https://twitter.com/DavidRayAmos/with_replies




David Raymond Amos‏ @DavidRayAmos
Methinks Robert Gauvin the SANB comedian we have for a Deputy Premier should have a long talk with his brother the lawyer and their pal Alban Duguay right away  N'esy Pas?

https://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.com/2019/01/methinks-robert-gauvin-sanb-comedian-we.html


#nbpoli #cdnpoli 


https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1126520/robert-jean-gauvin-pere-progressiste-conservateur

« Robert Gauvin ressemble beaucoup à son père », selon un ancien organisateur politique

---------- Original message ----------
From: "Gallant, Brian (LEG)"<Brian.Gallant@gnb.ca>
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2019 16:04:22 +0000
Subject: RE: Methinks Robert Gauvin the SANB comedian we have for a
Deputy Premier should have a long talk with his brother the lawyer and
their pal Alban Duguay right away N'esy Pas?
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

Thank you for writing to the Leader of the Official Opposition of New
Brunswick. Please be assured that your e-mail will be reviewed.

If this is a media request, please forward your e-mail to
ashley.beaudin@gnb.camedia-medias@gnb.ca

---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2019 12:03:36 -0400
Subject: Methinks Robert Gauvin the SANB comedian we have for a Deputy Premier should 

have a long talk with his brother the lawyer and their pal Alban Duguay right away N'esy Pas?
To: andrea.anderson-mason@gnb.ca, hugh.flemming@gnb.ca, robert.gauvin@gnb.ca, kris.austin@gnb.ca, rick.desaulniers@gnb.ca, serge.gauvin@snb.ca, michelle.conroy@gnb.ca,
attorneygeneral@ontario.ca, caroline.mulroneyco@pc.ola.org, rbrossard@contribuables.ca, krondolo@generationscrewed.ca, federal.director@taxpayer.com, jbowes@taxpayer.com,

ksims@taxpayer.com, fterrazzano@taxpayer.com, pmacpherson@taxpayer.com, on.director@taxpayer.com, prairie@taxpayer.com, Diane.Lebouthillier@cra-arc.gc.ca,
brian.gallant@gnb.ca, David.Coon@gnb.ca, Kevin.A.Arseneau@gnb.ca, megan.mitton@gnb.ca
Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, Dominic.Cardy@gnb.ca, Ernie.Steeves@gnb.ca, greg.byrne@gnb.ca, tyler.campbell@gnb.ca, andrew.scheer@parl.gc.ca, PABMINMAILG@cra-arc.gc.ca, Bill.Morneau@canada.ca, premier@gov.bc.ca, maxime.bernier@parl.gc.ca,
strathmore.brooks@assembly.ab.ca,  brian.hodgson@assembly.ab.ca,
calgary.lougheed@assembly.ab.ca, leader@freedomconservativeparty.ca, premier@gnb.ca, premier@ontario.ca, scott.moe@gov.sk.ca, premier@gov.ab.ca, premier@leg.gov.mb.ca



---------- Original message ----------
From: "OfficeofthePremier, Office PREM:EX"<Premier@gov.bc.ca>
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2019 17:53:29 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: YO Kris Rondolo say Hey to Premier Ford and
his Attorney General for me willy a?
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

Hello,

Thank you for taking the time to write. I appreciate hearing feedback
and suggestions from the people of British Columbia as we work
together to build a better BC.

Due to the volume of incoming messages, this is an automated response
to let you know that your email has been received and will be reviewed
at the earliest opportunity.

In the event that your inquiry more appropriately falls within the
mandate of a Ministry or other area of government, staff will refer
your email for review and consideration.

Again, thank you for writing.

Sincerely,

John Horgan
Premier



---------- Original message ----------
From: Premier of Ontario | Premier ministre de l’Ontario <Premier@ontario.ca>
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2019 17:50:53 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: YO Kris Rondolo and Renaud Brossard we just
talked about Taxation and you defer to the questionable political
lawyer Aaron Wudrick???
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

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

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

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

Thanks again for your email.
______­­

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

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

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

Merci encore pour votre courriel.



---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2019 13:50:45 -0400
Subject: YO Kris Rondolo and Renaud Brossard we just talked about
Taxation and you defer to the questionable political lawyer Aaron
Wudrick???
To: rbrossard@contribuables.ca, krondolo@generationscrewed.ca,
federal.director@taxpayer.com, jbowes@taxpayer.com,
ksims@taxpayer.com, fterrazzano@taxpayer.com,
pmacpherson@taxpayer.com, on.director@taxpayer.com,
prairie@taxpayer.com, "Diane.Lebouthillier"
<Diane.Lebouthillier@cra-arc.gc.ca>
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, "andrew.scheer"
<andrew.scheer@parl.gc.ca>, PABMINMAILG@cra-arc.gc.ca, "Bill.Morneau"
<Bill.Morneau@canada.ca>, premier <premier@gov.bc.ca>,
"maxime.bernier"<maxime.bernier@parl.gc.ca>,
strathmore.brooks@assembly.ab.ca, "brian.hodgson"
<brian.hodgson@assembly.ab.ca>, calgary.lougheed@assembly.ab.ca,
leader@freedomconservativeparty.ca, premier <premier@gnb.ca>, premier
<premier@ontario.ca>, Office of the Premier <scott.moe@gov.sk.ca>,
premier <premier@gov.ab.ca>, premier <premier@leg.gov.mb.ca>

Renaud Brossard
Quebec Director
Phone:
Cell: 514-743-2883
E-mail: rbrossard@contribuables.ca
Twitter @ @renaudbrossard
Hi-Res Photo: Download

Freedom Conservative Party of Alberta
7133 77 Ave
Edmonton, AB
T6B 0B5
Phone: 403-774-7393
Email Address:  leader@freedomconservativeparty.ca

Legislature Office
4015, 9820 - 107 Street
Edmonton, AB
Canada T5K 1E7
Phone: 780.427.4099


Constituency Office
125 - 2nd Avenue
Strathmore, AB
Canada T1P 1K1
Phone: 403.934.4400
Email: strathmore.brooks@assembly.ab.ca


 Derek Fildebrandt is Leader of the Freedom Conservative Party of
Alberta and the MLA for Strathmore-Brooks.

Derek is married to his wife Emma, is the father of a beautiful baby
girl named Winifred, and has two German Shepherds. He is a good
fisherman, an adequate hunter, and a poor guitar player.

In his time as an MLA, Fildebrandt has consistently stood for limited
government, free speech and personal responsibility.

Fildebrandt served as both the Alberta Director and National Research
Director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. Federally, he fought to
end the Liberal long-gun registry, scrap gold-plated MP pensions, and
require First Nation Chiefs to publicly disclose their salaries to
band members. In Alberta, he led the fight against the Redford
government’s deficit budgets and abuse of taxpayers’ money.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Lebouthillier, Diane"<Diane.Lebouthillier@cra-arc.gc.ca>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 20:48:50 +0000
Subject: Réponse automatique : Your various correspondence about
abusive tax schemes - 2017-02631
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

Merci d'avoir écrit à l'honorable Diane Lebouthillier, ministre du
Revenu national. Votre courriel sera lu avec soin et recevra toute
l'attention voulue.

Si votre courriel porte sur une demande de rencontre ou une invitation
à une activité particulière, nous tenons à vous assurer que votre
demande a été notée et transmise à notre adjointe à l'agenda.

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

Thank you for writing to the Honourable Diane Lebouthillier, Minister
of National Revenue. Your email will be read with care and will
receive every consideration.

If your email relates to a meeting request or an invitation to a
specific event, please be assured that your request has been noted and
sent to our scheduling assistant.



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Min.Mail / Courrier.Min (CRA/ARC)"<PABMINMAILG@cra-arc.gc.ca>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 13:10:52 +0000
Subject: Your various correspondence about abusive tax schemes - 2017-02631
To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com"<motomaniac333@gmail.com>

Mr. David Raymond Amos
motomaniac333@gmail.com


Dear Mr. Amos:

Thank you for your various correspondence about abusive tax schemes,
and for your understanding regarding the delay of this response.

This is an opportunity for me to address your concerns about the way
the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) deals with aggressive tax planning,
tax avoidance, and tax evasion by targeting individuals and groups
that promote schemes intended to avoid payment of tax. It is also an
opportunity for me to present the Government of Canada’s main
strategies for ensuring fairness for all taxpayers.

The CRA’s mission is to preserve the integrity of Canada’s tax system,
and it is taking concrete and effective action to deal with abusive
tax schemes. Through federal budget funding in 2016 and 2017, the
government has committed close to $1 billion in cracking down on tax
evasion and combatting tax avoidance at home and through the use of
offshore transactions. This additional funding is expected to generate
federal revenues of $2.6 billion over five years for Budget 2016, and
$2.5 billion over five years for Budget 2017.

More precisely, the CRA is cracking down on tax cheats by hiring more
auditors, maintaining its underground economy specialist teams,
increasing coverage of aggressive goods and service tax/harmonized
sales tax planning, increasing coverage of multinational corporations
and wealthy individuals, and taking targeted actions aimed at
promoters of abusive tax schemes.

On the offshore front, the CRA continues to develop tools to improve
its focus on high‑risk taxpayers. It is also considering changes to
its Voluntary Disclosures Program following the first set of program
recommendations received from an independent Offshore Compliance
Advisory Committee. In addition, the CRA is leading international
projects to address the base erosion and profit shifting initiative of
the G20 and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development, and is collaborating with treaty partners to address the
Panama Papers leaks.

These actions are evidence of the government’s commitment to
protecting tax fairness. The CRA has strengthened its intelligence and
technical capacities for the early detection of abusive tax
arrangements and deterrence of those who participate in them. To
ensure compliance, it has increased the number of actions aimed at
promoters who use illegal schemes. These measures include increased
audits of such promoters, improved information gathering, criminal
investigations where warranted, and better communication with
taxpayers.

To deter potential taxpayer involvement in these schemes, the CRA is
increasing notifications and warnings through its communications
products. It also seeks partnerships with tax preparers, accountants,
and community groups so that they can become informed observers who
can educate their clients.

The CRA will assess penalties against promoters and other
representatives who make false statements involving illegal tax
schemes. The promotion of tax schemes to defraud the government can
lead to criminal investigations, fingerprinting, criminal prosecution,
court fines, and jail time.

Between April 1, 2011, and March 31, 2016, the CRA’s criminal
investigations resulted in the conviction of 42 Canadian taxpayers for
tax evasion with links to money and assets held offshore. In total,
the $34 million in evaded taxes resulted in court fines of $12 million
and 734 months of jail time.

When deciding to pursue compliance actions through the courts, the CRA
consults the Department of Justice Canada to choose an appropriate
solution. Complex tax-related litigation is costly and time consuming,
and the outcome may be unsuccessful. All options to recover amounts
owed are considered.

More specifically, in relation to the KPMG Isle of Man tax avoidance
scheme, publicly available court records show that it is through the
CRA’s efforts that the scheme was discovered. The CRA identified many
of the participants and continues to actively pursue the matter. The
CRA has also identified at least 10 additional tax structures on the
Isle of Man, and is auditing taxpayers in relation to these
structures.

To ensure tax fairness, the CRA commissioned an independent review in
March 2016 to determine if it had acted appropriately concerning KPMG
and its clients. In her review, Ms. Kimberley Brooks, Associate
Professor and former Dean of the Schulich School of Law at Dalhousie
University, examined the CRA’s operational processes and decisions in
relation to the KPMG offshore tax structure and its efforts to obtain
the names of all taxpayers participating in the scheme. Following this
review, the report, released on May 5, 2016, concluded that the CRA
had acted appropriately in its management of the KPMG Isle of Man
file. The report found that the series of compliance measures the CRA
took were in accordance with its policies and procedures. It was
concluded that the procedural actions taken on the KPMG file were
appropriate given the facts of this particular case and were
consistent with the treatment of taxpayers in similar situations. The
report concluded that actions by CRA employees were in accordance with
the CRA’s Code of Integrity and Professional Conduct. There was no
evidence of inappropriate interaction between KPMG and the CRA
employees involved in the case.

