> or call 613-957-4222.

Thank you

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

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

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

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

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




---------- Original message ----------
From: "MacKay, Peter"<Peter.MacKay@bakermckenzie.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 22:23:35 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: I just called to discuss my false imprisonment and
Joseph Berman as General Counsel of the...
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>

Thank you for your email.  I am currently out of the country and may
not have access to email or voicemail during my absence.  I will
respond to your inquiries upon my return on July 9th.

If your matter is urgent, please contact my assistant, Nicole Bruni at
nicole.bruni@bakermckenzie.com or at (416) 865-3861.

Please note that this email will only be sent to you once during my absense.

Peter MacKay
Partner, Litigation
Baker & McKenzie LLP
181 Bay Street, Suite 2100
Toronto, ON M5J 2T3
Canada
Tel: +1 416 863 1221
peter.mackay@bakermckenzie.competer.mackay@bakermckenzie.com
>

ACRITAS SHARPLEGAL 2017
#1 Most Considered for Litigation and
Multi-Jurisdictional Litigation

2018 GLOBAL COMPETITION REVIEW
Top 5 Global Elite Practice

bakermckenzie.com<http://www.bakermckenzie.com/en/> |
LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/company/baker-&-mckenzie> |
Twitter<https://twitter.com/bakermckenzie>


This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If
it has been sent to you in error, please reply to advise the sender of
the error and then immediately delete this message.  Please visit
www.bakermckenzie.com/disclaimers for other important information
concerning this message.



---------- Original message ----------
From: "xxxLitt, xxxMarc"<xxxMarc.xxxLitt@bakermckenzie.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 22:23:34 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: I just called to discuss my false imprisonment and
Joseph Berman as General Counsel of the...
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>

Thank you for your message. Please note that as of 1/11/2018, Marc
Litt is no longer employed at Baker McKenzie. For any client-related
matters please contact David Zaslowsky at (212) 891-3518 or via e-mail
at David.Zaslowsky@bakermckenzie.com David.Zaslowsky@bakermckenzie.com>
and William Devaney at (212) 626-4337 or via email at
William.Devaney@bakermckenzie.com.


This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If
it has been sent to you in error, please reply to advise the sender of
the error and then immediately delete this message. Please visit
<http://www.bakermckenzie.com/disclaimers>
www.bakermckenzie.com/disclaimers<http://www.bakermckenzie.com/disclaimers>
for other important information concerning this message.


https://www.wmllp.com/team/marc_litt/

Marc Litt Partner
mlitt@wmllp.com
Tel: (212) 909-9686



 http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1871570,00.html







---------- Original message ----------
From: Newsroom <newsroom@globeandmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 22:26:44 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: I just called to discuss my false imprisonment and


http://milton.wickedlocal.com/news/20180227/lawyer-entangled-in-joyce-cover-up-prosecutors-say

Lawyer ‘entangled’ in Joyce cover up, prosecutors say

By Neal Simpson
The Patriot Ledger

BOSTON — Federal prosecutors leading a corruption case against former state Sen. Brian Joyce want the court to disqualify Joyce’s lawyer, claiming the attorney was working to cover his client’s tracks.

In a motion filed Monday, prosecutors said Joyce’s longtime attorney, Howard Cooper, had become “entangled” in the former senator’s cover up by making “several material and false representations” to the state ethics commission and could be called to testify if Joyce’s case goes to trial. Prosecutors are also asking a judge to subpoena Cooper for a closed-door hearing to determine whether some of his communications with Joyce could be exempt from attorney-client privilege because they were used to further the former senator’s alleged crimes.

Joyce, a 55-year-old Milton Democrat who served nearly two decades in office before announcing in 2016 that he would not seek re-election, was arrested late last year on a federal indictment charging him with more than 100 counts of racketeering, fraud, extortion, money laundering and other charges.

Prosecutors say Joyce used his office and influence to collect around $1 million in kickbacks through a variety of corrupt schemes, some of which he later tried to cover up through the work of Cooper and other attorneys in Cooper’s office.

Max Stern, Cooper’s co-counsel in the Joyce case, stressed in a statement Tuesday that Cooper had not been accused of any wrongdoing.

“The government’s baseless effort to disqualify Mr. Cooper strips his client of his right to choose counsel,” Stern said. “This is a wholly unjustifiable threat to the constitutional rights of any defendant.”

Indeed, prosecutors said in the motion filed Monday that they did not yet know whether Cooper “knowingly assisted” Joyce in the cover up. But they did say that documents obtained by investigators suggested that Cooper should have made a “more thorough investigation” into Joyce’s response to questions from state ethics investigators.

Many of those questions had to do with Joyce’s relationship with a company that provides insurance for certain kinds of renewable energy projects. Prosecutors say Joyce was personally invested in the company, having bought more than $471,000 in common stock, and was receiving monthly $5,000 “bribe” payments at the same time he was pushing legislation that would have benefited the company. Joyce’s law office also did legal work for the company.

In response to questions about the relationship, prosecutors say Cooper gave the ethics commission misleading information about how the stock had been purchased and whether Joyce had been paid for representing the company at a meeting with state insurance officials. He also claimed that Joyce did not believe that his legislation would benefit the company, something prosecutors say was “simply untrue.”

Prosecutors say Joyce also used Cooper to mislead the ethics commission about several hundred pounds of coffee Joyce had received from a Dunkin’ Donuts franchise owner, which he gave to others as gifts. Prosecutors say Joyce, who was pushing legislation that would benefit the franchisee, had initially received the coffee for free, but later had Cooper submit a backdated invoice showing he’d paid nearly $1,700 for some of it. Cooper told the ethics commission that Joyce was given the rest in exchange for free legal work.

Joyce was released on $250,000 bond following his arrest in December. His longtime accountant, John Nardozzi, was charged last month with helping Joyce and his family defraud the government out of almost $800,000 in taxes by preparing and filing false returns.




---------- Original message ----------
From: Emma Quinn-Judge <equinn-judge@zalkindlaw.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 22:24:45 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: I just called to discuss my false imprisonment and
Joseph Berman as General Counsel of the...
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>

I am out of the office until Monday, July 9, 2018.  If you need
immediate assistance, you can reach other attorneys in my office at
(617) 742-6020. You can also reach my assistant, Rebecca Hutchinson,
at rhutchinson@zalkindlaw.com.


---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 17:58:21 -0400
Subject: Fwd: I just called to discuss my false imprisonment and my lawsuits in MA,
Senator Brian Joyce, the US Senate and its Elections, the SEC, the IRS, the FBI, the
wiretap tapes I have, the appointment of Joseph Berman as General Counsel of the BBO
and his postion within the BBA Ethics Committee
To: william.weinreb@usdoj.gov, governor@govoff.state.ms.us,
BARBARA_MORSE@mad.uscourts.gov, pcrickard@peabodyarnold.com,
rblaisdell@barrettsingal.com, mcosgrove@barrettsingal.com,
wsinnott@barrettsingal.com, emcevoy@barrettsingal.com,
dpowell@barrettsingal.com, cstein@barrettsingal.com,
mpeirce@barrettsingal.com, bsingal@barrettsingal.com,
lunt@zalkindlaw.com, nzalkind@zalkindlaw.com, Joel.Garland@ci.irs.gov,
editor@wikileaks.org, ed.pilkington@guardian.co.uk,
"Jacques.Poitras"<Jacques.Poitras@cbc.ca>, newstips <newstips@cnn.com>,
news <news@hilltimes.com>, dduncan@zalkindlaw.com, rstroup@zalkindlaw.com,
rcostello@zalkindlaw.com, equinn-judge@zalkindlaw.com,
mshah@zalkindlaw.com, srwunsch@gmail.com, dstern@bizlit.com,
pshaw@verrilldana.com, mtuteur@foley.com, kscammon@tshdlegal.com,
jcreinstein@gmail.com, edryan@oconnorandryan.com,
internalaffairs@pd.boston.gov, jason_turesky@wgbh.org,
phillip_martin@wgbh.org, edgar_herwick@wgbh.org, phil_redo@wgbh.org,
marilyn_schairer@wgbh.org, Stephanie.malin@cbp.dhs.gov,
dante.ramos@globe.com, d.medwed@northeastern.edu, phillips@globe.com
Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>, howie@howiecarrshow.com,
Marc.Litt@bakermckenzie.com, PETER.MACKAY@bakermckenzie.com,
Newsroom <Newsroom@globeandmail.com>, jtodd@toddweld.com


---------- Original message ----------
From: EHoulding@peabodyarnold.com
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 20:53:44 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: I just called to discuss my false imprisonment and
my lawsuits in MA, Senator Brian Joyce, the US Senate and its Elections,
the SEC, the IRS, the FBI, the wiretap tapes I have, the appointment of
Joseph Berman as General Counsel of the...
To: david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com

I am out of the office and will return on Thursday, June 28. I will
not have frequent access to email and voicemail.  If you need
immediate assistance, please contact my assistant Patricia Crickard at
pcrickard@peabodyarnold.com or 617-261-5150.



This transmission is intended only for the designated recipient(s). It
contains confidential information that may be subject to the
attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections under
applicable law. If you are not a designated recipient, you must not
read, use, copy or distribute this message. If you received this
transmission in error, please notify the sender by telephone
(617-951-2100) or by reply e-mail and delete this message.

IRS Circular 230 requires that we inform you that if this
communication (including any attachments) contains tax advice, it is
not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes
of avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or promoting
marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter
addressed herein.



---------- Original message ----------
From: paul.lannon@hklaw.com
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 20:53:36 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: I just called to discuss my false imprisonment and
my lawsuits in MA, Senator Brian Joyce, the US Senate and its Elections,
the SEC, the IRS, the FBI, the wiretap tapes I have, the appointment of
Joseph Berman as General Counsel of the...
To: david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com

Thank you for your email.  I will be out of the office traveling from
June 22-27.  I will be checking email periodically.  If this matter is
urgent, please contact my assistant, Karen Dost.  Thank you for
contacting Holland & Knight.

________________________________

NOTE: This e-mail is from a law firm, Holland & Knight LLP ("H&K"),
and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is
addressed. If you believe you received this e-mail in error, please
notify the sender immediately, delete the e-mail from your computer
and do not copy or disclose it to anyone else. If you are not an
existing client of H&K, do not construe anything in this e-mail to
make you a client unless it contains a specific statement to that
effect and do not disclose anything to H&K in reply that you expect it
to hold in confidence. If you properly received this e-mail as a
client, co-counsel or retained expert of H&K, you should maintain its
contents in confidence in order to preserve the attorney-client or
work product privilege that may be available to protect
confidentiality.


