Wednesday, 4 September 2013
Fwd: Just because the corrupt cop Stevey Boy Stafford hollered "Hey Zeke" it did not follow the kid had to bother talking to the nasty bastard.
From: David Amos <email@example.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 03:02:54 -0300
Subject: Just because the corrupt cop Stevey Boy Stafford hollered
"Hey Zeke" it did not follow the kid had to bother talking to the
To: firstname.lastname@example.org, "moore.r" <email@example.com>, "david.alward"
<firstname.lastname@example.org>, "david.eidt" <email@example.com>,
oldmaison <firstname.lastname@example.org>, andre <email@example.com>,
sallybrooks25 <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Leanne.Fitch"
<email@example.com>, law <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "david.banks"
<email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, "david.kelly"
<email@example.com>, "hilary.drain" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
"rod.knecht" <email@example.com>, "David.Veitch"
<David.Veitch@edmontonpolice.ca>, premier <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: David Amos <email@example.com>, "calgary.acadia"
As I said long ago Chucky Leblanc is all about Chucky Leblanc but I
must give the Fat nasty French his due ifhe did not report the doings
of the cops in Fat Fred City nobody else would. The problem is he is a
greedy littl shill and not to be trusted.
Read all of Chucky's other blogs and watch his videos (The ones he has
not deleted anyway) if you wish to deny the obvious.
Anyway couple of years ago Chucky was best of butt buddies with the
Fat Fred City Finest while he slammed the shit out of newfound pals in
the RCMP for covering up for the Saint John Police Force and their own
harassing him when he came to close to Stevey Boy Harper to suit them.
Not long after Chucky helped his buddies Stevey Boy Stafford and
Freddy "The Bird" get off the hook when the CROWN was properly
prosecuting Stafford Chucky saw just how much the Fat Fred City Finest
loved him, Chucky's own video shows Stafford kneeing the shit out of a
soldier after he was already tackled from behind and held down by a
bunch of his pals in the Fat Fred City Finest. Why in Hell would
Chucky think Stafford was a nice guy? Any apparentely according to
Chucky Freddy "The Bird" hollered to him as he was watching them in
action on King St Chucky Baby quickly pedaled over to his pal to get
a scoop and found himself suckered with a ridiculous ticket. Too too
funny. I have watched Chucky's video many times and there was no hint
of "The Bird" touching Chucky's little bird (Who would want to
anyway?) Furthermore Chucky made no comment about it at the time. It
appears that he dreamed up that Bullshit up later. Freddy "the Bird"
had every right to make a complaint against Chucky. The dumb bastards
should have used Section 300 tis all.
Chucky does have a point about the cops and their helmet bullshit.
However his bullshit about the poor not being able to afford a helment
is equally ridiclous. If anyone spends anytime downtown one can
witness the cops being blatantly selective about who they give tickets
to for riding bicycles on sidewalks or without a helmet. The law is
the law. The cops have no right whatsoever to employ the laws in an
obviously unequal fashion. It is definitely illegal for the corrupt
cops to use the law as an excuse to harass people they do not like.
For instance Andre Murray was riding a bicycle on the street when the
cops came up behind him speeding so he went on the sidewalk to get out
of their way. When the cops crossed his path he merely went around
them. He did nothing illegal. However the cops felt free to tackle him
off his bicycle and arrest him for what? Riding on a sidewalk? He
would not have been on it briefly if them had not compelled him to do
so. Latter when Murray was trying to serve documents on his neighbor's
wife her husband felt free to tackle and punch him etc Murray was the
one charged with assault because he did not obey the order to leave
the owner's private property. Years later the cop Stafford feels free
to enter a private home without knocking or a warrant and refuses to
leave. Who gets assaulted and charged? The home owners and not the
The cops claim it all started because Zeke did not respond when a
nasty cop called his name. Most folks with a lick of sense would not
trust that cop particularly after what we all saw in YouTube. If the
kid was committing no crime sav why did the cop claim a "Hot Pursuit"
? Furthermore I heard his Mother say that Zeke already had a bad
experience with that cop in the back of a cop car after he had been
arrested before. So what if the the cop hollered "Hey Zeke". The kid
did the right thing and ignored the nasty bastard He merely went home
to be with his parents.
Any lawyer will agree that it is not wise to talk to cops particularly
the ones you already know to be corrupt.Its best just to avoid the
bastards. The same lawyers would agree that the cops have no right to
enter a home uninvited unless they have a warrant or a very very good
reason but such things do not concern the cops in Fat Fred City
because the CROWN is so corrupt. Simply put the well known bully
Stafford was using his status as a "Peace Officer" to pick a fight for
the benefit of the CROWN. In a purportedly "Just Democracy the nasty
cop should be fired and prosecuted but I have no false illusions that
justice will be ever served in any court of law in Fat Fred City.
