---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 02:49:37 -0400
Subject: Why is it I was not surprised to see Moncton's former City
Solicitor John Hughes intervene in the trial of the neo nazi Werner
Bock as a "friend" of the court EH Teddy Flemming, Brucy Baby Northrup
and Roger "The Dodger" Brown of the RCMP?
To: radical <email@example.com>, "t.wilson"
<firstname.lastname@example.org>, "bruce.northrup" <email@example.com>,
"roger.l.brown" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "hugh.flemming"
<email@example.com>, oldmaison <firstname.lastname@example.org>, sunrayzulu
<email@example.com>, "john.warr" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, fstreed
<email@example.com>, Peter.Juk@gov.bc.ca, "shirley.bond.mla"
Cc: David Amos <firstname.lastname@example.org>, frankffrost
One thing I know for certain is that Brucy Baby Alward's latest
Minister of Public Safety knows Werner Bock just as Roger "The Dodger"
and his pal John Warr of the RCMP know their fellow Newfy Byron Prior
Mean while while the self serving mindless bloggers such as Chucky
Leblanc, Mr Baconfat and Arty Baby Topham profess to know everyone and
everything. Yet all of them manage to prove to mean old me on a daily
basis that they know nothing and have no balls at all.
That said did anyone but mean old me notice that the CROWN pulled the
same trick on my former friend Werner Bock that they did on another
of my former friend
The CROWN conducted a trial for well over a year in both matters. Once their
trials were over and a judgement should have been rendered the judges ask some
questionable shrinks employed by the CROWN to simply certify that Bock
and Prior are delusional and not capable of standing trial? If only to
save the taxpayer dimes and the court a lot of time should not the
CROWN practiced its malice before their trials began??? Could the real
reason be that the CROWN did ot want me to become involved?
So Peter A. Juk, QC it begs the obvious question how long before the
CROWN certifies that neo nazi Arty Baby Topham is just another nasty
Regina v The Radical Press: LEGAL UPDATE #16 January 16th, 2014
January 17, 2014 by admin 3 Comments
Regina v The Radical Press: LEGAL UPDATE #16
January 16th, 2014
Dear Free Speech Advocates and Radical Press Supporters,
A new year is upon us and along with it comes increased litigation,
court appearances and further subterfuge on the part of Regina, aka
the Queen of England. This foreign entity is attempting to use her
Zionist-controlled courts to silence RadicalPress.com and stop me from
publishing the truth about any and all political events connected with
the Jewish lobby here in Canada and/or with the Zionist Jew juggernaut
that's sweeping across the planet with evil intent. This of course
includes the actions of the Canada's judiciary and the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police (RCMP) who do her bidding.
My last update of November 20th, 2013 focused mainly on the Rowbotham
application that I had applied for in order to have Regina pay for a
lawyer to defend me against her spurious sec. 319(2) "hate crime"
charge that resulted in my arrest and incarceration back on May 16th,
2012. That application was refused by Judge Morgan after a hearing
held in the Quesnel court house on November 18th.
Since that date I've been back in court a few more times on related
matters the most recent being Tuesday, January 14th.
During the November 18th, 2013 Rowbotham hearing Judge Morgan brought
up the matter of the particularization of the disclosure (the massive
amount of purported "evidence" which the Crown intends to rely upon to
justify their having charged and arrested me and stole all of my
computers and firearms back in May of 2012). I had made an application
to the court back on April 10th of 2013 asking for further particulars
and that the Crown to be more specific as to just what articles,
posts, etc. were the ones on the website which Regina felt were
willfully promoting hatred against "people of the Jewish religion or
ethnic group." After the Rowbotham application was refused I refiled
the original April 10th, 2013 application asking the Judge to order
Crown to further particularize the case.
That hearing took place on December 16th, 2013. Judge Morgan reserved
his decision until I appeared again January 3rd, 2014 on another
related matter. It was then that he handed down his Judgment in which
he dismissed my application on the grounds that I was "seeking"
"particulars relating to the Crown's theory." In the Judge's
estimation, "An order – as set out in his application – for the Crown
to particularize the date and time and the exact statement or
statements by which the alleged hatred was promoted would have the
effect of limiting the Crown's theory of the case; something that
Krindle J. in Pangman (above) at paragraph 3, found there was no
authority for and would amount to an extension of the existing law."
It all sounds good in "theory" doesn't it?
Following the November 18th, 2013 Rowbotham hearing I contacted Crown
Counsel Johnston regarding the matter of witnesses that the Crown was
planning to call for the Preliminary Inquiry set for January 22nd,
2014. Counsel informed me that she would only be calling one witness,
Barry Salt, a forensic computer technician. More taxpayer money to be
spent bringing someone up to Quesnel in order to "prove" that I was
the Publisher and Editor of RadicalPress.com a fact which I have never
On December 2nd, 2013 I wrote another letter to CC Johnston regarding
the matter of witnesses (or lack thereof) and that Crown was not
planning to call either of the complainants (Richard Warman and Harry
Abrams) nor the investigating officers (Terry Wilson and Normandie
Levas). In that letter I wrote:
As I'm sure you are well aware the preliminary inquiry is an important
opportunity for me to cross-examine witnesses and gather relevant
evidence for pre-trial Charter applications in Supreme Court. Much of
the necessary evidence for the Charter applications will be put on the
record at that time and therefore I feel it behooves the Crown, in the
interest of justice, to call those persons specified above for
cross-examination by myself, or, in the event I am able to procure
counsel in advance of the January 22nd date, my legal representative.
