https://twitter.com/DavidRayAmos/with_replies
David Raymond Amos @DavidRayAmos
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/roberge-police-commission-1.4963848
Steve Roberge out as head of police watchdog
New Brunswick Police Commission declines comment, calling Roberge's departure a 'human resources matter'
The province's independent police watchdog has had a change at the top.
New Brunswick Police Commission executive director Steve Roberge "is no longer employed by the Province of New Brunswick" as of Wednesday, the commission confirmed.
"The commission will not comment any further as this is a human resources matter," acting executive director Jill Whalen wrote in an emailed statement.
The New Brunswick Police Association has been critical of the way the commission, under Roberge's leadership, handled investigations into police officers.
That includes a Police Act investigation into former Saint John deputy police chief Glen McCloskey's conduct during the first Dennis Oland trial.
"The issue here, it's the mentality of this person who has an abusive, authoritarian way of trying to operate up there," association executive director Bob Davidson said.
He described McCloskey as a "casualty of this mentality."
"We do not want any more officers into this situation where he can destroy them," Davidson said.
CBC News was not able to reach Roberge last week to respond to the association's comments.
Attempts to reach him on Wednesday have also been unsuccessful.
The commission has asked Public Safety Minister Carl Urquhart "to appoint an independent third party" to look into the association's allegations "on the commission's processes and procedures," the commission said in a statement.
"The commission will fully co-operate with this process and is committed to continually reviewing the way it provides quality services to citizens and the police community and meets its mandate with integrity and impartiality."
It's not clear whether that review will look at a privacy breach involving McCloskey.
![]()
Glen McCloskey, former deputy police chief in Saint John, speaks at a news conference held last week by the New Brunswick Police Association. (Roger Cosman/CBC)
The commission was found to have "breached [McCloskey's] privacy on two instances by disclosing his personal information to the [Oland trial] Crown Prosecutors and the Defence Team on July 4 and 12, 2017," according to a December report from Integrity Commissioner Alexandre Deschênes.
McCloskey's personal information was contained in the New Brunswick Police Commission file in relation to the Police Act complaint against McCloskey, the report says.
The report doesn't specify what kind of personal information was disclosed. McCloskey filed a complaint, which prompted Deschênes's investigation.
"As with any case of a violation of privacy, we, unfortunately, cannot turn back the clock to prevent the breach from occurring," Deschênes wrote in his decision.
He did not make any recommendations arising out of his findings.
Last week wasn't the first time the association has called for Roberge's removal.
The association threatened legal action against the commission in 2016 over comments Roberge made about the association.
The association and the watchdog group also clashed over high-profile Police Act investigations that ultimately led to Fredericton police officers losing their jobs.
The commission, an "independent civilian oversight body," is responsible for managing the "public complaints process into the conduct" of municipal and regional police officers in the province.
Roberge, a former RCMP officer, reported to a government-appointed commission in his role as executive director.
He'd been in the job since 2014.
New Brunswick Police Commission executive director Steve Roberge "is no longer employed by the Province of New Brunswick" as of Wednesday, the commission confirmed.
"The commission will not comment any further as this is a human resources matter," acting executive director Jill Whalen wrote in an emailed statement.
- Police association slams Police Act investigation into ex-deputy police chief
- N.B. Police Association threatens legal action against police commission
The New Brunswick Police Association has been critical of the way the commission, under Roberge's leadership, handled investigations into police officers.
That includes a Police Act investigation into former Saint John deputy police chief Glen McCloskey's conduct during the first Dennis Oland trial.
"The issue here, it's the mentality of this person who has an abusive, authoritarian way of trying to operate up there," association executive director Bob Davidson said.
He described McCloskey as a "casualty of this mentality."
"We do not want any more officers into this situation where he can destroy them," Davidson said.
CBC News was not able to reach Roberge last week to respond to the association's comments.
Attempts to reach him on Wednesday have also been unsuccessful.
Commission breached privacy
The commission has asked Public Safety Minister Carl Urquhart "to appoint an independent third party" to look into the association's allegations "on the commission's processes and procedures," the commission said in a statement.
"The commission will fully co-operate with this process and is committed to continually reviewing the way it provides quality services to citizens and the police community and meets its mandate with integrity and impartiality."
It's not clear whether that review will look at a privacy breach involving McCloskey.
McCloskey's personal information was contained in the New Brunswick Police Commission file in relation to the Police Act complaint against McCloskey, the report says.
The report doesn't specify what kind of personal information was disclosed. McCloskey filed a complaint, which prompted Deschênes's investigation.
"As with any case of a violation of privacy, we, unfortunately, cannot turn back the clock to prevent the breach from occurring," Deschênes wrote in his decision.
He did not make any recommendations arising out of his findings.
Roberge hired in 2014
Last week wasn't the first time the association has called for Roberge's removal.
The association threatened legal action against the commission in 2016 over comments Roberge made about the association.
The association and the watchdog group also clashed over high-profile Police Act investigations that ultimately led to Fredericton police officers losing their jobs.
The commission, an "independent civilian oversight body," is responsible for managing the "public complaints process into the conduct" of municipal and regional police officers in the province.
Roberge, a former RCMP officer, reported to a government-appointed commission in his role as executive director.
He'd been in the job since 2014.
About the Author
---------- Original message ----------
From: "Roberge, Steve (NBPC/CPNB)"<Steve.Roberge@gnb.ca>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 18:29:04 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Methinks whereas l'honorable Mélanie Joly
dans ses fonctions de ministre fédérale des langues officielles et de
la Francophonie I should ask her opinion of my ENGLISH ONLY Barring
Document N'esy Pas Danny Boy Bussieres?