---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 14:52:24 -0400
Subject: Do ya think the Wacky Yankee Howie Carr has two clues between his ears yet?
To: howie@howiecarrshow.com, newsroom <newsroom@globeandmail.ca>,
newsonline <newsonline@bbc.co.uk>, news <news@dailymail.co.uk>,
news-tips <news-tips@nytimes.com>, newsdesk <newsdesk@independent.co.uk>,
editor <editor@wikileaks.org>, "ed.pilkington"<ed.pilkington@guardian.co.uk>,
newstips <newstips@cnn.com>, frontline@wgbh.org, web <web@wcvb.com>,
"Marc.Litt"<Marc.Litt@bakermckenzie.com>,
 "PETER.MACKAY"<PETER.MACKAY@bakermckenzie.com>,
 william.weinreb@usdoj.gov, Joel.Garland@ci.irs.gov,
 "Boston.Mail"<Boston.Mail@ic.fbi.gov>, jtodd@toddweld.com,
hcooper@toddweld.com, internalaffairs@pd.boston.gov, jason_turesky@wgbh.org,
phillip_martin@wgbh.org, edgar_herwick@wgbh.org, phil_redo@wgbh.org,
marilyn_schairer@wgbh.org, Stephanie.malin@cbp.dhs.gov,
dante.ramos@globe.com, d.medwed@northeastern.edu, phillips@globe.com
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>

https://howiecarrshow.com/howie-carr/



---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 21:58:29 -0400
Subject: Fwd: I just called to discuss my false imprisonment and my lawsuits in MA, 
Senator Brian Joyce, the US Senate and its Elections, the SEC, the IRS, the FBI, the 
wiretap tapes I have, the appointment of Joseph Berman as General Counsel of the 
BBO and his position within the BBA Ethics Committee
To: mdstern@toddweld.com, FALibby@libbyhoopes.com, mlitt@wmllp.com,
David.Zaslowsky@bakermckenzie.com, William.Devaney@bakermckenzie.com,
TPeisch@connkavanaugh.com, CStarkey@connkavanuagh.com,
tminer@demeollp.com, mpearlstein@mwe.com, dmarx@fickmarx.com,
wfick@fickmarx.com, brien.o'connor@ropesgray.com,
splopez@lawson-weitzen.com, emily.schulman@wilmerhale.com,
joshua.levy@ropesgray.com, william.lee@wilmerhale.com,
iroffman@nutter.com, thoopes@libbyhoopes.com,
ntheodorou@foleyhoag.com, jkotlier@nutter.com, amirenda@foleyhoag.com,
drichlin@foley.hoag.com, hussey@murphyrudolf.com,
mkeating@foleyhoag.com, geraldinehines24k@gmail.com,
dhoose@strhlaw.com, gribouski@gskandg.com, frongillo@fr.com,
pettenberg@gouldettenberg.com, Paul.Kelly@jacksonlewis.com,
robert.peabody@jacksonlewis.com, cunha@cunhaholcomb.com,
tdwyer@dwyer-llc.com, harshbarger@casneredwards.com,
John.commisso@jacksonlewis.com, mtearney@choate.com,


---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 16:53:25 -0400
Subject: I just called to discuss my false imprisonment and my lawsuits in MA,
Senator Brian Joyce, the US Senate and its Elections, the SEC, the IRS, the FBI,
the wiretap tapes I have, the appointment of Joseph Berman as General Counsel
of the BBO and his postion within the BBA Ethics Committee
To: Matt_mcghie@slc.senate.gov, j.Russell.George@tigta.treas.gov,
richard.p.theis@usdoj.gov, PublicInfo@sjc.state.ma.us,
adaniel@bostonbar.org, paul.tremblay@bc.edu, paul.lannon@hklaw.com,
mlarsen@publiccounsel.net, abenedetti@publiccounsel.net,
martinnewhouse@nelfonline.org, jmsgibbons@yahoo.com,
dmanning@gbls.org, ehoulding@peabodyarnold.com, Nate@oliplaw.com,
mcmoschella@sherin.com, mov@miamimaritimelaw.com,
amarconi@thorpeshwer.com, salsburg@laredosmith.com,
roman@sugarmanrogers.com, ldwyer@barrettsingal.com,
BARBARA<_ a="" href="?&cs=wh&v=b&to=MORSE@mad.uscourts.gov">_MORSE@mad.uscourts.gov,  Lon.Povich@state.ma.us
Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>,
governor@governor.state.ms.gov, jfalvey@goodwinlaw.com,
cwood@woodnathanson.com, cmcdaniel@senate.ms.gov,
"marc.giroux"<marc.giroux@fja-cmf.gc.ca>,
 "mark.vespucci"<mark.vespucci@ci.irs.gov>



Governor Phil Bryant
governor@govoff.state.ms.us,
601-359-3150

https://www.massbar.org/docs/default-source/publications-document-library/ejournal/2017-18/04-02-18-joyce-motion-and-brief.pdf?Status=Temp&sfvrsn=2

http://www.fedbar.org/Leadership/Sections-And-Divisions-Counsil-.aspx


Matthew McGhie
U.S. Senate Office of the Legislative Council
9519 Kings Grant Rd
Laurel, MD 20723
(202)224-6494
Matt_mcghie@slc.Senate.gov

Richard Theis
US Dept of Justice
145 N St NE
Washington, DC 20530
(202)307-0116
richard.p.theis@usdoj.gov

CHAIR
Matthew Moschella
Sherin & Lodgen LLP
101 Federal St 30th Fl
Boston, MA 02110
(617) 646-2245
mcmoschella@sherin.com


https://www.mass.gov/news/supreme-judicial-court-announces-new-general-counsel-to-the-board-of-bar-overseers

http://www.bostonbar.org/public-policy/ethics-opinions/ethics-committee

http://www.mad.uscourts.gov/attorneys/pdf/ProgramOverview.pdf

https://www.publiccounsel.net/dir/management/

The Boston Municipal Court Department of the Trial Court,
of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, United States.
Address: 24 New Chardon St, Boston, MA 02114, USA
Phone: +1 617-788-8600

Jurisdiction: Suffolk County, Massachusetts

Dorchester District Court
510 Washington St
+1 617-288-9500



---------- Original message ----------
From: "Albano, Jonathan M."<jonathan.albano@morganlewis.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 16:26:27 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Collapse all Print New window Methinks one
of Trump's many lawyers should call the FBI dudes in DC and Beantown
ASAP They are far too chicken to talk to me or you N'esy Pas Mikey
Gill?
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>

I will be out of the office until mid-afternoon on June 22, 2018 and
will respond to your email as soon as possible.

Jon Albano

DISCLAIMER
This e-mail message is intended only for the personal use
of the recipient(s) named above.  This message may be an
attorney-client communication and as such privileged and
confidential and/or it may include attorney work product.
If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review,
copy or distribute this message.  If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by
e-mail and delete the original message.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 12:26:19 -0400
Subject: Collapse all Print New window Methinks one of Trump's many
lawyers should call the FBI dudes in DC and Beantown ASAP They are far
too chicken to talk to me or you N'esy Pas Mikey Gill?
To: sheri.dillon@morganlewis.com, washington field
<washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, hcooper <hcooper@toddweld.com>,
stateofcorruptionnh1 <stateofcorruptionnh1@gmail.com>, "Boston.Mail"
<Boston.Mail@ic.fbi.gov>, mdcohen212 <mdcohen212@gmail.com>,
"hon.ralph.goodale"<hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca>,
Pierre.Parent@parl.gc.ca, "Gib.vanErt"<Gib.vanErt@scc-csc.ca>
Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>,
jonathan.albano@morganlewis.com, "Dale.Morgan"
<Dale.Morgan@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>

Sheri A. Dillon
1111 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20004-2541
United States
Phone +1.202.739.5749
sheri.dillon@morganlewis.com


---------- Original message ----------
From: Premier of Ontario | Première ministre de l’Ontario <Premier@ontario.ca>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 13:21:16 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: The LIEbranos latest Constitutional and
Legal Adviser Michael Fenrick denied receiving this email but several
computers did not
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

Thank you for your email. Your thoughts, comments and input are greatly valued.

You can be assured that all emails and letters are carefully read,
reviewed and taken into consideration.

There may be occasions when, given the issues you have raised and the
need to address them effectively, we will forward a copy of your
correspondence to the appropriate government official. Accordingly, a
response may take several business days.

Thanks again for your email.
______­­

Merci pour votre courriel. Nous vous sommes très reconnaissants de
nous avoir fait part de vos idées, commentaires et observations.

Nous tenons à vous assurer que nous lisons attentivement et prenons en
considération tous les courriels et lettres que nous recevons.

Dans certains cas, nous transmettrons votre message au ministère
responsable afin que les questions soulevées puissent être traitées de
la manière la plus efficace possible. En conséquence, plusieurs jours
ouvrables pourraient s’écouler avant que nous puissions vous répondre.

Merci encore pour votre courriel.


---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 09:21:12 -0400
Subject: Fwd: The LIEbranos latest Constitutional and Legal Adviser
Michael Fenrick denied receiving this email but several computers did
not
To: jagmeet.singh@ndp.ca, sfeinman <sfeinman@fahrllc.com>, premier
<premier@ontario.ca>, PREMIER <PREMIER@gov.ns.ca>, premier
<premier@gov.ab.ca>, premier <premier@gov.pe.ca>, premier
<premier@gov.sk.ca>, premier <premier@gov.yk.ca>, premier
<premier@gov.nt.ca>, premier <premier@gov.bc.ca>, "premier.ministre"
<premier.ministre@cex.gouv.qc.ca>, premier <premier@gov.nl.ca>
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, doug
<doug@fordnation.ca>, "francis.scarpaleggia"
<francis.scarpaleggia@parl.gc.ca>

---------- Original message ----------
From: "Gallant, Premier Brian (PO/CPM)"<Brian.Gallant@gnb.ca>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 12:51:40 +0000
Subject: RE: The LIEbranos latest Constitutional and Legal Adviser
Michael Fenrick denied receiving this email but several computers did
not
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

Thank you for writing to the Premier of New Brunswick.  Please be
assured  that your email will be reviewed.

