>, "andrew.scheer"
> <andrew.scheer@parl.gc.ca>, "maxime.bernier"
> <maxime.bernier@parl.gc.ca>, "Gilles.Moreau"
> <Gilles.Moreau@forces.gc.ca>, "Gilles.Cote"<Gilles.Cote@gnb.ca>,
> "gerry.lowe"<gerry.lowe@gnb.ca>, "Gerald.Butts"
> <Gerald.Butts@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>, "Michael.Wernick"
> <Michael.Wernick@pco-bcp.gc.ca>, "Dale.Morgan"
> <Dale.Morgan@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "dale.drummond"
> <dale.drummond@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, DDrummond <DDrummond@google.com>,
> ddale <ddale@thestar.ca>, sfine <sfine@globeandmail.com>
> Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: ethics-ethique ethics-ethique <ethics-ethique@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>
> Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2018 00:22:30 -0500
> Subject: Re: Re My many calls to the Calgary Police Dept about their
> client Partick Doran and his many cohorts
> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
> This will confirm that we have received your enquiry and it has been
> placed in a priority sequence.
> ***********************************
> La présente confirme que nous avons bien reçu votre requête et qu'elle
> a été placée en ordre de priorité de réception.
>
> Thank you/Merci
>
> Professional Ethics Office / Bureau de l'éthique professionelle
> Royal Canadian Mounted Police / Gendarmerie royale du Canada
> 73 Leikin Dr., M5-3-101
> RCMP Mailstop #58/
> GRC Arrêt Postal #58
> Ottawa, Ontario
> K1A 0R2
>
> 1-866-206-0195 (off/bur)
>
> ethics-ethique@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>
> "Strong Ethics, Strong Organization"
> « Une éthique solide pour une organisation solide »
>
> This document is the property of the Government of Canada. It is
> loaned, in confidence, to your agency only and is not to be
> reclassified or further disseminated without the consent of the
> originator."
>
> « Ce document appartient au gouvernement du Canada. Il n'est transmis
> en confidence qu'à votre organisme et il ne doit pas être reclassifié
> ou transmis à d'autres sans le consentement de l'expéditeur. »
>
>
>
>
>
>> ---------- 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
>
>>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: "Kulik, John"<john.kulik@mcinnescooper.com>
>> Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 17:37:49 +0000
>> Subject: McInnes Cooper
>> To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com"<motomaniac333@gmail.com>,
>> "david.raymond.amos@gmail.com"<david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
>>
>> Dear Mr. Amos:
>>
>> I am General Counsel for McInnes Cooper. If you need to communicate
>> with our firm, please do so through me.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> John Kulik
>> [McInnes Cooper]<http://www.mcinnescooper.com/>
>>
>> John Kulik Q.C.
>> Partner & General Counsel
>> McInnes Cooper
>>
>> tel +1 (902) 444 8571 | fax +1 (902) 425 6350
>>
>> 1969 Upper Water Street
>> Suite 1300
>> Purdy's Wharf Tower II Halifax, NS, B3J 2V1
>>
>> asst Cathy Ohlhausen | +1 (902) 455 8215
>>
>>
>>
>> Notice This communication, including any attachments, is confidential
>> and may be protected by solicitor/client privilege. It is intended
>> only for the person or persons to whom it is addressed. If you have
>> received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by e-mail or
>> telephone at McInnes Cooper's expense. Avis Les informations contenues
>> dans ce courriel, y compris toute(s) pièce(s) jointe(s), sont
>> confidentielles et peuvent faire l'objet d'un privilège avocat-client.
>> Les informations sont dirigées au(x) destinataire(s) seulement. Si
>> vous avez reçu ce courriel par erreur, veuillez en aviser l'expéditeur
>> par courriel ou par téléphone, aux frais de McInnes Cooper.
