Gregori Watchman
Reply to @Benjamin Twine: how do we say here, bee was?
Richard McCallum Meng and her lawyers are just dragging their feet -- one spurious motion after another. Apparently, they think she'll be found guilty of fraud in the US and are using the Canadian court to avoid prosecution. The judge should wise up and end this charade.
Martin Caine
Reply to @Richard McCallum: spurious motion, you say. If there was no conspiracy between CSIS and the FBI then why redact the CSIS-FBI communications?
David Amos
Reply to @Martin Caine: BINGO
Richard McCallum
Reply to @Martin Caine: If you read the article, you will learn the reasons the information was withheld.
Benjamin Twine
Reply to @Richard McCallum: The reason the information is being withheld is that Canada broke our own laws
Martin Caine
Reply to @Richard McCallum: I did read the article. Doing so would make us look bad First line: could risk Canadian lives, further damage Chinese-Canadian relations and even compromise the fight against COVID-19.
Richard McCallum
Conspiracy theories abound.
David Amos
Reply to @Richard McCallum: Google me
Dan Boulin
How about we release all top secret documents from our top intelligence agency to Meng’s lawyers.. With only one caveat - that the Chinese release all top secret documents related to Spavor & Kovrig.. Nice to consider... but just not going to happen........ Why you ask? - Because “bullies” just don’t know how to play fair......
David Amos
Reply to @Dan Boulin: I repeat why did we pick a fight with such a well known bully?
Gregori Watchman
Reply to @David Amos: it's not picking a fight. It's realpolitics. It's a Machiavellian reality that we face
David Amos
Reply to @Gregori Watchman: Trust that I live through it on a daily basis but I prefer to call it a circus
Peter Griffin
Reply to @David Amos: We didn't pick a fight. She landed in Canada, knowing full well there was a warrant for her arrest in the USA and that Canada has an extradition treaty with the USA. Either she's dum!b, or she wanted to be arrested here.
David Amos
Reply to @Peter Griffin: She landed in several other countries that have the same treaty with the US prior to coming to Canada Why did Trudeau step up to the plate and start swinging?
Dan Boulin Not only has Canada no "consular access" to either of our two Michaels since January - but even if we did - can you imagine our lawyers asking the Chinese for release of sensitive documents from their top spy agencies? - I think we all know what the answer would be..
Reply to @Doug James: More CPP propaganda from Xi or is it CPC propaganda Hard to tell the difference these days
David Amos
Reply to @Dan Boulin: Who picked this fight with China?
Dan Boulin Reply to @David Amos: Still trying to figure that one out.....
David Amos Reply to @Don Cheer: What are you reading right now?
David Amos Reply to @Doug James: Methinks Trudeau was just playing legal games with people's freedom in order to keep Trump "The art of a deal dude" happy enough to secure the wicked NAFTA 2.0 deal for the benefit of his benefactors N'esy Pas?
Oksana Szulhan Reply to @David Amos: Meng Wanzhou
John Sollows So ... it seems extremely prudent NOT to disclose the information to Meng's lawyers. They may argue successfully that they were denied information they needed to assure a fair trial, and the case subsequently may get tossed for that reason.
Fine by me and the next time the U.S. can do its own dirty work.
Reply to @John Sollows: I agree After reading the news today trust that I called David Hartman, left him a wicked voicemail then began calling allhis cohorts beginning with his new boss Minister Champagne
David Amos
Reply to @david mccaig: "Trump has admitted he wants Ms Meng Wanzhou in US custody to use as negotiating tool to deal with the Chinese."
True
leonard g MacAulay Reply to @david mccaig: Which is why I agree with John Sollows on this case. Do not release documents, case gets tossed. Security stays intact, Meng goes home and the US looks for another patsey.
David Amos
Content disabled
Reply to @John Sollows: Methinks lots of politicians and ordinary folks as well can still recall all the tricks the FBI and their RCMP buddies pulled in order to secure the illegal extraditions of the First Nations activists Leonard Peltier and John Graham Too bad that Madame Meng's lawyers can't N'esy Pas?