Stevey Boy Safford's last criminal trial proved that in spades. The
same shit went down with Dwight Doyle. Hell does anyone recall how the
only member of Fat Fred City Finest was killed on duty? He was playing
quick draw McGraw with a mindless careless superior. Anyone charged?
Nope. How about operation "Jellybean"? Need I say more?
What the hell why not? It is my email after all and everybody will
pretend that they never read it excepting of course Jenn Wambolt/s
number one fanboy Mr. Baconfat. That evil little pervert won't dare to
argue my words. He will simply remain true to form and just point out
flaws in my spelling and grammar as he slanders my children and I in
the process. It must be nice to be protected by the RCMP because you
are some sort of perverted asset of the "Powers that Be" If Dirty
Dicky Dean, Eddy Baby Atchem and Mr Baconfat are shiny examples of the
the type of dudes spawned in Alberta then you sick western dudes have
a lot to be proud of EH Stevey Boy Harper?
It is well known that Jenn Wambolt lives in fear of cops for very
justifiable reasons. However to be fair it was not wise of her to pick
up a rock when she felt that the cop was baiting her to do something.
I suspect that her husband is more than capable of defending his wife
and children if he deemed it necessary. She should not have felt
threatened after they had allowed the cop to arrest her son and the
cop was off her property. She should have just went back inside her
home and avoided anymore confrontation and trusted her husband to look
out for the well being of their son. However I also watched the video
of what happened inside the Justice Building. It certainly appears
that she can fly off the handle and ten men can not handle her easily.
No doubt the cops were trying to make her have a repeat performance
before Friday. They got what they hoped for and a great deal more. The
chickenshit bastard had no right whatsoever to zap her as she was
following his orders. She was standing on her private property. He
should have left the area because he had already arrested who he
claimed he wanted to simply because the kid did not want to talk to
him (Who says the kid even heard him?).
In closing because the same sort of things has happened me several
times I will say that I have no doubt whatsoever that the whole
incident was orchestrated for the benefit of the CROWN in order to
support Judge Julian Dickson's recent very malicious decision against
Methinks the whole thing backfired bigtime on the Fat Fred City
Finest and it is gonna turn into a Hell of a circus in short order if
the nasty French bastard Chucky Leblanc has his way. N'esy Pas?
For what it is worth That is my humble opinion Read on and you will
see the opinion of a very snobby local Queens Counsel/wannabe judge.
It appears to support why I think Zeke did the right thing in that he
did not bother to talk to a cop.
"Hot Pursuit" me arse.
David Raymond Amos
902 800 0369
P.S. I may be crude rude and tattooed but I do read a lot of law and
have argued a lot of lawyers before the courts. Far more that Mr.
Baconfat or his overfed wannabe lawyer daughter ever did of that I
have no doubt as well. Hell the Crown Corp known as the CBC ignored
their mandate would not even admit I ran for public office four times
until I scared the shit out of their lawyers by merely emailing them
and picking up the phone reminding them of the document found within
the link below. Ask yourself why Chucky Leblanc is too afraid to say
my name and separates himself from anyone else who even speaks to me.
That said I also read a lot of blogs and news reports as well. I
could not help but notice that after Mr. Baconfat's last blog about
Jenn Wambolt had been killed by Google (Chilling Effects) he kinda
forgot her for awhile. It was a strange coincidence that he began
blogging about her again just after her latest confrontation with the
cops. Most folks could not know about it until Chucky came out with
his blog last night. Need I say I don't trust coincidences? Methinks
some corrupt cop informed Mr. Baconfat.
I know Mr. Baconfat reads Chucky's blog religiously Howcome he has
said nothing about Chucky's most popular blog in months? That is a
definite deviation from the deviate's MO. Are his cop pals nervous
and told him to clam up? If not they should be.
It just clicked over a hundred comments which means it will likely
beat my record with Chucky Baby before he banned me from his blog
I must ask if Chucky, Jenn and Sally etc don't read Mr. Baconfat's
blog then who complained of it last month on Wambolt's behalf? Who
convinced Google to to kill Andre Murray's entire blog this? It was
not offensive at all especially if compared to Chucky's or Mr
Baconfat'sIts kinda boring for most folks to even bother with. They
only ones who could possibly find an offence in it would be the
corrupt lawyers and cops Murray was exposing. Although Chucky has
been yapping about cops and Jenn Wambolt and everything else under
the sun in a very nasty fashion since of 2003 he remains on the
Internet as does his blogging butt buddy Mr Baconfat. Even when the
Ivrings did have his old blog killed Chucky got it back and never
explained why Howcome?