I never heard back from CC Johnston on this matter and so I filed
another application on December 30th, 2013 stating the reasons as:
"The complainants (Richard Warman and Harry Abrams) and the police
investigators (Terry Wilson and Normandie Levas) are relevant and
necessary witnesses for the purpose of the preliminary inquiry. The
Crown is refusing to to call these witnesses. I respectfully request
that the Crown be compelled to produce these witnesses."
As a result a hearing date was set for January 3rd, 2014. During the
hearing Crown argued that they didn't have to produce any witnesses
that they chose not to and downplayed the whole notion of the
importance of the Preliminary Hearing process. I was given a fourteen
page document indexed as: United States of America v. Shephard 
2 S.C.R. 1067. This document, according to both Judge Morgan and Crown
Counsel Johnston, clearing showed that the threshold to be met in
order to justify ordering a trial to be held was so low as to be
practically impossible to refute.
Prior to the January 3rd date the Judge had set another date of
January 7th, 2014 for what is called a "focus hearing" which,
translated into English, means a time to go over the ins and outs of
what would be transpiring during the upcoming Preliminary Hearing on
Jan. 22nd. He then decided to deal with that matter too on the 3rd and
skip the Jan. 7th date. It was during this hearing that Judge Morgan
addressed the issue of the thousands of emails which were still on my
stolen computers and had not been returned to me. I told the judge
that they were relevant to my defense and that they should be returned
as part of the disclosure package which had already been returned some
months ago. The judge concurred with my argument and after some
discussion with Crown directed CC Johnston to contact Det. Cst. Wilson
and have him return all of my email correspondence to me. He gave the
Crown until January 14th to prepare a response to his recommendation
and it was on that date that I was to return to court to find out the
results. When I appeared on January 14th I learned that the emails had
been downloaded to a file that was supposedly being sent up to the
Crown's office and that I would be notified as soon as it arrived.
Judge Morgan told me to contact Crown Counsel's office if I didn't
hear anything after a couple of days.
It was also on Jan. 14th that I first learned that Crown was also
calling Det. Cst. Terry Wilson of the BC Hate Crime Unit to appear at
the Preliminary Inquiry. Then, to top things off, came the sudden
announcement by Crown Counsel Johnston that the Crown had filed a
third count against me! It was a repeat of the original May 16th, 2012
sec. 319(2) CCC charge. This new indictment, known as "Count 3″, had
received the consent of the Attorney General of British Columbia on
the 31st of December, 2013 and was signed by Peter A. Juk, QC Acting
Assistant Deputy Attorney General. The reasons stated were that I,
"Roy Arthur Topham, between the 29th of January, 2013 and the 11th day
of December, 2013, inclusive, at or near Quesnel, in the Province of
British Columbia, did by communicating statements, other than in
private conversation, willfully promoting hatred against an
identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin,
contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code."
Having made this announcement to Judge Morgan and myself CC Johnston
then added that nothing more would be forthcoming as a result of it
until after the upcoming Preliminary Inquiry when an application would
then be made to the court in order that Crown might attempt to impose
new restrictions on me to prevent me from publishing any more truthful
articles and opinions on RadicalPress.com.
One further thing needs to be added to this update prior to closing
off. This morning, January 16th, 2014 I sent a letter to Crown Counsel
Johnston informing her that I had subpoenaed two witnesses to appear
in my defence for the Preliminary Inquiry slated for January 22nd,
2013. In that letter I wrote:
"Please take notice that I have subpoenaed and will be calling two
witnesses for the Preliminary Inquiry to be held on January 22nd,
Mr. Frank Frost will be appearing to testify on the urgency to
maintain an alternative news media here in British Columbia in order
to ensure that criminal activities on the part of the RCMP, the
Judiciary and the Attorney General's office (Crown) are exposed to the
general public. Mr. Frost is a strong, knowledgeable advocate and
expert witness in the areas of children and family advocacy and
pedophelia within B.C.'s judiciary.
Mr. Lonnie Landrud will also be appearing to testify on the importance
of maintaining an alternative new media. Mr. Landrud is an expert,
knowledgeable witness in the area of judicial misfeasance as it
pertains to his own case. Mr. Landrud was witness to a murder of a
young woman in Quesnel by RCMP officers and subsequent to reporting
this heinous crime to the RCMP has been the subject of numerous
attempts on his life by the RCMP. In one instance Mr. Landrud was
forced to shoot, in self-defence, an RCMP officer who was attempting
to murder him in his home. Since the advent of these events Mr.
Landrud has been unable to have his case investigated at any level of
government after years of sincere effort and the mainstream news media
has refused to investigate or cover his plight. Mr. Landrud will be
speaking to the court on the pressing need for an alternative news
media that will and does cover his untold story."