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Je serais absent du 20 au 26 octobre. Veuillez vous addresser a Jill
Whalen si votre requete est urgente.
I will be away from October 20 to 26. Please contact Jill Whalen if
your query is urgent.
http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.com/2015/09/v-behaviorurldefaultvmlo.html
Friday, 18 September 2015
David Raymond Amos Versus The Crown T-1557-15
Court File No. T-1557-15
FEDERAL COURT
BETWEEN:
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
Plaintiff
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
The Facts of this Matter
25. The Plaintiff states that on June 24, 2004 within minutes of his being barred, the Sergeant-at-Arms, two members of the FPF and one Commissionaire witnessed him deliver a large number of documents to the attention of two lawyers in the office of the opposition next door. He suspects that the Sergeant-at-Arms read at least the cover letter when his documents were in his care because to support his right to bar a citizen in front two members of the FPF he falsely accused the Plaintiff of attempting to serve documents while in the legislative building.
26. The Plaintiff states that within the hour of being barred, the Plaintiff visited the headquarters of the FPF and attempted to meet with its Chief in order to discuss the false allegations and the threat of arrest. Whereas a Corporal denied access to his Chief, the Plaintiff contacted the City Solicitor of Fredericton because he knew him personally in younger days. After waiting one week for someone to get back to him, the Plaintiff visited the constituency office of the Premier and the law office of a former Premier of NB and gave them many documents with the same cover letter addressing his concern about being barred from the legislative properties amongst other issues. One month later the Attorney General of NB sent an answer similar to what the Deputy Prime Minister sent eight months earlier telling him to take up his concerns with the police and ignored the issue of a citizen being barred and threatened by the police. A lawyer acting as the NB Ombudsman did not wish deal with the government on his behalf suggested that the Plaintiff take up his concerns with the New Brunswick Police Commission (NBPC) and introduced them. The Plaintiff, his wife and a lawyer met with the NBPC. The NBPC acknowledged the complaint and asked the FPF to investigate their questionable actions. In the eleven years since the NBPC never responded and the Plaintiff knows why. The NBPC and Governor General have many of his documents and one is a letter to the Commissioner of the RCMP. The Plaintiff is well aware the Chair of the NBPC in 2004 was also the Chief Coroner whom he testified before on July 15, 1982 and he clearly informed the Crown he assisted in a successful civil lawsuit against the RCMP about a wrongful death.
27. The Plaintiff states that the Sergeant-at-Arms, two Commissionaires, a librarian, and two members of the FPF knew that the Plaintiff was in legislative assembly on June 24, 2004 looking for the “blogger” Charles Leblanc. While the Plaintiff was waiting for Charles Leblanc to arrive that day he exercised his democratic right to witness the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly from the gallery.
28. The Plaintiff states that apparently a friend of the Crown put a new spin on this matter the following day. The Crown’s corporate media has never said anything about the Crown’s malicious actions barring him it has had lots to say about the barring the blogger Charles Leblanc two years later and it has made the arrests and prosecutions of him well known. On June 25, 2004 Charles Leblanc a well-known friend of the MLAs, the Sergeant-at-Arms, the Commissionaires, the RCMP and the Fredericton Police Force falsely reported in the social media that the Plaintiff had been “shown the door”claiming that he had attempted to interrupt the proceedings in the Legislature by speaking from the gallery. The Crown knows if that were true it would have been recorded in the legislative records. The words of Charles Leblanc an important witness to be called to testify as to what he knows about this matter are as follows
“IS ELVY ROBICHAID SEEING THE LIGHT????
by Charles LeBlanc Friday, Jun. 25, 2004 at 10:56 AM
Fredericton updates from Charles
“IS ELVY ROBICHAID SEEING THE LIGHT????
by Charles LeBlanc Friday, Jun. 25, 2004 at 10:56 AM
Fredericton updates from Charles
“There’s always undercovers cops around but only when the House is in session. As God as my witness I hope nothing happens but it’s just a matter of time till someone is push over the edge. I guess a guy name David Amos was shown the door yesterday at the Legislature. This guy is running as an Independent candidate in the riding of Fundy Royal. I met the guy over the net and he has a beef with our political bureaucrats. I admire people fighting for what they believe in but you can’t get carried away. I guess in this case? He wanted to speak from the Gallery and that’s a big faux pas!”
29. The Plaintiff states that he was not surprised that for the benefit of his political opponents, servants of the Crown would practice such malice against a citizen seeking public office. Three weeks before the Plaintiff was barred in 2004 Elections Canada’s lawyers waited until the very last minute to admit that section 3 of the Charterexisted and that it affirmed his right to run as an Independent.
30. The Plaintiff states that he has studied the actions of journalists, politicians and their lawyers for many years and has argued many. He has no doubt that during the time of a federal election the Crown would not have barred any member of a wealthy well known political party from any parliamentary property in Canada without dealing with a Charter argument in court and a host of journalists almost immediately. With that in mind the Plaintiff gathered the evidence to support this claim and waited until the CBC reported that the Prime Minister had asked the Governor General to drop a writ. Now history tells us all that the writ has been dropped early in order for the Prime Minister to cause the most expensive and one of the longest federal elections in the history of Canada on a date mandated by a law that his wealthy political party created for its benefit. Now that the stock markets are in a turmoil again the Office of the Inspector General of the SEC is acknowledging the Plaintiff’s emails but only after they were made aware that he received an ethical answer from a global organization that oversees auditors. Recent events have proven to the Plaintiff that it is important that he file this action in Federal Court as soon as possible in order see if the Harer government wishes to continue barring him from parliamentary property before polling day.