If this is a media request, please forward your email to
media-medias@gnb.camedia-medias@gnb.ca>.  Thank you!

*************************************

Nous vous remercions d’avoir communiqué avec le premier ministre du
Nouveau-Brunswick.  Soyez assuré(e) que votre  courriel sera examiné.

Si ceci est une demande médiatique, prière de la transmettre à
media-medias@gnb.camedia-medias@gnb.ca>.  Merci!


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Justice Website <JUSTWEB@novascotia.ca>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:21:11 +0000
Subject: Emails to Department of Justice and Province of Nova Scotia
To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com"<motomaniac333@gmail.com>

Mr. Amos,
We acknowledge receipt of your recent emails to the Deputy Minister of
Justice and lawyers within the Legal Services Division of the
Department of Justice respecting a possible claim against the Province
of Nova Scotia.  Service of any documents respecting a legal claim
against the Province of Nova Scotia may be served on the Attorney
General at 1690 Hollis Street, Halifax, NS.  Please note that we will
not be responding to further emails on this matter.

Department of Justice

On 8/3/17, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> 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?
>
>
> Vertias Vincit
> David Raymond Amos
> 902 800 0369
>
> 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
>
>
> http://www.archive.org/details/PoliceSurveilanceWiretapTape139
>
> http://www.archive.org/details/FedsUsTreasuryDeptRcmpEtc
>
>
> 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://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/new-brunswick-integrity-commissioner-conflict-of-interest-boudreau-1.4154004
>
> Integrity commissioner calls for tougher conflict-of-interest law
> N.B. legislation should apply to apparent conflicts, not just actual
> ones, Alexandre Deschênes says
> By Jacques Poitras, CBC News Posted: Jun 12, 2017 6:30 AM AT
>
> Alexandre Deschênes's first act as commissioner was to deal with
> Victor Boudreau's 20 per cent investment in Shediac Campground Ltd., a
> proposed 700-site facility that has generated local opposition.
> (Jacques Poitras/CBC)
>
> New Brunswick's integrity commissioner says the conflict-of-interest
> law for politicians should be toughened to clarify cases such as
> cabinet minister Victor Boudreau's former investment in a proposed
> campground near Parlee Beach.
>
> Alexandre Deschênes said earlier this year that Boudreau's stake in
> the project did not put him in a conflict of interest but that the
> appearance of a conflict was "inevitable."
>
> Unlike other conflict-of-interest laws, "our act does not apply to an
> apparent conflict of interest," he said in an interview with CBC News.
> "It's not in there."
>
> Previous commissioners suggested law
>
> Boudreau recused himself from Parlee Beach issues anyway, even though
> he didn't technically have to. The law said ministers aren't in a
> conflict if decisions that affect their private interests also apply
> to the general public.
>
>     Boudreau recuses himself from Parlee Beach controversy
>     Victor Boudreau case shows 'huge loophole' in conflict law, ethics
> group says
>
> "Mr. Boudreau could have gone on and said, 'I'm the minister of health
> and I'm going to make decisions that apply to the general public and
> the act allows it,'" Deschênes said.
>
> "If you'd had the words 'apparent conflict of interest' [in the law]
> it would have been clear."
>
> Deschênes pointed out two of his predecessors as conflict-of-interest
> commissioner, Pat Ryan and Stuart Stratton, recommended expanding the
> act to include the appearance of conflicts.
>
> "It started out way back," he said. "We're looking at almost a decade
> here where the suggestion has been made that apparent conflict of
> interest ought to be included in the act. It's not been done.
>
> "But as a commissioner, I will be following what they've been doing
> and I will be recommending it when I file a report."
>
> Updated conflict act
>
> The Gallant Liberals passed amendments to update the Members Conflict
> of Interest Act during the spring session of the legislature, but they
> did not include a ban on perceived conflicts.
>
> Progressive Conservative MLA Brian MacDonald has also called for the
> Liberals to fix what he calls "a gap in the law."
>
>     'Gap in the law': PC critic suggests review of conflict law
>     Premier backs Victor Boudreau's involvement in Parlee Beach issue​
>
> Deschênes was appointed the province's integrity commissioner last
> year. The new role incorporates the role of conflict-of-interest
> watchdog and registrar of lobbyists, and in September it will also
> include the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
>
> Victor
>
> Cabinet minister Victor Boudreau recused himself from the Parlee Beach
> issues anyway, even though the law said ministers aren't in a conflict
> if decisions that affect their private interests also apply to the
> general public. (CBC)
>
> Deschênes's first act as commissioner was to deal with Boudreau's 20
> per cent investment in Shediac Campground Ltd., a proposed 700-site
> facility that has generated local opposition.
>
> As health minister, Boudreau oversees the public health offices, and
> his department was part of a working group looking at how to deal with
> fecal contamination at Parlee Beach. One option the group looked at
> was a moratorium on new development near the beach.
>
> That would have affected the proposed campground.
>
>     'I told him, and he made it public, that the appearance of
> conflict in this case was absolutely inevitable. He couldn't get
> around it. It was there.'
>
>     - Alexandre Deschênes
>
> The law bans ministers from making decisions that affect their
> "private interest," but it makes an exception if the decision applies
> to the broader public, even if the minister would still benefit.
>
> Deschênes said in his letter to Boudreau in March that "one could
> argue" a decision on a moratorium would affect the broader public.
>
> "Under the act, he might have been entitled to continue to have
> discussions that applied to the general population, even though he was
> part of [the project] at that point," Deschênes said in an interview
> last week.
>
> "I told him, and he made it public, that the appearance of conflict in
> this case was absolutely inevitable. He couldn't get around it. It was
> there."
> An MP's perceived conflict matters
>
> The federal conflict of interest code for MPs also includes an
> exception for decisions that affect the general public, but it
> includes an explicit reference to perceived conflicts.
>
> Boudreau put his investment in a blind trust in 2014, which meant he
> had no role in the running of the business. But the value of his stake
> would have been affected by a moratorium on future development.
>
> Parlee beach
>
> In May, Victor Boudreau announced he was giving up his investment in
> the campground on Parlee Beach altogether.
>
> He said in March he learned of the potential moratorium Feb. 28 and
> met with Deschênes March 2, the first date they could arrange it.
>
> "That perception is the issue," Boudreau said at the time. "And if the
> perception is the issue, and the perception is what's going to be
> prevent us from getting to the bottom of it, then I'm prepared to
> recuse myself from all activities relating to this committee."
>
> Last month he announced that he was giving up his investment in the
> campground altogether.
>
> Deschênes said he believes most ministers and MLAs would do the same
> thing if he told them there was an apparent, but not actual, conflict.
>
> "In most cases I think they will listen and they will do what has to
> be done to put an end to an apparent conflict of interest, although
> technically they could continue to do what they want to do."
>
>
>
> 6 Comments
>
> David Raymond Amos
>
> I sure hope the new integrity commissioner finally does his job and
> answers me in writing
>
>
>
> 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
>
> Hon. Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C.
> Integrity Commissioner
>
> Hon. Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C., who resides in Bathurst, N.B., is a
> native of Kedgwick, N.B., and is married to Huguette (Savoie)
> Deschênes. They have two sons.
>
> He studied at Saint-Joseph University (now Université de Moncton) from
> 1960 to 1962, University of Ottawa from 1962-1965 (B.A.), and
> University of New Brunswick (LL.B., 1968). He was admitted to the Law
> Society of New Brunswick in 1968. He was legal counsel to the
> Department of Justice in Fredericton from 1968 to 1971. He was in
> private practice from 1972 to 1982 and specialized in civil litigation
> as a partner in the law firm of Michaud, Leblanc, Robichaud, and
> Deschênes. While residing in Shediac, N.B., he served on town council
> and became the first president of the South East Economic Commission.
> He is a past president of the Richelieu Club in Shediac.
>
> In 1982, he was appointed a judge of the Court of Queen’s Bench of New
> Brunswick and of the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick in 2000.
>
> On July 30, 2009, he was appointed to the Court Martial Appeal Court of
> Canada.
>
> While on the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick, he was appointed
> President of the provincial Judicial Council and in 2012 Chairperson
> of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of New
> Brunswick for the 2015 federal election.
>
> He was appointed Conflict of Interest Commissioner in December 2016
> and became New Brunswick’s first Integrity Commissioner on December
> 16, 2016 with responsibilities for conflict of interest issues related
> to Members of the Legislative Assembly. As of April 1, 2017 he
> supervises lobbyists of public office holders under the Lobbyists’
> Registration Act.
>
> As of September 1, 2017, he will be assuming the functions presently
> held by the Access to Information and Privacy Commissioner.
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 16:22:25 -0400
> Subject: Thank you for your signature Frenchy
> To: Andre Murray <andremurraynow@gmail.com>, "marie-claude.blais"
> <marie-claude.blais@gnb.ca>, sallybrooks25 <sallybrooks25@yahoo.ca>,
> evelyngreene <evelyngreene@live.ca>, law <law@stevenfoulds.ca>,
> "danny.copp"<danny.copp@fredericton.ca>, nbpc <nbpc@gnb.ca>, nbombud
> <nbombud@gnb.ca>, coi <coi@gnb.ca>, "Wayne.Lang"
> <Wayne.Lang@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>
> Cc: "dan. bussieres"<dan.bussieres@gnb.ca>, oldmaison
> <oldmaison@yahoo.com>, andre <andre@jafaust.com>
>
> From: "Bussières, Dan (LEG)"<Dan.Bussieres@gnb.ca>
> Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 15:47:49 -0400
> Subject: RE: I just called all three of your offices
> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
> Oui je vois
>
>
>
> On 12/6/12, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't take orders well ask the corrupt ex cop Bussieres why that is
>>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 13:46:11 -0400
> Subject: Attn premier Brian Gallant and Kirk MacDonald I just called
> your friends in the Law Society of New Brunswick for the last time
> From now on we argue before the courts
> To: george.filliter@gmail.com, lcmarcou@mccain.ca,
> cmichaud@coxandpalmer.com, tross@judicom.ca, coi@gnb.ca,
> m.pelletier@nb.aibn.com, "Kim.Poffenroth"<Kim.Poffenroth@gnb.ca>,
> nbpc <nbpc@gnb.ca>, "Gilles.Blinn"<Gilles.Blinn@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>,
> "bruce.northrup"<bruce.northrup@gnb.ca>, "brian.keirstead"
> <brian.keirstead@gnb.ca>, "blaine.higgs"<blaine.higgs@gnb.ca>,
> "Davidc.Coon"<Davidc.Coon@gmail.com>, "David.Coon"
> <David.Coon@gnb.ca>, "david.eidt"<david.eidt@gnb.ca>, "jan.jensen"
> <jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca>, "bill.pentney"
> <bill.pentney@justice.gc.ca>, mcu <mcu@justice.gc.ca>, postur
> <postur@for.is>, postur <postur@irr.is>, birgittaj
> <birgittaj@althingi.is>
> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, "kirk.macdonald"
> <kirk.macdonald@gnb.ca>, briangallant10 <briangallant10@gmail.com>,
> "Jacques.Poitras"<Jacques.Poitras@cbc.ca>, premier <premier@gnb.ca>
>
> Methinks if Kik MacDonald were truly wise he would make another speech
> before Xmass but this time he should tell the awful truth instead of
> just making fun of our trubles with LIEBRANOS N'esy Pas Davey Baby
> Coon?
>
> Trust that watching this politite nonsense is truly offensive to any
> Maritmer with two clues between their ears.
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/political-panel-dec-8-1.3888331
>
> Conflict of Interest 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
>
> Michèle Pelletier
> Arseneault & Pelletier
> 568A Ave. des Pionniers
> Balmoral, New Brunswick E8E 1E3
> Phone: 506-826-1819
