Hey Ralph Goodale perhaps you and the RCMP should call the Yankee Governor Charlie Baker and the cop Robert Ridge (857 259 9083) ASAP EH Mr Prime Minister Trudeau the Younger and Donald Trump?
The men and women of the BPD would like to congratulate John Conroy on his promotion from Sergeant Detective to Lieutenant and Robert Ridge on his rating of Sergeant Detective. We wish them the best of luck in their new chapters with the BPD
PROMOTIONS: The men and women of the BPD would like to congratulate John Conroy on his promotion from Sergeant Detective to Lieutenant and Robert Ridge on his rating of Sergeant Detective. On Friday, January 4, 2019 Commissioner Gross and Chief Long presented the men with their new badges during a ceremony at Boston Police Headquarters. We wish them the best of luck in their new chapters with the BPD.
---------- Original message ---------- From: Kevin Leahy <kevin.leahy@rcmp-grc.gc.ca> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 12:38:43 -0400 Subject: Re: RE The call from the Boston cop Robert Ridge (857 259 9083) on behalf of the VERY corrupt Yankee DA Rachael Rollins To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
French will follow
Thank you for your email.
For inquiries regarding EMRO’s Office, please address your email to acting EMRO Sebastien Brillon at sebastien.brillon@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
For inquiries regarding CO NHQ Office, please address your email to acting CO Farquharson, David at David.Farquharson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
All PPS related correspondence should be sent to my PPS account at kevin.leahy@pps-spp@parl.gc.ca -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Merci pour votre courriel.
Pour toute question concernant le Bureau de l'EMRO, veuillez adresser vos courriels à l’Officier responsable des Relations employeur-employés par intérim Sébastien Brillon à l'adresse suivante sebastien.brillon@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
Pour toute question concernant le bureau du Commandant de la Direction générale, veuillez adresser vos courriels au Commandant de la Direction générale par intérim Farquharson, David à l'adresse suivante David.Farquharson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
Toute correspondance relative au Service De Protection Parlementaire doit être envoyée à mon compte de PPS à l'adresse suivante kevin.leahy@pps-spp@parl.gc.ca
Kevin Leahy Chief Superintendent/Surintendant principal Director, Parliamentary Protective Service Directeur , Service de protection parlementaire T 613-996-5048 Kevin.leahy@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are confidential and may contain protected information. It is intended only for the individual or entity named in the message. If you are not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver the message that this email contains to the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this email, nor disclose or use in any manner the information that it contains. Please notify the sender immediately if you have received this email by mistake and delete it. AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ: Le présent courriel et tout fichier qui y est joint sont confidentiels et peuvent contenir des renseignements protégés. Il est strictement réservé à l’usage du destinataire prévu. Si vous n’êtes pas le destinataire prévu, ou le mandataire chargé de lui transmettre le message que ce courriel contient, vous ne devez ni le diffuser, le distribuer ou le copier, ni divulguer ou utiliser à quelque fin que ce soit les renseignements qu’il contient. Veuillez aviser immédiatement l’expéditeur si vous avez reçu ce courriel par erreur et supprimez-le.
---------- Original message ---------- From: "OfficeofthePremier, Office PREM:EX"<Premier@gov.bc.ca> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 16:38:40 +0000 Subject: Automatic reply: RE The call from the Boston cop Robert Ridge (857 259 9083) on behalf of the VERY corrupt Yankee DA Rachael Rollins To: David Amos <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, 28 Jun 2019 16:38:41 +0000 Subject: Automatic reply: RE The call from the Boston cop Robert Ridge (857 259 9083) on behalf of the VERY corrupt Yankee DA Rachael Rollins To: David Amos <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.
'If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue'
By Teresa Hanafin, Globe Staff
Good morning! It's Friday, June 28, the 179th day of the year. Sunrise in Boston was at 5:09 a.m.; sunset will be at 8:25 p.m. for 15 hours and 16 minutes of sunlight. The waning moon is 17 percent full.
US Senator Kamala Harris's challenge to former VP Joe Biden's comments about working with segregationists in Congress and his opposition to federal court-ordered busing got the most attention after the Democratic debate last night. And Biden seemed unprepared in his rather rambling answer.
By the way, it will be interesting to see how Biden tries to clean things up when he speaks this afternoon at Jesse Jackson's Rainbow PUSH Coalition Convention in Chicago.
And predictably, conservatives almost immediately began attacking Harris, including by launching a coordinated campaign on Twitter in which accounts pretended to be black people offended that she would claim to be black (and all used the exact same wording):
"Kamala Harris is *not* an American black. She is half Indian and half Jamaican. I'm so sick of people robbing American Blacks (like myself) of our history. It's disgusting ... These are my people not her people. Freaking disgusting."
Because, you know, racists would look at Harris throughout her life and say, "Oh, she has black skin, but she's actually half Jamaican, so we won't discriminate against her."
For the record, Harris was born in Oakland. Her mother, Shyamala Gopalan Harris, was a Tamil Indian, a breast cancer scientist who immigrated to the US from Madras (present-day Chennai) in 1960. Her father, Donald Harris, is a Stanford University economics professor who emigrated from Jamaica in 1961 for graduate study in economics at the University of California at Berkeley.
Progressives in the US House are still fuming today over Speaker Nancy Pelosi's decision to accept the Senate version of the border funding bill instead of the House version that had more protections for migrant kids held in detention and restricted how the Trump administration could spend the money.
Pelosi tried to add those elements to the Senate bill, but House moderates threatened to withhold their support if she did. So it's the Senate bill, with money for the Pentagon to send more soldiers to the border and no health and care standards for the detention centers, that goes to Trump for his signature. Vox has a good rundown of the differences between the bills.
Trump is scheduled to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Osaka about their ongoing trade war.
I missed this for yesterday's newsletter: The two friends whom writer E. Jean Carroll told about her alleged rape by Trump immediately after it happened in the mid-90s have identified themselves and publicly corroborated her account.
Here's a New York Times podcast interview with the women.
One friend, Lisa Birnbach, an author best known for co-authoring "The Official Preppy Handbook" in 1980, urged Carroll to go to the police. The other, Carol Martin, a longtime news anchor for WCBS-TV in New York, advised Carroll not to tell anyone because she believed that Trump would use his army of lawyers to make her life hell.
Carroll, who blamed herself for the assault -- as far too many women do -- stayed silent. Until now.
Mass. Governor Charlie Baker, still in London, meets with US Ambassador Woody Johnson. Boston Mayor Marty Walsh is at the US Conference of Mayors annual meeting in Honolulu, Hawaii. I wonder if they've ever met in say, Albany.
Finally, let's end with Rudyard Kipling's most famous poem, "If—". Pretty good use of the English language, I'd say.
If you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you, If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, But make allowance for their doubting too; If you can wait and not be tired by waiting, Or being lied about, don't deal in lies, Or being hated, don't give way to hating, And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream — and not make dreams your master; If you can think — and not make thoughts your aim; If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster And treat those two impostors just the same; If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools, Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken, And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:
If you can make one heap of all your winnings And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss, And lose, and start again at your beginnings And never breathe a word about your loss; If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew To serve your turn long after they are gone, And so hold on when there is nothing in you Except the Will which says to them: 'Hold on!'
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue, Or walk with Kings — nor lose the common touch, If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you, If all men count with you, but none too much; If you can fill the unforgiving minute With sixty seconds' worth of distance run, Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it, And — which is more — you'll be a Man, my son!
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> > Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 12:14:34 -0400 > Subject: RE The call from the Boston cop Robert Ridge (857 259 9083) > on behalf of the VERY corrupt Yankee DA Rachael Rollins > To: internalaffairs@pd.boston.gov, mediarelations@pd.boston.gov, > Robert.Ridge@pd.boston.gov, N.Decosta-Klipa@boston.com, > John.Conroy@pd.boston.gov > Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>, "Dale.Morgan" > <Dale.Morgan@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Boston.Mail"<Boston.Mail@ic.fbi.gov>, > news-tips <news-tips@nytimes.com>, Newsroom > <Newsroom@globeandmail.com>, "darrow.macintyre" > <darrow.macintyre@cbc.ca> > > https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2019/04/08/charlie-baker-rachael-rollins > > How a policy dispute between Charlie Baker and Rachael Rollins > suddenly turned personal > "We are allowed to disagree with each other, but what you are not > going to do is disrespect this office." > > > "Gov. Charlie Baker and Rachael Rollins have purportedly hit the > “reset button,” but the Suffolk Country district attorney still thinks > there’s something “funny” about the way she — the first woman to hold > the Boston-area prosecutor job — has been treated. > > The two elected officials clashed over the weekend, after Baker’s top > public safety official sent Rollins a letter last week asking her to > revise some of her new policies — including not prosecuting certain > misdemeanor crimes. In a press conference Friday, the Democratic > district attorney shot back at the Republican administration, > suggesting that “not everyone gets the benefit of the Baker family,” > alluding to groping allegations against the governor’s son last year." > > https://bpdnews.com/news/2019/1/4/recent-promotions-two-members-of-the-bpd-receive-promotions-during-ceremony-at-bpd-headquartersnbsp > > The men and women of the BPD would like to congratulate John Conroy on > his promotion from Sergeant Detective to Lieutenant and Robert Ridge > on his rating of Sergeant Detective. We wish them the best of luck in > their new chapters with the BPD. > > ---------- Original message ---------- > From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> > Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 16:15:59 -0400 > Subject: Hey Ralph Goodale perhaps you and the RCMP should call the > Yankees Governor Charlie Baker, his lawyer Bob Ross, Rachael Rollins > and this cop Robert Ridge (857 259 9083) ASAP EH Mr Primme Minister > Trudeau the