31. The Plaintiff states that during the election of the 38th Parliament not one of the employees of the CBC denied the fact that it had acted in a deliberate partisan fashion and ignored the Crown Corporation’s mandate. CBC reported that there were five candidates on the ballot in Fundy but failed to name the Plaintiff in their website or on the television and the radio. Nothing surprised the Plaintiff about the actions of the CBC but they should not have laughed at him when he pointed out other citizens should be afforded equal opportunity to hear of him.
32. The Plaintiff states that many politicians knew that the CBC had hard copy of two lawsuits of his since 2002 and their journalists had been laughing at him for two years. It was a profound mistake for CBC to ignore his candidacynow that he did as he promised in a statement of one lawsuit and was running for public office in Canada. As CBC continued serving the interests of the politicians who provided the funding sourced from the Canadian taxpayer other citizens noticed that the CBC was ignoring his candidacy. One journalist who had laughed at him called back and tried to make a deal after the Plaintiff had called the Ombudsman for CBC complaining of him and his associates only to be laughed at some more and invited to sue CBC. CBC continued to ignore the Plaintiff even though the popular former CBC reporter Mike Duffy was now employed by their largest corporate competitor, CTV and they claimed Fundy was a riding to watch and at least three newspapers and even the CBC’s blogger friend Charles Leblanc had chosen to put his strange spin the actions and words of the Plaintiff while calling him a Hells Angel. However, the aforementioned CBC journalist did not keep his job very long after his boss and three directors of CBC received the very same documents and CD that the Plaintiff’s political opponents had in their possession. (The former CBC journalist did get a job with the government of NB and has continued with his obvious malice ever since)
33. The Plaintiff states that the CBC would not have ignored its mandate and the standing of a candidate if he or she were a member of the Liberal Party or the newly merged Conservative parties or the Bloc Quebecois Party or the Green Party or the New Democratic Party without expecting to deal with legions of lawyers. CBC had no legal right whatsoever to ignore the Plaintiff merely because he was an Independent. In fact the mandate of CBC as a publicly owned broadcaster dictates that he must not be ignored whether he be a member of a powerful political party or not. With regards to this complaint, on June 24, 2004 there were many journalists inside the legislative properties of NB not just CBC. They published nothing about the Plaintiff of his running for public office or his being barred or even after their blogger friend, Charles Leblanc certainly did.
34. The Plaintiff states that in June of 2006 Charles Leblanc was also barred from the same legislative properties but not the Public Documents Building on the UNB campus. More importantly the Sergeant-at-Arms was clever enough not to sign or date the English only document this time. Thus Charles Leblanc who usually demands things in French from the government when he is in trouble was never barred at all. The CBC immediately reported the barring of Charles Leblanc falsely claiming that the Sergeant-at-Arms had signed the Barring Notice. CBC wrote the Sergeant-at-Arms admitted that he had barred about six others but did not disclose as to who they were. CBC did not ask who who the other citizens were because they knew they would have to name the Plaintiff as well. Many people have protested the barring of Charles Leblanc and a petition to have it revoked was placed in the public record of the legislative assembly to no avail. In 2006 Charles Leblanc was arrested in Saint John and in 2011 in Fredericton. In 2009 and 2012 the FPF arrested their blogging friend Charles Leblanc on the legislative properties. The CBC reported each time but failed to follow up and investigate and report why the Crown refused to charge Charles Leblanc in both instances. The CBC knows that as soon as the Plaintiff contacted the politicians and police to remind them that he would appreciate being called to testify at Charles Leblanc’s trial as a hostile but ethical witness about the barring actions of the Crown it would never go forward with the charges. Leblanc was arrested by the FPF two other times in recent years and he is on trial right now. The CBC knows the Plaintiff has talked to members of the RCMP, the FPF, the Saint John Police Force, the Miramichi Police Force and the Edmundston Police Force who were investigating Leblanc for various reasons since 2006. The police usually denied knowing who the Plaintiff was as they refused to answer his emails. The Plaintiff knows the reason why Charles Leblanc was barred from legislative property. He agrees with the Crown doing so but it failed to allow the nasty blogger the right to due process of law just like it did with and several others. He has never understood why the Crown has not charged Leblanc under sections 300 and 319of the Criminal Code in lieu of arresting him for protesting too loudly or possible child porn or trespass or punching an equally nasty poetic beggar.
35. The Plaintiff states that by the end of November of 2004 a lawyer in the employ of the Attorney General of NB had answered him in writing and the FPF, two lawyers, the Mayor and a city councilor of Fredericton had some very serious email exchanges with the Plaintiff. The only responses to the Plaintiff about the breach of his right to peaceful assembly came from the (NBPC) on September 14, 2004 acknowledging his complaint (File no 2110-04-11) and two letters byway of email from the FPF. On September 30, 2004 a Staff Sergeant of the FPF wrote that he was in possession of the complaint and requested evidence to support the Plaintiff’s statement that he had been barred from the legislative properties for “political reasons not legal reasons” The Plaintiff responded and suggested that the FPF listen to the tape of the interview he had with the NBPC and study all the evidence he gave to the NBPC in the presence of a lawyer as a witness. The Staff Sergeant responded on October 29, 2004 stating that he had detailed reports from fellow members of the FPF and he had interviewed the Sergeant-at-Arms. He claimed that his fellow police officers acted appropriately and he would inform the Chief of the FPF that he did not have sufficient cause under the Police Actto investigate the complaint the Plaintiff registered with the NBPC against the FPF. The Plaintiff pointed out that the conflict of interest but grateful the FPF acknowledged the incident. The Mayor of Fredericton found no humour in that fact and sent the Plaintiff many emails within minutes no doubt in an effort to overload his email account. In 2003 the Plaintiff had demanded the Crown investigate the actions of RCMP now the RCMP should do the same with the Crown because that para-military police force has jurisdiction everywhere in Canada including all public and private property controlled by the Crown even military bases. The words of the Sergeant-at-Arms, Commissionaires and police were witnessed by only the Plaintiff. A legal action about their offences against his rights under the Charter would boil down to their word against his. Evidence was required because he was outnumbered and attacked by people the Crown employed to understand the law. It was doubtful they would act ethically and until June 16, 2006 the Crown refused to put anything in writing to prove this claim about the fact that the Plaintiff is barred from parliamentary properties.