I find it interesting that Mr. Baconfat never wrote a word about Jenn
Wambolt and Sally Brooks until they posted their "Rants' in Andre
Murray's blog and immediately quit attacking their former friend
Evelyn Greene as soon as she was erased from Chucky and Andre's blogs.
Now that is very strange indeed. Methinks the cops in Fat Fred City
are covering their tracks and even censoring their blogging butt buddy
Mr. Baconfat when he pushes the envelope too far. For the benefit of
his pals in the various Police department I will post some interesting
blogs that Mr. Baconfat published about Jenn Wambolt at the bottom of
this email but I will not post them on the Internet because they are
far too nasty. Go figure why Mr. Baconfat as not been arrested yet if
you bastards are not corrupt?
Howcome Wambolt and Chucky don't say a word about any of his shit?
Methinks they are sneaky people just like you and your boss Davey Baby
Alward N'esy Pas Ms Blais?
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
It's almost midnight in Fredericton, is Jenn Wambolt dead yet
Its roughly midnight in Fredericton New Brunswick. It is almost
Thursday morning. Is Jenn Wambolt dead yet? Has Jenn offed herself
like Rehtaeh Parsons did? Little Jenn goes to the slammer on Friday.
She becomes the sex toy of a huge dyke criminal bitch by Friday night.
If you haven't yet Jenn, jump, jump! That or shut up and go to jail
with some dignity.
You like to show your tits on Charles Leblanc"s blog maybe if you
offer Judge Dickson a blow job? Show him yer tits. Who knows maybe it
Posted by Seren at 8:54 PM No comments:
Supreme Court keeps alive liberty's majestic march
"The purpose of the Supreme Court of Canada is to keep alive the
ideals of a free people. That history can be traced back to 1215.
Everything really started there. Between that date and 1776, liberty
advanced rather slowly but from the latter year until today it has
been a steady forward march. In 1776, the American Declaration of
Independence, 1789 the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of
the Citizen, 1789 the American Constitution; 1791, their Bill of
Rights, 1833 British Empire outlaws slavery, 1865 US Emancipation
Declaration right up to 1982, our Charter of Rights.
Prior to 1215, no one had rights except the King, whose
were defined as Divine. Allegedly God gave the King the right to rule
the people and that right was not to be questioned by anyone. As could
be expected, eventually people said "enough." In 1215, the nobles
brought King John to the bargaining table and forced him to sign the
Magna Carta, containing sixty-three sections limiting the King's
a) The King will not proceed against any free man or send
others to do so, except according to the lawful sentence of his peers
and according to the Common Law (today a judicially approved search
b) "To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay,
right or justice."
c) "We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or
bailiffs only those who know the law of the realm and who wish to
observe it well."
Also prior to the Magna Carta, trials were by combat or ordeal. Combat
meant one family or village would send their strongest against another
to avenge a wrong. Ordeal meant the accused was to be tortured by fire
or water and if he survived, it was because God intervened on the side
of the innocent. The ancient version of "God is on our side," the
mantra of every army going into battle regardless of being the
aggressor or the victim."
The police can ask, but you aren't compelled to answer
Like most lawyers, I often get asked: Can the police ask you
questions if you are just walking down the street? The quick answer
is: "Yes, they can, but you don't have to answer them." This question
is asked in two sets of circumstances and only one of which has any
importance or consequence. If as a result of being questioned by the
police the person has been arrested, then one needs a lawyer. But more
often the person just wants to know if the police have the right to
ask questions of people they have no reason to believe have committed
a crime. I reply, the police are just doing their job, making sure
your neighbourhood is safe and your mother and sisters can be
worry-free in their homes.
But when the police questioning leads to an arrest then
all the circumstances must be carefully considered to determine if the
arrest was lawful and if the evidence gained by the police is
admissible in court.
A recent case from the Manitoba Court of Appeal, R. v. H.
(C.R.), is most instructive. The facts were uncomplicated: during the
course of a routine neighbourhood patrol at 1:20 a.m., two police
officers noticed three young men walking along the street. The
officers pulled their patrol cruiser over to the curb and said to the
three: "Hi, how's it going? Where are you guys headed?" They then
walked over to the police car without being asked to do so. The
officers asked them several questions including their names, dates of
birth, addresses and telephone numbers. During this series of
questions the officers remained in their car. One officer ran their
names their names through the police computer in the car and learned
that H was in breach of one term of his probation order. He was then
arrested. At this trial his lawyer argued that he was "arbitrarily
detained" in breach of section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms and the evidence obtained by the police was not admissible.
