<injusticecoalition@hotmail.com>, "oldmaison@yahoo.com"
 <oldmaison@yahoo.com>

 What kind of strange game is the US Justice Dept and the SEC playing
 with me now Mr Litt? Rest assured I won't play it and many people know
 that I never would Even though the corporate media won't talk about my
 concerns about your actions,  others certainly do.

 Here is just one example that still exists on the net. Even though
 Danny Boy Fitzgerald hates this mean old Maritimer, at least
 understands the meaning of the term Integrity and detests you people
 more. I am merely wondering how much longer his blog will exist. You
 know why EH T.J. Burke?

http://qslspolitics.blogspot.com/search?q=amos

 You dudes know as well as I that my concerns are far greater that mere
 matters of money and Bernie Madoff. Perhaps you should talk to your
 associates in the RCMP and the INTERPOL ASAP Clearly I am trying hard
 to make the whole world know about my concerns about the Feds' severe
 lack of integrity EH H. David Kotz?

 Veritas Vincit
 David Raymond Amos

 ---------- Forwarded message ----------
 From: USANYS-MADOFF <USANYS.MADOFF@usdoj.gov>
 Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 10:40:12 -0400
 Subject: RE: USANYS-MADOFF AND IMPORTANT INFORMATION FROM US
 ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SDNY
 To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>

 -----Original Message-----
 From: Olsen, Wendy (USANYS)
 Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 9:21 AM
 To: David Amos; USANYS-MADOFF; Litt, Marc (USANYS)
 Cc: webo; vasilescua@sec.gov; friedmani@sec.gov; krishnamurthyp@sec.gov
 Subject: RE: USANYS-MADOFF AND IMPORTANT INFORMATION FROM US
 ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SDNY

 Thank you for your response.

 Wendy Olsen
 Victim Witness Coordinator

 -----Original Message-----
 From: David Amos [mailto:david.raymond.amos@gmail.com]
 Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:48 AM
 To: USANYS-MADOFF; Olsen, Wendy (USANYS); Litt, Marc (USANYS)
 Cc: webo; vasilescua@sec.gov; friedmani@sec.gov; krishnamurthyp@sec.gov
 Subject: RE: USANYS-MADOFF AND IMPORTANT INFORMATION FROM US
 ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SDNY

 Ms Olsen

 Thank you for keeping me informed.

 Yes unseal all my emails with all their attachments immediately and
 make certain that the US Attorny's office finally practices full
 disclosurement as to who I am and what my concerns are as per the Rule
 of Law within a purported democracy.

 As you folks all well know I am not a shy man and I have done nothing
 wrong. It appears to me that bureacratic people only use the right to
 privacy of others when it suits their malicious ends in order to
 protect their butts from impreacment,  litigation and prosecution.

 The people in the US Attorney's Office and the SEC etc are very well
 aware that I protested immediately to everyone I could think of when
 the instant I knew that my correspondences went under seal and Madoff
 pled guilty so quickly and yet another cover up involing my actions
 was under full steam. Everybody knows that.the US Government has been
 trying to keep my concerns about the rampant public corruption a
 secret for well over seven long years. However now that a lot of
 poeple and their countries in general are losing a lot of money people
 are beginning to remember just exactly who I am and what i did
 beginning over seven years ago..

 Veritas Vincit
 David Raymond Amos
 506 756 8687

 P.S. For the record  Obviously I pounced on these Yankee bastards as
 soon as the newsrag in Boston published this article on the web last
 night.

http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1162354&f
 ormat=&page=2&listingType=biz#articleFull

 Notice that Nester just like everyone else would not say my name? It
 is because my issues surrounding both Madoff and are NOT marketing
 timing  They are as you all well know money laundering, fraud,
 forgery, perjury, securites fraud, tax fraud, Bank fraud, illegal
 wiretappping  and Murder amongst other very serious crimes.

 "SEC spokesman John Nester dismissed similarities between Markopolos
 and Scannell's cases as "not a valid comparison."

 He said the SEC determined the market-timing by Putnam clients that
 Scannell reported didn't violate federal law. Nester said the SEC only
 acted after another tipster alleged undisclosed market-timing by some
 Putnam insiders.

 Scannell, now a crusader for SEC reforms, isn't surprised the agency
 is in hot water again.

 Noting that several top SEC officials have gone on to high-paying
 private-sector jobs, he believes hopes for future employment impact
 investigations. "It's a distinct disadvantage to make waves before you
 enter the private sector," Scannell said."

 --- On Mon, 3/30/09, David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com> wrote:

 From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
 Subject: Fwd: USANYS-MADOFF IMPORTANT INFORMATION FROM US ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE SDNY
 To: NesterJ@sec.gov, letterstoeditor@bostonherald.com, "oig"
 <oig@sec.gov>, Thunter@tribune.com, david@davidmyles.com,
ddexter@ns.sympatico.ca, "Dan Fitzgerald"<danf@danf.net>
 Cc: dsheehan@bakerlaw.com, dspelfogel@bakerlaw.com,
mc@whistleblowers.org, gkachroo@mccarter.com,
david.straube@accenture.com, gurdip.s.sahota@accenture.com,
benjamin_mcmurray@ao.uscourts.gov, bob_burke@ao.uscourts.gov
 Date: Monday, March 30, 2009, 10:00 PM

 Need I say BULLSHIT?

http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1162354&f
 ormat=&page=2&listingType=biz#articleFull


 ---------- Forwarded message ----------
 From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
 Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 00:03:13 -0300
 Subject: RE: USANYS-MADOFF IMPORTANT INFORMATION FROM US ATTORNEY'S
 OFFICE SDNY
 To: Russ.Stanton@latimes.com, meredith.goodman@latimes.com,
ninkster@navigantconsulting.com, dgolub@sgtlaw.com
 Cc: firstselectmanffld@town.fairfield.ct.us,
editor@whatsupfairfield.com, info@csiworld.org, jacques_poitras
 <jacques_poitras@cbc.ca>

 ---------- Forwarded message ----------
 From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
 Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 23:40:55 -0300
 Subject: Fwd: USANYS-MADOFF FW: IMPORTANT INFORMATION FROM US
 ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SDNY
 To: gmacnamara@town.fairfield.ct.us, MartiK1 <MartiK1@parl.gc.ca>,
 "Paul. Harpelle"<Paul.Harpelle@gnb.ca>, Jason Keenan
 <jason.keenan@icann.org>, Kandalaw <Kandalaw@mindspring.com>
 Cc: info@grahamdefense.org, fbinhct@leo.gov

 From: "Peck,Dave"<DPeck@town.fairfield.ct.us>
 Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 22:32:32 -0400
 Subject: Out of Office AutoReply: USANYS-MADOFF FW: IMPORTANT
 INFORMATION FROM US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SDNY
 To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>

 I will be unavailable until 4/1/09.

 Deputy Chief MacNamara will be in charge while I am away.

 He can be reached at 254-4831 or email him at
gmacnamara@town.fairfield.ct.us

 I will not be checking emails or cell phone messages.

 Thank you,

 Chief Dave Peck

 ---------- Forwarded message ----------
 From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
 Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 23:32:18 -0300
 Subject: Fwd: USANYS-MADOFF FW: IMPORTANT INFORMATION FROM US
 ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SDNY
 To: dpeck@town.fairfield.ct.us, edit@ctpost.com, bresee@courant.com

 ---------- Forwarded message ----------
 From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
 Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 23:19:35 -0300
 Subject: RE: USANYS-MADOFF FW: IMPORTANT INFORMATION FROM US
 ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SDNY
 To: dtnews@telegraph.co.uk

 -----Original Message-----
 From: USANYS-MADOFF
 Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 3:06 PM
 To: DAVID.RAYMOND.AMOS@GMAIL.COM
 Subject: IMPORTANT INFORMATION FROM US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SDNY

 In United States v. Bernard L. Madoff, 09 Cr. 213 (DC), the Court
 received a request from NBC and ABC to unseal all correspondence from
 victims that has been submitted in connection with the case.  This
 includes your email to the Government.  If the correspondence from
 victims is unsealed, the victim's personal identifying information
 including name, address, telephone number and email address (to the
 extent it was included on the correspondence) will become public. The
 Government must submit a response to the request by NBC and ABC by
 Tuesday, March 31, 2009.  Please let us know whether you consent to
 the full disclosure of your correspondence, or whether you wish to
 have your correspondence remain sealed for privacy or other reasons.
 If you wish to have your correspondence remain sealed, please let us
 know the reason.  We will defend your privacy to the extent that we
 can.  Thank you.

 I looks like the US attorney in New York finally has to unseal my
 emails that you dudes have been sitting on for quite some time for no
 reason I will ever understand other than you are just a bunch of
 chickenshits.

 I know NBC, ABC, your blogger buddies or any other media wacko will
 never say my name but the pissed off folks that lost a lot of money
 with Bernie Baby just may ask how the hell I am EH?

 Veritas Vincit
 David Raymond Amos




 From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
 Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:48:50 -0300
 Subject: Fwd: Trust that whatever covert deal that Bernie Madoff and
 KPMG etc  may make with the Feds they are not fooling mean old me
 To: Marc.Litt@usdoj.gov

 ---------- Forwarded message ----------
 From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
 Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:29:42 -0300
 Subject: Fwd: Trust that whatever covert deal that Bernie Madoff and
 KPMG etc  may make with the Feds they are not fooling mean old me
 To: PChavkin@mintz.com
 Cc: webo <webo@xplornet.com>

 ---------- Forwarded message ----------
 From: "Olsen, Wendy (USANYS)"<Wendy.Olsen@usdoj.gov>
 Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:08:04 -0400
 Subject: RE: Trust that whatever covert deal that Bernie Madoff and
 KPMG etc may make with the Feds they are not fooling mean old me
 To: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com

     On March 10, 2009, the Honorable Denny Chin provided the following
 guidance for victims who wish to be heard at the plea proceeding on
 March 12, 2009 at 10:00 a.m.:

      Judge Chin stated that there are two issues that the Court will
 consider at the hearing: (1) whether to accept a guilty plea from the
 defendant to the eleven-count Criminal Information filed by the
 Government, which provides for a maximum sentence of 150 years'
 imprisonment; and (2) whether the defendant should be remanded or
 released on conditions of bail, if the Court accepts a guilty plea.
 Judge Chin also stated that, at the hearing on March 12, 2009, he will
 conduct a plea allocution of the defendant and then will announce
 whether the Court intends to accept the plea.  At that time, the Court
 will solicit speakers who disagree with the Court's intended ruling.

     Assuming the defendant pleads guilty and his plea is accepted by the
 Court, the Court intends to allow the Government and defense counsel
 to speak on the issue of bail.  The Court will then announce its
 intended ruling on that issue.  The Court will then invite individuals
 who disagree with the proposed ruling on bail to be heard.

     The Court noted that there will be opportunity for victims to be
 heard in the future on the subjects of sentencing, forfeiture and
 restitution in advance of any sentencing of the defendant.  The Court
 also noted that it is not appropriate for victims who wish to speak
 concerning sentencing issues to be heard at the March 12, 2009
 proceeding.

     A link to the a transcript of the March 10, 2009 Court hearing can
 be
 found on the website of the United States Attorney's Office for the
 Southern District of New York:

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nys


 -----Original Message-----
 From: Olsen, Wendy (USANYS)
 Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 10:56 AM
 To: usanys.madoff@usdoj.gov
 Subject: FW: Trust that whatever covert deal that Bernie Madoff and
 KPMG etc may make with the Feds they are not fooling mean old me


 -----Original Message-----
 From: David Amos [mailto:david.raymond.amos@gmail.com]
 Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 12:58 PM
 To: horwitzd@dicksteinshapiro.com; Nardoza, Robert (USANYE);
 USAMA-Media (USAMA); Olsen, Wendy (USANYS)
 Cc: oig
 Subject: Trust that whatever covert deal that Bernie Madoff and KPMG
 etc may make with the Feds they are not fooling mean old me

horwitzd@dicksteinshapiro.com

 ---------- Forwarded message ----------
 From: "Sartory, Thomas J."<TSartory@goulstonstorrs.com>
 Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 07:41:20 -0500
 Subject: RE: I did talk the lawyers Golub and Flumenbaum tried to
 discuss         Bernie Madoff and KPMG etc before sending these emails
 To: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com

 Dear Mr. Amos,

         I am General Counsel at Goulston & Storrs.  Your email below to
 Messers. Rosensweig and Reisch has been forwarded to me for response.
 While it's not clear what type of assistance, if any, you seek from
 Goulston % Storrs, please be advised that we are not in a  position to
 help you.  Please do not send further communications to any of our
 attorneys.  We will not be able to respond, and your communications
 will not be protected by the attorney-client privilege.

         We wish you well in the pursuit of your concerns.

 Sincerely,

 Thomas J. Sartory




 -----Original Message-----
 From: David Amos [mailto:
 Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 8:18 PM
 To: Rosensweig, Richard J.; info@LAtaxlawyers.com; Reisch, Alan M.;
reed@hbsslaw.com
 Subject: Fwd: I did talk the lawyers Golub and Flumenbaum tried to
 discuss Bernie Madoff and KPMG etc before sending these emails

 Perhaps somebody should call me back now. EH?

mailto:publiceditor@globeandmail.com>

Letters to the Editor can be sent to letters@globeandmail.com

This is the correct email address for requests for news coverage and
press releases.


---------- Original message ----------
From: "Houpt, Simon"<SHoupt@globeandmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2021 14:10:11 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: RE Lockdown: The New Totalitarianism by
Jeffrey A. Tucker
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>

?
I will be out of the office until Monday, Jan. 4, 2021, checking
emails only on occasion. If this is urgent and you have my cellphone
#, please text me, though I cannot guarantee I will be able to get
back to you swiftly. If this is a Sports-related query that can't wait
until my return, you may wish to contact Deputy Sports Editor Jamie
Ross (jross@globeandmail.com).



---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2021 10:08:14 -0400
Subject: RE Lockdown: The New Totalitarianism by Jeffrey A. Tucker
To: jeffrey.a.tucker@gmail.com, jim@jimbovard.com, jbovard@his.com,
james.caton@ndsu.edu, fiona.harrigan@gmail.com, sandyjfs@yahoo.com,
cbreashears@stlawu.edu, robertericwright@gmail.com,
alexander.w.salter@ttu.edu, eyang@studentsforliberty.org,
donjbx@gmail.com, bcarson@hsc.edu
Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>, press@aier.org, Newsroom
<Newsroom@globeandmail.com>, editor <editor@wikileaks.org>,
"Ian.Shugart"<Ian.Shugart@pco-bcp.gc.ca>, nspector@globeandmail.ca,
ombudsman@washpost.com, shenderson600@freepress.com,
shine@foxnews.com, shoupt@globeandmail.ca

https://www.aier.org/article/lockdown-the-new-totalitarianism/

https://www.aier.org/staffs/jeffrey-tucker/

Jeffrey A. Tucker is Editorial Director for the American Institute for
Economic Research.

He is the author of many thousands of articles in the scholarly and
popular press and nine books in 5 languages, most recently Liberty or
Lockdown. He is also the editor of The Best of Mises. He speaks widely
on topics of economics, technology, social philosophy, and culture.

Jeffrey is available for speaking and interviews via his email.  Tw |
FB | LinkedIn


---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2020 21:22:48 -0400
Subject: RE Fifteen Signs You’re in an Abusive Relationship with the Government
To: lou.eastman@aier.org, Amelia.Janaskie@aier.org, Micha.Gartz@aier.org
Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

https://www.aier.org/article/fifteen-signs-youre-in-an-abusive-relationship-with-the-government/


Fifteen Signs You’re in an Abusive Relationship with the Government
Lucio Saverio-Eastman Micha Gartz
– December 31, 2020

---------- Original message ----------
From: noreply@wisconsin.gov
Date: 25 Dec 2020 00:14:48 -0600
Subject: Your message has been received
To: motomaniac333@gmail.com

Thank you for contacting my office. I appreciate hearing your
thoughts, concerns and ideas.

If you are reaching out to my office about COVID-19, you can find the
most accurate, current information about the status of COVID-19 in
Wisconsin at the Wisconsin Department of Health Services’ website
(https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/covid-19/index.htm). As governor, it is
my top priority to ensure folks across our state have access to the
most up-to-date information available so you have the resources you
need to make informed decisions to keep yourself, your family, and our
neighbors and communities safe.

The best way to prevent illness is to avoid being exposed to this
virus. Please follow guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), current as of April 16, 2020, to help take
preventative steps that will limit your exposure and protect yourself
from COVID-19:
•       Stay home as much as possible and avoid close contact with others
•       Wear a cloth face covering that covers your nose and mouth in public settings
•       Clean and disinfect frequently touched objects and surfaces
•       Wash your hands often with soap and water for at least 20 seconds,
especially after going to the bathroom; before eating; and after
blowing your nose, coughing, or sneezing.
o       If soap and water are not readily available, use an alcohol-based
hand sanitizer with at least 60% alcohol. Always wash your hands with
soap and water if they are visibly dirty.
o       For information about handwashing, see the CDC’s Handwashing website.
o       For information specific to healthcare providers, see the CDC’s Hand
Hygiene in Healthcare Settings.
•       Stay home if you are sick, except to get medical care.
My office receives thousands of letters, emails, and phone calls every
day, but I want you to know that we are working on responding to your
message.

Again, thank you for contacting my office. It is an honor to serve you
and to represent the people of our state.

Tony Evers
Governor


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Gonski, Sarah R. (Perkins Coie)"<SGonski@perkinscoie.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2020 06:14:55 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: ATTN Sidney Powell et al I just called your
office in Texas and many of your associates within the Dec 11th
filings
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

I am out of the virtual office until Monday, December 28 and my
response to your email will be delayed. If you need immediate
assistance, please contact my assistant at dgraziano@perkinscoie.com
or 602-351-8078 and he will connect you with another member of the
Political Law Group.

Thank you,
Sarah



________________________________

NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other
confidential information. If you have received it in error, please
advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message
and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank
you.



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Press <Press@usdoj.gov>
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2020 06:16:10 +0000
Subject: Automatic Reply:  Press@usdoj.gov
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

Thank you for contacting the Department of Justice's Office of Public
Affairs.  Inquiries sent to this mailbox are no longer monitored.

To submit an inquiry, please visit
www.justice.gov/media<http://www.justice.gov/media>.  Inquiries made
via this form will be checked every 30 minutes from 9:00am – 6:00pm,
Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.

To submit an RSVP for an event, please visit
www.justice.gov/MediaRSVP<http://www.justice.gov/MediaRSVP>.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Higgs, Premier Blaine (PO/CPM)"<Blaine.Higgs@gnb.ca>
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2020 06:18:16 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: ATTN Sidney Powell et al I just called your
office in Texas and many of your associates within the Dec 11th
filings
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

Thank you for taking the time to write to us.

Due to the high volume of emails that we receive daily, please note
that there may be a delay in our response. Thank you for your
understanding.

If you are looking for current information on Coronavirus, please
visit www.gnb.ca/coronavirus<http://www.gnb.ca/coronavirus>.

If this is a Media Request, please contact the Premier’s office at
(506) 453-2144.

Thank you.


Bonjour,

Nous vous remercions d’avoir pris le temps de nous écrire.

Tenant compte du volume élevé de courriels que nous recevons
quotidiennement, il se peut qu’il y ait un délai dans notre réponse.
Nous vous remercions de votre compréhension.

Si vous recherchez des informations à jour sur le coronavirus,
veuillez visiter
www.gnb.ca/coronavirus<http://www.gnb.ca/coronavirus>.

S’il s’agit d’une demande des médias, veuillez communiquer avec le
Cabinet du premier ministre au 506-453-2144.

Merci.


Office of the Premier/Cabinet du premier ministre
P.O Box/C. P. 6000
Fredericton, New-Brunswick/Nouveau-Brunswick
E3B 5H1
Canada
Tel./Tel. : (506) 453-2144
Email/Courriel:
premier@gnb.ca/premierministre@gnb.ca<mailto:premier@gnb.ca/premier.ministre@gnb.ca>




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2020 02:14:39 -0400
Subject: Fwd: ATTN Sidney Powell et al I just called your office in
Texas and many of your associates within the Dec 11th filings
To: afoster@az.gov, bwjohnson@swlaw.com, cahler@swlaw.com,
dflint@swlaw.com, ijoyce@swlaw.com, governorsoffice@michigan.gov,
ccarr@law.ga.gov, dnessel@michigan.gov, kenneth.paxton@oag.texas.gov,
EversInfo@wisconsin.gov, attorneygeneral@doj.nh.gov,
kauljl@doj.state.wi.us, press@usdoj.gov, stateofcorruptionnh1
<stateofcorruptionnh1@gmail.com>, DSakowich@hearst.com, "Boston.Mail"
<Boston.Mail@ic.fbi.gov>, "ed.pilkington"
<ed.pilkington@guardian.co.uk>, editor <editor@wikileaks.org>, premier
<premier@ontario.ca>, premier <premier@gnb.ca>,
"andrea.anderson-mason"<andrea.anderson-mason@gnb.ca>,
attorneygeneral <attorneygeneral@ontario.ca>, awilder@azleg.gov,
MarkFinchem@me.com, NBarto@azleg.gov, ADanneman@perkinscoie.com,
SGonski@perkinscoie.com, MElias@perkinscoie.com,
BSpiva@perkinscoie.com, JDevaney@perkinscoie.com,
JGeise@perkinscoie.com, LHill@perkinscoie.com,
HerreraR@ballardspahr.com, ArellanoD@ballardspahr.com,
kellyjtownsend@yahoo.com, liddyt@mcao.maricopa.gov,
craigere@mcao.maricopa.gov, vigilj@mcao.maricopa.gov,
brancoj@mcao.maricopa.gov, laruej@mcao.maricopa.gov,
ca-civilmailbox@mcao.maricopa.gov, rdesai@cblawyers.com,
agaona@cblawyers.com, kyost@cblawyers.com, jnelson@susmangodfrey.com,
smorrissey@susmangodfrey.com, sshackelford@susmangodfrey.com,
dbrook@susmangodfrey.com, michael.c.herron@dartmouth.edu,
jrodden@stanford.edu, sda@gov.harvard.edu, king-assist@iq.harvard.edu,
King@harvard.edu
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>,
1AP.admin@protonmail.com, govcorrespcrm@pa.gov,
jshapiro@attorneygeneral.gov, Alexander.Kolodin@kolodinlaw.com,
CViskovic@kolodinlaw.com

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2020 16:27:43 -0400
Subject: Fwd: ATTN Sidney Powell et al I just called your office in
Texas and many of your associates within the Dec 11th filings
To: sidney@federalappeals.com, howard@kleinhendler.com,
lwood@fightback.law, attorneystefanielambert@gmail.com,
eldridge@millercanfield.com, dshare@bsdd.com,
erosenberg@lawyerscommittee.org, jgreenbaum@lawyerscommittee.org,
grille@michigan.gov, dbressack@finkbressack.com, aap43@hotmail.com,
megurewitz@gmail.com, James@jamesfetzer.com, info@lionelmedia.com,
liveneedtoknow@gmail.com, tips@steeltruth.com, media@steeltruth.com,
press@deepcapture.com, bbachrach <bbachrach@bachrachlaw.net>, Norman
Traversy <traversy.n@gmail.com>
Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>, "ron.klain"
<ron.klain@revolution.com>, bgaier@finance-commerce.com,
fin.financepublic-financepublique.fin@canada.ca,
info@thomasmoresociety.org, info@rleighfrostlaw.com,
cferrara@thomasmoresociety.org, kaardal@mklaw.com,
mjnew@nationalreview.com, info@aul.org, pr@cato.org, "robert.frater"
<robert.frater@justice.gc.ca>, keith.ward@justice.gc.ca, "jan.jensen"
<jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca>, cxiong@startribune.com

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ministerial Correspondence Unit - Justice Canada <mcu@justice.gc.ca>
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2020 19:07:58 +0000
Subject: Automatic Reply
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

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

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

We do not respond to correspondence that contains offensive language.

