----- Original Message -----

From: David Amos

To: Mockler, Jeff (JUS)
Cc: diane.bourque@flsc.ca ; alltrue@nl.rogers.com ; jcrosbie@pattersonpalmer.ca ; cei@nbnet.nb.ca ;
gbyrne@pattersonpalmer.ca ; corp.website@sunlife.com ; martine.turcotte@bell.ca ;
cynthia.merlini@dfait-maeci.gc.ca ; shickman@pattersonpalmer.ca ; lrikleen@Bowditch.com ;
John.Conyers@mail.house.gov ; smay@pattersonpalmer.ca ; bmosher@mosherchedore.ca ;
carterweb@emory.edu ; Robert.Creedon@state.ma.us ; Brian.A.Joyce@state.ma.us ; david@lutz.nb.ca ;
parkhill@stu.ca ; plee@stu.ca ; kentlib@nbnet.nb.ca ; leroyarmstrong.mla@nb.aibn.comm ;
police@fredericton.ca
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: Re tape of July 29th Hearing before Judge Tonning

Perhaps you should invite me too? I am formally inviting you Mr. Byrne to Boston to
stand beside me in court on November 19th.

----- Original Message -----

From: Byrne Q.C., Greg G. (Patterson Palmer NB)
To: David Amos
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 12:39 PM
Subject: RE: Re tape of July 29th Hearing before Judge Tonning

He's coming here today and I've got him meeting with Trudy

From: David Amos [mailto:motomaniac_02186@hotmail.com]

Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 12:49 PM
To: Mockler, Jeff (JUS)
Cc: diane.bourque@flsc.ca; alltrue@nl.rogers.com; Crosbie, John; cei@nbnet.nb.ca; Byrne Q.C., Greg G.
(Patterson Palmer NB); corp.website@sunlife.com; martine.turcotte@bell.ca; cynthia.merlini@dfait-
maeci.gc.ca; Hickman, Stephanie; lrikleen@Bowditch.com; John.Conyers@mail.house.gov; May, Steve;
bmosher@mosherchedore.ca; carterweb@emory.edu; Robert.Creedon@state.ma.us;
Brian.A.Joyce@state.ma.us; david@lutz.nb.ca; parkhill@stu.ca; plee@stu.ca; kentlib@nbnet.nb.ca;
leroyarmstrong.mla@nb.aibn.comm; police@fredericton.ca
Subject: Re: Re tape of July 29th Hearing before Judge Tonning