The police officers testified they: "…did not suspect the accused and
his companions of having committed any offences. Instead, they
testified that whenever they patrolled the neighbourhood, they always
stop to talk to people. They want to know who is in their area."
The Court had to determine two factors to decide if H's
section 9 rights where infringed: Was he detained? And if he was
detained, was that detention arbitrary? The second would only need to
be answered if the first question was answered in the affirmative.
If the Court were to find that he had been "detained" then
the police must tell him he had the right to retain and instruct
counsel. If he was not read his rights and the police caution, then
anything he said could not be used as evidence against him, in this
case, his name and date of birth which created a match in the police
Simply stated by the Court:
"There must be a finding of detention before the right to
counsel is engaged, and there must be a finding of detention before
the question of arbitrariness is determined in s. 9."
The Court then went on to discuss the three types of detention, from
the most obvious to the most subtle:
(a) physical constraint (policeman's hands, weapon or handcuffs);
(b) police officer by command or direction assumes control over the
movement of a person; for example motorist being compelled to pull
over her motor vehicle;
(c) psychological – where the person "…submits or acquiesces in the
deprivation of liberty and reasonably believes what the choice to do
otherwise does not exist."
The Court came to the conclusion that H was not detained within any of
the three classes and therefore did not even have to consider
"arbitrariness" or whether his right to counsel was denied. The Court
quoted with approval phrases from a number of earlier cases:
"When investigating an offence or investigating whether one has been
committed, police are entitled to question anyone whom they believe
may have some useful information, although they have no power to
compel an answer."
"A police officer has a right to ask questions of citizenry, but
citizens also have the right to cooperate or to refuse to do so."
"…It seems to me quite clear that though every citizen has a moral
duty or, if you like, a social duty to assist the police, there is no
legal duty to that effect, and indeed the whole basis of the common
law is that right of the individual to refuse to answer questions put
to him by persons in authority, and a refusal to accompany those in
authority to any particular place, short, of course, of arrest."
"The use of identifying information to conduct a CPIC check does not
necessarily change an encounter into a detention."
H's lawyer argued that stopping people on the street was
analogous to motor vehicle stops. The Court, however, rejected that
argument saying that the operators of motor vehicles had no choice but
to stop because the police had powers both under the Criminal Code and
the Motor Vehicle Act to compel compliance and there were offences for
failing to do so. When an officer merely speaks to a person on the
side walk, she does not assume control over the person's movements.
The Court came to the conclusion that the actions of the police
did not go beyond mere inquiries and there was nothing done by the two
officers that in any way caused H to believe that he was not free to
walk away without answering questions. Had he walked away and the
police pursued him and stopped him, he would have been detained, the
detention would have been arbitrary because just walking away from
inquiring police officers is not grounds for detention or arrest and
anything he said would not have been admissible against him. The Court
"So long as police officers merely question citizens and do not
interfere with individual liberties by detaining them, such proactive
policing should not be prohibited.
So what should you do if the police ask questions you don't want to
answer? Politely respond that the information is private and go on
Just so ya know this stuff was written by the draft dodging Yankee
Carpetbagger Davey Baby Lutz QC
To give the very corrupt little devil his due I agree with what the
nasty bastard wrote above.
On Canada Day right after I had ran against his turncoat liberal buddy
John Herron and he had had my documents in his possesion for weeks I
upped the ante on the smiling bastard not long after what he published
below. Lutz ain't stupid. He could easily see byway of the documents I
gave him during the election that I was a rather fierce Pro Se
litigant in his native land. Furthermore I also told him that I had
been studying his work and figured that it would be him I would be
arguing in Federal Court someday if he did not uphold the law
beforehand. I truly believe that Lutz published the bullshit below on
Canada Day in order to tease me. My response was to go to the offices
of his lawyer/Premier buddies in Moncton. Bernie Baby Lord and Franky
Boy McKenna had served on them the very same pile documents he and the
Irving son in law Paul Zed got. Chucky Lelbanc stole a similar pile of
documens from me and gav them to his Fake left wanabe lawyer pal
Vaughn Barnet instead of his Attorney General butt buddy Brad Green as
he promised. Now yo have them N'esy pa Ms Blais?
I am proud to declare that I served on a former president of the Law
Society and one of the few private lawyers who the liberals hired to
make a score representing the Federal Justice Department in the
Province of New Brunswick a hell of a headache. I still torture the
very unethical smiling bastard to this very day. Look who else got
this email and will never discuss with with anyone/ I bet his bible
pounding MP the aptly lawyer named Rob Moore prays that David Lutz
remains as quiet as a church mouse.
