While the people in the newsroom of the Telegraph in the UK were updating the Brits in what was happening just a few miles from me they deemed me not worth talking to But the Brits and our Queen's CBC got my email N'esy Pas?
Replying to @DavidRayAmos@Kathryn98967631 and 49 others Here is just one very corrupt cop in Fundy Royal who knows everything about my issues N'esy Pas?
Wayne Gallant, the former chief superintendent of the New Brunswick RCMP, is taking over as chief of the Kennebecasis Regional Police Force, effective Nov. 27. (Kennebecasis Regional Police Force)
---------- Original message ---------- From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 12:36:15 -0400 Subject: Fwd: Why does CBC care what the Maritime Master of War Petey Baby MacKay thinks about anything? To: strobes@private-eye.co.uk
---------- Original message ---------- From: "Fitch, Leanne"<leanne.fitch@fredericton.ca> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 16:04:36 +0000 Subject: Automatic reply: Why does CBC care what the Maritime Master of War Petey Baby MacKay thinks about anything? To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Hello/Bonjour I will be out of the office from August 8 to September 2, 2018. Je serai sorti du bureau le 8 aout a 3 septembre, 2018.
Due to a very high volume of incoming email to this account there is an unusual backlog of pending responses. Your message may not be responded to in a timely fashion. If you require a formal response please send your query in writing to my attention c/o Fredericton Police Force, 311 Queen St, Fredericton, NB E3B 1B1 or phone (506) 460-2300. If this is an emergency related to public safety please call 911.
En raison du grand nombre de courriels que reçoit cette messagerie, il se peut qu’une réponse tarde un peu à venir. Si vous avez besoin d'une réponse officielle, veuillez envoyer votre demande par écrit à mon attention aux soins (a/s) de la Force policière de Fredericton 311, rue Queen, Fredericton, NB E3B 1B1, ou composer le 506 460-2300. S'il s'agit d'une urgence de sécurité publique, faites le 911.
This e-mail communication (including any or all attachments) is intended only for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, any use, review, retransmission, distribution, dissemination, copying, printing, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this e-mail, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please contact the sender and delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout thereof, immediately. Your co-operation is appreciated.
Any correspondence with elected officials, employees, or other agents of the City of Fredericton may be subject to disclosure under the provisions of the Province of New Brunswick Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
Le présent courriel (y compris toute pièce jointe) s'adresse uniquement à son destinataire, qu'il soit une personne ou un organisme, et pourrait comporter des renseignements privilégiés ou confidentiels. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire du courriel, il est interdit d'utiliser, de revoir, de retransmettre, de distribuer, de disséminer, de copier ou d'imprimer ce courriel, d'agir en vous y fiant ou de vous en servir de toute autre façon. Si vous avez reçu le présent courriel par erreur, prière de communiquer avec l'expéditeur et d'éliminer l'original du courriel, ainsi que toute copie électronique ou imprimée de celui-ci, immédiatement. Nous sommes reconnaissants de votre collaboration.
Toute correspondance entre ou avec les employés ou les élus de la Ville de Fredericton pourrait être divulguée conformément aux dispositions de la Loi sur le droit à l’information et la protection de la vie privée.
Canada shooting: several dead and suspect in custody in Fredericton
Four people, including two police officers, were killed in a shooting in the eastern Canadian city of Fredericton and one person was taken into custody, police said on Friday.
Police in Fredericton, a city of about 56,000 that is the capital of the province of New Brunswick, said in a post on Twitter that the incident was under investigation and there were multiple fatalities.
Another police tweet said two of the four people killed were police officers but gave no details and did not release the names of the victims. The suspect is being treated for serious injuries.
Local media images showed emergency vehicles converging on a tree-lined residential street. Nearby facilities were closed and authorities told residents to stay locked in their homes.
Canadian Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale said the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) were assisting Fredericton authorities.
Emergency vehicles close to the location of the shooting in Fredericton, New Brunswick, CanadaCredit:Reuters
New Brunswick had only three homicide shootings in 2016, according to Statistics Canada. Gun laws in Canada are more strict than in the United States but a proliferation of weapons has led to an increase in gun crimes in recent years.
"Awful news coming out of Fredericton," Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on Twitter. "My heart goes out to everyone affected by this morning’s shooting. We’re following the situation closely."
Three RCMP officers were killed and two more were wounded in 2014 in Moncton, New Brunswick, about 195 km (121 miles) from Fredericton, in one of the worst incidents of its kind in Canada.
Toronto,Canada's largest city, has had 241 shooting incidents this year, resulting in 30 deaths, a 30 percent increase in fatalities.
---------- Original message ---------- From: Media Enquiries <Media.Enquiries+noreply@telegraph.co.uk> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 15:47:15 +0000 Subject: Re: Fwd: Why does CBC care what the Maritime Master of War Petey Baby MacKay thinks about anything? To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Thank you for your enquiry.
Please note - this inbox is monitored regularly but is for MEDIA-RELATED ENQUIRIES ONLY e.g. Telegraph press office issues, including media requests for Telegraph writers.