36. The Plaintiff states that the Crown is aware that far greater offences have been practiced within the Capital District of NB by the FPF and the RCMP against the Plaintiff. Many servants of the Crown have challenged him to seek relief in a Canadian provincial court. The Plaintiff will not oblige Crown attorneys of thier desires he will file in a court of a country at a time he chooses. Time is on the Plaintiff’s side even though he getting old and was finally allowed to collect his Canada Pension. His children and grandchildren are still very young. Whatever was done against the Plaintiff was done against his Clan as well. All of the Plaintiff’s heirs are Canadian citizens and two of them are American citizens as well. The Crown, INTERPOL and the American law enforcement authorities cannot deny that there is no statute of limitations on certain crimes. The problem the Plaintiff is finding an ethical journalist to report about the legal actions that he and the Crown have already been involved in since 1982.
37. The Plaintiff states that in October of 2004 if the Staff Sergeant of the FPF had listened to the tape of his interview with the NBPC and studied the documents they have in their possession he would not have been so quick to dismiss the Plaintiff and his concerns in such a fashion. Their many lawyers hardly ever allow corrupt police officers to admit that the Plaintiff exists or put their malice towards him in writing. The Plaintiff had explained to the NBPC what transpired on June 24th, 2004. To explain briefly the police should have known instantly the Sergeant-at-Arms actions were for political reasons as soon as he turned in the guest pass and picked up his documents as he stepped outside the building. While the Plaintiff was inside the legislative building he spoke to only three employees two Commissionaires and the librarian. He did not interfere with the proceedings in the House as he watched the MLAs and their assistants from the gallery, some of whom he knew personally. He did notice political pundits in the building. One Cabinet Minister’s assistant had been following him for a couple of days. His political foes wanted him off the property immediately but they knew that he was not shy of litigation if the Crown attempted to place a malicious charge against him. Therefore they elected the Sergeant-at-Arms to try bully the Plaintiff.
38. The Plaintiff states that he satisfied himself as to the reasons behind the blatant malice once he asked Sergeant-at-Arms and the police three questions as follows:
(1) The Plaintiff first asked was why he was being barred from the legislative property. The Sergeant-at-Arms falsely claimed in front of the police that the Plaintiff had tried to serve documents on somebody inside the parliamentary building. The Commissionaires and police knew that was untrue because they all witnessed the fact that the Plaintiff had left all the documents in his possession with the Commissionaire at the entrance before he was allowed into the building and they all watched him pick up the same documents as he turned in a visitor’s pass after he was asked to step outside of the building.
(2) The second question was to the police to see if they agreed to the false claim of the Sergeant-at-Arms and if they would identify themselves. After the Sergeant-at-Arms said something quickly in French and both police officers stated that they agreed with him but only one would state his name and rank.
(3) The Plaintiff then asked the Sergeant-at-Arms and the police if they thought they had jurisdiction over him. They all said yes but refused to take any documents from the Plaintiff just as the Deputy Prime Minister suggested.
39. The Plaintiff states that three people who were mentioned during the aforesaid meeting with the NBPC were Charles Leblanc, Byron Prior and the most wanted American gangster Whitey Bulger. All three were well aware of the Plaintiff and his actions. More importantly the NBPC were made well aware of the RCMP’s knowledge of his possession of many American police surveillance wiretap tapes. The NBPC were shown the very same tapes that he had promised to give to the Suffolk County District Attorney in the Dorchester District Court of Boston Massachusetts before a hearing to discuss an illegal summons to answer a malicious unsigned criminal complaint (Docket no. 0407CR004623). When the Plaintiff did so he was falsely imprisoned under the charges of “other”.
40. The Plaintiff states that an NBPC Commissioner did ask if they should take the original wiretap tapes. The Plaintiff said no and that the RCMP already had some but the NBPC could make copies of the ones before them. The NBPC declined and said they did not have jurisdiction over the RCMP and that they only wished to investigate why the FPF had threatened to arrest him on June 24th, 2004.
41. The Plaintiff states that read a few legal actions involving the NBPC. He truly believes that NBPC has a mandate to oversee the actions of the RCMP in the employ of municipalities and the government of NB. On April 12, 2013 an employee denied that the NBPC it has any concerns with the RCMP, so he forwarded the NBPC a judgment with an important statement. Whenever he called the NBPC afterwards she did not allow him to speak to anyone and denied receiving any emails even though several were published on the Internet. The judgment pertains to Miramichi Agricultural Exhibition Association Ltd. v. Chatham (Town) 1995 CanLII 3862 (NB QB). The statement reads as follows:
“Section 20 of the Police Act authorizes the Police Commission to assess the adequacy of each police force and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and determine whether each municipality and the Province is discharging its responsibility for the maintenance of an adequate level of policing.”