Regina E. Gardzinski When will Canada WAKE UP. Do you think the Chinese would provide their intelligence to free the two Michaels?
Reply to @Erica Wong: Yeah, sure, they are able to present whatever "evidence" they need in court to sentence whoever they say guilty
David Amos
Reply to @Regina E. Gardzinski : Methinks if we had ethical "intelligence" people we would not have become shills for Trump N'esy Pas?
David Amos
Reply to @Julie Lee: I concur
---------- Original message ---------- From: geoff.regan@parl.gc.ca Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 17:26:59 +0000 Subject: Automatic reply: What do the many lawyers and bureaucrats working for Trudeau, Ian Shugart and François-Philippe Champagne have to say to me now? To: david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com
Thank you for writing to the office of the Hon. Geoff Regan, Member of Parliament for Halifax West. This response confirms that your email has been received. Our office is currently receiving a higher than normal volume of correspondence related to COVID-19. However, as always, your comments and suggestions are very much appreciated. Please note that priority will be given to constituents of Halifax West. Please reply to your original email with your postal code and we will reply as soon as possible. Please note that my staff and I are currently working from home due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We are still available by e-mail, and by phone at 902-426-2217. You may also find the information you are looking for online: * Information on COVID-19 - www.canada.ca/coronavirus<http://www.canada.ca/coronavirus> * Details on Canada's COVID-19 economic response plan, including support for individuals and businesses - https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/economic-response-plan.html Once again, thank you for reaching out to our office. Yours truly,
Geoff Regan, M.P. Halifax West [social-facebook-box-blue-
---------- Original message ---------- From: Francois-Philippe.Champagne@parl.gc.ca Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 15:36:16 +0000 Subject: Réponse automatique : RE Federal Court Rule 55 and the "Rule of Law" myth Trudeau and his minions used against Huawei's CFO Meng Wanzhou in order to insure NAFTA 2.0 was a deal with Trump To: david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com
* An English message will follow
Merci d'avoir communiqué avec le bureau de circonscription fédéral de Saint-Maurice-Champlain et de votre député François-Philippe Champagne.
Nous accusons réception de votre courriel. Cordialement,
Bureau de François-Philippe Champagne Député de Saint-Maurice-Champlain Ministre des Affaires étrangères Bureau de circonscription à Shawinigan : 632, avenue de Grand-Mère, bureau 1 Shawinigan QC G9T 2H5 Tél.: 819 538-5291 Téléc.: 819 538-7624 ***************************
Thank you for writing to François-Philippe Champagne's Constituency Office.
We acknowledge receipt of your email. Kind regards, François-Philippe Champagne's Office MP for Saint-Maurice-Champlain Minister of Foreign Affairs
Constituency Office: 632, avenue de Grand-Mère, suite 1 Shawinigan QC G9T 2H5 Phone : 819 538-5291 FAX : 819 538-7624
---------- Original message ---------- From: "Shugart, Ian"<Ian.Shugart@pco-bcp.gc.ca> Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 15:36:58 +0000 Subject: Automatic reply: RE Federal Court Rule 55 and the "Rule of Law" myth Trudeau and his minions used against Huawei's CFO Meng Wanzhou in order to insure NAFTA 2.0 was a deal with Trump To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Please note that Ian Shugart, Clerk of the Privy Council, will be out of the office from July 11 to July 19. During his absence, you can contact Catherine Blewett at 613-957-5466.
All correspondence and various requests should be routed in the usual manner.
Veuillez prendre note qu’Ian Shugart, Greffier du Conseil privé, sera absent du bureau le 11 au 19 juillet. Pendant son absence, vous pouvez communiquer avec Catherine Blewett au 613-957-5466.
Toute correspondance et autres demandes doivent être acheminées de façon habituelle.