---------- Original message ---------- From: Newsroom <newsroom@globeandmail.com> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 15:48:44 +0000 Subject: Automatic reply: Why does CBC care what the Maritime Master of War Petey Baby MacKay thinks about anything? 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
Peter MacKay on Halifax Forum, US-Canada Relations & Political Future 104 views Defense & Aerospace Report Published on Nov 28, 2017
Peter MacKay, Canada's former foreign affairs, defense and justice minister and founder of the Halifax International Security Forum who is now with the Baker McKenzie law firms, discusses the importance of the forum, US-Canada relations, causes he's championing and his political future. MacKay spoke with the Defense & Aerospace Report at the 2017 Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia, Canada. Check out our website: http://www.defaeroreport.com
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "MacKay, Peter"<Peter.MacKay@bakermckenzie.com> Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 14:39:17 +0000 Subject: Automatic reply: YO Minister Jean-Yves.Duclos Once again you are welcome Now how about the RCMP, the LIEbranos and all the other parliamentarians start acting with some semblance of Integrity after all these years? To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Thank you for your email. I am currently out of the office attending meetings and have limited access to email and voicemail. If your matter is urgent, or if you require assistance, please contact my assistant, Nicole Bruni at nicole.bruni@bakermckenzie.com or at (416) 865-3861.
This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If it has been sent to you in error, please reply to advise the sender of the error and then immediately delete this message. Please visit www.bakermckenzie.com/disclaimers for other important information concerning this message.
The confusion of the CCPA and the CBC is well known when it comes to matters of money N'esy Pas?
"Ekos founder and president Frank Graves says the rejection of inheritance tax is just one part of a wider phenomenon demonstrated in his polling. He pointed to the election of Doug Ford as premier in Ontario as an example of its impact. Most of Ford's supporters declared themselves to be working class."
An attempt to understand Canada's inheritance tax backlash: Don Pittis Roar of objections to imposing death duties on Canadians may have complex roots
Don Pittis · CBC News · Posted: Aug 07, 2018 4:00 AM ET
291 Comments
Steve Timmins My blood, sweat and tears were for MY family not the government. I've already paid my taxes on income. What's left is mine to decide what to do with not some socialist who drools over it.
David Amos @Steve Timmins "Anyone who thinks the CBC does not serve conservative-leaning Canadians should look at the comments for a recent online story about inheritance taxes."
Methinks the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives think-tank should have red my comments by now N'esy Pas?
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???
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Michael Cohen <mcohen@trumporg.com> 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 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Effective January 20, 2017, I have accepted the role as personal counsel to President Donald J. Trump. All future emails should be directed to mdcohen212@gmail.com and all future calls should be directed to 646-853-0114. ________________________________ This communication is from The Trump Organization or an affiliate thereof and is not sent on behalf of any other individual or entity. This email may contain information that is confidential and/or proprietary. Such information may not be read, disclosed, used, copied, distributed or disseminated except (1) for use by the intended recipient or (2) as expressly authorized by the sender. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately delete it and promptly notify the sender. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be received, secure or error-free as emails could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late, incomplete, contain viruses or otherwise. The Trump Organization and its affiliates do not guarantee that all emails will be read and do not accept liability for any errors or omissions in emails. Any views or opinions presented in any email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Trump Organization or any of its affiliates.Nothing in this communication is intended to operate as an electronic signature under applicable law.
Whereas nobody listens to me I will attempt to do so byway of other people's words and videos.
Does anyone recall this nonsense on Youtube 5 years ago when young Justin was charging big bucks for speeches but having fun yapping it up bigtime in malls for free? Obviously even bald mall guards loved Trudeau "The Younger" back then Nesy Pas?
Justin Trudeau: Fluoride/Bilderberg/Bank of Canada Are Conspiracy Theories Terry Wilson Published on Feb 8, 2013
However this far important stuff was also put up on YouTube after it appears CBC had aired it first and nobody seemed to care.
Please note I truly do appreciate David MacDonald's work. However I am very tired of his old buddies such as the turncoat NDP?Conservative Dominic Cardy laughing at me while sending me butter tarts and talking mindlessly of ardvarrks, puffins and pussy cats etc.
Study Reveals Secret Bailouts to Canadian Banks 31,067 views
LeakSourceCanada Published on Apr 30, 2012 04/30/2012
"Our politicians are on the global stage touting the soundness of Canada's banking system, where at the same time three of Canada's banks were at some point underwater."
David Macdonald of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives explains the think tank's report that found Canadian banks received secret bailouts during the 2008-2010 financial crisis.
“Canada’s corporate executives were among the loudest critics of a new fifteen dollar minimum wage in provinces like Ontario and Alberta, meanwhile the highest paid among them were raking in record-breaking earnings,” says the report’s author, CCPA Senior Economist David Macdonald."
Climbing Up and Kicking Down: Executive pay in Canada is available on the CCPA website. For more information contact Alyssa O’Dell, CCPA Media and Public Relations: 613-563-1341 x307, alyssa@policyalternatives.ca or cell 343-998-7575.
Here is a little proof of an email of mine from 2012 that the CCPA, the NDP, the Conservatives, Dizzy Lizzy May, Trudeau "The Younger", his many mindless minions and even YOU should recall N'esy Pas David Akin?
Does anyone remember what this crooked Bankster had to say to CBC the following year before he split for a far fancier job in Not So Merry Old England???