> Fax: 506-826-1817
> Email: m.pelletier@nb.aibn.com
>
> KIM POFFENROTH
> Assistant Deputy Attorney General
> Legislative Services (Branch)
> Office of the Attorney General
> Phone : (506) 453-2855
> Fax : (506) 457-7342
> Email : Kim.POFFENROTH@gnb.ca
>
>
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/integrity-commissioner-named-1.3885165
>
> The Gallant government has introduced legislation to merge several
> legislative watchdog positions into a single job and has chosen a
> retired judge to take on the newly expanded role.
>
> Alexandre Deschênes
>
> Alexandre Deschênes, a retired New Brunswick Court of Appeal justice,
> is to be the first integrity commissioner in New Brunswick.
>
> Retired New Brunswick Court of Appeal justice Alexandre Deschênes will
> become the province's first integrity commissioner, an appointment
> supported by the opposition Progressive Conservatives and Green Party
> Leader David Coon.
>
> Premier Brian Gallant introduced a bill Wednesday to create the position.
>
> For now, Deschênes fills the vacant position of conflict-of-interest
> commissioner and will also oversee legislation governing the privacy
> of personal health records.
>
> Next July, Deschênes will add responsibility for the lobbyist registry
> to his duties.
>
> The Liberals say they will proclaim legislation to set up the registry
> by next July. The law was passed by the previous PC government in 2014
> but not enacted.
>
>     Conflict of interest commissioner, MLAs have conflicting views on
> transparency
>     ​Commissioner wants mandatory privacy breach reporting
>     N.B. legislature will study cutting independent watchdogs
>
> And next September, after Anne Bertrand, the information and privacy
> commissioner, finishes her seven-year term, that job will become part
> of Deschênes's job as integrity commissioner.
>
> An  independent study, done as part of the government's program
> review,  recommended the merging of the legislative officer positions.
>
> All parties in the legislature agreed on two other appointments
> Wednesday: lawyer Michèle Pelletier as consumer advocate for insurance
> and assistant deputy attorney general Kim Poffenroth as chief
> electoral officer.J
>
>
> http://lawsociety-barreau.nb.ca/en/about/council/council
>
> At its Annual General Meeting on Saturday, June 25th, 2016, the Law
> Society of New Brunswick elected its new Executive for the 2016-2017
> term:
>
> New Executive
>
> George P. Filliter, Q.C.
> President
> 68 Avonlea Court
> Fredericton, NB E3C 1N8
> Tel: (506) 454-7678
> Fax: (506) 454-6983
> george.filliter@gmail.com
>
> Luc Marcoux, Q.C.
> Vice-President
> McCain Foods Limited
> 8800 Main Street
> Florenceville-Bristol, NB E7L 1B2
> Tel: (506) 375-5353
> Fax: (506) 375-5058
> lcmarcou@mccain.ca
>
> Christian E. Michaud, Q.C.
> Treasurer
> Cox & Palmer
> Blue Cross Center
> 644 Main Street, Suite 500
> Moncton, NB E1C 1E2
> Tel: (506) 863-1131
> Fax: (506) 856-8150
> cmichaud@coxandpalmer.com
>
>
> Law Society of New Brunswick
> 68 Avonlea Court
> Fredericton, New Brunswick
> E3C 1N8
> (506) 458-8540
> (506) 451-1421
>
> general@lawsociety-barreau.nb.ca
>
> http://lawsociety-barreau.nb.ca/en/for-lawyers/queen-counsel-nominations
>
> October 24, 2016
>
> Eleven New Brunswick lawyers were appointed Queen’s Counsel by the
> Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick, the Honourable Jocelyne Roy
> Vienneau, on Monday, October 24, 2016, at the Legislative Assembly in
> Fredericton.
>
>     Christa Bourque, Q.C., of Moncton
>     Krista Lynn Colford, Q.C., of Fredericton
>     The Honourable Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C., of Bathurst
>     Edward L. Derrah, Q.C., of Fredericton
>     Shannon Doran, Q.C., of Fredericton
>     Nathalie L. Godbout, Q.C., of Saint John
>     Stephen J. Hutchison, Q.C., of Saint John
>     The Honourable Dominic A. J. LeBlanc, Q.C., of Shediac
>     Luc Marcoux, Q.C., of Florenceville-Bristol
>     D. Andrew Rouse, Q.C., of Fredericton
>     John R. Williamson, Q.C., of Fredericton
>
> The distinction of Queen’s Counsel is conferred upon experienced
> lawyers in recognition of their commitment to the principles of the
> legal profession and contributions to their communities. Eligible
> lawyers include those who have been members of the Law Society of New
> Brunswick and have been engaged in the active practice of law in the
> province for at least 15 years with extensive experience before the
> courts or have demonstrated exceptional service to the profession.
>
>  In the fall of this year, a committee consisting of the Chief Justice
> of New Brunswick, J. Ernest Drapeau, the Attorney General of New
> Brunswick and the President of the Law Society of New Brunswick, will
> consider candidates for the next Queen’s Counsel appointments.
>
> The distinction of Queen’s Counsel is conferred upon experienced
> lawyers in recognition of their commitment to the principles of the
> legal profession and contributions to their communities. The criteria
> for these appointments are:
>
> A regular member of the Law Society of New Brunswick who:
>
> a) has been engaged in the active practice of law in the Province of
> New Brunswick for at least fifteen years, with extensive experience
> before the courts;
>
> b) in the opinion of the Committee, merits the appointment by reason
> of exceptional service to the legal profession.
>
> It should be noted that past practice indicates that Queen’s Counsel
> appointments typically have more than seventeen years at the Bar.
>
> The Law Society encourages members to forward a letter and a resume in
> order to be considered as a candidate for a Queen’s Counsel
> appointment. Persons may either apply personally or may nominate a
> member of the Law Society. All applicants will be treated equally by
> the Committee whether they are nominated, or whether they apply
> personally.
>
> In your letter, you may wish to identify two individuals, either
> within or outside the Law Society who might provide additional
> information to assist the Committee in considering this matter. If
> letters of reference are provided, they may be identified for this
> purpose.
>
> Your application or nomination should be received by Chief Justice J.
> Ernest Drapeau no later than Friday, June 24, 2016, at 4:00 p.m.
>
> It may be sent via email to tross@judicom.ca or sent/delivered to:
>
> Committee on Queen’s Counsel Appointments
> c/o The Hon. Chief Justice J. Ernest Drapeau
> Court of Appeal of New Brunswick
> Justice Building
> 427 Queen Street, Room 311
> Fredericton, NB   E3B 1B7
>
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/kirk-macdonald-dominic-leblanc-judge-moving-bill-1.3866450
>
>
> Judge-moving bill aims to help Dominic LeBlanc, Tory MLA charges
> Kirk MacDonald says Liberals drafted bill to help put Jolène Richard
> and André Richard on court
>
> By Jacques Poitras, CBC News Posted: Nov 24, 2016 6:03 PM AT
>
> A Progressive Conservative MLA has taken the unusual step of naming
> names — including that of a sitting provincial court judge — in his
> attack on a proposed law on how Court of Queen's Bench judges are
> transferred.
>
> Kirk MacDonald told the legislature last week that he believes the
> government bill was drafted to help the spouse and the brother-in-law
> of federal Liberal MP Dominic LeBlanc, a close ally of Premier Brian
> Gallant.
> nb-andre-richard-jolene-richard
>
> A Progressive Conservative MLA believes the Liberal government's
> judge-moving bill was drafted to help have André Richard and Jolène
> Richard appointed to the Court of Queen's Bench. (CBC)
>
> "I will give you two names. I will give you Jolène Richard and André
> Richard, two people I believe are looking for judicial appointments
> here in New Brunswick," MacDonald said during second-reading debate on
> the bill.
>
> In fact, Jolène Richard is already a provincial court judge. André
> Richard is her brother and a senior lawyer at Stewart McKelvey.
>
>     Province names new judge, wife of MP Dominic LeBlanc
>
> "Dominic LeBlanc has some judges that he wants to appoint in New
> Brunswick, and the framework as it currently exists does not allow for
> that to happen," MacDonald said.
>
> André Richard stated Thursday he "had no involvement in the
> government's decision to propose changes to the Judicature Act."
>
> "As you know, my sister is already a judge who sits in Moncton. I fail
> to understand why our names are being brought into this debate."
> Bill gives veto to minister
>
> The Liberal bill would amend the Judicature Act, which governs how
> courts operate, to give the justice minister a veto over Chief Justice
> David Smith of the Court of Queen's Bench transferring judges from one
> court to another.
> nb-chief-justice-david-smith
>
> Court of Queen's Bench Chief Justice David Smith has transferred 13
> judges since becoming chief justice in 1998. (Acadia University)
>
> PC MLAs have hinted in the past about who they believe the bill was
> designed to help. But until now, no one was willing to name them.
>
> It's rare for politicians to draw sitting judges into partisan
> debates, and the veteran Tory MLA did not offer any evidence to back
> up his allegations. He turned down a request to explain his views in
> an interview.
> Parliamentary privilege
>
> Parliamentary privilege protects members of the legislature from being
> sued for defamation or held in contempt of court for comments they
> make during proceedings. No such protection exists for things they say
> outside the legislature.
>
> Provincial court judges such as Richard are appointed by the province,
> but Court of Queen's Bench justices are named by Ottawa. Both courts
> are administered by the province, but the current law gives Smith the
> power to move judges on his court on his own.
>
> Smith has argued the bill would threaten the independence of the
> courts, which could make it unconstitutional.
> Bill brought back
>
> The Liberals introduced the bill during the last session, but it
> didn't pass before the session ended. They brought it back last week.
>
> Justice Minister Denis Landry said last week the bill was designed to
> bring "best practices" to court administration and end the pattern of
> justices being named to smaller courthouses and then being transferred
> soon after.
>
>     Judge-moving legislation introduced again
>     2 chief justices appear at odds over judge-moving bill
>     7 things list reveals about controversial judge-moving bill
>
> "This is what we want to correct," he said. "If we name a judge, they
> should reside there, for a long period of time, not just two or three
> months then move them where they want to go."
>
> Asked whether he'd veto such a transfer, Landry said, "This is what we'll
> see."
>
> Landry's department said Thursday it would not comment on MacDonald's
> accusation.
> Larger locations favoured
>
> MacDonald said during last week's debate that it's true Court of
> Queen's Bench justices are often appointed to smaller locations and
> are then moved to one of the three largest cities.
> Dominic LeBlanc
>
> Federal Fisheries Minister Dominic LeBlanc is a close ally of New
> Brunswick Premier Brian Gallant. (CBC)
>
> He said that court postings in Moncton, Fredericton, and Saint John
> are "The positions that everyone seems to want."
>
> And he said the current system for moving judges, "which is controlled
> by the chief justice, does not work for Dominic LeBlanc and the
> Liberal Party of New Brunswick," MacDonald said.
>
>     Upside to judge-moving bill touted by ex-constitutional lawyer
>     Gallant government's judge-moving bill questioned by legal expert
>
> "They want to change it. They want to have a situation where they have
> a mechanism to control that decision and to effect change on that
> decision."
>
> In June, Smith transferred Justice Tracey DeWare from Woodstock to
> Moncton and Justice Richard Petrie from Saint John to Woodstock.
>
> DeWare was moved to fill a vacancy after Justice Brigitte Robichaud
> switched to supernumerary, or part-time, status.
>
> Jolène Richard did not respond to interview requests.
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: Póstur FOR <postur@for.is>
> Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 22:05:47 +0000
> Subject: Re: Hey Premier Gallant please inform the questionable
> parliamentarian Birigtta Jonsdottir that although NB is a small "Have
> Not" province at least we have twice the population of Iceland and
> that not all of us are as dumb as she and her Prime Minister pretends
> to be..
> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
>
> Erindi þitt hefur verið móttekið  / Your request has been received
>
> Kveðja / Best regards
> Forsætisráðuneytið  / Prime Minister's Office
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: Póstur IRR <postur@irr.is>
> Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 22:05:47 +0000