Hey Jeff
Liar Liar pants on fire. Your bullshit is amazing put it could not have come at a
better point in time. Not only are you the top assistant to Attorney General, you
are also a member of the public. Anyone one has the right to buy the tape but you
can get any one you want for free. You should know as well as I that the clerk
must maintain the public record especially when the transcript of the very tape I
am demanding is in dispute with the Judicial Council. Talk to Michael Bray maybe
he has a copy. He ain't telling me shit. Or perhaps you should also talk to you
buddy you are covering for McAvity. You remember the man you wouldn't give me
the name of in the god damned letter you sent me when Ashcroft had me in jail
and you didn't think I could get out. You were just polishing me off and rubbing it
in. You know you pissed me off because I have been telling the world about the
bones I have to pick with you. Quit the double talk and find the god damned tape
before I sue the province because of you blatant malice towards me.
When my buddy went to order the tape in a clerk's office that was far from
busy, the phone started ringing off the wall. I have no doubt you were one of the
people that was busy calling Hampton dreaming up the recycle story. Your
prosecutor, the legal aid lawyer Galagher and many others witnessed the exchange
between Tonning and I on July 29th that prompted my Affidavit. In fact it was
the legal aid lawyer that introduced me to the matter when she complained of me
to Henrick. Michael Bray has a copy of the transcript of that hearing. It does not
agree with what was said. That is why the tape was destroyed. You know it.
Quite simply the Crown has practiced fraud against Mr. Tabor and I by selling
him a fraudulent transcript and then destroying the tape so that we cannot refute
it with hard evidence. However the spoken word of members of the public that
also witnessed Tonning and I discuss me being in his chambers years ago and him
witnessing some Yankee shit will not be easily ignored by a jury of our peers.
The fact that the tape has been destroyed speaks volumes in and of itself. As
I said to McAvity, he is an important witness to refute the edited transcript of
July 29th. Nevertheless I have many more tapes that I must argue with you but
first I must do so in the criminal complaint against me in the USA. Then I will
come back home and deal with you and your boss Brad Green. Never forget I have
a letter signed in his hand and I did exactly as he suggested and gave my stuff to
the Suffolk County District Attorney before he told me to. I was pleading with my
fellow Canadians to assist me in seeking justice and defend my dumb ass from
Ashcroft. In return you bastards practice fraud, assist crooks, throw me back to
the wolves and then write a letter to rub it in? See you in court sir.
You only received a copy of Wiretap Tape 139. The RCMP and CSIS received six
original tapes. However I have many more in Canada and the USA that you and I
have still to argue about. One tape from Hampton court don't mean a tinkers damn
to me right now but I want it because you don't want me to have it. I have bigger
fish to fry than you and you know it. You are just a little chump wiggling around in
my net as bait for the big boys to pounce on. I did not know who you were and I
would have left you alone until you sent me the snotty letter while I was in jail.
Now I will use you as the government employee and public servant that you are to
suit my own ends.
Try thinking outside of the box you are in and just get honest will ya? I have
enclosed a little story to explain how I think. You do not have an ethical or legal
delemma. You troubles are political just as mine are. Try fooling yourself some
more. You ain't fooling me because I am too stupid. When you are having a little
talk with Michael Bray ask him about me and my concerns. He heard me speak my
mind and he refrained from arguing because he knew I was taking him down a
garden path of good and evil where he did not want to go.
Say hey to the ladies Lynne Castonguay, Marie-Josie Groulx, Barb Baird and
Shirley Maclean for me will ya? Tell them for me that they are way past too late
to prove to me that they have the integrity defined by the Law Society that the
City Solicitor, Bruce Noble and the Yankee Carpetbagger, David Lutz seem to rule
over. Didn't the Province say ok to their rules before you took the job of
defending the Public from the Crown's prosecutions away from them? I witnessed
the Crown showing its ass to the public it serves on July 29th and everybody
knows it. Watch me prove it.
It also looks like I was right about Philip Lee and all the other University
professors as well. I made it a point to prove with him the rumors I heard about
me going around the ivy halls of college campuses. i had heard some folks say that
although I had a legitimate beef I should be ignored because I didn't have a
prayer. I just called him and left voicemail to let him know I will send someone to
ask about my stuff and pick it up now because even his friend who loves to label
herself as a doctor Alexandra Bain ain't interested in Cardinal Law's antics. Trust
that I wasn't surprised. I think it is time to give it to the students. Don't you? It
is their future you are all messing with as you cover your own fat arses.
Jeff perhaps you should call T.J. Burke and Kelly Lamrock and climb up the
politically correct side of them. They know that I ain't joking and I think Premier
lord's days in office may be numbered and the bell will toll on him in the next
election if not sooner byway of a confidence vote. All I need is a couple of
members of his own party to look to their own interests like Bernard Richard once
did and the fat lady will sing him out of office in short order. It was because I
was looking for Charles Leblanc to witness what I was about to serve them at
710 Queen St in answer to Leroy armstrong's challenge tome on June 18th that
your boss Brad Green had the Sergeant at Arms and the Fredericton cops throw
me out of the Legislative Building on June 24th.
David R. Amos

Convergent vs. Divergent Thinking

Many years ago in a small Indian village, a farmer had the misfortune of owing a large sum of money to a
village moneylender.

The moneylender, who was old and ugly, fancied the farmer's beautiful daughter. So he proposed a
bargain.

He said he would forgo the farmer's debt if he could marry his daughter.
Both the farmer and his daughter were horrified by the proposal. So the cunning money-lender
suggested that they let providence decide the matter. He told them that he would put a black pebble and
a white pebble into an empty money bag.

Then the girl would have to pick one pebble from the bag.

1) If she picked the black pebble, she would become his wife and her father's debt would be forgiven.

2) If she picked the white pebble she need not marry him and her father's debt would still be forgiven.

3) But if she refused to pick a pebble, her father would be thrown into jail.

They were standing on a pebble strewn path in the farmer's field. As they talked, the moneylender bent
over to pick up two pebbles. As he picked them up, the sharp-eyed girl noticed that he had picked up two
black pebbles and put them into the bag. He then asked the girl to pick a pebble from the bag.

Now, imagine that you were standing in the field.

What would you have done if you were the girl?

If you had to advise her, what would you have told her?

Careful analysis would produce three possibilities:

1. The girl should refuse to take a pebble.

2. The girl should show that there were two black pebbles in the bag and expose the money-lender as a
cheat.

3. The girl should pick a black pebble and sacrifice herself in order to save her father from his debt and
imprisonment.

Take! a moment to ponder over the story. The above story is used with the hope that it will make us
appreciate the difference between lateral and logical thinking. The girl's dilemma
cannot be solved with traditional logical thinking. In other words, she need to think "outside the box."
Think of the consequences if she chooses the above logical answers.

