Attn Rt Hon Jeremy Corbyn MP I just called from 902 800 0369 and your assistant did not understand anything I told her Well I understand why Boris Johnson et al are blocking my emails to many folks

>
The recipient won't be able to receive this message because it's too large.

The maximum message size that's allowed is 1 KB. This message is 7 KB.



 ---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 11:24:48 -0400
Subject: Attn Rt Hon Jeremy Corbyn MP Correct my number is 902 800 0369 I make
human mistakes but at least I am a man of my words N'esy Pas Bill Morneau?
To: leader@labour.org.uk, "chrystia.freeland"<chrystia.freeland@international.gc.ca>, "Chrystia.Freeland"<Chrystia.Freeland@parl.gc.ca> ,
 "Bill.Morneau"<Bill.Morneau@canada.ca>, newsroom@globeandmail.com,
press <press@bankofengland.co.uk>, press <press@pirateparty.org.uk>,

---------- Original message ----------
From: "MinFinance / FinanceMin (FIN)"<fin.minfinance-financemin.fin@canada.ca>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 13:32:51 +0000
Subject: RE: Attn Rt Hon Jeremy Corbyn MP I just called from 902 900 0369 and your
assistant did not understand anything I told her Well I understand why Boris Johnson et al
are blocking my emails to many folks
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>

The Department of Finance acknowledges receipt of your electronic
correspondence. Please be assured that we appreciate receiving your
comments.

Le ministère des Finances accuse réception de votre correspondance
électronique. Soyez assuré(e) que nous apprécions recevoir vos
commentaires.


There was a problem delivering your message to
chrystia.freeland@international.gc.ca. See the technical details
below, or try resending in a few minutes.
The response from the remote server was:

550 5.7.1 Error: Rejected

----------Original message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 09:10:26 -0400
Subject: Attn Rt Hon Jeremy Corbyn MP I just called from 902 900 0369 and your
assistant did not understand anything I told her Well I understand why Boris Johnson et al
are blocking my emails to many folks
To: leader@labour.org.uk, "chrystia.freeland"<chrystia.freeland@international.gc.ca>, "Chrystia.Freeland"<Chrystia.Freeland@parl.gc.ca>,

The recipient won't be able to receive this message because it's too large.

The maximum message size that's allowed is 1 KB. This message is 177 KB.


----------Original message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 08:43:51 -0400
Subject: Attn Jenny Jones I just called from 902 900 0369 I must say that your friend
Ken Livingstone picked an interesting time to quit EH?
To: media@jennyjones.org, jonesjb@parliament.uk,
contact@jennyjones.org, jeremy.corbyn.mp@parliament.uk,
mayt@parliament.uk, hammondp@parliament.uk, Johnsonb@parliament.uk,
theresa.may.mp@parliament.uk, philip.hammond.mp@parliament.uk,
public.enquiries@hmtreasury.gsi.gov.uk, jo.johnson.mp@parliament.uk,
newsonline@bbc.co.uk, Newsroom <Newsroom@globeandmail.com>
Cc: "David.Raymond.Amos"<David.Raymond.Amos@gmail.com>,
"Bill.Morneau"<Bill.Morneau@canada.ca>, "Chrystia.Freeland@parl.gc.ca
\"boris.johnson.mp\""<boris.johnson.mp@parliament.uk>,
eastsussexlieutenancy@brighton-hove.gov.uk

https://www.greenparty.org.uk/people/jenny-jones.html


Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Jenny Jones

Jenny Jones, Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb joined the House of Lords
in 2013, having been chosen for this appointment in a ballot of all
Green Party members.

She was a Green Party member of the London Assembly from its creation
in 2000 until standing down in 2016. In 2003/04 she was appointed
Deputy Mayor for London by Ken Livingstone and worked closely with him
during his second term as Mayor when the greens successfully initiated
a series of environmental and social projects.

Jenny also served as chair of London Food (2005-08), having proposed
the setting up of the organisation. She has sought to improve the food
that is on offer to Londoners and to reduce its environmental impact.

Her most successful roles were as the Mayor’s Green Transport Adviser
(2004-2008) and Road Safety Ambassador (2001-2008), during which time
the number of people killed and seriously injured on London’s roads
decreased by over 2,000 with 20 mph zones and increased traffic
policing. A report she commissioned led to the creation of the hire
bike scheme and London’s cycling superhighways.

On the Assembly, she chaired the Economy Committee, the Housing
Committee and was Deputy Chair of the Policing and Crime Committee.
Her work, including several reports, has a strong emphasis on civil
liberties, sustainability and social justice.

She was the Green Party candidate for Mayor of London in 2012 and came third.

She sat on the Metropolitan Police Authority from 2000 to 2012 (when
it was abolished) where she held the Met and the Mayor to account,
particularly on civil liberties. She has consistently called for
greater police resources for the enforcement of road traffic laws, and
for better support for victims of crime.

She was also elected onto Southwark Council, from 2006 to 2010 and got
a motion approved for them to become a Living Wage employer.

In all her roles, Jenny has raised awareness of the dangers of climate
change and the urgent need to reduce greenhouse emissions. Jenny has
been a member of the project board that was leading the delivery of
the East London Green Grid of open spaces.

In 2004, Jenny was named as one of 200 'women of achievement'. Before
her election, Jenny Jones was an archaeologist working mainly in the
Middle East and a former chair of the Green Party Executive.

More about Green achievements on the London Assembly

Jenny Jones' official web site
Contact


For Parliamentary matters, contact jonesjb@parliament.uk or
contact@jennyjones.org

For media enquiries only please contact media@jennyjones.org or call
Ian Wingrove 07967 205330


For Parliamentary matters, contact jonesjb@parliament.uk or
contact@jennyjones.org

For media enquiries only please contact media@jennyjones.org or call
Ian Wingrove 07967 205330

http://kenlivingstone.net/2018/05/statement-from-ken-livingstone/


Statement from Ken Livingstone

“After much consideration, I have decided to resign from the Labour Party.

The ongoing issues around my suspension from the Labour Party have
become a distraction from the key political issue of our time – which
is to replace a Tory government overseeing falling living standards
and spiralling poverty, while starving our schools and the NHS of the
vital resources they need.

We live in dangerous times and there are many issues I wish to speak
up on and contribute my experience from running London to, from the
need for real action to tackle climate change, to opposing Trump’s
war-mongering, to the need to end austerity and invest in our future
here in Britain.

I do not accept the allegation that I have brought the Labour Party
into disrepute – nor that I am in any way guilty of anti-Semitism. I
abhor antisemitism, I have fought it all my life and will continue to
do so.

I also recognise that the way I made a historical argument has caused
offence and upset in the Jewish community. I am truly sorry for that.

Under Labour’s new General Secretary I am sure there will be rapid
action to expel anyone who genuinely has antisemitic views.

I am loyal to the Labour party and to Jeremy Corbyn. However any
further disciplinary action against me may drag on for months or even
years, distracting attention from Jeremy’s policies.

I am therefore, with great sadness, leaving the Labour Party.

We desperately need an end to Tory rule, and a Corbyn-led government
to transform Britain and end austerity. I will continue to work to
this end, and I thank all those who share this aim and who have
supported me in my own political career.”

* Ken Livingstone, May 21 2018.



---------- Original message ----------
From: Anita Bromberg <abromberg@bnaibrith.ca>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 02:13:22 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Many years ago Robert S Mueller III and his
evil cohorts were in charge of Extraordinary Renditions and even tried
to pull that malice on me after I won some judgements in the USA
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

Please note that Anita Bromberg is no longer employed at B'nai Brith
Canada. If this is a B'nai Brith matter, please redirect your email to
Amanda Hohmann at ahohmann@bnaibrith.ca.

Thank you.



---------- Original message ----------
From: "MAY, Theresa"<theresa.may.mp@parliament.uk>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 02:13:36 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Many years ago Robert S Mueller III and his
evil cohorts were in charge of Extraordinary Renditions and even tried
to pull that malice on me after I won some judgements in the USA
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

If your email is to the Prime Minister, please re-send to the No 10
website: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/prime-ministers-office-10-downing-street<http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/prime-ministers-office-10-downing-street>

If you are a constituent of the Prime Minister, please re-send to:
sharkeyj@parliament.uksharkeyj@parliament.uk>

UK Parliament Disclaimer: This e-mail is confidential to the intended
recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
and delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or
copying is not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses,
but no liability is accepted for any damage caused by any virus
transmitted by this e-mail. This e-mail address is not secure, is not
encrypted and should not be used for sensitive data.



---------- Original message ----------
From: "JOHNSON, Boris"<boris.johnson.mp@parliament.uk>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 02:13:34 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Many years ago Robert S Mueller III and his
evil cohorts were in charge of Extraordinary Renditions and even tried
to pull that malice on me after I won some judgements in the USA
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

The Rt. Hon. Boris Johnson MP
Member of Parliament for Uxbridge and South Ruislip
Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

Thank you for contacting Boris Johnson MP. Please note that this email
account is for constituency and other enquiries in my role as Member
of Parliament for Uxbridge and South Ruislip.

If you are a resident of Uxbridge and South Ruislip, please ensure
that you have included your full name and address. No emails will be
answered without full address and contact details.

Please note emails relating to the Foreign Office will not be replied
to. If you are contacting me about my responsibilities as Foreign
Secretary, you should re-send your email to:
fcocorrespondence@fco.gov.uk<mailto:fcocorrespondence@fco.gov.uk>

UK Parliament Disclaimer: This e-mail is confidential to the intended
recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
and delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or
copying is not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses,
but no liability is accepted for any damage caused by any virus
transmitted by this e-mail. This e-mail address is not secure, is not
encrypted and should not be used for sensitive data.


---------- Original message ----------
From: "Office, Press"<Press@bankofengland.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 02:14:20 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Many years ago Robert S Mueller III and his
evil cohorts were in charge of Extraordinary Renditions and even tried
to pull that malice on me after I won some judgements in the USA
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

The Press Office mailbox is monitored from 08:30-18:00, Monday to
Friday. Emails received outside of these hours will not be responded
to until the next working day.

If your message is urgent, please ring 020 7601 4411 and you will be
connected to the duty Press Officer.