The next few days will be spent preparing for the Preliminary Inquiry.
I will send out another update sometime after the 22nd and let readers
know what transpired on that day.
For Peace, Freedom of Speech and Justice for All,
The Radical Press
Canada's Radical News Network
"Digging to the root of the issues since 1998″
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Amos" <email@example.com>
To: <Hermenegilde.Chiasson@gnb.ca>; <Dion.S@parl.gc.ca>;
<firstname.lastname@example.org>; <Leblanc.D@parl.gc.ca>; <Holland.M@parl.gc.ca>;
<Hubbard.C@parl.gc.ca>; <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>;
<Ed.Doherty@gnb.ca>; <T.J.Burke@gnb.ca>; <email@example.com>;
<firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>;
<email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>;
Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>;
<firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>;
<Akoschany@ctv.ca>; <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>;
<Tim.Porter@gnb.ca>; <Trevor.HOLDER@gnb.ca>; <email@example.com>;
<Wayne.STEEVES@gnb.ca>; <Jody.CARR@gnb.ca>; <Keith.ASHFIELD@gnb.ca>;
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 3:17 PM
Subject: Perhaps Paul Kennedy the current Commissioner of Public Complaints
Against the RCMP will call us back now EH?
Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 13:36:41 -0400
From: "PCC Complaints" firstname.lastname@example.org
May 23, 2007
File No. PC-2005-1291
Mr. David R Amos
Dear Mr. Amos:
On a number of occasions you have called or sent e-mails our office to
raise matters which are of pressing concern to you.
Each time we have tried to respond by explaining to you the relatively
narrow mandate of this Commission and the limits of our powers to deal
with the matters which are of concern to you. I must stress, once
again, that the purpose of this Commission is to provide the public
with an opportunity to make complaints concerning the conduct of
members of the RCMP in the performance of their duties. We have
neither the expertise nor the legal authority to permit us to become
involved in issues beyond the scope of this mandate.
While it is clearly not the intention of the Commission to prevent you
from making complaints against members of the RCMP, an analysis of
your numerous contacts with the Commission indicates that your
concerns fall well outside the confines of our mandate. Further, your
frequent e-mails have been disruptive and unproductive for both you
and for the staff of this office.
Should you determine that some point in the future you have a
complaint concerning the conduct of a member of the RCMP in the
performance of his or her duties, please submit it to the Commission
by Canada Post only. As of now, your e-mails will be deleted unread.
Enquiries and Complaints Analyst
Subject: Out of Office AutoReply: Say hey to Shawn Murphy for me will ya
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 15:25:45 -0400
From: "REVIEWS" email@example.com
To: "David Amos" firstname.lastname@example.org
The Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP has received
your e-mail message and will be responding in due course.
La Commission des plaintes du public contre la GRC a reçu votre
courriel et vous rendra une réponse au moment opportun.
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:02:35 -0400
From: "Murphy, Michael B. \(DH/MS\)" MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca
January 30, 2007
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.
Honourable Michael B. Murphy
Minister of Health
Warren McBeath email@example.com wrote:
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:34:53 -0500
From: "Warren McBeath" firstname.lastname@example.org
To: email@example.com, MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca,
firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org,
CC: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org,
"Bev BUSSON" email@example.com,
"Paul Dube" PAUL.DUBE@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
Subject: Re: Remember me Kilgour? Landslide Annie McLellan has
forgotten me but the crooks within the RCMP have n
Dear Mr. Amos,
Thank you for your follow up e-mail to me today. I was on days off over
the holidays and returned to work this evening. Rest assured I was not
ignoring or procrastinating to respond to your concerns.
As your attachment sent today refers from Premier Graham, our position
is clear on your dead calf issue: Our forensic labs do not process
testing on animals in cases such as yours, they are referred to the
Atlantic Veterinary College in Charlottetown who can provide these
services. If you do not choose to utilize their expertise in this
instance, then that is your decision and nothing more can be done.
As for your other concerns regarding the US Government, false
imprisonment and Federal Court Dates in the US, etc... it is clear that
Federal authorities are aware of your concerns both in Canada and the
US. These issues do not fall into the purvue of Detachment policing in
It was indeed an interesting and informative conversation we had on
December 23rd, and I wish you well in all of your future endeavors.
Warren McBeath, Cpl.
GRC Caledonia RCMP
Traffic Services NCO
Ph: (506) 387-2222
Fax: (506) 387-4622
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:25:33 -0300
Subject: Fwd: I have never met Mr. Baker it was Shawn Graham who I met
in person in June of 2006
To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com,
firstname.lastname@example.org, Bill.Fraser@gnb.ca, email@example.com,
firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Bernard.LeBlanc@gnb.ca,
firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org,
Deb_Nobes@cbc.ca, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org,
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:39:45 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: I have never met Mr. Baker it was Shawn Graham who I met in
person in June of 2006
To: Shawn.Graham@gnb.ca, Bernard.Theriault@gnb.ca, Chris.Baker@gnb.ca,
May I suggest that the Premier and the RCMP finally call me back and
then start doing their job? 506 756 8687