Younger and Donald Trump Jr? > To: pm@pm.gc.ca, Katie.Telford@pmo-cpm.gc.ca, > Ian.Shugart@pco-bcp.gc.ca, djtjr@trumporg.com, > Donald.J.Trump@donaldtrump.com, JUSTWEB@novascotia.ca, > Frank.McKenna@td.com, barbara.massey@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, > Douglas.Johnson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, sandra.lofaro@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, > washington.field@ic.fbi.gov, Brenda.Lucki@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, > gov.press@state.ma.us, bob.ross@state.ma.us, jfurey@nbpower.com, > jfetzer@d.umn.edu, Newsroom@globeandmail.com, sfine@globeandmail.com, > .Poitras@cbc.ca, steve.murphy@ctv.ca, David.Akin@globalnews.ca, > Dale.Morgan@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, news@kingscorecord.com, > news@dailygleaner.com, oldmaison@yahoo.com, jbosnitch@gmail.com, > andre@jafaust.com> > Cc: david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com, DJT@trumporg.com > wharrison@nbpower.com, David.Lametti@parl.gc.ca, mcu@justice.gc.ca, > Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca, hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca > >>> From: Justice Website <JUSTWEB@novascotia.ca> >>> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:21:11 +0000 >>> Subject: Emails to Department of Justice and Province of Nova Scotia >>> To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com"<motomaniac333@gmail.com> >>> >>> Mr. Amos, >>> We acknowledge receipt of your recent emails to the Deputy Minister of >>> Justice and lawyers within the Legal Services Division of the >>> Department of Justice respecting a possible claim against the Province >>> of Nova Scotia. Service of any documents respecting a legal claim >>> against the Province of Nova Scotia may be served on the Attorney >>> General at 1690 Hollis Street, Halifax, NS. Please note that we will >>> not be responding to further emails on this matter. >>> >>> Department of Justice >>> >>> On 8/3/17, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> If want something very serious to download and laugh at as well Please >>>> Enjoy and share real wiretap tapes of the mob >>>> >>>> http://thedavidamosrant.blogspot.ca/2013/10/re-glen-greenwald-and-braz >>>> ilian.html >>>> >>>>> http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/06/09/nsa-leak-guardian.html >>>>> >>>>> As the CBC etc yap about Yankee wiretaps and whistleblowers I must >>>>> ask them the obvious question AIN'T THEY FORGETTING SOMETHING???? >>>>> >>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vugUalUO8YY >>>>> >>>>> What the hell does the media think my Yankee lawyer served upon the >>>>> USDOJ right after I ran for and seat in the 39th Parliament baseball >>>>> cards? >>>>> >>>>> http://archive.org/details/ITriedToExplainItToAllMaritimersInEarly200 >>>>> 6 >>>>> >>>>> http://davidamos.blogspot.ca/2006/05/wiretap-tapes-impeach-bush.html >>>>> >>>>> http://www.archive.org/details/PoliceSurveilanceWiretapTape139 >>>>> >>>>> http://archive.org/details/Part1WiretapTape143 >>>>> >>>>> FEDERAL EXPRES February 7, 2006 >>>>> Senator Arlen Specter >>>>> United States Senate >>>>> Committee on the Judiciary >>>>> 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building >>>>> Washington, DC 20510 >>>>> >>>>> Dear Mr. Specter: >>>>> >>>>> I have been asked to forward the enclosed tapes to you from a man >>>>> named, David Amos, a Canadian citizen, in connection with the matters >>>>> raised in the attached letter. >>>>> >>>>> Mr. Amos has represented to me that these are illegal FBI wire tap >>>>> tapes. >>>>> >>>>> I believe Mr. Amos has been in contact with you about this previously. >>>>> >>>>> Very truly yours, >>>>> Barry A. Bachrach >>>>> Direct telephone: (508) 926-3403 >>>>> Direct facsimile: (508) 929-3003 >>>>> Email: bbachrach@bowditch.com >>>>> >>>> > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Newsroom <newsroom@globeandmail.com> > Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 17:09:31 +0000 > Subject: Automatic reply: Perhpas your buddy Ralph Goodale should > cantact the Yankee Governor Charlie Baker and finally have the > warrants for my arrest erased EH Franky Boy McKenna? > To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> > > Thank you for contacting The Globe and Mail. > > If your matter pertains to newspaper delivery or you require technical > support, please contact our Customer Service department at > 1-800-387-5400 or send an email to customerservice@globeandmail.com > > If you are reporting a factual error please forward your email to > publiceditor@globeandmail.com<mailto:publiceditor@globeandmail.com> > > Letters to the Editor can be sent to letters@globeandmail.com > > This is the correct email address for requests for news coverage and > press releases. > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> > Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 13:09:12 -0400 > Subject: Perhpas your buddy Ralph Goodale should cantact the Yankee > Governor Charlie Baker and finally have the warrants for my arrest > erased EH Franky Boy McKenna? > To: "Frank.McKenna"<Frank.McKenna@td.com>, > barbara.massey@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, Douglas.Johnson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, > sandra.lofaro@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, washington field > <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, "Brenda.Lucki" > <Brenda.Lucki@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, gov.press@state.ma.us, > bob.ross@state.ma.us, "Furey, John"<jfurey@nbpower.com>, jfetzer > <jfetzer@d.umn.edu>, Newsroom <Newsroom@globeandmail.com>, sfine > <sfine@globeandmail.com>, "Jacques.Poitras"<Jacques.Poitras@cbc.ca>, > "steve.murphy"<steve.murphy@ctv.ca>, "David.Akin" > <David.Akin@globalnews.ca>, "Dale.Morgan" > <Dale.Morgan@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, news <news@kingscorecord.com>, news > <news@dailygleaner.com>, oldmaison <oldmaison@yahoo.com>, jbosnitch > <jbosnitch@gmail.com>, andre <andre@jafaust.com> > Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>, wharrison > <wharrison@nbpower.com>, "David.Lametti"<David.Lametti@parl.gc.ca>, > mcu <mcu@justice.gc.ca>, "Jody.Wilson-Raybould" > <Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca>, "hon.ralph.goodale" > <hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca> > > Brendan Moss, Press Secretary, Governor's Office > (617) 725-4025 > gov.press@state.ma.us > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Hon.Ralph.Goodale (PS/SP)"<Hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca> > Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 16:03:41 +0000 > Subject: Automatic reply: Attn Barbara Massey I just called AGAIN > To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> > > Merci d'avoir ?crit ? l'honorable Ralph Goodale, ministre de la > S?curit? publique et de la Protection civile. > En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de la correspondance > adress?e au ministre, veuillez prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir un > retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Soyez assur? que votre > message sera examin? avec attention. > Merci! > L'Unit? de la correspondance minist?rielle > S?curit? publique Canada > ********* > > Thank you for writing to the Honourable Ralph Goodale, Minister of > Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. > Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence > addressed to the Minister, please note there could be a delay in > processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be > carefully reviewed. > Thank you! > Ministerial Correspondence Unit > Public Safety Canada > > > > > On 6/26/19, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote: >> http://www.goc411.ca/en/95200/Barbara-Massey >> >> Barbara Massey >> Barbara Massey works as Executive Director and Senior General Counsel >> for Justice Canada. >> Barbara can be reached at 613-843-6394 >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: "Liliana (Legal Services) Longo"<Liliana.Longo@rcmp-grc.gc.ca> >> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 11:28:36 -0400 >> Subject: Re: Attn Suzelle Bazinet.(613-995-5117) I just earlier >> Whereas I was not allowed to speak to you today its best that we >> confer in writng anyway (Away from the office/absente du bureau) >> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> >> >> I will be away from the office June 26 to 28, 2017. In my absence, >> Barbara Massey will be acting and she can be reached at (613) 843-6394. >> >> Je serai absente du bureau du 26 au 28 juin 2017. En mon absence, >> Barbara Massey sera interimaire et peut être rejointe au (613) 843-6394. >> >> Thank you / Merci >> Liliana >> >> >> Liliana Longo, Q.C., c.r. >> Senior General Counsel / Avocate générale principale >> RCMP Legal Services / Services juridiques GRC >> 73 Leikin Drive / 73 Promenade Leikin >> M8, 2nd Floor / M8, 2ième étage >> Mailstop #69 / Arrêt Postal #69 >> Ottawa, Ontario >> K1A 0R2 >> Tel: (613) 843-4451 >> Fax: (613) 825-7489 >> liliana.longo@rcmp-grc.gc.ca >> >> Sandra Lofaro >> Executive Assistant / >> Adjointe exécutive >> (613)843-3540 >> sandra.lofaro@rcmp-grc.gc.ca >> >>>>> David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> 06/27/17 11:28 >>> >> >> Good Day >> >> Please view attachments >> >> Before I file my next lawsuit please explain why my documents which >> included a letter to you and an unsigned draft of a motion that you >> did not want me to file that I sent you in confidence as per your >> request were filed in the Public Record then argued by the Crown and >> even quoted from by Judges of the Federal Court of Appeal? >> >> Whereas the clerks of Federal Court are reluctant to file my brief >> and its exhibits Jan Jensen should at very least give his copy to his >> associate Paul Adams ASAP.EH? >> >> This is Canada Post's tracking history of my documents >> >> Tracking Number PG399580893CA >> >> FREDERICTON, NB >> HALIFAX, NS >> Accepted >> >> Out for delivery >> Date received 2017/06/26 >> Current date 2017/06/27 >> Expected delivery 2017/06/27 >> Delivery details >> ServiceXpresspost >> >> Expected delivery is 2017/06/27 >> >> Perhaps somebody should start acting ethically before the lawyers Bill >> Pentney and John Laskin take a seat on the bench N'esy Pas Mr Prime >> Minister Trudeau "The Younger" ???? Better yet have your lawyers even >> bothered to read paragraph 83 of my first lawsuit yet? >> >> Veritas Vincit >> David Raymond Amos >> 902 800 0369 >> >> Elizabeth Caverly Director: >> Courts Administration Service >> 1720-1801 Hollis St. >> Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 3N4 >> Phone: 902-426-9619 >> Fax: 902-426-5514 >> Email: elizabeth.caverly@cas-satj.gc.ca >> >> >> http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=A-48-16&select_court=All >> >> PROCEEDINGS QUERIES >> Recorded entry(ies) for A-48-16 >> >> Court number information Court Number : A-48-16 >> Style of Cause : DAVID RAYMOND AMOS v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN >> Proceeding Category : Appeals Nature : Appeal (S.27 - Interloc.) - >> Others >> Type of Action : Non-Action >> >> >> 70 records found for court number A-48-16 Doc Date Filed Office >> Recorded Entry Summary >> >> - 2017-06-26 Fredericton Memorandum to file from Catharine M. Wilson >> dated 26-JUN-2017 On June 26, 2017, the Appellant/Respondent on >> Cross-Appeal submitted a post hearing brief per the direction of Webb, >> J.A., dated 08-JUN-2017, which is being sent to the FCA for direction >> as the document was submitted late and exceeds the number of pages. >> placed on file. >> >> - 2017-06-08 Ottawa Acknowledgment of Receipt received from both >> parties by email with respect to the Directions dated June 8, 2017 >> placed on file on 08-JUN-2017 >> >> - 2017-06-08 Ottawa Written directions of the Court: The Honourable >> Mr. Justice Webb dated 08-JUN-2017 directing "Please advise