Monday, 15 July 2013

Too Too Funny on Sun Media I saw Petey Rosenthal David Orchard's & Shawn Brant's former lawyer talk of Oaths to the Queen after reruns of the lawyer Ezzy Baby Levant and associates yapping about liberals, Clayton Ruby, Shawn Brant and Eco Terrorists

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 07:44:23 -0300
Subject: Too Too Funny on Sun Media I saw Petey Rosenthal David
Orchard's & Shawn Brant's former lawyer talk of Oaths to the Queen
after reruns of the lawyer Ezzy Baby Levant and associates yapping
about liberals, Clayton Ruby, Shawn Brant and Eco Terrorists
To: pm <>, "jason.kenney.c1" <>,
ruby <>,,
"" <>, MulcaT
<>, "justin.trudeau.a1"
<>, leader <>,
"Stephane.vaillancourt" <>,
mikeduffy <>, dions1 <>
Cc: David Amos <>, creeclayton77
<>, ppalmater <>,
jrebick <>, oldmaison
<>, andre <>, "bob.paulson"
<>, "john.warr" <>,
"John.Williamson" <>, wendallnicholas
<>, xchief <>

----- Original Message -----
From: David Amos
To: orakwa ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
; ;
Cc: ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 12:38 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: [IPSM] TIME: Shawn Brant's Bail Review say Hoka hey
to Peter Rosenthal for me will ya?

Just so ya know Rosenthal was too chicken to answer this letter and
the related material that was sent along with it but the long
Jean-Pierre Kingsley's lawyers certainly did. Press print on the tiff
file that I sent you people long ago that was entitled "Upper
Canadians" and you will have hard copy of the proof of what I say is

On a more comical note, what do ya think the lawyer Dizzzie
Lizzie May will do with her newfound knowledge of Petey Bay MacKay's
malice towards me? Nothing? Methinks it is so. She has claimed on the
boob tube and elsewhere that she is sick of all the lies about this
and that. In my humble opinion she has made herself ill from her own

Ask your old Minister of Indian Affairs about why I ran against
him in the next election or better yet ask me sometime if ya dare how
easily I can prove that the Election of the 39th Parliament was not
legal. I Double Dog Dare You To.

Veritas Vincit

David Raymond Amos

902 800 0369

FYI this letter was posted here a long long time

It is as follows

September 10th 2004

Paul J.J. Cavalluzzo
C/o Veena Verma
Cavalluzzo, Hayes, Shilton, McIntyre & Cornish
PO Box 507, Station B
Ottawa, ON K1P 5P6

David Orchard
C/o Peter Rosenthal
Roach, Schwartz and Associates
688 St. Clair Avenue West
Toronto, ON M6C 1B1

Jean-Pierre Kingsley
C/o Diane R. Davidson
Elections Canada
257 Slater Street
Ottawa, ON K1P 5G4

Peter MacKay
C/o Arthur Hamilton
Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP
2100 Scotia Plaza, 40 King St. W.
Toronto, ON M5H 3C2

RE: Corruption


It has been over three months since I returned to Canada and contacted
you all. Now that I have returned to the USA I will wait only three
more weeks for you to act ethically and uphold the Public Trust. CTV
or whatever said Fundy was a riding to watch but nobody mentioned me.
I answered openly and honestly to every question put to me in every
debate that I was allowed to attend. I had lots to say and now my work
speaks for itself as I fall silent. Now I have a few questions. I
would appreciate honest answers.

Pursuant to my many contacts and various conversations to you folks or
those of your offices, please find enclosed an exact copy of all
material sent to Jean Chretien and Brian Mulroney. The copy of wiretap
tape numbered 139 is served upon Diane R. Davidson, Veena Verma, Peter
Rosenthal, Arthur Hamilton and Peter MacKay in confidence as officers
of the court in order that it may be properly investigated by the Arar
Commission. May I suggest that Veena Verma solicit the Arar Commisson
to demand CSIS to provide them with the six original tapes given to
the priest, Bill Elliot and the Sussex Detachment of the RCMP in order
that they may be investigated as well.

By the time you read this letter and study the contents hopefully I
will have returned to the USA and stood in court once more in order to
defend my Clan's rights and interests. I will be inserting this letter
to you folks in the Public Record of many courts in the USA. If you
act ethically and quickly I will see no reason to sue you. However I
will be calling you all to testify to what you know to be true. Shame
on all of you for allowing my country to throw me back into the
clutches of Attorney General Ashcroft without any regard for my
safety. If I die my blood will be on your hands.