> Subject: Re: Hey Premier Gallant please inform the questionable
> parliamentarian Birigtta Jonsdottir that although NB is a small "Have
> Not" province at least we have twice the population of Iceland and
> that not all of us are as dumb as she and her Prime Minister pretends
> to be..
> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
>
> Erindi þitt hefur verið móttekið. / Your request has been received.
>
> Kveðja / Best regards
> Innanríkisráðuneytið / Ministry of the Interior
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Póstur FOR <postur@for.is>
> Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 21:43:50 +0000
> Subject: Re: After crossing paths with them bigtime in 2004 Davey Baby
> Coon and his many Green Meanie and Fake Left cohorts know why I won't
> hold my breath waiting for them to act with any semblance of integrity
> now N'esy Pas Chucky Leblanc??
> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
>
> Erindi þitt hefur verið móttekið  / Your request has been received
>
> Kveðja / Best regards
> Forsætisráðuneytið  / Prime Minister's Office
>
>
> This is the docket
>
> 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 two hearings
>
> Dec 14th https://archive.org/details/BahHumbug
>
> Jan 11th https://archive.org/details/Jan11th2015
>
> This me running for a seat in Parliament again while CBC denies it again
>
> Fundy Royal, New Brunswick Debate – Federal Elections 2015 - The Local
> Campaign, Rogers TV
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cFOKT6TlSE
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/fundy-royal-riding-profile-1.3274276
>
> Veritas Vincit
> David Raymond Amos
> 902 800 0369
>
> FYI This is the text of the lawsuit that should interest Trudeau the most
>
>
> http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2015/09/v-behaviorurldefaultvmlo.html
>
> 83 The Plaintiff states that now that Canada is involved in more war
> in Iraq again it did not serve Canadian interests and reputation to
> allow Barry Winters to publish the following words three times over
> five years after he began his bragging:
>
> January 13, 2015
> This Is Just AS Relevant Now As When I wrote It During The Debate
>
> 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
> essential for the security and tranquility of the developed world. An
> ISIS “caliphate,” in the Middle East, no matter how small, is a clear
> and present danger to the entire world. This “occupied state,”
> or“failed state” will prosecute an unending Islamic inspired war of
> terror against not only the “western world,” but Arab states
> “moderate” or not, as well. The security, safety, and tranquility of
> Canada and Canadians are just at risk now with the emergence of an
> ISIS“caliphate” no matter how large or small, as it was with the
> Taliban and Al Quaeda “marriage” in Afghanistan.
>
> One of the everlasting “legacies” of the “Trudeau the Elder’s dynasty
> was Canada and successive Liberal governments cowering behind the
> amerkan’s nuclear and conventional military shield, at the same time
> denigrating, insulting them, opposing them, and at the same time
> self-aggrandizing ourselves as “peace keepers,” and progenitors of
> “world peace.” Canada failed. The United States of Amerka, NATO, the
> G7 and or G20 will no longer permit that sort of sanctimonious
> behavior from Canada or its government any longer. And Prime Minister
> Stephen Harper, Foreign Minister John Baird , and Cabinet are fully
> cognizant of that reality. Even if some editorial boards, and pundits
> are not.
>
> Justin, Trudeau “the younger” is reprising the time “honoured” liberal
> mantra, and tradition of expecting the amerkans or the rest of the
> world to do “the heavy lifting.” Justin Trudeau and his “butt buddy”
> David Amos are telling Canadians that we can guarantee our security
> and safety by expecting other nations to fight for us. That Canada can
> and should attempt to guarantee Canadians safety by providing
> “humanitarian aid” somewhere, and call a sitting US president a “war
> criminal.” This morning Australia announced they too, were sending
> tactical aircraft to eliminate the menace of an ISIS “caliphate.”
>
> In one sense Prime Minister Harper is every bit the scoundrel Trudeau
> “the elder” and Jean ‘the crook” Chretien was. Just As Trudeau, and
> successive Liberal governments delighted in diminishing,
> marginalizing, under funding Canadian Forces, and sending Canadian
> military men and women to die with inadequate kit and modern
> equipment; so too is Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Canada’s F-18s are
> antiquated, poorly equipped, and ought to have been replaced five
> years ago. But alas, there won’t be single RCAF fighter jock that
> won’t go, or won’t want to go, to make Canada safe or safer.
>
> My Grandfather served this country. My father served this country. My
> Uncle served this country. And I have served this country. Justin
> Trudeau has not served Canada in any way. Thomas Mulcair has not
> served this country in any way. Liberals and so called social
> democrats haven’t served this country in any way. David Amos, and
> other drooling fools have not served this great nation in any way. Yet
> these fools are more than prepared to ensure their, our safety to
> other nations, and then criticize them for doing so.
>
> Canada must again, now, “do our bit” to guarantee our own security,
> and tranquility, but also that of the world. Canada has never before
> shirked its responsibility to its citizens and that of the world.
>
> Prime Minister Harper will not permit this country to do so now
>
> From: dnd_mdn@forces.gc.ca
> Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 14:17:17 -0400
> Subject: RE: Re Greg Weston, The CBC , Wikileaks, USSOCOM, Canada and
> the War in Iraq (I just called SOCOM and let them know I was still
> alive
> To: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>
> This is to confirm that the Minister of National Defence has received
> your email and it will be reviewed in due course. Please do not reply
> to this message: it is an automatic acknowledgement.
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 13:55:30 -0300
> Subject: Re Greg Weston, The CBC , Wikileaks, USSOCOM, Canada and the
> War in Iraq (I just called SOCOM and let them know I was still alive
> To: DECPR@forces.gc.ca, Public.Affairs@socom.mil,
> Raymonde.Cleroux@mpcc-cppm.gc.ca, john.adams@cse-cst.gc.ca,
> william.elliott@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, stoffp1 <stoffp1@parl.gc.ca>,
> dnd_mdn@forces.gc.ca, media@drdc-rddc.gc.ca, information@forces.gc.ca,
> milner@unb.ca, charters@unb.ca, lwindsor@unb.ca,
> sarah.weir@mpcc-cppm.gc.ca, birgir <birgir@althingi.is>, smari
> <smari@immi.is>, greg.weston@cbc.ca, pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>,
> susan@blueskystrategygroup.com, Don@blueskystrategygroup.com,
> eugene@blueskystrategygroup.com, americas@aljazeera.net
> Cc: "Edith. Cody-Rice"<Edith.Cody-Rice@cbc.ca>, "terry.seguin"
> <terry.seguin@cbc.ca>, acampbell <acampbell@ctv.ca>, whistleblower
> <whistleblower@ctv.ca>
>
> I talked to Don Newman earlier this week before the beancounters David
> Dodge and Don Drummond now of Queen's gave their spin about Canada's
> Health Care system yesterday and Sheila Fraser yapped on and on on
> CAPAC during her last days in office as if she were oh so ethical.. To
> be fair to him I just called Greg Weston (613-288-6938) I suggested
> that he should at least Google SOUCOM and David Amos It would be wise
> if he check ALL of CBC's sources before he publishes something else
> about the DND EH Don Newman? Lets just say that the fact  that  your
> old CBC buddy, Tony Burman is now in charge of Al Jazeera English
> never impressed me. The fact that he set up a Canadian office is
> interesting though
>
> http://www.blueskystrategygroup.com/index.php/team/don-newman/
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/media/story/2010/05/04/al-jazeera-english-launch.html
>
> Anyone can call me back and stress test my integrity after they read
> this simple pdf file. BTW what you Blue Sky dudes pubished about
> Potash Corp and BHP is truly funny. Perhaps Stevey Boy Harper or Brad
> Wall will fill ya in if you are to shy to call mean old me.
>
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/2718120/Integrity-Yea-Right
>
> The Governor General, the PMO and the PCO offices know that I am not a
> shy political animal
>
> Veritas Vincit
> David Raymond Amos
> 902 800 0369
>
> Enjoy Mr Weston
> http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/2011/05/15/weston-iraq-invasion-wikileaks.html
>
> "But Lang, defence minister McCallum's chief of staff, says military
> brass were not entirely forthcoming on the issue. For instance, he
> says, even McCallum initially didn't know those soldiers were helping
> to plan the invasion of Iraq up to the highest levels of command,
> including a Canadian general.
>
> That general is Walt Natynczyk, now Canada's chief of defence staff,
> who eight months after the invasion became deputy commander of 35,000
> U.S. soldiers and other allied forces in Iraq. Lang says Natynczyk was
> also part of the team of mainly senior U.S. military brass that helped
> prepare for the invasion from a mobile command in Kuwait."
>
> http://baconfat53.blogspot.com/2010/06/canada-and-united-states.html
>
> "I remember years ago when the debate was on in Canada, about there
> being weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Our American 'friends"
> demanded that Canada join into "the Coalition of the Willing. American
> "veterans" and sportscasters loudly denounced Canada for NOT buying
> into the US policy.
>
> At the time I was serving as a planner at NDHQ and with 24 other of my
> colleagues we went to Tampa SOUCOM HQ to be involved in the planning
> in the planning stages of the op....and to report to NDHQ, that would
> report to the PMO upon the merits of the proposed operation. There was
> never at anytime an existing target list of verified sites where there
> were deployed WMD.
>
> Coalition assets were more than sufficient for the initial strike and
> invasion phase but even at that point in the planning, we were
> concerned about the number of "boots on the ground" for the occupation
> (and end game) stage of an operation in Iraq. We were also concerned
> about the American plans for occupation plans of Iraq because they at
> that stage included no contingency for a handing over of civil
> authority to a vetted Iraqi government and bureaucracy.
>
> There was no detailed plan for Iraq being "liberated" and returned to
> its people...nor a thought to an eventual exit plan. This was contrary
> to the lessons of Vietnam but also to current military thought, that
> folks like Colin Powell and "Stuffy" Leighton and others elucidated
> upon. "What's the mission" how long is the mission, what conditions
> are to met before US troop can redeploy?  Prime Minister Jean Chretien
> and the PMO were even at the very preliminary planning stages wary of
> Canadian involvement in an Iraq operation....History would prove them
> correct. The political pressure being applied on the PMO from the
> George W Bush administration was onerous
>
> American military assets were extremely overstretched, and Canadian
> military assets even more so It was proposed by the PMO that Canadian
> naval platforms would deploy to assist in naval quarantine operations
> in the Gulf and that Canadian army assets would deploy in Afghanistan
> thus permitting US army assets to redeploy for an Iraqi
> operation....The PMO thought that "compromise would save Canadian
> lives and liberal political capital.. and the priority of which
> ....not necessarily in that order. "
>
> You can bet that I called these sneaky Yankees again today EH John
> Adams? of the CSE within the DND?
>
> http://www.socom.mil/SOCOMHome/Pages/ContactUSSOCOM.aspx
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 09:20:29 -0400
> Subject: Hey before you Red Coats swear an Oath to the Queen and the
> 42nd Parliament begins perhaps the turncoat Big Bad Billy Casey the
> Yankee carpetbagger David Lutz or some Boyz from NB should explain
> this lawsuit to you real slow.
> To: alaina@alainalockhart.ca, david <david@lutz.nb.ca>,
> "daniel.mchardie"<daniel.mchardie@cbc.ca>, info@waynelong.ca,
> info@ginettepetitpastaylor.ca, rarseno@nbnet.nb.ca,
> matt@mattdecourcey.ca, info@sergecormier.ca, pat@patfinnigan.ca,
> tj@tjharvey.ca, karen.ludwig.nb@gmail.com
> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, "Frank.McKenna"
> <Frank.McKenna@td.com>, info@votezsteve.ca, info@billcasey.ca,
> "justin.trudeau.a1"<justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca>,
> "dominic.leblanc.a1"<dominic.leblanc.a1@parl.gc.ca>, oldmaison
> <oldmaison@yahoo.com>, jacques_poitras <jacques_poitras@cbc.ca>,
> "Jacques.Poitras"<Jacques.Poitras@cbc.ca>, "peter.mackay"
> <peter.mackay@justice.gc.ca>
>
>
>