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
>> Date: Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:35 AM
>> Subject: RE My complaint against the CROWN in Federal Court Attn David
>> Hansen and Peter MacKay If you planning to submit a motion for a
>> publication ban on my complaint trust that you dudes are way past too
>> late
>> To: David.Hansen@justice.gc.ca, peter.mackay@justice.gc.ca
>> peacock.kurt@telegraphjournal.com, mclaughlin.heather@dailygleaner.com,
>> david.akin@sunmedia.ca, robert.frater@justice.gc.ca,
>> paul.riley@ppsc-sppc.gc.ca,
>> greg@gregdelbigio.com, joyce.dewitt-vanoosten@gov.bc.ca,
>> joan.barrett@ontario.ca, jean-vincent.lacroix@gouv.qc.ca,
>> peter.rogers@mcinnescooper.com, mfeder@mccarthy.ca, mjamal@osler.com
>> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, gopublic@cbc.ca,
>> Whistleblower@ctv.ca
>>
>> https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14439/index.do
>>
>> http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/WebDocuments-DocumentsWeb/35072/FM030_Respondent_Attorney-General-of-Canada-on-Behalf-of-the-United-States-of-America.pdf
>>
>> http://thedavidamosrant.blogspot.ca/2013/10/re-glen-greenwald-and-brazilian.html
>>
>> I repeat what the Hell do I do with the Yankee wiretapes taps sell
>> them on Ebay or listen to them and argue them with you dudes in
>> Feferal Court?
>>
>> Petey Baby loses all parliamentary privelges in less than a month but
>> he still supposed to be an ethical officer of the Court CORRECT?
>>
>> Veritas Vincit
>> David Raymond Amos
>> 902 800 0369
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
>> Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 14:10:14 -0400
>> Subject: Yo Mr Bauer say hey to your client Obama and his buddies in
>> the USDOJ for me will ya?
>> To: RBauer@perkinscoie.com, sshimshak@paulweiss.com,
>> cspada@lswlaw.com, msmith@svlaw.com, bginsberg@pattonboggs.com,
>> gregory.craig@skadden.com, pm@pm.gc.ca, bob.paulson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
>> bob.rae@rogers.blackberry.net, MulcaT@parl.gc.ca,  leader@greenparty.ca
>> Cc: alevine@cooley.com, david.raymond.amos@gmail.com,
>> michael.rothfeld@wsj.com, remery@ecbalaw.com
>>
>> QSLS Politics
>> By Location Visit Detail
>> Visit 29,419
>> Domain Name usdoj.gov ? (U.S. Government)
>> IP Address 149.101.1.# (US Dept of Justice)
>> ISP US Dept of Justice
>> Location Continent : North America
>> Country : United States (Facts)
>> State : District of Columbia
>> City : Washington
>> Lat/Long : 38.9097, -77.0231 (Map)
>> Language English (U.S.) en-us
>> Operating System Microsoft WinXP
>> Browser Internet Explorer 8.0
>> Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET
>> CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; InfoPath.2;
>> DI60SP1001)
>> Javascript version 1.3
>> Monitor Resolution : 1024 x 768
>> Color Depth : 32 bits
>> Time of Visit Nov 17 2012 6:33:08 pm
>> Last Page View Nov 17 2012 6:33:08 pm
>> Visit Length 0 seconds
>> Page Views 1
>> Referring URL http://www.google.co...wwWJrm94lCEqRmovPXJg
>> Search Engine google.com
>> Search Words david amos bernie madoff
>> Visit Entry Page http://qslspolitics....-wendy-olsen-on.html
>> Visit Exit Page http://qslspolitics....-wendy-olsen-on.html
>> Out Click
>> Time Zone UTC-5:00
>> Visitor's Time Nov 17 2012 12:33:08 pm
>> Visit Number 29,419
>>
>> http://qslspolitics.blogspot.com/2009/03/david-amos-to-wendy-olsen-on.html
>>
>>
>> Could ya tell I am investigating your pension plan bigtime? Its
>> because no member of the RCMP I have ever encountered has earned it yet
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
>> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:36:04 -0400
>> Subject: This is a brief as I can make my concerns Randy
>> To:  randyedmunds@gov.nl.ca
>> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>>
>> In a nutshell my concerns about the actions of the Investment Industry
>> affect the interests of every person in every district of every
>> country not just the USA and Canada. I was offering to help you with
>> Emera because my work with them and Danny Williams is well known and
>> some of it is over eight years old and in the PUBLIC Record.
