David Raymond Amos@DavidRayAmos Methinks former Attorney General Irwin Cotlerknows why I was not surprised that Irwin Lampert a former General Counsel for the Canadian Jewish Congress would deny getting an email from me N'esy Pas?
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Bill.Blair@parl.gc.ca Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2020 12:23:11 +0000 Subject: Automatic reply: Attn Irwin Lampert Re what you and the RCMP say in CBC To: david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com
Thank you very much for reaching out to the Office of the Hon. Bill Blair, Member of Parliament for Scarborough Southwest.
Please be advised that as a health and safety precaution, our constituency office will not be holding in-person meetings until further notice. We will continue to provide service during our regular office hours, both over the phone and via email.
Due to the high volume of emails and calls we are receiving, our office prioritizes requests on the basis of urgency and in relation to our role in serving the constituents of Scarborough Southwest. If you are not a constituent of Scarborough Southwest, please reach out to your local of Member of Parliament for assistance. To find your local MP, visit: https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en
Moreover, at this time, we ask that you please only call our office if your case is extremely urgent. We are experiencing an extremely high volume of calls, and will better be able to serve you through email.
Thank you again for your message, and we will get back to you as soon as possible.
Best,
MP Staff to the Hon. Bill Blair Parliament Hill: 613-995-0284 Constituency Office: 416-261-8613 bill.blair@parl.gc.cabill.blair@parl.gc.ca >
** Merci beaucoup d'avoir pris contact avec le bureau de l'Honorable Bill Blair, D?put? de Scarborough-Sud-Ouest.
Veuillez noter que par mesure de pr?caution en mati?re de sant? et de s?curit?, notre bureau de circonscription ne tiendra pas de r?unions en personne jusqu'? nouvel ordre. Nous continuerons ? fournir des services pendant nos heures de bureau habituelles, tant par t?l?phone que par courrier ?lectronique.
En raison du volume ?lev? de courriels que nous recevons, notre bureau classe les demandes par ordre de priorit? en fonction de leur urgence et de notre r?le dans le service aux ?lecteurs de Scarborough Sud-Ouest. Si vous n'?tes pas un ?lecteur de Scarborough Sud-Ouest, veuillez contacter votre d?put? local pour obtenir de l'aide. Pour trouver votre d?put? local, visitez le site:https://www.noscommunes.ca/members/fr
En outre, nous vous demandons de ne t?l?phoner ? notre bureau que si votre cas est extr?mement urgent. Nous recevons un volume d'appels extr?mement ?lev? et nous serons mieux ? m?me de vous servir par courrier ?lectronique.
Merci encore pour votre message, et nous vous r?pondrons d?s que possible.
Cordialement,
Personnel du D?put? de l'Honorable Bill Blair Colline du Parlement : 613-995-0284 Bureau de Circonscription : 416-261-8613 bill.blair@parl.gc.cabill.blair@parl.gc.ca> < mailto:bill.blair@parl.gc.ca>
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/rcmp-management-reviews-police-investigations-1.5670446 > > > Internal RCMP reviews find illegal arrests, incomplete investigations > > Management reviews give previously hidden look at quality of RCMP > investigations > Shane Magee · CBC News · Posted: Aug 04, 2020 6:00 AM AT > > "Irwin Lampert, a provincial court judge in Moncton who retired last > year, said he would be surprised if some of the issues found in the > older reports continued to this day. > > "I saw very very few examples of police officers who would obviously > violate an accused's rights under the charter," Lampert said of his > time on the bench, referring to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. > > "Some were through inadvertence rather than malfeasance. In some cases > they just didn't realize that they were doing something wrong and it > would be pointed out to them and you would hope that it wouldn't > happen again." > > New Brunswick is among three provinces where Crown prosecutors must > approve charges before they are laid in court. > Court issues > > A 2017 review of the Hampton detachment is generally favourable, but > describes prosecutions abandoned or dropped. > > In three of 45 cases brought to the Crown by police, the evidence > didn't support the charges. Issues with arrests in two of the 45 cases > led to the Crown not prosecuting. The report pointed to a lack of > supervision as a contributing factor. > > "When supervision is not taking place, solvable, prosecutable cases > could result in acquittals or charges forwarded when not warranted, > bringing liability to the organization and members," the report says." > > > > > 30 Comments > > > > David Amos > Methinks the RCMP should also review my lawsuit N'esy Pas? > > > > > > Bill Henry > I cannot think of a worse job than being a police officer. Working > nights, deaths, domestic violence, distrust in law enforcement, and > while trying to do your job the best you can, the very real > possibility you make a split second mistake, and you yourself end up > in jail the rest of your life! > > Terry Tibbs > Reply to @Bill Henry: Paperwork, and the lack of the proper paperwork, > could hardly be lumped in with split second mistaken decisions. > > Dan Moore > Reply to @Bill Henry: Yes, policing is a difficult job, if it is your > worst job don't become a police officer. We should demand only the > best suited become police officers and you clearly don't fit the bill. > Also be aware that in that 'split second' mistake that could end you > up in jail could also take the life of an innocent person as we have > seen happen in the US time and again though less so in Canada, it > still occurs. Being a police officer should not put you above the law > rather place you under greater scrutiny as it is their job to enforce > it. All aspects of it including presumed innocence and other > constitutional rights. > > David Amos > Reply to @Terry Tibbs: The RCMP are still playing dumb about falsely > arresting me even after I sued the Crown and are inviting me to do so > again Go Figure > > > > > > > Matt Steele > Irwin Lampert, a provincial court judge in Moncton who retired last > year, said..... "Some were through inadvertence rather than > malfeasance. In some cases they just didn't realize that they were > doing something wrong and it would be pointed out to them and you > would hope that it wouldn't happen again." > That pretty much sums the problem up right there where police are not > held accountable for their actions , and the people in the position of > over seeing the Justice System let it slide , and hope that the police > will do better . That combined with the militarization of the police > is rapidly eroding the public's trust in the police and Justice System > . You need to look no further than what is currently happening in the > U.S. to see where things are eventually heading .When the only tool > that the police have is a hammer , then every problem starts to look > like a nail . > > > David Peters > Reply to @Matt Steele: > Imo, you picked out the most important sentence in that article, but I > have a completely different take on it. > > To me it shows there are checks and balances in place, in the system, > that are working. > > However, I feel that the law & order bureaucracy in Canada is too > insulated and lacks real transparency and accountability. Elections > and short term limits for Judges, Crown Prosecutors and police chiefs > would help solve the problem. > > > David Amos > Reply to @Matt Steele: Methinks you Irwin Lampert should check my work > N;esy Pas? > > >
Management reviews give previously hidden look at quality of RCMP investigations
Shane Magee· CBC News· Posted: Aug 04, 2020 6:00 AM AT
Hundreds of pages of internal RCMP records outline how the force has viewed the quality of its own investigations in recent years across New Brunswick. (Shane Magee/CBC)
Internal reviews of RCMP investigations across New Brunswick in recent years found illegal arrests, failures to offer support services to domestic violence victims, and a lack of supervision that affects the quality of policing in the province.