Thanks



https://www.ft.com/content/98f75836-5d1c-11e8-9334-2218e7146b04

        Ex-London mayor Ken Livingstone quits Labour party
Leftwing veteran and former Corbyn ally was suspended in 2016 after
comments on Hitler
Ken Livingstone © Justin Tallis/AFP

Ken Livingstone has quit Labour, bringing to an end several years of
criticism over how the former mayor of London could stay in the party
after a string of controversies.

The leftwing veteran, once a close ally of leader Jeremy Corbyn, was
suspended in 2016 after making comments about Hitler being an early
advocate of Zionism.

He said on Monday that he was quitting the party after his lawyers
advised him that he could face months or years of wrangling if he lost
the case over his membership and was expelled.

“The ongoing issues around my suspension from the Labour party have
become a distraction from the key political issue of our time, which
is to replace a Tory government overseeing falling living standards
and spiralling poverty, while starving our schools and the NHS of the
vital resources they need,” he said.

Mr Corbyn said it was a “sad” moment but it was also “the right thing
to do”. The Labour leader has himself been battling wider allegations
of failing to crack down on anti-Semitic behaviour from some of his
followers in recent months.

His close ally Christine Shawcroft was forced to quit as Labour’s head
of discipline after intervening to support a leftwing council
candidate in Peterborough who had shared holocaust denial material on
Facebook.

Shami Chakrabarti, the shadow attorney-general, who wrote an internal
report into Labour anti-Semitism two years ago, last week called for
Mr Livingstone to be expelled.

Mr Livingstone first came to prominence when he ran the Greater London
Council between 1981 and 1986 from City Hall, just across the Thames
from the Thatcher government. He earned the nickname “Red Ken” as a
supporter of issues such as LGBT rights and Irish republicanism.

He has left Labour before: he was first elected as London mayor in
2000 as an independent, beating the party’s then candidate Frank
Dobson.

Having proved his electability, he was readmitted into the fold by
Tony Blair, the then leader, winning a second term in 2004 under the
Labour banner.

Despite his hard-left credentials, Mr Livingstone was widely seen as
an innovative and moderate mayor, bringing in the congestion charge,
part-pedestrianising Trafalgar Square and working closely with
property developers.

He stood unsuccessfully a third and fourth time for the mayoralty in
2008 and 2012, only to be beaten both times by Boris Johnson, the Tory
candidate.

Instead, he reinvented himself as a media pundit, with a regular slot
on LBC radio.
Recommended
Life & Arts
Momentum: inside Labour’s revolutionary movement

Despite his proximity to many in the Corbyn leadership, Mr Livingstone
landed himself in trouble in April 2016 with his comments that Hitler
“was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing 6m
Jews”.

With many Labour MPs calling for his suspension, including deputy
leader Tom Watson, and Mr Livingstone refusing repeatedly to
apologise, his membership of the party had become an embarrassment to
Mr Corbyn’s team.

A month ago, two Jewish groups held a rally in Parliament Square to
protest at what they saw as Mr Corbyn’s sluggish response to
allegations of anti-Semitism among some Labour members. At a more
recent meeting, they called on Mr Livingstone to be thrown out of the
party by the deadline of July.

In his statement, the former mayor apologised for making a “historical
argument” that had caused offence.

At the same time he was defiant to the end, saying that he did not
accept the allegation about bringing Labour into disrepute or being
guilty of anti-Semitism: “I abhor anti-Semitism, I have fought it all
my life and will continue to do so.”




---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 08:17:14 -0400
Subject: ATTN Caroline Lucas I just called about Commissioner Katy
Bourne et al from 902 900 0369
To: brightonoffice@parliament.uk, caroline.lucas.mp@parliament.uk,
clucasmedia@parliament.uk, mayorsoffice@brighton-hove.gov.uk,
eastsussexlieutenancy@brighton-hove.gov.uk, Tim.RICHARDSON@gnb.ca
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, "boris.johnson.mp"
<boris.johnson.mp@parliament.uk>, "Gilles.Blinn"
<Gilles.Blinn@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>

https://www.carolinelucas.com/get-in-touch


Caroline Lucas
Parliamentary
House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA
Tel: 020 7219 7025
Email: caroline.lucas.mp@parliament.uk

Constituency
Brighton Media Centre, 15-17 Middle Street, Brighton, BN1 1AA
Email: brightonoffice@parliament.uk




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: MayorsOffice <MayorsOffice@brighton-hove.gov.uk>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 22:29:28 +0000
Subject: Thank you
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>

Thank you for your e-mail to
mayorsoffice@brighton-hove.gov.ukmayorsoffice@brighton-hove.gov.uk>.
We have received this and will respond within ten working days.

Notice to recipient:
The information contained in this electronic mail message is intended
only for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed
and may contain information which is privileged and confidential, the
disclosure of which is prohibited by law.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, please
note that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error please notify the sender immediately.
Thank you in anticipation of your co-operation.

You can visit our website at http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk

Please consider the environment, only print out this email if
absolutely necessary.

Please Note:  Both incoming and outgoing Emails may be monitored
and/or recorded in line with current legislation


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: EastSussexLieutenancy <eastsussexlieutenancy@brighton-hove.gov.uk>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 14:46:19 +0000
Subject: FW: Ninesh Edwards I read your email after I had called
Councillor Bill Bentley and the office of the Lord Lieutenant of East
Sussex about my lawsuit against the Queen and my concerns about
Commissioner Katy Bourne                   protect
To: "david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com"<david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>

Thank you for your message which has been passed to me to respond. We
are unable to assist you as this is a matter best referred to the
Foreign and Commonwealth Office.


---------- Original message ----------
From: "JOHNSON, Boris"<boris.johnson.mp@parliament.uk>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 10:31:47 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: So Katty Bourne have got Johnny "Never Been
Good" Paterson locked up yet?
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

The Rt. Hon. Boris Johnson MP
Member of Parliament for Uxbridge and South Ruislip
Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

Thank you for contacting Boris Johnson MP. Please note that this email
account is for constituency and other enquiries in my role as Member
of Parliament for Uxbridge and South Ruislip.

If you are a resident of Uxbridge and South Ruislip, please ensure
that you have included your full name and address. No emails will be
answered without full address and contact details.

Please note emails relating to the Foreign Office will not be replied
to. If you are contacting me about my responsibilities as Foreign
Secretary, you should re-send your email to:
fcocorrespondence@fco.gov.uk<mailto:fcocorrespondence@fco.gov.uk>

UK Parliament Disclaimer: This e-mail is confidential to the intended
recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
and delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or
copying is not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses,
but no liability is accepted for any damage caused by any virus
transmitted by this e-mail. This e-mail address is not secure, is not
encrypted and should not be used for sensitive data.



---------- Original message ----------
From: Katy Bourne <Katy.Bourne@sussex-pcc.gov.uk>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 10:31:48 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: So Katty Bourne have got Johnny "Never Been
Good" Paterson locked up yet?
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

Thank you for your email.

I aim to respond to your email as quickly as possible but do receive a
high volume of correspondence and calls.  Therefore, if your email is
urgent, please forward to my Executive Assistant:
gina.wheatley@sussex-pcc.gov.uk

Kind regards

Katy Bourne
Police & Crime Commissioner for Sussex


-----Original Message-----
From: David Amos [mailto:david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com]
Sent: 14 May 2018 17:46
To: ninesh.edwards@westsussex.gov.uk; EastSussexLieutenancy; Geoff
Raw; Michaela Isaacs; MayorsOffice; Philip.Baker@eastsussex.gov.uk;
mervin.dadd@sussex-pcc.gov.uk; cllr.bill.bentley@eastsussex.gov.uk;
mark.streater@sussex-pcc.gov.uk; daniel.turk@sussex.pnn.police.uk
Cc: David.Raymond.Amos; motomaniac333
Subject: Ninesh Edwards I read your email after I had called
Councillor Bill Bentley and the office of the Lord Lieutenant of East
Sussex about my lawsuit against the Queen and my concerns about
Commissioner Katy Bourne

We just spoke below you will find some info about my first lawsuit
against the Queen

https://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/content/council-and-democracy/councillors-and-committees/lord-lieutenant-east-sussex

The Lord Lieutenant of East Sussex
The Queen's representative

The Lord Lieutenant is appointed by The Queen to act on her behalf in
East Sussex. The title originated in the reign of Henry VIII and
originally had a military function. As there was no full-time army,
the Lord Lieutenant was charged with calling men of the county to arms
when needed. The role of Lord Lieutenant is now non-political and
unpaid.

Mr Peter Field became Lord Lieutenant for East Sussex in August 2008,
and holds this office until 2021.
Royal duties

The Lord Lieutenant's duties include:

    representing The Queen within East Sussex
    arranging royal visits to the county and escorting royal visitors
when appropriate
    participating in civic and social activities including direct and
indirect support to a wide range of groups, benevolent organisations,
industry and local businesses
    liaising with local armed forces units
    submitting honours nominations
    submitting royal garden party nominations
    presenting honours and awards on behalf of The Queen

Keeper of the Rolls (Custos Rotulorum)

As well as representing The Queen, the East Sussex Lord Lieutenant has
agreed to hold the post of Keeper of the Rolls for the Lord Chancellor
and Lord Chief Justice. This post dates back to the 15th century. The
rolls were the records of the Court of Quarter Sessions, an
administrative as well as judicial body.

http://www.east-sussex-lieutenancy.org.uk/contact-us/

Victoria Golding
PA to the Lieutenancy of East Sussex,
Civic Office, Brighton Town Hall
Bartholomew Square
Brighton
East Sussex,  BN1 1JA
email: eastsussexlieutenancy@brighton-hove.gov.uk
Telephone: 01273 293608

The Clerk to the Lieutenancy of East Sussex
Mr Geoff Raw, Chief Executive of Brighton & Hove City Council
Chief Executive’s Office
Brighton & Hove City Council
Hove Town Hall
Hove
BN3 3BQ

geoff.raw@brighton-hove.gov.uk
Tel: 01273 297329.

Michaela Isaacs
Civic Office Manager
email: michaela.isaacs@brighton-hove.gov.uk

The mayor's primary duty is to act as the Chair of Full Council
meetings. This means ensuring that the proceedings are conducted
properly and that all shades of opinion are given a hearing, as far as
possible.

