Date: 20160512

Docket: A-48-16

Ottawa, Ontario, May 12, 2016

Present:

TRUDEL J.A.

BETWEEN:
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent

ORDER

[1] The appellant appeals an order of Southcott, J. of the Federal Court (2016 FC 93) wherein,
amongst other relief, he allowed to stand part only of the appellants Statement of Claim filed in
that Court (T-1557-15);

[2] The respondent has filed a Notice of cross-appeal alleging that the appellants Statement of
Claim should have been struck in its entirety;

Page: 2
[3] Most recently, the appellant sent to the Registry a letter accompanied by a Notice of
Motion to request an oral hearing;

[4] The motion is for:

To request that the Justices of the Federal Court of Appeal notify William Brooks
(Brooks), the Commissioner of Federal Judicial Affairs and Bob Paulson
(Paulson), the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP),
that they should finally uphold the law and the mandates of their offices before
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (CROWN) is subject to lawsuits in the United
States of America (USA) and Canada. The actions in the Federal Court (File No.
T-1557-15) by William Pentney QC, the Deputy Attorney General of Canada,
Prothonotary Richard Morneau and Justice Richard Southcott have caused the
CROWN to lose the right to claim sovereign immunity in the USA in defense of
certain actions that the Amos Clan plans to put before courts of law in the USA
and Canada.

[5] By letter dated May 5, 2016, the respondent asks that a case management Judge be assigned
to this file, otherwise there will be considerable procedural difficulties that will prevent the
Appeal from proceeding in the most expeditious and least expensive manner;

[6] In his Notice of Appeal of Southcott J.s Order, the appellant seeks the following relief:
1)

That the ORDERS of MR. PROTHONOTARY RICHARD

MORNEAU and MR. JUSTICE RICHARD F. SOUTHCOTT be
revoked; and

2)

The Defendant/Respondent be found in Default; and

3)

Award the Plaintiff/Appellant eleven million dollars ($11,000,000.00)

in the form of relief plus the costs.

[7] On appeal to this Court, the best that the appellant can hope for is that his Statement of
Claim be reinstated to its original form and content and the matter returned to the Federal Court

Page: 3
for continuation of the proceeding on the merits - all of this, of course, if it were decided that the
respondents cross-appeal should be dismissed;
All this raises a question as to the relevance of the proposed Notice of Motion.

THIS SAID, IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

a) The request for an oral hearing of the appellants Notice of Motion (undated and
unsigned) is denied;

b) If the appellant insists on presenting his Motion, it shall be duly served and filed in
Form 369 in accordance with the Federal Courts Rules SOR/98-106 (the Rules);

c) The appellant shall, in the next 10 days (no later than May 26, 2016) serve and file his
proposal as to the contents of the Appeal Book unless he agrees with the respondents
proposal contained in a letter dated March 3, 2016;

d) If the parties disagree, the appellant shall, no later than June 10, 2016, serve and file a
proper Notice of Motion under Rule 369 to request that the Court determine the
contents of the Appeal Book;

e) These timelines and the prescriptions of the Rules shall be followed or this appeal
could be dismissed without any further delay;

f) The request to have this case managed by a Judge is denied.

"Johanne Trudel"
J.A.