http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2017/11/federal-court-of-appeal-finally-makes.html


Sunday, 19 November 2017

Federal Court of Appeal Finally Makes The BIG Decision And Publishes
It Now The Crooks Cannot Take Back Ticket To Try Put My Matter Before
The Supreme Court

https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/236679/index.do


Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Amos v. Canada
Court (s) Database

Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date

2017-10-30
Neutral citation

2017 FCA 213
File numbers

A-48-16
Date: 20171030

Docket: A-48-16
Citation: 2017 FCA 213
CORAM:

WEBB J.A.
NEAR J.A.
GLEASON J.A.


BETWEEN:
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
Respondent on the cross-appeal
(and formally Appellant)
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Appellant on the cross-appeal
(and formerly Respondent)
Heard at Fredericton, New Brunswick, on May 24, 2017.
Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 30, 2017.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:

THE COURT



Date: 20171030

Docket: A-48-16
Citation: 2017 FCA 213
CORAM:

WEBB J.A.
NEAR J.A.
GLEASON J.A.


BETWEEN:
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
Respondent on the cross-appeal
(and formally Appellant)
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Appellant on the cross-appeal
(and formerly Respondent)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY THE COURT

I.                    Introduction

[1]               On September 16, 2015, David Raymond Amos (Mr. Amos)
filed a 53-page Statement of Claim (the Claim) in Federal Court
against Her Majesty the Queen (the Crown). Mr. Amos claims $11 million
in damages and a public apology from the Prime Minister and Provincial
Premiers for being illegally barred from accessing parliamentary
properties and seeks a declaration from the Minister of Public Safety
that the Canadian Government will no longer allow the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police (RCMP) and Canadian Forces to harass him and his clan
(Claim at para. 96).

[2]               On November 12, 2015 (Docket T-1557-15), by way of a
motion brought by the Crown, a prothonotary of the Federal Court (the
Prothonotary) struck the Claim in its entirety, without leave to
amend, on the basis that it was plain and obvious that the Claim
disclosed no reasonable claim, the Claim was fundamentally vexatious,
and the Claim could not be salvaged by way of further amendment (the
Prothontary’s Order).


[3]               On January 25, 2016 (2016 FC 93), by way of Mr.
Amos’ appeal from the Prothonotary’s Order, a judge of the Federal
Court (the Judge), reviewing the matter de novo, struck all of Mr.
Amos’ claims for relief with the exception of the claim for damages
for being barred by the RCMP from the New Brunswick legislature in
2004 (the Federal Court Judgment).


[4]               Mr. Amos appealed and the Crown cross-appealed the
Federal Court Judgment. Further to the issuance of a Notice of Status
Review, Mr. Amos’ appeal was dismissed for delay on December 19, 2016.
As such, the only matter before this Court is the Crown’s
cross-appeal.


II.                 Preliminary Matter

[5]               Mr. Amos, in his memorandum of fact and law in
relation to the cross-appeal that was filed with this Court on March
6, 2017, indicated that several judges of this Court, including two of
the judges of this panel, had a conflict of interest in this appeal.
This was the first time that he identified the judges whom he believed
had a conflict of interest in a document that was filed with this
Court. In his notice of appeal he had alluded to a conflict with
several judges but did not name those judges.

[6]               Mr. Amos was of the view that he did not have to
identify the judges in any document filed with this Court because he
had identified the judges in various documents that had been filed
with the Federal Court. In his view the Federal Court and the Federal
Court of Appeal are the same court and therefore any document filed in
the Federal Court would be filed in this Court. This view is based on
subsections 5(4) and 5.1(4) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985,
c. F-7:


5(4) Every judge of the Federal Court is, by virtue of his or her
office, a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal and has all the
jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Federal Court of
Appeal.
[…]

5(4) Les juges de la Cour fédérale sont d’office juges de la Cour
d’appel fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs que
les juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale.
[…]
5.1(4) Every judge of the Federal Court of Appeal is, by virtue of
that office, a judge of the Federal Court and has all the
jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Federal Court.

5.1(4) Les juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale sont d’office juges de la
Cour fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs que les
juges de la Cour fédérale.


[7]               However, these subsections only provide that the
judges of the Federal Court are also judges of this Court (and vice
versa). It does not mean that there is only one court. If the Federal
Court and this Court were one Court, there would be no need for this
section.
[8]               Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Courts Act provide that:
3 The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the Federal Court
— Appeal Division is continued under the name “Federal Court of
Appeal” in English and “Cour d’appel fédérale” in French. It is
continued as an additional court of law, equity and admiralty in and
for Canada, for the better administration of the laws of Canada and as
a superior court of record having civil and criminal jurisdiction.

3 La Section d’appel, aussi appelée la Cour d’appel ou la Cour d’appel
fédérale, est maintenue et dénommée « Cour d’appel fédérale » en
français et « Federal Court of Appeal » en anglais. Elle est maintenue
à titre de tribunal additionnel de droit, d’equity et d’amirauté du
Canada, propre à améliorer l’application du droit canadien, et
continue d’être une cour supérieure d’archives ayant compétence en
matière civile et pénale.
4 The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the Federal Court
— Trial Division is continued under the name “Federal Court” in
English and “Cour fédérale” in French. It is continued as an
additional court of law, equity and admiralty in and for Canada, for
the better administration of the laws of Canada and as a superior
court of record having civil and criminal jurisdiction.