the >> parties that Mr. Amos has the right to submit a brief summary (not to >> exceed 5 pages) to explain the exact conflict that, in his view, >> arises in this matter with any of the judges assigned to this appeal >> and to submit any additional documents that are relevant to this >> issue. This summary and documents are to be submitted on or before >> June 23, 2017. [...]" received on 08-JUN-2017 Confirmed in writing to >> the party(ies) >> >> - 2017-05-26 Fredericton Letter from the respondent to Appellant, >> provided by Appellant (copy of the letter) dated 26-MAY-2017 The >> Respondent mentions they want communication from Appellant in written >> letters by mail only, from now on. received on 26-MAY-2017 >> >> - 2017-05-24 Fredericton Request received from MR >> - 2017-05-24 Fredericton Request received from Appellant for CD audio >> of the hearing on 24-MAY-2017 for transcript. Tarriff: $15 paid placed >> on file on 24-MAY-2017 >> >> - 2017-05-24 Fredericton This matter comes on for hearing on >> 24-MAY-2017 at Fredericton before The Honourable Mr. Justice Webb The >> Honourable Mr. Justice Near The Honourable Madam Justice Gleason >> Appearances: David Raymond Amos (self-litigant) 902-800-0369 for the >> appellant Jan Jensen 902-426-8177 for the respondent Language of >> Hearing: E Court Usher: Jason Kennedy Duration: on 24-MAY-2017 from >> 14:03 to 15:58 Courtroom : Courtroom No. 1 - Fredericton Court >> Registrar Michel Morneault Total duration: 1h55min Before the Court: >> Cross-appeal Result: reserved Comments: DARS Z005130 was used for the >> recording of the hearing Minutes of Hearing entered in Vol. 222 >> page(s) 411 - 413 Abstract of Hearing placed on file >> >> 33 2017-04-24 Fredericton Affidavit of David Raymond Amos on behalf of >> Appellant/Respondent on cross-appeal sworn on 24-APR-2017 confirming >> service of doc.32 on Respondent/Appellant on cross-appeal by >> Xpresspost on 24-APR-2017 filed on 24-APR-2017 >> >> 32 2017-04-24 Fredericton Book of Authorities with copy on DVD >> consisting of 1 volume(s) on behalf of Appellant/Respondent on >> cross-appeal Filed on 24-APR-2017 3 copy(ies) for the Court stored in >> Ottawa One copy placed in Annex >> >> 31 2017-04-20 Halifax Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of >> Jan Jensen confirming service of doc #30 upon Appellant by courier on >> 20-APR-2017 filed on 20-APR-2017 >> >> 30 2017-04-20 Halifax Book of Authorities consisting of 1 volume(s) on >> behalf of HMQ (cross-appeal) Filed on 20-APR-2017 3 copy(ies) for the >> Court stored in Ottawa >> >> >> >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: "Liliana (Legal Services) Longo"<Liliana.Longo@rcmp-grc.gc.ca> >> Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 12:44:06 -0400 >> Subject: Re: Yo Mr Jensen see attached file I see that you corrupt >> FEDS are on the attack bigtime as of May 24th N'esy Pas? (Away from >> the office/absente du bureau) >> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> >> >> I will be away from the office until June 2, 2017. In my absence, >> Barbara Massey will be acting and she can be reached at (613) >> 843-6394. >> >> Je serai absente du bureau jusqu'au 2 juin 2017. En mon absence, >> Barbara Massey sera interimaire et peut être rejointe au (613) >> 843-6394. >> >> Thank you / Merci >> Liliana >> >> >> Liliana Longo, Q.C., c.r. >> Senior General Counsel / Avocate générale principale >> RCMP Legal Services / Services juridiques GRC >> 73 Leikin Drive / 73 Promenade Leikin >> M8, 2nd Floor / M8, 2ième étage >> Mailstop #69 / Arrêt Postal #69 >> Ottawa, Ontario >> K1A 0R2 >> Tel: (613) 843-4451 >> Fax: (613) 825-7489 >> liliana.longo@rcmp-grc.gc.ca >> >> Sharon Dickson >> Executive Assistant / >> Adjointe exécutive >> (613)843-3540 >> Sharon.Dickson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Murray, Charles (Ombud)"<Charles.Murray@gnb.ca> > Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 18:16:15 +0000 > Subject: You wished to speak with me > To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com"<motomaniac333@gmail.com> > > I have the advantage, sir, of having read many of your emails over the > years. > > > As such, I do not think a phone conversation between us, and > specifically one which you might mistakenly assume was in response to > your threat of legal action against me, is likely to prove a > productive use of either of our time. > > > If there is some specific matter about which you wish to communicate > with me, feel free to email me with the full details and it will be > given due consideration. > > > Sincerely, > > > Charles Murray > > Ombud NB > > Acting Integrity Commissioner > > > > >>>> >>>> Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 10:48:58 -0400 (EDT) >>>> From: "David Raymond Amos"davidramos333@yahoo.ca >>>> Subject: I already know that you are as crooked as Hell Mr Leger. I am >>>> fishing for an honest cop not another corrupt bureaucrat. i am just >>>> proving that you know the truth Get it? >>>> To: Marc.Leger@gnb.ca >>>> CC: Day.S@parl.gc.ca, John.Foran@gnb.ca, pat.bonner@saintjohn.ca, >>>> lou.lafleur@fredericton.ca, infoam@fredericton.cbc.ca, >>>> infomorning@moncton.cbc.ca, infomorning@halifax.cbc.ca, >>>> webo@xplornet.com, Stephane.vaillancourt@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, >>>> alltrue@nl.rogers.com, samperrier@hotmail.com, oldmaison@yahoo.com, >>>> Scott.A@parl.gc.ca, amerrino@gmail.com, deanr0032@hotmail.com, >>>> wickedwanda3@adelphia.net, rfowlo@comcast.net, Harper.S@parl.gc.ca, >>>> bmulroney@ogilvyrenault.com, pcollin@cpa-acp.ca, Dion.S@parl.gc.ca, >>>> Dryden.K@parl.gc.ca, Layton.J@parl.gc.ca, Duceppe.G@parl.gc.ca, >>>> Casey.B@parl.gc.ca, leader@greenparty.ca >>>> >>>> Subject: Mr. Amos >>>> Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:41:22 -0300 >>>> From: "Leger, Marc (DPS/MSP)"Marc.Leger@gnb.ca >>>> To: "David Raymond Amos"davidramos333@yahoo.ca >>>> David Amos, >>>> >>>> I am not able to address your concerns. >>>> >>>> Your calls and emails are not welcome and I would like you to stop >>>> communicating with me by phone and email >>>> >>>> Marc Léger >>>> Deputy Minister / Sous-ministre >>>> Public Safety / Sécurité publique >>>> (506) 453-7412 marc.leger@gnb.ca >>>> Working together to build a safer New Brunswick / Travaillons ensemble >>>> pour bâtir un Nouveau-Brunswick plus sûr >>>> >>> >>> ---------- 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: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com >>>> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 09:32:09 -0400 >>>> Subject: Attn Integrity Commissioner Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C., >>>> To: coi@gnb.ca >>>> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com >>>> >>>> Good Day Sir >>>> >>>> After I heard you speak on CBC I called your office again and managed >>>> to speak to one of your staff for the first time >>>> >>>> Please find attached the documents I promised to send to the lady who >>>> answered the phone this morning. Please notice that not after the Sgt >>>> at Arms took the documents destined to your office his pal Tanker >>>> Malley barred me in writing with an "English" only document. >>>> >>>> These are the hearings and the dockets in Federal Court that I >>>> suggested that you study closely. >>>> >>>> This is the docket in Federal Court >>>> >>>> http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=T-1557-15&select_court=T >>>> >>>> These are digital recordings of the last three hearings >>>> >>>> Dec 14th https://archive.org/details/BahHumbug >>>> >>>> January 11th, 2016 https://archive.org/details/Jan11th2015 >>>> >>>> April 3rd, 2017 >>>> >>>> https://archive.org/details/April32017JusticeLeblancHearing >>>> >>>> >>>> This is the docket in the Federal Court of Appeal >>>> >>>> http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=A-48-16&select_court=All >>>> >>>> >>>> The only hearing thus far >>>> >>>> May 24th, 2017 >>>> >>>> https://archive.org/details/May24thHoedown >>>> >>>> >>>> This Judge understnds the meaning of the word Integrity >>>> >>>> Date: 20151223 >>>> >>>> Docket: T-1557-15 >>>> >>>> Fredericton, New Brunswick, December 23, 2015 >>>> >>>> PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Bell >>>> >>>> BETWEEN: >>>> >>>> DAVID RAYMOND AMOS >>>> >>>> Plaintiff >>>> >>>> and >>>> >>>> HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN >>>> >>>> Defendant >>>> >>>> ORDER >>>> >>>> (Delivered orally from the Bench in Fredericton, New Brunswick, on >>>> December 14, 2015) >>>> >>>> The Plaintiff seeks an appeal de novo, by way of motion pursuant to >>>> the Federal Courts Rules (SOR/98-106), from an Order made on November >>>> 12, 2015, in which Prothonotary Morneau struck the Statement of Claim >>>> in its entirety. >>>> >>>> At the outset of the hearing, the Plaintiff brought to my attention a >>>> letter dated September 10, 2004, which he sent to me, in my then >>>> capacity as Past President of the New Brunswick Branch of the Canadian >>>> Bar Association, and the then President of the Branch, Kathleen Quigg, >>>> (now a Justice of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal). In that letter >>>> he stated: >>>> >>>> As for your past President, Mr. Bell, may I suggest that you check the >>>> work of Frank McKenna before I sue your entire law firm including you. >>>> You are your brother’s keeper. >>>> >>>> Frank McKenna is the former Premier of New Brunswick and a former >>>> colleague of mine at the law firm of McInnes Cooper. In addition to >>>> expressing an intention to sue me, the Plaintiff refers to a number of >>>> people in his Motion Record who he appears to contend may be witnesses >>>> or potential parties to be added. Those individuals who are known to >>>> me personally, include, but are not limited to the former Prime >>>> Minister of Canada, The Right Honourable Stephen Harper; former >>>> Attorney General of Canada and now a Justice of the Manitoba Court of >>>> Queen’s Bench, Vic Toews; former member of Parliament Rob Moore; >>>> former Director of Policing Services, the late Grant Garneau; former >>>> Chief of the Fredericton Police Force, Barry McKnight; former Staff >>>> Sergeant Danny Copp; my former colleagues on the New Brunswick Court >>>> of Appeal, Justices Bradley V. Green and Kathleen Quigg, and, retired >>>> Assistant Commissioner Wayne Lang of the Royal Canadian Mounted >>>> Police. >>>> >>>> In the circumstances, given the threat in 2004 to sue me in my >>>> personal capacity and my past and present relationship with many >>>> potential witnesses and/or potential parties to the litigation, I am >>>> of the view there would be a reasonable apprehension of bias should I >>>> hear this motion. See Justice de Grandpré’s dissenting judgment in >>>> Committee for Justice and Liberty et al v National Energy Board et al, >>>> [1978] 1 SCR 369 at p 394 for the applicable test regarding >>>> allegations of bias. In the circumstances, although neither party has >>>> requested I recuse myself, I consider it appropriate that I do so. >>>> >>>> >>>> AS A RESULT OF MY RECUSAL, THIS COURT ORDERS that the Administrator of >>>> the Court schedule another date for the hearing of the motion. There >>>> is no order as to costs. >>>> >>>> “B. Richard Bell” >>>> Judge >>>> >>>> >>>> Below after the CBC article about your concerns (I made one comment >>>> already) you will find the text of just two of many emails I had sent >>>> to your office over the years since I first visited it in 2006. >>>> >>>> I noticed that on July 30, 2009, he was appointed to the the Court >>>> Martial Appeal Court of Canada Perhaps you should scroll to the >>>> bottom of this email ASAP and read the entire Paragraph 83 of my >>>> lawsuit now before the Federal Court of Canada? >>>> >>>> "FYI This is the text of the lawsuit that should interest Trudeau the >>>> most >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------- Original message ---------- >>>> From: justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca >>>> Date: Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:18 PM >>>> Subject: Réponse automatique : RE My complaint against the CROWN in >>>> Federal Court Attn David Hansen and Peter MacKay If you planning to >>>> submit a motion for a publication ban on my complaint trust that you >>>> dudes are way past too late >>>> To: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com >>>> >>>> Veuillez noter que j'ai changé de courriel. Vous pouvez me rejoindre à >>>> lalanthier@hotmail.com >>>> >>>> Pour rejoindre le bureau de M. Trudeau veuillez envoyer un courriel à >>>> tommy.desfosses@parl.gc.ca >>>> >>>> Please note that I changed email address, you can reach me at >>>> lalanthier@hotmail.com >>>> >>>> To reach the office of Mr. Trudeau please send an email to >>>> tommy.desfosses@parl.gc.ca >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> >>>> Merci , >>>> >>>> >>>> http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2015/09/v-behaviorurldefaultvmlo.html >>>> >>>> >>>> 83. The Plaintiff states that now that Canada is involved in more war >>>> in Iraq again it did not serve Canadian interests and reputation to >>>> allow Barry Winters to publish the following words three times over >>>> five years after he began his bragging: >>>> >>>> January 13, 2015 >>>> This Is Just AS Relevant Now As When I wrote It During The Debate >>>> >>>> December 8, 2014 >>>> Why Canada Stood Tall! >>>> >>>> Friday, October 3, 2014 >>>> Little David Amos’ “True History Of War” Canadian Airstrikes And >>>> Stupid Justin Trudeau >>>> >>>> Canada’s and Canadians free ride is over. Canada can no longer hide >>>> behind Amerka’s and NATO’s skirts. >>>> >>>> When I was still in Canadian Forces then Prime Minister Jean Chretien >>>> actually committed the Canadian Army to deploy in the second campaign >>>> in Iraq, the Coalition of the Willing. This was against or contrary to >>>> the wisdom or advice of those of us Canadian officers that were >>>> involved in the initial planning phases of that operation. There were >>>> significant concern in our planning cell, and NDHQ about of the dearth >>>> of concern for operational guidance, direction, and forces for >>>> operations after the initial occupation of Iraq. At the “last minute” >>>> Prime Minister Chretien and the Liberal government changed its mind. >>>> The Canadian government told our amerkan cousins that we would not >>>> deploy combat troops for the Iraq campaign, but would deploy a >>>> Canadian Battle Group to Afghanistan, enabling our amerkan cousins to >>>> redeploy troops from there to Iraq. The PMO’s thinking that it was >>>> less costly to deploy Canadian Forces to Afghanistan than Iraq. But >>>> alas no one seems to remind the Liberals of Prime Minister Chretien’s >>>> then grossly incorrect assumption. Notwithstanding Jean Chretien’s >>>> incompetence and stupidity, the Canadian Army was heroic, >>>> professional, punched well above it’s weight, and the PPCLI Battle >>>> Group, is credited with “saving Afghanistan” during the Panjway >>>> campaign of 2006. >>>> >>>> What Justin Trudeau and the Liberals don’t tell you now, is that then >>>> Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien committed, and deployed the >>>> Canadian army to Canada’s longest “war” without the advice, consent, >>>> support, or vote of the Canadian Parliament. >>>> >>>> What David Amos and the rest of the ignorant, uneducated, and babbling >>>> chattering classes are too addled to understand is the deployment of >>>> less than 75 special operations troops, and what is known by planners >>>> as a “six pac cell” of fighter aircraft is NOT the same as a >>>> deployment of a Battle Group, nor a “war” make. >>>> >>>> The Canadian Government or The Crown unlike our amerkan cousins have >>>> the “constitutional authority” to commit the Canadian nation to war. >>>> That has been recently clearly articulated to the Canadian public by >>>> constitutional scholar Phillippe Legasse. What Parliament can do is >>>> remove “confidence” in The Crown’s Government in a “vote of >>>> non-confidence.” That could not happen to the Chretien Government >>>> regarding deployment to Afghanistan, and it won’t happen in this >>>> instance with the conservative majority in The Commons regarding a >>>> limited Canadian deployment to the Middle East. >>>> >>>> President George Bush was quite correct after 911 and the terror >>>> attacks in New York; that the Taliban “occupied” and “failed state” >>>> Afghanistan was the source of logistical support, command and control, >>>> and training for the Al Quaeda war of terror against the world. The >>>> initial defeat, and removal from control of Afghanistan was vital and >>>> >>>> P.S. Whereas this CBC article is about your opinion of the actions of >>>> the latest Minister Of Health trust that Mr Boudreau and the CBC have >>>> had my files for many years and the last thing they are is ethical. >>>> Ask his friends Mr Murphy and the RCMP if you don't believe me. >>>> >>>> Subject: >>>> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:02:35 -0400 >>>> From: "Murphy, Michael B. \(DH/MS\)"MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca >>>> To: motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com >>>> >>>> January 30, 2007 >>>> >>>> WITHOUT PREJUDICE >>>> >>>> Mr. David Amos >>>> >>>> Dear Mr. Amos: >>>> >>>> This will acknowledge receipt of a copy of your e-mail of December 29, >>>> 2006 to Corporal Warren McBeath of the RCMP. >>>> >>>> Because of the nature of the allegations made in your message, I have >>>> taken the measure of forwarding a copy to Assistant Commissioner Steve >>>> Graham of the RCMP “J” Division in Fredericton. >>>> >>>> Sincerely, >>>> >>>> Honourable Michael B. Murphy >>>> Minister of Health >>>> >>>> CM/cb >>>> >>>> >>>> Warren McBeath warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca wrote: >>>> >>>> Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:34:53 -0500 >>>> From: "Warren McBeath"warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca >>>> To: kilgoursite@ca.inter.net, MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca, >>>> nada.sarkis@gnb.ca, wally.stiles@gnb.ca, dwatch@web.net, >>>> motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com >>>> CC: ottawa@chuckstrahl.com, riding@chuckstrahl.com,John.Foran@gnb.ca, >>>> Oda.B@parl.gc.ca,"Bev BUSSON"bev.busson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, >>>> "Paul Dube"PAUL.DUBE@rcmp-grc.gc.ca >>>> Subject: Re: Remember me Kilgour? Landslide Annie McLellan has >>>> forgotten me but the crooks within the RCMP have not >>>> >>>> Dear Mr. Amos, >>>> >>>> Thank you for your follow up e-mail to me today. I was on days off >>>> over the holidays and returned to work this evening. Rest assured I >>>> was not ignoring or procrastinating to respond to your concerns. >>>> >>>> As your attachment sent today refers from Premier Graham, our position >>>> is clear on your dead calf issue: Our forensic labs do not process >>>> testing on animals in cases such as yours, they are referred to the >>>> Atlantic Veterinary College in Charlottetown who can provide these >>>> services. If you do not choose to utilize their expertise in this >>>> instance, then that is your decision and nothing more can be done. >>>> >>>> As for your other concerns regarding the US Government, false >>>> imprisonment and Federal Court Dates in the US, etc... it is clear >>>> that Federal authorities are aware of your concerns both in Canada >>>> the US. These issues do not fall into the purvue of Detachment >>>> and policing in Petitcodiac, NB. >>>> >>>> It was indeed an interesting and informative conversation we had on >>>> December 23rd, and I wish you well in all of your future endeavors. >>>> >>>> Sincerely, >>>> >>>> Warren McBeath, Cpl. >>>> GRC Caledonia RCMP >>>> Traffic Services NCO >>>> Ph: (506) 387-2222 >>>> Fax: (506) 387-4622 >>>> E-mail warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C., >>>> Office of the Integrity Commissioner >>>> Edgecombe House, 736 King Street >>>> Fredericton, N.B. CANADA E3B 5H1 >>>> tel.: 506-457-7890 >>>> fax: 506-444-5224 >>>> e-mail:coi@gnb.ca >>>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> >>> http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2017/11/federal-court-of-appeal-finally-makes.html >>> >>> >>> Sunday, 19 November 2017 >>> Federal Court of Appeal Finally Makes The BIG Decision And Publishes >>> It Now The Crooks Cannot Take Back Ticket To Try Put My Matter Before >>> The Supreme Court >>> >>> https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/236679/index.do >>> >>> >>> Federal Court of Appeal Decisions >>> >>> Amos v. Canada >>> Court (s) Database >>> >>> Federal Court of Appeal Decisions >>> Date >>> >>> 2017-10-30 >>> Neutral citation >>> >>> 2017 FCA 213 >>> File numbers >>> >>> A-48-16 >>> Date: 20171030 >>> >>> Docket: A-48-16 >>> Citation: 2017 FCA 213 >>> CORAM: >>> >>> WEBB J.A. >>> NEAR J.A. >>> GLEASON J.A. >>> >>> >>> BETWEEN: >>> DAVID RAYMOND AMOS >>> Respondent on the cross-appeal >>> (and formally Appellant) >>> and >>> HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN >>> Appellant on the cross-appeal >>> (and formerly Respondent) >>> Heard at Fredericton, New Brunswick, on May 24, 2017. >>> Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 30, 2017. >>> REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: >>> >>> THE COURT >>> >>> >>> >>> Date: 20171030 >>> >>> Docket: A-48-16 >>> Citation: 2017 FCA 213 >>> CORAM: >>> >>> WEBB J.A. >>> NEAR J.A. >>> GLEASON J.A. >>> >>> >>> BETWEEN: >>> DAVID RAYMOND AMOS >>> Respondent on the cross-appeal >>> (and formally Appellant) >>> and >>> HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN >>> Appellant on the cross-appeal >>> (and formerly Respondent) >>> REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY THE COURT >>> >>> I. Introduction >>> >>> [1] On September 16, 2015, David Raymond Amos (Mr. Amos) >>> filed a 53-page Statement of Claim (the Claim) in Federal Court >>> against Her Majesty the Queen (the Crown). Mr. Amos claims $11 million >>> in damages and a public apology from the Prime Minister and Provincial >>> Premiers for being illegally barred from accessing parliamentary >>> properties and seeks a declaration from the Minister of Public Safety >>> that the Canadian Government will no longer allow the Royal Canadian >>> Mounted Police (RCMP) and Canadian Forces to harass him and his clan >>> (Claim at para. 96). >>> >>> [2] On November 12, 2015 (Docket T-1557-15), by way of a >>> motion brought by the Crown, a prothonotary of the Federal Court (the >>> Prothonotary) struck the Claim in its entirety, without leave to >>> amend, on the basis that it was plain and obvious that the Claim >>> disclosed no reasonable claim, the Claim was fundamentally vexatious, >>> and the Claim could not be salvaged by way of further amendment (the >>> Prothontary’s Order). >>> >>> >>> [3] On January 25, 2016 (2016 FC 93), by way of Mr. >>> Amos’ appeal from the Prothonotary’s Order, a judge of the Federal >>> Court (the Judge), reviewing the matter de novo, struck all of Mr. >>> Amos’ claims for relief with the exception of the claim for damages >>> for being barred by the RCMP from the New Brunswick legislature in >>> 2004 (the Federal Court Judgment). >>> >>> >>> [4] Mr. Amos appealed and the Crown cross-appealed the >>> Federal Court Judgment. Further to the issuance of a Notice of Status >>> Review, Mr. Amos’ appeal was dismissed for delay on December 19, 2016. >>> As such, the only matter before this Court is the Crown’s >>> cross-appeal. >>> >>> >>> II. Preliminary Matter >>> >>> [5] Mr. Amos, in his memorandum of fact and law in >>> relation to the cross-appeal that was filed with this Court on March >>> 6, 2017, indicated that several judges of this Court, including two of >>> the judges of this panel, had a conflict of interest in this appeal. >>> This was the first time that he identified the judges whom he believed >>> had a conflict of