Bank 'bail-in' plan shouldn't worry Canadians, Carney says Bank of Canada head says it's 'hard to fathom' Canadian deposits would be touched The Canadian Press Posted: Apr 18, 2013 5:03 PM ET
Since then the Liebranos put the Bankster 'bail-in' plan in the books. While CBC has played dumb lawyers and many others have had an opinion about it. I for one particularly enjoy the ones I view on YouTube.
So who is the liar of these two? an unnamed lawyer on the CBA website who does not offer a name to back up its opinion or a biblepounder that claims to be a "Dr" or both?
FAQ: What is a “bail-in regime” and are my bank deposits safe?
As far as the Bank of Canada lawsuit goes this stuff was published by CBC
Rocco Galati and the lawsuit against the Bank of Canada 40,691 views CBC News Published on May 8, 2015 Colourful and controversial. Rocco Galati isn't your average advocate. He's a kind of legal David, known for tangling with Goliath-sized courtroom opponents. His peers seem to approve. Electing him to the bench that oversees them. His latest case may his most contentious of his career.
Recorded on June 3, 2017 at the COMER Press Conference in Rocco Galati's Law Offices
In my opinion this is one of the most important cases of the XXI century in Canada about one of the biggest issues the world is facing since the XX Century and that is the central banking control over nations and the issue of money.
"After nearly 5 ½ years of contentious litigation between the Committee On Monetary and Economic Reform (COMER) and the Government of Canada involving three separate Federal Court and two additional Federal Court of Appeal hearings resulting in contrary decisions, on May 4th, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed COMER’s “leave” (permission to appeal) application from the second judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal. Following established practice, the federal Supreme Court does NOT issue reasons when it dismisses a leave application.
The dismissal by the Supreme Court of the Leave application, means only that the Court does not want to hear the appeal. The jurisprudence on this is clear: it does not mean that the lower court decisions are correct in law. The possible reasons for the Supreme Court not wanting to hear the case are many and various, including the washing of their hands or “deference” to the political process – hence, this is why reasons are not issued by the Supreme Court in leave dismissals.
We believe that the case has ample legal merit, and should have proceeded to trial. It is not uncommon for the Supreme Court to refuse leave on a given issue multiple times, finally to grant leave, hear the appeal and the case then succeeds. The Supreme Court controls its own agenda, both in its timing and on the merits of issues it will or will not hear. (Annually, fewer than 8 - 10% of all cases filed are granted permission and heard at the Supreme Court of Canada.)
It should be noted that throughout this arduous and expensive legal process, the substance of this lawsuit initiated in the public interest has not been addressed. (The matters raised by the lawsuit are summarized in the attached original news release issued on December 19, 2011.)"
Recorded and edited by: https://www.facebook.com/CounterBalan... Apologies for my amateur recording and editing I had a limitation in my old photographic camera, the video stops after a few minutes so I missed a few milliseconds of audio in between the multiple videos that I consolidated here.
Feel Free to distribute share and download this important information. Category News & Politics
Then lastly for comic relief there was the wicked LIEbrano Motion M-103.and its purported attack on Free Speech. Lots of people had their opinion on that topic so there is not much need of adding my two bits worth particularly after Kellie Leitch, Brad Trost, Pierre Lemieux, Chris Alexander, Faith Goldy, Ezzy Levant and their Christian Zionist "Dr." McVety pal made a big splash in Toronto. It did no good whatsoever. The motion passed easily by a vote of 201–91. However it was non-binding so what was all the noice about anyway other than to make Trudueau "The Younger" look like some kind of hero???
Furthermore everybody knows most folks don't read anymore and all my words only fall on deaf ears anyway. However at least I was correct about the Pirate Party and the ERRE Committee in 2016 N'esy Pas Mr Prime Minister Trudeau "The Younger"?
All that said need I remind folks I am about to mak an application to the Supreme Court becaue of this wicked decision? Please enjoy
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
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
While I was publishing this in my blog the lawyer Bobby Baby Kennedy called back from (416) 846-6598 and played as dumb. Hell he even claimed that he did not know who Frank McKenna was No partner even a lowly collection dude within Dentons is allowed to be THAT stupid.