42. The Plaintiff states that in 2014 a confidential letter from the lawyer who is now the chair of the NBPC was published by Charles Leblanc. Within the aforesaid letter by a lawyer who was an officer in the Canadian Forces when the Plaintiff was illegally barred in 2004 explained why he and some other unnamed lawyers claimed that the Chief of the FPF and the NBPC did not have jurisdiction over the legislative properties in order to investigate the wrongs of the members of FPF under the Police Act. The lawyers claimed that whereas the police were acting under the orders of the Sergeant-at-Arms the immunity afforded them by parliamentary privilege would be undermined if the Chief of the FPF and the NBPC upheld the law and the Charter.
43. The Plaintiff states that as soon as he read the aforesaid letter he had a deeper understanding as to why the NBPC and the FPF had ignored his concerns for ten years and have refused to answer hard copy or an email or even come to the phone or return a call for ten years. He did manage to talk the lawyer who wrote the letter. The lawyer just like another lawyer who was the Chair of the NBPC since 2004 was offended that the Plaintiff would dare to call his law office instead of the NBPC. They both knew the reason was because every time he called the NBPC, the Commissioners and their executive directors were never available. They definitely did not return calls or answer emails from the Plaintiff. The assistant who had denied receiving any emails during his last conversation with her in May of 2015 said that NBPC was never going to talk to him again. It appears the NBPC believe that parliamentary privileges extend to them as well. Whether or not that is true the NBPC must agree that the RCMP have no civilian oversight whatsoever and that it is the only police force that has jurisdiction to investigate the actions of the Crown on parliamentary properties, the Canadian Forces and their semi-retired cohorts within the Corps of Commissionaires. It appears to the Plaintiff that the NBPC will not investigate the RCMP and in return the RCMP will not investigate them. However, they do report to the Crown and the Crown answers to the citizens it purportedly serves and protects.
44. The Plaintiff states that claimed parliamentary privileges of public officials are not above the rule of law just because some unnamed lawyers deem it to be so. Some of the privileges parliamentarians lay claim to cannot be found in the Constitution or any other Act. They are implied by longstanding parliamentary traditions and seldom challenged in a court of law.
45. The Plaintiff states that claimed parliamentary privileges must not be exercised secretly by the Crown against a citizen of an open and just democracy because he visited parliamentary properties while exercising his rights under the Charter and attempting to unseat its political friends. He vividly recalls the last encounter with the Sergeant-at-Arms that caused the Crown to create a “Barring Notice”.
46. The Plaintiff states that on or about March 24th, 2006 he went to the Office of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner of NB to give him the same documents he had promised the Commissioner of Federal Judicial Affairs, the Clerk of the Privy Council, Independent MP Andre Arthur, Independent MLA Tanker O’Malley and many others. The Commissionaire guarding door would not allow him in the building or take the documents. The Sergeant-at-Arms must have been notified because he was soon to appear and threatened to have the Plaintiff arrested again. He asked why this time. The Sergeant-at-Arms said he had already been warned to stay off legislative property. The Plaintiff pointed out the fact that he was not on the legislative property across the street but if the Crown wished to press false charges against him the police should be called then he would look forward to arguing the Sergeant-at-Arms in a court of law. The Sergeant-at-Arms claimed that they were standing on parliamentary property but did not call the police.
47. The Plaintiff states that he then informed the Sergeant-at-Arms if he thought he had a legal right to bar a citizen from parliamentary properties he should have the Crown put the reasons to do so in writing just like the NBPC had demanded of him when he complained of the Sergeant-at-Arms and the FPF about their malevolent actions against him two years before. There was no response from the Sergeant-at-Arms to that simple statement.
48. The Plaintiff states that he then asked the Sergeant-at-Arms in front of witnesses if he still thought he had jurisdiction over him on King Street and the response was yes. So the Plaintiff gave him the documents and a CD destined for the Conflict of Interest Commissioner and demanded an answer in writing. The Sergeant-at-Arms took the documents but refused to sign a receipt for them. He tried to take picture but the Sergeant-at-Arms crossed King Street and around the corner too quickly. The Plaintiff received no answer from Conflict of Interest Commissioner about his concerns. He called and emailed a copy of the cover letter to the Commissioner’s office to see if it received his documents and was ignored. The Commissionaire watching that day knows who took the documents.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/police-association-being-bullied-in-misappropriation-probe-says-president-1.3135944
Police Association being 'bullied' in misappropriation probe, says president
Dean Secord has called lawyer about concerns with Police Commission investigator in Fredericton officer case
The president of the New Brunswick Police Association alleges his members are being "bullied" by an investigator, who is looking into allegations that a Fredericton police officer misappropriated funds from the association while a member of its executive.
![]()
The New Brunswick Police Association decided not to file a criminal complaint against the Fredericton police officer after he paid an undisclosed amount of money to the association. (Daniel McHardie/CBC)
"[This investigator is] demanding certain items and we have a concern with his demeanour in the way he's demanding this," he said.
The NBPC has been contacted by a lawyer, confirmed executive director Steve Roberge. But he contends it was pertaining to evidence connected to the investigation.
Roberge expects the investigation, which was sparked by a conduct complaint about the unnamed officer by Fredericton Police Chief Leanne Fitch, should be complete in less than six months.
"Our investigator will interview all members of the NBPA executive, and if they are law enforcement personnel, then they are obligated, under the Police Act, to co-operate," he said.
Secord says he still hasn't been contacted by the investigator. "And I'm the president."
Last month, Secord said the NBPA would not be filing a criminal complaint against the accused member, who is currently suspended from the Fredericton Police Force with pay.
Secord said the decision was taken after the officer paid an amount of money to the NBPA. The paid amount is not necessarily the amount allegedly misappropriated, he said.