interest in a document that was filed with this >>> Court. In his notice of appeal he had alluded to a conflict with >>> several judges but did not name those judges. >>> >>> [6] Mr. Amos was of the view that he did not have to >>> identify the judges in any document filed with this Court because he >>> had identified the judges in various documents that had been filed >>> with the Federal Court. In his view the Federal Court and the Federal >>> Court of Appeal are the same court and therefore any document filed in >>> the Federal Court would be filed in this Court. This view is based on >>> subsections 5(4) and 5.1(4) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985, >>> c. F-7: >>> >>> >>> 5(4) Every judge of the Federal Court is, by virtue of his or her >>> office, a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal and has all the >>> jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Federal Court of >>> Appeal. >>> […] >>> >>> 5(4) Les juges de la Cour fédérale sont d’office juges de la Cour >>> d’appel fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs que >>> les juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale. >>> […] >>> 5.1(4) Every judge of the Federal Court of Appeal is, by virtue of >>> that office, a judge of the Federal Court and has all the >>> jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Federal Court. >>> >>> 5.1(4) Les juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale sont d’office juges de la >>> Cour fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs que les >>> juges de la Cour fédérale. >>> >>> >>> [7] However, these subsections only provide that the >>> judges of the Federal Court are also judges of this Court (and vice >>> versa). It does not mean that there is only one court. If the Federal >>> Court and this Court were one Court, there would be no need for this >>> section. >>> [8] Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Courts Act provide >>> that: >>> 3 The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the Federal Court >>> — Appeal Division is continued under the name “Federal Court of >>> Appeal” in English and “Cour d’appel fédérale” in French. It is >>> continued as an additional court of law, equity and admiralty in and >>> for Canada, for the better administration of the laws of Canada and as >>> a superior court of record having civil and criminal jurisdiction. >>> >>> 3 La Section d’appel, aussi appelée la Cour d’appel ou la Cour d’appel >>> fédérale, est maintenue et dénommée « Cour d’appel fédérale » en >>> français et « Federal Court of Appeal » en anglais. Elle est maintenue >>> à titre de tribunal additionnel de droit, d’equity et d’amirauté du >>> Canada, propre à améliorer l’application du droit canadien, et >>> continue d’être une cour supérieure d’archives ayant compétence en >>> matière civile et pénale. >>> 4 The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the Federal Court >>> — Trial Division is continued under the name “Federal Court” in >>> English and “Cour fédérale” in French. It is continued as an >>> additional court of law, equity and admiralty in and for Canada, for >>> the better administration of the laws of Canada and as a superior >>> court of record having civil and criminal jurisdiction. >>> >>> 4 La section de la Cour fédérale du Canada, appelée la Section de >>> première instance de la Cour fédérale, est maintenue et dénommée « >>> Cour fédérale » en français et « Federal Court » en anglais. Elle est >>> maintenue à titre de tribunal additionnel de droit, d’equity et >>> d’amirauté du Canada, propre à améliorer l’application du droit >>> canadien, et continue d’être une cour supérieure d’archives ayant >>> compétence en matière civile et pénale. >>> >>> >>> [9] Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Courts Act create >>> two separate courts – this Court (section 3) and the Federal Court >>> (section 4). If, as Mr. Amos suggests, documents filed in the Federal >>> Court were automatically also filed in this Court, then there would no >>> need for the parties to prepare and file appeal books as required by >>> Rules 343 to 345 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 in relation >>> to any appeal from a decision of the Federal Court. The requirement to >>> file an appeal book with this Court in relation to an appeal from a >>> decision of the Federal Court makes it clear that the only documents >>> that will be before this Court are the documents that are part of that >>> appeal book. >>> >>> >>> [10] Therefore, the memorandum of fact and law filed on >>> March 6, 2017 is the first document, filed with this Court, in which >>> Mr. Amos identified the particular judges that he submits have a >>> conflict in any matter related to him. >>> >>> >>> [11] On April 3, 2017, Mr. Amos attempted to bring a motion >>> before the Federal Court seeking an order “affirming or denying the >>> conflict of interest he has” with a number of judges of the Federal >>> Court. A judge of the Federal Court issued a direction noting that if >>> Mr. Amos was seeking this order in relation to judges of the Federal >>> Court of Appeal, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. >>> Mr. Amos raised the Federal Court motion at the hearing of this >>> cross-appeal. The Federal Court motion is not a motion before this >>> Court and, as such, the submissions filed before the Federal Court >>> will not be entertained. As well, since this was a motion brought >>> before the Federal Court (and not this Court), any documents filed in >>> relation to that motion are not part of the record of this Court. >>> >>> >>> [12] During the hearing of the appeal Mr. Amos alleged that >>> the third member of this panel also had a conflict of interest and >>> submitted some documents that, in his view, supported his claim of a >>> conflict. Mr. Amos, following the hearing of his appeal, was also >>> afforded the opportunity to provide a brief summary of the conflict >>> that he was alleging and to file additional documents that, in his >>> view, supported his allegations. Mr. Amos submitted several pages of >>> documents in relation to the alleged conflicts. He organized the >>> documents by submitting a copy of the biography of the particular >>> judge and then, immediately following that biography, by including >>> copies of the documents that, in his view, supported his claim that >>> such judge had a conflict. >>> >>> >>> [13] The nature of the alleged conflict of Justice Webb is >>> that before he was appointed as a Judge of the Tax Court of Canada in >>> 2006, he was a partner with the law firm Patterson Law, and before >>> that with Patterson Palmer in Nova Scotia. Mr. Amos submitted that he >>> had a number of disputes with Patterson Palmer and Patterson Law and >>> therefore Justice Webb has a conflict simply because he was a partner >>> of these firms. Mr. Amos is not alleging that Justice Webb was >>> personally involved in or had any knowledge of any matter in which Mr. >>> Amos was involved with Justice Webb’s former law firm – only that he >>> was a member of such firm. >>> >>> >>> [14] During his oral submissions at the hearing of his >>> appeal Mr. Amos, in relation to the alleged conflict for Justice Webb, >>> focused on dealings between himself and a particular lawyer at >>> Patterson Law. However, none of the documents submitted by Mr. Amos at >>> the hearing or subsequently related to any dealings with this >>> particular lawyer nor is it clear when Mr. Amos was dealing with this >>> lawyer. In particular, it is far from clear whether such dealings were >>> after the time that Justice Webb was appointed as a Judge of the Tax >>> Court of Canada over 10 years ago. >>> >>> >>> [15] The documents that he submitted in relation to the >>> alleged conflict for Justice Webb largely relate to dealings between >>> Byron Prior and the St. John’s Newfoundland and Labrador office of >>> Patterson Palmer, which is not in the same province where Justice Webb >>> practiced law. The only document that indicates any dealing between >>> Mr. Amos and Patterson Palmer is a copy of an affidavit of Stephen May >>> who was a partner in the St. John’s NL office of Patterson Palmer. The >>> affidavit is dated January 24, 2005 and refers to a number of e-mails >>> that were sent by Mr. Amos to Stephen May. Mr. Amos also included a >>> letter that is addressed to four individuals, one of whom is John >>> Crosbie who was counsel to the St. John’s NL office of Patterson >>> Palmer. The letter is dated September 2, 2004 and is addressed to >>> “John Crosbie, c/o Greg G. Byrne, Suite 502, 570 Queen Street, >>> Fredericton, NB E3B 5E3”. In this letter Mr. Amos alludes to a >>> possible lawsuit against Patterson Palmer. >>> [16] Mr. Amos’ position is that simply because Justice Webb >>> was a lawyer with Patterson Palmer, he now has a conflict. In Wewaykum >>> Indian Band v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2003 SCC 45, [2003] 2 S.C.R. >>> 259, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that disqualification of a >>> judge is to be determined based on whether there is a reasonable >>> apprehension of bias: >>> 60 In Canadian law, one standard has now emerged as the >>> criterion for disqualification. The criterion, as expressed by de >>> Grandpré J. in Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy >>> Board, …[[1978] 1 S.C.R. 369, 68 D.L.R. (3d) 716], at p. 394, is the >>> reasonable apprehension of bias: >>> … the apprehension of bias must be a reasonable one, held by >>> reasonable and right minded persons, applying themselves to the >>> question and obtaining thereon the required information. In the words >>> of the Court of Appeal, that test is "what would an informed person, >>> viewing the matter realistically and practically -- and having thought >>> the matter through -- conclude. Would he think that it is more likely >>> than not that [the decision-maker], whether consciously or >>> unconsciously, would not decide fairly." >>> >>> [17] The issue to be determined is whether an informed >>> person, viewing the matter realistically and practically, and having >>> thought the matter through, would conclude that Mr. Amos’ allegations >>> give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. As this Court has >>> previously remarked, “there is a strong presumption that judges will >>> administer justice impartially” and this presumption will not be >>> rebutted in the absence of “convincing evidence” of bias (Collins v. >>> Canada, 2011 FCA 140 at para. 7, [2011] 4 C.T.C. 157 [Collins]. See >>> also R. v. S. (R.D.