The Civic Office also supports Queen's representative for East Sussex,
the Lord Lieutenant of East Sussex.

Councillor Mo Marsh is the current Mayor of Brighton & Hove

Brighton Town Hall
Bartholomew Square
Brighton
Postcode:
BN1 1JA

Email address: mayorsoffice@brighton-hove.gov.uk
Phone:  01273 291225
Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/BHMayor
Twitter:
https://twitter.com/MayorOfficeBHCC

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 10:30:21 -0400
Subject: Fwd: I just called about Commissioner Katy Bourne from 902 900 0369
To: cllr.bill.bentley@eastsussex.gov.uk
Cc: "David.Raymond.Amos"<David.Raymond.Amos@gmail.com>, motomaniac333
<motomaniac333@gmail.com>

https://www.westsussex.gov.uk/about-the-council/how-the-council-works/committees-and-decision-making/other-meetings/sussex-police-and-crime-panel/#panel-members

Councillor Bill Bentley
Title: Lead Member for Communities and Safety
Party: Conservative
Swallow Brook House
15 Sandbanks Close
Hailsham
East Sussex
BN27 3TJ

Phone:  01323 847685
Mobile:  07710 717 131
Email:  cllr.bill.bentley@eastsussex.gov.uk

Panel members

In Sussex, the members of the Panel are drawn from each of the 15
local authorities within the region. At least 2 independent members
also sit on the Panel.

    Adur District Council – David Simmons
    Arun District Council – Mike Clayden
    Brighton and Hove City Council – Emma Daniel
    Brighton and Hove City Council – Joe Miller
    Chichester District Council – Eileen Lintill
    Crawley Borough Council – Michael Jones
    Eastbourne Borough Council – John Ungar
    East Sussex County Council – Bill Bentley (Chairman)
    East Sussex County Council – Carolyn Lambert
    Hastings Borough Council – Colin Fitzgerald
    Horsham District Council – Tricia Youtan
    Lewes District Council – Tony Nicholson
    Mid Sussex District Council – Norman Webster
    Rother District Council – Eleanor Kirby - Green
    Wealden District Council – Claire Dowling
    Worthing Borough Council – Valerie Turner
    West Sussex County Council - Christian Mitchell (Vice Chairman)
    Independent – Peter Nightingale*
    Independent – Susan Scholefield*

*Independent members of the Panel are required to sign up to West
Sussex County Council’s Code of Conduct.

---------- Original message ----------
From: Ninesh Edwards <ninesh.edwards@westsussex.gov.uk>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 14:44:04 +0000
Subject: I just called about Commissioner Katy Bourne from 902 900 0369
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

Hello Mr Amos,

Thank you for your voice message and for this email.

How can I help?


Best wishes,

Ninesh


Ninesh Edwards | Senior Advisor| Democratic Services West Sussex
County Council | Room 102 (Cabinet Office), County Hall, Chichester,
West Sussex.  PO19 1RQ
|Internal: 22542  | External: 0330 222 2542 | E-mail:
ninesh.edwards@westsussex.gov.uk | www.westsussex.gov.uk
What we do enables you


---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 10:19:51 -0400
Subject: I just called about Commissioner Katy Bourne from 902 900 0369
To: pcp@westsussex.gov.uk, Katy.Bourne@sussex-pcc.gov.uk, pol4982
<pol4982@calgarypolice.ca>, "Paul.Lynch"
<Paul.Lynch@edmontonpolice.ca>
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, "bill.pentney"
<bill.pentney@justice.gc.ca>, "Brenda.Lucki"
<Brenda.Lucki@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>

Contact Ninesh Edwards, Senior Advisor, Democratic Services, for
further information:

    Email pcp@westsussex.gov.uk
    Tel: 033 022 22542
    Address
    Room 21
    County Hall
    Chichester
    West Sussex
    PO19 1RQ

http://david1912.rssing.com/chan-22920969/all_p14.html

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Katy Bourne <Katy.Bourne@sussex-pcc.gov.uk>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 04:53:32 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Yo Chief Rick Hanson how could your corrupt
cops be even dumber than the RCMP or the mindless cops I talked to in
Halifax and in the UK today?
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

Thank you for your email.

I will respond to your message as soon as possible.  However, I do
receive a significant number of emails, letters and telephone calls
each day and my scheduled commitments keep me very busy.

If you require a swift response please contact my office who will be
happy to assist.  Email: spcc@sussex-pcc.gov.uk or telephone : 01273
481561

Thank you once again for contacting me.

Kind regards

Katy Bourne
Sussex Police & Crime Commissioner
W: www.sussex-pcc.gov.uk
T: 01273 481561
T: @Sussexpcc  @KatyBourne

Kind regards

Katy Bourne
Sussex Police & Crime Commissioner
W: www.sussex-pcc.gov.uk
T: 01273 481561
T: @Sussexpcc @KatyBourne




This is the text of the lawsuit following that is more info

http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2015/09/v-behaviorurldefaultvmlo.html

Friday, 18 September 2015
David Raymond Amos Versus The Crown T-1557-15



                      Court File No. T-1557-15

FEDERAL COURT

BETWEEN:
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS

                           Plaintiff
and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

                           Defendant

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

The Parties

1.      HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crown) is Elizabeth II, the Queen of
England, the Protector of the Faith of the Church of England, the
longest reigning monarch of the United Kingdom and one of the
wealthiest persons in the world. Canada pays homage to the Queen
because she remained the Head of State and the Chief Executive Officer
of Canada after the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.) 1982, c. 11 came into force
on April 17, 1982. The standing of the Queen in Canada was explained
within the 2002 Annual Report FORM 18-K filed by Canada with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). It states as
follows:

     “The executive power of the federal Government is vested in the
Queen, represented by the Governor General, whose powers are exercised
on the advice of the federal Cabinet, which is responsible to the
House of Commons. The legislative branch at the federal level,
Parliament, consists of the Crown, the Senate and the House of
Commons.”

     “The executive power in each province is vested in the Lieutenant
Governor, appointed by the Governor General on the advice of the
federal Cabinet. The Lieutenant Governor’s powers are exercised on the
advice of the provincial cabinet, which is responsible to the
legislative assembly. Each provincial legislature is composed of a
Lieutenant Governor and a legislative assembly made up of members
elected for a period of five years.”

2.      Her Majesty the Queen is the named defendant pursuant to
sections 23(1) and 36 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act. Some
of the state actors whose duties and actions are at issue in this
action are the Prime Minister, Premiers, Governor General, Lieutenant
Governors, members of the Canadian Forces (CF), and Royal Canadian
Mounted Police (RCMP), federal and provincial Ministers of Public
Safety, Ministers of Justice, Ministers of Finance, Speakers, Clerks,
Sergeants-at-Arms and any other person acting as Aide-de-Camp
providing security within and around the House of Commons, the
legislative assemblies or acting as security for other federal,
provincial and municipal properties.

3.      Her Majesty the Queen’s servants the RCMP whose mandate is to
serve and protect Canadian citizens and assist in the security of
parliamentary properties and the protection of public officials should
not deny a correspondence from a former Deputy Prime Minister who was
appointed to be Canada’s first Minister of Public Safety in order to
oversee the RCMP and their cohorts. The letter that helped to raise
the ire of a fellow Canadian citizen who had never voted in his life
to run for public office four times thus far is quoted as follows:

  “Mr. David R. Amos
            Jan 3rd, 2004
153Alvin Avenue
   Milton, MA U.S.A. 02186

                Dear Mr. Amos

      Thank you for your letter of November 19th, 2003, addressed to
                my predecessor, the Honourble Wayne Easter, regarding
your safety.
                I apologize for the delay in responding.

      If you have any concerns about your personal safety, I can only
               suggest that you contact the police of local
jurisdiction. In addition, any
               evidence of criminal activity should be brought to
their attention since the
               police are in the best position to evaluate the
information and take action
               as deemed appropriate.

       I trust that this information is satisfactory.

                                                              Yours sincerely

 A. Anne McLellan”

4.      DAVID RAYMOND AMOS (Plaintiff), a Canadian Citizen and the
first Chief of the Amos Clan, was born in Sackville, New Brunswick
(NB) on July 17th, 1952.

5.      The Plaintiff claims standing in this action as a citizen
whose human rights and democratic interests are to be protected by due
performance of the obligations of Canada’s public officials who are
either elected or appointed and all servants of the Crown whose
mandate is to secure the public safety, protect public interests and
to uphold and enforce the rule of law. The Crown affirms his right to
seek relief for offences to his rights under section 24(1) of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter). Paragraphs 6 to 13
explain the delay in bringing this action before Federal Court and
paragraphs 25 to 88 explain this matter.

6.      The Plaintiff states that pursuant to the democratic rights
found in Section 3 of the Charter he was a candidate in the elections
of the membership of the 38th and 39th Parliaments in the House of
Commons and a candidate in the elections of the memberships of the
legislative assemblies in Nova Scotia (NS) and NB in 2006.

7.      The Plaintiff states that if he is successful in finding a
Chartered Accountant to audit his records as per the rules of
Elections Canada, he will attempt to become a candidate in the
election of the membership of the 42nd Parliament.

8.      The Plaintiff states that beginning in January of 2002, he
made many members of the RCMP and many members of the corporate media
including employees of a Crown Corporation, the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation (CBC) well aware of the reason why he planned to return to
Canada and become a candidate in the next federal election. In May of
2004, all members seated in the 37th Parliament before the writ was
dropped for the election of the 38th Parliament and several members of
the legislative assemblies of NB and Newfoundland and Labrador (NL)
knew the reason is the ongoing rampant public corruption. Evidence of
the Plaintiff’s concerns can be found within his documents that the
Office of the Governor General acknowledged were in its possession ten
years ago before the Speech from the Throne in 2004. The Governor
General’s letter is as follows:


  “September 11th, 2004
          Dear Mr. Amos,

           On behalf of Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne
Clarkson,
           I acknowledge receipt of two sets of documents and CD
regarding corruption,
           one received from you directly, and the other forwarded to
us by the Office of
           the Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick.

                       I regret to inform you that the Governor
General cannot intervene in
           matters that are the responsibility of elected officials
and courts of Justice of
           Canada. You already contacted the various provincial
authorities regarding
           your concerns, and these were the appropriate steps to take.