The jurisdiction for any criminal investigation would rest with the RCMP, because the officer lives outside the city of Fredericton, Secord said. The RCMP have refused to comment on the matter.
The NBPC says possible sanctions against an officer it finds guilty of wrongdoing can range from a verbal reprimand to dismissal.
Dean Secord says he has contacted a lawyer about his concerns regarding the investigator, who is working on behalf of the New Brunswick Police Commission (NBPC) — a police oversight body.
"We are more than willing to co-operate and we want to co-operate to put this matter behind us, but we are not going to be intimidated or bullied to give statements," said Secord, speaking on behalf of the NBPA, a lobby group representing police officers at the provincial level."[This investigator is] demanding certain items and we have a concern with his demeanour in the way he's demanding this," he said.
Law enforcement obligated to co-operate
The NBPC has been contacted by a lawyer, confirmed executive director Steve Roberge. But he contends it was pertaining to evidence connected to the investigation.
Roberge expects the investigation, which was sparked by a conduct complaint about the unnamed officer by Fredericton Police Chief Leanne Fitch, should be complete in less than six months.
"Our investigator will interview all members of the NBPA executive, and if they are law enforcement personnel, then they are obligated, under the Police Act, to co-operate," he said.
Secord says he still hasn't been contacted by the investigator. "And I'm the president."
Last month, Secord said the NBPA would not be filing a criminal complaint against the accused member, who is currently suspended from the Fredericton Police Force with pay.
Secord said the decision was taken after the officer paid an amount of money to the NBPA. The paid amount is not necessarily the amount allegedly misappropriated, he said.
The jurisdiction for any criminal investigation would rest with the RCMP, because the officer lives outside the city of Fredericton, Secord said. The RCMP have refused to comment on the matter.
The NBPC says possible sanctions against an officer it finds guilty of wrongdoing can range from a verbal reprimand to dismissal.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/mike-cook-fraud-1.4627270
Suspended Fredericton officer pleads guilty to defrauding police association
Const. Michael Cook faced 2 charges, related to fraud and theft, but has only entered 1 plea so far
A suspended Fredericton Police Force officer has pleaded guilty to defrauding the New Brunswick Police Association of more than $5,000 — an indictable offence that could come with a 14-year prison sentence.
Const. Michael [Mike] Cook, 39, a former treasurer for the association, was charged with fraud and theft over $5,000. He appeared in Burton provincial court Thursday morning where he pleaded guilty to the charge of fraud.
The theft charge carries a sentence of up to 10 years. According to court officials, that case has been set over pending an agreement of facts.
The fraud is believed to have happened between Oct. 16, 2012 and Feb. 26, 2015. The theft allegedly occurred between Dec. 5, 2012 and Feb. 26, 2015.
RCMP laid the two charges against Cook in Fredericton provincial court on Jan. 5, 2017.
An investigation was launched following an allegation of misappropriation of funds.
Police Chief Leanne Fitch initially filed a conduct complaint with the New Brunswick Police Commission against a then-unidentified officer, whom she suspended with pay almost three years ago.
After the criminal allegations emerged, the matter was forwarded to the RCMP and the conduct complaint was suspended in order to not hinder the criminal investigation.
Alycia Bartlett, a spokesperson with the Fredericton Police Force, said in an email that the force was "aware" of Thursday's court proceedings involving Cook.
"Any further comment will be reserved until such time that court matters have concluded, and sentencing has taken place," she wrote.
"Following the conclusion of the criminal matter, a Police Act Investigation will proceed, and we need to be cognizant not to impact that process in any way. Const. Cook will now be suspended without pay."
Cook's defence attorney, George Kalinowski, declined to comment Thursday afternoon.
His client is scheduled to appear in court again on July 19 for sentencing.
Const. Michael [Mike] Cook, 39, a former treasurer for the association, was charged with fraud and theft over $5,000. He appeared in Burton provincial court Thursday morning where he pleaded guilty to the charge of fraud.
The theft charge carries a sentence of up to 10 years. According to court officials, that case has been set over pending an agreement of facts.
The fraud is believed to have happened between Oct. 16, 2012 and Feb. 26, 2015. The theft allegedly occurred between Dec. 5, 2012 and Feb. 26, 2015.
Investigation launched
RCMP laid the two charges against Cook in Fredericton provincial court on Jan. 5, 2017.
An investigation was launched following an allegation of misappropriation of funds.
Police Chief Leanne Fitch initially filed a conduct complaint with the New Brunswick Police Commission against a then-unidentified officer, whom she suspended with pay almost three years ago.
After the criminal allegations emerged, the matter was forwarded to the RCMP and the conduct complaint was suspended in order to not hinder the criminal investigation.
Alycia Bartlett, a spokesperson with the Fredericton Police Force, said in an email that the force was "aware" of Thursday's court proceedings involving Cook.
"Any further comment will be reserved until such time that court matters have concluded, and sentencing has taken place," she wrote.
"Following the conclusion of the criminal matter, a Police Act Investigation will proceed, and we need to be cognizant not to impact that process in any way. Const. Cook will now be suspended without pay."
Cook's defence attorney, George Kalinowski, declined to comment Thursday afternoon.
His client is scheduled to appear in court again on July 19 for sentencing.
Trust that I had a conversation about my lawsuit in Federal Court with the lawyer Harold Doherty as soon as I watched Chucky Leblanc's video. Need I say that he played dumb?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHpPORf5zZU
New Brunswick Police Association is asked by Blogger about dirty Fredericton Police Force!