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484 at para. 32, 151 D.L.R. >>> (4th) 193). >>> >>> [18] The Ontario Court of Appeal in Rando Drugs Ltd. v. >>> Scott, 2007 ONCA 553, 86 O.R. (3d) 653 (leave to appeal to the Supreme >>> Court of Canada refused, 32285 (August 1, 2007)), addressed the >>> particular issue of whether a judge is disqualified from hearing a >>> case simply because he had been a member of a law firm that was >>> involved in the litigation that was now before that judge. The Ontario >>> Court of Appeal determined that the judge was not disqualified if the >>> judge had no involvement with the person or the matter when he was a >>> lawyer. The Ontario Court of Appeal also explained that the rules for >>> determining whether a judge is disqualified are different from the >>> rules to determine whether a lawyer has a conflict: >>> 27 Thus, disqualification is not the natural corollary to a >>> finding that a trial judge has had some involvement in a case over >>> which he or she is now presiding. Where the judge had no involvement, >>> as here, it cannot be said that the judge is disqualified. >>> >>> >>> 28 The point can rightly be made that had Mr. Patterson been >>> asked to represent the appellant as counsel before his appointment to >>> the bench, the conflict rules would likely have prevented him from >>> taking the case because his firm had formerly represented one of the >>> defendants in the case. Thus, it is argued how is it that as a trial >>> judge Patterson J. can hear the case? This issue was considered by the >>> Court of Appeal (Civil Division) in Locabail (U.K.) Ltd. v. Bayfield >>> Properties Ltd., [2000] Q.B. 451. The court held, at para. 58, that >>> there is no inflexible rule governing the disqualification of a judge >>> and that, "[e]verything depends on the circumstances." >>> >>> >>> 29 It seems to me that what appears at first sight to be an >>> inconsistency in application of rules can be explained by the >>> different contexts and in particular, the strong presumption of >>> judicial impartiality that applies in the context of disqualification >>> of a judge. There is no such presumption in cases of allegations of >>> conflict of interest against a lawyer because of a firm's previous >>> involvement in the case. To the contrary, as explained by Sopinka J. >>> in MacDonald Estate v. Martin (1990), 77 D.L.R. (4th) 249 (S.C.C.), >>> for sound policy reasons there is a presumption of a disqualifying >>> interest that can rarely be overcome. In particular, a conclusory >>> statement from the lawyer that he or she had no confidential >>> information about the case will never be sufficient. The case is the >>> opposite where the allegation of bias is made against a trial judge. >>> His or her statement that he or she knew nothing about the case and >>> had no involvement in it will ordinarily be accepted at face value >>> unless there is good reason to doubt it: see Locabail, at para. 19. >>> >>> >>> 30 That brings me then to consider the particular circumstances >>> of this case and whether there are serious grounds to find a >>> disqualifying conflict of interest in this case. In my view, there are >>> two significant factors that justify the trial judge's decision not to >>> recuse himself. The first is his statement, which all parties accept, >>> that he knew nothing of the case when it was in his former firm and >>> that he had nothing to do with it. The second is the long passage of >>> time. As was said in Wewaykum, at para. 85: >>> To us, one significant factor stands out, and must inform >>> the perspective of the reasonable person assessing the impact of this >>> involvement on Binnie J.'s impartiality in the appeals. That factor is >>> the passage of time. Most arguments for disqualification rest on >>> circumstances that are either contemporaneous to the decision-making, >>> or that occurred within a short time prior to the decision-making. >>> 31 There are other factors that inform the issue. The Wilson >>> Walker firm no longer acted for any of the parties by the time of >>> trial. More importantly, at the time of the motion, Patterson J. had >>> been a judge for six years and thus had not had a relationship with >>> his former firm for a considerable period of time. >>> >>> >>> 32 In my view, a reasonable person, viewing the matter >>> realistically would conclude that the trial judge could deal fairly >>> and impartially with this case. I take this view principally because >>> of the long passage of time and the trial judge's lack of involvement >>> in or knowledge of the case when the Wilson Walker firm had carriage. >>> In these circumstances it cannot be reasonably contended that the >>> trial judge could not remain impartial in the case. The mere fact that >>> his name appears on the letterhead of some correspondence from over a >>> decade ago would not lead a reasonable person to believe that he would >>> either consciously or unconsciously favour his former firm's former >>> client. It is simply not realistic to think that a judge would throw >>> off his mantle of impartiality, ignore his oath of office and favour a >>> client - about whom he knew nothing - of a firm that he left six years >>> earlier and that no longer acts for the client, in a case involving >>> events from over a decade ago. >>> (emphasis added) >>> >>> [19] Justice Webb had no involvement with any matter >>> involving Mr. Amos while he was a member of Patterson Palmer or >>> Patterson Law, nor does Mr. Amos suggest that he did. Mr. Amos made it >>> clear during the hearing of this matter that the only reason for the >>> alleged conflict for Justice Webb was that he was a member of >>> Patterson Law and Patterson Palmer. This is simply not enough for >>> Justice Webb to be disqualified. Any involvement of Mr. Amos with >>> Patterson Law while Justice Webb was a member of that firm would have >>> had to occur over 10 years ago and even longer for the time when he >>> was a member of Patterson Palmer. In addition to the lack of any >>> involvement on his part with any matter or dispute that Mr. Amos had >>> with Patterson Law or Patterson Palmer (which in and of itself is >>> sufficient to dispose of this matter), the length of time since >>> Justice Webb was a member of Patterson Law or Patterson Palmer would >>> also result in the same finding – that there is no conflict in Justice >>> Webb hearing this appeal. >>> >>> [20] Similarly in R. v. Bagot, 2000 MBCA 30, 145 Man. R. >>> (2d) 260, the Manitoba Court of Appeal found that there was no >>> reasonable apprehension of bias when a judge, who had been a member of >>> the law firm that had been retained by the accused, had no involvement >>> with the accused while he was a lawyer with that firm. >>> >>> [21] In Del Zotto v. Minister of National Revenue, [2000] 4 >>> F.C. 321, 257 N.R. 96, this court did find that there would be a >>> reasonable apprehension of bias where a judge, who while he was a >>> lawyer, had recorded time on a matter involving the same person who >>> was before that judge. However, this case can be distinguished as >>> Justice Webb did not have any time recorded on any files involving Mr. >>> Amos while he was a lawyer with Patterson Palmer or Patterson Law. >>> >>> [22] Mr. Amos also included with his submissions a CD. He >>> stated in his affidavit dated June 26, 2017 that there is a “true copy >>> of an American police surveillance wiretap entitled 139” on this CD. >>> He has also indicated that he has “provided a true copy of the CD >>> entitled 139 to many American and Canadian law enforcement authorities >>> and not one of the police forces or officers of the court are willing >>> to investigate it”. Since he has indicated that this is an “American >>> police surveillance wiretap”, this is a matter for the American law >>> enforcement authorities and cannot create, as Mr. Amos suggests, a >>> conflict of interest for any judge to whom he provides a copy. >>> >>> [23] As a result, there is no conflict or reasonable >>> apprehension of bias for Justice Webb and therefore, no reason for him >>> to recuse himself. >>> >>> [24] Mr. Amos alleged that Justice Near’s past professional >>> experience with the government created a “quasi-conflict” in deciding >>> the cross-appeal. Mr. Amos provided no details and Justice Near >>> confirmed that he had no prior knowledge of the matters alleged in the >>> Claim. Justice Near sees no reason to recuse himself. >>> >>> [25] Insofar as it is possible to glean the basis for Mr. >>> Amos’ allegations against Justice Gleason, it appears that he alleges >>> that she is incapable of hearing this appeal because he says he wrote >>> a letter to Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien in 2004. At that time, >>> both Justice Gleason and Mr. Mulroney were partners in the law firm >>> Ogilvy Renault, LLP. The letter in question, which is rude and angry, >>> begins with “Hey you two Evil Old Smiling Bastards” and “Re: me suing >>> you and your little dogs too”. There is no indication that the letter >>> was ever responded to or that a law suit was ever commenced by Mr. >>> Amos against Mr. Mulroney. In the circumstances, there is no reason >>> for Justice Gleason to recuse herself as the letter in question does >>> not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. >>> >>> >>> III. Issue >>> >>> [26] The issue on the cross-appeal is as follows: Did the >>> Judge err in setting aside the Prothonotary’s Order striking the Claim >>> in its entirety without leave to amend and in determining that Mr. >>> Amos’ allegation that the RCMP barred him from the New Brunswick >>> legislature in 2004 was capable of supporting a cause of action? >>> >>> IV. Analysis >>> >>> A. Standard of Review >>> >>> [27] Following the Judge’s decision to set aside the >>> Prothonotary’s Order, this Court revisited the standard of review to >>> be applied to discretionary decisions of prothonotaries and decisions >>> made by judges on appeals of prothonotaries’ decisions in Hospira >>> Healthcare Corp. v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, 2016 FCA 215, >>> 402 D.L.R. (4th) 497 [Hospira]. In Hospira, a five-member panel of >>> this Court replaced the Aqua-Gem standard of review with that >>> articulated in Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235 >>> [Housen]. As a result, it is no longer appropriate for the Federal >>> Court to conduct a de novo review of a discretionary order made by a >>> prothonotary in regard to questions vital to the final issue of the >>> case. Rather, a Federal Court judge can only intervene on appeal if >>> the prothonotary made an error of law or a palpable and overriding >>> error in determining a question of fact or question of mixed fact and >>> law (Hospira at para. 79). Further, this Court can only interfere with >>> a Federal Court judge’s review of a prothonotary’s discretionary order >>> if the judge made an error of law or palpable and overriding error in >>> determining a question of fact or question of mixed fact and law >>> (Hospira at paras. 82-83). >>> >>> [28] In the case at bar, the Judge substituted his own >>> assessment of Mr. Amos’ Claim for that of the Prothonotary. This Court >>> must look to the Prothonotary’s Order to determine whether the Judge >>> erred in law or made a palpable and overriding error in choosing to >>> interfere. >>> >>> >>> B. Did the Judge err in interfering with the >>> Prothonotary’s Order? >>> >>> [29] The Prothontoary’s Order accepted the following >>> paragraphs from the Crown’s submissions as the basis for striking the >>> Claim in its entirety without leave to amend: >>> >>> 17. Within the 96 paragraph Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff >>> addresses his complaint in paragraphs 14-24, inclusive. All but four >>> of those paragraphs are dedicated to an incident that occurred in 2006 >>> in and around the legislature in New Brunswick. The jurisdiction of >>> the Federal Court does not extend to Her Majesty the Queen in right of >>> the Provinces. In any event, the Plaintiff hasn’t named the Province >>> or provincial actors as parties to this action. The incident alleged >>> does not give rise to a justiciable cause of action in this Court. >>> (…) >>> >>> >>> 21. The few paragraphs that directly address the Defendant >>> provide no details as to the individuals involved or the location of >>> the alleged incidents or other details sufficient to allow the >>> Defendant to respond. As a result, it is difficult or impossible to >>> determine the causes of action the Plaintiff is attempting to advance. >>> A generous reading of the Statement of Claim allows the Defendant to >>> only speculate as to the true and/or intended cause of action. At >>> best, the Plaintiff’s action may possibly be summarized as: he >>> suspects he is barred from the House of Commons. >>> [footnotes omitted]. >>> >>> >>> [30] The Judge determined that he could not strike the Claim >>> on the same jurisdictional basis as the Prothonotary. The Judge noted >>> that the Federal Court has jurisdiction over claims based on the >>> liability of Federal Crown servants like the RCMP and that the actors >>> who barred Mr. Amos from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004 >>> included the RCMP (Federal Court Judgment at para. 23). In considering >>> the viability of these allegations de novo, the Judge identified >>> paragraph 14 of the Claim as containing “some precision” as it >>> identifies the date of the event and a RCMP officer acting as >>> Aide-de-Camp to the Lieutenant Governor (Federal Court Judgment at >>> para. 27). >>> >>> >>> [31] The Judge noted that the 2004 event could support a >>> cause of action in the tort of misfeasance in public office and >>> identified the elements of the tort as excerpted from Meigs v. Canada, >>> 2013 FC 389, 431 F.T.R. 111: >>> >>> >>> [13] As in both the cases of Odhavji Estate v Woodhouse, 2003 SCC >>> 69 [Odhavji] and Lewis v Canada, 2012 FC 1514 [Lewis], I must >>> determine whether the plaintiffs’ statement of claim pleads each >>> element of the alleged tort of misfeasance in public office: >>> >>> a) The public officer must have engaged in deliberate and unlawful >>> conduct in his or her capacity as public officer; >>> >>> b) The public officer must have been aware both that his or her >>> conduct was unlawful and that it was likely to harm the plaintiff; and >>> >>> c) There must be an element of bad faith or dishonesty by the public >>> officer and knowledge of harm alone is insufficient to conclude that a >>> public officer acted in bad faith or dishonestly. >>> Odhavji, above, at paras 23, 24 and 28 >>> (Federal Court Judgment at para. 28). >>> >>> [32] The Judge determined that Mr. Amos disclosed sufficient >>> material facts to meet the elements of the tort of misfeasance in >>> public office because the actors, who barred him from the New >>> Brunswick legislature in 2004, including the RCMP, did so for >>> “political reasons” (Federal Court Judgment at para. 29). >>> >>> [33] This Court’s discussion of the sufficiency of pleadings >>> in Merchant Law Group v. Canada (Revenue Agency), 2010 FCA 184, 321 >>> D.L.R (4th) 301 is particularly apt: >>> >>> …When pleading bad faith or abuse of power, it is not enough to >>> assert, baldly, conclusory phrases such as “deliberately or >>> negligently,” “callous disregard,” or “by fraud and theft did steal”. >>> “The bare assertion of a conclusion upon which the court is called >>> upon to pronounce is not an allegation of material fact”. Making bald, >>> conclusory allegations without any evidentiary foundation is an abuse >>> of process… >>> >>> To this, I would add that the tort of misfeasance in public office >>> requires a particular state of mind of a public officer in carrying >>> out the impunged action, i.e., deliberate conduct which the public >>> officer knows to be inconsistent with the obligations of his or her >>> office. For this tort, particularization of the allegations is >>> mandatory. Rule 181 specifically requires particularization of >>> allegations of “breach of trust,” “wilful default,” “state of mind of >>> a person,” “malice” or “fraudulent intention.” >>> (at paras. 34-35, citations omitted). >>> >>> [34] Applying the Housen standard of review to the >>> Prothonotary’s Order, we are of the view that the Judge interfered >>> absent a legal or palpable and overriding error. >>> >>> [35] The Prothonotary determined that Mr. Amos’ Claim >>> disclosed no reasonable claim and was fundamentally vexatious on the >>> basis of jurisdictional concerns and the absence of material facts to >>> ground a cause of action. Paragraph 14 of the Claim, which addresses >>> the 2004 event, pleads no material facts as to how the RCMP officer >>> engaged in deliberate and unlawful conduct, knew that his or her >>> conduct was unlawful and likely to harm Mr. Amos, and acted in bad >>> faith. While the Claim alleges elsewhere that Mr. Amos was barred from >>> the New Brunswick legislature for political and/or malicious reasons, >>> these allegations are not particularized and are directed against >>> non-federal actors, such as the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Legislative >>> Assembly of New Brunswick and the Fredericton Police Force. As such, >>> the Judge erred in determining that Mr. Amos’ allegation that the RCMP >>> barred him from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004 was capable of >>> supporting a cause of action. >>> >>> [36] In our view, the Claim is made up entirely of bare >>> allegations, devoid of any detail, such that it discloses no >>> reasonable cause of action within the jurisdiction of the Federal >>> Courts. Therefore, the Judge erred in interfering to set aside the >>> Prothonotary’s Order striking the claim in its entirety. Further, we >>> find that the Prothonotary made no error in denying leave to amend. >>> The deficiencies in Mr. Amos’ pleadings are so extensive such that >>> amendment could not cure them (see Collins at para. 26). >>> >>> V. Conclusion >>> [37] For the foregoing reasons, we would allow the Crown’s >>> cross-appeal, with costs, setting aside the Federal Court Judgment, >>> dated January 25, 2016 and restoring the Prothonotary’s Order, dated >>> November 12, 2015, which struck Mr. Amos’ Claim in its entirety >>> without leave to amend. >>> "Wyman W. Webb" >>> J.A. >>> "David G. Near" >>> J.A. >>> "Mary J.L. Gleason" >>> J.A. >>> >>> >>> >>> FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL >>> NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD >>> >>> A CROSS-APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SOUTHCOTT DATED >>> JANUARY 25, 2016; DOCKET NUMBER T-1557-15. >>> DOCKET: >>> >>> A-48-16 >>> >>> >>> >>> STYLE OF CAUSE: >>> >>> DAVID RAYMOND AMOS v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN >>> >>> >>> >>> PLACE OF HEARING: >>> >>> Fredericton, >>> New Brunswick >>> >>> DATE OF HEARING: >>> >>> May 24, 2017 >>> >>> REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: >>> >>> WEBB J.A. >>> NEAR J.A. >>> GLEASON J.A. >>> >>> DATED: >>> >>> October 30, 2017 >>> >>> APPEARANCES: >>> David Raymond Amos >>> >>> >>> For The Appellant / respondent on cross-appeal >>> (on his own behalf) >>> >>> Jan Jensen >>> >>> >>> For The Respondent / appELLANT ON CROSS-APPEAL >>> >>> SOLICITORS OF RECORD: >>> Nathalie G. Drouin >>> Deputy Attorney General of Canada >>> >>> For The Respondent / APPELLANT ON CROSS-APPEAL >>> >>> >
Gov. Charlie Baker and Rachael Rollins have purportedly hit the “reset button,” but the Suffolk Country district attorney still thinks there’s something “funny” about the way she — the first woman to hold the Boston-area prosecutor job — has been treated.
The two elected officials clashed over the weekend, after Baker’s top public safety official sent Rollins a letter last week asking her to revise some of her new policies — including not prosecuting certain misdemeanor crimes. In a press conference Friday, the Democratic district attorney shot back at the Republican administration, suggesting that “not everyone gets the benefit of the Baker family,” alluding to groping allegations against the governor’s son last year.
And while both sides say they had a productive phone call Saturday, Rollins has remained critical of what she suggests is sexist treatment from Baker’s office.
“Isn’t it so funny that when all of the male DAs before me had this discretion and were moving towards mass incarceration, the governor did not give a s[***] about that,” she said at an event Sunday.
Here’s what the dispute is about, and why it got so personal this weekend:
The decline-to-prosecute list
Rollins was elected last November on a progressive criminal justice reform platform aimed at reducing racial inequality and mass incarceration. She also received national attention for her campaign pledge to instruct prosecutors not to bring charges, with certain exceptions, for a list of 15 nonviolent offenses.
The crimes on the list included trespassing, shoplifting, larceny under $250, underage possession of alcohol, drug possession, drug possession with intent to distribute, and some cases of resisting arrest.
Last month, she made that pledge, among others, official in a 65-page public memo. Rollins, a former federal prosecutor and MBTA legal counsel, wrote that “declination and diversion policy” is a “part of a strategy to achieve two important goals.”
“First, to reduce the footprint of the criminal justice system where it served no public safety interest, and second, to allocate more of our prosecution resources to the serious offenses that harm people, families, and the community as a whole,” she wrote.
Baker administration pushback
In a rare rebuke from the Baker administration, Public Safety Secretary Thomas Turco wrote a two-page letter to Rollins last Thursday, expressing concern that her policies “put at risk the commonwealth’s ongoing efforts to combat the ongoing crisis of the opioid epidemic and substantially restrict the government’s ability to protect victims threatened with serious crimes.”
Gov. Charlie Baker answers questions from the media Monday at Faneuil Hall in Boston.—Matthew J. Lee / The Boston Globe
The State House News Service first reported the letter Thursday night.
Protesting Rollins’s policy of not prosecuting the aforementioned drug crimes, Turco said prosecutors should not be prohibited from bringing charges against suspected dealers, if they have sufficient evidence, “simply because the police made an arrest before the sale was fully consummated.” He also objected to a policy of not prosecuting the unlicensed possession of “20, 30, or even 40 pounds of marijuana as a crime,” as Massachusetts rolls out its regulated cannabis market.
Turco also said the Rollins memo’s stances on petty crimes and driving with a suspended license would, respectively, victimize shopkeepers in “economically challenged neighborhoods” and “undermine” the state’s drunk driving laws, “making our roads more dangerous.”
In addition to the list of crimes not to be prosecuted, Turco also took issue with Rollins’s instructions for prosecutors to get supervisor approval before counting defendants’ criminal history beyond the last 36 months, as well as a rule discouraging requests for courts to set certain pre-trial release conditions.
“I appreciate your efforts to think differently about criminal justice, accountability, and public safety,” Turco wrote Thursday, noting that Rollins’s memo was in many ways aligned with the Baker administration’s reform efforts.
“I urge you, however, to review the concerns I have outlined above and to consider appropriate revisions to the memorandum,” he added.
Rollins hits back — hard
The local district attorney did not take lightly to Turco’s intervention in a press conference Friday afternoon, in which she suggested the state official should concentrate on “the things he’s responsible for,” according to The Boston Globe. Rollins reportedly singled out the ever-growing list of scandals embroiling Massachusetts State Police and “terrible water conditions at MCI Norfolk,” the state’s largest prison.
She also defended the list of crimes she was instructing her office not to prosecute, which she said was putting into writing what had been the common practice of her predecessors. Low-level drug charges, driving offenses, and property crimes were 12 percent more likely to be dismissed or diverted than more serious cases in Suffolk County, Rollins wrote in her memo last month.
“They didn’t write it down because it was working really well for certain communities and not for other communities,” she argued Friday, according to the Globe.
Seeking to make a point about how the criminal justice system treats defendants of differing socioeconomic means disparately, Rollins pointedly used Baker’s own family as an example. The Republican governor’s 27-year-old son, A.J., was escorted by police off a flight last June— but not arrested — after a woman accused him of groping her during the trip.
“Candidly, you know, not everyone gets the benefit of the Baker family when they have interacted with the criminal justice system, they don’t get to not get arrested,” Rollins reportedly said Friday. “Most moms that are living in Suffolk County don’t have a one-thousand-dollar lawyer to handle a charge when it’s brought against their son or daughter or loved one.”