Under the CRA’s Code of Integrity and Professional Conduct, all CRA
employees are responsible for real, apparent, or potential conflicts
of interests between their current duties and any subsequent
employment outside of the CRA or the Public Service of Canada.
Consequences and corrective measures play an important role in
protecting the CRA’s integrity.

The CRA takes misconduct very seriously. The consequences of
misconduct depend on the gravity of the incident and its repercussions
on trust both within and outside of the CRA. Misconduct can result in
disciplinary measures up to dismissal.

All forms of tax evasion are illegal. The CRA manages the Informant
Leads Program, which handles leads received from the public regarding
cases of tax evasion across the country. This program, which
coordinates all the leads the CRA receives from informants, determines
whether there has been any non-compliance with tax law and ensures
that the information is examined and conveyed, if applicable, so that
compliance measures are taken. This program does not offer any reward
for tips received.

The new Offshore Tax Informant Program (OTIP) has also been put in
place. The OTIP offers financial compensation to individuals who
provide information related to major cases of offshore tax evasion
that lead to the collection of tax owing. As of December 31, 2016, the
OTIP had received 963 calls and 407 written submissions from possible
informants. Over 218 taxpayers are currently under audit based on
information the CRA received through the OTIP.

With a focus on the highest-risk sectors nationally and
internationally and an increased ability to gather information, the
CRA has the means to target taxpayers who try to hide their income.
For example, since January 2015, the CRA has been collecting
information on all international electronic funds transfers (EFTs) of
$10,000 or more ending or originating in Canada. It is also adopting a
proactive approach by focusing each year on four jurisdictions that
raise suspicion. For the Isle of Man, the CRA audited 3,000 EFTs
totalling $860 million over 12 months and involving approximately 800
taxpayers. Based on these audits, the CRA communicated with
approximately 350 individuals and 400 corporations and performed 60
audits.

In January 2017, I reaffirmed Canada’s important role as a leader for
tax authorities around the world in detecting the structures used for
aggressive tax planning and tax evasion. This is why Canada works
daily with the Joint International Tax Shelter Information Centre
(JITSIC), a network of tax administrations in over 35 countries. The
CRA participates in two expert groups within the JITSIC and leads the
working group on intermediaries and proponents. This ongoing
collaboration is a key component of the CRA’s work to develop strong
relationships with the international community, which will help it
refine the world-class tax system that benefits all Canadians.

The CRA is increasing its efforts and is seeing early signs of
success. Last year, the CRA recovered just under $13 billion as a
result of its audit activities on the domestic and offshore fronts.
Two-thirds of these recoveries are the result of its audit efforts
relating to large businesses and multinational companies.

But there is still much to do, and additional improvements and
investments are underway.

Tax cheats are having a harder and harder time hiding. Taxpayers who
choose to promote or participate in malicious and illegal tax
strategies must face the consequences of their actions. Canadians
expect nothing less. I invite you to read my most recent statement on
this matter at canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/news/2017/03/
statement_from_thehonourabledianelebouthillierministerofnational.

Thank you for taking the time to write. I hope the information I have
provided is helpful.