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

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

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

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




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bill.Blair@parl.gc.ca
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2020 19:08:11 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: FWD ATTN Sidney Powell et al I just called
your office in Texas and many of your associates within the Dec 11th
filings
To: motomaniac333@gmail.com

Thank you very much for reaching out to the Office of the Hon. Bill
Blair, Member of Parliament for Scarborough Southwest.

Please be advised that as a health and safety precaution, our
constituency office will not be holding in-person meetings until
further notice. We will continue to provide service during our regular
office hours, both over the phone and via email.

Due to the high volume of emails and calls we are receiving, our
office prioritizes requests on the basis of urgency and in relation to
our role in serving the constituents of Scarborough Southwest. If you
are not a constituent of Scarborough Southwest, please reach out to
your local of Member of Parliament for assistance. To find your local
MP, visit: https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en

Moreover, at this time, we ask that you please only call our office if
your case is extremely urgent. We are experiencing an extremely high
volume of calls, and will better be able to serve you through email.

Should you have any questions related to COVID-19, please see:
www.canada.ca/coronavirus<http://www.canada.ca/coronavirus>

Thank you again for your message, and we will get back to you as soon
as possible.

Best,


MP Staff to the Hon. Bill Blair
Parliament Hill: 613-995-0284
Constituency Office: 416-261-8613
bill.blair@parl.gc.ca<mailto:bill.blair@parl.gc.ca>

**
Merci beaucoup d'avoir pris contact avec le bureau de l'Honorable Bill
Blair, D?put? de Scarborough-Sud-Ouest.

Veuillez noter que par mesure de pr?caution en mati?re de sant? et de
s?curit?, notre bureau de circonscription ne tiendra pas de r?unions
en personne jusqu'? nouvel ordre. Nous continuerons ? fournir des
services pendant nos heures de bureau habituelles, tant par t?l?phone
que par courrier ?lectronique.

En raison du volume ?lev? de courriels que nous recevons, notre bureau
classe les demandes par ordre de priorit? en fonction de leur urgence
et de notre r?le dans le service aux ?lecteurs de Scarborough
Sud-Ouest. Si vous n'?tes pas un ?lecteur de Scarborough Sud-Ouest,
veuillez contacter votre d?put? local pour obtenir de l'aide. Pour
trouver votre d?put? local, visitez le
site:https://www.noscommunes.ca/members/fr

En outre, nous vous demandons de ne t?l?phoner ? notre bureau que si
votre cas est extr?mement urgent. Nous recevons un volume d'appels
extr?mement ?lev? et nous serons mieux ? m?me de vous servir par
courrier ?lectronique.

Si vous avez des questions concernant COVID-19, veuillez consulter le
site : http://www.canada.ca/le-coronavirus

Merci encore pour votre message, et nous vous r?pondrons d?s que possible.

Cordialement,

Personnel du D?put? de l'Honorable Bill Blair
Colline du Parlement : 613-995-0284
Bureau de Circonscription : 416-261-8613
bill.blair@parl.gc.ca<mailto:bill.blair@parl.gc.ca>
< mailto:bill.blair@parl.gc.ca>



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Newsroom <newsroom@globeandmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2020 19:11:47 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: FWD ATTN Sidney Powell et al I just called
your office in Texas and many of your associates within the Dec 11th
filings
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

Thank you for contacting The Globe and Mail.

If your matter pertains to newspaper delivery or you require technical
support, please contact our Customer Service department at
1-800-387-5400 or send an email to customerservice@globeandmail.com

If you are reporting a factual error please forward your email to
publiceditor@globeandmail.com<mailto:publiceditor@globeandmail.com>

Letters to the Editor can be sent to letters@globeandmail.com

This is the correct email address for requests for news coverage and
press releases.

Below is a true copy of my latest email It was sent today to Sidney
 Powell byway of her webpage format The lawyers found below will get
 regular email just like I have done with you people (I already called
 them all and spoke to some and left messages with the rest)


Perhaps all you lawyers should check my work from years ago and call
me back  ASAP???

https://www.scribd.com/doc/265620671/Cross-Border-Txt


On 12/13/20, Pam Stavropoulos <pstavropoulos@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
> Thank you David!
>
> Really appreciate wide dissemination of these concerns as you clearly
> recognise.
>
> Regards,
>
> Pam S.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Raymond Amos <pstavropoulos@iprimus.com.au>
> Sent: Monday, 14 December 2020 2:16 PM
> To: pstavropoulos@iprimus.com.au
> Subject: Contact Form submission from
> http://pamstavropoulos.com.au/contact/
>
> Sender's name: David Raymond Amos
> E-mail: David.Raymond.Amos333@gmail.com
> Phone: 506 434 8433
>
> Message: ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos
> Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2020 23:14:01 -0400
> Subject: ATTN Yanis Varoufakis and Pam Stavropoulos I just tweeted about
> your concerns about Julian Assange and global economy etc
> To: y.varoufakis@parliament.gr
> Cc: motomaniac333
>
> Yanis Varoufakis
> Web Site:
>     https://www.yanisvaroufakis.eu
> Email:
>     y.varoufakis@parliament.gr
> Address:
>     Parliament Mansion (Megaro Voulis), GR10021
> Athens / Tel. +30 2103707568 / Fax +30 2103707570.
>
> Check out the attachment for USA litigation over 18 years ago
>
>
> Please notice that the webcasts and transcripts of this hearing went
> missing not long  before the economy crashed in 2008 Find the letter
> fom Spitzer to me on page 12 within the document I offer as
> "Integrity-Yea-Right" and ask yourself why Assaage has never metioned
> me In fact I bet that you folks won't either
>
> https://www.banking.senate.gov/hearings/review-of-current-investigations-and-regulatory-actions-regarding-the-mutual-fund-industry
>
>  Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding the
> Mutual Fund Industry
>
> Date:   Thursday, November 20, 2003
>
> Witness Panel 1
>
>     Mr. Stephen M. Cutler
>     Director - Division of Enforcement
>     Securities and Exchange Commission
>           Cutler - November 20, 2003
>     Mr. Robert Glauber
>     Chairman and CEO
>     National Association of Securities Dealers
>           Glauber - November 20, 2003
>     Eliot Spitzer
>     Attorney General
>     State of New York
>           Spitzer - November 20, 2003
>
>
>
> Yanis Varoufakis
> @yanisvaroufakis
> ·
>
> Law and Disorder: The case of Julian Assange - DiEM25
> The conviction of Julian Assange would signify a new dystopian
> landscape in which all investigative journalism risks prosecution.
> diem25.org
>
> David Raymond Amos
> @DavidRaymondAm1
> ·
> 1h
> Perhaps you and I should have a long talk ASAP?
>
> FYI this old pdf file is the tip of the iceberg of things that Bolton
> and Assange have known about yours truly for many years
>
> https://www.scribd.com/doc/2718120/Integrity-Yea-Right
>
> David Raymond Amos
> @DavidRaymondAm1
> ·
> 41m
> The first link I offer in the blog Greece is among the many that
> received hundreds of documents byway of registered US Mail as I
> returned home to run for public office 6 more times while suing the
> Queen
>
>
> http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.com/2017/08/attn-andrey-dvornikov-tel-7-499-244-32.html
>
> Notice Assange and Trumps lawyer's email before they became famous?
>
>
> http://thedavidamosrant.blogspot.ca/2014/05/yo-birgitta-who-is-more-of-crook-julian.html
>
> From: Birgitta Jonsdottir
> Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 07:14:02 +0000
> Subject: Re: Bon Soir Birgitta according to my records this is the
> first email I ever sent you
> To: David Amos
>
> dear Dave
> i have got your email and will read through the links as soon as i
> find some time keep up the good fight in the meantime
>
> thank you for bearing with me
> i am literary drowning in requests to look into all sorts of matters
> and at the same time working 150% work at the parliament and
> the creation of a political movement and being a responsible parent:)
> plus all the matters in relation to immi
>
> with oceans of joy
> birgitta
>
> Better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for what you are
> not.
>
> Andre Gide
>
> Birgitta Jonsdottir
> Birkimelur 8, 107 Reykjavik, Iceland, tel: 354 692 8884
> http://this.is/birgitta– http://joyb.blogspot.com -
> http://www.facebook.com/birgitta.jonsdottir
>
>>>> From: "Julian Assange)"editor@wikileaks.org
>>>> To: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>>>> Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2010 3:15 PM
>>>> Subject: Al Jazeera on Iceland's plan for a press safe haven
>>>>
>>>> FYI: Al-Jazeera's take on Iceland's proposed media safe haven
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbGiPjIE1pE
>>>>
>>>> More info http://immi.is/
>>>>
>>>> Julian Assange Editor WikiLeaks http://wikileaks.org/
>>>>
>>>> From: "David Amos"david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>>>> To: "Julian Assange)"editor@wikileaks.org
>>>> Cc: "Dan Fitzgerald"danf@danf.net; "Byrne. G"Byrne.G@parl.gc.ca
>>>> Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2010 8:35 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: Al Jazeera on Iceland's new plan Thanx Here is
>>>> something
>>>> about Iceland and Banksters Al Jazeera would enjoy
>>>>
>>>> Checkout this old pdf file from 2005 at about page two or three
>>>>
>>>> http://www.scribd.com/doc/4304560/Speaker-Iceland-etc
>>>>
>>>> Then read on and chuckle
>>>>
>>>> From: postur@fjr.stjr.is
>>>> Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009
>>>> Subject: Re: RE: Iceland and Bankers etc I must ask the obvious
>>>> question. Why have you people ignored me for three years?
>>>> To: David Amos david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>>>>
>>>> Dear David Amos
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately there has been a considerable delay in responding to
>>>> incoming letters due to heavy workload and many inquiries to our
>>>> office.
>>>>
>>>> We appreciate the issue raised in your letter. We have set up a web
>>>> site www.iceland.org where we have gathered various practical
>>>> information regarding the economic crisis in Iceland.
>>>>
>>>> Greetings from the Ministry of Finance.
>>>>
>>>> Tilvísun í mál: FJR08100024
>>>>
>>>> From: postur@for.stjr.is
>>>> Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008
>>>> Subject: Regarding your enquiry to the Prime Ministry of Iceland
>>>> To: David Amos david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>>>>
>>>> David Raymond Amos
>>>>
>>>> Your enquiry has been received by the Prime Ministry of Iceland and
>>>> waits attendance.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you.
>>>>
>>>> From: David Amos david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>>>> Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008
>>>> Subject: I just called to remind the Speaker, the Bankers and the
>>>> Icelanders that I still exist EH Mrs Mrechant, Bob Rae and Iggy?
>>>> To: Milliken.P@parl.gc.ca, sjs@althingi.is, emb.ottawa@mfa.is,
>>>> rmellish@pattersonlaw.ca, irisbirgisdottir@yahoo.ca,
>>>> marie@mariemorneau.com, dfranklin@franklinlegal.com,
>>>> egilla@althingi.is, william.turner@exsultate.ca
>>>> Cc: Rae.B@parl.gc.ca, Ignatieff.M@parl.gc.ca, lebrem@sen.parl.gc.ca,
>>>> merchp@sen.parl.gc.ca, coolsa@sen.parl.gc.ca, olived@sen.parl.gc.ca
>>>>
>>>> All of you should review the documents and CD that came with this
>>>> letter ASAP EH?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.scribd.com/doc/2718120/Integrity-Yea-Right
>>>>
>>>> http://www.scribd.com/doc/4304560/Speaker-Iceland-etc
>>>>
>>>> http://www.scribd.com/doc/5352095/Tony-Merchant-and-Yankees
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps Geir Haarde and Steingrimur Sigfusson should call me back
>>>>
>>>> Veritas Vincit
>>>> David Raymond Amos
>>>>
>>>> The Reykjavík Grapevine
>>>> Hafnarstræti 15
>>>> 101 Reykjavík
>>>> Iceland
>>>> grapevine@grapevine.is
>>>> +354-540-3600
>
> http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.com/2017/08/attn-andrey-dvornikov-tel-7-499-244-32.html
>
> Wednesday, 2 August 2017
>
> Attn Andrey Dvornikov, tel. (+7) 499 244 32 54 RE Nikki Haley meeting
> with Vasily Nebeznya.Russia's new ambassador to the United Nations,
> This was the pdf file attached to the email found below
>
> https://www.scribd.com/document/332928056/UN-DUDES
>
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: "MAY, Theresa"theresa.may.mp@parliament.uk
> Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 12:12:24 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: Attn Andrey Dvornikov, tel. (+7) 499 244 32
> 54 RE Nikki Haley meeting with Vasily Nebeznya.Russia's new ambassador
> to the United Nations,
> To: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
>
> If your email is to the Prime Minister, please re-send to the No 10
> website:
> www.gov.uk/government/organisations/prime-ministers-office-10-downing-street
>
> http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/prime-ministers-office-10-downing-street
>
>
> If you are a constituent of the Prime Minister, please re-send to:
> sharkeyj@parliament.uk
>
> UK Parliament Disclaimer: This e-mail is confidential to the intended
> recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
> and delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or
> copying is not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses,
> but no liability is accepted for any damage caused by any virus
> transmitted by this e-mail. This e-mail address is not secure, is not
> encrypted and should not be used for sensitive data.
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: "Finance Public / Finance Publique (FIN)"
> fin.financepublic-financepublique.fin@canada.ca
> Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 12:12:16 +0000
> Subject: RE: Attn Andrey Dvornikov, tel. (+7) 499 244 32 54 RE Nikki
> Haley meeting with Vasily Nebeznya.Russia's new ambassador to the
> United Nations,
> To: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
>
> The Department of Finance acknowledges receipt of your electronic
> correspondence. Please be assured that we appreciate receiving your
> comments.
>
> Le ministère des Finances accuse réception de votre correspondance
> électronique. Soyez assuré(e) que nous apprécions recevoir vos
> commentaires.
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: David Amos
> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 10:51:14 -0400
> Subject: RE FATCA, NAFTA & TPP etc ATTN President Donald J. Trump I
> just got off the phone with your lawyer Mr Cohen (646-853-0114) Why
> does he lie to me after all this time???
> To: president , mdcohen212@gmail.com, pm ,
> Pierre-Luc.Dusseault@parl.gc.ca, MulcaT , Jean-Yves.Duclos@parl.gc.ca,
> B.English@ministers.govt.nz, Malcolm.Turnbull.MP@aph.gov.au,
> pminvites@pmc.gov.au, mayt@parliament.uk, press , "Andrew.Bailey" ,
> fin.financepublic-financepublique.fin@canada.ca, newsroom ,
> "CNN.Viewer.Communications.Management" , news-tips , lionel
> Cc: David Amos , elizabeth.thompson@cbc.ca, "justin.ling@vice.com,
> elizabeththompson" , djtjr , "Bill.Morneau" , postur ,
> stephen.kimber@ukings.ca, "steve.murphy" , "Jacques.Poitras" ,
> oldmaison , andre
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: Michael Cohen
> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:15:14 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: RE FATCA ATTN Pierre-Luc.Dusseault I just
> called and left a message for you
> To: David Amos
>
> Effective January 20, 2017, I have accepted the role as personal
> counsel to President Donald J. Trump. All future emails should be
> directed to mdcohen212@gmail.com and all future calls should be
> directed to 646-853-0114.
> ________________________________
> This communication is from The Trump Organization or an affiliate
> thereof and is not sent on behalf of any other individual or entity.
> This email may contain information that is confidential and/or
> proprietary. Such information may not be read, disclosed, used,
> copied, distributed or disseminated except (1) for use by the intended
> recipient or (2) as expressly authorized by the sender. If you have
> received this communication in error, please immediately delete it and
> promptly notify the sender. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed
> to be received, secure or error-free as emails could be intercepted,
> corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late, incomplete, contain viruses
> or otherwise. The Trump Organization and its affiliates do not
> guarantee that all emails will be read and do not accept liability for
> any errors or omissions in emails. Any views or opinions presented in
> any email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
> represent those of The Trump Organization or any of its
> affiliates.Nothing in this communication is intended to operate as an
> electronic signature under applicable law.
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: "Finance Public / Finance Publique (FIN)"
>
> Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 22:05:00 +0000
> Subject: RE: Yo President Trump RE the Federal Court of Canada File No
> T-1557-15 lets see how the media people do with news that is NOT FAKE
> To: David Amos
>
> The Department of Finance acknowledges receipt of your electronic
> correspondence. Please be assured that we appreciate receiving your
> comments.
>
> Le ministère des Finances accuse réception de votre correspondance
> électronique. Soyez assuré(e) que nous apprécions recevoir vos
> commentaires.
>
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: Kevin Leahy
> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 12:38:43 -0400
> Subject: Re: RE The call from the Boston cop Robert Ridge (857 259
> 9083) on behalf of the VERY corrupt Yankee DA Rachael Rollins
> To: David Amos
>
> French will follow
>
> Thank you for your email.
>
> For inquiries regarding EMRO’s Office, please address your email to
> acting EMRO Sebastien Brillon at sebastien.brillon@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>
> For inquiries regarding CO NHQ Office, please address your email to
> acting CO Farquharson, David at David.Farquharson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>
> All PPS related correspondence should be sent to my PPS account at
> kevin.leahy@pps-spp@parl.gc.ca
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Merci pour votre courriel.
>
> Pour toute question concernant le Bureau de l'EMRO, veuillez adresser
> vos courriels à l’Officier responsable des Relations
> employeur-employés par intérim Sébastien Brillon  à l'adresse suivante
>  sebastien.brillon@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>
> Pour toute  question concernant le bureau du Commandant de la
> Direction générale, veuillez adresser vos courriels au   Commandant de
> la Direction générale par intérim Farquharson, David  à l'adresse
> suivante   David.Farquharson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>
> Toute correspondance relative au Service De Protection Parlementaire
> doit être envoyée à mon compte de PPS à l'adresse suivante
> kevin.leahy@pps-spp@parl.gc.ca
>
>
> Kevin Leahy
> Chief Superintendent/Surintendant principal
> Director, Parliamentary Protective Service
> Directeur , Service de protection parlementaire
> T 613-996-5048
> Kevin.leahy@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are
> confidential and may contain protected information. It is intended
> only for the individual or entity named in the message. If you are not
> the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver the
> message that this email contains to the intended recipient, you should
> not disseminate, distribute or copy this email, nor disclose or use in
> any manner the information that it contains. Please notify the sender
> immediately if you have received this email by mistake and delete it.
> AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ: Le présent courriel et tout fichier qui y est
> joint sont confidentiels et peuvent contenir des renseignements
> protégés. Il est strictement réservé à l’usage du destinataire prévu.
> Si vous n’êtes pas le destinataire prévu, ou le mandataire chargé de
> lui transmettre le message que ce courriel contient, vous ne devez ni
> le diffuser, le distribuer ou le copier, ni divulguer ou utiliser à
> quelque fin que ce soit les renseignements qu’il contient. Veuillez
> aviser immédiatement l’expéditeur si vous avez reçu ce courriel par
> erreur et supprimez-le.
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: Premier of Ontario | Premier ministre de l’Ontario
> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 16:38:41 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: RE The call from the Boston cop Robert Ridge
> (857 259 9083) on behalf of the VERY corrupt Yankee DA Rachael Rollins
> To: David Amos
>
> 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
>> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 16:15:59 -0400
>> Subject: Hey Ralph Goodale perhaps you and the RCMP should call the
>> Yankees Governor Charlie Baker, his lawyer Bob Ross, Rachael Rollins
>> and this cop Robert Ridge (857 259 9083) ASAP EH Mr Primme Minister
>> Trudeau the Younger and Donald Trump Jr?
>> To: pm@pm.gc.ca, Katie.Telford@pmo-cpm.gc.ca,
>> Ian.Shugart@pco-bcp.gc.ca, djtjr@trumporg.com,
>> Donald.J.Trump@donaldtrump.com, JUSTWEB@novascotia.ca,
>> Frank.McKenna@td.com, barbara.massey@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
>> Douglas.Johnson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, sandra.lofaro@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
>> washington.field@ic.fbi.gov, Brenda.Lucki@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
>> gov.press@state.ma.us, bob.ross@state.ma.us, jfurey@nbpower.com,
>> jfetzer@d.umn.edu, Newsroom@globeandmail.com, sfine@globeandmail.com,
>> .Poitras@cbc.ca, steve.murphy@ctv.ca, David.Akin@globalnews.ca,
>> Dale.Morgan@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, news@kingscorecord.com,
>> news@dailygleaner.com, oldmaison@yahoo.com, jbosnitch@gmail.com,
>> andre@jafaust.com>
>> Cc: david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com, DJT@trumporg.com
>> wharrison@nbpower.com, David.Lametti@parl.gc.ca,  mcu@justice.gc.ca,
>> Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca, hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca
>>
---------- Original message ----------
From: "Finance Public / Finance Publique (FIN)"
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:52:33 +0000
Subject: RE: RE FATCA, NAFTA & TPP etc ATTN President Donald J. Trump
I just got off the phone with your lawyer Mr Cohen (646-853-0114) Why
does he lie to me after all this time???
To: David Amos

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

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


---------- Original message ----------
From: Póstur FOR
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:51:41 +0000
Subject: Re: RE FATCA, NAFTA & TPP etc ATTN President Donald J. Trump
I just got off the phone with your lawyer Mr Cohen (646-853-0114) Why
does he lie to me after all this time???
To: David Amos

Erindi þitt hefur verið móttekið  / Your request has been received

Kveðja / Best regards
Forsætisráðuneytið  / Prime Minister's Office

---------- Original message ----------
From: "B English (MIN)"
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:51:29 +0000
Subject: Automated response from the office of Hon Bill English
To: David Amos

Thank you for your email to the Prime Minister.