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com > Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 09:32:09 -0400 > Subject: Attn Integrity Commissioner Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C., > To: coi@gnb.ca > Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com > > Good Day Sir > > After I heard you speak on CBC I called your office again and managed > to speak to one of your staff for the first time > > Please find attached the documents I promised to send to the lady who > answered the phone this morning. Please notice that not after the Sgt > at Arms took the documents destined to your office his pal Tanker > Malley barred me in writing with an "English" only document. > > These are the hearings and the dockets in Federal Court that I > suggested that you study closely. > > This is the docket in Federal Court > > http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=T-1557-15&select_court=T > > These are digital recordings of the last three hearings > > Dec 14th https://archive.org/details/BahHumbug > > January 11th, 2016 https://archive.org/details/Jan11th2015 > > April 3rd, 2017 > > https://archive.org/details/April32017JusticeLeblancHearing > > > This is the docket in the Federal Court of Appeal > > http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=A-48-16&select_court=All > > > The only hearing thus far > > May 24th, 2017 > > https://archive.org/details/May24thHoedown > > > This Judge understnds the meaning of the word Integrity > > Date: 20151223 > > Docket: T-1557-15 > > Fredericton, New Brunswick, December 23, 2015 > > PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Bell > > BETWEEN: > > DAVID RAYMOND AMOS > > Plaintiff > > and > > HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN > > Defendant > > ORDER > > (Delivered orally from the Bench in Fredericton, New Brunswick, on > December 14, 2015) > > The Plaintiff seeks an appeal de novo, by way of motion pursuant to > the Federal Courts Rules (SOR/98-106), from an Order made on November > 12, 2015, in which Prothonotary Morneau struck the Statement of Claim > in its entirety. > > At the outset of the hearing, the Plaintiff brought to my attention a > letter dated September 10, 2004, which he sent to me, in my then > capacity as Past President of the New Brunswick Branch of the Canadian > Bar Association, and the then President of the Branch, Kathleen Quigg, > (now a Justice of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal). In that letter > he stated: > > As for your past President, Mr. Bell, may I suggest that you check the > work of Frank McKenna before I sue your entire law firm including you. > You are your brother’s keeper. > > Frank McKenna is the former Premier of New Brunswick and a former > colleague of mine at the law firm of McInnes Cooper. In addition to > expressing an intention to sue me, the Plaintiff refers to a number of > people in his Motion Record who he appears to contend may be witnesses > or potential parties to be added. Those individuals who are known to > me personally, include, but are not limited to the former Prime > Minister of Canada, The Right Honourable Stephen Harper; former > Attorney General of Canada and now a Justice of the Manitoba Court of > Queen’s Bench, Vic Toews; former member of Parliament Rob Moore; > former Director of Policing Services, the late Grant Garneau; former > Chief of the Fredericton Police Force, Barry McKnight; former Staff > Sergeant Danny Copp; my former colleagues on the New Brunswick Court > of Appeal, Justices Bradley V. Green and Kathleen Quigg, and, retired > Assistant Commissioner Wayne Lang of the Royal Canadian Mounted > Police. > > In the circumstances, given the threat in 2004 to sue me in my > personal capacity and my past and present relationship with many > potential witnesses and/or potential parties to the litigation, I am > of the view there would be a reasonable apprehension of bias should I > hear this motion. See Justice de Grandpré’s dissenting judgment in > Committee for Justice and Liberty et al v National Energy Board et al, > [1978] 1 SCR 369 at p 394 for the applicable test regarding > allegations of bias. In the circumstances, although neither party has > requested I recuse myself, I consider it appropriate that I do so. > > > AS A RESULT OF MY RECUSAL, THIS COURT ORDERS that the Administrator of > the Court schedule another date for the hearing of the motion. There > is no order as to costs. > > “B. Richard Bell” > Judge > > > Below after the CBC article about your concerns (I made one comment > already) you will find the text of just two of many emails I had sent > to your office over the years since I first visited it in 2006. > > I noticed that on July 30, 2009, he was appointed to the the Court > Martial Appeal Court of Canada Perhaps you should scroll to the > bottom of this email ASAP and read the entire Paragraph 83 of my > lawsuit now before the Federal Court of Canada? > > "FYI This is the text of the lawsuit that should interest Trudeau the most > > > ---------- Original message ---------- > From: justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca > Date: Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:18 PM > Subject: Réponse automatique : RE My complaint against the CROWN in > Federal Court Attn David Hansen and Peter MacKay If you planning to > submit a motion for a publication ban on my complaint trust that you > dudes are way past too late > To: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com > > Veuillez noter que j'ai changé de courriel. Vous pouvez me rejoindre à > lalanthier@hotmail.com > > Pour rejoindre le bureau de M. Trudeau veuillez envoyer un courriel à > tommy.desfosses@parl.gc.ca > > Please note that I changed email address, you can reach me at > lalanthier@hotmail.com > > To reach the office of Mr. Trudeau please send an email to > tommy.desfosses@parl.gc.ca > > Thank you, > > Merci , > > > http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2015/09/v-behaviorurldefaultvmlo.html > > > 83. The Plaintiff states that now that Canada is involved in more war > in Iraq again it did not serve Canadian interests and reputation to > allow Barry