RCMP reports called management reviews offer a previously undisclosed look at how the force itself viewed the quality of its criminal investigations over recent years across the province.
A review of the Campbellton RCMP district in 2014 showed officers went into homes to arrest people six times without a required warrant to do so, making the arrest illegal. A 2017 Hampton review found police bringing cases to the Crown that couldn't be supported by the evidence.
One stark report from 2012 of the policing district around Woodstock found:
52 per cent of investigations reviewed met expectations, "well below" the average of 84 per cent across the province set in 2009;
58 per cent of the investigations were considered complete or thorough;
55 per cent of files showed suspects were arrested when they should've been;
60 per cent of cases showed statements taken from victims when they could have been; and
Briefs prepared for the Crown prosecutor were "often incomplete" and returned for further work.
A Woodstock-area review from 2017 doesn't offer similar percentages and is generally favourable. It describes the overall thoroughness of investigations as meeting expectations with six of 32 files reviewed not meeting standards (it describes an unwillingness to charge female suspects of domestic assault as part of the problem).
While some of the findings are now several years old, they describe the quality of investigations ranging from property crimes to more serious assaults, crimes that involved victims seeking justice and suspects facing potential prosecution.
Lawyer Gilles Lemieux says he applauds proper investigations but those that aren't complete affect both victims and suspects. (Andrew Vaughan/Canadian Press)
Gilles Lemieux, a defence lawyer who has worked in the province for 30 years, said he applauds investigations properly carried out, but is concerned about the number of cases deemed not complete or thorough.
"There's either a victim or a suspect who is not properly served by the system and that to me is serious stuff," Lemieux said.
Assistant Commissioner Larry Tremblay, the commanding officer of New Brunswick RCMP, did not provide an interview when requested in June and July.
Cpl. Jullie Rogers-Marsh instead sent a written statement saying there has been "significant organizational changes" since some of the reviews were done.
"Many of the issues raised in these documents were addressed through those changes, or specific action plans," Rogers-Marsh said, without referring to any specifics.
Cpl. Jullie Rogers-Marsh says since some of the reports were completed that changes have been made, though did not provide specific examples. (CBC)
Roger Brown held Tremblay's position when some of the reports were completed and is now Fredericton's police chief. Brown did not provide an interview.
The issues are outlined in management reviews the force carries out every few years at divisions or detachments across the country. The reviews evaluate everything from officer morale, community satisfaction with the force, handling of evidence to the adequacy of investigations.
The reviews see officers from one area, such as Moncton, evaluate the performance of their peers in another area like Campbellton. Copies of the reviews, which contain recommendations for improvement as well as good practices, are sent to commanding officers for the province and area reviewed.
Reports released years after requested
CBC News obtained copies of reports completed between 2005 and late 2017 in New Brunswick through an access to information request filed in January 2018. The reports spanning 440 pages were released in late May 2020, making the 2017 reports the most recent ones available.
While many of the reviews offer positive findings, common issues with investigations have been noted in various parts of the province. The documents don't say what changes occurred after they were completed.
Some of the strongest comments are in a 2014 report of the Campbellton policing district, the most recent report for that region. The review looked at 12 cases involving RCMP officers entering homes with the intention of arresting someone.
A landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision in 1997 requires police obtain a warrant to enter a person's property, home or business with the intention of arresting a person. There are limited exceptions like imminent threats to safety.
'No legal basis' to make arrests
In six of the 12 Campbellton-area cases, "there was no legal basis to effect the arrest" because police lacked a required warrant, the review found.
That and other issues relating to arrests were attributed to "a lack of policy knowledge, and resistance to required protocols, taking shortcuts when knowing better."
Not correcting the problems, the report says, can lead to the loss of cases in court, risk to victims, limited knowledge growth among officers, civil litigation and loss of public confidence.
The report doesn't say what happened in the cases with warrantless arrests. Former provincial court judge Irwin Lampert says during his time on the bench he saw most officers complied with the charter. (Kate Letterick/CBC News )
A poorly executed police investigation can affect the court process.
During criminal proceedings, police cases are disclosed to a person facing charges. Charter violations can result in charges not being laid or being withdrawn.
Lemieux said he's had clients facing charges where police haven't collected certain evidence or canvassed to find witnesses who may offer a different view of events.
"It's hard to explain to a client that he has to go to trial and that the evidence doesn't support it," Lemieux said.
"He's acquitted, he or she is acquitted. They've gone through the system and come out the other end acquitted, but certainly not unscathed. And that's difficult."
Judge's view
Irwin Lampert, a provincial court judge in Moncton who retired last year, said he would be surprised if some of the issues found in the older reports continued to this day.
"I saw very very few examples of police officers who would obviously violate an accused's rights under the charter," Lampert said of his time on the bench, referring to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
"Some were through inadvertence rather than malfeasance. In some cases they just didn't realize that they were doing something wrong and it would be pointed out to them and you would hope that it wouldn't happen again."
New Brunswick is among three provinces where Crown prosecutors must approve charges before they are laid in court.
Court issues
A 2017 review of the Hampton detachment is generally favourable, but describes prosecutions abandoned or dropped.
In three of 45 cases brought to the Crown by police, the evidence didn't support the charges. Issues with arrests in two of the 45 cases led to the Crown not prosecuting. The report pointed to a lack of supervision as a contributing factor.
"When supervision is not taking place, solvable, prosecutable cases could result in acquittals or charges forwarded when not warranted, bringing liability to the organization and members," the report says.
Rogers-Marsh, the RCMP spokesperson, said "in recent years" there's been a formalized training program for anyone in a supervisory or managerial role. The statement wasn't clear whether that deals with the issues identified in the reports.
Several former Crown prosecutors approached for interviews declined to comment. The province's director of public prosecutions wouldn't provide an interview.
"The issue you have inquired about is a law enforcement matter, therefore it would be inappropriate for Public Prosecutions Services or the Department of Justice and Office of the Attorney General to comment," Paul Bradley, a spokesperson for the department, wrote in an email.
A position has been reestablished to review files for court after Crown prosecutors in Moncton said there were too many issues with those coming forward from police. (Gabrielle Fahmy)
Lampert said most cases he presided over were well prepared given screening provided by the Crown pre-charge approval process.