Sincerely,

The Honourable Diane Lebouthillier
Minister of National Revenue




> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Brian Gallant <briangallant10@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 06:01:57 -0700
> Subject: Merci / Thank you Re: Fwd: I just called Alan Roy again about
> my right to health care, my missing 1965 Harley, the Yankee Wiretaps
> tapes in its saddlebag and Federal Court and his assistant played dumb
> as usual
> To: motomaniac333@gmail.com
>
> (Français à suivre)
>
> If your email is pertaining to the Government of New Brunswick, please
> email me at brian.gallant@gnb.ca
>
> If your matter is urgent, please email Greg Byrne at greg.byrne@gnb.ca
>
> Thank you.
>
> Si votre courriel s'addresse au Gouvernement du Nouveau-Brunswick,
> ‎svp m'envoyez un courriel à brian.gallant@gnb.ca
>
> Pour les urgences, veuillez contacter Greg Byrne à greg.byrne@gnb.ca
>
> Merci.
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 10:42:09 -0400
> Subject: Attn Marc Richard and John McNair I just called AGAIN Say hey
> to my Brother in Law W. S. Reid CHEDORE and his brother of the law
> David Lutz QC for me will ya?
> To: MRichard@lawsociety-barreau.nb.ca, John.McNair@snb.ca,
> "serge.rousselle"<serge.rousselle@gnb.ca>, Erin.Hardy@snb.ca,
> David.Eidt@gnb.ca
> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Marc Richard <MRichard@lawsociety-barreau.nb.ca>
> Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 22:51:09 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: RE Irving's ridiculous constitutional
> challenge and Federal Court File no T-1557-15 I wonder if George
> Cooper and Hélène Beaulieure even know how many times the Irvings and
> partners of their VERY snobby law firm have offended me over t...
> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
> I will be out of the office until October 30, 2017.  Je serai absent
> du bureau jusqu'au 30 octobre 2017.
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Eidt, David (OAG/CPG)"<David.Eidt@gnb.ca>
> Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 00:33:21 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: Yo Mr Lutz howcome your buddy the clerk
> would not file this motion and properly witnessed affidavit and why
> did she take all four copies?
> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
> I will be out of the office until Monday, March 13, 2017. I will have
> little to no access to email. Please dial 453-2222 for assistance.
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Marc Richard <MRichard@lawsociety-barreau.nb.ca>
> Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 13:16:46 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: RE: The New Brunswick Real Estate
> Association and their deliberate ignorance for the bankster's benefit
> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
> I will be out of the office until  August 15, 2016. Je serai absent du
> bureau jusqu'au 15 août 2016.
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "McNair, John (SNB)"<John.McNair@snb.ca>
> Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 16:04:29 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: RE: The New Brunswick Real Estate
> Association and their deliberate ignorance for the bankster's benefit
> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
> I will be out of the office August 1 - August 12. I will reply to your
> email when I return. If you require immediate assistance, please
> contact Chantal Leger at 663-2510. Thank you.
>
> Je serai absent du bureau les 1 aout - 12 aout. Je répondrai à votre
> courriel à mon retour. Si vous nécessitez de l'assistance
> immédiatement, veuillez contacter Chantal Leger au 663-2510. Merci.
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Hardy, Erin (SNB)"<Erin.Hardy@snb.ca>
> Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 16:04:28 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: RE: The New Brunswick Real Estate
> Association and their deliberate ignorance for the bankster's benefit
> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
> Le francais suit:
>
> Hello,
>
> I am currently out of the office. I will gladly reply to your message
> upon my return on August 15, 2016. Should you require immediate
> assitance please contact Celeste Savoie at (506) 471-5290 or by email:
> Celeste.Savoie@snb.ca.
>
> Have a nice day!
>
> Bonjour,
>
> Je suis presentement hors du bureau. Il me fera plaisir de repondre a
> votre message a mon retour August 15, 2016. Si vous avez besoin d'une
> assitance immediate, veuillez communiquer avec Celeste Savoie au (506)
> 471-5290 ou par courriel a: Celeste.Savoie@snb.ca.
>
> Bonne journee!
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Marc Richard <MRichard@lawsociety-barreau.nb.ca>
> Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 17:43:27 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: Oh My My we just talked briefly Correct Ms
> Beaulieu? It appears to me that the latest President of the NB Law
> Society thinks non lawyers are not worth talking to
> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
> I will be out of the office until July 21, 2014. Je serai absent du
> bureau jusqu'au 21 juillet 2014.
>
>
>
>> ---------- 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: Justice Website <JUSTWEB@novascotia.ca>
> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:21:11 +0000
> Subject: Emails to Department of Justice and Province of Nova Scotia
> To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com"<motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
> Mr. Amos,
> We acknowledge receipt of your recent emails to the Deputy Minister of
> Justice and lawyers within the Legal Services Division of the
> Department of Justice respecting a possible claim against the Province
> of Nova Scotia.  Service of any documents respecting a legal claim
> against the Province of Nova Scotia may be served on the Attorney
> General at 1690 Hollis Street, Halifax, NS.  Please note that we will
> not be responding to further emails on this matter.
>
> Department of Justice
>
> On 8/3/17, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If want something very serious to download and laugh at as well Please
>> Enjoy and share real wiretap tapes of the mob
>>
>> http://thedavidamosrant.blogspot.ca/2013/10/re-glen-greenwald-and-braz
>> ilian.html
>>
>>> http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/06/09/nsa-leak-guardian.html
>>>
>>> As the CBC etc yap about Yankee wiretaps and whistleblowers I must
>>> ask them the obvious question AIN'T THEY FORGETTING SOMETHING????
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vugUalUO8YY
>>>
>>> What the hell does the media think my Yankee lawyer served upon the
>>> USDOJ right after I ran for and seat in the 39th Parliament baseball
>>> cards?
>>>
>>> http://archive.org/details/ITriedToExplainItToAllMaritimersInEarly200
>>> 6
>>>
>>> http://davidamos.blogspot.ca/2006/05/wiretap-tapes-impeach-bush.html
>>>
>>> http://www.archive.org/details/PoliceSurveilanceWiretapTape139
>>>
>>> http://archive.org/details/Part1WiretapTape143
>>>
>>> FEDERAL EXPRES February 7, 2006
>>> Senator Arlen Specter
>>> United States Senate
>>> Committee on the Judiciary
>>> 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
>>> Washington, DC 20510
>>>
>>> Dear Mr. Specter:
>>>
>>> I have been asked to forward the enclosed tapes to you from a man
>>> named, David Amos, a Canadian citizen, in connection with the matters
>>> raised in the attached letter.
>>>
>>> Mr. Amos has represented to me that these are illegal FBI wire tap
>>> tapes.
>>>
>>> I believe Mr. Amos has been in contact with you about this previously.
>>>
>>> Very truly yours,
>>> Barry A. Bachrach
>>> Direct telephone: (508) 926-3403
>>> Direct facsimile: (508) 929-3003
>>> Email: bbachrach@bowditch.com
>>>
>>
>
> http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2017/11/federal-court-of-appeal-finally-makes.html
>
>
> Sunday, 19 November 2017
> Federal Court of Appeal Finally Makes The BIG Decision And Publishes
> It Now The Crooks Cannot Take Back Ticket To Try Put My Matter Before
> The Supreme Court
>
> https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/236679/index.do
>
>
> Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
>
> Amos v. Canada
> Court (s) Database
>
> Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
> Date
>
> 2017-10-30
> Neutral citation
>
> 2017 FCA 213
> File numbers
>
> A-48-16
> Date: 20171030
>
> Docket: A-48-16
> Citation: 2017 FCA 213
> CORAM:
>
> WEBB J.A.
> NEAR J.A.
> GLEASON J.A.
>
>
> BETWEEN:
> DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
> Respondent on the cross-appeal
> (and formally Appellant)
> and
> HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
> Appellant on the cross-appeal
> (and formerly Respondent)
> Heard at Fredericton, New Brunswick, on May 24, 2017.
> Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 30, 2017.
> REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:
>
> THE COURT
>
>
>
> Date: 20171030
>
> Docket: A-48-16
> Citation: 2017 FCA 213
> CORAM:
>
> WEBB J.A.
> NEAR J.A.
> GLEASON J.A.
>
>
> BETWEEN:
> DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
> Respondent on the cross-appeal
> (and formally Appellant)
> and
> HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
> Appellant on the cross-appeal
> (and formerly Respondent)
> REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY THE COURT
>
> I.                    Introduction
>
> [1]               On September 16, 2015, David Raymond Amos (Mr. Amos)
> filed a 53-page Statement of Claim (the Claim) in Federal Court
> against Her Majesty the Queen (the Crown). Mr. Amos claims $11 million
> in damages and a public apology from the Prime Minister and Provincial
> Premiers for being illegally barred from accessing parliamentary
> properties and seeks a declaration from the Minister of Public Safety
> that the Canadian Government will no longer allow the Royal Canadian
> Mounted Police (RCMP) and Canadian Forces to harass him and his clan
> (Claim at para. 96).
>
> [2]               On November 12, 2015 (Docket T-1557-15), by way of a
> motion brought by the Crown, a prothonotary of the Federal Court (the
> Prothonotary) struck the Claim in its entirety, without leave to
> amend, on the basis that it was plain and obvious that the Claim
> disclosed no reasonable claim, the Claim was fundamentally vexatious,
> and the Claim could not be salvaged by way of further amendment (the
> Prothontary’s Order).
>
>
> [3]               On January 25, 2016 (2016 FC 93), by way of Mr.
> Amos’ appeal from the Prothonotary’s Order, a judge of the Federal
> Court (the Judge), reviewing the matter de novo, struck all of Mr.
> Amos’ claims for relief with the exception of the claim for damages
> for being barred by the RCMP from the New Brunswick legislature in
> 2004 (the Federal Court Judgment).
>
>
> [4]               Mr. Amos appealed and the Crown cross-appealed the
> Federal Court Judgment. Further to the issuance of a Notice of Status
> Review, Mr. Amos’ appeal was dismissed for delay on December 19, 2016.
> As such, the only matter before this Court is the Crown’s
> cross-appeal.
>
>
> II.                 Preliminary Matter
>
> [5]               Mr. Amos, in his memorandum of fact and law in
> relation to the cross-appeal that was filed with this Court on March
> 6, 2017, indicated that several judges of this Court, including two of
> the judges of this panel, had a conflict of interest in this appeal.
> This was the first time that he identified the judges whom he believed
> had a conflict of interest in a document that was filed with this
> Court. In his notice of appeal he had alluded to a conflict with
> several judges but did not name those judges.
>
> [6]               Mr. Amos was of the view that he did not have to
> identify the judges in any document filed with this Court because he
> had identified the judges in various documents that had been filed
> with the Federal Court. In his view the Federal Court and the Federal
> Court of Appeal are the same court and therefore any document filed in
> the Federal Court would be filed in this Court. This view is based on
> subsections 5(4) and 5.1(4) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985,
> c. F-7:
>
>
> 5(4) Every judge of the Federal Court is, by virtue of his or her
> office, a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal and has all the
> jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Federal Court of
> Appeal.
> […]
>
> 5(4) Les juges de la Cour fédérale sont d’office juges de la Cour
> d’appel fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs que
> les juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale.
> […]
> 5.1(4) Every judge of the Federal Court of Appeal is, by virtue of
> that office, a judge of the Federal Court and has all the
> jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Federal Court.
>
> 5.1(4) Les juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale sont d’office juges de la
> Cour fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs que les
> juges de la Cour fédérale.
>
>
> [7]               However, these subsections only provide that the
> judges of the Federal Court are also judges of this Court (and vice
> versa). It does not mean that there is only one court. If the Federal
> Court and this Court were one Court, there would be no need for this
> section.
> [8]               Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Courts Act provide that:
> 3 The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the Federal Court
> — Appeal Division is continued under the name “Federal Court of
> Appeal” in English and “Cour d’appel fédérale” in French. It is
> continued as an additional court of law, equity and admiralty in and
> for Canada, for the better administration of the laws of Canada and as
> a superior court of record having civil and criminal jurisdiction.
>
> 3 La Section d’appel, aussi appelée la Cour d’appel ou la Cour d’appel
> fédérale, est maintenue et dénommée « Cour d’appel fédérale » en
> français et « Federal Court of Appeal » en anglais. Elle est maintenue
> à titre de tribunal additionnel de droit, d’equity et d’amirauté du
> Canada, propre à améliorer l’application du droit canadien, et
> continue d’être une cour supérieure d’archives ayant compétence en
> matière civile et pénale.
> 4 The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the Federal Court
> — Trial Division is continued under the name “Federal Court” in
> English and “Cour fédérale” in French. It is continued as an
> additional court of law, equity and admiralty in and for Canada, for
> the better administration of the laws of Canada and as a superior
> court of record having civil and criminal jurisdiction.
>
> 4 La section de la Cour fédérale du Canada, appelée la Section de
> première instance de la Cour fédérale, est maintenue et dénommée «
> Cour fédérale » en français et « Federal Court » en anglais. Elle est
> maintenue à titre de tribunal additionnel de droit, d’equity et
> d’amirauté du Canada, propre à améliorer l’application du droit
> canadien, et continue d’être une cour supérieure d’archives ayant
> compétence en matière civile et pénale.
>
>
> [9]               Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Courts Act create
> two separate courts – this Court (section 3) and the Federal Court
> (section 4). If, as Mr. Amos suggests, documents filed in the Federal
> Court were automatically also filed in this Court, then there would no
> need for the parties to prepare and file appeal books as required by
> Rules 343 to 345 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 in relation
> to any appeal from a decision of the Federal Court. The requirement to
> file an appeal book with this Court in relation to an appeal from a
> decision of the Federal Court makes it clear that the only documents
> that will be before this Court are the documents that are part of that
> appeal book.
>
>
> [10]           Therefore, the memorandum of fact and law filed on
> March 6, 2017 is the first document, filed with this Court, in which
> Mr. Amos identified the particular judges that he submits have a
> conflict in any matter related to him.
>
>
> [11]           On April 3, 2017, Mr. Amos attempted to bring a motion
> before the Federal Court seeking an order “affirming or denying the
> conflict of interest he has” with a number of judges of the Federal
> Court. A judge of the Federal Court issued a direction noting that if
> Mr. Amos was seeking this order in relation to judges of the Federal
> Court of Appeal, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Federal Court.
> Mr. Amos raised the Federal Court motion at the hearing of this
> cross-appeal. The Federal Court motion is not a motion before this
> Court and, as such, the submissions filed before the Federal Court
> will not be entertained. As well, since this was a motion brought
> before the Federal Court (and not this Court), any documents filed in
> relation to that motion are not part of the record of this Court.
>
>
> [12]           During the hearing of the appeal Mr. Amos alleged that
> the third member of this panel also had a conflict of interest and
> submitted some documents that, in his view, supported his claim of a
> conflict. Mr. Amos, following the hearing of his appeal, was also
> afforded the opportunity to provide a brief summary of the conflict
> that he was alleging and to file additional documents that, in his
> view, supported his allegations. Mr. Amos submitted several pages of
> documents in relation to the alleged conflicts. He organized the
> documents by submitting a copy of the biography of the particular
> judge and then, immediately following that biography, by including
> copies of the documents that, in his view, supported his claim that
> such judge had a conflict.
>
>
> [13]           The nature of the alleged conflict of Justice Webb is
> that before he was appointed as a Judge of the Tax Court of Canada in
> 2006, he was a partner with the law firm Patterson Law, and before
> that with Patterson Palmer in Nova Scotia. Mr. Amos submitted that he
> had a number of disputes with Patterson Palmer and Patterson Law and
> therefore Justice Webb has a conflict simply because he was a partner
> of these firms. Mr. Amos is not alleging that Justice Webb was
> personally involved in or had any knowledge of any matter in which Mr.
> Amos was involved with Justice Webb’s former law firm – only that he
> was a member of such firm.
>
>
> [14]           During his oral submissions at the hearing of his
> appeal Mr. Amos, in relation to the alleged conflict for Justice Webb,
> focused on dealings between himself and a particular lawyer at
> Patterson Law. However, none of the documents submitted by Mr. Amos at
> the hearing or subsequently related to any dealings with this
> particular lawyer nor is it clear when Mr. Amos was dealing with this
> lawyer. In particular, it is far from clear whether such dealings were
> after the time that Justice Webb was appointed as a Judge of the Tax
> Court of Canada over 10 years ago.
>
>
> [15]           The documents that he submitted in relation to the
> alleged conflict for Justice Webb largely relate to dealings between
> Byron Prior and the St. John’s Newfoundland and Labrador office of
> Patterson Palmer, which is not in the same province where Justice Webb
> practiced law. The only document that indicates any dealing between
> Mr. Amos and Patterson Palmer is a copy of an affidavit of Stephen May
> who was a partner in the St. John’s NL office of Patterson Palmer. The
> affidavit is dated January 24, 2005 and refers to a number of e-mails
> that were sent by Mr. Amos to Stephen May. Mr. Amos also included a
> letter that is addressed to four individuals, one of whom is John
> Crosbie who was counsel to the St. John’s NL office of Patterson
> Palmer. The letter is dated September 2, 2004 and is addressed to
> “John Crosbie, c/o Greg G. Byrne, Suite 502, 570 Queen Street,
> Fredericton, NB E3B 5E3”. In this letter Mr. Amos alludes to a
> possible lawsuit against Patterson Palmer.
> [16]           Mr. Amos’ position is that simply because Justice Webb
> was a lawyer with Patterson Palmer, he now has a conflict. In Wewaykum
> Indian Band v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2003 SCC 45, [2003] 2 S.C.R.
> 259, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that disqualification of a
> judge is to be determined based on whether there is a reasonable