                                                  Yours sincerely.
                                                              Renee
Blanchet
                                                              Office
of the Secretary
                                                              to the
Governor General”

9.      The Plaintiff states that the documents contain proof that the
Crown by way of the RCMP and the Minister of Public Safety/Deputy
Prime Minister knew that he was the whistleblower offering his
assistance to Maher Arar and his lawyers in the USA. The Governor
General acknowledged his concerns about the subject of this complaint
and affirmed that the proper provincial authorities were contacted but
ignored the Plaintiff’s faxes and email to the RCMP and the Solicitor
General in November of 2003 and his tracked US Mail to the Solicitor
General and the Commissioner of the RCMP by way of the Department of
Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) in December of 2003
and the response he received from the Minister of Public Safety/Deputy
Prime Minister in early 2004. One document was irrefutable proof that
there was no need whatsoever to create a Commission of Inquiry into
Maher Arar concerns at about the same point in time. That document is
a letter from the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office
Inspector General (OIG complaint no. C04-01448) admitting contact with
his office on November 21, 2003 within days of the Plaintiff talking
to the office of Canada’s Solicitor General while he met with the US
Attorney General and one day after the former Attorney General of New
York (NY) and the former General Counsel of the SEC testified at a
public hearing before the US Senate Banking Committee about
investigations of the mutual fund industry.

10.  The Plaintiff states that another document that the Plaintiff
received during the election of the 39th Parliament further supported
the fact he was a whistleblower about financial crimes. In December of
2006 a member of the RCMP was ethical enough to admit that he
understood the Plaintiff’s concerns and forwarded his response to the
acting Commissioner of the RCMP and others including a NB Cabinet
Minister Michael B. Murphy QC. The Crown is well aware that any member
sitting in the last days of the 37th Parliament through to the end of
the 41st Parliament could have stood in the House of Commons and asked
the Speaker if the Crown was aware of the Plaintiff’s actions. All
parliamentarians should have wondered why his concerns and that of Mr.
Arar’s were not heard by a committee within the House of Commons in
early 2004. Instead, the Crown created an expensive Commission to
delay the Arar matter while he sued the governments of Canada and the
USA and his wife ran in the election of the 38th Parliament. In 2007,
Arar received a $10-million settlement from the Crown and the Prime
Minister gave him an official apology yet the US government has never
admitted fault. A month after the writ was dropped for the election of
the 42nd Parliament and CBC is reporting Syrian concerns constantly,
Mr. Arar’s lawyer announced that the RCMP will attempt to extradite a
Syrian intelligence officer because it had laid a charge in absentia
and a Canada-wide warrant and Interpol notice were issued. The
Plaintiff considers such news to be politicking practiced by the
Minister of Public Safety. He noticed the usually outspoken Mr. Arar
made no comment but his politically active wife had lots to say on
CBC. Meanwhile, the RCMP continues to bar a fellow citizen from
parliamentary properties because he exercised the same democratic
rights after he had offered his support to Arar by way of his American
lawyers. The aforementioned letter about financial crimes was from the
Inspector General for Tax Administration in the US Department of the
Treasury. Mr Arar’s lawyers, the RCMP, the Canadian Revenue Agency and
the US Internal Revenue Service still refuse to even admit TIGTA
complaint no. 071-0512-0055-C exists. However, the Commissioner of
Federal Court, the Queen’s Privy Council Office and other agencies
were made well aware of it before the Speech from the Throne in 2006.

11.  The Plaintiff states that from June 24, 2004 until the day he
signed this complaint he has diligently tried to resolve the breach of
his rights under the Charter that are the subject of this complaint
with any public official in Canada whom he believed had the mandate or
the ability to request that the Crown investigate and correct the
malicious actions and inactions of the RCMP, Sergeants-at-Arms and
Aides-de-Camp in all jurisdictions. Until June 16, 2006 the Plaintiff
did not have irrefutable proof to support this complaint. Time did not
permit him to address it immediately in Federal Court in 2006 because
his slate was full. For instance on June 16, 2006 while dealing with
deeply troubling private family matters, he was running against the
Attorney General for his seat in the NS provincial election while
arguing members of the RCMP about strange calls he got from someone in
Ottawa who claimed the Department of Public Safety as her client,
dealing with many liberal party members who were about to witness in
Moncton NB the first debate of all those who wished to become their
new leader, assisting a farmer in his attempt to get some authority to
properly investigate the demise of his cattle and discussing with
members of the Saint John NB City Council the actions of a sergeant in
the Saint John Police Force who was calling friends of the Plaintiff
and claiming that he was drug dealing member of a bike gang that they
should stay away from while he was preparing to intervene in pipeline
matter that was about to heard by the National Energy Board in Saint
John .

12.  The Plaintiff states that in April of 2007 he wrote a complaint
about this matter and returned to the Capital District of NB in order
to file it and argue the Crown before the Federal Court if it did not
wish to settle. A clerk of this court informed him that his complaint
was not composed correctly, so he began to rewrite this complaint.
However, as soon as it was known what the Plaintiff was about to file
he was subject to further police harassment and his family began to
suffer from constant slander, sexual harassment and death threats on
the Internet and on the telephone that continues to this very day
while the RCMP, the FBI and many other law enforcement authorities
continue to ignored the obvious evidence of cybercrime practiced
against many people including his minor children.

13.  The Plaintiff states that the Crown’s only response has been
further harassment by the RCMP including false arrest and imprisonment
and theft of his property by the Fredericton Police Force supported by
other law enforcement authorities in Canada and the USA. The Governor
General has had the Plaintiff’s documents for over ten years to study.
The Crown now has one of the complaints that the RCMP has been
delaying since 2003. It is as follows:

The Complaint

14.  The Plaintiff states that on June 24, 2004 during the election of
the membership of the 38th Parliament the Crown breached his right to
peaceful assembly and association under Section 2(c) and (d) of the
Charter. The Sergeant-at-Arms of the Legislative Assembly of NB (a
former member of the RCMP) supported by the Fredericton Police Force
(FPF), the Corps of Commissionaires (COC) and at least one RCMP
officer acting as Aide-de-Camp to the NB Lieutenant Governor barred
the Plaintiff under threat of arrest from the legislative properties
in NB.

15.  The Plaintiff states that whereas the Crown refused to put
anything in writing to either confirm or deny that he was in fact
barred from the legislative properties in NB, he returned to the
public property whenever he deemed it necessary to do so as he ran for
public office three more times. For example, when the Plaintiff was a
candidate in the election of the 39th Parliament for the riding of
Fredericton, he was asked to come into the legislative building of NB
to record a live interview for an Atlantic Television (ATV) news cast
shortly before polling day. On that occasion, the Sergeant-at-Arms and
his Aides-de-Camp did not attempt to bar the Plaintiff from access to
legislative property quite possibly because they did not wish their
actions to be recorded by ATV. However, the Crown made matters worse
in short order. CBC barred the Plaintiff from an all-candidates’
debate on the University of New Brunswick (UNB) campus and on polling
day two District Returning Officers on the UNB campus after viewing
identification threatened to have the Plaintiff arrested stating that
they did not believe he was on the ballot.

16.  The Plaintiff states that the NB Sergeant-at-Arms continued with
his threat of arrest after the election 39th Parliament. In response,
the Plaintiff challenged the Sergeant-at-Arms to either put his threat
in writing or arrest him so he could at least argue the Crown about
the offences against his rights under the Charter.

17.  The Plaintiff states that on June 16th, 2006 he was on a sidewalk
on Queen Street in Fredericton NB waiting for a friend who was meeting
with the Premier of NB and others inside the legislative assembly
building. Within minutes of his arrival the Sergeant-at-Arms and two
members of the FPF marched out of the building and served a signed
document barring him from public places overseen by the Crown because
some unnamed parties found him in ”Contempt of the House”. The
Sergeant-at-Arms then ordered the Plaintiff off legislative property.
When the Plaintiff pointed out that he was not on legislative property
but on a sidewalk on Queen Street, the Sergeant-at-Arms claimed that
his jurisdiction extended to the middle of the street. The two members
of the FPF identified themselves and agreed that if the Plaintiff did
not cross the street they would arrest him.

18.  The Plaintiff states that after he crossed Queen Street he took a
photograph of the Sergeant-at-Arms and the FPF marching back into the
building to prove date and time of their malice. He sent a photograph
of their barring notice to many people particularly liberal party
members gathering in Moncton, NB that day to hear a debate by those
who wished to replace the former Prime Minister as their party leader.
It was important to do so because a liberal mandate created the
Charter in 1982 compelling all New Brunswickers including the
Sergeant-at-Arms and the police to abide the law within Canada’s only
bilingual province. Any citizen or public official who understands the
Charter and received a copy of the barring notice should have noticed
the Crown had barred a citizen from the legislative properties in NB
in only one official language. No police officer or politician or
Language Commissioner at either a federal or provincial level ever
responded to any inquiry about that fact. The Sergeant-at-Arms of NB
did acknowledge the receipt of a copy of his barring notice years
later but he did so in French only.

19.  The Plaintiff states that the NB Sergeant-at-Arms and his cohorts
in the FPF, RCMP and the COC are well aware that as soon as the
Plaintiff’s friend came out of legislative building on June 16, 2006,
he was given the barring notice to take back inside in order to
inquire about it and the reasons behind it. The COC are clearly named
at the bottom of the document yet the Commissionaires and all the
politicians he encountered that day claimed that they were not allowed
to discuss the barring notice and never would ever since. The
Plaintiff finds that the police, politicians and bureaucrats etc. are
maintaining their oath to the Crown rather than uphold the law and
Sections 2(c) (d), 16(2), 18(2) and 20(2) of the Charter and are
relying on the Crown’s legal counsel to stop him from seeking relief.