"There are those checks and balances," Lampert said. "Most of the time we didn't have much problem with that."
In Moncton, a file reader/case manager position cut seven years ago was reestablished because of issues with case files after it was eliminated. The position had been cut in 2013 and the work done by RCMP officers instead.
"However, in the past 2 years, the CROWN has seen an increase in court files that lack the necessary investigational requirements (not court ready) and thus cannot proceed with charges," a 2020 budget says.
"The CROWN indicated they can no longer provide operational guidance on files and that court files will only be approved if the files are court-ready from the outset."
A 2015 review of Codiac, one of the largest RCMP detachments in the country, found that almost half of suspects, including some in custody, were not approached for an interview. Files, the reviewers noted, didn't say if a second attempt was made.
When statements were taken, "almost all" complied with policy, the review found.
It found that in cases where police deem there's little chance of conviction, statements weren't being taken.
The areas identified within the review of this activity, which are problematic, have the potential in some instances to jeopardize court proceedings and may call in to question statement validity.
- 2015 Codiac Regional RCMP management review
In about 20 per cent of cases examined, a statement should have been taken in what the review describes as the first instance instead of passed along to someone else to take. The report points to a lack of supervisory oversight and policy awareness.
"The areas identified within the review of this activity, which are problematic, have the potential in some instances to jeopardize court proceedings and may call in to question statement validity."
Charles Léger chairs the policing authority board and hadn't seen the reports before CBC News provided a copy of the 2015 report. Léger said reviewing it, he saw issues that later led to police implementing changes and making budget requests.
Lampert, who retired from the bench in February last year, now serves on the Codiac Regional Policing Authority, which oversees Codiac RCMP. He said he hadn't heard of the management review reports before and would like to see them in his role on the board.
David Amos Content disabled Methinks the RCMP should also review my lawsuit N'esy Pas?
Ray Oliver Content disabled Reply to @David Amos: Go away. No one cares about the mess you surely created. I hardly believe you've been unlawfully arrested, goods seized time after time and now our precious Higgy won't give you Medicare.
Ray Oliver
Content disabled Reply to @David Amos: That's one awful streak of luck for one average low key citizen!!!
Bill Henry I cannot think of a worse job than being a police officer. Working nights, deaths, domestic violence, distrust in law enforcement, and while trying to do your job the best you can, the very real possibility you make a split second mistake, and you yourself end up in jail the rest of your life!
Terry Tibbs
Reply to @Bill Henry: Paperwork, and the lack of the proper paperwork, could hardly be lumped in with split second mistaken decisions.
Dan Moore
Reply to @Bill Henry: Yes, policing is a difficult job, if it is your worst job don't become a police officer. We should demand only the best suited become police officers and you clearly don't fit the bill. Also be aware that in that 'split second' mistake that could end you up in jail could also take the life of an innocent person as we have seen happen in the US time and again though less so in Canada, it still occurs. Being a police officer should not put you above the law rather place you under greater scrutiny as it is their job to enforce it. All aspects of it including presumed innocence and other constitutional rights.
David Amos
Content disabled Reply to @Terry Tibbs: The RCMP are still playing dumb about falsely arresting me even after I sued the Crown and are inviting me to do so again Go Figure
John Sollows Some time, I'd like to hear the police side.
Matt Steele
Reply to @John Sollows: .....It sounds like the reporter asked for the police side , but were met with a wall of silence . There is certainly a Blue Wall that is preventing police accountability , and where good police officers are expected to cover for the bad police officers who abuse their positions .
David Amos
Reply to @John Sollows: Good luck with that
Matt Steele Irwin Lampert, a provincial court judge in Moncton who retired last year, said..... "Some were through inadvertence rather than malfeasance. In some cases they just didn't realize that they were doing something wrong and it would be pointed out to them and you would hope that it wouldn't happen again." That pretty much sums the problem up right there where police are not held accountable for their actions , and the people in the position of over seeing the Justice System let it slide , and hope that the police will do better . That combined with the militarization of the police is rapidly eroding the public's trust in the police and Justice System . You need to look no further than what is currently happening in the U.S. to see where things are eventually heading .When the only tool that the police have is a hammer , then every problem starts to look like a nail .
David Peters
Reply to @Matt Steele: Imo, you picked out the most important sentence in that article, but I have a completely different take on it.
To me it shows there are checks and balances in place, in the system, that are working.
However, I feel that the law & order bureaucracy in Canada is too insulated and lacks real transparency and accountability. Elections and short term limits for Judges, Crown Prosecutors and police chiefs would help solve the problem.
David Amos
Content disabled Reply to @Matt Steele: Methinks you and Irwin Lampert should check my work N'esy Pas?
Justin Gunther What about lost police reports? Or is that filed under incomplete investigations? I've already told my story about a lost Fredericton Police report. They couldn't even confirm officers had been to a residence a few days prior.
Absolute joke.
Justin Gunther
Reply to @Justin Gunther: Nobody gives a crep about 55% "correct arrests" until they're the one being "correctly arrested."
Justin Gunther
Reply to @Justin Gunther: I suspect they knew the previous three officers gave me incorrect information so they pretended it never happened because police competence.
Justin Gunther
Reply to @Justin Gunther: But I have a mental health designation and they stand behind a blue wall so you already know how that conversation went.
Justin Gunther
Reply to @Justin Gunther: In light of 55% "correct arrests" from the RCMP I'm sure my story about municipal police is believable to all except those standing behind the blue wall and their family and friends.
David Amos
Reply to @Justin Gunther: I beg to differ
Jill Bennet Reply to @Justin Gunther: It sounds like you have been through something difficult. It is extra-wounding when there is also underlying mental health stuff going on and weaker supports-- hurts extra when we are marginalized, with weak advocacy, mediation on our behalf. We are more likely to have some weirder encounters with police, because if the illness has lead to poverty, more likely to be in the wrong place, wrong time, stigmas, not be believed. More likely to become victims of crime.
I have been marginalized all along, starting with severe and prologued childhood abuse, dangerous situations-- and it doesn't fit the myths others are taught to believe, as a result, that has caused me so many years of confusion-- vile violence, orphaned, narcissistic abusers-- they don't realize they have the problem. How can cops really sort that stuff out, child protection is just as confused, lol.
Very hard to get help. Huge sti gma-- get over it, but when the brain has ptsd, it imposes some challenging limits especially when access to help is really hard to get-- years on waitlists that never end.