This is an automated response.

Please be assured that any matters you raise in your email will be
noted; however, not all messages will receive an individual response.

Yours sincerely
The Office of the Prime Minister


---------- Original message ----------
From: PmInvites
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:52:50 +0000
Subject: PM Invites
To: David Amos

Thank you for your invitation/meeting request to the Prime Minister,
the Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP.
Your invitation will be considered in light of the Prime Minister's
existing commitments.
We will be in touch with you as soon as possible to formally advise
the progress of your invitation/meeting request.

Yours sincerely

Prime Minister's Office

______________________________________________________________________

IMPORTANT: This message, and any attachments to it, contains information
that is confidential and may also be the subject of legal professional or
other privilege. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you
must not review, copy, disseminate or disclose its contents to any other
party or take action in reliance of any material contained within it. If you
have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by
return email informing them of the mistake and delete all copies of the
message from your computer system.


---------- Original message ----------
From: "Turnbull, Malcolm (MP)"
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:51:35 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: RE FATCA, NAFTA & TPP etc ATTN President
Donald J. Trump I just got off the phone with your lawyer Mr Cohen
(646-853-0114) Why does he lie to me after all this time???
To: David Amos

***Please be advised that this email address is no longer in use***

Thank you for taking the time to write to me. Feedback from the people
we represent is always extremely valuable for members of parliament,
and especially valuable to me as Prime Minister.

However as you can imagine I receive a very large, sometimes
dauntingly large, amount of correspondence and it is important that we
do everything we can to respond to it as quickly and effectively as
possible.

So to help us best direct your enquiry and respond to it, please
complete this contact form. If you have written a detailed message in
your email, just cut and paste it into the contact form and complete
the details requested.

If you would like to invite me or Lucy to an event, please forward the
invitation to pminvites@pmc.gov.au.

If you are a Wentworth constituent, please make us aware of this and
my electorate office team in Edgecliff will be in touch.

Regards,

Malcolm Turnbull
Prime Minister


---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 10:51:14 -0400
Subject: RE FATCA, NAFTA & TPP etc ATTN President Donald J. Trump I
just got off the phone with your lawyer Mr Cohen (646-853-0114) Why
does he lie to me after all this time???
To: president , mdcohen212@gmail.com, pm ,
Pierre-Luc.Dusseault@parl.gc.ca, MulcaT , Jean-Yves.Duclos@parl.gc.ca,
B.English@ministers.govt.nz, Malcolm.Turnbull.MP@aph.gov.au,
pminvites@pmc.gov.au, mayt@parliament.uk, press , "Andrew.Bailey" ,
fin.financepublic-financepublique.fin@canada.ca, newsroom ,
"CNN.Viewer.Communications.Management" , news-tips , lionel
Cc: David Amos , elizabeth.thompson@cbc.ca, "justin.ling@vice.com,
elizabeththompson" , djtjr , "Bill.Morneau" , postur ,
stephen.kimber@ukings.ca, "steve.murphy" , "Jacques.Poitras" ,
oldmaison , andre


> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 16:15:59 -0400
> Subject: Hey Ralph Goodale perhaps you and the RCMP should call the
> Yankees Governor Charlie Baker, his lawyer Bob Ross, Rachael Rollins
> and this cop Robert Ridge (857 259 9083) ASAP EH Mr Primme Minister
> Trudeau the Younger and Donald Trump Jr?
> To: pm@pm.gc.ca, Katie.Telford@pmo-cpm.gc.ca,
> Ian.Shugart@pco-bcp.gc.ca, djtjr@trumporg.com,
> Donald.J.Trump@donaldtrump.com, JUSTWEB@novascotia.ca,
> Frank.McKenna@td.com, barbara.massey@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
> Douglas.Johnson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, sandra.lofaro@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
> washington.field@ic.fbi.gov, Brenda.Lucki@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
> gov.press@state.ma.us, bob.ross@state.ma.us, jfurey@nbpower.com,
> jfetzer@d.umn.edu, Newsroom@globeandmail.com, sfine@globeandmail.com,
> .Poitras@cbc.ca, steve.murphy@ctv.ca, David.Akin@globalnews.ca,
> Dale.Morgan@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, news@kingscorecord.com,
> news@dailygleaner.com, oldmaison@yahoo.com, jbosnitch@gmail.com,
> andre@jafaust.com>
> Cc: david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com, DJT@trumporg.com
> wharrison@nbpower.com, David.Lametti@parl.gc.ca,  mcu@justice.gc.ca,
> Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca, hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca
>
>>> From: Justice Website <JUSTWEB@novascotia.ca>
>>> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:21:11 +0000
>>> Subject: Emails to Department of Justice and Province of Nova Scotia
>>> To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com"<motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> Mr. Amos,
>>> We acknowledge receipt of your recent emails to the Deputy Minister of
>>> Justice and lawyers within the Legal Services Division of the
>>> Department of Justice respecting a possible claim against the Province
>>> of Nova Scotia.  Service of any documents respecting a legal claim
>>> against the Province of Nova Scotia may be served on the Attorney
>>> General at 1690 Hollis Street, Halifax, NS.  Please note that we will
>>> not be responding to further emails on this matter.
>>>
>>> Department of Justice
>>>
>>> On 8/3/17, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If want something very serious to download and laugh at as well Please
>>>> Enjoy and share real wiretap tapes of the mob
>>>>
>>>> http://thedavidamosrant.blogspot.ca/2013/10/re-glen-greenwald-and-braz
>>>> ilian.html
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/06/09/nsa-leak-guardian.html
>>>>>
>>>>> As the CBC etc yap about Yankee wiretaps and whistleblowers I must
>>>>> ask them the obvious question AIN'T THEY FORGETTING SOMETHING????
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vugUalUO8YY
>>>>>
>>>>> What the hell does the media think my Yankee lawyer served upon the
>>>>> USDOJ right after I ran for and seat in the 39th Parliament baseball
>>>>> cards?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://archive.org/details/ITriedToExplainItToAllMaritimersInEarly200
>>>>> 6
>>>>>
>>>>> http://davidamos.blogspot.ca/2006/05/wiretap-tapes-impeach-bush.html
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.archive.org/details/PoliceSurveilanceWiretapTape139
>>>>>
>>>>> http://archive.org/details/Part1WiretapTape143
>>>>>
>>>>> FEDERAL EXPRES February 7, 2006
>>>>> Senator Arlen Specter
>>>>> United States Senate
>>>>> Committee on the Judiciary
>>>>> 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
>>>>> Washington, DC 20510
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Mr. Specter:
>>>>>
>>>>> I have been asked to forward the enclosed tapes to you from a man
>>>>> named, David Amos, a Canadian citizen, in connection with the matters
>>>>> raised in the attached letter.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mr. Amos has represented to me that these are illegal FBI wire tap
>>>>> tapes.
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe Mr. Amos has been in contact with you about this previously.
>>>>>
>>>>> Very truly yours,
>>>>> Barry A. Bachrach
>>>>> Direct telephone: (508) 926-3403
>>>>> Direct facsimile: (508) 929-3003
>>>>> Email: bbachrach@bowditch.com
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
>>>> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 09:32:09 -0400
>>>> Subject: Attn Integrity Commissioner Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C.,
>>>> To: coi@gnb.ca
>>>> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>>>>
>>>> Good Day Sir
>>>>
>>>> After I heard you speak on CBC I called your office again and managed
>>>> to speak to one of your staff for the first time
>>>>
>>>> Please find attached the documents I promised to send to the lady who
>>>> answered the phone this morning. Please notice that not after the Sgt
>>>> at Arms took the documents destined to your office his pal Tanker
>>>> Malley barred me in writing with an "English" only document.
>>>>
>>>> These are the hearings and the dockets in Federal Court that I
>>>> suggested that you study closely.
>>>>
>>>> This is the docket in Federal Court
>>>>
>>>> http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=T-1557-15&select_court=T
>>>>
>>>> These are digital recordings of  the last three hearings
>>>>
>>>> Dec 14th https://archive.org/details/BahHumbug
>>>>
>>>> January 11th, 2016 https://archive.org/details/Jan11th2015
>>>>
>>>> April 3rd, 2017
>>>>
>>>> https://archive.org/details/April32017JusticeLeblancHearing
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is the docket in the Federal Court of Appeal
>>>>
>>>> http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=A-48-16&select_court=All
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The only hearing thus far
>>>>
>>>> May 24th, 2017
>>>>
>>>> https://archive.org/details/May24thHoedown
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This Judge understnds the meaning of the word Integrity
>>>>
>>>> Date: 20151223
>>>>
>>>> Docket: T-1557-15
>>>>
>>>> Fredericton, New Brunswick, December 23, 2015
>>>>
>>>> PRESENT:        The Honourable Mr. Justice Bell
>>>>
>>>> BETWEEN:
>>>>
>>>> DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
>>>>
>>>> Plaintiff
>>>>
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>> HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
>>>>
>>>> Defendant
>>>>
>>>> ORDER
>>>>
>>>> (Delivered orally from the Bench in Fredericton, New Brunswick, on
>>>> December 14, 2015)
>>>>
>>>> The Plaintiff seeks an appeal de novo, by way of motion pursuant to
>>>> the Federal Courts Rules (SOR/98-106), from an Order made on November
>>>> 12, 2015, in which Prothonotary Morneau struck the Statement of Claim
>>>> in its entirety.
>>>>
>>>> At the outset of the hearing, the Plaintiff brought to my attention a
>>>> letter dated September 10, 2004, which he sent to me, in my then
>>>> capacity as Past President of the New Brunswick Branch of the Canadian
>>>> Bar Association, and the then President of the Branch, Kathleen Quigg,
>>>> (now a Justice of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal).  In that letter
>>>> he stated:
>>>>
>>>> As for your past President, Mr. Bell, may I suggest that you check the
>>>> work of Frank McKenna before I sue your entire law firm including you.
>>>> You are your brother’s keeper.
>>>>
>>>> Frank McKenna is the former Premier of New Brunswick and a former
>>>> colleague of mine at the law firm of McInnes Cooper. In addition to
>>>> expressing an intention to sue me, the Plaintiff refers to a number of
>>>> people in his Motion Record who he appears to contend may be witnesses
>>>> or potential parties to be added. Those individuals who are known to
>>>> me personally, include, but are not limited to the former Prime
>>>> Minister of Canada, The Right Honourable Stephen Harper; former
>>>> Attorney General of Canada and now a Justice of the Manitoba Court of
>>>> Queen’s Bench, Vic Toews; former member of Parliament Rob Moore;
>>>> former Director of Policing Services, the late Grant Garneau; former
>>>> Chief of the Fredericton Police Force, Barry McKnight; former Staff
>>>> Sergeant Danny Copp; my former colleagues on the New Brunswick Court
>>>> of Appeal, Justices Bradley V. Green and Kathleen Quigg, and, retired
>>>> Assistant Commissioner Wayne Lang of the Royal Canadian Mounted
>>>> Police.
>>>>
>>>> In the circumstances, given the threat in 2004 to sue me in my
>>>> personal capacity and my past and present relationship with many
>>>> potential witnesses and/or potential parties to the litigation, I am
>>>> of the view there would be a reasonable apprehension of bias should I
>>>> hear this motion. See Justice de Grandpré’s dissenting judgment in
>>>> Committee for Justice and Liberty et al v National Energy Board et al,
>>>> [1978] 1 SCR 369 at p 394 for the applicable test regarding
>>>> allegations of bias. In the circumstances, although neither party has
>>>> requested I recuse myself, I consider it appropriate that I do so.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> AS A RESULT OF MY RECUSAL, THIS COURT ORDERS that the Administrator of
>>>> the Court schedule another date for the hearing of the motion.  There
>>>> is no order as to costs.
>>>>
>>>> “B. Richard Bell”
>>>> Judge
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Below after the CBC article about your concerns (I made one comment
>>>> already) you will find the text of just two of many emails I had sent
>>>> to your office over the years since I first visited it in 2006.
>>>>
>>>>  I noticed that on July 30, 2009, he was appointed to the  the Court
>>>> Martial Appeal Court of Canada  Perhaps you should scroll to the
>>>> bottom of this email ASAP and read the entire Paragraph 83  of my
>>>> lawsuit now before the Federal Court of Canada?
>>>>
>>>> "FYI This is the text of the lawsuit that should interest Trudeau the
>>>> most
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Original message ----------
>>>> From: justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca
>>>> Date: Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:18 PM
>>>> Subject: Réponse automatique : RE My complaint against the CROWN in
>>>> Federal Court Attn David Hansen and Peter MacKay If you planning to
>>>> submit a motion for a publication ban on my complaint trust that you
>>>> dudes are way past too late
>>>> To: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>>>>
>>>> Veuillez noter que j'ai changé de courriel. Vous pouvez me rejoindre à
>>>> lalanthier@hotmail.com
>>>>
>>>> Pour rejoindre le bureau de M. Trudeau veuillez envoyer un courriel à
>>>> tommy.desfosses@parl.gc.ca
>>>>
>>>> Please note that I changed email address, you can reach me at
>>>> lalanthier@hotmail.com
>>>>
>>>> To reach the office of Mr. Trudeau please send an email to
>>>> tommy.desfosses@parl.gc.ca
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>>
>>>> Merci ,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2015/09/v-behaviorurldefaultvmlo.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 83.  The Plaintiff states that now that Canada is involved in more war
>>>> in Iraq again it did not serve Canadian interests and reputation to
>>>> allow Barry Winters to publish the following words three times over
>>>> five years after he began his bragging:
>>>>
>>>> January 13, 2015
>>>> This Is Just AS Relevant Now As When I wrote It During The Debate
>>>>
>>>> December 8, 2014
>>>> Why Canada Stood Tall!
>>>>
>>>> Friday, October 3, 2014
>>>> Little David Amos’ “True History Of War” Canadian Airstrikes And
>>>> Stupid Justin Trudeau
>>>>
>>>> Canada’s and Canadians free ride is over. Canada can no longer hide
>>>> behind Amerka’s and NATO’s skirts.
>>>>
>>>> When I was still in Canadian Forces then Prime Minister Jean Chretien
>>>> actually committed the Canadian Army to deploy in the second campaign
>>>> in Iraq, the Coalition of the Willing. This was against or contrary to
>>>> the wisdom or advice of those of us Canadian officers that were
>>>> involved in the initial planning phases of that operation. There were
>>>> significant concern in our planning cell, and NDHQ about of the dearth
>>>> of concern for operational guidance, direction, and forces for
>>>> operations after the initial occupation of Iraq. At the “last minute”
>>>> Prime Minister Chretien and the Liberal government changed its mind.
>>>> The Canadian government told our amerkan cousins that we would not
>>>> deploy combat troops for the Iraq campaign, but would deploy a
>>>> Canadian Battle Group to Afghanistan, enabling our amerkan cousins to
>>>> redeploy troops from there to Iraq. The PMO’s thinking that it was
>>>> less costly to deploy Canadian Forces to Afghanistan than Iraq. But
>>>> alas no one seems to remind the Liberals of Prime Minister Chretien’s
>>>> then grossly incorrect assumption. Notwithstanding Jean Chretien’s
>>>> incompetence and stupidity, the Canadian Army was heroic,
>>>> professional, punched well above it’s weight, and the PPCLI Battle
>>>> Group, is credited with “saving Afghanistan” during the Panjway
>>>> campaign of 2006.
>>>>
>>>> What Justin Trudeau and the Liberals don’t tell you now, is that then
>>>> Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien committed, and deployed the
>>>> Canadian army to Canada’s longest “war” without the advice, consent,
>>>> support, or vote of the Canadian Parliament.
>>>>
>>>> What David Amos and the rest of the ignorant, uneducated, and babbling
>>>> chattering classes are too addled to understand is the deployment of
>>>> less than 75 special operations troops, and what is known by planners
>>>> as a “six pac cell” of fighter aircraft is NOT the same as a
>>>> deployment of a Battle Group, nor a “war” make.
>>>>
>>>> The Canadian Government or The Crown unlike our amerkan cousins have
>>>> the “constitutional authority” to commit the Canadian nation to war.
>>>> That has been recently clearly articulated to the Canadian public by
>>>> constitutional scholar Phillippe Legasse. What Parliament can do is
>>>> remove “confidence” in The Crown’s Government in a “vote of
>>>> non-confidence.” That could not happen to the Chretien Government
>>>> regarding deployment to Afghanistan, and it won’t happen in this
>>>> instance with the conservative majority in The Commons regarding a
>>>> limited Canadian deployment to the Middle East.
>>>>
>>>> President George Bush was quite correct after 911 and the terror
>>>> attacks in New York; that the Taliban “occupied” and “failed state”
>>>> Afghanistan was the source of logistical support, command and control,
>>>> and training for the Al Quaeda war of terror against the world. The
>>>> initial defeat, and removal from control of Afghanistan was vital and
>>>>
>>>> P.S. Whereas this CBC article is about your opinion of the actions of
>>>> the latest Minister Of Health trust that Mr Boudreau and the CBC have
>>>> had my files for many years and the last thing they are is ethical.
>>>> Ask his friends Mr Murphy and the RCMP if you don't believe me.
>>>>
>>>> Subject:
>>>> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:02:35 -0400
>>>> From: "Murphy, Michael B. \(DH/MS\)"MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca
>>>> To: motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com
>>>>
>>>> January 30, 2007
>>>>
>>>> WITHOUT PREJUDICE
>>>>
>>>> Mr. David Amos
>>>>
>>>> Dear Mr. Amos:
>>>>
>>>> This will acknowledge receipt of a copy of your e-mail of December 29,
>>>> 2006 to Corporal Warren McBeath of the RCMP.
>>>>
>>>> Because of the nature of the allegations made in your message, I have
>>>> taken the measure of forwarding a copy to Assistant Commissioner Steve
>>>> Graham of the RCMP “J” Division in Fredericton.
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>
>>>> Honourable Michael B. Murphy
>>>> Minister of Health
>>>>
>>>> CM/cb
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Warren McBeath warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:34:53 -0500
>>>> From: "Warren McBeath"warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>>>> To: kilgoursite@ca.inter.net, MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca,
>>>> nada.sarkis@gnb.ca, wally.stiles@gnb.ca, dwatch@web.net,
>>>> motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com
>>>> CC: ottawa@chuckstrahl.com, riding@chuckstrahl.com,John.Foran@gnb.ca,
>>>> Oda.B@parl.gc.ca,"Bev BUSSON"bev.busson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
>>>> "Paul Dube"PAUL.DUBE@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>>>> Subject: Re: Remember me Kilgour? Landslide Annie McLellan has
>>>> forgotten me but the crooks within the RCMP have not
>>>>
>>>> Dear Mr. Amos,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your follow up e-mail to me today. I was on days off
>>>> over the holidays and returned to work this evening. Rest assured I
>>>> was not ignoring or procrastinating to respond to your concerns.
>>>>
>>>> As your attachment sent today refers from Premier Graham, our position
>>>> is clear on your dead calf issue: Our forensic labs do not process
>>>> testing on animals in cases such as yours, they are referred to the
>>>> Atlantic Veterinary College in Charlottetown who can provide these
>>>> services. If you do not choose to utilize their expertise in this
>>>> instance, then that is your decision and nothing more can be done.
>>>>
>>>> As for your other concerns regarding the US Government, false
>>>> imprisonment and Federal Court Dates in the US, etc... it is clear
>>>> that Federal authorities are aware of your concerns both in Canada
>>>> the US. These issues do not fall into the purvue of Detachment
>>>> and policing in Petitcodiac, NB.
>>>>
>>>> It was indeed an interesting and informative conversation we had on
>>>> December 23rd, and I wish you well in all of your future endeavors.
>>>>
>>>>  Sincerely,
>>>>
>>>> Warren McBeath, Cpl.
>>>> GRC Caledonia RCMP
>>>> Traffic Services NCO
>>>> Ph: (506) 387-2222
>>>> Fax: (506) 387-4622
>>>> E-mail warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C.,
>>>> Office of the Integrity Commissioner
>>>> Edgecombe House, 736 King Street
>>>> Fredericton, N.B. CANADA E3B 5H1
>>>> tel.: 506-457-7890
>>>> fax: 506-444-5224
>>>> e-mail:coi@gnb.ca
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>
>>> http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2017/11/federal-court-of-appeal-finally-makes.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Sunday, 19 November 2017
>>> Federal Court of Appeal Finally Makes The BIG Decision And Publishes
>>> It Now The Crooks Cannot Take Back Ticket To Try Put My Matter Before
>>> The Supreme Court
>>>
>>> https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/236679/index.do
>>>
>>>
>>> Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
>>>
>>> Amos v. Canada
>>> Court (s) Database
>>>
>>> Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
>>> Date
>>>
>>> 2017-10-30
>>> Neutral citation
>>>
>>> 2017 FCA 213
>>> File numbers
>>>
>>> A-48-16
>>> Date: 20171030
>>>
>>> Docket: A-48-16
>>> Citation: 2017 FCA 213
>>> CORAM:
>>>
>>> WEBB J.A.
>>> NEAR J.A.
>>> GLEASON J.A.
>>>
>>>
>>> BETWEEN:
>>> DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
>>> Respondent on the cross-appeal
>>> (and formally Appellant)
>>> and
>>> HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
>>> Appellant on the cross-appeal
>>> (and formerly Respondent)
>>> Heard at Fredericton, New Brunswick, on May 24, 2017.
>>> Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 30, 2017.
>>> REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:
>>>
>>> THE COURT
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Date: 20171030
>>>
>>> Docket: A-48-16
>>> Citation: 2017 FCA 213
>>> CORAM:
>>>
>>> WEBB J.A.
>>> NEAR J.A.
>>> GLEASON J.A.
>>>
>>>
>>> BETWEEN:
>>> DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
>>> Respondent on the cross-appeal
>>> (and formally Appellant)
>>> and
>>> HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
>>> Appellant on the cross-appeal
>>> (and formerly Respondent)
>>> REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY THE COURT
>>>
>>> I.                    Introduction
>>>
>>> [1]               On September 16, 2015, David Raymond Amos (Mr. Amos)
>>> filed a 53-page Statement of Claim (the Claim) in Federal Court
>>> against Her Majesty the Queen (the Crown). Mr. Amos claims $11 million
>>> in damages and a public apology from the Prime Minister and Provincial
>>> Premiers for being illegally barred from accessing parliamentary
>>> properties and seeks a declaration from the Minister of Public Safety
>>> that the Canadian Government will no longer allow the Royal Canadian
>>> Mounted Police (RCMP) and Canadian Forces to harass him and his clan
>>> (Claim at para. 96).
>>>
>>> [2]               On November 12, 2015 (Docket T-1557-15), by way of a
>>> motion brought by the Crown, a prothonotary of the Federal Court (the
>>> Prothonotary) struck the Claim in its entirety, without leave to
>>> amend, on the basis that it was plain and obvious that the Claim
>>> disclosed no reasonable claim, the Claim was fundamentally vexatious,
>>> and the Claim could not be salvaged by way of further amendment (the
>>> Prothontary’s Order).
>>>
>>>
>>> [3]               On January 25, 2016 (2016 FC 93), by way of Mr.
>>> Amos’ appeal from the Prothonotary’s Order, a judge of the Federal
>>> Court (the Judge), reviewing the matter de novo, struck all of Mr.
>>> Amos’ claims for relief with the exception of the claim for damages
>>> for being barred by the RCMP from the New Brunswick legislature in
>>> 2004 (the Federal Court Judgment).
>>>
>>>
>>> [4]               Mr. Amos appealed and the Crown cross-appealed the
>>> Federal Court Judgment. Further to the issuance of a Notice of Status
>>> Review, Mr. Amos’ appeal was dismissed for delay on December 19, 2016.
>>> As such, the only matter before this Court is the Crown’s
>>> cross-appeal.
>>>
>>>
>>> II.                 Preliminary Matter
>>>
>>> [5]               Mr. Amos, in his memorandum of fact and law in
>>> relation to the cross-appeal that was filed with this Court on March
>>> 6, 2017, indicated that several judges of this Court, including two of
>>> the judges of this panel, had a conflict of interest in this appeal.
>>> This was the first time that he identified the judges whom he believed
>>> had a conflict of interest in a document that was filed with this
>>> Court. In his notice of appeal he had alluded to a conflict with
>>> several judges but did not name those judges.
>>>
>>> [6]               Mr. Amos was of the view that he did not have to
>>> identify the judges in any document filed with this Court because he
>>> had identified the judges in various documents that had been filed
>>> with the Federal Court. In his view the Federal Court and the Federal
>>> Court of Appeal are the same court and therefore any document filed in
>>> the Federal Court would be filed in this Court. This view is based on
>>> subsections 5(4) and 5.1(4) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985,
>>> c. F-7:
>>>
>>>
>>> 5(4) Every judge of the Federal Court is, by virtue of his or her
>>> office, a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal and has all the
>>> jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Federal Court of
>>> Appeal.
>>> […]
>>>
>>> 5(4) Les juges de la Cour fédérale sont d’office juges de la Cour
>>> d’appel fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs que
>>> les juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale.
>>> […]
>>> 5.1(4) Every judge of the Federal Court of Appeal is, by virtue of
>>> that office, a judge of the Federal Court and has all the
>>> jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Federal Court.
>>>
>>> 5.1(4) Les juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale sont d’office juges de la
>>> Cour fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs que les
>>> juges de la Cour fédérale.
>>>
>>>
>>> [7]               However, these subsections only provide that the
>>> judges of the Federal Court are also judges of this Court (and vice
>>> versa). It does not mean that there is only one court. If the Federal
>>> Court and this Court were one Court, there would be no need for this
>>> section.
>>> [8]               Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Courts Act provide
>>> that:
>>> 3 The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the Federal Court
>>> — Appeal Division is continued under the name “Federal Court of
>>> Appeal” in English and “Cour d’appel fédérale” in French. It is
>>> continued as an additional court of law, equity and admiralty in and
>>> for Canada, for the better administration of the laws of Canada and as
>>> a superior court of record having civil and criminal jurisdiction.
>>>
>>> 3 La Section d’appel, aussi appelée la Cour d’appel ou la Cour d’appel
>>> fédérale, est maintenue et dénommée « Cour d’appel fédérale » en
>>> français et « Federal Court of Appeal » en anglais. Elle est maintenue
>>> à titre de tribunal additionnel de droit, d’equity et d’amirauté du
>>> Canada, propre à améliorer l’application du droit canadien, et
>>> continue d’être une cour supérieure d’archives ayant compétence en
>>> matière civile et pénale.
>>> 4 The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the Federal Court
>>> — Trial Division is continued under the name “Federal Court” in
>>> English and “Cour fédérale” in French. It is continued as an
>>> additional court of law, equity and admiralty in and for Canada, for
>>> the better administration of the laws of Canada and as a superior
>>> court of record having civil and criminal jurisdiction.
>>>
>>> 4 La section de la Cour fédérale du Canada, appelée la Section de
>>> première instance de la Cour fédérale, est maintenue et dénommée «
>>> Cour fédérale » en français et « Federal Court » en anglais. Elle est
>>> maintenue à titre de tribunal additionnel de droit, d’equity et
>>> d’amirauté du Canada, propre à améliorer l’application du droit
>>> canadien, et continue d’être une cour supérieure d’archives ayant
>>> compétence en matière civile et pénale.
>>>
>>>
>>> [9]               Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Courts Act create
>>> two separate courts – this Court (section 3) and the Federal Court
>>> (section 4). If, as Mr. Amos suggests, documents filed in the Federal
>>> Court were automatically also filed in this Court, then there would no
>>> need for the parties to prepare and file appeal books as required by
>>> Rules 343 to 345 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 in relation
>>> to any appeal from a decision of the Federal Court. The requirement to
>>> file an appeal book with this Court in relation to an appeal from a
>>> decision of the Federal Court makes it clear that the only documents
>>> that will be before this Court are the documents that are part of that
>>> appeal book.
>>>
>>>
>>> [10]           Therefore, the memorandum of fact and law filed on
>>> March 6, 2017 is the first document, filed with this Court, in which
>>> Mr. Amos identified the particular judges that he submits have a
>>> conflict in any matter related to him.
>>>
>>>
>>> [11]           On April 3, 2017, Mr. Amos attempted to bring a motion
>>> before the Federal Court seeking an order “affirming or denying the
>>> conflict of interest he has” with a number of judges of the Federal
>>> Court. A judge of the Federal Court issued a direction noting that if
>>> Mr. Amos was seeking this order in relation to judges of the Federal
>>> Court of Appeal, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Federal Court.
>>> Mr. Amos raised the Federal Court motion at the hearing of this
>>> cross-appeal. The Federal Court motion is not a motion before this
>>> Court and, as such, the submissions filed before the Federal Court
>>> will not be entertained. As well, since this was a motion brought
>>> before the Federal Court (and not this Court), any documents filed in
>>> relation to that motion are not part of the record of this Court.
>>>
>>>
>>> [12]           During the hearing of the appeal Mr. Amos alleged that
>>> the third member of this panel also had a conflict of interest and
>>> submitted some documents that, in his view, supported his claim of a
>>> conflict. Mr. Amos, following the hearing of his appeal, was also
>>> afforded the opportunity to provide a brief summary of the conflict
>>> that he was alleging and to file additional documents that, in his
>>> view, supported his allegations. Mr. Amos submitted several pages of
>>> documents in relation to the alleged conflicts. He organized the
>>> documents by submitting a copy of the biography of the particular
>>> judge and then, immediately following that biography, by including
>>> copies of the documents that, in his view, supported his claim that
>>> such judge had a conflict.
>>>
>>>
>>> [13]           The nature of the alleged conflict of Justice Webb is
>>> that before he was appointed as a Judge of the Tax Court of Canada in
>>> 2006, he was a partner with the law firm Patterson Law, and before
>>> that with Patterson Palmer in Nova Scotia. Mr. Amos submitted that he
>>> had a number of disputes with Patterson Palmer and Patterson Law and
>>> therefore Justice Webb has a conflict simply because he was a partner
>>> of these firms. Mr. Amos is not alleging that Justice Webb was
>>> personally involved in or had any knowledge of any matter in which Mr.
>>> Amos was involved with Justice Webb’s former law firm – only that he
>>> was a member of such firm.
>>>
>>>
>>> [14]           During his oral submissions at the hearing of his
>>> appeal Mr. Amos, in relation to the alleged conflict for Justice Webb,
>>> focused on dealings between himself and a particular lawyer at
>>> Patterson Law. However, none of the documents submitted by Mr. Amos at
>>> the hearing or subsequently related to any dealings with this
>>> particular lawyer nor is it clear when Mr. Amos was dealing with this
>>> lawyer. In particular, it is far from clear whether such dealings were
>>> after the time that Justice Webb was appointed as a Judge of the Tax
>>> Court of Canada over 10 years ago.
>>>
>>>
>>> [15]           The documents that he submitted in relation to the
>>> alleged conflict for Justice Webb largely relate to dealings between
>>> Byron Prior and the St. John’s Newfoundland and Labrador office of
>>> Patterson Palmer, which is not in the same province where Justice Webb
>>> practiced law. The only document that indicates any dealing between
>>> Mr. Amos and Patterson Palmer is a copy of an affidavit of Stephen May
>>> who was a partner in the St. John’s NL office of Patterson Palmer. The
>>> affidavit is dated January 24, 2005 and refers to a number of e-mails
>>> that were sent by Mr. Amos to Stephen May. Mr. Amos also included a
>>> letter that is addressed to four individuals, one of whom is John
>>> Crosbie who was counsel to the St. John’s NL office of Patterson
>>> Palmer. The letter is dated September 2, 2004 and is addressed to
>>> “John Crosbie, c/o Greg G. Byrne, Suite 502, 570 Queen Street,
>>> Fredericton, NB E3B 5E3”. In this letter Mr. Amos alludes to a
>>> possible lawsuit against Patterson Palmer.
>>> [16]           Mr. Amos’ position is that simply because Justice Webb
>>> was a lawyer with Patterson Palmer, he now has a conflict. In Wewaykum
>>> Indian Band v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2003 SCC 45, [2003] 2 S.C.R.
>>> 259, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that disqualification of a
>>> judge is to be determined based on whether there is a reasonable
>>> apprehension of bias:
>>> 60        In Canadian law, one standard has now emerged as the
>>> criterion for disqualification. The criterion, as expressed by de
>>> Grandpré J. in Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy
>>> Board, …[[1978] 1 S.C.R. 369, 68 D.L.R. (3d) 716], at p. 394, is the
>>> reasonable apprehension of bias:
>>> … the apprehension of bias must be a reasonable one, held by
>>> reasonable and right minded persons, applying themselves to the
>>> question and obtaining thereon the required information. In the words
>>> of the Court of Appeal, that test is "what would an informed person,
>>> viewing the matter realistically and practically -- and having thought
>>> the matter through -- conclude. Would he think that it is more likely
>>> than not that [the decision-maker], whether consciously or
>>> unconsciously, would not decide fairly."
>>>
>>> [17]           The issue to be determined is whether an informed
>>> person, viewing the matter realistically and practically, and having
>>> thought the matter through, would conclude that Mr. Amos’ allegations
>>> give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. As this Court has
>>> previously remarked, “there is a strong presumption that judges will
>>> administer justice impartially” and this presumption will not be
>>> rebutted in the absence of “convincing evidence” of bias (Collins v.
>>> Canada, 2011 FCA 140 at para. 7, [2011] 4 C.T.C. 157 [Collins]. See
>>> also R. v. S. (R.D.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484 at para. 32, 151 D.L.R.
>>> (4th) 193).
>>>
>>> [18]           The Ontario Court of Appeal in Rando Drugs Ltd. v.
>>> Scott, 2007 ONCA 553, 86 O.R. (3d) 653 (leave to appeal to the Supreme
>>> Court of Canada refused, 32285 (August 1, 2007)), addressed the
>>> particular issue of whether a judge is disqualified from hearing a
>>> case simply because he had been a member of a law firm that was
>>> involved in the litigation that was now before that judge. The Ontario
>>> Court of Appeal determined that the judge was not disqualified if the
>>> judge had no involvement with the person or the matter when he was a
>>> lawyer. The Ontario Court of Appeal also explained that the rules for
>>> determining whether a judge is disqualified are different from the
>>> rules to determine whether a lawyer has a conflict:
>>> 27        Thus, disqualification is not the natural corollary to a
>>> finding that a trial judge has had some involvement in a case over
>>> which he or she is now presiding. Where the judge had no involvement,
>>> as here, it cannot be said that the judge is disqualified.
>>>
>>>
>>> 28        The point can rightly be made that had Mr. Patterson been
>>> asked to represent the appellant as counsel before his appointment to
>>> the bench, the conflict rules would likely have prevented him from
>>> taking the case because his firm had formerly represented one of the
>>> defendants in the case. Thus, it is argued how is it that as a trial
>>> judge Patterson J. can hear the case? This issue was considered by the
>>> Court of Appeal (Civil Division) in Locabail (U.K.) Ltd. v. Bayfield
>>> Properties Ltd., [2000] Q.B. 451. The court held, at para. 58, that
>>> there is no inflexible rule governing the disqualification of a judge
>>> and that, "[e]verything depends on the circumstances."
>>>
>>>
>>> 29        It seems to me that what appears at first sight to be an
>>> inconsistency in application of rules can be explained by the
>>> different contexts and in particular, the strong presumption of
>>> judicial impartiality that applies in the context of disqualification
>>> of a judge. There is no such presumption in cases of allegations of
>>> conflict of interest against a lawyer because of a firm's previous
>>> involvement in the case. To the contrary, as explained by Sopinka J.
>>> in MacDonald Estate v. Martin (1990), 77 D.L.R. (4th) 249 (S.C.C.),
>>> for sound policy reasons there is a presumption of a disqualifying
>>> interest that can rarely be overcome. In particular, a conclusory
>>> statement from the lawyer that he or she had no confidential
>>> information about the case will never be sufficient. The case is the
>>> opposite where the allegation of bias is made against a trial judge.
>>> His or her statement that he or she knew nothing about the case and
>>> had no involvement in it will ordinarily be accepted at face value
>>> unless there is good reason to doubt it: see Locabail, at para. 19.
>>>
>>>
>>> 30        That brings me then to consider the particular circumstances
>>> of this case and whether there are serious grounds to find a
>>> disqualifying conflict of interest in this case. In my view, there are
>>> two significant factors that justify the trial judge's decision not to
>>> recuse himself. The first is his statement, which all parties accept,
>>> that he knew nothing of the case when it was in his former firm and
>>> that he had nothing to do with it. The second is the long passage of
>>> time. As was said in Wewaykum, at para. 85:
>>>             To us, one significant factor stands out, and must inform
>>> the perspective of the reasonable person assessing the impact of this
>>> involvement on Binnie J.'s impartiality in the appeals. That factor is
>>> the passage of time. Most arguments for disqualification rest on
>>> circumstances that are either contemporaneous to the decision-making,
>>> or that occurred within a short time prior to the decision-making.
>>> 31        There are other factors that inform the issue. The Wilson
>>> Walker firm no longer acted for any of the parties by the time of
>>> trial. More importantly, at the time of the motion, Patterson J. had
>>> been a judge for six years and thus had not had a relationship with
>>> his former firm for a considerable period of time.
>>>
>>>
>>> 32        In my view, a reasonable person, viewing the matter
>>> realistically would conclude that the trial judge could deal fairly
>>> and impartially with this case. I take this view principally because
>>> of the long passage of time and the trial judge's lack of involvement
>>> in or knowledge of the case when the Wilson Walker firm had carriage.
>>> In these circumstances it cannot be reasonably contended that the
>>> trial judge could not remain impartial in the case. The mere fact that
>>> his name appears on the letterhead of some correspondence from over a
>>> decade ago would not lead a reasonable person to believe that he would
>>> either consciously or unconsciously favour his former firm's former
>>> client. It is simply not realistic to think that a judge would throw
>>> off his mantle of impartiality, ignore his oath of office and favour a
>>> client - about whom he knew nothing - of a firm that he left six years
>>> earlier and that no longer acts for the client, in a case involving
>>> events from over a decade ago.
>>> (emphasis added)
>>>
>>> [19]           Justice Webb had no involvement with any matter
>>> involving Mr. Amos while he was a member of Patterson Palmer or
>>> Patterson Law, nor does Mr. Amos suggest that he did. Mr. Amos made it
>>> clear during the hearing of this matter that the only reason for the
>>> alleged conflict for Justice Webb was that he was a member of
>>> Patterson Law and Patterson Palmer. This is simply not enough for
>>> Justice Webb to be disqualified. Any involvement of Mr. Amos with
>>> Patterson Law while Justice Webb was a member of that firm would have
>>> had to occur over 10 years ago and even longer for the time when he
>>> was a member of Patterson Palmer. In addition to the lack of any
>>> involvement on his part with any matter or dispute that Mr. Amos had
>>> with Patterson Law or Patterson Palmer (which in and of itself is
>>> sufficient to dispose of this matter), the length of time since
>>> Justice Webb was a member of Patterson Law or Patterson Palmer would
>>> also result in the same finding – that there is no conflict in Justice
>>> Webb hearing this appeal.
>>>
>>> [20]           Similarly in R. v. Bagot, 2000 MBCA 30, 145 Man. R.
>>> (2d) 260, the Manitoba Court of Appeal found that there was no
>>> reasonable apprehension of bias when a judge, who had been a member of
>>> the law firm that had been retained by the accused, had no involvement
>>> with the accused while he was a lawyer with that firm.
>>>
>>> [21]           In Del Zotto v. Minister of National Revenue, [2000] 4
>>> F.C. 321, 257 N.R. 96, this court did find that there would be a
>>> reasonable apprehension of bias where a judge, who while he was a
>>> lawyer, had recorded time on a matter involving the same person who
>>> was before that judge. However, this case can be distinguished as
>>> Justice Webb did not have any time recorded on any files involving Mr.
>>> Amos while he was a lawyer with Patterson Palmer or Patterson Law.
>>>
>>> [22]           Mr. Amos also included with his submissions a CD. He
>>> stated in his affidavit dated June 26, 2017 that there is a “true copy
>>> of an American police surveillance wiretap entitled 139” on this CD.
>>> He has also indicated that he has “provided a true copy of the CD
>>> entitled 139 to many American and Canadian law enforcement authorities
>>> and not one of the police forces or officers of the court are willing
>>> to investigate it”. Since he has indicated that this is an “American
>>> police surveillance wiretap”, this is a matter for the American law
>>> enforcement authorities and cannot create, as Mr. Amos suggests, a
>>> conflict of interest for any judge to whom he provides a copy.
>>>
>>> [23]           As a result, there is no conflict or reasonable
>>> apprehension of bias for Justice Webb and therefore, no reason for him
>>> to recuse himself.
>>>
>>> [24]           Mr. Amos alleged that Justice Near’s past professional
>>> experience with the government created a “quasi-conflict” in deciding
>>> the cross-appeal. Mr. Amos provided no details and Justice Near
>>> confirmed that he had no prior knowledge of the matters alleged in the
>>> Claim. Justice Near sees no reason to recuse himself.
>>>
>>> [25]           Insofar as it is possible to glean the basis for Mr.
>>> Amos’ allegations against Justice Gleason, it appears that he alleges
>>> that she is incapable of hearing this appeal because he says he wrote
>>> a letter to Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien in 2004. At that time,
>>> both Justice Gleason and Mr. Mulroney were partners in the law firm
>>> Ogilvy Renault, LLP. The letter in question, which is rude and angry,
>>> begins with “Hey you two Evil Old Smiling Bastards” and “Re: me suing
>>> you and your little dogs too”. There is no indication that the letter
>>> was ever responded to or that a law suit was ever commenced by Mr.
>>> Amos against Mr. Mulroney. In the circumstances, there is no reason
>>> for Justice Gleason to recuse herself as the letter in question does
>>> not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.
>>>
>>>
>>> III.               Issue
>>>
>>> [26]           The issue on the cross-appeal is as follows: Did the
>>> Judge err in setting aside the Prothonotary’s Order striking the Claim
>>> in its entirety without leave to amend and in determining that Mr.
>>> Amos’ allegation that the RCMP barred him from the New Brunswick
>>> legislature in 2004 was capable of supporting a cause of action?
>>>
>>> IV.              Analysis
>>>
>>> A.                 Standard of Review
>>>
>>> [27]           Following the Judge’s decision to set aside the
>>> Prothonotary’s Order, this Court revisited the standard of review to
>>> be applied to discretionary decisions of prothonotaries and decisions
>>> made by judges on appeals of prothonotaries’ decisions in Hospira
>>> Healthcare Corp. v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, 2016 FCA 215,
>>> 402 D.L.R. (4th) 497 [Hospira]. In Hospira, a five-member panel of
>>> this Court replaced the Aqua-Gem standard of review with that
>>> articulated in Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235
>>> [Housen]. As a result, it is no longer appropriate for the Federal
>>> Court to conduct a de novo review of a discretionary order made by a
>>> prothonotary in regard to questions vital to the final issue of the
>>> case. Rather, a Federal Court judge can only intervene on appeal if
>>> the prothonotary made an error of law or a palpable and overriding
>>> error in determining a question of fact or question of mixed fact and
>>> law (Hospira at para. 79). Further, this Court can only interfere with
>>> a Federal Court judge’s review of a prothonotary’s discretionary order
>>> if the judge made an error of law or palpable and overriding error in
>>> determining a question of fact or question of mixed fact and law
>>> (Hospira at paras. 82-83).
>>>
>>> [28]           In the case at bar, the Judge substituted his own
>>> assessment of Mr. Amos’ Claim for that of the Prothonotary. This Court
>>> must look to the Prothonotary’s Order to determine whether the Judge
>>> erred in law or made a palpable and overriding error in choosing to
>>> interfere.
>>>
>>>
>>> B.                 Did the Judge err in interfering with the
>>> Prothonotary’s Order?
>>>
>>> [29]           The Prothontoary’s Order accepted the following
>>> paragraphs from the Crown’s submissions as the basis for striking the
>>> Claim in its entirety without leave to amend:
>>>
>>> 17.       Within the 96 paragraph Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff
>>> addresses his complaint in paragraphs 14-24, inclusive. All but four
>>> of those paragraphs are dedicated to an incident that occurred in 2006
>>> in and around the legislature in New Brunswick. The jurisdiction of
>>> the Federal Court does not extend to Her Majesty the Queen in right of
>>> the Provinces. In any event, the Plaintiff hasn’t named the Province
>>> or provincial actors as parties to this action. The incident alleged
>>> does not give rise to a justiciable cause of action in this Court.
>>> (…)
>>>
>>>
>>> 21.       The few paragraphs that directly address the Defendant
>>> provide no details as to the individuals involved or the location of
>>> the alleged incidents or other details sufficient to allow the
>>> Defendant to respond. As a result, it is difficult or impossible to
>>> determine the causes of action the Plaintiff is attempting to advance.
>>> A generous reading of the Statement of Claim allows the Defendant to
>>> only speculate as to the true and/or intended cause of action. At
>>> best, the Plaintiff’s action may possibly be summarized as: he
>>> suspects he is barred from the House of Commons.
>>> [footnotes omitted].
>>>
>>>
>>> [30]           The Judge determined that he could not strike the Claim
>>> on the same jurisdictional basis as the Prothonotary. The Judge noted
>>> that the Federal Court has jurisdiction over claims based on the
>>> liability of Federal Crown servants like the RCMP and that the actors
>>> who barred Mr. Amos from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004
>>> included the RCMP (Federal Court Judgment at para. 23). In considering
>>> the viability of these allegations de novo, the Judge identified
>>> paragraph 14 of the Claim as containing “some precision” as it
>>> identifies the date of the event and a RCMP officer acting as
>>> Aide-de-Camp to the Lieutenant Governor (Federal Court Judgment at
>>> para. 27).
>>>
>>>
>>> [31]           The Judge noted that the 2004 event could support a
>>> cause of action in the tort of misfeasance in public office and
>>> identified the elements of the tort as excerpted from Meigs v. Canada,
>>> 2013 FC 389, 431 F.T.R. 111:
>>>
>>>
>>> [13]      As in both the cases of Odhavji Estate v Woodhouse, 2003 SCC
>>> 69 [Odhavji] and Lewis v Canada, 2012 FC 1514 [Lewis], I must
>>> determine whether the plaintiffs’ statement of claim pleads each
>>> element of the alleged tort of misfeasance in public office:
>>>
>>> a) The public officer must have engaged in deliberate and unlawful
>>> conduct in his or her capacity as public officer;
>>>
>>> b) The public officer must have been aware both that his or her
>>> conduct was unlawful and that it was likely to harm the plaintiff; and
>>>
>>> c) There must be an element of bad faith or dishonesty by the public
>>> officer and knowledge of harm alone is insufficient to conclude that a
>>> public officer acted in bad faith or dishonestly.
>>> Odhavji, above, at paras 23, 24 and 28
>>> (Federal Court Judgment at para. 28).
>>>
>>> [32]           The Judge determined that Mr. Amos disclosed sufficient
>>> material facts to meet the elements of the tort of misfeasance in
>>> public office because the actors, who barred him from the New
>>> Brunswick legislature in 2004, including the RCMP, did so for
>>> “political reasons” (Federal Court Judgment at para. 29).
>>>
>>> [33]           This Court’s discussion of the sufficiency of pleadings
>>> in Merchant Law Group v. Canada (Revenue Agency), 2010 FCA 184, 321
>>> D.L.R (4th) 301 is particularly apt:
>>>
>>> …When pleading bad faith or abuse of power, it is not enough to
>>> assert, baldly, conclusory phrases such as “deliberately or
>>> negligently,” “callous disregard,” or “by fraud and theft did steal”.
>>> “The bare assertion of a conclusion upon which the court is called
>>> upon to pronounce is not an allegation of material fact”. Making bald,
>>> conclusory allegations without any evidentiary foundation is an abuse
>>> of process…
>>>
>>> To this, I would add that the tort of misfeasance in public office
>>> requires a particular state of mind of a public officer in carrying
>>> out the impunged action, i.e., deliberate conduct which the public
>>> officer knows to be inconsistent with the obligations of his or her
>>> office. For this tort, particularization of the allegations is
>>> mandatory. Rule 181 specifically requires particularization of
>>> allegations of “breach of trust,” “wilful default,” “state of mind of
>>> a person,” “malice” or “fraudulent intention.”
>>> (at paras. 34-35, citations omitted).
>>>
>>> [34]           Applying the Housen standard of review to the
>>> Prothonotary’s Order, we are of the view that the Judge interfered
>>> absent a legal or palpable and overriding error.
>>>
>>> [35]           The Prothonotary determined that Mr. Amos’ Claim
>>> disclosed no reasonable claim and was fundamentally vexatious on the
>>> basis of jurisdictional concerns and the absence of material facts to
>>> ground a cause of action. Paragraph 14 of the Claim, which addresses
>>> the 2004 event, pleads no material facts as to how the RCMP officer
>>> engaged in deliberate and unlawful conduct, knew that his or her
>>> conduct was unlawful and likely to harm Mr. Amos, and acted in bad
>>> faith. While the Claim alleges elsewhere that Mr. Amos was barred from
>>> the New Brunswick legislature for political and/or malicious reasons,
>>> these allegations are not particularized and are directed against
>>> non-federal actors, such as the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Legislative
>>> Assembly of New Brunswick and the Fredericton Police Force. As such,
>>> the Judge erred in determining that Mr. Amos’ allegation that the RCMP
>>> barred him from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004 was capable of
>>> supporting a cause of action.
>>>
>>> [36]           In our view, the Claim is made up entirely of bare
>>> allegations, devoid of any detail, such that it discloses no
>>> reasonable cause of action within the jurisdiction of the Federal
>>> Courts. Therefore, the Judge erred in interfering to set aside the
>>> Prothonotary’s Order striking the claim in its entirety. Further, we
>>> find that the Prothonotary made no error in denying leave to amend.
>>> The deficiencies in Mr. Amos’ pleadings are so extensive such that
>>> amendment could not cure them (see Collins at para. 26).
>>>
>>> V.                 Conclusion
>>> [37]           For the foregoing reasons, we would allow the Crown’s
>>> cross-appeal, with costs, setting aside the Federal Court Judgment,
>>> dated January 25, 2016 and restoring the Prothonotary’s Order, dated
>>> November 12, 2015, which struck Mr. Amos’ Claim in its entirety
>>> without leave to amend.
>>> "Wyman W. Webb"
>>> J.A.
>>> "David G. Near"
>>> J.A.
>>> "Mary J.L. Gleason"
>>> J.A.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
>>> NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
>>>
>>> A CROSS-APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SOUTHCOTT DATED
>>> JANUARY 25, 2016; DOCKET NUMBER T-1557-15.
>>> DOCKET:
>>>
>>> A-48-16
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> STYLE OF CAUSE:
>>>
>>> DAVID RAYMOND AMOS v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> PLACE OF HEARING:
>>>
>>> Fredericton,
>>> New Brunswick
>>>
>>> DATE OF HEARING:
>>>
>>> May 24, 2017
>>>
>>> REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:
>>>
>>> WEBB J.A.
>>> NEAR J.A.
>>> GLEASON J.A.
>>>
>>> DATED:
>>>
>>> October 30, 2017
>>>
>>> APPEARANCES:
>>> David Raymond Amos
>>>
>>>
>>> For The Appellant / respondent on cross-appeal
>>> (on his own behalf)
>>>
>>> Jan Jensen
>>>
>>>
>>> For The Respondent / appELLANT ON CROSS-APPEAL
>>>
>>> SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
>>> Nathalie G. Drouin
>>> Deputy Attorney General of Canada
>>>
>>> For The Respondent / APPELLANT ON CROSS-APPEAL
>>>
>>>
>