4 La section de la Cour fédérale du Canada, appelée la Section de
première instance de la Cour fédérale, est maintenue et dénommée «
Cour fédérale » en français et « Federal Court » en anglais. Elle est
maintenue à titre de tribunal additionnel de droit, d’equity et
d’amirauté du Canada, propre à améliorer l’application du droit
canadien, et continue d’être une cour supérieure d’archives ayant
compétence en matière civile et pénale.


[9]               Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Courts Act create
two separate courts – this Court (section 3) and the Federal Court
(section 4). If, as Mr. Amos suggests, documents filed in the Federal
Court were automatically also filed in this Court, then there would no
need for the parties to prepare and file appeal books as required by
Rules 343 to 345 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 in relation
to any appeal from a decision of the Federal Court. The requirement to
file an appeal book with this Court in relation to an appeal from a
decision of the Federal Court makes it clear that the only documents
that will be before this Court are the documents that are part of that
appeal book.


[10]           Therefore, the memorandum of fact and law filed on
March 6, 2017 is the first document, filed with this Court, in which
Mr. Amos identified the particular judges that he submits have a
conflict in any matter related to him.


[11]           On April 3, 2017, Mr. Amos attempted to bring a motion
before the Federal Court seeking an order “affirming or denying the
conflict of interest he has” with a number of judges of the Federal
Court. A judge of the Federal Court issued a direction noting that if
Mr. Amos was seeking this order in relation to judges of the Federal
Court of Appeal, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Federal Court.
Mr. Amos raised the Federal Court motion at the hearing of this
cross-appeal. The Federal Court motion is not a motion before this
Court and, as such, the submissions filed before the Federal Court
will not be entertained. As well, since this was a motion brought
before the Federal Court (and not this Court), any documents filed in
relation to that motion are not part of the record of this Court.


[12]           During the hearing of the appeal Mr. Amos alleged that
the third member of this panel also had a conflict of interest and
submitted some documents that, in his view, supported his claim of a
conflict. Mr. Amos, following the hearing of his appeal, was also
afforded the opportunity to provide a brief summary of the conflict
that he was alleging and to file additional documents that, in his
view, supported his allegations. Mr. Amos submitted several pages of
documents in relation to the alleged conflicts. He organized the
documents by submitting a copy of the biography of the particular
judge and then, immediately following that biography, by including
copies of the documents that, in his view, supported his claim that
such judge had a conflict.


[13]           The nature of the alleged conflict of Justice Webb is
that before he was appointed as a Judge of the Tax Court of Canada in
2006, he was a partner with the law firm Patterson Law, and before
that with Patterson Palmer in Nova Scotia. Mr. Amos submitted that he
had a number of disputes with Patterson Palmer and Patterson Law and
therefore Justice Webb has a conflict simply because he was a partner
of these firms. Mr. Amos is not alleging that Justice Webb was
personally involved in or had any knowledge of any matter in which Mr.
Amos was involved with Justice Webb’s former law firm – only that he
was a member of such firm.


[14]           During his oral submissions at the hearing of his
appeal Mr. Amos, in relation to the alleged conflict for Justice Webb,
focused on dealings between himself and a particular lawyer at
Patterson Law. However, none of the documents submitted by Mr. Amos at
the hearing or subsequently related to any dealings with this
particular lawyer nor is it clear when Mr. Amos was dealing with this
lawyer. In particular, it is far from clear whether such dealings were
after the time that Justice Webb was appointed as a Judge of the Tax
Court of Canada over 10 years ago.


[15]           The documents that he submitted in relation to the
alleged conflict for Justice Webb largely relate to dealings between
Byron Prior and the St. John’s Newfoundland and Labrador office of
Patterson Palmer, which is not in the same province where Justice Webb
practiced law. The only document that indicates any dealing between
Mr. Amos and Patterson Palmer is a copy of an affidavit of Stephen May
who was a partner in the St. John’s NL office of Patterson Palmer. The
affidavit is dated January 24, 2005 and refers to a number of e-mails
that were sent by Mr. Amos to Stephen May. Mr. Amos also included a
letter that is addressed to four individuals, one of whom is John
Crosbie who was counsel to the St. John’s NL office of Patterson
Palmer. The letter is dated September 2, 2004 and is addressed to
“John Crosbie, c/o Greg G. Byrne, Suite 502, 570 Queen Street,
Fredericton, NB E3B 5E3”. In this letter Mr. Amos alludes to a
possible lawsuit against Patterson Palmer.
[16]           Mr. Amos’ position is that simply because Justice Webb
was a lawyer with Patterson Palmer, he now has a conflict. In Wewaykum
Indian Band v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2003 SCC 45, [2003] 2 S.C.R.
259, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that disqualification of a
judge is to be determined based on whether there is a reasonable
apprehension of bias:
60        In Canadian law, one standard has now emerged as the
criterion for disqualification. The criterion, as expressed by de
Grandpré J. in Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy
Board, …[[1978] 1 S.C.R. 369, 68 D.L.R. (3d) 716], at p. 394, is the
reasonable apprehension of bias:
… the apprehension of bias must be a reasonable one, held by
reasonable and right minded persons, applying themselves to the
question and obtaining thereon the required information. In the words
of the Court of Appeal, that test is "what would an informed person,
viewing the matter realistically and practically -- and having thought
the matter through -- conclude. Would he think that it is more likely
than not that [the decision-maker], whether consciously or
unconsciously, would not decide fairly."

[17]           The issue to be determined is whether an informed
person, viewing the matter realistically and practically, and having
thought the matter through, would conclude that Mr. Amos’ allegations
give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. As this Court has
previously remarked, “there is a strong presumption that judges will
administer justice impartially” and this presumption will not be
rebutted in the absence of “convincing evidence” of bias (Collins v.
Canada, 2011 FCA 140 at para. 7, [2011] 4 C.T.C. 157 [Collins]. See
also R. v. S. (R.D.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484 at para. 32, 151 D.L.R.
(4th) 193).

[18]           The Ontario Court of Appeal in Rando Drugs Ltd. v.
Scott, 2007 ONCA 553, 86 O.R. (3d) 653 (leave to appeal to the Supreme
Court of Canada refused, 32285 (August 1, 2007)), addressed the
particular issue of whether a judge is disqualified from hearing a
case simply because he had been a member of a law firm that was
involved in the litigation that was now before that judge. The Ontario
Court of Appeal determined that the judge was not disqualified if the
judge had no involvement with the person or the matter when he was a
lawyer. The Ontario Court of Appeal also explained that the rules for
determining whether a judge is disqualified are different from the
rules to determine whether a lawyer has a conflict:
27        Thus, disqualification is not the natural corollary to a
finding that a trial judge has had some involvement in a case over
which he or she is now presiding. Where the judge had no involvement,
as here, it cannot be said that the judge is disqualified.


28        The point can rightly be made that had Mr. Patterson been
asked to represent the appellant as counsel before his appointment to
the bench, the conflict rules would likely have prevented him from
taking the case because his firm had formerly represented one of the
defendants in the case. Thus, it is argued how is it that as a trial
judge Patterson J. can hear the case? This issue was considered by the
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) in Locabail (U.K.) Ltd. v. Bayfield
Properties Ltd., [2000] Q.B. 451. The court held, at para. 58, that
there is no inflexible rule governing the disqualification of a judge
and that, "[e]verything depends on the circumstances."


29        It seems to me that what appears at first sight to be an
inconsistency in application of rules can be explained by the
different contexts and in particular, the strong presumption of
judicial impartiality that applies in the context of disqualification
of a judge. There is no such presumption in cases of allegations of
conflict of interest against a lawyer because of a firm's previous
involvement in the case. To the contrary, as explained by Sopinka J.
in MacDonald Estate v. Martin (1990), 77 D.L.R. (4th) 249 (S.C.C.),
for sound policy reasons there is a presumption of a disqualifying
interest that can rarely be overcome. In particular, a conclusory
statement from the lawyer that he or she had no confidential
information about the case will never be sufficient. The case is the
opposite where the allegation of bias is made against a trial judge.
His or her statement that he or she knew nothing about the case and
had no involvement in it will ordinarily be accepted at face value
unless there is good reason to doubt it: see Locabail, at para. 19.


30        That brings me then to consider the particular circumstances
of this case and whether there are serious grounds to find a
disqualifying conflict of interest in this case. In my view, there are
two significant factors that justify the trial judge's decision not to
recuse himself. The first is his statement, which all parties accept,
that he knew nothing of the case when it was in his former firm and
that he had nothing to do with it. The second is the long passage of
time. As was said in Wewaykum, at para. 85:
            To us, one significant factor stands out, and must inform
the perspective of the reasonable person assessing the impact of this
involvement on Binnie J.'s impartiality in the appeals. That factor is
the passage of time. Most arguments for disqualification rest on
circumstances that are either contemporaneous to the decision-making,
or that occurred within a short time prior to the decision-making.
31        There are other factors that inform the issue. The Wilson
Walker firm no longer acted for any of the parties by the time of
trial. More importantly, at the time of the motion, Patterson J. had
been a judge for six years and thus had not had a relationship with
his former firm for a considerable period of time.


32        In my view, a reasonable person, viewing the matter
realistically would conclude that the trial judge could deal fairly
and impartially with this case. I take this view principally because
of the long passage of time and the trial judge's lack of involvement
in or knowledge of the case when the Wilson Walker firm had carriage.
In these circumstances it cannot be reasonably contended that the
trial judge could not remain impartial in the case. The mere fact that
his name appears on the letterhead of some correspondence from over a
decade ago would not lead a reasonable person to believe that he would
either consciously or unconsciously favour his former firm's former
client. It is simply not realistic to think that a judge would throw
off his mantle of impartiality, ignore his oath of office and favour a
client - about whom he knew nothing - of a firm that he left six years
earlier and that no longer acts for the client, in a case involving
events from over a decade ago.
(emphasis added)

[19]           Justice Webb had no involvement with any matter
involving Mr. Amos while he was a member of Patterson Palmer or
Patterson Law, nor does Mr. Amos suggest that he did. Mr. Amos made it
clear during the hearing of this matter that the only reason for the
alleged conflict for Justice Webb was that he was a member of
Patterson Law and Patterson Palmer. This is simply not enough for
Justice Webb to be disqualified. Any involvement of Mr. Amos with
Patterson Law while Justice Webb was a member of that firm would have
had to occur over 10 years ago and even longer for the time when he
was a member of Patterson Palmer. In addition to the lack of any
involvement on his part with any matter or dispute that Mr. Amos had
with Patterson Law or Patterson Palmer (which in and of itself is
sufficient to dispose of this matter), the length of time since
Justice Webb was a member of Patterson Law or Patterson Palmer would
also result in the same finding – that there is no conflict in Justice
Webb hearing this appeal.