David Raymond Amos @DavidRayAmos Replying to @DavidRayAmos @alllibertynews and 49 others Methinks Trudeau et al know why I called David Hartman and left him a wicked voicemail then began calling all his cohorts beginning with his new boss Minister Champagne N'esy Pas?
A heartfelt congratulations to @BobRae48 on your appointment! We’re all looking forward to working with you in your new role! @CanadaFP @FP_Champagne @CanadianPM @CanadaUN twitter.com/canadianpm/sta…
David Raymond Amos Replying to @KesselAlan
I just called Correct?
Quote Tweet
Alan Kessel @KesselAlan
· Apr 4
Proud of you and your Global Affairs Cabada team's commitment to helping Canadians get home. Your Ottawa colleagues thank and applaud you all. Stay safe and healthy. twitter.com/KirstenHillman…
Global Affairs official says giving Meng Wanzhou CSIS documents could hurt Canada
David Hartman swore federal court affidavit in AG's fight for redactions to extradition documents Jason Proctor · CBC News · Posted: Jul 13, 2020 1:00 AM PT
1369 Comments
Dan Boulin Not only has Canada no "consular access" to either of our two Michaels since January - but even if we did - can you imagine our lawyers asking the Chinese for release of sensitive documents from their top spy agencies? - I think we all know what the answer would be..
Show 5 older replies
Don Cheer Reply to @Doug James: More CPP propaganda from Xi or is it CPC propaganda Hard to tell the difference these days
David Amos Reply to @Dan Boulin: Who picked this fight with China?
Dan Boulin Reply to @David Amos: Still trying to figure that one out.....
David Amos Reply to @Don Cheer: What are you reading right now?
John Sollows So ... it seems extremely prudent NOT to disclose the information to Meng's lawyers. They may argue successfully that they were denied information they needed to assure a fair trial, and the case subsequently may get tossed for that reason.
Fine by me and the next time the U.S. can do its own dirty work.
Show 9 older replies
David Amos Reply to @John Sollows: I agree After reading the news today trust that I called David Hartman, left him a wicked voicemail then began calling allhis cohorts beginning with his new boss Minister Champagne
David Amos Reply to @david mccaig: "Trump has admitted he wants Ms Meng Wanzhou in US custody to use as negotiating tool to deal with the Chinese."
True
Regina E. Gardzinski When will Canada WAKE UP. Do you think the Chinese would provide their intelligence to free the two Michaels?
Show 4 older replies
Julie Lee Reply to @Erica Wong: Yeah, sure, they are able to present whatever "evidence" they need in court to sentence whoever they say guilty
David Amos Reply to @Regina E. Gardzinski : Methinks if we had ethical "intelligence" people we would not have become shills for Trump N'esy Pas?
Global Affairs official says giving Meng Wanzhou CSIS documents could hurt Canada
David Hartman swore federal court affidavit in AG's fight for redactions to extradition documents Jason Proctor · CBC News · Posted: Jul 13, 2020 1:00 AM PT
After reading the news today trust that I called David Hartman first
The Bora Laskin Law Society is excited to announce our next event, a reception featuring a talk by Alan Kessel, Assistant Deputy Minister of Legal Affairs and The Legal Adviser to Global Affairs Canada. Mr. Kessel's talk is titled "Canada in International Law: At the Inflection Point" and will feature his thoughts on the subject informed by his broad and deep experience as a practitioner and a Canadian diplomat.
The reception will take place at 7PM on November 7, 2018 at the offices of Gowling WLG (Suite 2600, 160 Elgin, Ottawa). Gowling WLG has generously and graciously agreed to host and sponsor this event.
Please join us for what will undoubtedly be an engaging, stimulating evening with an exceptional speaker, wonderful company and gracious hospitality.
A Talk with Alan Kessel, Assistant Deputy Minister Legal Affairs and Legal Adviser to Global Affairs Canada. March 6, 2019
Hey everyone!
Join ILSA, the International Law Group (ILG), and the International Commission of Jurists Canada (ICJ Canada) for an exciting talk with Alan Kessel, Assistant Deputy Minister Legal Affairs and Legal Adviser to Global Affairs Canada. The event will take place next Friday, March 15th from 11:30 – 1:00 in FTX 359!