Preserving a hallmark of a democratic society
July 1, 2004
Lawyers have a monopoly to conduct legal affairs and appear in
the courts. Through the Law Society Act and the Rules of Court, the
conduct of lawyers is regulated. As a member of the Law Society, I am
well aware of the responsibility of the profession to the community at
large. From time to time, lawyers breach the trust reposed in them
and the rest of us are shocked, saddened and left with a feeling of
It is easier to look beyond our own Province to speak of
such failures. Last month the Supreme Court of Canada rendered
decisions in two cases from the Province of Quebec that, in essence,
underscore the position of trust and make it clear that a self
governing professional society owes a "duty of care" to those who
place reliance on its qualified members. In Bibaud v. Regie de
L'assurance maladie du Quebec, the Court affirmed the position of
qualified advocates to represent persons before the courts in Quebec
and, although a person is entitled to represent herself without
counsel, an unqualified person cannot act as an agent for any other
person before the Court.
The only exception is in the small claims division of the
Court of Quebec. Article 959 of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure
(C.P.P.) permits "...representation by spouses, relatives, in-laws or
friends". Under our Small Claims Act (Regulations 98-84) a person may
be represented by an "unpaid agent". Ms. Boisvert sought to
intervene in proceedings on behalf of her husband, who had become
incapacitated since he had commenced the proceedings. The Superior
Court dismissed the application, and it was again dismissed by the
Quebec Court of Appeal and ultimately by the Supreme Court of Canada.
The Court found that although the woman had good
intentions and "a desire to protect her husband's interests, her
application is not consistent with the fundamental principles and
rules of civil procedure and of the civil law in Quebec. In essence,
this is a strict application of the "slippery slope" doctrine.
Lawyers are covered by their practice insurance and the Professional
Rules of Conduct. If just anyone starts representing clients, what
would be the result?
Doctors, dentists, and other medically trained
professionals are in a similar boat. One can set one's own broken leg
or pull a tooth but one's neighbor cannot do it and then bill Medicare
or Blue Cross for the service.
In Finney v. Barreau du Quebec, the
responsibility of the Quebec bar for the conduct of its members was
placed under the judicial microscope. A lawyer by the name of
Belhassen had been found guilty of several disciplinary offences by
the Barreau's Disciplinary Committee and in 1990 he was deemed
incompetent. In 1992, he was required to undergo refresher training
and permitted to practice law under the supervision of a senior
lawyer. The action of the bar committee was insufficient, and
following further complaints, Mr. Belhassen was struck off the Roll
provisionally in 1994; at which point he had finally been found guilty
of seventeen complaints.
Ms. Finney had been a client of Mr.
Belhassen's and was among those who had filed complaints regarding his
incompetence to the bar. In 1996, Mrs. Finney brought a civil action
against the Barreau for its failure to protect the public in its
handling of the complaints. She claimed "compensatory, material,
moral, and exemplary damages".
The Supreme Court reviewed the protection
afforded the Barreau, its officers and staff for acts engaged in good
faith in the performance of their duties. However, this did not
amount to immunity from civil responsibility. The Court found that in
the case of Belhassen there was almost a complete absence of diligence
amounting to fault on the part of the Barreau. It was clear that the
nature of the complaints and Belhassen's professional record required
early action and yet, it took over a year to hear the request for the
provisional striking from the Rolls.
The complaints included: appearing before the Court
representing both sides in a dispute; serving his own client for a
non-existing debt; inappropriate conduct in dealing with a colleague
at the bar; assisting others to bring suits against his own client and
then representing the client in defense of them; threatening the
lawyer who brought a complaint with bankruptcy proceedings; failing to
have his work supervised by the senior lawyer who ultimately told the
Barreau he couldn't even contact him.
The Court of Appeal observed "B's guerrilla war against
the Finney in the courts was in full gear." The Court confirmed that
this was very serious carelessness amounting to bad faith for which
the Barreau was civilly liable. She was awarded damages of $25,000.
These two bookend cases demonstrate the
importance to society of self-governing professions. In the former,
the Court said that the role of lawyers in the Court is one to be
jealously guarded. In the latter, it issued a warning to the
governing bodies of the professions: carefully monitor the activities
of your members. If there is a failure to do so, monetary damages are
the least of your concerns. Intervention by government legislation
may be next. An independent, self-regulatory bar is one of the three
hallmarks of a democratic society (the other two being the right to
vote and trial by jury of one's peers). We all have to be vigilant to
keep it that way.