Winters to publish the following words three times over > five years after he began his bragging: > > January 13, 2015 > This Is Just AS Relevant Now As When I wrote It During The Debate > > December 8, 2014 > Why Canada Stood Tall! > > Friday, October 3, 2014 > Little David Amos’ “True History Of War” Canadian Airstrikes And > Stupid Justin Trudeau > > Canada’s and Canadians free ride is over. Canada can no longer hide > behind Amerka’s and NATO’s skirts. > > When I was still in Canadian Forces then Prime Minister Jean Chretien > actually committed the Canadian Army to deploy in the second campaign > in Iraq, the Coalition of the Willing. This was against or contrary to > the wisdom or advice of those of us Canadian officers that were > involved in the initial planning phases of that operation. There were > significant concern in our planning cell, and NDHQ about of the dearth > of concern for operational guidance, direction, and forces for > operations after the initial occupation of Iraq. At the “last minute” > Prime Minister Chretien and the Liberal government changed its mind. > The Canadian government told our amerkan cousins that we would not > deploy combat troops for the Iraq campaign, but would deploy a > Canadian Battle Group to Afghanistan, enabling our amerkan cousins to > redeploy troops from there to Iraq. The PMO’s thinking that it was > less costly to deploy Canadian Forces to Afghanistan than Iraq. But > alas no one seems to remind the Liberals of Prime Minister Chretien’s > then grossly incorrect assumption. Notwithstanding Jean Chretien’s > incompetence and stupidity, the Canadian Army was heroic, > professional, punched well above it’s weight, and the PPCLI Battle > Group, is credited with “saving Afghanistan” during the Panjway > campaign of 2006. > > What Justin Trudeau and the Liberals don’t tell you now, is that then > Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien committed, and deployed the > Canadian army to Canada’s longest “war” without the advice, consent, > support, or vote of the Canadian Parliament. > > What David Amos and the rest of the ignorant, uneducated, and babbling > chattering classes are too addled to understand is the deployment of > less than 75 special operations troops, and what is known by planners > as a “six pac cell” of fighter aircraft is NOT the same as a > deployment of a Battle Group, nor a “war” make. > > The Canadian Government or The Crown unlike our amerkan cousins have > the “constitutional authority” to commit the Canadian nation to war. > That has been recently clearly articulated to the Canadian public by > constitutional scholar Phillippe Legasse. What Parliament can do is > remove “confidence” in The Crown’s Government in a “vote of > non-confidence.” That could not happen to the Chretien Government > regarding deployment to Afghanistan, and it won’t happen in this > instance with the conservative majority in The Commons regarding a > limited Canadian deployment to the Middle East. > > President George Bush was quite correct after 911 and the terror > attacks in New York; that the Taliban “occupied” and “failed state” > Afghanistan was the source of logistical support, command and control, > and training for the Al Quaeda war of terror against the world. The > initial defeat, and removal from control of Afghanistan was vital and > > P.S. Whereas this CBC article is about your opinion of the actions of > the latest Minister Of Health trust that Mr Boudreau and the CBC have > had my files for many years and the last thing they are is ethical. > Ask his friends Mr Murphy and the RCMP if you don't believe me. > > Subject: > Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:02:35 -0400 > From: "Murphy, Michael B. \(DH/MS\)"MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca > To: motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com > > January 30, 2007 > > WITHOUT PREJUDICE > > Mr. David Amos > > Dear Mr. Amos: > > This will acknowledge receipt of a copy of your e-mail of December 29, > 2006 to Corporal Warren McBeath of the RCMP. > > Because of the nature of the allegations made in your message, I have > taken the measure of forwarding a copy to Assistant Commissioner Steve > Graham of the RCMP “J” Division in Fredericton. > > Sincerely, > > Honourable Michael B. Murphy > Minister of Health > > CM/cb > > > Warren McBeath warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca wrote: > > Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:34:53 -0500 > From: "Warren McBeath"warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca > To: kilgoursite@ca.inter.net, MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca, > nada.sarkis@gnb.ca, wally.stiles@gnb.ca, dwatch@web.net, > motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com > CC: ottawa@chuckstrahl.com, riding@chuckstrahl.com,John.Foran@gnb.ca, > Oda.B@parl.gc.ca,"Bev BUSSON"bev.busson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, > "Paul Dube"PAUL.DUBE@rcmp-grc.gc.ca > Subject: Re: Remember me Kilgour? Landslide Annie McLellan has > forgotten me but the crooks within the RCMP have not > > Dear Mr. Amos, > > Thank you for your follow up e-mail to me today. I was on days off > over the holidays and returned to work this evening. Rest assured I > was not ignoring or procrastinating to respond to your concerns. > > As your attachment sent today refers from Premier Graham, our position > is clear on your dead calf issue: Our forensic labs do not process > testing on animals in cases such as yours, they are referred to the > Atlantic Veterinary College in Charlottetown who can provide these > services. If you do not choose to utilize their expertise in this > instance, then that is your decision and nothing more can be done. > > As for your other concerns regarding the US Government, false > imprisonment and Federal Court Dates in the US, etc... it is clear > that Federal authorities are aware of your concerns both in Canada > the US. These issues do not fall into the purvue of Detachment > and policing in Petitcodiac, NB. > > It was indeed an interesting and informative conversation we had on > December 23rd, and I wish you well in all of your future