We are incredibly lucky to have Mr. Kessel join us for this not-to-miss event! Here are some details about Mr. Kessel:
Alan Kessel assumed his responsibilities as Assistant Deputy Minister Legal Affairs and Legal Adviser to Global Affairs Canada in September 2017. Prior to this appointment Mr. Kessel was Deputy High Commissioner in London between September 2013 and August 2017.
Mr. Kessel has held numerous positions in the Legal Branch of Global Affairs Canada, including that of the Legal Adviser (2005 – 2013); as Deputy Legal Adviser and Director General of the Bureau of Legal Affairs (2004 – 2005); as Director of the United Nations, Criminal and Treaty Law Division.
Mr. Kessel has spent a large part of his career negotiating bilateral and multilateral instruments ranging from extradition treaties to the establishment of international criminal justice systems to prosecute perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Mr. Kessel has represented Canadian interests before United Nations bodies and has presented government views at Canadian Parliamentary Committees. His legal work on Arctic matters has included delineation of Canada’s continental shelf and sovereignty questions in the far north.
His postings abroad have included the Canadian Embassy in Sweden (1985 – 1987), the Canadian Mission to the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland (1990 – 1994) and the Canadian High Commission in London, UK (2000 – 2004, 2013 -2017).
Mr. Kessel received his bachelor of Arts degree in 1976 from the University of Waterloo and his law degree in 1979 from Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto. He was called to the Bar of Ontario in 1981. After several years in private practice in Toronto, he joined the then Department of External Affairs and International Trade in 1983.
Georgiana Malurica Georgiana Malurica works as Senior Correspondence Officer for Global Affairs Canada. Georgiana can be reached at 343-203-6637
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "MinFinance / FinanceMin (FIN)"<fin.minfinance-financemin.fin@canada.ca> Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2020 20:57:20 +0000 Subject: RE: RE Federal Court Rule 55 and the "Rule of Law" myth Trudeau and his minions used against Huawei's CFO Meng Wanzhou in order to insure NAFTA 2.0 was a deal with Trump 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. Due to the evolving COVID-19 situation, we apologize in advance for any delay in responding to your enquiry. In the meantime, information on Canada's COVID-19 Economic Response Plan is available on the Government of Canada website at www.canada.ca/coronavirus<http://www.canada.ca/coronavirus> or by calling 1-800 O Canada (1-800-622-6232) or 1-833-784-4397.
Le ministère des Finances Canada accuse réception de votre courriel. Nous vous assurons que vos commentaires sont les bienvenus. En raison de la fluidité de la crise de la COVID-19, il est possible que nous retardions à vous répondre et nous nous en excusons. Entre-temps, les informations au sujet du Plan d'intervention économique du Canada pour répondre à la COVID-19 sont disponibles dans le site Web du gouvernement du Canada au www.canada.ca/coronavirus<http://www.canada.ca/coronavirus> ou en composant le 1-800 O Canada (1-800-622-6232) ou le 1-833-784-4397.
François-Philippe Champagne works as Minister of Foreign Affairs for Global Affairs Canada. François-Philippe can be reached at 343-203-1851 francois-philippe.champagne@parl.gc.ca
David Raymond Amos @DavidRayAmos Replying to @DavidRayAmos @alllibertynews and 49 others Methinks now that NAFTA 2.0 is finally a deal the mindless lawyer David Lametti will be ordered to set Madame Meng free as Trudeau et al attempt to turn the worm on Trump and make amends with China N'esy Pas?
John Bolton on Canada-China tensions and the Trump presidency 15,748 views Jun 30, 2020
CBC News: The National A foreign policy hawk with a year-long stint as U.S President Donald Trump’s national security adviser, John Bolton, sat down with The National's Adrienne Arsenault to talk about his White House memoir and his views on Trump’s presidency.