> apprehension of bias:
> 60        In Canadian law, one standard has now emerged as the
> criterion for disqualification. The criterion, as expressed by de
> Grandpré J. in Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy
> Board, …[[1978] 1 S.C.R. 369, 68 D.L.R. (3d) 716], at p. 394, is the
> reasonable apprehension of bias:
> … the apprehension of bias must be a reasonable one, held by
> reasonable and right minded persons, applying themselves to the
> question and obtaining thereon the required information. In the words
> of the Court of Appeal, that test is "what would an informed person,
> viewing the matter realistically and practically -- and having thought
> the matter through -- conclude. Would he think that it is more likely
> than not that [the decision-maker], whether consciously or
> unconsciously, would not decide fairly."
>
> [17]           The issue to be determined is whether an informed
> person, viewing the matter realistically and practically, and having
> thought the matter through, would conclude that Mr. Amos’ allegations
> give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. As this Court has
> previously remarked, “there is a strong presumption that judges will
> administer justice impartially” and this presumption will not be
> rebutted in the absence of “convincing evidence” of bias (Collins v.
> Canada, 2011 FCA 140 at para. 7, [2011] 4 C.T.C. 157 [Collins]. See
> also R. v. S. (R.D.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484 at para. 32, 151 D.L.R.
> (4th) 193).
>
> [18]           The Ontario Court of Appeal in Rando Drugs Ltd. v.
> Scott, 2007 ONCA 553, 86 O.R. (3d) 653 (leave to appeal to the Supreme
> Court of Canada refused, 32285 (August 1, 2007)), addressed the
> particular issue of whether a judge is disqualified from hearing a
> case simply because he had been a member of a law firm that was
> involved in the litigation that was now before that judge. The Ontario
> Court of Appeal determined that the judge was not disqualified if the
> judge had no involvement with the person or the matter when he was a
> lawyer. The Ontario Court of Appeal also explained that the rules for
> determining whether a judge is disqualified are different from the
> rules to determine whether a lawyer has a conflict:
> 27        Thus, disqualification is not the natural corollary to a
> finding that a trial judge has had some involvement in a case over
> which he or she is now presiding. Where the judge had no involvement,
> as here, it cannot be said that the judge is disqualified.
>
>
> 28        The point can rightly be made that had Mr. Patterson been
> asked to represent the appellant as counsel before his appointment to
> the bench, the conflict rules would likely have prevented him from
> taking the case because his firm had formerly represented one of the
> defendants in the case. Thus, it is argued how is it that as a trial
> judge Patterson J. can hear the case? This issue was considered by the
> Court of Appeal (Civil Division) in Locabail (U.K.) Ltd. v. Bayfield
> Properties Ltd., [2000] Q.B. 451. The court held, at para. 58, that
> there is no inflexible rule governing the disqualification of a judge
> and that, "[e]verything depends on the circumstances."
>
>
> 29        It seems to me that what appears at first sight to be an
> inconsistency in application of rules can be explained by the
> different contexts and in particular, the strong presumption of
> judicial impartiality that applies in the context of disqualification
> of a judge. There is no such presumption in cases of allegations of
> conflict of interest against a lawyer because of a firm's previous
> involvement in the case. To the contrary, as explained by Sopinka J.
> in MacDonald Estate v. Martin (1990), 77 D.L.R. (4th) 249 (S.C.C.),
> for sound policy reasons there is a presumption of a disqualifying
> interest that can rarely be overcome. In particular, a conclusory
> statement from the lawyer that he or she had no confidential
> information about the case will never be sufficient. The case is the
> opposite where the allegation of bias is made against a trial judge.
> His or her statement that he or she knew nothing about the case and
> had no involvement in it will ordinarily be accepted at face value
> unless there is good reason to doubt it: see Locabail, at para. 19.
>
>
> 30        That brings me then to consider the particular circumstances
> of this case and whether there are serious grounds to find a
> disqualifying conflict of interest in this case. In my view, there are
> two significant factors that justify the trial judge's decision not to
> recuse himself. The first is his statement, which all parties accept,
> that he knew nothing of the case when it was in his former firm and
> that he had nothing to do with it. The second is the long passage of
> time. As was said in Wewaykum, at para. 85:
>             To us, one significant factor stands out, and must inform
> the perspective of the reasonable person assessing the impact of this
> involvement on Binnie J.'s impartiality in the appeals. That factor is
> the passage of time. Most arguments for disqualification rest on
> circumstances that are either contemporaneous to the decision-making,
> or that occurred within a short time prior to the decision-making.
> 31        There are other factors that inform the issue. The Wilson
> Walker firm no longer acted for any of the parties by the time of
> trial. More importantly, at the time of the motion, Patterson J. had
> been a judge for six years and thus had not had a relationship with
> his former firm for a considerable period of time.
>
>
> 32        In my view, a reasonable person, viewing the matter
> realistically would conclude that the trial judge could deal fairly
> and impartially with this case. I take this view principally because
> of the long passage of time and the trial judge's lack of involvement
> in or knowledge of the case when the Wilson Walker firm had carriage.
> In these circumstances it cannot be reasonably contended that the
> trial judge could not remain impartial in the case. The mere fact that
> his name appears on the letterhead of some correspondence from over a
> decade ago would not lead a reasonable person to believe that he would
> either consciously or unconsciously favour his former firm's former
> client. It is simply not realistic to think that a judge would throw
> off his mantle of impartiality, ignore his oath of office and favour a
> client - about whom he knew nothing - of a firm that he left six years
> earlier and that no longer acts for the client, in a case involving
> events from over a decade ago.
> (emphasis added)
>
> [19]           Justice Webb had no involvement with any matter
> involving Mr. Amos while he was a member of Patterson Palmer or
> Patterson Law, nor does Mr. Amos suggest that he did. Mr. Amos made it
> clear during the hearing of this matter that the only reason for the
> alleged conflict for Justice Webb was that he was a member of
> Patterson Law and Patterson Palmer. This is simply not enough for
> Justice Webb to be disqualified. Any involvement of Mr. Amos with
> Patterson Law while Justice Webb was a member of that firm would have
> had to occur over 10 years ago and even longer for the time when he
> was a member of Patterson Palmer. In addition to the lack of any
> involvement on his part with any matter or dispute that Mr. Amos had
> with Patterson Law or Patterson Palmer (which in and of itself is
> sufficient to dispose of this matter), the length of time since
> Justice Webb was a member of Patterson Law or Patterson Palmer would
> also result in the same finding – that there is no conflict in Justice
> Webb hearing this appeal.
>
> [20]           Similarly in R. v. Bagot, 2000 MBCA 30, 145 Man. R.
> (2d) 260, the Manitoba Court of Appeal found that there was no
> reasonable apprehension of bias when a judge, who had been a member of
> the law firm that had been retained by the accused, had no involvement
> with the accused while he was a lawyer with that firm.
>
> [21]           In Del Zotto v. Minister of National Revenue, [2000] 4
> F.C. 321, 257 N.R. 96, this court did find that there would be a
> reasonable apprehension of bias where a judge, who while he was a
> lawyer, had recorded time on a matter involving the same person who
> was before that judge. However, this case can be distinguished as
> Justice Webb did not have any time recorded on any files involving Mr.
> Amos while he was a lawyer with Patterson Palmer or Patterson Law.
>
> [22]           Mr. Amos also included with his submissions a CD. He
> stated in his affidavit dated June 26, 2017 that there is a “true copy
> of an American police surveillance wiretap entitled 139” on this CD.
> He has also indicated that he has “provided a true copy of the CD
> entitled 139 to many American and Canadian law enforcement authorities
> and not one of the police forces or officers of the court are willing
> to investigate it”. Since he has indicated that this is an “American
> police surveillance wiretap”, this is a matter for the American law
> enforcement authorities and cannot create, as Mr. Amos suggests, a
> conflict of interest for any judge to whom he provides a copy.
>
> [23]           As a result, there is no conflict or reasonable
> apprehension of bias for Justice Webb and therefore, no reason for him
> to recuse himself.
>
> [24]           Mr. Amos alleged that Justice Near’s past professional
> experience with the government created a “quasi-conflict” in deciding
> the cross-appeal. Mr. Amos provided no details and Justice Near
> confirmed that he had no prior knowledge of the matters alleged in the
> Claim. Justice Near sees no reason to recuse himself.
>
> [25]           Insofar as it is possible to glean the basis for Mr.
> Amos’ allegations against Justice Gleason, it appears that he alleges
> that she is incapable of hearing this appeal because he says he wrote
> a letter to Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien in 2004. At that time,
> both Justice Gleason and Mr. Mulroney were partners in the law firm
> Ogilvy Renault, LLP. The letter in question, which is rude and angry,
> begins with “Hey you two Evil Old Smiling Bastards” and “Re: me suing
> you and your little dogs too”. There is no indication that the letter
> was ever responded to or that a law suit was ever commenced by Mr.
> Amos against Mr. Mulroney. In the circumstances, there is no reason
> for Justice Gleason to recuse herself as the letter in question does
> not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.
>
>
> III.               Issue
>
> [26]           The issue on the cross-appeal is as follows: Did the
> Judge err in setting aside the Prothonotary’s Order striking the Claim
> in its entirety without leave to amend and in determining that Mr.
> Amos’ allegation that the RCMP barred him from the New Brunswick
> legislature in 2004 was capable of supporting a cause of action?
>
> IV.              Analysis
>
> A.                 Standard of Review
>
> [27]           Following the Judge’s decision to set aside the
> Prothonotary’s Order, this Court revisited the standard of review to
> be applied to discretionary decisions of prothonotaries and decisions
> made by judges on appeals of prothonotaries’ decisions in Hospira
> Healthcare Corp. v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, 2016 FCA 215,
> 402 D.L.R. (4th) 497 [Hospira]. In Hospira, a five-member panel of
> this Court replaced the Aqua-Gem standard of review with that
> articulated in Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235
> [Housen]. As a result, it is no longer appropriate for the Federal
> Court to conduct a de novo review of a discretionary order made by a
> prothonotary in regard to questions vital to the final issue of the
> case. Rather, a Federal Court judge can only intervene on appeal if
> the prothonotary made an error of law or a palpable and overriding
> error in determining a question of fact or question of mixed fact and
> law (Hospira at para. 79). Further, this Court can only interfere with
> a Federal Court judge’s review of a prothonotary’s discretionary order
> if the judge made an error of law or palpable and overriding error in
> determining a question of fact or question of mixed fact and law
> (Hospira at paras. 82-83).
>
> [28]           In the case at bar, the Judge substituted his own
> assessment of Mr. Amos’ Claim for that of the Prothonotary. This Court
> must look to the Prothonotary’s Order to determine whether the Judge
> erred in law or made a palpable and overriding error in choosing to
> interfere.
>
>
> B.                 Did the Judge err in interfering with the
> Prothonotary’s Order?
>
> [29]           The Prothontoary’s Order accepted the following
> paragraphs from the Crown’s submissions as the basis for striking the
> Claim in its entirety without leave to amend:
>
> 17.       Within the 96 paragraph Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff
> addresses his complaint in paragraphs 14-24, inclusive. All but four
> of those paragraphs are dedicated to an incident that occurred in 2006
> in and around the legislature in New Brunswick. The jurisdiction of
> the Federal Court does not extend to Her Majesty the Queen in right of
> the Provinces. In any event, the Plaintiff hasn’t named the Province
> or provincial actors as parties to this action. The incident alleged
> does not give rise to a justiciable cause of action in this Court.
> (…)
>
>
> 21.       The few paragraphs that directly address the Defendant
> provide no details as to the individuals involved or the location of
> the alleged incidents or other details sufficient to allow the
> Defendant to respond. As a result, it is difficult or impossible to
> determine the causes of action the Plaintiff is attempting to advance.
> A generous reading of the Statement of Claim allows the Defendant to
> only speculate as to the true and/or intended cause of action. At
> best, the Plaintiff’s action may possibly be summarized as: he
> suspects he is barred from the House of Commons.
> [footnotes omitted].
>
>
> [30]           The Judge determined that he could not strike the Claim
> on the same jurisdictional basis as the Prothonotary. The Judge noted
> that the Federal Court has jurisdiction over claims based on the
> liability of Federal Crown servants like the RCMP and that the actors
> who barred Mr. Amos from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004
> included the RCMP (Federal Court Judgment at para. 23). In considering
> the viability of these allegations de novo, the Judge identified
> paragraph 14 of the Claim as containing “some precision” as it
> identifies the date of the event and a RCMP officer acting as
> Aide-de-Camp to the Lieutenant Governor (Federal Court Judgment at
> para. 27).
>
>
> [31]           The Judge noted that the 2004 event could support a
> cause of action in the tort of misfeasance in public office and
> identified the elements of the tort as excerpted from Meigs v. Canada,
> 2013 FC 389, 431 F.T.R. 111:
>
>
> [13]      As in both the cases of Odhavji Estate v Woodhouse, 2003 SCC
> 69 [Odhavji] and Lewis v Canada, 2012 FC 1514 [Lewis], I must
> determine whether the plaintiffs’ statement of claim pleads each
> element of the alleged tort of misfeasance in public office:
>
> a) The public officer must have engaged in deliberate and unlawful
> conduct in his or her capacity as public officer;
>
> b) The public officer must have been aware both that his or her
> conduct was unlawful and that it was likely to harm the plaintiff; and
>
> c) There must be an element of bad faith or dishonesty by the public
> officer and knowledge of harm alone is insufficient to conclude that a
> public officer acted in bad faith or dishonestly.
> Odhavji, above, at paras 23, 24 and 28
> (Federal Court Judgment at para. 28).
>
> [32]           The Judge determined that Mr. Amos disclosed sufficient
> material facts to meet the elements of the tort of misfeasance in
> public office because the actors, who barred him from the New
> Brunswick legislature in 2004, including the RCMP, did so for
> “political reasons” (Federal Court Judgment at para. 29).
>
> [33]           This Court’s discussion of the sufficiency of pleadings
> in Merchant Law Group v. Canada (Revenue Agency), 2010 FCA 184, 321
> D.L.R (4th) 301 is particularly apt:
>
> …When pleading bad faith or abuse of power, it is not enough to
> assert, baldly, conclusory phrases such as “deliberately or
> negligently,” “callous disregard,” or “by fraud and theft did steal”.
> “The bare assertion of a conclusion upon which the court is called
> upon to pronounce is not an allegation of material fact”. Making bald,
> conclusory allegations without any evidentiary foundation is an abuse
> of process…
>
> To this, I would add that the tort of misfeasance in public office
> requires a particular state of mind of a public officer in carrying
> out the impunged action, i.e., deliberate conduct which the public
> officer knows to be inconsistent with the obligations of his or her
> office. For this tort, particularization of the allegations is
> mandatory. Rule 181 specifically requires particularization of
> allegations of “breach of trust,” “wilful default,” “state of mind of
> a person,” “malice” or “fraudulent intention.”
> (at paras. 34-35, citations omitted).
>
> [34]           Applying the Housen standard of review to the
> Prothonotary’s Order, we are of the view that the Judge interfered
> absent a legal or palpable and overriding error.
>
> [35]           The Prothonotary determined that Mr. Amos’ Claim
> disclosed no reasonable claim and was fundamentally vexatious on the
> basis of jurisdictional concerns and the absence of material facts to
> ground a cause of action. Paragraph 14 of the Claim, which addresses
> the 2004 event, pleads no material facts as to how the RCMP officer
> engaged in deliberate and unlawful conduct, knew that his or her
> conduct was unlawful and likely to harm Mr. Amos, and acted in bad
> faith. While the Claim alleges elsewhere that Mr. Amos was barred from
> the New Brunswick legislature for political and/or malicious reasons,
> these allegations are not particularized and are directed against
> non-federal actors, such as the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Legislative
> Assembly of New Brunswick and the Fredericton Police Force. As such,
> the Judge erred in determining that Mr. Amos’ allegation that the RCMP
> barred him from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004 was capable of
> supporting a cause of action.
>
> [36]           In our view, the Claim is made up entirely of bare
> allegations, devoid of any detail, such that it discloses no
> reasonable cause of action within the jurisdiction of the Federal
> Courts. Therefore, the Judge erred in interfering to set aside the
> Prothonotary’s Order striking the claim in its entirety. Further, we
> find that the Prothonotary made no error in denying leave to amend.
> The deficiencies in Mr. Amos’ pleadings are so extensive such that
> amendment could not cure them (see Collins at para. 26).
>
> V.                 Conclusion
> [37]           For the foregoing reasons, we would allow the Crown’s
> cross-appeal, with costs, setting aside the Federal Court Judgment,
> dated January 25, 2016 and restoring the Prothonotary’s Order, dated
> November 12, 2015, which struck Mr. Amos’ Claim in its entirety
> without leave to amend.
> "Wyman W. Webb"
> J.A.
> "David G. Near"
> J.A.
> "Mary J.L. Gleason"
> J.A.
>
>
>
> FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
> NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
>
> A CROSS-APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SOUTHCOTT DATED
> JANUARY 25, 2016; DOCKET NUMBER T-1557-15.
> DOCKET:
>
> A-48-16
>
>
>
> STYLE OF CAUSE:
>
> DAVID RAYMOND AMOS v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
>
>
>
> PLACE OF HEARING:
>
> Fredericton,
> New Brunswick
>
> DATE OF HEARING:
>
> May 24, 2017
>
> REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:
>
> WEBB J.A.
> NEAR J.A.
> GLEASON J.A.
>
> DATED:
>
> October 30, 2017
>
> APPEARANCES:
> David Raymond Amos
>
>
> For The Appellant / respondent on cross-appeal
> (on his own behalf)
>
> Jan Jensen
>
>
> For The Respondent / appELLANT ON CROSS-APPEAL
>
> SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
> Nathalie G. Drouin
> Deputy Attorney General of Canada
>
> For The Respondent / APPELLANT ON CROSS-APPEAL
>
>