SIDNEY POWELL
Sidney Powell, P.C.
2911 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 300
Dallas, Texas 75219
(517) 763-7499
sidney@federalappeals.com



HOWARD KLEINHENDLER
Counsel of Record
Howard Kleinhendler Esquire
369 Lexington Avenue, 12th Floor
New York, New York 10017
(917) 793-1188
howard@kleinhendler.com


L. LIN WOOD
L. LIN WOOD, P.C.
P.O. Box 52584
Atlanta, GA 30305-0584
(404) 891-1402
lwood@fightback.law

Of Counsel
JULIA Z. HALLER
BRANDON JOHNSON
EMILY P. NEWMAN


SIDNEY POWELL
STEFANIE LAMBERT JUNTTILA
Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Petitioners
500 Griswold Street, Suite 2340
Detroit, MI 48226
(248) 270-6689
attorneystefanielambert@gmail.com

SCOTT R. ELDRIDGE
Attorney at Law
Miller, Canfield,
One Michigan Avenue
Suite 900
Lansing, MI 48933-1609
517-483-4918
Email: eldridge@millercanfield.com

DANIEL M. SHARE
EUGENE DRIKER
STEPHEN E. GLAZEK
Attorney at Law
Barris, Sott, Denn & Driker, PLLC
333 West Fort Street; 12th Floor
Detroit, MI 48226
313-965-9725
Email: dshare@bsdd.com

EZRA D. ROSENBERG
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
1500 K Street, NW; Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005
202-662-8345
Email: erosenberg@lawyerscommittee.org

JON GREENBAUM
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
District Of Columbia
1500 K Street NW
Ste 9th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
202-662-8315
Email: jgreenbaum@lawyerscommittee.org

ERIK A. GRILL
HEATHER S. MEINGAST
Michigan Department of Attorney General
Civil Litigation, Employment & Elections Division
PO Box 30736
Lansing, MI 48909
517-335-7659
Email: grille@michigan.gov

DARRYL BRESSACK
DAVID H. FINK and NATHAN J. FINK
Attorneys as Law
38500 Woodward Avenue; Suite 350
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
248-971-2500
Email: dbressack@finkbressack.com

ANDREW A. PATERSON, JR.
Attorney at Law
46350 Grand River Ave.
Novi, MI 48374
248 568-9712
Email: aap43@hotmail.com

MARY ELLEN GUREWITZ
Attorney at Law
Cummings & Cummings Law PLLC
423 North Main Street; Suite 200
Royal Oak, MI 48067
313-204-6979
Email: megurewitz@gmail.com

THOMAS MORE SOCIETY
309 W. Washington Street
Suite 1250
Chicago, IL 60606
ph: 312.782.1680
f: 312.782.1887



“Personal prejudice and financial greed are the two great evils that
threaten courts of law, and once they get the upper hand they
immediately hamstring society, by destroying all justice.”
― Thomas More, Utopia.”

Michael McHale, Counsel

Michael McHale received a B.A. in Journalism and History from the
University of Nebraska-Lincoln with high distinction in 2009, and a
J.D. from the University of Nebraska College of Law with distinction
in 2012. Prior to joining TMS, Michael served as general counsel and
policy analyst for the Nebraska Catholic Conference, where he
testified before several committees of the Nebraska Legislature
defending the constitutionality of school vouchers, tax-credit
scholarships, and Nebraska’s parental consent statute for
abortion-seeking minors. From 2018 to 2019, he clerked for the
Honorable L. Steven Grasz on the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit.

Michael is a Blackstone Legal Fellow with Alliance Defending Freedom.
His writings on the
rights to life and religious freedom have appeared in the Witherspoon
Institute’s online journal, Public Discourse, along with the Omaha
World-Herald and the Lincoln Journal Star. He has also completed
pre-theology studies as a seminarian at St. Gregory the Great
Seminary, where he studied philosophy and natural law.

Biography of Michael McHale, Counsel

Biography of Christopher Ferrara, Special Counsel


Christopher Ferrara is a Roman Catholic attorney, pro-life activist,
and journalist. He founded the American Catholic Lawyers Association
in 1990. He joined the Thomas More Society in 2020, and concentrates
his legal work on pro-life defense, religious liberty cases, unjust
laws that attack Catholic institutions, and that infringe on parental
rights. Mr. Ferrara graduated from Fordham Law in 1977 and practices
out of a satellite office in the New York metropolitan area. Mr.
Ferrara is a widely published author on Catholic Church affairs. Mr.
Ferrara is married and has six children.


CHRISTOPHER A. FERRARA, ESQ.
(Bar No. 51198)
148-29 Cross Island Parkway
Whitestone, Queens, New York 11357
Telephone: (718) 357-1040  973 703 0907
cferrara@thomasmoresociety.org
Special Counsel to the Thomas More Society


https://minnlawyer.com/2020/11/25/republicans-sue-to-stop-wisconsin-vote-certification/

Bill Gaier      President and Publisher         612-584-1537

Republicans sue to stop Wisconsin vote certification

By: The Associated Press        November 25, 2020       

MADISON, Wis. — Republicans filed a lawsuit Tuesday asking the
Wisconsin Supreme Court to block certification of the presidential
election results even as a recount over President-elect Joe Biden’s
win over President Donald Trump is ongoing.

The lawsuit echoes many of the same arguments Trump is making in
trying, unsuccessfully, to have tens of thousands of ballots
discounted during the recount. It also seeks to give the power to name
presidential electors to the Republican-controlled Legislature.

Wisconsin state law allows the political parties to pick electors,
which was done in October. Once the election results are certified,
which is scheduled to be done Dec. 1, those pre-determined electors
will cast their ballots for the winner on Dec. 14.

“The litigation filed this afternoon seeks to disenfranchise every
Wisconsinite who voted in this year’s presidential election,” said
Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul. “The Wisconsin Department of
Justice will ensure that Wisconsin’s presidential electors are
selected based on the will of the more than 3 million Wisconsin voters
who cast a ballot.”

The lawsuit also rehashes a claim that a federal court rejected in
September that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg tried to “illegally
circumvent Wisconsin absentee voting laws” through grants awarded by a
nonprofit center he funds.

At least 10 cases have been filed across the country seeking to halt
certification in parts or all of key battleground states, including
lawsuits brought by the Trump campaign in Michigan and Pennsylvania.
So far none have been successful.

The Wisconsin lawsuit was filed by attorney Erick Kaardal, a former
Minnesota Republican Party official who also represented rapper Kanye
West in his unsuccessful lawsuit attempting to get on the ballot in
Wisconsin. Kaardal represents a conservative group called the
Wisconsin Voters Alliance and a host of Republican voters.

Kaardal also filed an unsuccessful federal lawsuit in Wisconsin that
attempted to block $6.3 million from being awarded to five heavily
Democratic cities from the nonprofit Center for Technology and Civic
Life, which is primarily funded by Zuckerberg and his wife. A judge
tossed the lawsuit that argued the money amounted to bribery to
bolster Democratic turnout in Green Bay, Kenosha, Madison, Milwaukee
and Racine.

Many of the same arguments alleging the money was illegally awarded
and therefore the election results should be nullified are being made
in the new lawsuit in state court.

Other claims mirror those by Trump’s campaign.  Those claims allege
absentee ballots should not have been counted where election officials
filled in missing information on the certification envelope that
contains the ballot and that voters who identified as “indefinitely
confined” were lying to avoid the state’s photo ID law.

The Wisconsin Elections Commission advises clerks that they can fill
in missing information on the ballot envelopes, such as the address of
a witness. That’s been the practice for years, and it’s never been
challenged.

Biden won Wisconsin by 20,608 votes, but the lawsuit claims that more
than 156,000 ballots should be tossed out.

info@thomasmoresociety.org

Federal Court Says New York Governor Cuomo is Wrong to Limit Worship Services
Governor Cuomo and Mayor DeBlasio

(Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is wrong to limit worship services yet
condone mass protests, according to a federal judge. After telling
Thomas More Society attorneys in a June 18, 2020 hearing that he was
“troubled by” the government’s responses, Senior U.S. District Judge
Gary L. Sharpe issued a preliminary injunction on June 26, 2020,
prohibiting Governor Cuomo, his Attorney General Letitia James, and
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio from ordering or enforcing COVID-19
prompted restrictions on outdoor religious worship gatherings.
Christopher Ferrara

“This decision is an important step toward inhibiting the suddenly
emerging trend of exercising absolute monarchy on pretext of public
health. What this kind of regime really meant in practice is freedom
for me, but not for thee,” said Thomas More Society Special Counsel
Christopher Ferrara.

Thomas More Society Special Counsel Christopher Ferrara remarked, “We
are pleased that Judge Sharpe was able to see through the sham of
Governor Cuomo’s ‘Social Distancing Protocol’ which went right out the
window as soon as he and Mayor de Blasio saw a mass protest movement
they favored taking to the streets by the thousands. Suddenly, the
limit on ‘mass gatherings’ was no longer necessary to ‘save lives.’
Yet they were continuing to ban high school graduations and other
outdoor gatherings exceeding a mere 25 people. This decision is an
important step toward inhibiting the suddenly emerging trend of
exercising absolute monarchy on pretext of public health. What this
kind of regime really meant in practice is freedom for me, but not for
thee.”

Sharpe’s order noted that, “it is not the judiciary’s role to second
guess the likes of Governor Cuomo or Mayor de Blasio when it comes to
decisions they make in such troubling times, that is, until those
decisions result in the curtailment of fundamental rights without
compelling justification.”

In awarding the injunction, the court noted that “nonessential
businesses” that enjoy a 50% capacity limitation are not justifiably
different than houses of worship.

Sharpe remarked that offices, retails stores, salons, and restaurants
– all now permitted to open at 50% capacity indoors – all involve the
congregation of people for a length of time. He stated, “These secular
businesses/activities threaten defendants’ interest in slowing the
spread of COVID-19 to a similar or greater degree than those of
plaintiffs’, and demonstrate that the 25% indoor capacity limitation
on houses of worship is underinclusive and triggers strict scrutiny
review.”

The judge pointed out, “Another case of individualized exemption seems
even more obvious.” Governor Cuomo has now specifically authorized
outdoor, in-person graduation ceremonies of no more than 150 people.
This is an express exemption from the ten- or twenty-five-person
outdoor limits that apply to other situations. Yet, “There is nothing
materially different about a graduation ceremony and a religious
gathering such that defendants’ justifications for a difference in
treatment can be found compelling.”

Sharpe took New York City to task, stating that de Blasio’s
simultaneous pro-protest/anti-religious gathering messages “clearly
undermine the legitimacy” of his argument that selective enforcement
of the challenged laws with respect to mass race protests is a matter
of public safety.

“Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio could have just as easily
discouraged protests, short of condemning their message, in the name
of public health and exercised discretion to suspend enforcement for
public safety reasons instead of encouraging what they knew was a
flagrant disregard of the outdoor limits and social distancing rules,”
wrote Sharpe. “They could have also been silent. But by acting as they
did, Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio sent a clear message that mass
protests are deserving of preferential treatment.”

As a result of the federal order, Governor Cuomo, Attorney General
James, and Mayor de Blasio are “enjoined and restrained from enforcing
any indoor gathering limitations” against the involved houses of
worship “greater than imposed for Phase 2 industries,” provided that
participants follow the prescribed social distancing. They are also
forbidden from “enforcing any limitation for outdoor gatherings
provided that participants in such gatherings follow social distancing
requirements as set forth in the applicable executive orders and
guidance.”

Cuomo, James, and de Blasio were sued by two Catholic priests from
upstate New York and a trio of Orthodox Jewish congregants from
Brooklyn for violations of their civil rights by prejudicial orders
and selective enforcement. The federal lawsuit, filed June 10, 2020,
in United States District Court for the Northern District of New York,
charged the governor, attorney general, and mayor with violating the
plaintiffs’ rights to free exercise of religion, freedom of speech,
assembly and expressive association, and due process, under the First
and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Governor Cuomo was
also accused of violating New York state law and the New York State
Constitution.

Ferrara explained the lawsuit: “In an unprecedented abuse of power,
Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio have exploited the COVID-19
pandemic to create, over the past three months, a veritable
dictatorship by means of a complex web of executive orders. The orders
have imposed and selectively enforced ‘social distancing’ under a
‘lockdown’ of virtually every aspect of life for New York state
residents on the pretext of ‘public health,’ but with numerous
exceptions. The permissible activities, not based on the science of
viral contagion, but rather determined according to personal value
judgments, have included mass demonstrations of thousands of people –
gatherings of which the governor and mayor have approved and the mayor
participated in. Cuomo and de Blasio, along with James, have enforced
the gubernatorial ‘lockdown’ by threat of criminal prosecution and
actual prosecution, including $1,000 fines for the recently created
offense of violating Cuomo’s ‘Social Distancing Protocol’.”

Ferrara added, “These mass protest gatherings, taking place during the
COVID-19 stay-at-home lockdown orders, have been not only allowed but
praised by both the governor of New York and mayor of New York City,
even though massive property damage and death have resulted. This,
when the government’s primary purpose is to protect the people it
governs.”

Read United States District Court for the Northern District of New
York Judge Gary L. Sharpe’s Memorandum-Decision and Order, issued June
26, 2020, in response to the Thomas More Society’s complaint, filed on
behalf of Rev. Steven Soos, Rev. Nicholas Stamos, Daniel Schonbrun,
Elchanan Perr, and Mayer Mayerfeld, in Rev. Steven Soos, et al v.
Andrew M. Cuomo, et al, here.


https://minnlawyer.com/2020/08/14/minnesota-churches-join-legal-challenges-to-virus-rules/

Minnesota churches join legal challenges to virus rules

By: The Associated Press        August 14, 2020

Churches in Minnesota and California, backed by a conservative legal
group, filed lawsuits this week against the governors of their states
challenging restrictions imposed due to the coronavirus outbreak that
they contend are violations of religious liberty.

They’re the latest in a long series of legal challenges, many of them
in California, pitting clerics and houses of worship who believe they
should be exempt from certain restrictions on public gatherings
against governors who insist the measures are needed to rein in the
pandemic. Most of the suits have been rebuffed; some have succeeded.

In Minnesota, a lawsuit was filed Thursday in federal court
challenging Gov. Tim Walz’s executive orders requiring 6-foot social
distancing and the wearing of face masks at worship services.

“Gov. Walz, a former teacher, gets an F in religious liberties,” said
Erick Kaardal, special counsel for the Thomas More Society. “Other
states, including Texas, Illinois and Ohio, have excluded churches
from COVID-19 mask mandates.”

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison reiterated his defense of
Walz’s order, saying it was legally and constitutionally sound.

Teddy Tschann, spokesperson for Walz, said the governor was within his
authority taking the action and added that all Walz’s actions have
been grounded in the desire to keep Minnesotans safe.

Walz had been embroiled in a battle with Roman Catholic and Lutheran
Church-Missouri Synod congregations across Minnesota over restrictions
he placed on gatherings of more than 10 people. He relented and said
they could hold services at 25% of capacity if certain conditions were
met after they made it clear they planned to defy the order.

Earlier this month a pastor in Palmetto, Florida, filed a suit
challenging Manatee County’s mask mandate. The Rev. Joel Tillis of
Suncoast Baptist Church said the order shouldn’t extend to houses of
worship because it hinders prayer.

The Thomas More Society, which specializes in litigation on religious
issues, filed a lawsuit Wednesday in California Superior Court against
Gov. Gavin Newsom and other officials. It seeks to prevent the
enforcement of “unconstitutional and onerous coronavirus pandemic
regulations” against Grace Community Church in the Los Angeles
neighborhood of Sun Valley.