Bolton's dig at Chretien over Huawei Bolton's book also takes a quick dig at former prime minister Jean Chrétien. It involves Chrétien's suggestion that Canada should free Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou, in Canadian custody pending extradition to the U.S.
"Never a friend of the U.S., [Chrétien] was arguing that Canada should simply not abide by our extradition treaty," he writes.
---------- Original message ---------- From: Scott Fenton <sfenton@fentonlaw.ca> Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 21:24:43 +0000 Subject: Automatic reply: YO David Lametti RE Federal Court Rule 55 easily proves that the "Rule of Law" is a myth in Canada Methinks lawyers working for Huawei's CFO Meng Wanzhou will talk to mow N'esy Pas Nathalie.Drouin? To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Please note that I will be out of the office working between January 6 and 24, 2020 and may not be in a position to respond to any emails or telephone calls in a timely manner.
If the matter is administrative in nature, please contact Sharon Tagapulot at 416-955-1611 or stagapulot@fentonlaw.ca< applewebdata://BCBD5FB1-59C3-4600-BEAF-68BABEEF9EF7/stagapulot@fentonlaw.ca>.
If the matter is urgent, please contact Ian R. Smith at 416-955- 0367 or ismith@fentonlaw.ca<applewebdata://BCBD5FB1-59C3-4600-BEAF-68BABEEF9EF7/ismith@fentonlaw.ca>.
Yours truly,
Scott K. Fenton
---------- Original message ---------- From: "Frater, Robert"<Robert.Frater@justice.gc.ca> Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 21:24:36 +0000 Subject: Automatic reply: YO David Lametti RE Federal Court Rule 55 easily proves that the "Rule of Law" is a myth in Canada Methinks lawyers working for Huawei's CFO Meng Wanzhou will talk to mow N'esy Pas Nathalie.Drouin? To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
I will be in court the week of January 20. I will respond to emails when I am able to do so.
Here is little more Deja Vu for Mr Frater to enjoy His former boss Peter MacKay did answer this lawsuit while he was still the Attorney General and I was running against his fellow Cabinet Minister Mr Moore again Correct Mr Trudeau???
---------- Original message ---------- From: "Butts, Gerald"<Gerald.Butts@pmo-cpm.gc.ca> Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 06:33:26 +0000 Subject: Automatic reply: So Much for the Strong Ethics of the Strong Organization commonly knows as the RCMP/GRC N'esy Pas? To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Thank you for your email. I am out of the office with limited access to email. For assistance, please email Laura D'Angelo at laura.d'angelo@pmo-cpm.gc.ca.
Merci pour votre message. Je suis absent du bureau avec un accèss limité aux courriels. Si vous avez besoin d'assistance, veuillez communiquer avec Laura D'Angelo à l'adresse laura.d'angelo@pmo-cpm.gc.ca
---------- Original message ---------- From: Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 01:00:20 +0000 Subject: Automatic reply: Here is my latest complaint about the SEC, Banksters and Taxmen To: motomaniac333@gmail.com
Thank you for writing to the Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, Member of Parliament for Vancouver Granville.
This message is to acknowledge that we are in receipt of your email. Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence, there may be a delay in processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be carefully reviewed.
To help us address your concerns more quickly, please include within the body of your email your full name, address, and postal code.