We learn to endure a system that is not well-tailored to us and often it can't even meet us half-way. But I believe in persevering anyways, but for sanity's sake it helps me to be more realistic about the system's limitations-- one size does not fit all-- its tailored to suit the already protected classes, and let them get outraged when/if it ever effects them directly, lol. Myths about how things actually are fills in the rest, lol People sleep easily at night, until they can't, lol
I've had multiple weird experiences of the system, its a lot more chaotic than most would believe, including being a lot less rational than what we'd hope and expect from it, lol
Jill Bennet
Reply to @Justin Gunther: When it is mucked up out there, key is to give yourself some credit for your own resilience to have endured it, awoken to it. There is nothing wrong with insisting better accountability, supervision and transparency. We could also have it a lot worse, but it is good when there is movement to encourage better standards with the aim of improving things, so less have to suffer from the stupider stuff ;-)
Be strong, stay well, your best well. . . All the Best ;-)
---------- Original message ---------- From: Bill.Blair@parl.gc.ca Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2020 12:23:11 +0000 Subject: Automatic reply: Attn Irwin Lampert Re what you and the RCMP say in CBC To: david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com
Thank you very much for reaching out to the Office of the Hon. Bill Blair, Member of Parliament for Scarborough Southwest.
Please be advised that as a health and safety precaution, our constituency office will not be holding in-person meetings until further notice. We will continue to provide service during our regular office hours, both over the phone and via email.
Due to the high volume of emails and calls we are receiving, our office prioritizes requests on the basis of urgency and in relation to our role in serving the constituents of Scarborough Southwest. If you are not a constituent of Scarborough Southwest, please reach out to your local of Member of Parliament for assistance. To find your local MP, visit: https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en
Moreover, at this time, we ask that you please only call our office if your case is extremely urgent. We are experiencing an extremely high volume of calls, and will better be able to serve you through email.
Thank you again for your message, and we will get back to you as soon as possible.
Best,
MP Staff to the Hon. Bill Blair Parliament Hill: 613-995-0284 Constituency Office: 416-261-8613 bill.blair@parl.gc.cabill.blair@parl.gc.ca >
** Merci beaucoup d'avoir pris contact avec le bureau de l'Honorable Bill Blair, D?put? de Scarborough-Sud-Ouest.
Veuillez noter que par mesure de pr?caution en mati?re de sant? et de s?curit?, notre bureau de circonscription ne tiendra pas de r?unions en personne jusqu'? nouvel ordre. Nous continuerons ? fournir des services pendant nos heures de bureau habituelles, tant par t?l?phone que par courrier ?lectronique.
En raison du volume ?lev? de courriels que nous recevons, notre bureau classe les demandes par ordre de priorit? en fonction de leur urgence et de notre r?le dans le service aux ?lecteurs de Scarborough Sud-Ouest. Si vous n'?tes pas un ?lecteur de Scarborough Sud-Ouest, veuillez contacter votre d?put? local pour obtenir de l'aide. Pour trouver votre d?put? local, visitez le site:https://www.noscommunes.ca/members/fr
En outre, nous vous demandons de ne t?l?phoner ? notre bureau que si votre cas est extr?mement urgent. Nous recevons un volume d'appels extr?mement ?lev? et nous serons mieux ? m?me de vous servir par courrier ?lectronique.
Merci encore pour votre message, et nous vous r?pondrons d?s que possible.
Cordialement,
Personnel du D?put? de l'Honorable Bill Blair Colline du Parlement : 613-995-0284 Bureau de Circonscription : 416-261-8613 bill.blair@parl.gc.cabill.blair@parl.gc.ca> < mailto:bill.blair@parl.gc.ca>
Management reviews give previously hidden look at quality of RCMP investigations Shane Magee · CBC News · Posted: Aug 04, 2020 6:00 AM AT
"Irwin Lampert, a provincial court judge in Moncton who retired last year, said he would be surprised if some of the issues found in the older reports continued to this day.
"I saw very very few examples of police officers who would obviously violate an accused's rights under the charter," Lampert said of his time on the bench, referring to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
"Some were through inadvertence rather than malfeasance. In some cases they just didn't realize that they were doing something wrong and it would be pointed out to them and you would hope that it wouldn't happen again."
New Brunswick is among three provinces where Crown prosecutors must approve charges before they are laid in court. Court issues
A 2017 review of the Hampton detachment is generally favourable, but describes prosecutions abandoned or dropped.
In three of 45 cases brought to the Crown by police, the evidence didn't support the charges. Issues with arrests in two of the 45 cases led to the Crown not prosecuting. The report pointed to a lack of supervision as a contributing factor.
"When supervision is not taking place, solvable, prosecutable cases could result in acquittals or charges forwarded when not warranted, bringing liability to the organization and members," the report says."
30 Comments
David Amos Methinks the RCMP should also review my lawsuit N'esy Pas?
Bill Henry I cannot think of a worse job than being a police officer. Working nights, deaths, domestic violence, distrust in law enforcement, and while trying to do your job the best you can, the very real possibility you make a split second mistake, and you yourself end up in jail the rest of your life!
Terry Tibbs Reply to @Bill Henry: Paperwork, and the lack of the proper paperwork, could hardly be lumped in with split second mistaken decisions.
Dan Moore Reply to @Bill Henry: Yes, policing is a difficult job, if it is your worst job don't become a police officer. We should demand only the best suited become police officers and you clearly don't fit the bill. Also be aware that in that 'split second' mistake that could end you up in jail could also take the life of an innocent person as we have seen happen in the US time and again though less so in Canada, it still occurs. Being a police officer should not put you above the law rather place you under greater scrutiny as it is their job to enforce it. All aspects of it including presumed innocence and other constitutional rights.
David Amos Reply to @Terry Tibbs: The RCMP are still playing dumb about falsely arresting me even after I sued the Crown and are inviting me to do so again Go Figure
Matt Steele Irwin Lampert, a provincial court judge in Moncton who retired last year, said..... "Some were through inadvertence rather than malfeasance. In some cases they just didn't realize that they were doing something wrong and it would be pointed out to them and you would hope that it wouldn't happen again." That pretty much sums the problem up right there where police are not held accountable for their actions , and the people in the position of over seeing the Justice System let it slide , and hope that the police will do better . That combined with the militarization of the police is rapidly eroding the public's trust in the police and Justice System . You need to look no further than what is currently happening in the U.S. to see where things are eventually heading .When the only tool that the police have is a hammer , then every problem starts to look like a nail .
David Peters Reply to @Matt Steele: Imo, you picked out the most important sentence in that article, but I have a completely different take on it.
To me it shows there are checks and balances in place, in the system, that are working.
However, I feel that the law & order bureaucracy in Canada is too insulated and lacks real transparency and accountability. Elections and short term limits for Judges, Crown Prosecutors and police chiefs would help solve the problem.