Kris Rondolo
Generation Screwed Executive Director
Office Location: 712-170 Laurier Ave W. Ottawa, ON K1P 5V5
Phone: Cell: 613.981.8411
E-mail: krondolo@generationscrewed.ca
Twitter @ @GenScrewedCDN
Hi-Res Photo: Download

Kris’ family immigrated from the Philippines to the Greater Toronto
Area (GTA) in 2007. A few years later, her fight against big
government and taxes all began when she opened her first paycheck.

She studied political science and health sciences at the University of
Ottawa. While studying, Kris also served as an organizer for Equal
Voice UOttawa.Before taking the reins as Generation Screwed’s
Executive Director, Kris worked on Parliament Hill for several Members
of Parliament.

In her spare time, Kris volunteers for community boards like the
Philippine Centre Canada, and the Filipino Youth Association, where
she brings her passion and dedication as a community organizer and as
an advocate for young Canadians.

Kris is also a watch enthusiast and enjoys collecting vintage
mechanical watches.


Renaud Brossard
Quebec Director
Phone:
Cell: 514-743-2883
E-mail: rbrossard@contribuables.ca
Twitter @ @renaudbrossard
Hi-Res Photo: Download

A business graduate from École des sciences de la gestion (ESG) at
Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM), Renaud has always been drawn
to politics. First getting involved in politics at the age of
eighteen, he quickly left partisan politics, preferring to focus on
getting his ideals implemented instead of simply getting some guy
elected.

That is how he became involved in Generation Screwed, first as UQAM
coordinator, and then later as the movement’s Executive Director.
There, he worked on mobilizing young Canadians against government debt
and massive deficits, two of the greatest issues facing his generation
and Canada as a whole due to our aging population and our politicians’
lack of vision for anything past their four-year-terms.

Renaud is passionate about issues regarding economic development,
efficient government and free trade. This is why he got involved with
the CTF in the first place and remains involved to this day.




Paige MacPherson
Atlantic Director
Office Location: MAILING ADDRESS ONLY: 5201 Duke St PO Box 34077
Scotia Square Halifax, NS B3J 1N0
Phone: 902.717.7078 / TOLL FREE: 1.877.909.5757
E-mail: pmacpherson@taxpayer.com
Twitter @ @paigemacp
Hi-Res Photo: Download

Paige became Atlantic Director of the CTF in 2018, previously working
as CTF Alberta Director starting in 2015. Throughout her career she’s
had a passion for giving a voice to taxpayers and pushing for
government accountability.

Paige was raised in Pickering, Ontario and her family is from Cape
Breton, Nova Scotia. Her work has taken her from
coast-to-coast-to-coast, in Halifax, Cape Breton, Fredericton, Ottawa,
Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary and Whitehorse.

As a former reporter and weekend host for Sun News Network, Paige
traveled across the country to cover four provincial elections. She is
a contributing writer to the New Brunswick-based Canadians for
Affordable Energy. Paige has published research on education policy in
Canada, and for several years she has contributed opinions and news
coverage to newspapers, magazines and radio programs across Canada.

Prior to media, Paige worked in communications and media relations at
the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies (AIMS), a Halifax-based
think tank. While there she started AIMS on Campus, a free-market
university outreach program.

Paige has a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from Dalhousie
University and a Master of Public Policy from the University of
Calgary.

Paige enjoys exploring Canada and spending time with her friends,
family and her dog Coco. She and her family call Halifax home.



Kris Sims
British Columbia Director
Office Location: PO Box 20539 Howe Street RPO Vancouver BC V6Z 2N8
Phone: 800.699.2282
E-mail: ksims@taxpayer.com
Hi-Res Photo: Download

Born in the town of Hope and raised on both sides of the Strait of
Georgia, Kris has been employed (and taxed) since she was 12 years
old, working in horse stables, fast food joints and gas stations
before attending journalism school at BCIT in Burnaby.

Kris worked in radio in the Comox Valley before moving to Ottawa to
work as a legislative assistant on Parliament Hill. She then joined
Ottawa News Talk Radio 580 CFRA as a reporter and anchor, eventually
becoming a journalist for the CTV parliamentary bureau.

Kris was a founding reporter for Sun News Network and proudly covered
issues of big government, personal liberty and the rights of
small-town and rural Canadians until SNN was shut down. She then
worked as the director of communications for Veterans Affairs Minister
Erin O’Toole, and as the senior producer for Evan Solomon at CFRA
Radio. She is proud to return to her home of British Columbia to fight
for the rights of all taxpayers.

When she isn’t digging through expense reports and doing media
interviews, Kris can be found reading Ayn Rand on the banks of the
Fraser River with her husband and their two children


Todd MacKay
Prairie Director
Office Location: 265-438 Victoria Ave East, Regina, SK S4N 0N7
Phone: 800.667.7933
Cell: 306.582.7717
E-mail: prairie@taxpayer.com
Twitter @ @toddamackay
Hi-Res Photo: Download

Todd joined the Canadian Taxpayers Federation as Prairie Director in
2015 with a background spanning newspaper reporting, government
communications and pouring concrete.

Todd grew up in small town Saskatchewan and went on to earn a
journalism degree at the University of King’s College in Halifax.
After a few years as a reporter at community newspapers, he served in
several communications roles for the federal government and
participated on Canadian trade missions around the world. He moved
back to Saskatchewan to do communications and policy work for the
provincial government when his first son was born.

After writing one too many speeches about the importance of
entrepreneurship, Todd tossed his suit and tie, moved back to his
hometown and became co-owner of a concrete construction company.

Todd and his wife Tanya live in Moose Jaw with their four kids. Mostly
he tries to keep up with his kids, but sometimes he gets to read
history and literature or even go hunting with his Labrador retriever
Stanley.

Franco Terrazzano
Alberta Director
Office Location: Mailing Address: PO Box 14043 Richmond Road PO,
Calgary, AB T3E 7Y7
Phone:
Cell: 403.918.3532
E-mail: fterrazzano@taxpayer.com
Twitter @ @franco_nomics
Hi-Res Photo: Download

Franco joins the CTF after working as an economic policy analyst with
the Calgary Chamber of Commerce and as a fellow with the Canadian
Constitution Foundation. Franco has produced multiple reports and
op-eds on the costs associated with tax increases, inefficient
government and the unintended consequences of public policies.

Franco completed his Master of Public Policy and Bachelor of Arts
(Economics) degrees at the University of Calgary. Franco also played
on the University of Calgary’s baseball team, and did a quick stint in
Europe playing for the Amsterdam Bombers baseball club.

When not advocating for lower taxes, less waste and accountable
government, Franco enjoys working out, reading economics and
attempting to re-live his athletic days.

Jeff Bowes
Research Director
Office Location: Canadian Taxpayers Federation: Suite 712 - 170
Laurier Ave W., Ottawa ON K1P 5V5
Phone: 613.234.6554
E-mail: jbowes@taxpayer.com
Twitter @ jbowes2
Hi-Res Photo: Download

Jeff grew up in Perth, Ontario and moved to Ottawa to attend Carleton
University.

There he received a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science, and worked
with the CTF during the 2007 Ontario provincial election. He reminded
Dalton McGuinty of his broken promises by following him across the
province dressed as Fibber, the Honesty in Politics mascot.

Before returning to the CTF Jeff worked providing video and audio
production services for Members of Parliament.

In addition to exposing government waste, Jeff enjoys running, soccer
and traveling.

Aaron Wudrick
Federal Director
Office Location: Canadian Taxpayers Federation: Suite 712 - 170
Laurier Ave W., Ottawa ON K1P 5V5
Phone: 800.265.0442
E-mail: federal.director@taxpayer.com
Twitter @ @awudrick
Hi-Res Photo: Download

Aaron joined the CTF as Federal Director in 2014. A lawyer by
training, Aaron practised litigation in his native Kitchener, Ontario,
and then corporate law with a major international law firm in London,
Hong Kong and Abu Dhabi, before returning to Canada to work with a
prominent political consulting firm.