Please note that your message will be forwarded to the Department of Justice if it concerns topics pertaining to the member's role as the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. For all future correspondence addressed to the Minister of Justice, please write directly to the Department of Justice at mcu@justice.gc.ca 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: justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:20:44 +0000 Subject: Réponse automatique : Hey before you Red Coats swear an Oath to the Queen and the 42nd Parliament begins perhaps the turncoat Big Bad Billy Casey the Yankee carpetbagger David Lutz or some Boyz from NB should explain this lawsuit to you real slow. To: motomaniac333@gmail.com
Veuillez noter que j'ai changé de courriel. Vous pouvez me rejoindre à lalanthier@hotmail.com
> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> > Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 13:33:00 -0400 > Subject: Re: Notice of Harassment I am certain that Rob Moore and the > RCMP can explain my concerns with questionable lawyers and their > actions CORRECT? > To: Pantea Jafari <jafari@jafarilaw.ca> > Cc: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>, Tugrul Pinar > <admin@jafarilaw.ca>, "mgreene@sgimm.ca"<mgreene@sgimm.ca>, > "media@blaineimmigration.com"<media@blaineimmigration.com>, > "Sophia.Harris"<Sophia.Harris@cbc.ca>, "Bill.Blair" > <Bill.Blair@parl.gc.ca>, "Bill.Morneau"<Bill.Morneau@canada.ca>, > "Mark.Blakely"<Mark.Blakely@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "martin.gaudet" > <martin.gaudet@fredericton.ca>, "mark.vespucci" > <mark.vespucci@ci.irs.gov>, "jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca" > <jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca>, mcu <mcu@justice.gc.ca>, "carl.urquhart" > <carl.urquhart@gnb.ca>, pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>, "Gerald.Butts" > <Gerald.Butts@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>, "Katie.Telford" > <Katie.Telford@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>, "rob.moore"<rob.moore@parl.gc.ca>, > washington field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, "Brenda.Lucki" > <Brenda.Lucki@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Boston.Mail"<Boston.Mail@ic.fbi.gov>, > "barbara.massey"<barbara.massey@rcmp-grc.gc.ca> > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Barbara Massey <Barbara.Massey@rcmp-grc.gc.ca> > Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 12:28:58 -0500 > Subject: Re: Notice of Harassment (Out of Office ) > To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> > > I am out of the office until Wednesday, January 22, 2020, and will not > be accessing my Emails. For any urgencies, you may contact Jolene > Harvey, General Counsel @ 613 843 4892., or my admin assistant, Sandra > Lofaro 613 843 3540.. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Je suis absent du bureau jusqu'au 22 janvier 2020, et je n'accéderai à > mes courriéls. Pour toute urgence,.vous pouvez communiquer avec Jolene > Harvey, Avocate générale, au 613 843 4892 ou avec mon adjointe admin. > Sandra Lofaro 613 843 3540. > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Moore, Rob - M.P."<Rob.Moore@parl.gc.ca> > Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 17:28:33 +0000 > Subject: Automatic reply: Notice of Harassment > To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> > > On behalf of the Honourable Rob Moore, P.C., M.P. thank you for your > email. Our office appreciates the time you took to get in touch with > our office. Due to the high volume of email correspondence our office > receives, below is a guide on how your email will be responded to: > > Constituent of Fundy Royal: > > The constituents of Fundy Royal are our office’s priority. Please > ensure to include your full contact details on your email and the > appropriate staff will be able to action your request. We strive to > ensure all constituent correspondence is responded to in a timely > manner. > > If your query is case related (i.e. immigration, CPP, EI, CRA, etc.), > consent forms will need to be filled out before your file can be > activated. If you have not yet filled out our office’s consent form, a > staff member will be in contact with you. > > If your question or concern is time sensitive, please call our office: > 506-832-4200. > > Event Invitations and Meeting Requests: > > If you have sent meeting request or an event invitation, we sincerely > appreciate the kind request and we will check his availability to see > if his schedule can accommodate. > > Invitations for Fundy Royal are managed in the riding office and > Ottawa based events and meetings are managed from the Parliamentary > office. The appropriate staff will follow up on your request. > > Non-Constituent Enquiries: > > If you are not a Fundy Royal resident, given the high volume of emails > we receive, your email will be reviewed and filed as INFORMATION. > > If the email is Critic portfolio in nature, it will be responded to > as necessary. > > Again, we sincerely appreciate you taking the time to contact the > office of the Honourable Rob Moore. > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "MinFinance / FinanceMin (FIN)" > <fin.minfinance-financemin.fin@canada.ca> > Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 17:28:22 +0000 > Subject: RE: Notice of Harassment > 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. > >> ---------- 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 >> > >