David Amos Reply to @Matt Steele: Methinks you Irwin Lampert should check my work N;esy Pas?
:"For many years I was involved with various judges’ associations. I served terms as President of the New Brunswick Provincial Court Judges’ Association and the Canadian Association of Provincial Court Judges and was a Governor of the American Judges’ Association. For a number of years I was a member of the New Brunswick Judicial Council, a body which dealt with complaints filed against judges."
J. Gilles Lemieux Called to the bar: 1990 (NB) Lemieux Ménard & Co Lawyer 4405 Route 115 Saint-Antoine Sud, New Brunswick E4V 2Z5 Phone: 506-525-9717 Fax: 506-525-9509 Email: glemieux@lemcolaw.ca
---------- Original message ---------- From: Kevin Leahy <kevin.leahy@rcmp-grc.gc.ca> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 12:38:43 -0400 Subject: Re: RE The call from the Boston cop Robert Ridge (857 259 9083) on behalf of the VERY corrupt Yankee DA Rachael Rollins To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
French will follow
Thank you for your email.
For inquiries regarding EMRO’s Office, please address your email to acting EMRO Sebastien Brillon at sebastien.brillon@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
For inquiries regarding CO NHQ Office, please address your email to acting CO Farquharson, David at David.Farquharson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
All PPS related correspondence should be sent to my PPS account at kevin.leahy@pps-spp@parl.gc.ca -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Merci pour votre courriel.
Pour toute question concernant le Bureau de l'EMRO, veuillez adresser vos courriels à l’Officier responsable des Relations employeur-employés par intérim Sébastien Brillon à l'adresse suivante sebastien.brillon@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
Pour toute question concernant le bureau du Commandant de la Direction générale, veuillez adresser vos courriels au Commandant de la Direction générale par intérim Farquharson, David à l'adresse suivante David.Farquharson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
Toute correspondance relative au Service De Protection Parlementaire doit être envoyée à mon compte de PPS à l'adresse suivante kevin.leahy@pps-spp@parl.gc.ca
Kevin Leahy Chief Superintendent/Surintendant principal Director, Parliamentary Protective Service Directeur , Service de protection parlementaire T 613-996-5048 Kevin.leahy@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are confidential and may contain protected information. It is intended only for the individual or entity named in the message. If you are not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver the message that this email contains to the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this email, nor disclose or use in any manner the information that it contains. Please notify the sender immediately if you have received this email by mistake and delete it. AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ: Le présent courriel et tout fichier qui y est joint sont confidentiels et peuvent contenir des renseignements protégés. Il est strictement réservé à l’usage du destinataire prévu. Si vous n’êtes pas le destinataire prévu, ou le mandataire chargé de lui transmettre le message que ce courriel contient, vous ne devez ni le diffuser, le distribuer ou le copier, ni divulguer ou utiliser à quelque fin que ce soit les renseignements qu’il contient. Veuillez aviser immédiatement l’expéditeur si vous avez reçu ce courriel par erreur et supprimez-le.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: maxime.bernier@parl.gc.ca Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2018 16:03:53 +0000 Subject: Réponse automatique : Attn Daniel Gosselin why I have not recieved any response from you or your lawyers to my phone calls and emails about the questionable fax and emails your people have sent me recently? To: motomaniac333@gmail.com
Bonjour,
Veuillez prendre note que le bureau sera fermé jusqu'au janvier 2019. Nous vous souhaitons de très Joyeuses Fêtes!
The offiice will be closed until January 7th, 2019. Best wishes for the Holiday Season!
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Drouin, Nathalie (BRQ)"<Nathalie.Drouin@justice.gc.ca> Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2018 16:03:43 +0000 Subject: Réponse automatique : Attn Daniel Gosselin why I have not recieved any response from you or your lawyers to my phone calls and emails about the questionable fax and emails your people have sent me recently? To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Veuillez noter que je suis absente jusqu'au 7 janvier 2019, sans accès à mes courriels. Pour toute question qui ne peut attendre mon retour, je vous invite à communiquer avec mon adjointe Irène Ghobril au 514-283-5687. Merci.
Please note that I am away until January 7, 2019, with no access to my e-mails. For assistance, please contact Irène Ghobril at 514-283-5687. Thank you.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Hon.Ralph.Goodale (PS/SP)"<Hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca> Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 23:02:08 +0000 Subject: Automatic reply: Attn Michael Kram I just called and talked Colleen about about Ralph Goodale et al I also talked to Mario Milanovski's wife but I will not bother her again To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Merci d'avoir ?crit ? l'honorable Ralph Goodale, ministre de la S?curit? publique et de la Protection civile. En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de la correspondance adress?e au ministre, veuillez prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Soyez assur? que votre message sera examin? avec attention. Merci! L'Unit? de la correspondance minist?rielle S?curit? publique Canada *********
Thank you for writing to the Honourable Ralph Goodale, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence addressed to the Minister, please note there could be a delay in processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be carefully reviewed. Thank you! Ministerial Correspondence Unit Public Safety Canada
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Hon.Ralph.Goodale (PS/SP)"<Hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 11:32:10 +0000 Subject: Automatic reply: Well Michael Kram must admit that Ralph Goodale can't play dumb before the writ is dropped To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Merci d'avoir ?crit ? l'honorable Ralph Goodale, ministre de la S?curit? publique et de la Protection civile. En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de la correspondance adress?e au ministre, veuillez prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Soyez assur? que votre message sera examin? avec attention. Merci! L'Unit? de la correspondance minist?rielle S?curit? publique Canada *********
Thank you for writing to the Honourable Ralph Goodale, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence addressed to the Minister, please note there could be a delay in processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be carefully reviewed. Thank you! Ministerial Correspondence Unit Public Safety Canada
PPC Leader Maxime Bernier announces Sask. federal candidates during visit to Regina Social Sharing
'I like to have people who are new in politics, that’s what we need' CBC News · Posted: Jul 30, 2019 7:04 PM CT
Maxime Bernier, the leader of the People's Party of Canada, speaks with reporters outside the Legislative Building in Regina on Tuesday. (Tyler Pidlubny/CBC News)
Immigration, free speech and equalization reform were talking points for People's Party of Canada Leader Maxime Bernier and the Saskatchewan federal candidates he announced during a visit to Regina on Tuesday.
Bernier told reporters at an event outside the Legislative Building he was pleased that some of the candidates are new to politics and their platforms were varied.
"Because actually they are not traditional politicians and they are regular people that want to help their citizens in working for their country," said Bernier.
"I like to have people who are new in politics, that's what we need, we need more people like that." Roster of candidates growing
Nine candidates were announced at the event in Regina, and more will be introduced in Saskatoon on Wednesday.