Too many mobsters and crooked FEDS want these god-damned tapes for me
to think otherwise. As you can see I have signed statements from both
a US Attorney and a District Attorney claiming for over one year now
that these tapes are part of our Probate Actions. I will prove that
they are not two more times before I complain of every lawyer and law
enforcement authority that I have contacted in two countries.

Oct 3rd, 2004, I will count you all amongst the conspirators against
me if I do not receive an answer from you that I agree with by that
date. Now you know I ain't joking.

Mr. Rosenthal, I have no doubt that you are a clever fellow. Teaching
Math is clean work. I admire that you only choose to practice law when
you consider a matter to be of great social importance. After my
speaking with David Orchard and studying his actions since that time.
I believe David Orchard is all about David Orchard and the Public
Trust only interests him when it affects his interests. The minor spit
and chew about the demise of his former party is somewhat petty
considering the far more important issues that are afoot these days.
Would not your services be better placed in assisting me in compelling
the governments to uphold the law and the Public Trust? I ask that you
study the material I have provided closely and then think about your
own words and that of your friends. They are hereto attached for your
review. My question is don't you think it would benefit all Canadians
if I complained of Anne McLellan and Wayne Easter in order to make
them accountable for their lack of diligence in protecting my dumb
ass? Just because I am a pigheaded Canadian layman, it does not follow
that Anne or Wayne should allow Ashcroft and his cohorts to try to
send me to Cuba without counsel. Many lawyers wish for me to simply
disappear or quit so that they could continue to practice law for
lucre or malice. I have no doubt many lawyers like Alan Dershowitz and
even his adversary Bob Barr would like to see me tortured or beat to
death by like H. Pail Rico was. Do you see how easily I predicted his
demise. That was a nobrainer. What say you? Do you wish to assist me
or not? If not give my friend, Byron Prior a call. Now there is man in
great need of a good lawyer with a sense of social conscience and a
bit of integrity to boot. Every Canadian should feel offended by T
Alex Hickman.

Mr. MacKay thanks for proving to the world what a lawyer's word is
worth even when he signs his hand to it. Your little back stabbing
trick with David Orchard proved my point in spades. I really don't
know what Orchard is whining about. Hasn't he heard a few lawyer jokes
in his time on the planet? Much truth is told in jest. Check my work
before you call me a liar. From one Maritmer to another if you asked
me to step outside I would smile and quit talking and start swinging
immediately. I am a much better man than that fat bastard that went to
Harvard and you can tell him I said so. My question to you sir, is do
you wish to call me a liar and then step outside to settle it or argue
me in Court? Better yet, do you and the fat bastard wish to tag team
against me or go at me one on one in court or out of it? All that I
have said is true. I read where the fat bastard lost a hundred pounds
in order to help get reelected. If I did that I would be half the man
I am now but I would still have enough sand left to take you both on.
The MacKay Clan should be ashamed of you. How is that for picking a
fight? EH?

Ms. Davidson, please find enclosed the documents proving I did what
was required of me on July 6th in order to get my deposit back. When
may I expect the money? Why would your help call me about this stuff
without checking with Ms. Chappell first? You always referred me to
her. It is not my fault if you lose the records. Right?

Ms. Davidson, I have another couple of very important questions as
well. When I appeared at the local Canada Elections Office with my
secretary and a witness as required, Ms Chappell would not allow me to
begin the process of registering as a Canidate until she received a
call from some unnamed lawyer from Ottawa. I know that person must
have been you or someone who spoke for you.

Ms. Chappell was waiting for you, Ms. Davidson to decide as to whether
or not I could run for Parliament. I can easily prove byway of phone
records and emails that I had resolved these issues months ago with
the top dogs in your office long before an election was ever called. I
then did it once again after the election was called and then again
with Ms. Chappell before I returned to Canada and then the day before
coming to her office. The deliberate delay was obvious to all and very
offensive. What would have Rob Moore or John Herron's friend David
Lutz have done if you had tried such a trick with them, Sue you? Why
should I be any different? I do have the same Rights. If you don't
think I would be just as diligent as any lawyer when protecting my
rights, you have seriously underestimated me. Call my bluff. I dare