>>
>> All you have to do is stand in the Legislature and ask the MInister of
>> Justice why I have been invited to sue Newfoundland by the
>> Conservatives
>>
>>
>> Obviously I am the guy the USDOJ and the SEC would not name who is the
>> link to Madoff and Putnam Investments
>>
>> Here is why
>>
>> http://banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=90f8e691-9065-4f8c-a465-72722b47e7f2
>>
>> Notice the transcripts and webcasts of the hearing of the US Senate
>> Banking Commitee are still missing? Mr Emory should at least notice
>> Eliot Spitzer and the Dates around November 20th, 2003 in the
>> following file
>>
>> http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/2526023-DAMOSIntegrity-yea-right.-txt.pdf
>>
>> http://occupywallst.org/users/DavidRaymondAmos/
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: "Hansen, David"David.Hansen@justice.gc.ca
>> Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 19:28:44 +0000
>> Subject: RE: I just called again Mr Hansen
>> To: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
>>
>> Hello Mr. Amos,
>>
>> I manage the Justice Canada civil litigation section in the Atlantic
>> region.  We are only responsible for litigating existing civil
>> litigation files in which the Attorney General of Canada is a named
>> defendant or plaintiff.  If you are a plaintiff or defendant in an
>> existing civil litigation matter in the Atlantic region in which
>> Attorney General of Canada is a named defendant or plaintiff please
>> provide the court file number, the names of the parties in the action
>> and your question.  I am not the appropriate contact for other
>> matters.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> David A. Hansen
>> Regional Director | Directeur régional
>> General Counsel |Avocat général
>> Civil Litigation and Advisory | Contentieux des affaires civiles et
>> services de consultation
>> Department of Justice | Ministère de la Justice
>> Suite 1400 – Duke Tower | Pièce 1400 – Tour Duke
>> 5251 Duke Street | 5251 rue Duke
>> Halifax, Nova Scotia | Halifax, Nouvelle- Écosse
>> B3J 1P3
>> david.hansen@justice.gc.ca
>> Telephone | Téléphone (902) 426-3261 / Facsimile | Télécopieur (902)
>> 426-2329
>> This e-mail is confidential and may be protected by solicitor-client
>> privilege. Unauthorized distribution or disclosure is prohibited. If
>> you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us and delete
>> this entire e-mail.
>> Before printing think about the Environment
>> Thinking Green, please do not print this e-mail unless necessary.
>> Pensez vert, svp imprimez que si nécessaire.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
>>> Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 02:23:24 -0300
>>> Subject: ATTN FBI Special Agent Richard Deslauriers Have you talked to
>>> your buddies Fred Wyshak and Brian Kelly about the wiretap tapes YET?
>>> To: boston@ic.fbi.gov, washington.field@ic.fbi.gov,
>>> bob.paulson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, Kevin.leahy@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
>>> Brian.Kelly@usdoj.gov, us.marshals@usdoj.gov, Fred.Wyshak@usdoj.gov,
>>> jcarney@carneybassil.com, bbachrach@bachrachlaw.net
>>> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, birgittaj@althingi.is,
>>> shmurphy@globe.com, redicecreations@gmail.com
>>>
>>> FBI Boston
>>> One Center Plaza
>>> Suite 600
>>> Boston, MA 02108
>>> Phone: (617) 742-5533
>>> Fax: (617) 223-6327
>>> E-mail: Boston@ic.fbi.gov
>>>
>>> Hours
>>> Although we operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, our normal
>>> "walk-in" business hours are from 8:15 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday
>>> through Friday. If you need to speak with a FBI representative at any
>>> time other than during normal business hours, please telephone our
>>> office at (617) 742-5533.
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
>>> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 01:20:20 -0300
>>> Subject: Yo Fred Wyshak and Brian Kelly your buddy Whitey's trial is
>>> finally underway now correct? What the hell do I do with the wiretap
>>> tapes Sell them on Ebay?
>>> To: Brian.Kelly@usdoj.gov, us.marshals@usdoj.gov,
>>> Fred.Wyshak@usdoj.gov, jcarney@carneybassil.com,
>>> bbachrach@bachrachlaw.net, wolfheartlodge@live.com, shmurphy@globe.com,
>>> >> jonathan.albano@bingham.com,  mvalencia@globe.com
>>> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, oldmaison@yahoo.com,
>>> PATRICK.MURPHY@dhs.gov, rounappletree@aol.com
>>>
>>> http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/06/05/james-whitey-bulger-jury-selection-process-enters-second-day/KjS80ofyMMM5IkByK74bkK/story.html
>>>
>>> http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/06/09/nsa-leak-guardian.html
>>>
>>> As the CBC etc yap about Yankee wiretaps and whistleblowers I must ask
>>> them the obvious question AIN'T THEY FORGETTING SOMETHING????