Mark Friesen (Saskatoon-Grasswood). Phillip Michael Zajac (Souris-Moose Mountain). Mario Milanovski (Regina-Wascana). Lee Harding (Cypress Hills-Grasslands). Chey Craik (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre-Lanigan). Trevor Wowk (Regina-Lewvan). Tracey Sparrowhawk (Regina-Qu'Appelle). Cody Payant (Carlton Trail-Eagle Creek). Kelly Day (Prince Albert).
'I'm appealing to their intelligence'
> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Hon.Ralph.Goodale (PS/SP)"<Hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca> > Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 01:16:32 +0000 > Subject: Automatic reply: Methinks Carl Urquhart and Blaine Higgs want > to litigate N'esy Pas Chucky Leblanc, Cheryl Layton and Janice Graham? > To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> > > Merci d'avoir ?crit ? l'honorable Ralph Goodale, ministre de la > S?curit? publique et de la Protection civile. > En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de la correspondance > adress?e au ministre, veuillez prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir un > retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Soyez assur? que votre > message sera examin? avec attention. > Merci! > L'Unit? de la correspondance minist?rielle > S?curit? publique Canada > ********* > > Thank you for writing to the Honourable Ralph Goodale, Minister of > Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. > Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence > addressed to the Minister, please note there could be a delay in > processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be > carefully reviewed. > Thank you! > Ministerial Correspondence Unit > Public Safety Canada > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: David.Lametti@parl.gc.ca > Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 01:16:30 +0000 > Subject: Automatic reply: Methinks Carl Urquhart and Blaine Higgs want > to litigate N'esy Pas Chucky Leblanc, Cheryl Layton and Janice Graham? > To: david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com > > Hello, > > Please kindly note that I am out of office from August 12th to 18th, > inclusively. > > If you need any assitance, please contact our constituency office > Director, Nicole Picher at : david.lametti.c1@parl.gc.ca > > Thank you! > _______________________ > > Bonjour, > > Veuillez noter que je sui absent du bureau du 12 au 18 ao?t, > inclusivement. > > Si vous avez besoin d'assistance, je vous invite ? communiquer avec > notre Directrice de bureau de circonscription, Nicole Picher, ? : > david.lametti.c1@parl.gc.ca > > Merci! > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Barbara Massey <Barbara.Massey@rcmp-grc.gc.ca> > Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2019 21:16:36 -0400 > Subject: Re: Methinks Carl Urquhart and Blaine Higgs want to litigate > N'esy Pas Chucky Leblanc, Cheryl Layton and Janice Graham? (Out of > Office ) > To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> > > I will be away from the office until August 19, 2019. In my absence, > you may contact: > August 2 and August 12-16 incl. – Jolene Harvey 613 843 4892; > Jolene.harvey@rcmp-grc.gc.ca > August 6-9 incl. – Jennifer Duggan 613 825 2981; > Jennifer.duggan@rcmp-grc.gc.ca > or my Exec. Asst. – Sandra Lofaro 613 843 3540; > Sandra.lofaro@rcmp-grc.gc.ca > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Je serai absente du bureau jusqu’au 19 août, 2019. Pendant mon > absence, vous pouvez communiquer avec : > le 2 août et du 12 au 16 août incl. - Jolene Harvey 613 843 4892; > Jolene.harvey@rcmp-grc.gc.ca > du 6 au 9 août incl. - Jennifer Duggan 613 825 2981; > Jennifer.duggan@rcmp-grc.gc.ca > ou mon adj. exec. - Sandra Lofaro 613 843 3540; > Sandra.lofaro@rcmp-grc.gc.ca > > >>>> David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> 08/11/19 21:16 >>> > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "MinFinance / FinanceMin (FIN)" > <fin.minfinance-financemin.fin@canada.ca> > Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 18:05:38 +0000 > Subject: RE: Dr. Mohamed LACHEMI I just called > 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. > > http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.com/2019/07/latest-sisson-mine-approval-leaves.html > > Wednesday, 24 July 2019 > > Latest Sisson Mine approval leaves First Nations, conservation groups > uneasy > > https://twitter.com/DavidRayAmos/with_replies > > David Raymond Amos @DavidRayAmos 5 > Replying to @DavidRayAmos @alllibertynews and 49 others > Methinks these people must have read their emails by now N'esy Pas? > > Entire email is at bottom of this blog > > > https://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.com/2019/07/latest-sisson-mine-approval-leaves.html > > > #nbpoli #cdnpoli > > > https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/afn-aga-opening-ceremony-fredericton-1.5221890 > > > Assembly of First Nations opens annual general assembly in Fredericton > > > 3 Comments > > > > David Amos > Methinks these people must have read their emails by now N'esy Pas? > > Entire email is at bottom of this blog > > > > ---------- Original message ---------- > From: Premier of Ontario | Premier ministre de l’Ontario > <Premier@ontario.ca> > Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:44:31 +0000 > Subject: Automatic reply: The Honourable Carolyn Bennett can never > claim that she did not know N'esy Chucky Leblanc> > To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@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: carolyn.bennett@parl.gc.ca > Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:39:49 +0000 > Subject: Thank you for contacting our office > To: david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com > > Thank you very much for contacting our office. Your message has been > received and will be reviewed as soon as possible. > > Please note that, due to the high volume of correspondence that we > receive, priority is given to inquiries from constituents of > Toronto-St. Paul's. If you have not done so already, please include > your full name, address, and postal code in your message. > > If you are a constituent and this is a time-sensitive matter, please > also do not hesitate to contact our constituency office by phone at > 416-952-3990. We are more than happy to assist! > > If your message is regarding Crown-Indigenous Relations, it will be > forwarded to the department office. For all future correspondence > pertaining to Crown-Indigenous Relations, we request that you please > write directly to > aadnc.minister.aandc@canada.ca > aadnc.minister.aandc@canada.ca >> > or call 819-997-0002. > > Thank you once again for taking the time to contact our office. We > hope this information has been helpful, and look forward to connecting > with you again soon! > > Sincerely, > > Hon. Carolyn Bennett > Member of Parliament for Toronto-St. Paul's > > -- > > Merci beaucoup d'avoir communiqué avec notre bureau. Votre message a > bien été reçu et il sera traité dès que possible. > > Veuillez noter qu'en raison du volume élevé de correspondance que nous > recevons, la priorité est accordée aux demandes provenant d'habitants > de Toronto-St. Paul's. Si ce n'est pas encore fait, nous vous prions > d'inclure votre nom complet, votre adresse et votre code postal dans > votre message. > > S'il s'agit d'une question urgente et que vous êtes un électeur de la > circonscription susmentionnée, n'hésitez pas à communiquer avec notre > bureau de circonscription au 416-952-3990. Nous nous ferons un plaisir > de vous aider! > > Si