The pastor, John MacArthur, has been holding services in recent weeks
attended by throngs of worshippers in defiance of state and county
limits on gatherings.

“We will obey God rather than men,” MacArthur said in a message to his
congregation. “He will be on our side.”

MacArthur was greeted with applause Sunday when he welcomed
worshippers to his church’s “peaceful protest.”

One of the two Thomas More lawyers representing MacArthur and his
church is Jenna Ellis, who also is a senior legal adviser to President
Donald Trump’s reelection campaign.

“California’s edicts demanding an indefinite shutdown have gone now
far past rational or reasonable and are firmly in the territory of
tyranny and discrimination,” Ellis said. “This isn’t about health.
It’s about blatantly targeting churches.”

The lawsuit contends that restrictions on large gatherings should not
be enforced at churches because they were not enforced on large
demonstrations against racism and police brutality.

Officials in California, where COVID-19 cases have been surging in
recent weeks, say strict restrictions remain necessary in Los Angeles
County and other counties that are on a state monitoring list for high
rates of new infections.

Los Angeles County filed a lawsuit against the church Thursday seeking
to have in-door, in-person worship services stopped. The lawsuit also
seeks to have the church comply with health order requirements,
including the use of face covers and physical distancing at outdoor
services.

Attorney General Xavier Becerra’s office referred a request for
comment to Newsom’s office, as the new lawsuit addresses the
governor’s executive order. Spokesmen for Newsom did not immediately
respond to a request for comment.

Across the country the vast majority of churches have cooperated with
health authorities and successfully protected their congregations. Yet
from the earliest phases of the pandemic, and continuing to this day,
some worship services and other religious activities have been
identified as sources of local outbreaks.

A few churches have been openly defiant, including one in California’s
Ventura County which held indoor worship services Sunday despite a
judge’s temporary restraining order.

Pastor Rob McCoy of Godspeak Calvary Chapel in Newbury Park had vowed
to continue in-person services even though the order cited “an
immediate threat to public health and safety.”

On Tuesday a different judge declined a county request to order the
immediate closure of the church, and scheduled a hearing for Aug. 21.

Earlier this year the U.S. Supreme Court upheld state COVID-19
restrictions on religious gatherings in a suit filed by South Bay
United Pentecostal Church in Chula Vista, California.

Religious plaintiffs have prevailed in some litigation, however. In
June a federal judge blocked New York state from enforcing
restrictions on indoor religious gatherings to 25% capacity when other
types of gatherings were limited to 50%.

The plaintiffs, represented by the Thomas More Society, were two
Catholic priests from Upstate New York and three Orthodox Jewish
congregants from Brooklyn. They argued that the restrictions violated
their First Amendment rights to practice their religion.

The society also claimed a victory in May when Illinois Gov. J.B.
Pritzker withdrew certain pandemic-related mandates on houses of
worship.

In the new Minnesota case, the plaintiffs were Protestant churches in
the towns of Alexandria, Buffalo and Crosby, along with their pastors.

“Our people are commanded to meet together in fellowship,” Eric
Anderson, pastor of Life Spring Church in Crosby, said at a news
conference Thursday. “They can’t fellowship with masks on their
faces.”

Kaardal, the Thomas Moore lawyer, argued that Walz’s executive order
usurped the legislature’s lawmaking powers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXMQciBKW4g&ab_channel=AnnVandersteel

12-21-20 Guardians of Free Speech; Flynn Family Stands with 1st
Amendment Praetorians
8,941 views
Streamed live on Dec 21, 2020
Ann Vandersteel

1st Amendment Praetorian

Special Guest: Robert Patrick Lewis
https://twitter.com/1st_praetorian?la...
1AP.admin@protonmail.com
https://www.1apraetorian.com/
https://www.1apraetorian.com/donate

Resounding Endorsements!
1. General Flynn Endorsement:  https://twitter.com/GenFlynn/status/1...
2. Joe Flynn Endorsement: https://twitter.com/JosephJFlynn1/sta...
3. Joe Flynn Endorsement : https://twitter.com/JosephJFlynn1/sta...


1AP.admin@protonmail.com

Anni L. Foster (#023643)
General Counsel
Office of Arizona Governor Douglas A. Ducey
1700 West Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Telephone: 602-542-4331
E-Mail: afoster@az.gov

Brett W. Johnson (#021527)
Colin P. Ahler (#023879)
Derek C. Flint (#034392)
Ian R. Joyce (#035806)
SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
One Arizona Center
400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900
Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202
Telephone: 602.382.6000
Facsimile: 602.382.6070
E-Mail: bwjohnson@swlaw.com
cahler@swlaw.com
dflint@swlaw.com
ijoyce@swlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant Douglas

Brian Kemp
Office of the Governor
206 Washington Street
Suite 203, State Capitol
Atlanta, GA 30334
Tel: (404) 656-1776
Email: governorsoffice@michigan.gov

Christopher M. Carr
Office of the Attorney General
40 Capitol Square, SW
Atlanta, GA 30334
Tel: (404) 458-3600
Email: ccarr@law.ga.gov

Gretchen Whitmer
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 30013
Lansing, MI 48909
Tel: 517-373-3400
Email: governorsoffice@michigan.gov

Dana Nessel
G. Mennen Williams Building
525 W. Ottawa Street
P.O. Box 30212
Lansing, MI 48909
Tel: 517-373-1110
Email: dnessel@michigan.gov

Ken Paxton
Attorney General of Texas
Brent Webster
First Assistant Attorney
General of Texas
Lawrence Joseph
Special Counsel to the
Attorney General of Texas
Office of the Attorney General
P.O. Box 12548 (MC 059)
Austin, TX 78711-2548
kenneth.paxton@oag.texas.gov
(512) 936-1414

Anthony S. Evers
Office of the Governor
115 East, State Capitol
Madison WI 53702
Tel: (414) 227-4344
Email: EversInfo@wisconsin.gov

Joshua L. Kaul
Wisconsin Department of Justice
17 West Main Street, P.O. Box 7857
Madison, WI 53707-7857
Tel: (608) 287-4202
Email: kauljl@doj.state.wi.us

Tom Wolf
Office of the Governor
508 Main Capitol Building
Harrisburg, PA 17120
Tel: 717-787-2500
Email: govcorrespcrm@pa.gov

Josh Shapiro
Office of Attorney General
Strawberry Square
Harrisburg, PA 17120
Tel.: 717.787.3391
Email: jshapiro@attorneygeneral.gov

Alexander Michael del Rey Kolodin,
AZ Bar No. 030826
Alexander.Kolodin@KolodinLaw.com
Christopher Viskovic,
AZ Bar No. 0358601
CViskovic@KolodinLaw.com
KOLODIN LAW GROUP PLLC
3443 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1009
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Telephone: (602) 730-2985
Facsimile: (602) 801-2539

Andrew Wilder
Director of Communications
Republican Majority Caucus
(602) 926-5299
awilder@azleg.gov

Representative Mark Finchem, LD-11
P.O. Box 69344
Oro Valley, AZ 85737
(520) 808-7340
MarkFinchem@me.com

Nancy K. Barto
5450 East. Deer Valley Dr.
#2196
Phoenix, Arizona 85054
602-926-5766 (office)
480-513-3750 (home)
602-370-8262 (direct)
NBarto@azleg.gov


Alexis E. Danneman (Bar No. 030478)
Sarah R. Gonski (Bar No. 032567)
PERKINS COIE LLP
2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000
Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2788
Telephone: (602) 351-8000
Facsimile: (602) 648-7000
ADanneman@perkinscoie.com
SGonski@perkinscoie.com

Marc E. Elias*
Bruce V. Spiva*
John Devaney*
John M. Geise**
PERKINS COIE LLP
700 Thirteenth Street NW, Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20005-3960
Telephone: (202) 654-6200
Facsimile: (202) 654-6211
MElias@perkinscoie.com
BSpiva@perkinscoie.com
JDevaney@perkinscoie.com
JGeise@perkinscoie.com

Laura Hill*
PERKINS COIE LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Telephone: (206) 359-3349
Facsimile: (206) 359-4349
LHill@perkinscoie.com

Roy Herrera (Bar No. 032901)
Daniel A. Arellano (Bar No. 032304)
BALLARD SPAHR LLP
1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300
Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2555
Telephone: 602.798.5400
Facsimile: 602.798.5595
HerreraR@ballardspahr.com
ArellanoD@ballardspahr.com


Senator Kelly Townsend:
a. Senator in the AZ legislature
b. Maricopa County
c. kellyjtownsend@yahoo.com

ALLISTER ADEL
MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY
Thomas P. Liddy (019384)
Emily Craiger (021728)
Joseph I. Vigil (018677)
Joseph J. Branco (031474)
Joseph E. LaRue (031348)
Deputy County Attorneys
liddyt@mcao.maricopa.gov
craigere@mcao.maricopa.gov
vigilj@mcao.maricopa.gov
brancoj@mcao.maricopa.gov
laruej@mcao.maricopa.gov

CIVIL SERVICES DIVISION
225 West Madison Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Telephone (602) 506-8541
Facsimile (602) 506-4317
ca-civilmailbox@mcao.maricopa.gov
Attorneys for Maricopa County Defendants

Roopali H. Desai (024295)
D. Andrew Gaona (028414)
Kristen Yost (034052)
COPPERSMITH BROCKELMAN PLC
2800 North Central Avenue, Suite 1900
Phoenix, AZ 85004
T: (602) 381-5478
rdesai@cblawyers.com
agaona@cblawyers.com
kyost@cblawyers.com

Justin A. Nelson (admitted pro hac vice)
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1000 Louisiana, Suite 5100
Houston, TX 77002-5096
T: (713) 651-9366
jnelson@susmangodfrey.com

Stephen E. Morrissey (admitted pro hac vice)
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800
Seattle, WA 98101-3000
T: (206) 516-3880
smorrissey@susmangodfrey.com

Stephen Shackelford (admitted pro hac vice)
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019-6023
T: (212) 336-8330
sshackelford@susmangodfrey.com

Davida Brook (admitted pro hac vice)
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
T: (310) 789-3100
dbrook@susmangodfrey.com

Michael C. Herron
Dartmouth College
Department of Government
6108 Silsby Hall
Hanover, NH 03755-3547
Homepage: http://www.dartmouth.edu/˜herron
Phone: +1 (603) 646-2693
Mobile: +1 (603) 359-9731
Email: michael.c.herron@dartmouth.edu

Jonathan Rodden
Stanford University
Department of Political Science
Encina Hall Central
616 Serra Street
Stanford, CA 94305
Phone: (650) 723-5219
Fax: (650) 723-1808
Email: jrodden@stanford.edu

STEPHEN DANIEL ANSOLABEHERE
Department of Government
Harvard University
1737 Cambridge Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
sda@gov.harvard.edu

Gary King
Institute for Quantitative Social Science
Harvard University
1737 Cambridge Street
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
GaryKing.org
Direct: (617) 500-7570
King@Harvard.edu
Assistant: (617) 495-9271
king-assist@iq.harvard.edu


Dennis I. Wilenchik Esq.
Lee Miller Esq.
John (Jack) D. Wilenchik Esq.
The Wilenchik & Bartness Building
 2810 North Third Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
Phone: (602) 606-2810
jackw@wb-law.com
admin@wb-law.com

https://lawandcrime.com/opinion/supreme-smear-lin-wood-goes-full-q-in-bonkers-tweets-telling-800000-plus-followers-that-chief-justice-roberts-called-trump-a-motherfer-on-a-phone-call/

Supreme Smear: Lin Wood Goes Full Q in Bonkers Tweets Telling
800,000-Plus Followers That Chief Justice Roberts Called Trump a
‘Motherf***er’ on a Phone Call
Matt Naham
Dec 17th, 2020, 5:50 pm





https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/dominion-attorneys-send-brutal-letter-to-trump-campaigns-so-called-star-witness-mellissa-carone/




https://finance.yahoo.com/news/apos-brilliant-lucky-apos-clare-174929103.html

ALM Media

Zack Needles is Global Managing Editor, Regional Brands at ALM. He is
also the Managing Editor of The Legal Intelligencer, Pennsylvania Law
Weekly, Delaware Business Court Insider and Delaware Law Weekly.
Contact him at 215-557-2373 or zneedles@alm.com

https://www.law.com/


'Brilliant and Lucky' Clare Locke Makes Headlines by Keeping Clients Out of Them
November 28, 2018

Libby Locke and Tom Clare of Clare Locke, Washington D.C. (Courtesy photo)

Safeguarding the reputation of prominent clients has long been a
ticket to success in the legal profession, especially in
scandal-plagued Washington, D.C.

It's a skill that's in high demand these days, amid cascading
allegations against powerful media and government figures and
competing claims about who's peddling so-called Fake News—all
supercharged by the #MeToo movement and the polarized politics of the
Trump era.

In other words, it's the perfect environment for Tom Clare and Libby Locke.

The Washington-area husband-and-wife team seems to be everywhere these
days, noted (and sometimes reviled) for their work on behalf of the
unloved and accused. Their Alexandria, Virginia, defamation and
commercial litigation boutique, Clare Locke, hasn't shied away from
the black hat trope put forward by critics who have labeled them
“media assassins.” Instead, their website flaunts their success at
having “killed” stories at prominent publications.

Clare and Locke left the partnership at Kirkland & Ellis and opened
their boutique steps from the Potomac River in 2014, in a Virginian
townhouse with ample roaming room for their dog, Gipper. The pet is
named for either Notre Dame football coach Knute Rockne or former
President Ronald Reagan, depending on whether you believe Clare, a
Fighting Irish alumnus, or Locke, whose favorite president is Reagan.

The duo bristles at the notion that they are hired guns paid to
silence the press. They say the plaintiffs-side defamation work they
do involves three components—pre-publication counseling,
post-publication retraction, and defamation litigation.

“They are worthy adversaries, and they are very good at what they do,”
said Lee Levine, Ballard Spahr senior counsel and a leading First
Amendment attorney defending media clients. “I would describe them as
zealous advocates—and I think it’s fair to say there isn’t an issue in
defamation law in which I agree with them.”

New Media Era

Levine, who is defending The New York Times against a lawsuit brought
by Clare Locke on behalf of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, said he
has known Clare and Locke for several years. He said few lawyers on
the East Coast have been able to establish a practice comparable to
theirs, which he noted is more commonly found closer to Hollywood.

The decision to break away from Kirkland was inevitable in retrospect.
Clare and Locke proffered that positional conflicts, conflicts created
by increasing corporatization of media ownership, and the need to
offer rate flexibility made leaving Big Law a necessity.

They now lead a team of nine lawyers, including five Kirkland expats
and four recruited from other firms and law schools.

"Our firm culture is incredibly important to us, and so we have always
grown in size methodically and deliberately in order to assemble the
right team," they said in an email. "We are looking for lawyers who
share our mission and our passion for this area of the law. Given
those very specialized criteria, we expect to accomplish future growth
by targeted recruiting efforts rather than through a combination with
another firm."

Clare Locke’s timing was “brilliant and lucky, or some combination of
the two,” said Levine, as the burgeoning boutique scored some high
profile wins that drew new clients to its door. The pair scored a
multimillion-dollar victory against Rolling Stone for University of
Virginia associate dean Nicole Eramo regarding false claims made in
the 2014 article “A Rape on Campus.”

The amount of work arriving on their doorstep has only soared since,
which they attribute to the proliferation of cable television channels
and the explosion of social media and online news. They said
competitive pressures combined with shrinking media budgets have made
institutional checks-and-balances such as fact-checking increasingly
scarce.

“The rise in the number of outlets means, not only a rise in the
number of platforms where defamation can occur, but also intense
competition among these outlets to 'be first' in publishing news,”
Clare and Locke said. “The rush to be first leads to more mistakes
(whether intentional or not), more salacious headlines and content to
attract readership, and thus, more false and damaging articles being
published.”

President Donald Trump’s outspoken criticism of the media—alongside
the conduct of what Clare and Locke call “reckless media outlets” such
as Rolling Stone and Gawker (another adversary)—may have emboldened
potential victims previously intimidated into staying silent. And more
recent legal battles, such as CNN’s dispute with the White House
access for Jim Acosta, may have given ammunition to plaintiffs-side
defamation lawyers such as Clare, who argues that, “journalists do not
get a special hall pass to disobey rules of general applicability.”

“The First Amendment is not magical pixie dust that somehow immunizes
people from any sort of scrutiny from the way they behave or the
like,” Clare said of CNN’s dispute on the Lawyer 2 Lawyer podcast.

Clare Locke is litigating against CNN in a different case—on behalf of
a pediatric heart surgeon who filed a defamation suit in Florida. CNN
has fought to keep its editorial standards secret as part of its
defense in the case.

Levine said he thinks the the number of defamation suits brought by
well-financed public figures has risen in recent years, as the
individuals find such litigation to be a useful tool against the
press. He said courts need to “rise to the occasion” and tell
plaintiffs that such tactics will not work, and he compared the legal
landscape for media to the time “in the early 60s," before the U.S.
Supreme Court's unanimous decision in New York Times v. Sullivan
established the actual malice standard.

Clare and Locke aren't sympathetic to the notion that prominent public
figures have an unfair advantage when it comes to protecting their
reputations. They have represented several clients facing
#MeToo-related accusations, including Jeff Fager, the fired executive
producer of CBS’ “60 Minutes,” and reports have linked them to many
more, including The New York Times’ Glenn Thrush; Kimberly Guilfoyle,
formerly of Fox News; and fired NBC anchor Matt Lauer.

In representing such clients, Clare Locke has argued that the playing
field has tilted substantially toward the accusers, and Locke has
pointed to the controversy surrounding Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s
confirmation fight as evidence. The effect of sexual misconduct
allegations against Kavanaugh contradicted the “Victorian notion” that
women are powerless compared to men, Locke argued in The Wall Street
Journal in September.

“The circus this process has become demonstrates not only the power of
#MeToo, but also its potential as a weapon—and how an audience eager
for victim narratives and sinister power dynamics can be galvanized
without proof to shatter a man’s reputation built over a lifetime of
hard work,” Locke wrote of the confirmation fight.

Since Kavanaugh joined the nation’s highest court, clients have only
continued to line up for the firm. In subsequent weeks, Major League
Baseball and Breitbart, a Trump-supporting media outlet, have
reportedly retained Clare Locke. And given the state of politics and
media, there's no sign of a slowdown anytime soon.


https://www.pli.edu/faculty/tom-clare-23968


Tom Clare
Clare Locke LLP
Alexandria, VA, USA

 Biography

Tom is best known for representing high-profile clients who are
targeted in hostile media investigations or the subject of false
statements in the press. He has handled defamation matters for Fortune
500 companies and individuals, including CEOs, hedge-fund managers,
university presidents, professional athletes and sports teams,
celebrities, journalists, and others who find themselves under
reputational attack.

In March 2019, Tom secured a defamation jury verdict for Dr. Fredric
Eshelman based on false statements from Puma Biotechnology, Inc. The
jury awarded $15.85 million in compensatory and $6.5 million in
punitive damages.  He also represented UVA Associate Dean Nicole Eramo
in her defamation lawsuit against Rolling Stone magazine relating to a
highly publicized article of an alleged gang rape. In November 2016, a
jury found the defendants liable for defamation and awarded Ms. Eramo
$3 million.

Prior to founding Clare Locke LLP, Tom was an equity partner at one of
the nation’s premier litigation firms and has more than 20 years of
experience handling high-stakes commercial litigation matters. He is
ranked in the 2020 Chambers USA Guide for nationwide first amendment
litigation and for global defamation/reputation management in the
Chambers HNW directory. Tom is a Super Lawyer for Business Litigation
and Media and Advertising and a BTI Consulting Client-Service All-Star
MVP.

Associated Items
1 item
Date 11/20/2020
Program or Publication
Format  On-Demand
Watch Now
$1,535.00

Communications Law in the Digital Age 2020

13-Hour Program

See Credit Details Below
Overview

The practice of media and communications law demands the ability to
respond to new challenges arising from digital and social media, and
this program will address recent developments in First Amendment,
defamation, privacy, intellectual property, newsgathering, right of
publicity, reporter’s privilege law and more. Join an expert faculty
of law firm practitioners, in-house counsel, government officials, and
academics, and obtain the legal, strategic, and practical guidance
needed to keep current in these areas of law and technology.

What You Will Learn

• Recent developments in electronic media regulation
• First Amendment updates
• Legislative, judicial, and regulatory developments in data
protection and privacy
• Updates on reporter’s privilege and newsgathering liability
• Important intellectual property decisions
• Current issues in right of publicity law
• Recent developments in Section 230, commercial speech, and anti-SLAPP law
• International media law updates

Special Features

Earn one full hour of Ethics credit in an interactive format!




THOMAS A. CLARE, P.C.
tom@clarelocke.com
(202) 628-7401
10 Prince Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
(202) 628-7400
www.clarelocke.com

February 21, 2019
By Email and Federal Express Not for Publication or Attribution

Nick Poser
Senior V.P. and Associate General Counsel
CBS Corporation
51 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
neposer@cbs.com

Bill Owens
Executive Producer, 60 Minutes
CBS Corporation
51 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
owensb@cbsnews.com

Re: 60 Minutes Segment on Opioids

Dear Nick and Bill:

We represent Purdue Pharma L.P. (“Purdue”). I write regarding 60
Minutes’ reporting on
Purdue, specifically with regards to the segment on the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (“FDA”) and opioid medicines that 60 Minutes is
considering airing this Sunday, February 24, 2019.

Despite multiple meetings, phone calls, and email exchanges between
representatives of Purdue and 60 Minutes Associate Producer Sam
Hornblower (during which detailed information was exchanged), we are
still concerned that Mr. Hornblower and 60 Minutes intend to air a
biased and one-sided segment rife with significant errors and
inaccuracies, and that 60 Minutes will refuse to disclose to its
viewers critical information about the sources it intends to rely on
(and even put on the air), including their personal biases toward
Purdue and their financial incentives in making false and misleading
statements about the company and OxyContin.

With this letter, CBS and 60 Minutes are on notice of the inaccuracies
and errors we
understand may be included in such a segment (and the contradicting
facts demonstrating their falsity) and that 60 Minutes has a duty to
its viewers and to Purdue to make the following disclosures should it
decide to air interviews with or statements from these biased sources.