In addition to being a recovering lawyer, Aaron is also a recovering
partisan, having previously served as a political organizer and
campaign manager for several political candidates in federal and
provincial elections and leadership campaigns (some successful, some
not so much).  He was author of a rabble-rousing weekly opinion column
in the campus newspaper during his undergraduate days, and a prolific
political blogger back in a time when people actually read blogs.

Aaron holds a BA in economics and political science from the
University of Waterloo, and a J.D. from the Faculty of Law at the
University of Western Ontario, where he served as student body
president during his final year of studies. He lives in Ottawa with
his wife and children.




Christine Van Geyn
Ontario Director
Office Location: PO Box 74507, 270 The Kingsway, Etobicoke, Ontario M9A 5E2
Phone: 647.343.4150
E-mail: on.director@taxpayer.com
Twitter @ @cvangeyn
Hi-Res Photo: Download


---------- Original  message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2019 12:44:27 -0400
Subject: Fwd: Attn Premeir Rachel Notley Christine Van Geyn and Aaron Wudrick
To: rbrossard@contribuables.ca, federal.director@taxpayer.com
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 22:40:12 -0400
Subject: Attn Premeir Rachel Notley Christine Van Geyn and Aaron Wudrick
To: premier <premier@gov.ab.ca>, on.director@taxpayer.com,
"Gilles.Blinn"<Gilles.Blinn@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, Aaron Wudrick
<awudrick@taxpayer.com>, sunrayzulu <sunrayzulu@shaw.ca>,
patrick_doran1 <patrick_doran1@hotmail.com>, bbachrach
<bbachrach@bachrachlaw.net>, boston <boston@ic.fbi.gov>
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>

Christine Van Geyn
Ontario Director
Phone: 647.607.6633
E-mail: on.director@taxpayer.com
Twitter @ @cvangeyn
Hi-Res Photo: Download

Christine joined the CTF as Ontario Director in 2015. Prior to joining
CTF, Christine practiced commercial litigation and corporate law in
Toronto with some of Canada’s leading law firms. Christine has also
worked for various non-profits, including the Iran Human Rights
Documentation Centre, and she was an intern with the CTF too many
years ago for her to admit.

Christine served as a political organizer and campaign manager for
several political candidates, and was a communications aide in the
federal government. Her research has been published in a number of
economic policy and legal magazines. Christine is the winner of a
number of International legal skills competitions, including the
Skadden Foreign Direct Investment Moot, the International Criminal Law
Moot in The Hague, and she placed third in Canada in the Davies
Securities Law Moot.

Christine graduated from the University of Toronto, Trinity College,
with an Honours BA in political science and ethics. She graduated from
Osgoode Hall Law School with a J.D., and also attended New York
University School of Law.

Christine lives in Toronto, and she enjoys sailing, yoga, skiing,
coffee, and her pet Keeshond.




---------- Original message ----------
From: Kevin Lacey <klacey@taxpayer.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 03:51:40 -0800
Subject: Away until Dec 15th Re: I just emailed the Frank Magazine
once AGAIN with some wicked gossip about Petey Baby MacKay,his latest
bestest strange bedfellow Premier Stevy Boy McNeil and their newest
employee Senator Brazeau
To: motomaniac333@gmail.com

I'll be out of the country and not back until Dec 15th. If you need
any assistance please feel free to call the CTF National Vice
President Scott Hennig at 1-780-589-1006 or email:
shennig@taxpayer.com



---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2019 12:59:32 -0400
Subject: Fwd: Yo Derek Fildebrand Whereas your mindless buddy Scott
Hennig wants me to sue him personally along with you I will assume
that these are your correct current addresses
To: rbrossard@contribuables.ca, federal.director@taxpayer.com
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: shennig@taxpayer.com
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2014 17:22:46 -0700
Subject: Re: Yo Derek Fildebrand Whereas your mindless buddy Scott
Hennig wants me to sue him personally along with you I will assume
that these are your correct current addresses
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>, derek@fildebrandt.ca, Aaron
Wudrick <awudrick@taxpayer.com>, Kevin Lacey <klacey@taxpayer.com>

‎Please forward all correspondence to our lawyers at fiojdiw3s@taxpayer.com.

You might‎ get a message that it has bounced, but ignore that, it's an
autoresponder that we set up.

Our lawyers will review all information you send to that address as
they prepare our court defense.

You can remove all other CTF email addresses from your correspondence,
as it will be vital to ensure there's only one copy on file.

Thank you,

Scott Hennig
Vice President, Communications
Canadian Taxpayers Federation

  Original Message
From: David Amos
Sent: Saturday, November 8, 2014 4:54 PM
To: derek@fildebrandt.ca; dmh@bht.com; shennig; greg.horton;
Biage.Carrese; kas@karenselick.com; radical; jennifer.johnston;
t.wilson; paul; deborah.alexander; david.allgood; jennifer.warren;
Frank.McKenna; joe.anglin@assembly.ab.ca;
rimbey.rockymountainhouse.sundre@assembly.ab.ca;
david.cournoyer@gmail.com; Raj.Sherman; Rachel.Notley@assembly.ab.ca;
Danielle.Smith; bbachrach; Gilles.Moreau; Paul.Fiander; GillesLee;
Gilles.Blinn; Eric.Rosendahl@gmail.com; pej.prentice@gmail.com;
DavidYurdiga; awudrick@taxpayer.com; dfildebrandt; John.Williamson.c1;
jason.kenney.c1; Mackap; atlantic.director; Kevin.leahy; scott.macrae;
Glen Canning; justmin; JAG.Minister; Rob.Merrifield@gov.ab.ca;
dhowell@edmontonjournal.com; lgunter; serge.rousselle; Jonathan.Denis;
Peter.Edge; Peter.Edge
Cc: David Amos; justin.trudeau.a1; MulcaT; leader; Davidc.Coon;
jamiebaillie; Jacques.Poitras; nick.moore; oldmaison; andre;
COCMoncton; peter.dauphinee; premier; PREMIER; premier
Subject: Yo Derek Fildebrand Whereas your mindless buddy Scott Hennig
wants me to sue him personally along with you I will assume that these
are your correct current addresses

This was your address before you got married recently Its public
knowledge Correct?

http://www.ewedding.com/v30/main.php?a=efvgraham

http://www.taxpayer.com/media/edmonton%20sick%20days.pdf

Derek Fildebrandt
Unit 407
6223 - 31 Avenue NW
Calgary, Alberta
T3B 3X2

I got this info about Scotty Baby from the public phone records

Scott Hennig
9705 86 St
Fort Saskatchewan, AB,
T8L 2Z5
780-998-5459

This is Scotty Baby bragging bigtime in his neighbourhood correct?

http://fortsaskonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=15489%3Arotary-club-hear-from-the-canadian-tax-payer-federation&Itemid=33

What Scotty Baby don't know about Mean Old Me versus Mikey Duffy and
the Senate etc could fill a book EH Cpl Horton?

http://thedavidamosrant.blogspot.ca/2013/11/fw-methinks-harper-his-lawyer-hamilton.html

For the Public Record anyone with two clues between their ears can see
that despite what your tax free organization names imply The Canadian
Taxpayers Federation and The National Citizens Coalition you are just
overpaid far right wing spindoctors who either work for politicians or
have worked for them as you try to become politicians yourselves

I bet by now you not so clever neo con punks have at least finally
figured out that threats from politcal wannabes and their corrupt
lawyers and cops pals don't scare Mean Old Me not even a little bit.

Imagine if the neo con punks had figured out what has been going on
been the Feds and I since 1982. The Libranos and the RCMP would not
have their way with Canada for so long EH Assistant Commisioner Gilles
Moreau?

http://thedavidamosrant.blogspot.ca/2013/10/re-glen-greenwald-and-brazilian.html

Also for the Public Record John Williamson and Kevin Lacey should not
deny that I have spoken with both of them personally several times
since 2005 and sent them many emails since then. Kevin Lacey can't
deny that his beloved Premier Hamm quit as Premier as soon as I
informed Murray Scott the I would publish the letter below in Chucky
Leblanc's blog while all the corrupt left wing CBC dudes were locked
out of ther jobs and could not report it even if they wanted to.

http://oldmaison.blogspot.ca/2005/09/sussex-gold-found-and-bernard-lords.html

A few years later Chucky's blogging butt buddy Danny Boy Fitgerald
opted to publish it as well so that the NDP he supports could tease
Gordy Campbell

http://qslspolitics.blogspot.ca/2008/06/david-amos-vs-bcs-liberal-premier.html

July 31st, 2005

Lt. Gov. Norman L. Kwong
Premier Ralph Klein
c/o Att. Gen. Ron Stevens

Lt. Gov. Iona V. Campagnolo
Premier Gordon Campbell
c/o Att. Gen. Wally Oppal

Lt. Gov. Myra A. Freeman
Premier John F. Hamm
c/o Att. Gen. Michael Baker
Halifax, Nova Scotia

Lt. Gov. J. Léonce Bernard
Premier Pat G. Binns
c/o Att. Gen. Mildred A. Dover
Charlottetown, PEI

RE: Public Corruption

Hey,

Apparently everybody wanted to play dumb about my concerns and
allegations so that Humpty Dumpty Martin's minority government would
not fall and they could party hardy while the Queen was in Canada. As
you all know months ago, I began faxing, emailing and calling the
eight other Lt. Governors I had yet to cross paths with. I fully
informed them of my indignation towards the Governor General Clarkson
and two of her other Maritime Lieutenants Roberts and Chaisson before
the latest wave of bad acting Yankees invaded my home in the USA
without warrants or due process if law.

I made certain all of the provincial Attorney Generals and Premiers
can never deny the fact that I tried to make them well aware of my
concerns and allegations in order to make everybody should sit up and
pay attention. Not one person from any of your offices ever responded
in any fashion at all. You can be certain that I expected the
deliberate ignorance. It is one of the oldest tricks in the book that
lawyers employ in order to play their wicked game of see no evil, hear
no evil speak no evil. I knew it would happen particularly after Nova
Scotia's Conflict of Interest Commissioner Merlin Nunn had blocked my
emails before I had contacted you. I have no doubt it helped to
relieve him of his ethical dilemma before the NS NDP decided what to
do about their chance to unseat the Conservatives. I have no doubt
whatsoever many lawyers in Canada were praying that the Suffolk County
District Attorney would have me back in the loony bin by April 28th
and that all your troubles would go away. I opted to let you all have
your way and did not bother you anymore until the Queen had left our
shores and Parliament quit for the summer. Now it is my turn to have
some fun and raise a little Political Hell.

While the Queen, Clarkson and Martin where all having a grand old time
on the Canadian dime my little Clan went through living hell down
here. Trust me, lawyers need to learn some new tricks. Ignorance is no
excuse to the law or me. Making some Canadian Attorney Generals and
their political buddies show me their arses is child's play to me
after all that I have experienced in the last few years. If you doubt
me ask Michael J. Bryant and Yvon Marcoux why I am so pissed at their
bosses and the DHS. Then check my work for yourself. If the tag team
of John Ashcroft and Tom Ridge could not intimidate me, believe me you
people don't have a prayer. Both of those dudes have quit their jobs
but I am still standing and squaring off against their replacements
now. If it were not for all the decent folks I know, the snotty ones
like you would make me feel ashamed to be a Canadian. There is no
shortage of lawyers. It is just that ethical ones that are rare birds,
that's all. You must know how easily the Canadian people can replace
you with other lawyers if it becomes widely known how willing you are
to ignore crime if it means some fancy dude may be compelled to suffer
for his own wrongs.