20.  The Plaintiff states that the RCMP and the members of the FPF who
harassed the Plaintiff in September of 2006 while he was a candidate
in the NB provincial election would not explain why the NB
Sergeant-at-Arms and the COC had barred him with a document written in
English only or why it was not published in the Royal Gazette. Members
of the FPF who violated the Plaintiff’s privacy trying to read an
email that he was composing on a laptop within his car parked on
private property refused to explain why they thought they had the
right do so as they attempted to interrogate him without a warrant or
due process of law. Members of the FPF refused to take the same
documents the RCMP had so that their major crimes unit could finally
investigate after they demanded that the Plaintiff identify himself so
they could check for warrants for his arrest. The FPF would not
discuss what they would do if he returned to the UNB campus or if he
parked a vehicle and put money in a parking meter on the side of Queen
Street claimed by the Sergeant-at-Arms. In February of 2007 after a
Cabinet Minister of NB acknowledged his concerns with the RCMP, his
children took pictures of the Plaintiff standing on the legislative
property and the Sergeant-at-Arms and the FPF did nothing that day.
However, the police harassment got worse afterwards. The FPF tried to
call him a criminal while the Plaintiff waited for answers before he
argued the Crown in court about his property that the FPF had
illegally seized. The text of two emails that the Crown and the FPF
sent in 2007 are as follows:

              “Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:02:35 -0400
               From: "Murphy, Michael B. \(DH/MS\)"MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca
               To: motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com
               Subject:

                   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”

                                                       AND

                “From: “Lafleur, Lou” lou.lafleur@fredericton.ca
                  To: motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com,
                  Subject: Fredericton Police Force
                  Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:21:13 -0300

                         Dear Mr. Amos

          My Name is Lou LaFleur and I am a Detective with the
Fredericton Police Major Crime Unit. I would like to talk to you
regarding files that I am investigating and that you are alleged to
have involvement in.

            Please call me at your earliest convenience and leave a
message and a phone number on my secure and confidential line if I am
not in my office.
                         yours truly,

                         Cpl. Lou LaFleur
                         Fredericton Police Force
                         311 Queen St.
                         Fredericton, NB
                         506-460-2332

21.  The Plaintiff states that by September of 2007, he was told by
police officers and others that he was barred from the town of
Woodstock, the House of Commons, the National Capital District
including Rideau Hall and the University of Ottawa, the Capital
District of NB including the Lieutenant Governor’s residence and the
University of NB, all other legislative properties in Canada and that
a photograph of him was posted inside the NB legislative building, the
Fredericton airport and at least one mining property guarded by the
Corps of Commissionaires.

22.  The Plaintiff states that on or about September 13, 2007 during a
conversation with the office of the Speaker of the House of Commons he
was referred to the Sergeant-at-Arms in order to find out if the
Plaintiff was truly barred from the House of Commons and if he had
been sent an answer to the documentation the Speaker and the
government of Iceland received in May of 2006. The Sergeant-at-Arms
was apparently well aware of his concerns because he said he knew the
Plaintiff from a past life and quickly hung up the telephone. The
Sergeant-at-Arms never did answer the Plaintiff and ignored all his
contacts ever since.

23.  The Plaintiff states that the odd response from Sergeant-at-Arms
of the House of Commons caused him to research how they knew each
other. The public record states that in June of 2005 the RCMP officer
acting as Aide-de-Camp to the NB Lieutenant Governor retired and
joined the House of Commons as Director of Security Operations. On
September 1, 2006, he became the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of
Commons. Therefore, because of all three of his positions from June of
2004 to December of 2014, the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Commons
must have agreed and seconded his fellow Sergeant-at-Arms in NB and
his threats to arrest Plaintiff if he reappeared on parliamentary
property.

24.  The Plaintiff states that with regards to this complaint about
being illegally barred from parliamentary properties, the most recent
contact from the Crown was the three members of the RCMP who harassed
the Plaintiff at 1:30 AM on December 16, 2014 not long after he had
received an email from a former CSIS agent who is the current
Sergeant-at-Arms of the legislative assembly of Alberta.

The Facts of this Matter

25.  The Plaintiff states that on June 24, 2004 within minutes of his
being barred, the Sergeant-at-Arms, two members of the FPF and one
Commissionaire witnessed him deliver a large number of documents to
the attention of two lawyers in the office of the opposition next
door. He suspects that the Sergeant-at-Arms read at least the cover
letter when his documents were in his care because to support his
right to bar a citizen in front two members of the FPF he falsely
accused the Plaintiff of attempting to serve documents while in the
legislative building.

26.  The Plaintiff states that within the hour of being barred, the
Plaintiff visited the headquarters of the FPF and attempted to meet
with its Chief in order to discuss the false allegations and the
threat of arrest. Whereas a Corporal denied access to his Chief, the
Plaintiff contacted the City Solicitor of Fredericton because he knew
him personally in younger days. After waiting one week for someone to
get back to him, the Plaintiff visited the constituency office of the
Premier and the law office of a former Premier of NB and gave them
many documents with the same cover letter addressing his concern about
being barred from the legislative properties amongst other issues. One
month later the Attorney General of NB sent an answer similar to what
the Deputy Prime Minister sent eight months earlier telling him to
take up his concerns with the police and ignored the issue of a
citizen being barred and threatened by the police. A lawyer acting as
the NB Ombudsman did not wish deal with the government on his behalf
suggested that the Plaintiff take up his concerns with the New
Brunswick Police Commission (NBPC) and introduced them. The Plaintiff,
his wife and a lawyer met with the NBPC. The NBPC acknowledged the
complaint and asked the FPF to investigate their questionable actions.
In the eleven years since the NBPC never responded and the Plaintiff
knows why. The NBPC and Governor General have many of his documents
and one is a letter to the Commissioner of the RCMP. The Plaintiff is
well aware the Chair of the NBPC in 2004 was also the Chief Coroner
whom he testified before on July 15, 1982 and he clearly informed the
Crown he assisted in a successful civil lawsuit against the RCMP about
a wrongful death.

27.  The Plaintiff states that the Sergeant-at-Arms, two
Commissionaires, a librarian, and two members of the FPF knew that the
Plaintiff was in legislative assembly on June 24, 2004 looking for the
“blogger” Charles Leblanc.  While the Plaintiff was waiting for
Charles Leblanc to arrive that day he exercised his democratic right
to witness the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly from the
gallery.

28.  The Plaintiff states that apparently a friend of the Crown put a
new spin on this matter the following day. The Crown’s corporate media
has never said anything about the Crown’s malicious actions barring
him it has had lots to say about the barring the blogger Charles
Leblanc two years later and it has made the arrests and prosecutions
of him well known. On June 25, 2004 Charles Leblanc a well-known
friend of the MLAs, the Sergeant-at-Arms, the Commissionaires, the
RCMP and the Fredericton Police Force falsely reported in the social
media that the Plaintiff had been “shown the door” claiming that he
had attempted to interrupt the proceedings in the Legislature by
speaking from the gallery. The Crown knows if that were true it would
have been recorded in the legislative records. The words of Charles
Leblanc an important witness to be called to testify as to what he
knows about this matter are as follows

       “IS ELVY ROBICHAID SEEING THE LIGHT????
        by Charles LeBlanc Friday, Jun. 25, 2004 at 10:56 AM
        Fredericton updates from Charles

 “There’s always undercovers cops around but only when the House is in
session.  As God as my witness I hope nothing happens but it’s just a
matter of time till someone is push over the edge. I guess a guy name
David Amos was shown the door yesterday at the Legislature. This guy
is running as an Independent candidate in the riding of Fundy Royal. I
met the guy over the net and he has a beef with our political
bureaucrats. I admire people fighting for what they believe in but you
can’t get carried away. I guess in this case? He wanted to speak from
the Gallery and that’s a big faux pas!”

29.  The Plaintiff states that he was not surprised that for the
benefit of his political opponents, servants of the Crown would
practice such malice against a citizen seeking public office. Three
weeks before the Plaintiff was barred in 2004 Elections Canada’s
lawyers waited until the very last minute to admit that section 3 of
the Charter existed and that it affirmed his right to run as an
Independent.

30.  The Plaintiff states that he has studied the actions of
journalists, politicians and their lawyers for many years and has
argued many. He has no doubt that during the time of a federal
election the Crown would not have barred any member of a wealthy well
known political party from any parliamentary property in Canada
without dealing with a Charter argument in court and a host of
journalists almost immediately. With that in mind the Plaintiff
gathered the evidence to support this claim and waited until the CBC
reported that the Prime Minister had asked the Governor General to
drop a writ. Now history tells us all that the writ has been dropped
early in order for the Prime Minister to cause the most expensive and
one of the longest federal elections in the history of Canada on a
date mandated by a law that his wealthy political party created for
its benefit. Now that the stock markets are in a turmoil again the
Office of the Inspector General of the SEC is acknowledging the
Plaintiff’s emails but only after they were made aware that he
received an ethical answer from a global organization that oversees
auditors. Recent events have proven to the Plaintiff that it is
important that he file this action in Federal Court as soon as
possible in order see if the Harer government wishes to continue
barring him from parliamentary property before polling day.

31.  The Plaintiff states that during the election of the 38th
Parliament not one of the employees of the CBC denied the fact that it
had acted in a deliberate partisan fashion and ignored the Crown
Corporation’s mandate. CBC reported that there were five candidates on
the ballot in Fundy but failed to name the Plaintiff in their website
or on the television and the radio. Nothing surprised the Plaintiff
about the actions of the CBC but they should not have laughed at him
when he pointed out other citizens should be afforded equal
opportunity to hear of him.

32.  The Plaintiff states that many politicians knew that the CBC had
hard copy of two lawsuits of his since 2002 and their journalists had
been laughing at him for two years. It was a profound mistake for CBC
to ignore his candidacy now that he did as he promised in a statement
of one lawsuit and was running for public office in Canada. As CBC
continued serving the interests of the politicians who provided the
funding sourced from the Canadian taxpayer other citizens noticed that
the CBC was ignoring his candidacy. One journalist who had laughed at
him called back and tried to make a deal after the Plaintiff had
called the Ombudsman for CBC complaining of him and his associates
only to be laughed at some more and invited to sue CBC. CBC continued
to ignore the Plaintiff even though the popular former CBC reporter
Mike Duffy was now employed by their largest corporate competitor, CTV
and they claimed Fundy was a riding to watch and at least three
newspapers and even the CBC’s blogger friend Charles Leblanc had
chosen to put his strange spin the actions and words of the Plaintiff
while calling him a Hells Angel. However, the aforementioned CBC
journalist did not keep his job very long after his boss and three
directors of CBC received the very same documents and CD that the
Plaintiff’s political opponents had in their possession. (The former
CBC journalist did get a job with the government of NB and has
continued with his obvious malice ever since)

33.  The Plaintiff states that the CBC would not have ignored its
mandate and the standing of a candidate if he or she were a member of
the Liberal Party or the newly merged Conservative parties or the Bloc
Quebecois Party or the Green Party or the New Democratic Party without
expecting to deal with legions of lawyers. CBC had no legal right
whatsoever to ignore the Plaintiff merely because he was an
Independent. In fact the mandate of CBC as a publicly owned
broadcaster dictates that he must not be ignored whether he be a
member of a powerful political party or not. With regards to this
complaint, on June 24, 2004 there were many journalists inside the
legislative properties of NB not just CBC. They published nothing
about the Plaintiff of his running for public office or his being
barred or even after their blogger friend, Charles Leblanc certainly
did.