votre message porte sur les relations Couronne-Autochtones, il sera > acheminé au bureau du ministère approprié. Pour toute autre question > au sujet des relations Couronne-Autochtones, nous vous saurions gré > d'écrire directement au ministère à l'adresse > aadnc.minister.aandc@canada.caaadnc.minister.aandc@canada.ca>, > ou de l'appeler au 819-997-0002. > > Merci encore une fois d'avoir pris le temps de communiquer avec notre > bureau. Nous espérons que ces informations vous sont utiles, et nous > nous réjouissons à la perspective d'échanger avec vous de nouveau! > > Cordialement, > > L'honorable Carolyn Bennett > Députée de Toronto-St. Paul's > > > > ---------- Original message ---------- > From: "Media (RCAANC/CIRNAC)"<RCAANC.Media.CIRNAC@canada.ca> > Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:39:54 +0000 > Subject: Automatic reply: Re Federal Court File No T-1557-15 I called > Office of the Honourable Carolyn Bennett before she gives her big > speech in Fat Fred City today > To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> > > Thank you for your email. You have contacted the Media Centre for > Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada. > > This is an automatic reply to confirm receipt of your e-mail. We will > respond as soon as possible. > > Please note that this inbox and the Media Centre telephone line > (819-934-2302) are monitored Monday through Friday, from 9:00AM to > 5:00PM EST, with the exception of holidays. > > Media Enquiries > If you have submitted a media enquiry, we will aim to respond as > quickly as possible. > > For media enquiries requiring an urgent response outside of regular > work hours, please contact Michelle Perron > (michelle.perron@canada.ca). > > General Public Enquiries > Members of the public may direct their questions to our Public > Enquiries service: > > Email: aadnc.infopubs.aandc@canada.caaadnc.infopubs.aandc@canada.ca >> > Phone: 1-800-567-9604 > Teletypewriter (TTY): 1-866-553-0554 > Fax: 1-866-817-3977 > > Mailing address: > Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada > Public Enquiries Contact Centre > 10 rue Wellington > Gatineau QC K1A 0H4 > > *** > > Merci pour votre courriel. Vous avez contact? le Centre des m?dias de > Relations Couronne-Autochtones et Affaires du Nord Canada. > > Ceci est une r?ponse automatique pour confirmer r?ception de votre > courriel. Nous vous r?pondrons le plus t?t possible. > > Veuillez noter que cette bo?te de r?ception et la ligne t?l?phonique > du Centre des m?dias (819-934-2302) sont surveill?es du lundi au > vendredi, de 9h00 ? 17h00 HNE, sauf les jours f?ri?s. > > Requ?tes des m?dias > Si vous avez soumis une requ?te, nous tenterons d'y r?pondre le plus > rapidement possible. > > Pour des requ?tes urgentes n?cessitant une r?ponse en dehors des > heures r?guli?res de travail, veuillez svp contacter Michelle Perron > (michelle.perron@canada.ca). > > Requ?tes g?n?rales du public > Les membres du public peuvent adresser leurs questions ? notre service > de requ?tes g?n?rales : > > Courriel : aadnc.infopubs.aandc@canada.caaadnc.infopubs.aandc@canada.ca> > T?l?phone : 1-800-567-9604 > T?l?imprimeur (ATS) : 1-866-553-0554 > T?l?copieur : 1-866-817-3977 > > Adresse postale : > Affaires autochtones et du Nord Canada > Centre de contacts de renseignements du public > 10, rue Wellington > Gatineau QC K1A 0H4 > > >> ---------- Original message ---------- >> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> >> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 16:15:59 -0400 >> Subject: Hey Ralph Goodale perhaps you and the RCMP should call the >> Yankees Governor Charlie Baker, his lawyer Bob Ross, Rachael Rollins >> and this cop Robert Ridge (857 259 9083) ASAP EH Mr Primme Minister >> Trudeau the Younger and Donald Trump Jr? >> To: pm@pm.gc.ca, Katie.Telford@pmo-cpm.gc.ca, >> Ian.Shugart@pco-bcp.gc.ca, djtjr@trumporg.com, >> Donald.J.Trump@donaldtrump.com, JUSTWEB@novascotia.ca, >> Frank.McKenna@td.com, barbara.massey@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, >> Douglas.Johnson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, sandra.lofaro@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, >> washington.field@ic.fbi.gov, Brenda.Lucki@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, >> gov.press@state.ma.us, bob.ross@state.ma.us, jfurey@nbpower.com, >> jfetzer@d.umn.edu, Newsroom@globeandmail.com, sfine@globeandmail.com, >> .Poitras@cbc.ca, steve.murphy@ctv.ca, David.Akin@globalnews.ca, >> Dale.Morgan@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, news@kingscorecord.com, >> news@dailygleaner.com, oldmaison@yahoo.com, jbosnitch@gmail.com, >> andre@jafaust.com> >> Cc: david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com, DJT@trumporg.com >> wharrison@nbpower.com, David.Lametti@parl.gc.ca, mcu@justice.gc.ca, >> Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca, hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca >> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: "Murray, Charles (Ombud)"<Charles.Murray@gnb.ca> >>> Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 18:16:15 +0000 >>> Subject: You wished to speak with me >>> To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com"<motomaniac333@gmail.com> >>> >>> I have the advantage, sir, of having read many of your emails over the >>> years. >>> >>> >>> As such, I do not think a phone conversation between us, and >>> specifically one which you might mistakenly assume was in response to >>> your threat of legal action against me, is likely to prove a >>> productive use of either of our time. >>> >>> >>> If there is some specific matter about which you wish to communicate >>> with me, feel free to email me with the full details and it will be >>> given due consideration. >>> >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> >>> >>> Charles Murray >>> >>> Ombud NB >>> >>> Acting Integrity Commissioner >>> > > > > ---------- 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.camichael.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: "Eidt, David (OAG/CPG)"<David.Eidt@gnb.ca> > Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 00:33:21 +0000 > Subject: Automatic reply: Yo Mr Lutz howcome your buddy the clerk > would not file this motion and properly witnessed affidavit and why > did she take all four copies? > To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> > > I will be out of the office until Monday, March 13, 2017. I will have > little to no access to email. Please dial 453-2222 for assistance. > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Marc Richard <MRichard@lawsociety-barreau.nb.ca> > Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 13:16:46 +0000 > Subject: Automatic reply: RE: The New Brunswick Real Estate > Association and their deliberate ignorance for the bankster's benefit > To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> > > I will be out of the office until August 15, 2016. Je serai absent du > bureau jusqu'au 15 août 2016. > > >> ---------- 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 >
Former Moncton judge takes on new role with the law Social Sharing
Irwin Lampert retired after he spent 30 years as a Moncton provincial court judge Kate Letterick · CBC News · Posted: Jun 14, 2019 7:27 AM AT
Irwin Lampert, a former provincial court judge, says he's excited to take on his new role as a member of the Codiac Regional Policing Authority. (Kate Letterick/CBC News )
Irwin Lampert hung up his judicial robe and retired in February. But the former Moncton provincial court judge doesn't plan on taking it easy.