endeavors. > > Sincerely, > > Warren McBeath, Cpl. > GRC Caledonia RCMP > Traffic Services NCO > Ph: (506) 387-2222 > Fax: (506) 387-4622 > E-mail warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca > > > > Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C., > Office of the Integrity Commissioner > Edgecombe House, 736 King Street > Fredericton, N.B. CANADA E3B 5H1 > tel.: 506-457-7890 > fax: 506-444-5224 > e-mail:coi@gnb.ca > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com > Date: Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:35 AM > Subject: RE My complaint against the CROWN in Federal Court Attn David > Hansen and Peter MacKay If you planning to submit a motion for a > publication ban on my complaint trust that you dudes are way past too late > To: David.Hansen@justice.gc.ca, peter.mackay@justice.gc.ca > peacock.kurt@telegraphjournal.com, mclaughlin.heather@dailygleaner.com, > david.akin@sunmedia.ca, robert.frater@justice.gc.ca, paul.riley@ppsc-sppc.gc.ca, > greg@gregdelbigio.com, joyce.dewitt-vanoosten@gov.bc.ca, > joan.barrett@ontario.ca, jean-vincent.lacroix@gouv.qc.ca, > peter.rogers@mcinnescooper.com , mfeder@mccarthy.ca, mjamal@osler.com > Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, gopublic@cbc.ca, > Whistleblower@ctv.ca > > https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14439/index.do > > http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/WebDocuments-DocumentsWeb/35072/FM030_Respondent_Attorney-General-of-Canada-on-Behalf-of-the-United-States-of-America.pdf > > http://thedavidamosrant.blogspot.ca/2013/10/re-glen-greenwald-and-brazilian.html > > I repeat what the Hell do I do with the Yankee wiretapes taps sell > them on Ebay or listen to them and argue them with you dudes in > Feferal Court? > > Petey Baby loses all parliamentary privelges in less than a month but > he still supposed to be an ethical officer of the Court CORRECT? > > Veritas Vincit > David Raymond Amos > 902 800 0369 > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com > Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 14:10:14 -0400 > Subject: Yo Mr Bauer say hey to your client Obama and his buddies in > the USDOJ for me will ya? > To: RBauer@perkinscoie.com, sshimshak@paulweiss.com, > cspada@lswlaw.com, msmith@svlaw.com, bginsberg@pattonboggs.com, > gregory.craig@skadden.com, pm@pm.gc.ca, bob.paulson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, > bob.rae@rogers.blackberry.net, MulcaT@parl.gc.ca, leader@greenparty.ca > Cc: alevine@cooley.com, david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, > michael.rothfeld@wsj.com, remery@ecbalaw.com > > QSLS Politics > By Location Visit Detail > Visit 29,419 > Domain Name usdoj.gov ? (U.S. Government) > IP Address 149.101.1.# (US Dept of Justice) > ISP US Dept of Justice > Location Continent : North America > Country : United States (Facts) > State : District of Columbia > City : Washington > Lat/Long : 38.9097, -77.0231 (Map) > Language English (U.S.) en-us > Operating System Microsoft WinXP > Browser Internet Explorer 8.0 > Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET > CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; InfoPath.2; > DI60SP1001) > Javascript version 1.3 > Monitor Resolution : 1024 x 768 > Color Depth : 32 bits > Time of Visit Nov 17 2012 6:33:08 pm > Last Page View Nov 17 2012 6:33:08 pm > Visit Length 0 seconds > Page Views 1 > Referring URL http://www.google.co...wwWJrm94lCEqRmovPXJg > Search Engine google.com > Search Words david amos bernie madoff > Visit Entry Page http://qslspolitics....-wendy-olsen-on.html > Visit Exit Page http://qslspolitics....-wendy-olsen-on.html > Out Click > Time Zone UTC-5:00 > Visitor's Time Nov 17 2012 12:33:08 pm > Visit Number 29,419 > > http://qslspolitics.blogspot.com/2009/03/david-amos-to-wendy-olsen-on.html > > > Could ya tell I am investigating your pension plan bigtime? Its > because no member of the RCMP I have ever encountered has earned it yet > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com > Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:36:04 -0400 > Subject: This is a brief as I can make my concerns Randy > To: randyedmunds@gov.nl.ca > Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com > > In a nutshell my concerns about the actions of the Investment Industry > affect the interests of every person in every district of every > country not just the USA and Canada. I was offering to help you with > Emera because my work with them and Danny Williams is well known and > some of it is over eight years old and in the PUBLIC Record. > > All you have to do is stand in the Legislature and ask the MInister of > Justice why I have been invited to sue Newfoundland by the > Conservatives > > > Obviously I am the guy the USDOJ and the SEC would not name who is the > link to Madoff and Putnam Investments > > Here is why > > http://banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=90f8e691-9065-4f8c-a465-72722b47e7f2 > > Notice the transcripts and webcasts of the hearing of the US Senate > Banking Commitee are still missing? Mr Emory should at least notice > Eliot Spitzer and the Dates around November 20th, 2003 in the > following file > > http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/2526023-DAMOSIntegrity-yea-right.