34.  The Plaintiff states that in June of 2006 Charles Leblanc was
also barred from the same legislative properties but not the Public
Documents Building on the UNB campus. More importantly the
Sergeant-at-Arms was clever enough not to sign or date the English
only document this time. Thus Charles Leblanc who usually demands
things in French from the government when he is in trouble was never
barred at all. The CBC immediately reported the barring of Charles
Leblanc falsely claiming that the Sergeant-at-Arms had signed the
Barring Notice. CBC wrote the Sergeant-at-Arms admitted that he had
barred about six others but did not disclose as to who they were. CBC
did not ask who who the other citizens were because they knew they
would have to name the Plaintiff as well. Many people have protested
the barring of Charles Leblanc and a petition to have it revoked was
placed in the public record of the legislative assembly to no avail.
In 2006 Charles Leblanc was arrested in Saint John and in 2011 in
Fredericton. In 2009 and 2012 the FPF arrested their blogging friend
Charles Leblanc on the legislative properties. The CBC reported each
time but failed to follow up and investigate and report why the Crown
refused to charge Charles Leblanc in both instances. The CBC knows
that as soon as the Plaintiff contacted the politicians and police to
remind them that he would appreciate being called to testify at
Charles Leblanc’s trial as a hostile but ethical witness about the
barring actions of the Crown it would never go forward with the
charges. Leblanc was arrested by the FPF two other times in recent
years and he is on trial right now. The CBC knows the Plaintiff has
talked to members of the RCMP, the FPF, the Saint John Police Force,
the Miramichi Police Force and the Edmundston Police Force who were
investigating Leblanc for various reasons since 2006. The police
usually denied knowing who the Plaintiff was as they refused to answer
his emails. The Plaintiff knows the reason why Charles Leblanc was
barred from legislative property. He agrees with the Crown doing so
but it failed to allow the nasty blogger the right to due process of
law just like it did with and several others. He has never understood
why the Crown has not charged Leblanc under sections 300 and 319 of
the Criminal Code in lieu of arresting him for protesting too loudly
or possible child porn or trespass or punching an equally nasty poetic
beggar.

35.  The Plaintiff states that by the end of November of 2004 a lawyer
in the employ of the Attorney General of NB had answered him in
writing and the FPF, two lawyers, the Mayor and a city councilor of
Fredericton had some very serious email exchanges with the Plaintiff.
The only responses to the Plaintiff about the breach of his right to
peaceful assembly came from the (NBPC) on September 14, 2004
acknowledging his complaint (File no 2110-04-11) and two letters byway
of email from the FPF. On September 30, 2004 a Staff Sergeant of the
FPF wrote that he was in possession of the complaint and requested
evidence to support the Plaintiff’s statement that he had been barred
from the legislative properties for “political reasons not legal
reasons” The Plaintiff responded and suggested that the FPF listen to
the tape of the interview he had with the NBPC and study all the
evidence he gave to the NBPC in the presence of a lawyer as a witness.
The Staff Sergeant responded on October 29, 2004 stating that he had
detailed reports from fellow members of the FPF and he had interviewed
the Sergeant-at-Arms. He claimed that his fellow police officers acted
appropriately and he would inform the Chief of the FPF that he did not
have sufficient cause under the Police Act to investigate the
complaint the Plaintiff registered with the NBPC against the FPF. The
Plaintiff pointed out that the conflict of interest but grateful the
FPF acknowledged the incident. The Mayor of Fredericton found no
humour in that fact and sent the Plaintiff many emails within minutes
no doubt in an effort to overload his email account. In 2003 the
Plaintiff had demanded the Crown investigate the actions of RCMP now
the RCMP should do the same with the Crown because that para-military
police force has jurisdiction everywhere in Canada including all
public and private property controlled by the Crown even military
bases. The words of the Sergeant-at-Arms, Commissionaires and police
were witnessed by only the Plaintiff. A legal action about their
offences against his rights under the Charter would boil down to their
word against his. Evidence was required because he was outnumbered and
attacked by people the Crown employed to understand the law. It was
doubtful they would act ethically and until June 16, 2006 the Crown
refused to put anything in writing to prove this claim about the fact
that the Plaintiff is barred from parliamentary properties.

36.  The Plaintiff states that the Crown is aware that far greater
offences have been practiced within the Capital District of NB by the
FPF and the RCMP against the Plaintiff. Many servants of the Crown
have challenged him to seek relief in a Canadian provincial court. The
Plaintiff will not oblige Crown attorneys of thier desires he will
file in a court of a country at a time he chooses. Time is on the
Plaintiff’s side even though he getting old and was finally allowed to
collect his Canada Pension. His children and grandchildren are still
very young. Whatever was done against the Plaintiff was done against
his Clan as well. All of the Plaintiff’s heirs are Canadian citizens
and two of them are American citizens as well. The Crown, INTERPOL and
the American law enforcement authorities cannot deny that there is no
statute of limitations on certain crimes. The problem the Plaintiff is
finding an ethical journalist to report about the legal actions that
he and the Crown have already been involved in since 1982.

37.  The Plaintiff states that in October of 2004 if the Staff
Sergeant of the FPF had listened to the tape of his interview with the
NBPC and studied the documents they have in their possession he would
not have been so quick to dismiss the Plaintiff and his concerns in
such a fashion. Their many lawyers hardly ever allow corrupt police
officers to admit that the Plaintiff exists or put their malice
towards him in writing. The Plaintiff had explained to the NBPC what
transpired on June 24th, 2004. To explain briefly the police should
have known instantly the Sergeant-at-Arms actions were for political
reasons as soon as he turned in the guest pass and picked up his
documents as he stepped outside the building. While the Plaintiff was
inside the legislative building he spoke to only three employees two
Commissionaires and the librarian. He did not interfere with the
proceedings in the House as he watched the MLAs and their assistants
from the gallery, some of whom he knew personally. He did notice
political pundits in the building. One Cabinet Minister’s assistant
had been following him for a couple of days. His political foes wanted
him off the property immediately but they knew that he was not shy of
litigation if the Crown attempted to place a malicious charge against
him. Therefore they elected the Sergeant-at-Arms to try bully the
Plaintiff.

38.  The Plaintiff states that he satisfied himself as to the reasons
behind the blatant malice once he asked Sergeant-at-Arms and the
police three questions as follows:

(1)     The Plaintiff first asked was why he was being barred from the
legislative property. The Sergeant-at-Arms falsely claimed in front of
the police that the Plaintiff had tried to serve documents on somebody
inside the parliamentary building. The Commissionaires and police knew
that was untrue because they all witnessed the fact that the Plaintiff
had left all the documents in his possession with the Commissionaire
at the entrance before he was allowed into the building and they all
watched him pick up the same documents as he turned in a visitor’s
pass after he was asked to step outside of the building.

(2)     The second question was to the police to see if they agreed to
the false claim of the Sergeant-at-Arms and if they would identify
themselves. After the Sergeant-at-Arms said something quickly in
French and both police officers stated that they agreed with him but
only one would state his name and rank.

(3)     The Plaintiff then asked the Sergeant-at-Arms and the police
if they thought they had jurisdiction over him. They all said yes but
refused to take any documents from the Plaintiff just as the Deputy
Prime Minister suggested.

39.  The Plaintiff states that three people who were mentioned during
the aforesaid meeting with the NBPC were Charles Leblanc, Byron Prior
and the most wanted American gangster Whitey Bulger. All three were
well aware of the Plaintiff and his actions. More importantly the NBPC
were made well aware of the RCMP’s knowledge of his possession of many
American police surveillance wiretap tapes. The NBPC were shown the
very same tapes that he had promised to give to the Suffolk County
District Attorney in the Dorchester District Court of Boston
Massachusetts before a hearing to discuss an illegal summons to answer
a malicious unsigned criminal complaint (Docket no. 0407CR004623).
When the Plaintiff did so he was falsely imprisoned under the charges
of “other”.

40.  The Plaintiff states that an NBPC Commissioner did ask if they
should take the original wiretap tapes. The Plaintiff said no and that
the RCMP already had some but the NBPC could make copies of the ones
before them. The NBPC declined and said they did not have jurisdiction
over the RCMP and that they only wished to investigate why the FPF had
threatened to arrest him on June 24th, 2004.

41.  The Plaintiff states that read a few legal actions involving the
NBPC. He truly believes that NBPC has a mandate to oversee the actions
of the RCMP in the employ of municipalities and the government of NB.
On April 12, 2013 an employee denied that the NBPC it has any concerns
with the RCMP, so he forwarded the NBPC a judgment with an important
statement. Whenever he called the NBPC afterwards she did not allow
him to speak to anyone and denied receiving any emails even though
several were published on the Internet. The judgment pertains to
Miramichi Agricultural Exhibition Association Ltd. v. Chatham (Town)
1995 CanLII 3862 (NB QB). The statement reads as follows:

“Section 20 of the Police Act authorizes the Police Commission to
assess the adequacy of each police force and the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police and determine whether each municipality and the
Province is discharging its responsibility for the maintenance of an
adequate level of policing.”

42.  The Plaintiff states that in 2014 a confidential letter from the
lawyer who is now the chair of the NBPC was published by Charles
Leblanc. Within the aforesaid letter by a lawyer who was an officer in
the Canadian Forces when the Plaintiff was illegally barred in 2004
explained why he and some other unnamed lawyers claimed that the Chief
of the FPF and the NBPC did not have jurisdiction over the legislative
properties in order to investigate the wrongs of the members of FPF
under the Police Act. The lawyers claimed that whereas the police were
acting under the orders of the Sergeant-at-Arms the immunity afforded
them by parliamentary privilege would be undermined if the Chief of
the FPF and the NBPC upheld the law and the Charter.