Ms Davidson, you are not a judge nor are you a Member of Parliament.
You have no right to make a law or decide on it. If there was some
sort of legal question why did you not address it months ago with me?
It was my opinion that you were simply delaying me until the clock
tolled two o'clock and then I would not be allowed to have my name on
the ballot. I truly believe you were acting in the best interest of
other lawyers rather that upholding the Public Trust placed in you.
When I kept demanding to just know your name or to talk to you, I was
denied that right. However I did manage to become a candidate by
exactly two o'clock because you knew as sure as I am typing this that
I would have complained of you in a heartbeat after two o'clock. What
say you Ms. Davidson? Do you disagree with my opinion of what happened
on June 7th? If you were not the lawyer attempting to illegally delay
me then that person was acting under your authority. Correct? You are
the Deputy Chief Electoral Officer and Chief Legal Counsel. I am just
the self appointed Chief of my little Clan but as you can see I have
no fear of arguing with fancy upper Canadian lawyers. Do you wish to
explain or should I summons you to court to get an answer? Again I ask
when do I get my money back? My accountant has filed his work quite a
while ago as well. What is the reason for the delay now? Ain't it
kinda funny how the Queen would not take my check but I must accept

Ms. Verma, I recall our conversation vividly and can easily prove my
following contacts with you. I already know the answer but my only
question to you is WHY?

As I continue my legal battles in the USA, I want you all to know that
win or lose I was trying to protect your rights too against the
bastards that created the DHS etc.

Cya'll in Court:)

David R. Amos

153 Alvin Ave.

Milton, MA. 02186

More laws won't mean less terror
Experts warn of 'giving the devil the benefit of the law'
Law Times By David Gambrill

Expanding the power of criminal law will not stop terrorism, say legal
academics, and may instead lead to the permanent imposition of
extraordinary emergency measures and concentrated state power.

Quoting a character in the Robert Bolt play, A Man for All Seasons,
Oren Gross, a Benjamin Cardoso School of Law professor, issued a
general warning against "giving the devil the benefit of the law" in
order to make the public feel more secure.

"Extravagent terrorist attacks such as those on Sept. 11 tend to bring
about a rush to legislate," Gross told a legal scholars' conference
convened to discuss the federal government's new antiterrorism
legislation, bill C-36. "The preventative relief [is thought to] be,
'If only we add new powers to police, if only we add to the Criminal
Code, if only we revamp and reinvigorate existing offences, then our
nation is going to be secure.'"

But such logic tends to lead to a concentration of power at the level
of government, he says. Citizens may relinquish their civil liberties
out of fear, encouraging the state "do whatever it takes" to make
terrorism stop, he says.

"Governments tend to overreact," says Gross. "Terrorism from below
may, to some extent, be replaced with terrorism from above." Legal
scholars who spoke at the conference echoed Gross' caution. Some
worried that Canada is permanently entrenching the temporary emergency
powers found in the 1988 Emergencies Act.

"My answer to the question, 'Can emergency powers be normalized?' is
yes, they can be," says U of T law professor David Dyzenhais, a South
African studying the emergency powers employed by the South African
government under apartheid. "But when they are normalized, what we
have is a violation of the spirit of the rule of law."

U of T math professor Peter Rosenthal, a lawyer at Roach Schwartz and
Associates in Toronto, suggested the federal government should have
used its powers under the 1988 Emergencies Act instead of drafting new
anti-terrorist legislation.

Enacted by the Mulroney government, the Emergencies Act gives the
federal government limited exceptional powers to deal with four types
of emergencies: threats to public welfare, threats to public order,
international emergencies, and war.

International emergencies, says the act, arise "from acts of
intimidation or coercion, or the real or imminent threat of serious
force or violence."

For an international emergency, the act can be put into affect for 60
days and must be reviewed by Parliament before the deadline can be
extended. It includes powers to limit or restrict travel, ban public
assemblies, remove non-citizens from the country, and enter and search
premises without a warrant. The powers in the act are explicitly
subject to the Charter.

The Emergencies Act replaced the War Measures Act, which the Trudeau
government used to arrest and detain 465 Quebeckers in 1970. The
federal government invoked the War Measures Act after the FLQ
kidnapped Quebec provincial cabinet minister Pierre Laporte, who was
found assassinated one day after the act was declared.

The so-called "October Crisis," when the War Measures Act was
implemented, started a debate in Canada about when it is appropriate
to suspend civil liberties. The Trudeau government came under heavy
criticism for employing the act.

U of T constitutional law professor Lorraine Weinrib noted the federal
government has studiously avoided using the language of "emergency
measures," even though it has incorporated such emergency powers into
its anti-terrorist legislation. The same emergency powers are
available under the Emergencies Act, she says, albeit for limited
periods of time and under strict supervision of Parliament.