When asked to clarify those comments, she added the people who benefit from the current system are “overwhelmingly wealthy.”
“It is really important that you guys understand that there are significant racial disparities in our criminal justice system,” she said.
District Attorney Rachael Rollins stood with police on scene in Mattapan following a triple shooting with one confirmed fatality Saturday.—Aram Boghosian / The Boston Globe
In response, Lizzy Guyton, a spokeswoman for Baker, told the Globe in an email that the administration “does not engage in personal attacks” and was raising “legitimate public safety concerns.”
“We hope for an ongoing, productive dialogue on the important issues raised by Secretary Turco,” Guyton said.
Reaching a truce?
Rollins’s press conference Friday afternoon resulted in a phone call from Baker the following morning — which both sides described as generally positive.
“I don’t want to damage the partnership,” Baker told reporters later Saturday, calling the conversation “constructive and helpful,” as the Boston Herald reported.
“I want that partnership to be there, and I want it to work,” the governor said. “The good thing about having a 66-page document is it gives everybody a chance to see where somebody is coming from, and I think all of us share the same goal here, which is to recognize and appreciate the fact that the criminal justice system has flaws that need to be dealt with and fixed.”
While Baker said his concerns with Rollins’s policies hadn’t changed, he hoped for a “dialogue” with the district attorney’s office.
“I think we’re going to try and hit the reset button and start again on Monday,” Baker said, noting that he and Rollins have a shared goal of keeping people safe and that state and local law enforcement efforts can sometimes be intertwined.
“I said when the whole thing started that it was a serious allegation and it needed to be independently investigated,” Baker said Saturday. “And I expect that the US attorney, which was the appropriate authority to do that investigation, was the right place for that to get done, and I believe they did what they were supposed to do.”
In turn, Rollins told Globe columnist Adrian Walker that she respected Baker for initiating the “productive” conversation, but also wouldn’t go into detail about what they discussed.
“I have deep respect for him for being the leader he is, and calling me, and I have nothing further to say about the matter,” she said Saturday. “We had a incredibly productive conversation and now it’s time to get to work.”
Rollins did have more to say — about respect
Despite having “deep respect” for the governor, Rollins suggested Sunday that the feeling may not be mutual from Baker’s administration.
“Isn’t it so funny that when all of the male DAs before me had this discretion and were moving towards mass incarceration, the governor did not give a s[***] about that,” Rollins told about 200 supporters at a rally in Dorchester, according to the Globe.
“But miraculously now that this DA wants to end mass incarceration, you want to question the discretion that we have?” she added.
Rollins indicated that she was less upset by the policy disagreement than by Turco’s decision to send to her — and the press — the letter without any prior notice.
“I love criticism,” she said. “We need to start talking with people who don’t agree with us. In fact, I don’t mind the letter that was sent. I don’t like what happened before the letter. … Had the secretary or the governor picked up the phone and spoken to me, sat down and said ‘We disagree with everything you’re saying,’ and then written this letter, you wouldn’t have heard a word from me. We are allowed to disagree with each other, but what you are not going to do is disrespect this office.”
Rollins said there was “no way in hell” that Baker didn’t have knowledge beforehand of Turco’s letter and questioned why anyone was surprised that she was implementing the policies on which she campaigned. She voiced a similar sentiment during her original press conference Friday.
“As your new DA, and the first woman to ever have this job, it has been very apparent to me that the men that were in this position before me were treated with quite a bit more respect,” Rollins reportedly said at the time. “But I didn’t get into this job to make friends, I got into this job to make change.”
According to MassLive, she added that “if people would like to speak to me before they issue a letter, I’m always willing and able to speak to them.”
While she again praised Baker’s leadership Sunday, Rollins gave Turco a reminder.
“Secretary Turco got his job because he knows one person: The governor,” she said, contrasting that number with the more than 185,000 Suffolk County voters who gave her a “mandate” last November.
“I got my job because a majority — to the tune of 80 percent — voted for me to have this job,” Rollins said.
Office of Governor Charlie Baker and Lt. Governor Karyn Polito Governor's Press Office
Press Release Governor Baker Announces Departure of Lon Povich, Names Bob Ross as Chief Legal Counsel For immediate release: 2/26/2019
Office of Governor Charlie Baker and Lt. Governor Karyn Polito Governor's Press Office
Press Release- Governor Baker
BOSTON — Today, Governor Charlie Baker and Lt. Governor Karyn Polito announced the departure of Lon Povich as Chief Legal Counsel for the Office of the Governor. Attorney Bob Ross, current General Counsel at the Executive Office for Administration and Finance, will assume the post of Chief Legal Counsel.
Lon Povich managed attorneys across the executive branch as Chief Legal Counsel and played key roles in crafting significant pieces of legislation such as last year’s criminal justice reform bill and the MBTA reform measures passed in 2015. Bob Ross has helped craft the Baker-Polito Administration’s five state budget proposals and worked with legislative leaders and administration officials on several major initiatives, including a review of all Executive Branch agency regulations, while serving as General Counsel for A&F.
“Lon has served as an integral member of the Governor’s Office since the start of our Administration, providing invaluable counsel to our team over the past four years,” said Governor Charlie Baker. “One of Lon’s signature contributions to our Administration has been the appointment of 130 members of the judiciary, including 5 members of the Supreme Judicial Court, which will have an impact on the Commonwealth for years to come, and I thank Lon for his leadership over the past four years. Bob Ross has been a key advisor for our Administration on some of the most pressing issues relating to the state’s budget and finances, and we congratulate him on this new position.”
“Lon’s thoughtful guidance has supported our Administration through the most difficult of situations, including the gas explosions in the Merrimack Valley,” said Lt. Governor Karyn Polito. “Lon’s wealth of experience in both the public and private sectors has helped inform the tremendous advice that he has given our office, and I wish him all the best.”
“Throughout my last four years in the Governor’s Office, I have been honored and enthusiastic to work on a team with elected leaders known for their extraordinary competence, balance, and civility,” said Lon Povich. “I am very grateful for the opportunity to do complicated legal, policy, and political analysis on the most important issues facing the people of the Commonwealth, working alongside dedicated professionals throughout state government. I offer my sincere congratulations to Bob Ross, who I am confident will carry on the tradition of fine lawyers who have had the privilege of serving our governors as their chief legal counsel.”
“I am grateful to Governor Baker and Lieutenant Governor Polito for this opportunity to serve their Administration in this important role,” said Bob Ross. “I am also grateful to Secretary Heffernan and former Secretary Kristen Lepore for the support and trust they have placed in me. A&F is a great place to work with a great team, and I am looking forward to working with the team in the Governor’s Legal Office to build on the substantial legacy of success that Lon has entrusted to me.”
About Bob Ross
Since the start of the Baker-Polito Administration, Bob Ross has served as the General Counsel for the Executive Office for Administration and Finance under Secretary Kristen Lepore and Secretary Michael Heffernan. In this role, he has been primarily responsible for the drafting and review of legislation that has a fiscal impact on the Commonwealth. He has advised the Secretary and the Governor on legal issues inherent in the Commonwealth’s finances and worked closely with the Governor’s Chief Legal Counsel to review enacted legislation that is presented to the Governor for signature.
Prior to his current position, he was the Bureau Chief for the Business and Labor Bureau in the Office of Attorney General Martha Coakley, where he managed five divisions that regulate and enforce the laws governing businesses in Massachusetts, while simultaneously working to preserve the state’s dynamic business climate. He represented the Commonwealth’s interests in litigation stemming from the closure and subsequent bankruptcy filing of North Adams Regional Hospital, continuing vital emergency medical services in the community, and successfully argued the Commonwealth’s case as an amicus in a False Claims Act case before the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
Mr. Ross came to the Attorney General’s Office from the Office of the Senate President, where he worked for more than a decade in various roles in that Office and the Senate Committee on Ways and Means, including six and one half years as Chief Policy Advisor for Senate President Therese Murray.
Before coming to state government, Mr. Ross worked for six years as a litigation associate in the main office of McGuire Woods, a large law firm based in Richmond, Virginia. He graduated from Northwestern University Law School, and did his undergraduate work at the College of William and Mary in Virginia.
He and his wife live in Wellesley with their three children, ages 14, 12 and 10.
About Lon Povich
As Governor Baker’s Chief Legal Counsel, Lon Povich is responsible for the broad range of policy and legal matters that come before the Governor and his senior team.
Prior to joining the Baker administration in January 2015, Lon was Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc. Lon joined BJ’s in February 2007 after serving for 11 years as General Counsel at The Boston Consulting Group, a global strategy firm. At both BCG and BJ’s, Lon had responsibility for a number of management and operational issues.
Earlier in his career Lon worked as a litigation associate at Goodwin Procter in Boston; as an Assistant United States Attorney, in the Economic Crimes Division of the Boston United States Attorney’s Office; and as Deputy Chief Legal Counsel to Massachusetts Governor Weld. Lon graduated from Harvard Law School and Dartmouth College (summa cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa.) After graduation from HLS, he served as a law clerk to Chief Justice Vincent McKusick of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.
Lon has also been active in the community. From 1996 to 2004, he was a director of MassHousing (Massachusetts’ low income housing finance agency); and from 2005 until 2010 he served on the Governor’s Judicial Nominating Commission. Lon also sat on the Board of Directors of the Greater Boston Food Bank, served on the Board of Greater Boston Legal Services, as an elected member of the Council of the Boston Bar Association, and has been involved in a number of local organizations in Wellesley, MA. In 2018 he received the Executive Leadership Award at the Jewish Community Relations Council’s Annual Legislative Reception, 2018; and in 2014 he received the Good Apple Award for “demonstrated dedication to public service, fairness and social justice,” from the Massachusetts Appleseed Center for Law and Justice.
###
### Media Contact for Governor Baker Announces Departure of Lon Povich, Names Bob Ross as Chief Legal Counsel Office of Governor Charlie Baker and Lt. Governor Karyn Polito Governor Charlie Baker, Lt. Governor Karyn Polito, and members of their administration are committed to making Massachusetts the best place to live, work, and raise a family. More Governor's Press Office Visit the Governor’s Press Office to learn about recent news from the administration, follow our happenings on social media, and for media contact information. More Media Contact for Governor Baker Announces Departure of Lon Povich, Names Bob Ross as Chief Legal Counsel Brendan Moss, Press Secretary, Governor's Office Phone Call Brendan Moss, Press Secretary, Governor's Office at (617) 725-4025 Online Email Brendan Moss, Press Secretary, Governor's Office at gov.press@state.ma.us Feedback Did you find what you were looking for on this webpage? * Yes No
We will use this information to improve the site. Do not include sensitive information, such as Social Security or bank account numbers. Massachusetts State Seal
Follow Mass.gov on Facebook Follow Mass.gov on Twitter Follow Mass.gov on LinkedIn Follow Mass.gov on Youtube Follow Mass.gov on Instagram