43.  The Plaintiff states that as soon as he read the aforesaid letter
he had a deeper understanding as to why the NBPC and the FPF had
ignored his concerns for ten years and have refused to answer hard
copy or an email or even come to the phone or return a call for ten
years. He did manage to talk the lawyer who wrote the letter. The
lawyer just like another lawyer who was the Chair of the NBPC since
2004 was offended that the Plaintiff would dare to call his law office
instead of the NBPC. They both knew the reason was because every time
he called the NBPC, the Commissioners and their executive directors
were never available. They definitely did not return calls or answer
emails from the Plaintiff. The assistant who had denied receiving any
emails during his last conversation with her in May of 2015 said that
NBPC was never going to talk to him again. It appears the NBPC believe
that parliamentary privileges extend to them as well. Whether or not
that is true the NBPC must agree that the RCMP have no civilian
oversight whatsoever and that it is the only police force that has
jurisdiction to investigate the actions of the Crown on parliamentary
properties, the Canadian Forces and their semi-retired cohorts within
the Corps of Commissionaires. It appears to the Plaintiff that the
NBPC will not investigate the RCMP and in return the RCMP will not
investigate them. However, they do report to the Crown and the Crown
answers to the citizens it purportedly serves and protects.

44.  The Plaintiff states that claimed parliamentary privileges of
public officials are not above the rule of law just because some
unnamed lawyers deem it to be so. Some of the privileges
parliamentarians lay claim to cannot be found in the Constitution or
any other Act. They are implied by longstanding parliamentary
traditions and seldom challenged in a court of law.

45.  The Plaintiff states that claimed parliamentary privileges must
not be exercised secretly by the Crown against a citizen of an open
and just democracy because he visited parliamentary properties while
exercising his rights under the Charter and attempting to unseat its
political friends. He vividly recalls the last encounter with the
Sergeant-at-Arms that caused the Crown to create a “Barring Notice”.

46.  The Plaintiff states that on or about March 24th, 2006 he went to
the Office of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner of NB to give him
the same documents he had promised the Commissioner of Federal
Judicial Affairs, the Clerk of the Privy Council, Independent MP Andre
Arthur, Independent MLA Tanker O’Malley and many others. The
Commissionaire guarding door would not allow him in the building or
take the documents. The Sergeant-at-Arms must have been notified
because he was soon to appear and threatened to have the Plaintiff
arrested again. He asked why this time. The Sergeant-at-Arms said he
had already been warned to stay off legislative property. The
Plaintiff pointed out the fact that he was not on the legislative
property across the street but if the Crown wished to press false
charges against him the police should be called then he would look
forward to arguing the Sergeant-at-Arms in a court of law. The
Sergeant-at-Arms claimed that they were standing on parliamentary
property but did not call the police.

47.  The Plaintiff states that he then informed the Sergeant-at-Arms
if he thought he had a legal right to bar a citizen from parliamentary
properties he should have the Crown put the reasons to do so in
writing just like the NBPC had demanded of him when he complained of
the Sergeant-at-Arms and the FPF about their malevolent actions
against him two years before. There was no response from the
Sergeant-at-Arms to that simple statement.

48.  The Plaintiff states that he then asked the Sergeant-at-Arms in
front of witnesses if he still thought he had jurisdiction over him on
King Street and the response was yes. So the Plaintiff gave him the
documents and a CD destined for the Conflict of Interest Commissioner
and demanded an answer in writing. The Sergeant-at-Arms took the
documents but refused to sign a receipt for them. He tried to take
picture but the Sergeant-at-Arms crossed King Street and around the
corner too quickly. The Plaintiff received no answer from Conflict of
Interest Commissioner about his concerns. He called and emailed a copy
of the cover letter to the Commissioner’s office to see if it received
his documents and was ignored. The Commissionaire watching that day
knows who took the documents.

49.  The Plaintiff states that whereas there was no federal oversight
of the securities exchange business and no civilian oversight of the
RCMP, he took his concerns to the highest officials of each province
who represented their governments and the Crown. By the end of July in
2005, he emailed and called the offices of the Premiers and Lieutenant
Governors eight provinces. The Premier of Alberta did speak to the
Plaintiff after he staged a parade on Wall Street in order to promote
his province and that conversation did not go well. In early August
2005 he met the Alberta Premier’s challenge and included all provinces
in their argument. The Premiers and Lieutenant Governors received by
way of their Attorney General hard copy of many documents and a CD
similar to those acknowledged by the Governor General and the
Lieutenant Governors of NB and NL in 2004. They were sent by
registered US mail (signature required). Since that time not one
Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General or Premier has responded to the
Plaintiff other than the occasional insulting email. Over the past ten
years the offices of the Attorney Generals for Nova Scotia, Manitoba,
Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and Newfoundland admitted on
the telephone that his documents are in their files. However, not one
would person was willing to explain why and who had determined his
communication and evidence did not deserve an answer. The offices of
the Attorney Generals for Canada, Ontario, Quebec and Prince Edward
Island denied having anything from the Plaintiff. Those offices could
not explain how registered mail sent signature required to their boss
could get lost. Ten years later several provinces are attempting to
join with the other provinces to oversee the securities exchange
business through one corporation. The Crown must admit that corruption
can be the only reason why all the Attorney Generals in Canada would
continue to ignore a Canadian whistleblower’s documents that employees
and Inspector Generals of the US Treasury Dept. and agents of the
Crown in the United Kingdom have acknowledged beginning in January of
2002. All of the Attorney Generals of Canada should have noticed that
the Plaintiff was capable of creating and arguing lawsuits against the
Attorney General of Massachusetts and embarrassing the US Attorney
when he attempted to make the complaints illegally evaporate “Ex
Parte”. This complaint proves this statement is true.

50.  The Plaintiff states that he has had many conversations with many
Canadian law enforcement authorities etc. about his documentation etc.
and he was usually the one to make first contact. However, in 2008 he
was rather surprised when the office of the Auditor General of Canada
called him on their own accord not long after he had received a
response from the Commission of Public Sector Integrity to a complaint
he made in 2007. The person who called was very elusive about the
reason the Auditor General was contacting him but he gathered from the
brief conversation someone was talking to the Commission of Public
Sector Integrity. So he called the lawyer who just sent him the very
strange response to see if she had changed her mind. She recognized
the Plaintiff voice even though it had been six months since they had
talked and asked him to hold the line. Thus the Plaintiff surmised she
was expecting his call. Apparently she was because the Plaintiff was
surprised once again when a man who would not identify himself came on
the line claiming to be corporate security and threatened to have him
arrested if the Plaintiff ever called their Commission again. The
Plaintiff was not surprised to hear in late 2010 that the Auditor
General had been auditing the Commission of Public Sector Integrity.
The Plaintiff contacted the person in charge of the Freedom of
Information to see if the Auditor General had his complaint. He was
not surprised to see the Office of Auditor General claim that they did
not have his file. What surprised him was the fact that Auditor
General dared to deny it in writing.

51.  The Plaintiff states that the Crown is well aware that the last
responses that he received from the Office of the Auditor General, the
Privy Council Office, the Commission of Public Complaints Against the
RCMP, the Commission of Public Sector Integrity and actions of the
RCMP against the Plaintiff in 2014 and 2015 have caused him quit
looking for ethical conduct to come from anyone employed in the public
service of Canada. In March of 2015 byway of an ethical lawyer in
British Columbia the Plaintiff, the Commissioner of the RCMP and his
legal department that whereas the RCMP has refused to investigate
itself then it should at least stop harassing his family and wait to
this lawsuit and his next one.

52.  The Plaintiff states that from July of 1982 until July of 2008
the wrongful actions of the Crown and its cohorts against him were
usually covert and very difficult to prove because it typically
involved the word of the several police officers against his alone.
The Crown should have noticed that amongst the documents that the
Plaintiff provided it in 2004 there are two documents from the
Attorney General of NY. One document was labeled “Re corruption”
(reference no. 04/000233). The Plaintiff forwarded the Attorney
General of Canada amongst others emails containing his recent
communications in 2015 with the Attorney General of NY about that
file. The Crown should be aware that the Attorney General of NY in
2004 became the Governor of NY and that he was arrested by the FBI in
2008 while he was outside of his jurisdiction in the US Capital but
never prosecuted for any offence. The RCMP falsely arrested the
Plaintiff when he returned to the Capital District of NB shortly
afterwards. The RCMP practiced their wrongs on private property
without a warrant or due process of law and never placed any charges
against the Plaintiff as well. The downturn of the stock market in NY
within months of both arrests caused a major worldwide recession. On
October 8, 2008 the Plaintiff finally received an answer from the
Prime Minister of Iceland whose Canadian Ambassador received exactly
the same documents the Speaker in the House of Commons received in May
of 2006 that his Sergeant-At- Arms refused to answer. In December of
2008 Bernie Madoff was arrested by the FBI in NY and by March of 2008
the US Attorney in NY and the SEC in Washington admitted in writing
that the Plaintiff was involved in the Madoff matter and that his
documents had been filed under seal and against the Plaintiff’s
wishes. On September 8, 2015, the Office of the Inspector General of
the SEC sent the Plaintiff and email suggesting that the Plaintiff
file a new complaint within their website. The Plaintiff was quick to
inform the SEC and many law enforcement authorities in Canada of his
indignation as the news broke about the possible criminal actions of
KPMG, the very auditors he was complaining of with regards to his
family’s interests and the Madoff matter. The Plaintiff as usual has
been ignored as of this date. However the Plaintiff has noticed a
sudden upturn in visits to websites where his words and work are
published. It is no coincidence.