"I would say the government did not use the Emergencies Act here in
response to the problem of terrorism because it did not want to engage
in this type of review process," says Weinrib. "It preferred to
continue what has been highly discredited under the War Measures Act
experience - namely, the concentration of power in the executive."

For this reason, many scholars at the conference encouraged the courts
to review the legislation carefully. Federal government lawyers have
called the proposed anti-terrorist legislation"Charter-proof." But
that doesn't mean the anti-terrorism legislation should be enacted,
says U of T law professor Kent Roach.

"We may too quick to accept . . . what the government's lawyers — or
indeed any lawyers — conclude it is permissible to do," he says.

Roach listed several extraordinary police powers found in bill C-36.
Most notably, the bill allows police to arrest and detain a person
without a warrant, on suspicion the suspect may be carrying out a
terrorist activity. It also creates "investigative hearings," in which
suspects are compelled to give testimony that might incriminate them.

Roach was particularly critical of the hearing process, the powers of
which, he insisted, haven't been around since the English 'Star
Chamber' in 1641.

"Compelling a person to talk to the police in an investigation in
which he or she may well be implicated offends our traditions of
respect for the right of silence during police investigations," he
says. "These traditions date back to the abolition of the Star Chamber
in 1641."

The Star Chamber, associated with the English Courts, was reviled for
its use of torture. As late as 1614, a Somerset clergyman, Edmond
Peacham, was interrogated on the rack before the Star Chamber in the
presence of the attorney general at the time, Sir Edward Coke.

Roach acknowledged the bill gives detained individuals the right to
counsel at such hearings, but such representation provides cold
comfort. "It gives people subject to investigative hearing the right
to counsel — even though, in many cases, the lawyer will simply have
to inform the target that he or she must talk or else face prosecution
or continued detention," he says. One danger in forcing people to talk
is that they might lie, says Roach. A combination of perjury and
prosecutorial zeal could may lead to the kind of wrongful convictions
associated with the "Birmingham Six" and "Guilford Four" in England,
he says.

In the early 1970s, the IRA bombed pubs in Birmingham and Guilford,
England, killing more than 21 people. Under pressure to convict the
terrorists, police arrested 10 people in connection with the attacks.

In 1989 and 1991, respectively, a British court of appeal released the
Guilford Four and Birmingham Six after finding they had been wrongly

This article does not constitute legal or other professional advice
and no responsibility for any loss occasioned to any person acting or
refraining from action in reliance upon material contained in this
article is accepted by the author or Canada Law Book Inc.

(c)Law Times Inc. 2004. All rights reserved.

orakwa <> wrote:

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 12:47 PM
Subject: [IPSM] TIME: Shawn Brant's Bail Review on Prisoner Justice Day

> The bail review takes place at 10AM.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Shawn Brant's Bail Review on Prisoner Justice Day
> - Message from Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory
> (Tyendinaga MT): On Friday August 10th, lawyers Peter Rosenthal &
> Howard Morton will be arguing a bail review for Mohawk activist Shawn
> Brant. Shawn was denied bail on July 5th on charges from the June
> 29th Aboriginal Day of Action relating to the closure of the CN main
> line, a provincial highway and the 401.
> August 10th is also Prisoner Justice Day. The roots of Prisoner
> Justice Day date back to August 10th, 1975, when inmates at Millhaven
> Institution refused to eat or work in memory of another inmate who had
> died in segregation the year before. Since then it has spread nationally
> and internationally as a day to acknowledge those who have died inside
> prison walls and those who have fought for the very few basic human rights
> that prisoners currently have.
> On August 10th, we ask people to join us at Shawn's bail review in
> Napanee, Ontario to support his bid for release and to acknowledge the
> ongoing struggles of our sisters and brothers in institutions across
> the country.
> Friday, August 10th, 2007
> Superior Court of Justice Courthouse
> 97 Thomas Street East, Napanee
> 2nd Floor Courtroom
> Driving Directions from Toronto:
> 1. Drive HWY-401 east past Belleville, and Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory
> (approx 2 hours from Toronto).
> 2. Exit 579 towards NAPANEE.
> 4. Turn LEFT onto THOMAS ST E.
> 5. Superior Court is at 97 Thomas Street East.
> _______________________________________________
> IPSM-l mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> IPSM-l mailing list
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.0/927 - Release Date: 7/30/2007
> 5:02 PM

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please Leave Comments here