194 views
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/police-association-demand-removal-1.3414113
N.B. Police Association threatens legal action against police commission
N.B. Police Association demands removal of the police commission's executive director, Steve Roberge
The New Brunswick Police Association is calling for Steve Roberge's removal as executive director of the New Brunswick Police Commission.
"At the end of the day, he's the only one who's running the law under the police act. For him to come out and make the comments that he did, to remain in that position, will be a joke," said Secord.
The N.B. Police Commission is an independent oversight body that investigates and resolves citizens' complaints relating to the conduct of police officers as well as other aspects of police services in the province.
The association had sent a letter to the commission on Jan. 18 threatening legal action if it did get get a retraction, apology and removal. The association said Roberge's defamatory comments had caused damage to its executive members.
The apology and retraction came after Roberge made statements to the media earlier this month saying the executive was under investigation.
In the statement issued Jan. 18 by the police commission and signed by Roberge and Cormier, the commission said, "Any part of the statements to the media by Mr. Roberge and any inference from those statements that the ongoing criminal investigation is about the current Executive of the New Brunswick Police Association or any of its current Executive members, including Mr. Davidson, is false, incorrect, and untrue.
"To the knowledge of the Commission, the only ongoing criminal investigation is respecting a person who was a member of the Police Association Executive in 2015 and not any present member of the Police Association Executive."
CBC News contacted the commission Thursday but no one was available for comment.
CBC's Journalistic Standards and PracticesWhile the police association says it accepts an apology and retraction issued by Roberge and police commission chair Ronald Cormier over statements the association says were defamatory of the labour group's executive, the association still wants Roberge removed from his position.
The association says it will take legal action against the police commission if the demand is not met.- Police association vows to fight 'heavy-handed' commission
- Fredericton police Chief Leanne Fitch being investigated by N.B. Police Commission
"At the end of the day, he's the only one who's running the law under the police act. For him to come out and make the comments that he did, to remain in that position, will be a joke," said Secord.
The N.B. Police Commission is an independent oversight body that investigates and resolves citizens' complaints relating to the conduct of police officers as well as other aspects of police services in the province.
Demands made, apology issued
The association had sent a letter to the commission on Jan. 18 threatening legal action if it did get get a retraction, apology and removal. The association said Roberge's defamatory comments had caused damage to its executive members.
The apology and retraction came after Roberge made statements to the media earlier this month saying the executive was under investigation.
In the statement issued Jan. 18 by the police commission and signed by Roberge and Cormier, the commission said, "Any part of the statements to the media by Mr. Roberge and any inference from those statements that the ongoing criminal investigation is about the current Executive of the New Brunswick Police Association or any of its current Executive members, including Mr. Davidson, is false, incorrect, and untrue.
"To the knowledge of the Commission, the only ongoing criminal investigation is respecting a person who was a member of the Police Association Executive in 2015 and not any present member of the Police Association Executive."
CBC News contacted the commission Thursday but no one was available for comment.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/fredericton-chief-fitch-commission-investigation-1.3400485
Fredericton police Chief Leanne Fitch being investigated by N.B. Police Commission
Nature of complaint that led to investigation by independent oversight body not being disclosed
Fredericton Police Force Chief Leanne Fitch is being investigated by the New Brunswick Police Commission, the city's chief administrative officer has confirmed.
"I can confirm that I have received a complaint against the police chief and that the complaint has been handed over to the police commission for followup and that they will be investigating," Chris MacPherson stated in an email to CBC News on Tuesday.
"That is as much as I can say at this point."
The nature of the complaint that led to the investigation by the independent oversight body has not been disclosed.
Steve Roberge, executive director of the commission, declined to comment.
"As you are aware, the commission does not comment on or confirm investigations of police act matters unless they are proceeding to an arbitration hearing or criminal charges have resulted," he said.
The commission investigates and resolves citizens' complaints relating to the conduct of police officers, according to its website.
It also looks into any other aspect of police services, including the review of police force adequacy in New Brunswick.
Force spokesperson Alycia Bartlett also declined to comment, citing the ongoing investigation.
The investigation comes on the heels of two officers being fired from the force in recent weeks — constables Cherie Campbell and Jeff Smiley.
Three other officers are facing criminal charges — Sgt. Tim Sowers, Cpl. Lou Lafleur and Const. Darrell Brewer.
And another officer is being investigated by the RCMP for alleged misappropriation of funds while serving on the executive of the New Brunswick Police Association, an organization that represents unionized municipal police officers in the province.
Last week, Campbell, who was fired after a police commission arbitrator concluded she intentionally took $20-worth of makeup from Marden's Surplus & Salvage store in Houlton, Maine, on Dec. 2, 2014, and used her position as an officer to seek favourable treatment after her arrest, suggested officers have lost confidence in the leadership of the Fredericton force.
"I believe that the present leadership at the Fredericton Police Force has created a difficult, if not poisoned, work environment for the police officers there," she had said.
During the same news conference, police union president Cpl. Shane Duffy suggested fear of reprimand among officers could put the public at risk.
"In this environment we're in right now, I think most officers would think, it's going to cause a couple of seconds delay, and think that this is going to impact the rest of their career, if not end it," Duffy had said.
Fitch was cleared by the commission in October of any wrongdoing in the Smiley case.
Smiley had filed the complaint, alleging Fitch was attempting to end his career.
Fitch had filed a complaint against Smiley after a domestic assault charge against him was dropped because of a jurisdictional issue, as the alleged assault involving his common-law wife, Kim Burnett, occurred in Nova Scotia, not New Brunswick.