-txt.pdf > > http://occupywallst.org/users/DavidRaymondAmos/ > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Hansen, David"David.Hansen@justice.gc.ca > Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 19:28:44 +0000 > Subject: RE: I just called again Mr Hansen > To: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com > > Hello Mr. Amos, > > I manage the Justice Canada civil litigation section in the Atlantic > region. We are only responsible for litigating existing civil > litigation files in which the Attorney General of Canada is a named > defendant or plaintiff. If you are a plaintiff or defendant in an > existing civil litigation matter in the Atlantic region in which > Attorney General of Canada is a named defendant or plaintiff please > provide the court file number, the names of the parties in the action > and your question. I am not the appropriate contact for other > matters. > > Thanks > > David A. Hansen > Regional Director | Directeur régional > General Counsel |Avocat général > Civil Litigation and Advisory | Contentieux des affaires civiles et > services de consultation > Department of Justice | Ministère de la Justice > Suite 1400 – Duke Tower | Pièce 1400 – Tour Duke > 5251 Duke Street | 5251 rue Duke > Halifax, Nova Scotia | Halifax, Nouvelle- Écosse > B3J 1P3 > david.hansen@justice.gc.ca > Telephone | Téléphone (902) 426-3261 / Facsimile | Télécopieur (902) > 426-2329 > This e-mail is confidential and may be protected by solicitor-client > privilege. Unauthorized distribution or disclosure is prohibited. If > you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us and delete > this entire e-mail. > Before printing think about the Environment > Thinking Green, please do not print this e-mail unless necessary. > Pensez vert, svp imprimez que si nécessaire. > > >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com >> Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 02:23:24 -0300 >> Subject: ATTN FBI Special Agent Richard Deslauriers Have you talked to >> your buddies Fred Wyshak and Brian Kelly about the wiretap tapes YET? >> To: boston@ic.fbi.gov, washington.field@ic.fbi.gov, >> bob.paulson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, Kevin.leahy@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, >> Brian.Kelly@usdoj.gov, us.marshals@usdoj.gov, Fred.Wyshak@usdoj.gov, >> jcarney@carneybassil.com, bbachrach@bachrachlaw.net >> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, birgittaj@althingi.is, >> shmurphy@globe.com, redicecreations@gmail.com >> >> FBI Boston >> One Center Plaza >> Suite 600 >> Boston, MA 02108 >> Phone: (617) 742-5533 >> Fax: (617) 223-6327 >> E-mail: Boston@ic.fbi.gov >> >> Hours >> Although we operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, our normal >> "walk-in" business hours are from 8:15 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday >> through Friday. If you need to speak with a FBI representative at any >> time other than during normal business hours, please telephone our >> office at (617) 742-5533. >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com >> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 01:20:20 -0300 >> Subject: Yo Fred Wyshak and Brian Kelly your buddy Whitey's trial is >> finally underway now correct? What the hell do I do with the wiretap >> tapes Sell them on Ebay? >> To: Brian.Kelly@usdoj.gov, us.marshals@usdoj.gov, >> Fred.Wyshak@usdoj.gov, jcarney@carneybassil.com, >> bbachrach@bachrachlaw.net, wolfheartlodge@live.com, shmurphy@globe.com, >> jonathan.albano@bingham.com, mvalencia@globe.com >> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, oldmaison@yahoo.com, >> PATRICK.MURPHY@dhs.gov, rounappletree@aol.com >> >> http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/06/05/james-whitey-bulger-jury-selection-process-enters-second-day/KjS80ofyMMM5IkByK74bkK/story.html >> >> http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/06/09/nsa-leak-guardian.html >> >> As the CBC etc yap about Yankee wiretaps and whistleblowers I must ask >> them the obvious question AIN'T THEY FORGETTING SOMETHING???? >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vugUalUO8YY >> >> What the hell does the media think my Yankee lawyer served upon the >> USDOJ right after I ran for and seat in the 39th Parliament baseball >> cards? >> >> http://www.archive.org/details/FedsUsTreasuryDeptRcmpEtc >> >> http://archive.org/details/ITriedToExplainItToAllMaritimersInEarly2006 >> >> http://davidamos.blogspot.ca/2006/05/wiretap-tapes-impeach-bush.html >> >> http://www.archive.org/details/PoliceSurveilanceWiretapTape139 >> >> http://archive.org/details/Part1WiretapTape143 >> >> FEDERAL EXPRES February 7, 2006 >> Senator Arlen Specter >> United States Senate >> Committee on the Judiciary >> 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building >> Washington, DC 20510 >> >> Dear Mr. Specter: >> >> I have been asked to forward the enclosed tapes to you from a man >> named, David Amos, a Canadian citizen, in connection with the matters >> raised in the attached letter. >> >> Mr. Amos has represented to me that these are illegal FBI wire tap tapes. >> >> I believe Mr. Amos has been in contact with you about this previously. >> >> Very truly yours, >> Barry A. Bachrach >> Direct telephone: (508) 926-3403 >> Direct facsimile: (508) 929-3003 >> Email: bbachrach@bowditch.com >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "David Amos"david.raymond.amos@gmail.com >> To: "Rob Talach"rtalach@ledroitbeckett.com >> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 10:59 PM >> Subject: Re: Attn Robert Talach and I should talk ASAP about my suing >> the Catholic Church Trust that Bastarache knows why >> >> The date stamp on about page 134 of this old file of mine should mean >> a lot to you >> >> http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/2619437-CROSS-BORDER-txt-.pdf >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com >> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 15:37:08 -0400 >> Subject: To Hell with the KILLER COP Gilles Moreau What say you NOW >> Bernadine Chapman?? >> To: Gilles.Moreau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, phil.giles@statcan.ca, >> maritme_malaise@yahoo.ca, Jennifer.Nixon@ps-sp.gc.ca, >> bartman.heidi@psic-ispc.gc.ca, Yves.J.Marineau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, >> david.paradiso@erc-cee.gc.ca, desaulniea@smtp.gc.ca, >> denise.brennan@tbs-sct.gc.ca, anne.murtha@vac-acc.gc.ca, >> webo@xplornet.com, julie.dickson@osfi-bsif.gc.ca, >> rod.giles@osfi-bsif.gc.ca, flaherty.j@parl.gc.ca, toewsv1@parl.gc.ca, >> Nycole.Turmel@parl.gc.ca,Clemet1@parl.gc.ca, maritime_malaise@yahoo.ca, >> oig@sec.gov, whistleblower@finra.org, whistle@fsa.gov.uk, >> david@fairwhistleblower.ca >> Cc: j.kroes@interpol.int, david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, >> bernadine.chapman@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca, >> Juanita.Peddle@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, oldmaison@yahoo.com, >> Wayne.Lang@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, Robert.Trevors@gnb.ca, >> ian.fahie@rcmp-grc.gc.ca> >> >> http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/nb/news-nouvelles/media-medias-eng.htm >> >> http://nb.rcmpvet.ca/Newsletters/VetsReview/nlnov06.pdf >> >> From: Gilles Moreau Gilles.Moreau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca >> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 08:03:22 -0500 >> Subject: Re: Lets ee if the really nasty Newfy Lawyer Danny Boy >> Millions will explain this email to you or your boss Vic Toews EH >> Constable Peddle??? >> To: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com >> >> Please cease and desist from using my name in your emails. >> >> Gilles Moreau, Chief Superintendent, CHRP and ACC >> Director General >> HR Transformation >> 73 Leikin Drive, M5-2-502 >> Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0R2 >> >> Tel 613-843-6039 >> Cel 613-818-6947 >> >> Gilles Moreau, surintendant principal, CRHA et ACC >> Directeur général de la Transformation des ressources humaines >> 73 Leikin, pièce M5-2-502 >> Ottawa, ON K1A 0R2 >> >> tél 613-843-6039 >> cel 613-818-6947 >> gilles.moreau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca >>
BMO ran $288M 'abusive' tax dodge: CRA Trial set for June over bank's convoluted arrangement of shell companies, loans and stock swaps By Zach Dubinsky, Harvey Cashore, CBC News Posted: Nov 08, 2017 5:00 AM ET
To this day, global climate policy is still shaped by the agenda of Maurice Strong, a Canadian multimillionaire
The Paris climate conference last week. Strong believed that rich countries must pay to solve a crisis they created… but now the developing countries won’t play ballPhoto: REUTERS
A very odd thing happened last weekend. The death was announced of the man who, in the past 40 years, has arguably been more influential on global politics than any other single individual. Yet the world scarcely noticed.
Had it not been for this man, we would not last week have seen 150 heads of government joining 40,000 delegates in Paris for that mammoth climate conference: the 21st such get-together since, in 1992, he masterminded the Rio “Earth Summit”, the largest political gathering in history. Yet few people even know his name.
"During the Second World War, having emerged from humble origins in the Great Depression, Strong became convinced that the new United Nations should become a world government"
Some years back, when I was researching for a book called The Real Global Warming Disaster, charting how the late-20th-century panic over climate change came about, few things surprised me more than to discover the absolutely central role played in the whole story by a Canadian socialist multimillionaire, Maurice Strong.
During the Second World War, having emerged from humble origins in the Great Depression, Strong became convinced that the new United Nations should become a world government, dedicated to ensuring that the wealth enjoyed by the richer countries of the West should be spread out around the world’s underprivileged majority.
Maurice Strong: he established the UN?s environmental agenda (Canadian Press/AP)
In the Sixties, having become very rich himself from Canada’s oil industry, Strong came to see that the key to his vision was “environmentalism”, the one cause the UN could harness to make itself a truly powerful world government.
A superb political operator, in 1972 he set up a UN “Environment Conference” in Stockholm, to declare that the Earth’s resources were the common inheritance of all mankind. They should no longer be exploited for the benefit of only a few countries, at the expense of poorer countries across the globe.
To pursue this, he became founding director of a new agency, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), and in the Eighties he took up the cause of a tiny group of international meteorologists who had come to believe that the world faced catastrophic warming. In 1988, UNEP sponsored this little group into setting up the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
In 1992, now allied with the IPCC, Strong pulled off his greatest coup when he set up another new body, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), to stage that colossal “Earth Summit” over which he presided in Rio, arranging for it to be attended not only by 108 world leaders and 100,000 others but also by 20,000 UN-funded “green activists”.
It is the UNFCCC which in effect has dictated the global climate change agenda ever since. Almost yearly it has staged huge conferences, notably those at Kyoto (1997), Copenhagen (2009) and the present one in Paris. And all along it has been Strong’s ideology, enshrined at Rio in “Agenda 21”, which has continued to shape the entire process, centred on the principle that the richer developed countries must pay for a problem they created, to the financial benefit of all those “developing countries” that have been its main victims.
In 2005, Strong was caught having been illicitly paid $1 million from the UN’s Oil for Food programme, supposedly set up to allow Saddam Hussein to pay in oil to feed starving Iraqis. He retired to a flat in Beijing, where he had been close to China’s Communist leaders back to Mao. It was from there that he returned home to Canada to die,on November 27.
"Strong’s dream is more than ever falling apart"
To this day, global climate policy is still shaped by Strong’s Agenda 21, as was highlighted last February when Christiana Figueres, the Costa Rican Marxist now head of the UNFCCC and organiser of the Paris conference, urged that the West should give “$1 trillion a year” to the “developing” world.
But the wonderful irony is that the reason why Paris will fail, like Copenhagen before it, is that those “developing countries”, led by China and India – now the world’s first and third largest “CO2 emitters” – have not the slightest intention of curbing their emissions. It is for the West to do that, for creating “the problem”. Thus, just as he died, Strong’s dream is more than ever falling apart – thanks to those very countries his socialist vision was intended to help.
Maurice Strong: he established the UN?s environmental agenda (Canadian Press/AP)