Lampert was recently appointed to the Codiac Regional Policing Authority. He attended his first meeting Thursday evening.
"I like to keep busy and I think it's a recipe for disaster to be idle, especially for a person like me." Lampert said.
Panhandling complaints in Moncton provoke joint RCMP-city project Codiac RCMP to add Mounties as calls rise, shifts fail to meet minimum staffing
The Authority's responsibility is to ensure adequate policing in the municipalities of Dieppe, Moncton and Riverview.
"They do very interesting work, very important work and I'm very happy to have the opportunity to contribute," he said. "With my background, I probably can contribute a bit and I hope to do so." Making a difference
Lampert spent 30 years on the bench. Although he misses his colleagues, he wanted to do something different.
"I feel that I really did have an opportunity to make a difference with some people, and not many people can say that in their career — that they can make a difference." Lampert spent 30 years on the bench as a provincial court judge in Moncton. (CBC News )
And he wanted to continue to make a difference.
After he retired, the former judge started to explore the City of Moncton website, scrolling through different committees that might interest him. Then he sent in his application.
Lampert was later contacted by Charles Leger, chair of the Codiac Regional Policing Authority and met with others on the committee.
Eventually, he was appointed. 'A matter of prioritizing'
Whether it's an increase in cybercrime or opioid use, Lampert says police officers face a number of challenges in today's society.
"All these different things are coming to the forefront and the police have to deal with them and the resources are tight." he said.
"It's a matter of prioritizing and I'm sure that's very difficult to do at times." Lampert attended his first meeting of the Codiac Regional Policing Authority Thursday evening in Dieppe. (Kate Letterick/CBC News)
At the committee meeting, Lampert was welcomed by Leger and Codiac RCMP Superintendent Tom Critchlow.
During various discussions, the former judge jumped right in, questioning Critchlow about the 154 traffic tickets handed out in May.
He said that works out to about four tickets each day and was surprised by the low number.
"At the end of the day this is about trying to balance our resources in line with the priorities that we have," Critchlow responded.
Lampert says he'll be there to ask questions when necessary, joking he's not one to hold back.
"The whole object is to do good for the city of Moncton. To make sure they get a bang for their buck. To make sure they get excellent police protection," he said. CBC's Journalistic Standards and Practices
Board members of the CRPA are appointed by the municipalities of Dieppe, Moncton and Riverview for a three year renewable term. The appointments are as follows: two Board Members from the City of Dieppe, seven Board Members from the City of Moncton, two Board Members from the Town of Riverview and one Board Member from the Province of New Brunswick. The CRPA Board members possess a variety of backgrounds including community, business, accounting, legal, human resources, law enforcement and public relations experience.
A Conversation with Retired Judge Irwin E. Lampert – Wednesday, June 17th; 8pm; via Zoom Edit
Event Details
Date:–
About Irwin
I was born in Montreal, moved to Moncton at a very young age and have lived and worked here ever since, except during my years away at university. I am a graduate of Moncton High School, Dalhousie University (Science degree) and the University of New Brunswick Law School. I practised law in Moncton for many years with a large practice in Family Law, before being appointed a provincial court judge. I presided in courts across New Brunswick hearing mainly criminal matters, including Youth Court. For many years I was involved with various judges’ associations. I served terms as President of the New Brunswick Provincial Court Judges’ Association and the Canadian Association of Provincial Court Judges and was a Governor of the American Judges’ Association. For a number of years I was a member of the New Brunswick Judicial Council, a body which dealt with complaints filed against judges. Annually since 2005, I have lectured in China. As well, I have given presentations to judges, high school students, parole officers, service clubs and community college students. I have been active in many different organizations including Moncton Headstart, the Canadian Cancer Society, volunteering at the Moncton City Hospital and as General Counsel for the Canadian Jewish Congress. In addition, I am the proud recipient of the City of Moncton Commemorative Medal. In 2019, I retired from the court and began a schedule of volunteering which now occupies much of my time. Furthermore, I preside over hearings for inmates charged with offences committed within the institution at the federal women’s prison in Truro, N.S. Also, I am a member of the Codiac Regional Policing Authority, the body which oversees the work of the RCMP in our area. I first officiated at a wedding in 2000. As well, I have acted as Master of Ceremonies at many wedding receptions and other public events. My wife, Audrey, was a school teacher and administrator for many years. We are proud parents of 3 adult children and have 6 grandchildren.
Contact Us
5670 Spring Garden Road, Suite 309 | Halifax, Nova Scotia | B3J 1H6
I was born in Montreal, moved to Moncton at a very young age and have lived and worked here ever since, except during my years away at university.
I am a graduate of Moncton High School, Dalhousie University (Science degree) and the University of New Brunswick Law School. I practised law in Moncton for many years with a large practice in Family Law, before being appointed a provincial court judge. I presided in courts across New Brunswick hearing mainly criminal matters, including Youth Court.
For many years I was involved with various judges’ associations. I served terms as President of the New Brunswick Provincial Court Judges’ Association and the Canadian Association of Provincial Court Judges and was a Governor of the American Judges’ Association. For a number of years I was a member of the New Brunswick Judicial Council, a body which dealt with complaints filed against judges.
Annually since 2005, I have lectured in China. As well, I have given presentations to judges, high school students, parole officers, service clubs and community college students.
I have been active in many different organizations including Moncton Headstart, the Canadian Cancer Society, volunteering at the Moncton City Hospital and as General Counsel for the Canadian Jewish Congress. In addition, I am the proud recipient of the City of Moncton Commemorative Medal.
In 2019, I retired from the court and began a schedule of volunteering which now occupies much of my time. Furthermore, I preside over hearings for inmates charged with offences committed within the institution at the federal women’s prison in Truro, N.S. Also, I am a member of the Codiac Regional Policing Authority, the body which oversees the work of the RCMP in our area.
I first officiated at a wedding in 2000. As well, I have acted as Master of Ceremonies at many wedding receptions and other public events.
My wife, Audrey, was a school teacher and administrator for many years. We are proud parents of 3 adult children and have 6 grandchildren.