I. 60 Minutes’ Intended Characterizations and Descriptions of the
Timing and Make-Up of
the FDA’s Initial 1995 Approval of OxyContin and the FDA’s Clarification and
Narrowing of that Approval in 2001 are Inaccurate and Misleading.
Based on meetings, phone calls, and email exchanges with Mr.
Hornblower, we have serious
concerns that he and 60 Minutes will falsely report that (1) in 1995,
the FDA lacked sufficient
evidence to approve OxyContin for distribution, and (2) in 1995, the
FDA did not approve
OxyContin for the treatment of chronic pain, and only in 2001 did the
FDA first broaden its
approval of OxyContin for use in the treatment of patients suffering
from chronic and long-term
pain. These purported statements are demonstrably false and create the
misleading impression that
OxyContin was not initially intended to be used for the treatment of
chronic and long-term pain,
and only after several years of such ‘unapproved use’ did the FDA take
action. In fact, publicly
available information demonstrates that the FDA, in its initial
approval of OxyContin in 1995,
understood that its benefits extended to the treatment of patients
suffering from chronic, long-term
pain, and therefore included that intended and approved use in its
initial approval. Then, six years
later in 2001, the FDA, in light of unexpected widespread abuse of
OxyContin, clarified its safety
warnings to narrow the use of it to patients who are actually
suffering from chronic and long-term
pain (and to eliminate any notion that this important treatment should
be used for any other
purpose).
A. The FDA Approved OxyContin for the Treatment of Chronic and Long-Term
Pain in 1995 Based on Sufficient and Extensive Data and Information.
We understand that 60 Minutes intends to falsely report that the FDA
lacked sufficient
evidence to approve OxyContin in 1995. This is patently false. The FDA
based its approval of
OxyContin on a robust set of clinical trials, which the FDA dubbed at
the time as the “gold standard.”
Though, at the time, only two clinical trials were usually necessary,
Purdue submitted and the FDA
reviewed six controlled clinical studies (involving over 700 patients)
before it approved OxyContin.
Three of these clinical trials were for cancer pain, and one for
osteoarthritis, one for chronic low
back, and one for post-operative pain. The new drug application for
OxyContin consisted of over
40,000 pages in 120 volumes, including 14 pharmacokinetic studies. The
FDA was in possession of
an unprecedented amount of information and evidence demonstrating
OxyContin’s benefits and
effectiveness in treating patients with debilitating pain before it
approved it for use in 1995. Any
statements that imply or suggest that the FDA somehow lacked
sufficient information or evidence
when it made its decision to approve OxyContin in 1995 is false.
In fact, in 2013, when denying a citizen’s petition brought by
Physicians for Responsible
Opioid Prescribing, the FDA stated that “there are numerous
uncontrolled studies that have
evaluated patients on opioids for as long as a year; although some
patients drop out of the studies
over this period of time, many remain on opioid therapy, which may
suggest that they continue to
experience benefits that would warrant the risks of opioid use.” And
even today, the FDA continues
to approve opioids for long-term, chronic pain use and recognizing
that for select patients, opioids
may be the only reasonable and effective therapy for patients seeking
to manage their legitimate
chronic pain.

B. The FDA Expressly Approved OxyContin for Use in the Treatment of Chronic
and Long-Term Pain in 1995, and then Narrowed its Approval to Only Such Use
in 2001.
We understand that 60 Minutes intends to report – inaccurately – that
in 2001, the FDA
broadened the indication for OxyContin to include the treatment of
chronic pain. This is simply
not true; the changes to OxyContin’s label that were required by the
FDA in 2001 narrowed the
patient population for which OxyContin was intended; importantly,
however, it did not add a
chronic pain indication as OxyContin has been approved for chronic
pain since its initial approval
in 1995.
The FDA initially approved OxyContin “for the management of moderate
to severe pain
where use of an opioid analgesic is appropriate for more than a few
days.” The original label (which
is enclosed with highlighted sections noted below for your reference)
included numerous references
to the medicine’s use (and approval) for chronic or long-term pain,
including the following
statements:
“During chronic therapy, especially for non-cancer pain syndromes,
the continued need for around-the-clock opioid therapy should be
reassessed periodically (e.g., every 6 to 12 months) as appropriate.”
“Physical dependence and tolerance are not unusual during chronic
opioid therapy.”
“It should be expected, however, that a fraction of cancer patients will
develop some degree of tolerance and require progressively higher
dosages of OxyContin to maintain pain control during chronic
treatment.”
“Neonates whose mothers have been taking oxycodone chronically
may exhibit respiratory depression and/or withdrawal symptoms,
either at birth and/or in the nursery.”
“The clinical relevance of a difference of this magnitude is low for a
drug intended for chronic usage at individualized dosages, and there
was no male/female difference detected for efficacy or adverse events
in clinical trials.”
“There was no evidence of oxycodone and metabolite accumulation
during 8 months of therapy.”
“There was a significant decrease in acute opioid-related side effects,
except for constipation, during the first several weeks of therapy.”
“Patients should be advised that if they have been receiving treatment
with OxyContin for more than a few weeks and cessation of therapy
is indicated, it may be appropriate to taper the OxyContin dose,rather
than abruptly discontinue it, due to the risk of precipitating
withdrawal symptoms.”
“The intent of the titration period is to establish a patient-specific
q12h dose that will maintain adequate analgesia with acceptable side
effects for as long as pain relief is necessary. Should pain recur then
the dose can be incrementally increased to re-establish pain control.
The method of therapy adjustment outlined above should be
employed to re-establish pain control.”
And, these clearly identified statements on OxyContin’s original label
echo the FDA Medical
Officer’s review of OxyContin when it was first approved:
“[C]ontrolled release oxycodone was studied in an adequate number
of patients to reveal adverse events at the 1 % level.…It showed an
acceptable level of risk associated with its use in the chronic pain
population.”
In July 2001, the FDA, recognizing that OxyContin was being widely
abused, added a black
box warning and narrowed the indication to “the management of moderate
to severe pain when a
continuous, around the clock analgesic is needed for an extended
period of time.” The FDA’s
meeting notes and congressional testimony confirm that the purpose of
the label changes was to add
important safety warnings and limit the use of the medicine only to
appropriate patients with
chronic pain.
In April 2001, the FDA acknowledged in a meeting that:
“The indication of ‘’moderate to severe pain for patients who need to
be on opiates for more than a few days” is broad and may not
adequately reflect the intended population. The label should clearly
state that this drug product should only be used patients who require
opiates for an extended period of time, that it should not be utilized
for first-time treatment of pain, and that it is not for intermittent
use.”
Furthermore, the FDA’s Dr. John Jenkins testified before the Senate in
2002 concerning
this narrowing clarification of the approved uses of OxyContin (while
also acknowledging Purdue’s
participation in that very process):
“In July of last year Purdue Pharma, working in cooperation with
FDA, significantly strengthened the warnings and precautions in the
labeling for OxyContin.…Furthermore, the labeling for OxyContin
now makes clear that it is only approved by FDA for treatment of
moderate to severe pain in patients who require around-the-clock
narcotics for an extended period of time.”
As the record demonstrates, the FDA, based on a mountain of data,
research and evidence,
approved OxyContin for use by patients seeking to manage and treat a
specific type and level of pain(which included chronic, long-term
pain) originally in 1995. Then in 2001, the FDA determined,
in consultation with Purdue, to add a strengthened warning to
OxyContin’s labels narrowing its
approved and intended use to individuals suffering from chronic,
long-term pain. Any statements
by 60 Minutes (or any sources or individuals it intends to interview
or publish statements from)1 in
any forthcoming statement would be demonstrably false and should not
be referenced.
II. 60 Minutes Intends to Include Interviews and Statements from
Sources Who are Biased
Against and Have a Personal and Financial Incentive to Negatively Comment About
Purdue.
As part of its one-sided segment on opioids, we understand that, based
on conversations and
communications with Mr. Hornblower, 60 Minutes has already interviewed
or intends to interview
two individuals who are well-known and vocal critics of Purdue and
OxyContin – Dr. Andrew
Kolodny and former FDA Commissioner David Kessler. Both of these
individuals are not only
inherently biased towards (and vocally critical of) Purdue and
OxyContin, but are also, based on
their paid-for consulting and advising roles for both 60 Minutes and
for plaintiff-side law firms
involved in litigation against Purdue, incapable of providing a
neutral and fair perspective on the
history and current state of opioid prescription use in the United States.
Dr. Kolodny has admitted, in the form of a court-filed expert
disclosure report made under
the penalty of perjury, to the fact that he is a paid consultant and
advisor, earning $725/hour for
his services.2 He also lists on his CV that he submitted to the U.S.
House of Representatives
Committee on Energy and Commerce on February 27, 2018 as part of his
required disclosures prior
to his testimony under oath, that he served in a “CONSULTING AND
ADVISING” role for “CBS
60 Minutes” in 2017 as part of 60 Minutes’ “The Whistleblower”
segment.3 A copy of this expert
disclosure report and Dr. Kolodny’s CV he submitted for his
congressional testimony is enclosed
for your reference. The facts demonstrate that Dr. Kolodny admits that
he worked for 60 Minutes
as a consultant and advisor within the last two years (and on a
segment that touched on substantially
similar subject matter is this segment) and that he is also a paid
consultant on behalf of plaintiffs
currently involved in active litigation with Purdue.
In that same vein and upon information and belief, we understand that
Dr. Kessler has also
performed extensive work for and has long consulted with and on behalf
of plaintiff-side law firms
who are or have been engaged in litigation against Purdue regarding
the very same issues he purports to comment on for 60 Minutes’ planned
segment.4 These types of consulting and advising roles for
law firms involved in active or potential litigation are rarely if
ever performed for free.
It is incumbent upon 60 Minutes, as the ultimate publisher and airer
of segments featuring
biased and conflicted individuals like Dr. Kolodny and Dr. Kessler,5
to thoroughly investigate and
vet its own sources and intended on-screen interviewees to confirm any
such biases and financial
incentives for promoting certain viewpoints and commentary. And where
such biases and financial
or otherwise personal motives to provide one-sided, incomplete, and
even false commentary on a
subject matter such as opioid use in the United States exists (as it
clearly does with Dr. Kolodny and
Dr. Kessler who are, at a minimum, paid-for consultants by individuals
and parties who are currently
suing Purdue), 60 Minutes has a duty to its viewers to clearly and
unambiguously disclose such bias
and the facts supporting their incentive and motivation for their
viewpoints and commentary during
any aired segment in which Dr. Kolodny and Dr. Kessler participate in,
and to confront such bias
head-on.
* * *
60 Minutes obviously has the right to make fair comment on matters of
public concern, and
that certainly extends to reporting on the opioid crisis in a balanced
and fair-minded manner.
However, reporting that includes demonstrably false and otherwise
misleading commentary
regarding the history of the FDA’s thorough approval process for
OxyContin and the clear and
unambiguous warnings and precautions both the FDA and Purdue have
taken over the years to
promote appropriate uses of OxyContin and that relies on the biased
and financially-incentivized
opinions of vocal critics of Purdue is neither fair nor balanced reporting.
Purdue recognizes the significant public health challenge that the
opioid and other addiction
crises pose and the impact they have on families across the U.S.
Purdue understands and has
embraced the importance of addressing this issue head on, both through
direct action and a
balanced and fair national discussion. To that end, Purdue has
submitted earlier today, under
separate cover, an on-the-record statement to 60 Minutes (enclosed for
your reference). We fully
expect that 60 Minutes will include Purdue’s full statement and
otherwise accurately represent
Purdue’s statement in the segment (and in any articles or other
accompanying reporting on the
segment posted online or elsewhere).
We trust that you understand the seriousness of these issues. We
request that you, in your
respective capacities as counsel for CBS and as the Executive Producer
of 60 Minutes, (1) refrain
from making the demonstrably false claims outlined in this letter
on-air in any forthcoming segment
and likewise ensure that the critical and necessary facts detailed
above are fairly and accurately
represented in any segment 60 Minutes may air that references Purdue
or OxyContin, (2) that CBS
and 60 Minutes thoroughly investigate and vet the bias and financial
incentives of any sources it
intends to rely on for any such segment (whether they are
on-background or on-camera interviewees), including Dr. Kolodny and
Dr. Kessler, and to fairly and accurately include in any forthcoming
segment the results of that vetting and investigation in order to
fully disclose to viewers the nature
of any such source’s bias and financial motivation to comment
negatively about Purdue or on the
opioid crisis, and (3) to include Purdue’s full, on-the-record
statement (sent under separate cover)
and to otherwise accurately and fairly represent Purdue’s statement in
any on-air segment or
accompanying reporting (whether published online or elsewhere).
I look forward to your prompt response confirming receipt. I am
available to discuss any
questions you may have on these subjects.


Very truly yours,
Thomas A. Clare, P.C.


CC: Sam Hornblower, Associate Producer, 60 Minutes, hornblowers@cbsnews.com
Enclosures


1 A media defendant can be liable for republishing or participating in
the publication of another’s
false statement if it acted with a reckless disregard for whether the
statement was true or false. Cianci
v. New Times Pub. Co., 639 F.2d 54, 60 (2d Cir. 1980); see also St.
Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S.
727, 732 (1968) (recklessness may be found “where there are obvious
reasons to doubt the
veracity of the informant or the accuracy of his reports.”).
2 See Dec. 21, 2018 State’s Expert Witness Disclosures, Exhibit J,
Case No. CJ-2017-81.
3 See Feb. 27, 2018 Andrew Kolodny’s “Truth in Testimony” Witness
Disclosure Requirement,
Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives.
4 See, e.g., July 27, 2016 Decl. of David Kessler, Case No:
30-2014-00725287-CU-BT-CXC (enclosed
for your reference).
5 See Cianci, 639 F.2d at 60; St. Amant, 390 U.S. at 732.




Tuesday, September 08, 2020
Why is Ridgeback Biotherapeutics Trying to Suppress Adverse Opinions
by Issuing Frivolous Defamation Threats?

Over the past several months, I have posted a number of articles about
the campaign of intimidating copyright demand letters from Mathew
Higbee, who tries to extract money from individuals, nonprofits and
small businesses by threatening to file frivolous copyright lawsuits.
This is the first in what I expect will be series of articles about a
different sort of campaign of frivolous threats: companies that try to
clean up their reputations by hiring lawyers to send frivolous threats
of libel litigation.  I'm not sure which is worse.

Today’s story begins with an article that ran in the Washington Post
back in June, 2020, focusing on the role played by a small Miami-based
pharmaceutical corporation, run by hedge fund managers and called
Ridgeback Biopharmaceutics. The Post noted that Ridgeback had invested
in a potential antiviral therapy, developed at Emory University with
public financing, but that, when it failed to secure federal financing
to develop the drug further, it made a killing by selling its rights
to Merck. These facts, the reporter suggested, illustrate “the
perception that companies are profiteering during a global medical
crisis — especially in cases where inventions were funded by
taxpayers.” The article also tied the situation to the revelations
from BARDA whistleblower Rick Bright, who cited this as one of the
examples of political pressure being applied to secure federal
financing for private profit.

The article quoted a few nongovernmental sources commenting on the
situation, including the executive of a rival biotech firm; Harvard
Medical School Professor Aaron Kesselheim, and Jamie Love, the founder
of Knowledge Ecology International. Both Kesselheim and Love were
quoted as expressing concern that Ridgeback was “flipping” the
medication – Kesselheim said that it was analogous to a house flipper,
while Love said that “'molecule-flipping' is a good characterization
of what it is.” This language was reflected in the headline of the
article: “Hedge fund manager stands to profit on ‘flip’ of
taxpayer-funded coronavirus drug.” Love also noted that it had, in the
past, been unusual to see much engagement by private investors in
medications addressed to Ebola and SARS, which have been “backwater
areas in neglected disease.” But now, he said, private parties were
rushing to invest.

Ridgeback’s Libel Offensive

Ridgeback’s owner, it seems, is the unusual capitalist who finds it
insulting to be accused of having made a quick profit by finding
investment opportunities in an arena long neglected by other
investors. But instead of simply sending a note explaining why it
disagreed, and trying to persuade its critics based on the merits of
the evidence, Ridgeback hired Thomas Clare, a well-known plaintiffs’
libel lawyer, to complain to the Washington Post’s editors and legal
department about the article; the result was that the Post made some
minor changes in the article, described in an editor’s note. Mr. Clare
claims that the Post “agreed” to make these changes (although it is
not clear that there has been any “agreement.”) But the article’s
central point, about molecule- flipping and profiteering, remained
unchanged.

Ridgeback then turned its sights on Jamie Love, sending him a  letter
that warned that the Washington Post had already changed its story in
response to its “concerns”; stated that Love’s “flipping” statement
was “demonstrably false"; and ”demand[ed] that [Love] set the record
straight by immediately retracting your defamatory remarks.” Mr. Clare
made a few factual representations about what his client had done
vis-a-vis the chemical on question. His letter continued by contending
the Love had wrongly used the word “backwater” to denigrate the
African continent as well as China and Hong King, and seeking
retraction of that statement as well (a later letter appears to
suggest that Love’s allegedly calling Africa a backwater was “racist”
-- that accusation could be itself defamatory if it were not so
plainly a baseless opinion; name-calling is generally not defamatory).
To underline the legal peril in which Love had supposedly placed
himself, Mr. Clare dropped a footnote stating that the letter should
be considered a demand for retraction under section 770.02 of the
Florida Statutes. It is my assumption that Mr. Clare was hoping that,
if he could intimidate Love into retracting his use of the term
“flipping,” he could then go back to the Post and ask for further
changes. Interestingly enough, Mr. Clare did not make any complaint to
the Harvard professor who had also been quoted by the Post using the
term “flipping.” It is my assumption that Mr. Clare and his client
figured that the Harvard professor would be very able to defend
himself against a frivolous libel claim, but that Love might be an
softer target.

Love, however, did not back down. Instead, he  wrote back to explain
why he had said what he said, and asking a detailed list of pointed
questions questions, asking as well for documentation of Mr. Clare’s
statements praising his client. For example, he said he could not
assess the accuracy of Ridgeback’s denial of “molecule flipping”
without seeing Ridgeback’s agreements with Emory and with Merck,
outlining the companies’ relative roles in the development of
EIDD-2801, the relevant COVID medication. He also noted that he had
not, as Mr. Clare claimed, said that Africa or Hong Kong is a
backwater – he said that certain diseases have been neglected and thus
have been backwaters for investment. He noted that, instead of
expounding Ridgeback’s role in developing EIDD-2801, Mr. Clare’s
letter was largely devoted to praising his client’s work om mAb114, an
Ebola medication. Apart from noting that this was something of a
tangent from the claim that Ridgeback had been defamed about its COVID
work, Love posed some pointed questions about the relative shares of
government and Ridgeback funding in this work. Love concluded, “if
Ridgeback wants some type of compliment for its efforts in this space,
regarding the risking of its own money, I . . . would need facts and
more than just a letter from a boutique law firm that specializes in
defamation litigation.”

After Love had received no response to these questions, I followed up
Love’s query a few days later with some questions of my own. I told
Mr. Clare that I was working on an article about bullying libel demand
letters, not only asking whether Ridgeback was ready to answer Love’s
questions and provide him with documents, but also pointing out some
reasons to think that Ridgeback could not succeed on a defamation
claim. First of all, Mr. Clare had not so much taken issue with the
veracity of Love’s statements as quoted by the newspaper as with the
context into which the Washington Post had placed the quotations; but
if that was the issue, then Ridgeback’s gripe was with the article and
not with Love. Second, given that Mr. Clare wanted Love to be afraid
of being sued because of Mr. Clare’s kvelling about how the mighty
Washington Post had already backed down, it was remarkable that the
Post story had retained the assertion that Ridgeback was guilty of
flipping. So if Mr. Clare was satisfied with the Post’s clarifications
as he was claiming to be, why was he threatening to sue Love for using
the term? And as for the “backwater” comment, no reasonable person
could read the quotation from Love and think he was characterizing
specific geographical areas as backwaters – he said that certain
diseases were backwaters for investment, and not only is there no
reason to think that what Love said is false, but Emory University
itself has described the project from which its COVID-19 treatment
emerged as being devoted to attacking diseases that are “generally not
profitable enough for industry to pursue, and thus are considered
neglected diseases.”

Moreover, even Love’s “backwater” reference was false, even if it was
not merely an opinion, defamation claims can be asserted only by the
person about whom the defamatory statement was made – how would
Ridgeback have standing to sue for alleged defamation of a continent
or a disease? Plainly, with regard to Love’s use of the term
“backwater,” in this respect, Mr. Clare’s letter is just plain
chest-thumping intended to intimidate both because its sender is a big
macher, and because a longer letter citing additional complaints might
make Love worry more about his potential exposure.

My note to Clare also pointed to the caption on his letter to Love,
"Not for Publication or Attribution."  I was wondering whether, like
an earlier Virginia defamation lawyer, John Dozier, he thought he
could prevent the victims of his bullying from calling public
attention to his demands.  This caption is apparently a common feature
of demand letters from his firm.  See here, here and here.

Ridgeback’s Response to Being Accused of Bullying

Ridgeback responded,  first to me and  then to Love, by repeating its
assertion that it was not molecule flipping, but it stoutly refused to
produce any evidence to support its contentions, and the tone of its
responses was, in a number of respects, considerably milder. Both
letters asserted that Ridgeback has a continuing role in the
development of the COVID medication, but neither letter included any
specific dollar amounts, neither compared the amount of taxpayer
investment with the amount of private investment; and most important
they did not include any of the documentation that Love and I had
requested. They letters seemed, at best, a face-saving maneuver
accompanying Ridgeback’s declaration that it was not going to sue Love
despite his failure to meet the demand for retraction.

The letters contained statements that I consider false. First, Mr.
Clare declared to me that “any suggestion that Ridgeback has
threatened to sue Mr. Love is completely false”; to Love, he wrote
that I “seem[] to be under the misapprehension that Ridgeback has
threatened to sue you for libel . . ..For the avoidance of all doubt,
Ridgeback has never made such a threat, and we sent our previous
letter to (1) identify the false, misleading, and damaging statements
that you made and (2) determine whether you were quoted accurately.”
He went on to say that, given that the Washington Post “has made
retractions,” after what Mr. Clare told me was his “confronting” the
Post and engaging with its libel counsel (does he admit to threatening
to sue the Post>), he was not going to bother engaging any back
-and-forth with Love about the conclusory facts that he was asserting
in his letters.

Well, no. Mr. Clare’s letter to Love did not simply “request” that
Love clarify his remarks (although his second letter to Love phrases
this as a request). He told Love that his quoted assertion about
Ridgeback was “demonstrably false,” and the letter was a demand, not a
request “I demand that you set the record straight by immediately
retracting your defamatory remarks.” Lest Love be in any doubt that he
was facing the prospect of being sued, Mr. Clare dropped a footnote to
the Florida retraction statute, which limits the damages that can be
awarded in a libel suit if the alleged defamer responds appropriately
to a demand for retraction. The letter closed with a warning that Love
should “treat this with the seriousness that Ridgeback deserves.”