Smiley was subsequently fired after an arbitrator ruled he breached four counts of professional conduct standards for police officers — discreditable conduct by committing domestic violence, counselling a fellow officer to not disclose he had firearms in his possession, and two counts of improper use and care of firearms.
Fitch has been the chief of the Fredericton Police Force since June 2013, making her Atlantic Canada's first female police chief.
CBC's Journalistic Standards and Practices"I can confirm that I have received a complaint against the police chief and that the complaint has been handed over to the police commission for followup and that they will be investigating," Chris MacPherson stated in an email to CBC News on Tuesday.
"That is as much as I can say at this point."
The nature of the complaint that led to the investigation by the independent oversight body has not been disclosed.
Steve Roberge, executive director of the commission, declined to comment.
"As you are aware, the commission does not comment on or confirm investigations of police act matters unless they are proceeding to an arbitration hearing or criminal charges have resulted," he said.
The commission investigates and resolves citizens' complaints relating to the conduct of police officers, according to its website.
It also looks into any other aspect of police services, including the review of police force adequacy in New Brunswick.
Force spokesperson Alycia Bartlett also declined to comment, citing the ongoing investigation.
Latest blow to force
The investigation comes on the heels of two officers being fired from the force in recent weeks — constables Cherie Campbell and Jeff Smiley.
Three other officers are facing criminal charges — Sgt. Tim Sowers, Cpl. Lou Lafleur and Const. Darrell Brewer.
And another officer is being investigated by the RCMP for alleged misappropriation of funds while serving on the executive of the New Brunswick Police Association, an organization that represents unionized municipal police officers in the province.
Last week, Campbell, who was fired after a police commission arbitrator concluded she intentionally took $20-worth of makeup from Marden's Surplus & Salvage store in Houlton, Maine, on Dec. 2, 2014, and used her position as an officer to seek favourable treatment after her arrest, suggested officers have lost confidence in the leadership of the Fredericton force.
"I believe that the present leadership at the Fredericton Police Force has created a difficult, if not poisoned, work environment for the police officers there," she had said.
During the same news conference, police union president Cpl. Shane Duffy suggested fear of reprimand among officers could put the public at risk.
"In this environment we're in right now, I think most officers would think, it's going to cause a couple of seconds delay, and think that this is going to impact the rest of their career, if not end it," Duffy had said.
Cleared in previous complaint
Fitch was cleared by the commission in October of any wrongdoing in the Smiley case.
Smiley had filed the complaint, alleging Fitch was attempting to end his career.
Fitch had filed a complaint against Smiley after a domestic assault charge against him was dropped because of a jurisdictional issue, as the alleged assault involving his common-law wife, Kim Burnett, occurred in Nova Scotia, not New Brunswick.
Smiley was subsequently fired after an arbitrator ruled he breached four counts of professional conduct standards for police officers — discreditable conduct by committing domestic violence, counselling a fellow officer to not disclose he had firearms in his possession, and two counts of improper use and care of firearms.
Fitch has been the chief of the Fredericton Police Force since June 2013, making her Atlantic Canada's first female police chief.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/bob-davidson-police-association-1.3393148
Police association vows to fight 'heavy-handed' commission
Firing of second Fredericton police officer renews call for Police Act changes
The association representing municipal police officers in New Brunswick is vowing to fight for changes to the authority of the New Brunswick Police Commission after an arbitrator ordered Wednesday that a second member of the Fredericton Police Force be fired for discreditable conduct.
- Fired Fredericton police officer, union criticize chief
- Police association says chiefs staging 'power grab'
Any penalty is supposed to be corrective in nature, not punitive.- Bob Davidson, labour analyst for New Brunswick Police AssociationNew Brunswick Police Association labour analyst Bob Davidson calls the decision to fire Campbell "heavy-handed."
"The Police Act states very clearly … any penalty is supposed to be corrective in nature, not punitive," said Davidson.
"Our opinion is that the arbitrator could have clearly looked at this and said, `Well, there is doubt here and there are corrective ways of dealing with this,' not heavy, punitive action."
Police Act review
Minister of Public Safety Steven Horsman has initiated a review of the Police Act and Davidson said the association will make its case for changes to the committee carrying out the review.
"Nobody can be subjected to an environment where the prosecution selects, appoints, and pays for the person you are going to be sitting in front of," said Davidson. "That's where the rubber hits the road."
The commission was established through the Police Act in 2005 and was to be an oversight body, "not a judge, jury, hangman like is going on now," said Davidson.Stakeholders, including the police association, used to agree on a list of possible arbitrators, but Davidson said the commission has since started acting on its own and appointing arbitrators without consultation.
"Now we have the New Brunswick Police Commission selecting arbitrators, appointing arbitrators, paying the arbitrators, which is totally unacceptable," he said. "That is a denial of natural justice and it is, technically, institutional bias.
Information Morning - Fredericton
Constable Fired
00:0014:49
Objection rejected
Davidson made many of the same points when called to testify at the outset of Campbell's hearing in December, when the police association objected to Haines serving as the arbitrator in the case because of the lack of consultation.
In his decision in the Campbell arbitration, Haines rejected Davidson's opinion that the police association is to be consulted on the list of arbitrators.
"The duty and obligation to establish and maintain the list of arbitrators is that of the commission and not that of the minister," states Haines in his decision."I am of the opinion that the expectation to which Davidson alluded in his testimony, and on which the respondent's objection is based, is not founded in law," states Haines. "There is before me no evidence establishing a clear, unambiguous and unqualified basis for such an expectation.
"Moreover, the evidence on which the respondent relies in support of her objection fails to establish any lack of independence on my part, or that she will not be treated impartially and without bias."
| ||||
| ||||||||