53.  The Plaintiff states that the Crown cannot deny that the Arar
matter proved that the Canadian and American law enforcement
authorities have had an agreement to share their questionable
information and that Canadians do suffer from their unconfirmed
suspicions. The very same law enforcement authorities attacked a
whistleblower when he gave them irrefutable evidence to cause an
investigation of their wrongs. A recent judgment of the Supreme Court
of Canada (SCC), Wakeling v United States of America, 2014 SCC 72,
allows the RCMP to share their surveillance wiretap tapes of Canadian
citizens with Americans. However, the RCMP and the FBI etc. do not
wish to deal with American wiretap tapes of a mob that definitely
practices its crimes across many borders. The lawyer working for the
Plaintiff’s wife in a sincere effort to see justice served sent
several of the original wiretap tapes to a US Senator who was a chair
of the US Judiciary Committee after polling day for the election of
the 39th Parliament. The lawyer did so on or about day the Governor
General witnessed the first Conservative Cabinet Ministers of the
current Canadian government swear an oath to the Crown. The Plaintiff
sent proof of this statement to many members of the 39th Parliament
before a confidence vote on its first budget. An opposition member
acknowledged it but ignored it and only answered in a fashion that his
opinions about sending the Canadian Forces into combat agreed with the
Plaintiff’s.

54.  The Plaintiff states that the Crown is well aware that until July
15th, 1982 the Plaintiff held a great respect for her servants in the
RCMP. The Crown cannot deny that he explained the reasons for his
change of mind with regards to the RCMP in his communications to the
Commissioner of the RCMP, the FBI, the US Treasury Department and the
Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT)
amongst many others byway of fax and certified US Mail in November and
December of 2003. As the Plaintiff stated in paragraph 3 his ire was
raised when the Deputy Prime Minister chose to acknowledge his
concerns only after he received acknowledgment of a complaint on file
with the US Department of Homeland Security.

55.  The Plaintiff states that he knew in September of 2004 that the
Crown and the Americans were never going to uphold the law in regards
to his concerns as he saw his tracked US Mail to DFAIT being forwarded
elsewhere and his tracked mail to the RCMP evaporated from the Canada
Post records. Furthermore his home phone line was cut right after
Byron Prior notified him he was being much harassed and his American
lawyer Barry Bachrach called to say that recent actions of the FBI and
others had frightened him and that for the benefit of his family he
was staying away from the Plaintiff and not going to court with on
October 1, 2004. The Plaintiff expecting foul play prepared his wife
to notify his Septs who held his Durable Power of Attorney and to
visit Josie Maguire, the same person in the Canadian Consulate in
Boston whom he sent his documents to on December 16, 2003. On October
1, 2004 a judge acted ethically and recused himself after witnessing
the Plaintiff sign an affidavit and file it in the docket of the court
along with hundreds of supporting documents proving the malicious
prosecution by a layman clerk with no mandate to create a criminal
prosecution. On September 3, 2003, the Plaintiff gave the police
surveillance wiretap tapes that he had shown to the NBPC to the
Suffolk County District Attorney before he stood before a sub
municipal court to demand that it prove jurisdiction to hear a
criminal prosecution involving a prison term and what right did a
clerk have to summon a Canadian citizen across an international border
to answer unknown criminal charges after the Boston Police would not
discuss anything with him and the District Attorney claimed in writing
that they were not involved in the matter. The court then changed its
plan and he was called before another judge who read the affidavit and
immediately sent the Plaintiff to jail held under the charges of
“other” in solitary confinement with no chance of bail. The actions of
the Plaintiff’s wife in Boston and his Septs in Canada caused a member
of the RCMP and Josie Maguire to meet with him inside the American
jail to advise him that they could not help him and because he must
obey the laws of other countries he visits and then gave him an
amazing document signed by a judge that had been faxed to them by the
very clerk who had him falsely imprisoned.

56.  The Plaintiff states that in response he thanked the Crown’s
representatives in the USA for the proof of malice and showed them a
faxed copy of the letter from the Governor General dated September 11,
2004 that he had received just before his home phone line was cut. He
informed them that perhaps the Crown should expect a few lawsuits
against it in Canada and the USA then dismissed them.

57.  The Plaintiff states that the Crown and the Americans have always
demanded that the Plaintiff keep his interactions in confidence with
the RCMP, the FBI, the US Treasury Dept. and other secretive law
enforcement authorities. The Plaintiff as a whistleblower about
financial crimes proved that he did keep his concerns with the federal
agents in Canada and the USA in confidence until Canada Day 2002 when
he began filing his exhibits supporting two lawsuits in an American
court. He continued to keep in confidence with the FBI the fact that
he was in possession of hundreds of police surveillance wiretap tapes
until April 1, 2003 when the US Secret Service and the Milton Police
Department appeared at his door in the middle of the night with false
allegations of a presidential threat and threatening extraordinary
rendition because the Plaintiff was a foreign national just like Maher
Arar. The Plaintiff called the RCMP headquarters the following day to
inquire if they were informed about the visit the night before by the
Secret Service. Some lady who claimed she was a lawyer said the RCMP
knew all about the Plaintiff. She hung the phone when she was asked if
the RCMP had listened to the police surveillance wiretap tapes he had
given to the FBI. The conversation with the RCMP lawyer caused the
Plaintiff to begin sharing a true copy of only one wiretap tape with
hundreds of members of the bar and other law enforcement authorities
in Canada and the USA. He has received an incredible number of
incompetent responses. He only sent a few of the responses with the
Crown thus far. There are many more.

58.  The Plaintiff states that it is important to inform the Federal
Court what is on the CD that the Governor General’s office
acknowledged having two copies of in paragraph 8. It is a true copy of
an American police surveillance wiretap tape.

59.  The Plaintiff states that in his opinion he sees no harm in it
being heard in public in Federal Court. He published copies of it in
two American Internet domains in 2008 after the RCMP falsely arrested
him and attempted to have him certified as mentally ill. The actions
of the RCMP caused the Crown to have the problem the American’s have
had since 2004 when they tried the same malicious trick rather than
uphold the law. The problem is that the Plaintiff’s health has no
bearing on irrefutable hard evidence. He should not be in possession
of police surveillance wiretap tapes that offend the civil rights of
many American citizens. With regards to this complaint about being
illegally barred from parliamentary properties, the plaintiff must
point out that the Commissioner of the RCMP and the Minister of Public
Safety knew of the American police surveillance wiretap tapes in 2003.
Furthermore in 2004 the RCMP and a catholic priest had several
original wiretap tapes and the FPF, the NBPC, many members of the bar
and public officials received a true copy of CDs the Governor General
acknowledged before the Plaintiff was falsely imprisoned in the USA.
The aforesaid problem is getting worse because every day more people
around the world are aware of the wiretap tapes and two of the tapes
have been downloaded a number of times by unknown parties. The
Plaintiff cannot take them back even if he wanted to. The public has
always taken far more interest about what is recorded on the wiretap
tapes than his whistleblowing efforts about financial crimes but that
could change anytime. Sooner or later someone will recognize who the
people recorded on the tapes are and it may generate many lawsuits in
the USA without involving the Plaintiff but has many more he has yet
to reveal. The Plaintiff still has a number of wiretap tapes in his
possession and several were stolen by the FPF along with his
motorcycle. Other tapes are scattered about in Canada and the USA with
people he trusts far more than any member of the RCMP or the FBI.
Others tapes are hidden. Many of the wiretap tapes were no longer in
the Plaintiff’s possession for over ten years. He made certain no one
gave him any idea as to where most of the wiretap tapes are hidden but
he secured the proof of the wiretap tapes he had given to the RCMP and
various law enforcement authorities placed in the public record of
American courts and that his former lawyer sent to a US Senator.

60.  The Plaintiff states that before he left the USA, the Plaintiff
made the people he trusts far more than any other Yankee promise that
the tapes would surface if his American family were in jeopardy. It
was no longer safe for a family to live with its father in the USA or
Canada, too many corrupt law enforcement authorities and lawyers
working for mobsters knew he had the wiretap tapes. It was not his
fault that his family lost their interests because of the illegal
actions of family lawyers and their friends within the justice system.
The Plaintiff did the best he could in his Clan’s defence of their
homes and interests. He will die with a clear conscience about that
fact. However, he knew if his Clan suffered in any fashion because of
his actions trying to compel the RCMP and FBI to act ethically it
would be his fault because he knew the federal agents in Canada and
the USA were infinitely corrupt since 1982 when they began to call him
a drug dealer etc.

61.  The Plaintiff states that he and his wife agree that they should
have moved to Canada as they planned when they wed in 1991 but it was
a common decision to stay put in the USA. Simply put, the wiretap
tapes that put his Clan in jeopardy also offered the only way that a
proud but bankrupt father could protect his Clan in his forced absence
from the people he loves far more than life itself. Eleven years later
quite a number of the Yankee mobsters and their lawyers are now dead
or imprisoned. More importantly, the Plaintiff’s children are now
adults and live separately. The Plaintiff sees no need to keep any of
the wiretap tapes in confidence anymore. After the election of the
42nd Parliament, he will begin publishing more wiretap tapes in the
public domain. He will copyright them and consider them a form of
entertainment about true history of the mob and offer them for sale.
Any settlement of any future lawsuit about his knowledge of financial
crimes and his Clan’s stolen assets will be for their benefit and that
of their children. Their lawyers will need their father’s records in
order to assist them to that end. The Crown must understand that this
complaint is one many actions that are part of his records. The
wiretap tapes insure that there will be no statute of limitations.
With regards to this complaint, the Plaintiff reminds the Crown of
paragraph 48 and the Sergeant-at-Arms took a CD and documents.

62.  The Plaintiff states that the Clerk of Federal Court in the
Capital District of NB for reasons he will never understand mailed the
documents back to him instead of mailing them to the Commissioner of
Federal Judicial Affairs who was expecting them. So the Plaintiff
called that Commissioner’s office and then emailed a digital copy of
the cover letter and the clerk’s response and was ignored as well.

63.  The Plaintiff states that with regards to this complaint the
Crown should obey Section 18(2) of the Charter and serve the document
in two official languages. The “Barring Notice” should state who, when
and why he was found to be in “Contempt of the House”. The Crown
should not try to intimidate a citizen with a threat of arrest for an
implied breach of a contract about trespass on public property not
agreed to by him. The Crown should have published a proper “Barring
Notice” in the Royal Gazette so that all Canadians could read it
before attempting to arrest and charge any citizen for exercising his
right to freedom of assembly in and around the most important public
properties of all Canada.

                                        GOVERNMENT  HOUSE