The justice system is supposed to be self-policing. It should clean up
its own act rather than trying to maintain a false mask of integrity
for lawyers that are obviously criminals. It is way beyond my
understanding why you people would choose to support the likes of Paul
Martin, Adrienne Clarkson, T. Alex Hickman and Billy Matthews if you
are not all as crooked as hell as well. The deliberate ignorance and
double-talk employed by the wealthy few to dodge simple truths is
absolutely offensive to ordinary people blessed with the rare
attribute called common sense. Not all folks are like sheep. Paul
Martin's latest tricks make for a very fine example of truly how bad
things are. Even amidst wholesale scandals breaking out hell, west and
crooked everywhere lawyers and politicians just close ranks and stand
together as thick as the thieves they are. I stress tested the ethics
of the ladies of the Bloc Quebecois and the Gomery Inquiry immediately
after Martin's carefully orchestrated little circus in Parliament on
May 19th was a matter of history. Lets just say I was not surprised to
not hear one peep in response from anyone other than to get a call
from an unidentified and very nervous but cocky Yankee lawyer claiming
that Tony Blair was mad at me.

Pursuant to my phone calls, emails and faxes please find enclosed as
promised exactly the same hard copy of what I sent to the Canadian
Ambassadors Allan Rock and Franky Boy McKenna and a couple of nasty
FBI agents on May 12th just before an interesting event in front of
our home in Milton. I have also included a copy of four letters I have
received in response since then that you may find interesting to say
the least. I also sent you a copy of a letter sent to a lady Ms.
Condolezza Rice whom our former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney
considers to be the most powerful woman in the world. The CD of the
copy of police surveillance tape # 139 is served upon all the above
named Attorney Generals as officers of the court in order that it may
be properly investigated. I will not bother you with the details of
what I am sending to you byway of the certified US Mail because I will
be serving identical material to many other Canadian Authorities in
hand and tell them I gave this stuff to you first and enclose a copy
of this letter. All that is important to me right now is that I secure
proof that this mail was sent before I make my way back home to the
Maritimes.

However I will say I am also enclosing a great deal more material than
what Allan Rock had received in the UN. Some of it is in fact the same
material the two maritime lawyers, Rob Moore and Franky Boy McKenna in
particular received, while I was up home running for Parliament last
year. Things have changed greatly in the past year so I have also
included a few recent items to spice things up for you. I am tired of
trying to convince people employed in law enforcement to uphold the
law. So all I will say for now is deal will your own conscience and be
careful how you respond to this letter. If you do not respond. Rest
assured I will do my best to sue you some day. Ignorance is no excuse
to the law or me.

Veritas Vincit
David R. Amos

The enclosed letter from The Public Service Integrity Office, whose
boss recently testified before the Gomery Inquiry and following quotes
prove why I must speak out.

"Well what do you expect?" said Le Hir in reaction. "Anybody who had
been involved in that kind of thing isn't going to admit readily, or
willfully, to having participated." Asked why he's waited 10 years to
come out with his allegations, Le Hir said he was "sworn to secrecy."
"I'm breaking that oath, and the only way I could have been relieved
by that oath was by a judge in a court saying, 'Mr. Lehir, I
understand that you have made an oath of secrecy; and you're hereby
relieved of that oath.""Mr. Wallace added that police and the courts,
not internal rules, are best-equipped to deal with bureaucrats who cross
the line and break the law. But Judge Gomery did not appear satisfied.
"It takes a major scandal to get the police involved," he said. "It is not
in the nature of the public service to call in the police."

Everybody knows that in order to protect the rights and interests of
my Clan and to sooth my own soul, I have proven many times over that
all lawyers, law enforcement authorities, and politicians in Canada
and the USA are not worthy of the public trust. I maintain that their
first order of business is to protect the evil longstanding system
they have created for their own benefit rather than the people they
claim to serve. Call me a liar and put it in writing. I Double Dog
Dare ya.

Baker got my material. So did everyone else. Only the Attorney General
in Quecbec refused it. I bet our newest Governor General knows why. It
is likely for the same reason she will not accept my emails. It should
be obvious to anyone why I must sue the Crown.


That said I must add some more "info" about Jimmy Prentice and his
minions for you " Taxpayer" dudes to try to ignore and also say Hey to
couple of lawyers on your board of Directors one of whom I have
crossed paths with before

http://www.taxpayer.com/about/board/david-hunter

http://www.taxpayer.com/about/board/karen-selick

So Hey David Hunter and Karen Selick (Remember our doings with the
evil Neo Nazi's estate and Zionists legal argument New Brunswick?)

Here is a little Deja Vu for you.

http://thedavidamosrant.blogspot.ca/2013/08/cbc-says-neo-nazi-estate-dispute-will.html

https://twitter.com/kselick/status/361899947257368577

Karen Selick ‏@kselick ·29 Jul 2013
BLOG: You don't fight Nazis by becoming a Nazi yourself says @kselick
http://huff.to/1e6eanr via @HuffPostCanada

Michael Taube ‏@michaeltaube ·30 Jul 2013
I completely agree with Karen's position. MT @kselick You don't fight
Nazis by becoming a Nazi yourself http://huff.to/1e6eanr

Dr. Dawg ‏@DrDawg ·30 Jul 2013
@michaeltaube @kselick So you agree with Karen's laughable assertion
that the Nazis opposed private property?

Michael Taube ‏@michaeltaube ·30 Jul 2013
@DrDawg @kselick Sorry, I don't follow. She wrote that the Nazis
opposed Jews owning private property. That's correct.

Dr. Dawg ‏@DrDawg ·30 Jul 2013
@michaeltaube I misunderstood, then. I thought she was saying it was
"Nazi" to oppose private property rights.

Michael Taube ‏@michaeltaube ·30 Jul 2013
@DrDawg No worries! She was just trying to show how the Nazis
arbitrarily opposed Jewish ownership of private property.

David Raymond Amos ‏@DavidRayAmos ·18 Aug 2013
@kselick @huffpostcanada @DavidRayAmos I just left you a voicemail
because it appears that we have a common foe
http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=3081

David Raymond Amos ‏@DavidRayAmos ·18 Aug 2013
@huffpostcanada @kselick @DavidRayAmos BTW I am this David Amos
http://qslspolitics.blogspot.ca/2009/03/david-amos-to-wendy-olsen-on.html
… proof of the pudding
http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/2526023-DAMOSIntegrity-yea-right.-txt.pdf
…

I must say that bet that you agree that Arty Baby Topham is not a very
nice Neo Nazi EH? Why have you not sued him for slander and libel?

http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=3081

Anyway i must say you VERY UNETHICAL "Taxpayer" people who are no
doubt still generously supported by Bankster donations must at least
recall why I sued three US Treasury Agent in 2002 or the documents I
sent to your Wannabe King Harper and his Bankster buddies in 2006
while your political pal Derek Baby was still in school N'esy Pas ?

http://davidamos.blogspot.ca/2006/05/harper-and-bankers.html

---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 15:23:43 -0400
Subject: Re: 83 Valley RoadTo: rchedore <rchedore@mosherchedore.ca>, bmosher
<bmosher@mosherchedore.ca>, mike gauvin <mikegauvin@live.ca>,
"serge.gauvin"<serge.gauvin@snb.ca>, "robert.gauvin"
<robert.gauvin@gnb.ca>, "alan.roy"<alan.roy@snb.ca>, "Sherry.Wilson"
<Sherry.Wilson@gnb.ca>, "andrea.anderson-mason"
<andrea.anderson-mason@gnb.ca>, mrichard
<mrichard@lawsociety-barreau.nb.ca>, swilliams@mosherchedore.ca
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, "claude.poirier"
<claude.poirier@snb.ca>, "Michel.Carrier"<Michel.Carrier@gnb.ca>,
"brian.gallant"<brian.gallant@gnb.ca>, "blaine.higgs"
<blaine.higgs@gnb.ca>, "kris.austin"<kris.austin@gnb.ca>,
"David.Coon"<David.Coon@gnb.ca>, premier <premier@gnb.ca>,
"bruce.northrup"<bruce.northrup@gnb.ca>, "Dominic.Cardy"
<Dominic.Cardy@gnb.ca>

Let me know when your lawyer has the document composed and I will pay
the 2500 dollar balance owed plus 500 dollars towards his fees just as
I promised

For the record I can find no law in New Brunswick that requires us to
use the services of a lawyer to complete our transaction and nobody
has dared to argue that simple fact.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 11:54:13 -0400
Subject: Re: 83 valley road
To: mike gauvin <mikegauvin@live.ca>, "serge.gauvin"
<serge.gauvin@snb.ca>, "robert.gauvin"<robert.gauvin@gnb.ca>,
"alan.roy"<alan.roy@snb.ca>, "Sherry.Wilson"<Sherry.Wilson@gnb.ca>,
"andrea.anderson-mason"<andrea.anderson-mason@gnb.ca>, mrichard
<mrichard@lawsociety-barreau.nb.ca>
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>

I act Pro Se remember?

On 12/27/18, mike gauvin <mikegauvin@live.ca> wrote:
> Hi David. Did you find an attorney yet? Let me know when you do and I can
> put my attorney in contact with yours to complete the real estate deal.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael Gauvin
>


---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2018 17:33:26 -0400
Subject: Re 83 Valley I have heard nothing back from you Perhaps you
should call Mr Gauvin now?
To: mikegauvin@live.ca, "serge.gauvin"<serge.gauvin@snb.ca>,
"robert.gauvin"<robert.gauvin@gnb.ca>, rchedore
<rchedore@mosherchedore.ca>
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, swilliams@mosherchedore.ca


---------- Original message ----------

"David.Coon"<David.Coon@gnb.ca>, "blaine.higgs"<blaine.higgs@gnb.ca>, 

David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>

Serge Gauvin
Registrar General of Land Titles
Called to the bar: 1995 (NB)
Phone: 506-457-6933
Fax: 506-444-3033
Email: serge.gauvin@snb.ca
Patrick V. Windle
Deputy Registrar General of Land Titles
Called to the bar: 1997 (NB)
Email: patrick.windle@snb.ca
Service New Brunswick
Land Registry, 985 College Hill Rd.
PO Box 1998, Stn. A
Fredericton, New Brunswick E3B 5G4

---------- Original message ----------
From: "Auto-reply from kevhache@nb.aibn.com"<kevhache@nb.aibn.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2018 18:20:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Too Funny I just talked to Claude Landry Elvy Robichaud’s
old Chief of Staff He forgot what went down in 2004 and the emails I
sent him since
To: david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com

Bonjour

Je serais absent du bureau du 6 aout au   22 aout inclusivement.  Le
bureau sera fermé du 6 au 19 aout inclusivement pour les vacances d
ete et sera ouvert a partir du 20 aout.  Bonne Vacance a tous

Je retournerais votre courriel a mon retour.

Kevin J. Hache

CABINET KEVIN J. HACHE
8 Boul St-Pierre Ouest
C.P. 5662
Caraquet NB E1W 1B7
506 727 5150 (telephone)
506 727 6686 (telecopieur)
kevhache@nb.sympatico.ca

---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 11:03:47 -0400
Subject: Hey Serge we just talked I didn't get an email from you so I
forwarded to you the one I was composing when you called
To: serge.gauvin@snb.ca
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>

Methinks I am a quick study N'esy Pas?

http://pcnb.ca/jean-l-gauvin/

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1094504/robert-gauvin-politique-sagouine-progressiste-conservateur

SERGE GAUVIN
Registrar General of Land Titles
SNB Bldg., 985 College Hill Rd.
PO Box 1998
Fredericton, New Brunswick
E3B 5G4
Phone: 506-457-6933
Phone : (506) 457-6933
Fax : (506) 444-3033
Email : serge.gauvin@snb.ca


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Brian Gallant <briangallant10@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 06:01:57 -0700
Subject: Merci / Thank you Re: Fwd: I just called Alan Roy again about
my right to health care, my missing 1965 Harley, the Yankee Wiretaps
tapes in its saddlebag and Federal Court and his assistant played dumb
as usual
To: motomaniac333@gmail.com

(Français à suivre)

If your email is pertaining to the Government of New Brunswick, please
email me at brian.gallant@gnb.ca

If your matter is urgent, please email Greg Byrne at greg.byrne@gnb.ca

Thank you.