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vugUalUO8YY
>>>
>>> What the hell does the media think my Yankee lawyer served upon the
>>> USDOJ right after I ran for and seat in the 39th Parliament baseball
>>> cards?
>>>
>>> http://www.archive.org/details/FedsUsTreasuryDeptRcmpEtc
>>>
>>> http://archive.org/details/ITriedToExplainItToAllMaritimersInEarly2006
>>>
>>> http://davidamos.blogspot.ca/2006/05/wiretap-tapes-impeach-bush.html
>>>
>>> http://www.archive.org/details/PoliceSurveilanceWiretapTape139
>>>
>>> http://archive.org/details/Part1WiretapTape143
>>>
>>> FEDERAL EXPRES February 7, 2006
>>> Senator Arlen Specter
>>> United States Senate
>>> Committee on the Judiciary
>>> 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
>>> Washington, DC 20510
>>>
>>> Dear Mr. Specter:
>>>
>>> I have been asked to forward the enclosed tapes to you from a man
>>> named, David Amos, a Canadian citizen, in connection with the matters
>>> raised in the attached letter.
>>>
>>> Mr. Amos has represented to me that these are illegal FBI wire tap
>>> tapes.
>>>
>>> I believe Mr. Amos has been in contact with you about this previously.
>>>
>>> Very truly yours,
>>> Barry A. Bachrach
>>> Direct telephone: (508) 926-3403
>>> Direct facsimile: (508) 929-3003
>>> Email: bbachrach@bowditch.com
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "David Amos"david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>>> To: "Rob Talach"rtalach@ledroitbeckett.com
>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 10:59 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Attn Robert Talach and I should talk ASAP about my suing
>>> the Catholic Church Trust that Bastarache knows why
>>>
>>> The date stamp on about page 134 of this old file of mine should mean
>>> a lot to you
>>>
>>> http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/2619437-CROSS-BORDER-txt-.pdf
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
>>> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 15:37:08 -0400
>>> Subject: To Hell with the KILLER COP Gilles Moreau What say you NOW
>>> Bernadine Chapman??
>>> To: Gilles.Moreau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, phil.giles@statcan.ca,
>>> maritme_malaise@yahoo.ca, Jennifer.Nixon@ps-sp.gc.ca,
>>> bartman.heidi@psic-ispc.gc.ca, Yves.J.Marineau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
>>> david.paradiso@erc-cee.gc.ca, desaulniea@smtp.gc.ca,
>>> denise.brennan@tbs-sct.gc.ca, anne.murtha@vac-acc.gc.ca,
>>> webo@xplornet.com, julie.dickson@osfi-bsif.gc.ca,
>>> rod.giles@osfi-bsif.gc.ca, flaherty.j@parl.gc.ca, toewsv1@parl.gc.ca,
>>> Nycole.Turmel@parl.gc.ca,Clemet1@parl.gc.ca, maritime_malaise@yahoo.ca,
>>> >> oig@sec.gov, whistleblower@finra.org, whistle@fsa.gov.uk,
>>> david@fairwhistleblower.ca
>>> Cc: j.kroes@interpol.int, david.raymond.amos@gmail.com,
>>> bernadine.chapman@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,  justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca,
>>> Juanita.Peddle@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, oldmaison@yahoo.com,
>>> Wayne.Lang@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, Robert.Trevors@gnb.ca,
>>> ian.fahie@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>
>>>
>>> http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/nb/news-nouvelles/media-medias-eng.htm
>>>
>>> http://nb.rcmpvet.ca/Newsletters/VetsReview/nlnov06.pdf
>>>
>>> From: Gilles Moreau Gilles.Moreau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>>> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 08:03:22 -0500
>>> Subject: Re: Lets ee if the really nasty Newfy Lawyer Danny Boy
>>> Millions will explain this email to you or your boss Vic Toews EH
>>> Constable Peddle???
>>> To: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
>>>
>>> Please cease and desist from using my name in your emails.