[20]           Similarly in R. v. Bagot, 2000 MBCA 30, 145 Man. R.
(2d) 260, the Manitoba Court of Appeal found that there was no
reasonable apprehension of bias when a judge, who had been a member of
the law firm that had been retained by the accused, had no involvement
with the accused while he was a lawyer with that firm.

[21]           In Del Zotto v. Minister of National Revenue, [2000] 4
F.C. 321, 257 N.R. 96, this court did find that there would be a
reasonable apprehension of bias where a judge, who while he was a
lawyer, had recorded time on a matter involving the same person who
was before that judge. However, this case can be distinguished as
Justice Webb did not have any time recorded on any files involving Mr.
Amos while he was a lawyer with Patterson Palmer or Patterson Law.

[22]           Mr. Amos also included with his submissions a CD. He
stated in his affidavit dated June 26, 2017 that there is a “true copy
of an American police surveillance wiretap entitled 139” on this CD.
He has also indicated that he has “provided a true copy of the CD
entitled 139 to many American and Canadian law enforcement authorities
and not one of the police forces or officers of the court are willing
to investigate it”. Since he has indicated that this is an “American
police surveillance wiretap”, this is a matter for the American law
enforcement authorities and cannot create, as Mr. Amos suggests, a
conflict of interest for any judge to whom he provides a copy.

[23]           As a result, there is no conflict or reasonable
apprehension of bias for Justice Webb and therefore, no reason for him
to recuse himself.

[24]           Mr. Amos alleged that Justice Near’s past professional
experience with the government created a “quasi-conflict” in deciding
the cross-appeal. Mr. Amos provided no details and Justice Near
confirmed that he had no prior knowledge of the matters alleged in the
Claim. Justice Near sees no reason to recuse himself.

[25]           Insofar as it is possible to glean the basis for Mr.
Amos’ allegations against Justice Gleason, it appears that he alleges
that she is incapable of hearing this appeal because he says he wrote
a letter to Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien in 2004. At that time,
both Justice Gleason and Mr. Mulroney were partners in the law firm
Ogilvy Renault, LLP. The letter in question, which is rude and angry,
begins with “Hey you two Evil Old Smiling Bastards” and “Re: me suing
you and your little dogs too”. There is no indication that the letter
was ever responded to or that a law suit was ever commenced by Mr.
Amos against Mr. Mulroney. In the circumstances, there is no reason
for Justice Gleason to recuse herself as the letter in question does
not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.


III.               Issue

[26]           The issue on the cross-appeal is as follows: Did the
Judge err in setting aside the Prothonotary’s Order striking the Claim
in its entirety without leave to amend and in determining that Mr.
Amos’ allegation that the RCMP barred him from the New Brunswick
legislature in 2004 was capable of supporting a cause of action?

IV.              Analysis

A.                 Standard of Review

[27]           Following the Judge’s decision to set aside the
Prothonotary’s Order, this Court revisited the standard of review to
be applied to discretionary decisions of prothonotaries and decisions
made by judges on appeals of prothonotaries’ decisions in Hospira
Healthcare Corp. v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, 2016 FCA 215,
402 D.L.R. (4th) 497 [Hospira]. In Hospira, a five-member panel of
this Court replaced the Aqua-Gem standard of review with that
articulated in Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235
[Housen]. As a result, it is no longer appropriate for the Federal
Court to conduct a de novo review of a discretionary order made by a
prothonotary in regard to questions vital to the final issue of the
case. Rather, a Federal Court judge can only intervene on appeal if
the prothonotary made an error of law or a palpable and overriding
error in determining a question of fact or question of mixed fact and
law (Hospira at para. 79). Further, this Court can only interfere with
a Federal Court judge’s review of a prothonotary’s discretionary order
if the judge made an error of law or palpable and overriding error in
determining a question of fact or question of mixed fact and law
(Hospira at paras. 82-83).

[28]           In the case at bar, the Judge substituted his own
assessment of Mr. Amos’ Claim for that of the Prothonotary. This Court
must look to the Prothonotary’s Order to determine whether the Judge
erred in law or made a palpable and overriding error in choosing to
interfere.


B.                 Did the Judge err in interfering with the
Prothonotary’s Order?

[29]           The Prothontoary’s Order accepted the following
paragraphs from the Crown’s submissions as the basis for striking the
Claim in its entirety without leave to amend:

17.       Within the 96 paragraph Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff
addresses his complaint in paragraphs 14-24, inclusive. All but four
of those paragraphs are dedicated to an incident that occurred in 2006
in and around the legislature in New Brunswick. The jurisdiction of
the Federal Court does not extend to Her Majesty the Queen in right of
the Provinces. In any event, the Plaintiff hasn’t named the Province
or provincial actors as parties to this action. The incident alleged
does not give rise to a justiciable cause of action in this Court.
(…)


21.       The few paragraphs that directly address the Defendant
provide no details as to the individuals involved or the location of
the alleged incidents or other details sufficient to allow the
Defendant to respond. As a result, it is difficult or impossible to
determine the causes of action the Plaintiff is attempting to advance.
A generous reading of the Statement of Claim allows the Defendant to
only speculate as to the true and/or intended cause of action. At
best, the Plaintiff’s action may possibly be summarized as: he
suspects he is barred from the House of Commons.
[footnotes omitted].


[30]           The Judge determined that he could not strike the Claim
on the same jurisdictional basis as the Prothonotary. The Judge noted
that the Federal Court has jurisdiction over claims based on the
liability of Federal Crown servants like the RCMP and that the actors
who barred Mr. Amos from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004
included the RCMP (Federal Court Judgment at para. 23). In considering
the viability of these allegations de novo, the Judge identified
paragraph 14 of the Claim as containing “some precision” as it
identifies the date of the event and a RCMP officer acting as
Aide-de-Camp to the Lieutenant Governor (Federal Court Judgment at
para. 27).


[31]           The Judge noted that the 2004 event could support a
cause of action in the tort of misfeasance in public office and
identified the elements of the tort as excerpted from Meigs v. Canada,
2013 FC 389, 431 F.T.R. 111:


[13]      As in both the cases of Odhavji Estate v Woodhouse, 2003 SCC
69 [Odhavji] and Lewis v Canada, 2012 FC 1514 [Lewis], I must
determine whether the plaintiffs’ statement of claim pleads each
element of the alleged tort of misfeasance in public office:

a) The public officer must have engaged in deliberate and unlawful
conduct in his or her capacity as public officer;

b) The public officer must have been aware both that his or her
conduct was unlawful and that it was likely to harm the plaintiff; and

c) There must be an element of bad faith or dishonesty by the public
officer and knowledge of harm alone is insufficient to conclude that a
public officer acted in bad faith or dishonestly.
Odhavji, above, at paras 23, 24 and 28
(Federal Court Judgment at para. 28).

[32]           The Judge determined that Mr. Amos disclosed sufficient
material facts to meet the elements of the tort of misfeasance in
public office because the actors, who barred him from the New
Brunswick legislature in 2004, including the RCMP, did so for
“political reasons” (Federal Court Judgment at para. 29).

[33]           This Court’s discussion of the sufficiency of pleadings
in Merchant Law Group v. Canada (Revenue Agency), 2010 FCA 184, 321
D.L.R (4th) 301 is particularly apt:

…When pleading bad faith or abuse of power, it is not enough to
assert, baldly, conclusory phrases such as “deliberately or
negligently,” “callous disregard,” or “by fraud and theft did steal”.
“The bare assertion of a conclusion upon which the court is called
upon to pronounce is not an allegation of material fact”. Making bald,
conclusory allegations without any evidentiary foundation is an abuse
of process…

To this, I would add that the tort of misfeasance in public office
requires a particular state of mind of a public officer in carrying
out the impunged action, i.e., deliberate conduct which the public
officer knows to be inconsistent with the obligations of his or her
office. For this tort, particularization of the allegations is
mandatory. Rule 181 specifically requires particularization of
allegations of “breach of trust,” “wilful default,” “state of mind of
a person,” “malice” or “fraudulent intention.”
(at paras. 34-35, citations omitted).

[34]           Applying the Housen standard of review to the
Prothonotary’s Order, we are of the view that the Judge interfered
absent a legal or palpable and overriding error.

[35]           The Prothonotary determined that Mr. Amos’ Claim
disclosed no reasonable claim and was fundamentally vexatious on the
basis of jurisdictional concerns and the absence of material facts to
ground a cause of action. Paragraph 14 of the Claim, which addresses
the 2004 event, pleads no material facts as to how the RCMP officer
engaged in deliberate and unlawful conduct, knew that his or her
conduct was unlawful and likely to harm Mr. Amos, and acted in bad
faith. While the Claim alleges elsewhere that Mr. Amos was barred from
the New Brunswick legislature for political and/or malicious reasons,
these allegations are not particularized and are directed against
non-federal actors, such as the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Legislative
Assembly of New Brunswick and the Fredericton Police Force. As such,
the Judge erred in determining that Mr. Amos’ allegation that the RCMP
barred him from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004 was capable of
supporting a cause of action.

[36]           In our view, the Claim is made up entirely of bare
allegations, devoid of any detail, such that it discloses no
reasonable cause of action within the jurisdiction of the Federal
Courts. Therefore, the Judge erred in interfering to set aside the
Prothonotary’s Order striking the claim in its entirety. Further, we
find that the Prothonotary made no error in denying leave to amend.
The deficiencies in Mr. Amos’ pleadings are so extensive such that
amendment could not cure them (see Collins at para. 26).

V.                 Conclusion
[37]           For the foregoing reasons, we would allow the Crown’s
cross-appeal, with costs, setting aside the Federal Court Judgment,
dated January 25, 2016 and restoring the Prothonotary’s Order, dated
November 12, 2015, which struck Mr. Amos’ Claim in its entirety
without leave to amend.
"Wyman W. Webb"
J.A.
"David G. Near"
J.A.
"Mary J.L. Gleason"
J.A.