Si votre courriel s'addresse au Gouvernement du Nouveau-Brunswick,
‎svp m'envoyez un courriel à brian.gallant@gnb.ca

Pour les urgences, veuillez contacter Greg Byrne à greg.byrne@gnb.ca

Merci.




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 10:42:09 -0400
Subject: Attn Marc Richard and John McNair I just called AGAIN Say hey
to my Brother in Law W. S. Reid CHEDORE and his brother of the law
David Lutz QC for me will ya?
To: MRichard@lawsociety-barreau.nb.ca, John.McNair@snb.ca,
"serge.rousselle"<serge.rousselle@gnb.ca>, Erin.Hardy@snb.ca,
David.Eidt@gnb.ca
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Marc Richard <MRichard@lawsociety-barreau.nb.ca>
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 22:51:09 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: RE Irving's ridiculous constitutional
challenge and Federal Court File no T-1557-15 I wonder if George
Cooper and Hélène Beaulieure even know how many times the Irvings and
partners of their VERY snobby law firm have offended me over t...
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

I will be out of the office until October 30, 2017.  Je serai absent
du bureau jusqu'au 30 octobre 2017.



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Marc Richard <MRichard@lawsociety-barreau.nb.ca>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 00:33:11 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Yo Mr Lutz howcome your buddy the clerk
would not file this motion and properly witnessed affidavit and why
did she take all four copies?
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

I will be out of the office until March 2, 2017. Je serai absent du
bureau jusqu'au 2 mars 2017.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Marc Richard <MRichard@lawsociety-barreau.nb.ca>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 00:33:11 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Yo Mr Lutz howcome your buddy the clerk
would not file this motion and properly witnessed affidavit and why
did she take all four copies?
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

I will be out of the office until March 2, 2017. Je serai absent du
bureau jusqu'au 2 mars 2017.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Eidt, David (OAG/CPG)"<David.Eidt@gnb.ca>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 00:33:21 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Yo Mr Lutz howcome your buddy the clerk
would not file this motion and properly witnessed affidavit and why
did she take all four copies?
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

I will be out of the office until Monday, March 13, 2017. I will have
little to no access to email. Please dial 453-2222 for assistance.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Marc Richard <MRichard@lawsociety-barreau.nb.ca>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 13:16:46 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: RE: The New Brunswick Real Estate
Association and their deliberate ignorance for the bankster's benefit
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

I will be out of the office until  August 15, 2016. Je serai absent du
bureau jusqu'au 15 août 2016.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "McNair, John (SNB)"<John.McNair@snb.ca>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 16:04:29 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: RE: The New Brunswick Real Estate
Association and their deliberate ignorance for the bankster's benefit
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

I will be out of the office August 1 - August 12. I will reply to your
email when I return. If you require immediate assistance, please
contact Chantal Leger at 663-2510. Thank you.

Je serai absent du bureau les 1 aout - 12 aout. Je répondrai à votre
courriel à mon retour. Si vous nécessitez de l'assistance
immédiatement, veuillez contacter Chantal Leger au 663-2510. Merci.



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Hardy, Erin (SNB)"<Erin.Hardy@snb.ca>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 16:04:28 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: RE: The New Brunswick Real Estate
Association and their deliberate ignorance for the bankster's benefit
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

Le francais suit:

Hello,

I am currently out of the office. I will gladly reply to your message
upon my return on August 15, 2016. Should you require immediate
assitance please contact Celeste Savoie at (506) 471-5290 or by email:
Celeste.Savoie@snb.ca.

Have a nice day!

Bonjour,

Je suis presentement hors du bureau. Il me fera plaisir de repondre a
votre message a mon retour August 15, 2016. Si vous avez besoin d'une
assitance immediate, veuillez communiquer avec Celeste Savoie au (506)
471-5290 ou par courriel a: Celeste.Savoie@snb.ca.

Bonne journee!


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Marc Richard <MRichard@lawsociety-barreau.nb.ca>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 17:43:27 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Oh My My we just talked briefly Correct Ms
Beaulieu? It appears to me that the latest President of the NB Law
Society thinks non lawyers are not worth talking to
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

I will be out of the office until July 21, 2014. Je serai absent du
bureau jusqu'au 21 juillet 2014.



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

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

Department of Justice

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

> If want something very serious to download and laugh at as well Please
> Enjoy and share real wiretap tapes of the mob
>
> http://thedavidamosrant.blogspot.ca/2013/10/re-glen-greenwald-and-braz
> ilian.html
>
>> http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/06/09/nsa-leak-guardian.html
>>
>> As the CBC etc yap about Yankee wiretaps and whistleblowers I must
>> ask them the obvious question AIN'T THEY FORGETTING SOMETHING????
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vugUalUO8YY
>>
>> What the hell does the media think my Yankee lawyer served upon the
>> USDOJ right after I ran for and seat in the 39th Parliament baseball
>> cards?
>>
>> http://archive.org/details/ITriedToExplainItToAllMaritimersInEarly200
>> 6
>>
>> http://davidamos.blogspot.ca/2006/05/wiretap-tapes-impeach-bush.html
>>
>> http://www.archive.org/details/PoliceSurveilanceWiretapTape139
>>
>> http://archive.org/details/Part1WiretapTape143
>>
>> FEDERAL EXPRES February 7, 2006
>> Senator Arlen Specter
>> United States Senate
>> Committee on the Judiciary
>> 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
>> Washington, DC 20510
>>
>> Dear Mr. Specter:
>>
>> I have been asked to forward the enclosed tapes to you from a man
>> named, David Amos, a Canadian citizen, in connection with the matters
>> raised in the attached letter.
>>
>> Mr. Amos has represented to me that these are illegal FBI wire tap tapes.
>>
>> I believe Mr. Amos has been in contact with you about this previously.
>>
>> Very truly yours,
>> Barry A. Bachrach
>> Direct telephone: (508) 926-3403
>> Direct facsimile: (508) 929-3003
>> Email: bbachrach@bowditch.com
>>
>

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


Sunday, 19 November 2017
Federal Court of Appeal Finally Makes The BIG Decision And Publishes
It Now The Crooks Cannot Take Back Ticket To Try Put My Matter Before
The Supreme Court

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


Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Amos v. Canada
Court (s) Database

Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date

2017-10-30
Neutral citation

2017 FCA 213
File numbers

A-48-16
Date: 20171030

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

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


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

THE COURT



Date: 20171030

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

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


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

I.                    Introduction

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

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


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


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


II.                 Preliminary Matter

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


III.               Issue

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

IV.              Analysis

A.                 Standard of Review

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

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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

A CROSS-APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SOUTHCOTT DATED
JANUARY 25, 2016; DOCKET NUMBER T-1557-15.
DOCKET:

A-48-16



STYLE OF CAUSE:

DAVID RAYMOND AMOS v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN



PLACE OF HEARING:

Fredericton,
New Brunswick

DATE OF HEARING:

May 24, 2017

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:

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

DATED:

October 30, 2017

APPEARANCES:
David Raymond Amos


For The Appellant / respondent on cross-appeal
(on his own behalf)

Jan Jensen


For The Respondent / appELLANT ON CROSS-APPEAL

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Nathalie G. Drouin
Deputy Attorney General of Canada

For The Respondent / APPELLANT ON CROSS-APPEAL


https://www.facebook.com/johnwilliamsonNB/photos/a.848901995163272.1073741826.172576949462450/1765074580212671/?type=3

John Williamson - Conservative Nomination Candidate New Brunswick Southwest
May 17 at 12:48pm ·

Great news! John Williamson is running for the federal Conservative
nomination in New Brunswick Southwest. He needs your help to secure
the riding and defeat the Trudeau Liberals in 2019.

Having served as Member of Parliament from 2011-2015, he knows the
issues, has proven ability, and can win: John had the highest
Conservative vote — 38.6% — of all 32 ridings in Atlantic Canada in
2015. It wasn’t enough to get over the top, but it was a clear signal
that his local campaign was strong.

How can you help? Only current Conservative Party members can vote for
John in the nomination, so please signup or renew your membership
here: https://donate.conservative.ca/membership/

There are also envelopes that need stuffing, phone calls that need to
be made, and events already planned.

Contact John today by e-mail at VoteJohnW@gmail.com or call
506-466-8347 to let him know how you can help!

Unsure if your membership is current? Feel free to contact John and
ask. His team can make sure you’re all set to vote.

And be sure to share and follow this page for updates on his campaign
and to learn about upcoming events.

Go John! And Vote John W!

Progressive Conservative MLA calls it quits at provincial level
Brian Macdonald won't run again for legislature seat, but might try
federal politics
CBC News · Posted: May 28, 2018 6:07 PM AT | Last Updated: May 28
Brian Macdonald, a Progressive Conservative MLA, has announced he
won't run in the Sept. 24 provincial election. (CBC)

New Brunswick's Progressive Conservative party is losing one of its
highest-profile MLAs just months before the next provincial election.

Brian Macdonald says he won't be a candidate this fall and may instead
jump into federal politics.

Calling the last year "my best year in politics," the two-term MLA
said his decision has nothing to do with PC Leader Blaine Higgs, who
beat Macdonald for the party leadership in 2016.

"It's been a really good year," Macdonald said. "I've had a strong
voice in the legislature on issues that are really important to my
heart.

"I also think it can be a challenge being in provincial politics. It's
very small, it's very close, it's very tight, and on a personal basis,
I want to move on."

Macdonald says he’s considering running for the federal Conservative
nomination in New Brunswick Southwest, which includes part of the
riding of Fredericton West-Hanwell, where he has been the MLA. (CBC)

Macdonald said he's considering running for the federal Conservative
nomination in New Brunswick Southwest, a constituency that includes
part of Macdonald's provincial riding of Fredericton West-Hanwell.

    Health critic slams 'gutting' of top doctor's office

    Blaine Higgs faces internal PC dissent over appointment

That decision would pit him against former Conservative MP John
Williamson, who announced May 21 he'll also seek the nomination in the
riding he represented from 2011 to 2015. Party members in the riding
will nominate their candidate June 28.

Macdonald said he'll also consider running federally in Fredericton.
The former soldier said he's also looking at job opportunities with
national organizations that advocate for veterans.

"I'm looking for opportunities and considering a lot of options," he said.

    Blaine Higgs wins N.B. PC leadership race on 3rd ballot

    Tory leadership hopefuls scramble to be 'second choice' of rivals'
supporters

Macdonald is the fifth candidate from the 2016 provincial PC
leadership race to opt against running in this year's election under
Higgs.

Macdonald said he is confident he would have won his riding again and
the Tories will win the election Sept. 24, meaning he'd have a shot of
becoming a minister.

But he said being a provincial politician "does wear on you and it
does make you think about what the other options are. … If I go
another four years in provincial politics, it concerns me that my
options would be limited after that."

The 47-year-old also said the recent death of some friends made him
realize he should pursue other opportunities when he can.

Macdonald's interest in federal politics has been well-known for
years. He was a political assistant to former federal Defence Minister
Peter MacKay and sought the federal Conservative nomination for
Fredericton for the 2008 election.

After failing to win that nomination, he ran provincially in
Fredericton-Silverwood in 2010 and was elected. He was re-elected in
the newly created riding of Fredericton West-Hanwell in 2014, when he
defeated then-NDP leader Dominic Cardy.

Macdonald ran for the leadership of the New Brunswick Progressive
Conservative Party but lost to Blaine Higgs. (Jacques Poitras/CBC)

In 2016, Macdonald ran for the PC leadership, placing sixth on the
first ballot out of seven candidates.

Macdonald said he doesn't think his departure will hurt the provincial
party's chances of holding on to Fredericton West-Hanwell.

"It's going to be very attractive to a number of high-calibre
candidates who are now beginning to come forward," he said.