>>>
>>> Gilles Moreau, Chief Superintendent, CHRP and ACC
>>> Director General
>>> HR Transformation
>>> 73 Leikin Drive, M5-2-502
>>> Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0R2
>>>
>>> Tel 613-843-6039
>>> Cel 613-818-6947
>>>
>>> Gilles Moreau, surintendant principal, CRHA et ACC
>>> Directeur général de la Transformation des ressources humaines
>>> 73 Leikin, pièce M5-2-502
>>> Ottawa, ON K1A 0R2
>>>
>>> tél 613-843-6039
>>> cel 613-818-6947
>>> gilles.moreau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>>>
>>
>> First things first have a Look at the 3 documents hereto attached (Not
>> a big read)
>>
>> Listen to these old voicemails from interesting FEDS at about  the
>> same point in time (Won't take long)
>>
>> http://www.archive.org/details/FedsUsTreasuryDeptRcmpEtc
>>
>> then ask youselves or the lawyers Senator Shelby or Spizter or Cutler
>> or Bernie madoff's old buddy Robert Glauber where the webcast and
>> transcript went for a very important hearing held in late 2003 by the
>> United States Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
>>
>> http://www.banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings?ID=90F8E691-9065-4F8C-A465-72722B47E7F2
>>
>> Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding the
>> Mutual Fund Industry
>>
>> November 20, 2003 02:00 PM
>> The Committee will meet in OPEN SESSION to conduct the second in a
>> series of hearings on the “Review of Current Investigations and
>> Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry.”
>>
>>     Archived Webcast
>>
>> Witness Panel 1
>>
>> Mr. Stephen M. Cutler
>>     Director - Division of Enforcement
>>     Securities and Exchange Commission
>>     cutler.pdf (175.5 KBs)
>>
>> Mr. Robert Glauber
>>     Chairman and CEO
>>     National Association of Securities Dealers
>>     glauber.pdf (171.1 KBs)
>>
>> Eliot Spitzer
>>     Attorney General
>>     State of New York
>>     spitzer.pdf (68.2 KBs)
>>
>> Permalink:
>> http://www.banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2003/11/review-of-current-investigations-and-regulatory-actions-regarding-the-mutual-fund-industry
>>
>>
>> Trust that the evil women and men that  PM Trudeau "The Younger"
>> appointed to to his cabinet will continue to play dumb because of
>> their oath to The Privy Council. However it does not follow that
>> everybody who works for them are dumb and they have no such oath to
>> uphold N'esy Pas?.
>>
>> Veritas Vincit
>> David Raymond Amos
>> 902 800 0369
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Lisa Porteous <lporteous@kleinlyons.com>
>> Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 14:46:22 +0000
>> Subject: RCMP
>> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>
>> David,
>>
>> Thank you for your email inquiring about our class action against the
>> RCMP. As you may know, the Notice of Claim was filed in the British
>> Columbia Supreme Court on March 27, 2012. The lawsuit has been
>> brought by former RCMP constable Janet Merlo on behalf of female RCMP
>> members. Unfortunately, we cannot assist you with your claim.
>>
>> We recommend that you contact Mr. Barry Carter of Mair Jensen Blair
>> LLP to discuss any claim you may have against the RCMP for harassment.
>> His contact information is as follows:
>>
>> Mr. Barry Carter
>> Mair Jensen Blair LLP
>> 1380-885 W. Georgia Street
>> Vancouver, BC V6C 3E8
>> Phone: 604-682-6299
>> Fax 1-604-374-6992
>>
>> This is not intended to be an opinion concerning the merits of your
>> case. In declining to represent you, we are not expressing an opinion
>> as to whether you should take further action in this matter.
>>
>> You should be aware that there may be strict time limitations within
>> which you must act in order to protect your rights. Failure to begin
>> your lawsuit by filing an action within the required time may mean
>> that you could be barred forever from pursuing a claim. Therefore, you
>> should immediately contact another lawyer ( as indicated above) to
>> obtain legal advice/representation.
>>
>> Thank you again for considering our firm.
>>
>> Yours truly,
>>
>> Lisa Porteous
>> Case Manager/Paralegal
>>
>> lporteous@kleinlyons.com
>> www.kleinlyons.com
>>
>> KLEIN ∙ LYONS
>> Suite 400-1385 West 8th Avenue
>> Vancouver BC V6H 3V9 Canada
>> Office 604.874.7171
>> Fax 604.874.7180
>> Direct 604.714.6533
>>
>> This email is confidential and may be protected by solicitor-client
>> privilege. It is intended only for the use of the person to whom it is
>> addressed. Any distribution, copying or other use by anyone else is
>> strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
>> telephone us immediately and destroy this e-mail.
>>
>> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>