Now, Tom Clare is too sophisticated a lawyer to think that a letter
like this would not be treated as a threat of litigation, and, indeed,
I have chatted with a number of friends in DC who represent media
companies in libel litigation, including against Mr. Clare. Every one
of them indicated either (or both) that the letter should fairly be
read as at least implicit threatening to sue, or that, if one of their
clients received a letter like this, indeed from a libel specialist
lawyer, their client would be prudent to assume that they faced suit
if they failed to retract.

It is a mild threat, to be sure – it did not explicitly say “we will
sue you,” and it did not include litigation hold language. But it
seems to me that Mr. Clare imperils his own credibility by denying
that Ridgeback ever threatened to sue.

Conclusions – IS Ridgeback a Molecule Flipper?

I generally recommend that when people received demand letters, the
best response is to describe, in level-headed manner, why they are
right and why they were entitled to say what they said; it is best to
write such letters in consultation with potential litigation counsel
(even if the lawyer does not sign the letter). Love’s letter – which
so far as I can tell was written before obtaining potential libel
counsel— was very well done. He did a very good job of keeping the
temperature down, and his side comments on the impact of cancer on a
family represent a nice personal touch. And the upshot was a complete
capitulation on Ridgeback’s part.

And more than that: it seems to me that the upshot of the exchange of
correspondence is to raise one’s level of confidence in the fairness
of Love (and Kesselheim) having characterized Ridgeback as a molecule
flipper.

I come to this question without any predispositions, other than the
fact that I have known Jamie Love for many years and I respect his
judgment; and colleagues at Public Citizen who do specialize in these
issues share Love’s concerns, especially in light of the questions
Love posed and Ridgeback’s having blown them off. Love and Kesselheim
gave their reasons, and although Mr. Clare disputes them, his demand
letter to Love said that it is “demonstrably false.” In libel law
terms, to say something that is “demonstrably false” could be only an
assertion that it is capable of being proved false – that is, to say,
the phrase can be only an assertion the statement is one of fact,
which could be true or false, and not of opinion, which is not
actionable.

And most important, when given the opportunity to document falsity,
Mr. Clare punted, saying that it is not worth presenting evidence on
the question because the Washington Post has already “made
retractions.” But of course the Post has not retracted the part of its
article that said that characterized Ridgeback’s actions as a “flip.”
At most, it appears to me that the Post made some small clarifications
on issues that are tangential to the gist of the concerns that Mr.
Clare expressed to Love. Moreover, Mr. Clare has undercut the
credibility of the assertions made in his own letters by directly
denying having threatened to sue Love, and by asserting in his letters
that Love referred to Africa as backwater. Neither of these statements
is remotely true. So, if the statement that Ridgeback is a molecule
flipper is just as false (or just as true) as the statements that
Ridgeback never threatened to sue Love and that Love called Africa a
backwater, then it would appear that there is good reason to believe
that Ridgeback is a molecule flipper.

I do give Mr. Clare credit, however, for telling Love explicitly that
Love need no longer be concerned that he is facing suit for his
statements. Unlike Mathew Higbee, who commonly leaves the targets of
his threatening letters to worry about whether a lawsuit is coming
even after he and his client decide not to pursue litigation, Mr.
Clare showed his class by retracting his threat of litigation – if
only after claiming that he had never made a threat in the first
place.



https://www.citizen.org/news/how-to-protect-the-results-if-there-is-a-disputed-election/

October 30, 2020
How To Protect the Results if There Is a Disputed Election

By Bret Thompson

Millions of Americans who weren’t alive for Bush v. Gore, the Supreme
Court case that settled the 2000 election, will be casting their first
presidential ballots this year. While those who remember Florida’s
hanging chad debacle have particular reason to be wary for how the
mechanics of this year’s election will unfold, there are good reasons
for all of us to be concerned.

The biggest reason, of course, is President Donald Trump and his
repeated refusals to affirm that he’ll accept the results of an
election that doesn’t turn out in his favor. This is particularly
worrisome given:

    his endless campaign to sow distrust in the media and experts;
    his propensity for lying;
    and his ability to directly communicate with his most ardent
supporters via text, email, social media, and alt-right media, thus
bypassing traditional gatekeepers.

Even if Trump doesn’t actively stoke discord on or after Election Day,
there are still additional reasons to think this year’s election may
play out unusually. A record number of people have already voted, many
in ways they haven’t before, whether by mail or early in-person.
Additionally, the effects of the pandemic and social distancing
measures will cast a long shadow over precincts and counting rooms
across the country.

While it’s understandable to be worried, don’t be afraid! Public
Citizen is collaborating with over 150 different organizations to form
the Protect the Results coalition. Listening to the will of the people
by following a peaceful transition of power is a hallmark of American
democracy. Protect the Results is organizing Americans, regardless of
party affiliation, to mobilize to defend the valid results of the
election, whether their preferred candidate wins or loses. So far over
375 events in every state have been scheduled should we need to take
to the streets. The New Yorker recently profiled the coalition
discussing how we’re working to ensure that every vote is counted, and
how important it is that the losing candidate put their ego aside and
concede for the good of our country.

So make sure to cast your ballot and then pledge to take action, if
necessary, with Public Citizen and Protect the Results.

https://www.citizen.org/news/its-time-to-re-enter-reality-and-formally-begin-bidens-transition-process/

It’s Time To Re-Enter Reality And Formally Begin Biden’s Transition Process

WASHINGTON, D.C – Trump-appointed General Services Administration
administrator, Emily W. Murphy is refusing to sign off on a key
document needed to formally begin the transition process and to
recognize Joe Biden as the winner of the election and president-elect.
Murphy is the person tasked with officially affirming Biden has won
the election on behalf of the Trump administration – something Trump
has refused to do. She needs to sign a letter to release funds to the
Biden transition team through a process called ascertainment. This
would mark the first formal acknowledgment from the Trump
administration that Biden has won the election, and would unlock
access to national security tools to streamline background checks and
additional funds to pay for training and incoming staff. The following
statement was released by Public Citizen president, Robert Weissman:

“Under the terms of the Presidential Transition Act, the GSA
administrator is charged with making an “ascertainment” that the
election has been resolved. That determination starts the formal
transition process, enabling the incoming administration transition
team to gain access to funds and equipment, to start
conflict-of-interest vetting for potential nominees, and, most
importantly, to begin liaising with top officials of the outgoing
administration.

“This is a simple and straightforward process designed to make
government work, to facilitate an effective start to the new
administration. It has no partisan slant.

“Unfortunately, Murphy is infusing partisanship – at the expense of
the American people – into the process. Murphy is outrageously
refusing to acknowledge what all independent observers know to be
true: Joe Biden won the election. In refusing to make an ascertainment
of Biden’s victory, she is foiling the transition process, leaving the
incoming Biden administration less well equipped to address the
coronavirus pandemic, the economic crisis, and national security,
among other crucial matters.

“That Donald Trump can’t come to terms with his defeat is no excuse
for Murphy not doing her job. Nor are the Trump administration’s
lawsuits; Murphy’s ascertainment does not influence court cases or the
Electoral College. If for some reason the results of the election were
reversed, no damage would be done for having started and then stopped
the transition process. On the other hand, every moment of Murphy’s
delay is another setback for democracy and government preparation to
address the nation’s urgent needs.”



From: Paul Levy
Sent: Friday, September 4, 2020 12:28 PM
To: 'Daniel Watkins'
Cc: 'Tom Clare'
Subject: RE: Ridgeback Biotherapeutics

I have two more questions: Given that you disclaim having threatened
James Love with being sued if he did not comply with your “demand for
retraction under Florida Statute § 770.02,” are you planning to tell
Love that the prospect of litigation should not be a reason for him to
honor your “demand that [he] set the record straight by immediately
retracting [his allegedly] defamatory remarks,” and that he should
only take action assuming that he is persuaded by your arguments and
evidence? (And might you acknowledge, in all candor, that despite the
absence of a sentence explicitly threatening to sue, a reasonable
reader of the letter might take it that way?)

Second, I am curious about your use of the word “agreed” in describing
the Post’s clarifications and editor’s note: do you have an
“agreement” with the Washington Post concerning the clarification and
note, with a commitment not to sue them for what remains? Or would it
be more fair to characterize the Post’s actions as unilateral in
response to your “confronting” it, but without any “agreement” between
the two sides?


From: Paul Levy
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2020 5:19 PM
To: 'Daniel Watkins'<daniel@clarelocke.com>
Cc: Tom Clare <tom@clarelocke.com>
Subject: RE: Ridgeback Biotherapeutics

Thanks. I will look forward to seeing your letter to James Love along
with the documents that he requested. When you say “later this week,”
I assume you mean by tomorrow? Certainly I can hold off publishing
until then. Will you be bcc’ing me on the letter?

Given that you go to some length to describe “confronting” the
Washington Post -- I take it that this means you acknowledge
threatening to sue the Post even though you say that you did not
threaten to sue Love – I would like to take a look at the letter you
sent to the Post, in addition to the documents I requested in my
previous email..


From: Daniel Watkins <daniel@clarelocke.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2020 9:32 AM
To: Paul Levy <plevy@citizen.org>
Cc: Tom Clare <tom@clarelocke.com>
Subject: Re: Ridgeback Biotherapeutics

Dear Paul:
Please see the attached, sent on behalf of Ridgeback Biotherapeutics.

Regards,
Daniel

Daniel P. Watkins | Associate
CLARE LOCKE LLP
10 Prince Street | Alexandria, Virginia 22314
(202) 628-7407 - direct | (804) 426-9454 - cell
daniel@clarelocke.com | www.clarelocke.com


From: Paul Levy <plevy@citizen.org>
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2020 6:35 PM
To: Tom Clare
Subject: Ridgeback Biotherapeutics

I am working on an article about Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, and about
the ways in which some companies use tendentious threats of libel
litigation to try to clean up their reputations by suppressing adverse
opinions.

In that regard, I have read the July 14, 2020 demand letter that you
sent to James
Love, as well as his August 17, 2020 response to you.

Has any response been sent to the questions and document requests posed in
James Love’s email? If not, would you or your client care to respond now?

I am also wondering why your client would have standing to complain
about statements that you say are unfair to Africa and “China / Hong
Kong”; why your client took the statement to BE about Africa and/or
China and Hong Kong; and, indeed why the word “backwater,” as applied
to a continent, a country or a city – or, indeed, to a disease – would
not merely be an opinion. I would also appreciate your comment on how
your client could bring a proper libel claim against someone who has
been quoted in a newspaper article based on the fact that, apparently,
your client does not like the context in which the reporter placed the
quotation. Given the phrasing of the prefatory note in the Post, I
take it that your demand letter to the Post resulted in changes that
satisfied your client, even though the headline still contains the
word “flip.” Or, are you still threatening litigation against the
Post?

I am also wondering about the facts (1) that your demand letter took
particular umbrage at the analogy between Ridgeback’s activities and
the flipping of real estate, but (2) that, so far as I can understand,
no demand letter was sent to Aaron Kesselheim, who was quoted in the
very same Post article as making an express comparison between
Ridgeback and flipping houses. So I am wondering why just to James
Love, and not to the Harvard professor? Might it have had anything to
do with the assumption that a Harvard professor would be better able
to defend himself against a libel suit than the head of a small
nonprofit?

Although I am a lawyer, I do not represent anybody in this matter.
However, I am being cautious by writing to your client’s counsel. If I
should be directing my questions to your client instead, please let me
know.

And please note that I do intend to publish, and attribute, some or
all of the language your letter. Please let me know if the “Not for
Publication or Attribution” legend is a common feature of your demand
letters..

Paul Alan Levy
Public Citizen Litigation Group
1600 20th Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20009
(202) 588-7725
@paulalanlevy
https://www.citizen.org/article/internet-free-speech/ [citizen.org]

DISCLAIMER: This e-mail message and any attachments are intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is
addressed and may contain information that is confidential or legally
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of
this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately
and permanently delete this message and any attachments.



https://www.citizen.org/article/internet-free-speech/

Internet Free Speech

The rapid growth of the internet and internet technologies created a
powerful opportunity for individuals to be heard on a wide variety of
issues, including  government, the corporations that have an
increasing role in economic security, and unions that represent their
labor interests.

Public Citizen has developed a program of litigation and other forms
of advocacy to protect the rights of these individuals against
entities that seek to curtail or suppress the exchange of ideas and
criticism that is enabled by this online platforms.

View Public Citizen’s Internet Free Speech Cases
Guide for Bloggers and Non-Profit Organizations About Writing with Libel in Mind

This guide discusses the elementary principles of libel law and
explains how to prepare for and conduct a pre-publication libel
review.

View the Guide
Statement of Public Citizen’s Paul Levy on Maryland House Bill 263

In testimony to the Maryland legislature on February 10, 2016, Paul
Levy discussed a pending anti-SLAPP bill and suggested changes to
protect consumers’ speech on matters of public interest.

View the Statement
Legal Perils and Legal Rights of Internet Speakers

This outline contains legal citations, links to relevant web sites,
and other resources.

View the Outline
Litigating Civil Subpoenas to Identify Anonymous Internet Speakers

This 2011 article by Paul Alan Levy explains how to defend against
subpoenas, with citations to relevant cases (published in Litigation,
the journal of the Litigation Section of the American Bar
Association.)

View the Article
A Guide to Fair Use in Posting Soccer Video Clips

View the Guide
Developments in Dendrite

This 2012 article, published in Florida Coastal Law Review, examines
developments in the caselaw governing subpoenas to identify anonymous
internet speakers.

View the Article
Introduction to Section 230

Internet Users Are Liable Only for Their Own Content – An Introduction
to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

View the Article


https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/money-and-power/news/a8479/robert-trump/

Who Was Donald Trump's Brother, Robert Trump?

“He was not just my brother, he was my best friend,” said the
President of his younger brother, who died August 15 age 71.
By Matthew Kassel       

Aug 16, 2020
republican presidential nominee donald trump holds election night
event in new york city
Chip SomodevillaGetty Images

    Robert Trump, Donald Trump's youngest brother, died on Saturday
August 15 in New York City. The White House had recently confirmed
that Robert has been hospitalized in Manhattan, and the President
visited his brother the day before he died. “He was not just my
brother, he was my best friend,” the president said in a statement.

    While he had not been in the media spotlight as much as his older
sibling, Robert was back in the news this summer, as his niece Mary
Trump published a tell-all about her family called Too Much and Never
Enough: How My Family Created the World's Most Dangerous Man. Her
publisher, Simon & Schuster, describes the text as a “revelatory,
authoritative portrait of Donald J. Trump and the toxic family that
made him.”

    Robert requested a temporary restraining order in an attempt to
stop the book from being published. In a statement to the New York
Times, he said he was "deeply disappointed" in his niece's decision to
publish the book. “Her attempt to sensationalize and mischaracterize
our family relationship after all of these years for her own financial
gain is both a travesty and injustice to the memory of my late
brother, Fred, and our beloved parents,” he said. “I and the rest of
my entire family are so proud of my wonderful brother, the president,
and feel that Mary’s actions are truly a disgrace.”


SUPREME COURT- STATE OF NEW YORK
DUTCHESS COUNTY
Present:
Hon. HAL B. GREENWALD
Justice.
SUPREME COURT: DUTCHESS COUNTY


ROBERT S. TRUMP,
Plaintiff, DECISION AND ORDER
Index No. 22020-51585
-against- Motion Seq. No. 1
MARY L. TRUMP and SIMON & SCHUSTER,
INC.,
Defendants.


"The following NYSCEF documents were reviewed and considered by the
Court in rendering the within Decision and Order.

NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 1-9, 11-22, 24-45, 46-48, 49, 50-54, 55, 56-78, 79,
80, 81-103, 104, 105-109, 110-115, 116-118, 119, 122-124, 125-126,
128, 129-130, 132-134

RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Frederick Christ Trump, (Fred Trump) a prominent New York City real
estate developer, was born October 11, 1905 and died June 25, 1999. He
married Mary Anne Macleod on January 11, 1936 and they had five (5)
children, Maryanne Trump Barry (born 1937), Fred Trump, Jr.
(1938-1981), Elizabeth Trump Grau (born 1942), Donald Trump (born
1946) and Robert Trump (born 1948). Mary Anne Trump died on August 7,
2000. Litigation concerning the Estates of Fred Trump and of Mary Anne
Trump, as well as multiple intra-family disputes were conducted in
Queens County Surrogate’s Court, (Will of Fred C. Trump, File No
3949-1999) and Nassau County Supreme Court, Trump v. Trump, Index No.
6795-2000). Both matters were settled by an “Agreement and
Stipulation” (the Agreement) dated April 10, 2001. As it pertains to
the instant matter, the Agreement was signed by Donald J. Trump,
Maryanne Trump Barry and Plaintiff, ROBERT S. TRUMP, as “Proponents”
and Fred C. Trump, III and Defendant MARY L. TRUMP, as
“Respondents/Objectants”. Plaintiff ROBERT S. TRUMP seeks a
preliminary injunction against defendants MARY L. TRUMP and SIMON &
SCHUSTER, INC. (S&S) premised upon the terms set forth in the
aforesaid Agreement."





"The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit in Democratic
National Committee v. Republican National Committee, 673 F.3d 192
(2012) enforced a Consent Decree entered by the DNC and RNC. The terms
in the Decree to restrict disclosure of specific information were
found to be nonviolative of the restricted party’s First Amendment
rights since consideration had been exchanged.

Another factor to be considered by this Court is what is the status of
publication? According to Jonathan Karp, CEO of S&S (in his initial
Affidavit in Opposition to the Order to Show Cause (NYSCEF Doc.
No.25), paragraph 10: “As of today, [June 30, 2020] approximately
75,000 copies have been printed and bound and are ready for
publication, thousands of which have already been shipped…In addition,
Simon & Schuster has provided, and multiple booksellers have
published, key information concerning the contents of the Book.” Karp
submitted an Amended Affidavit sworn to July 2, 2020 (NYSCEF Doc. No.
81) wherein he specifically states that, “…over 35,000 of which have
already been shipped.”, referring to copies of the Book.

Currently, there is pending an Order to Show Cause by which S&S seeks
to file Karp’s Second Amended Affidavit (NYSCEF Doc. No. 132) sworn to
July 8, 2020which states at paragraph 14 that after the Appellate
Division vacated this Court’s TRO against S&S, “…over 600,000 copies
of the Book had been printed and shipped to retail booksellers large
and small from national chains and online entities to a host of small,
independent booksellers all over the country. In the intervening days,
the Book has been extensively reviewed and commented on in the press,
and excerpts of the book are widely available.”.

There is no doubt that the Book is out in the public eye in
significant quantities and has reached millions of people by the
tremendous attention it has gained by the media. Another “balancing”
test for the Court is between plaintiff and S&S. Comparing the
potential enormous cost and logistical nightmare of stopping the
publication, recalling and removing hundreds of thousands of books
from all types of booksellers, brick and mortar and virtual, libraries
and private citizens, is an insurmountable task at this time. To quote
United States v. Bolton, 2020 WL 3401940 (United States District
Court, District of Columbia) ( Lambeth, J.) “By the looks of it the
horse is not just out of the barn, it is out of the country.”.

Lastly, in the vernacular of First year law students, “Con. Law trumps
Contracts”.

By reason of all the foregoing it is

ORDERED that the Temporary Restraining Order entered against MARY L.
TRUMP as modified by the Appellate Division Decision & Order on
Application (Scheinkman, J.) dated July 1, 2020 is VACATED; and it is
further

ORDERED that the Order to Show Cause of plaintiff ROBERT S. TRUMP,
made pursuant to CPLR 6301 seeking a preliminary injunction enjoining
and restraining MARY L. TRUMP together with her respective members,
officers, employees, servants, agents, representatives and all others
acting on behalf of or in concert with her, from publishing, printing
or distributing, directly or indirectly, any book or any portions
thereof, including but not limited to the book entitled: “Too Much and
Never Enough, How My Family Created the World’s Most DangerousMan”, in
any medium containing any descriptions or accounts of MARY L. TRUMP’s
relationship with ROBERT S. TRUMP, Donald Trump, or Maryanne Trump
Barry, or assisting any other person or entity in such publication,
printing or distribution, or providing such descriptions or accounts
to any other person (other than counsel of record in this case is
DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED that the Order to Show Cause of plaintiff ROBERT S. TRUMP,
made pursuant to CPLR 6301 seeking a preliminary injunction enjoining
and restraining SIMON & SCHUSTER, INC. together with its respective
members, officers, employees, servants, agents, representatives and
all others acting on behalf of or in concert with it, from publishing,
printing or distributing, directly or indirectly, any book or any
portions thereof, including but not limited to the book entitled: “Too
Much and Never Enough, How My Family Created the World’s Most
Dangerous Man”, in any medium containing any descriptions or accounts
of MARY L. TRUMP’s relationship with ROBERT S. TRUMP, Donald Trump, or
Maryanne Trump Barry, or assisting any other person or entity in such
publication, printing or distribution, or providing such descriptions
or accounts to any other person (other than counsel of record in this
case is DENIED.

Any relief not specifically granted herein is denied.

The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of this court.

Dated: July 13, 2020
Poughkeepsie, New York


__________________________________
HON HAL B. GREENWALD, J.S.C

Pursuant to CPLR Section 5513, an appeal as of right must be taken
within thirty days after service by a party upon the appellant of a
copy of the judgment or order appealed from and written notice of its
entry, except that when the appellant has served a copy of the
judgment"




Charles J. Harder, Esq.
HARDER, LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff ROBERT S. TRUMP
100 Park Avenue, 16th Floor
New York, New York 10017
(212) 799-1400
CHarder@harderLLP.com

William G. Sayegh, Esq.
THE LAW FIRM OF WILLIAM G. SAYEGH, P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiff ROBERT S. TRUMP
65 Gleneida Avenue
Carmel, New York 10512
(845) 228-4200
wgs@sayeghlaw.com

Theofore J. Boutrous, Jr., Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
Attorneys for Defendant MARY L. TRUMP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90071
(213) 229-7000
tboutrous@gibsondunn.com

Anne Champion, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
Attorneys for Defendant MARY L. TRUMP
200 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10166
(212) 351-4000
achampion@gibsondunn.com

Elizabeth A. McNamara, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP
Attorneys for Defendant SIMON & SCHUSTER, INC.
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 21st Floor
New York, New York 10020-1104
(212) 603-6437
lizmcnamara@dwt.com