What would you recommend to the Girl to do?

Well, here is what she did ....

The girl put her hand into the moneybag and drew out a pebble. Without looking at it, she fumbled and
let it fall onto the pebble-strewn path where it immediately became lost among all the other pebbles.

"Oh, how clumsy of me," she said. "But never mind, if you look into the bag for the one that is left, you
will be able to tell which pebble I picked."

Since the remaining pebble is black, it must be assumed that she had picked the white one. And since
the money-lender dared not admit his dishonesty, the girl changed what s! seemed an impossible
situation into an extremely advantageous one.

MORAL OF THE STORY:

Most complex problems do have a solution. It is only that we don't attempt to think.

----- Original Message -----

From: Mockler, Jeff (JUS)
To: David Amos
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 8:54 AM
Subject: RE: Re tape of July 29th Hearing before Judge Tonning

Mr. Amos;
I have no knowledge of the status of the tape you are referring to. I have no control over it. Nor do I
have any knowledge of it’s content or that department’s procedures regarding retention of tapes. I have
no opposition to you receiving such tape but I also have no authority to obtain it for you. If the tape has
indeed been reused, it cannot simply be recreated out of thin air in any event. I cannot resolve any of
your issues or questions regarding tapes of court proceedings.
J. Mockler

----- Original Message -----

From: David Amos
To: almarchionne@onceanddone.com
Cc: dfoley@massagent.com ; fmancini@massagent.com ; jmullen@townofmilton.org ;
info@ci.quincy.ma.us ; JackMCOPA@aol.com ; user.cru@pol.state.ma.us ; plypd@four.net ;
cotlei@parl.gc.ca ; info@pco-bcp.gc.ca ; strategis@ic.gc.ca ; tedcardwell@mail.gov.nf.ca ;
dwatch@web.net
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 1:44 PM
Subject: Fw: Re tape of July 29th Hearing before Judge Tonning

----- Original Message -----

From: David Amos
To: Grant.GARNEAU@gnb.ca
Cc: comment@suf.state.ma.us ; edwardth@ruby-edwardh.com
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 1:39 PM
Subject: Fw: Re tape of July 29th Hearing before Judge Tonning

----- Original Message -----

From: David Amos
To: Bachrach, Barry A.
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 1:29 PM
Subject: Fw: Re tape of July 29th Hearing before Judge Tonning

----- Original Message -----

From: David Amos
To: Mockler, Jeff (JUS)
Cc: bmosher@mosherchedore.ca ; carterweb@emory.edu ; Robert.Creedon@state.ma.us ;
Brian.A.Joyce@state.ma.us ; david@lutz.nb.ca ; ethics@harvard.edu ; cei@nbnet.nb.ca ; pm@pm.gc.ca
; diane.bourque@flsc.ca ; police@fredericton.ca ; corp.website@sunlife.com ; martine.turcotte@bell.ca ;
cynthia.merlini@dfait-maeci.gc.ca
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: Re tape of July 29th Hearing before Judge Tonning

Mr. Mockler
 Things just went up another notch as of a very few minutes ago. It has just
been announced on TV that Whitey Bulger is willing to turn himself if the reward
for his bounty goes to his nephew. I just got off the phone to the Suffolk County
District Attorney. I know what I filed in court on Sept 3rd, 2004 and what I told
Judge Sidney Hanlon before I went to jail on Oct 1st as to Whitey Bulgers
whereabouts. Perhaps you should listen to the tape of the Police Commission's
interview with me on August 24th or talk to Constable Jim Case of the
Newfoundland Constabulary real soon. I am demanding the reward for his capture
and I am certainly entitled to it after my forcing the old bastard to surface. The
RCMP are very guilty in covering his tracks for him since the 1990's for the
benefit of far too many crooked politicians in Canada and the USA. In return for
my diligence you bastards send me to jail and then laugh at me? If you hear your
phone ringing it is likely me calling after I call the Police Commission.
David R. Amos

From: David Amos [mailto:motomaniac_02186@hotmail.com]

Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 11:48 AM
To: Mockler, Jeff (JUS)
Cc: bmosher@mosherchedore.ca; carterweb@emory.edu; Robert.Creedon@state.ma.us;
Brian.A.Joyce@state.ma.us; david@lutz.nb.ca; ethics@harvard.edu; cei@nbnet.nb.ca; pm@pm.gc.ca;
diane.bourque@flsc.ca; police@fredericton.ca; corp.website@sunlife.com; martine.turcotte@bell.ca;
cynthia.merlini@dfait-maeci.gc.ca
Subject: Re tape of July 29th Hearing before Judge Tonning

Mr. Mockler
Last week I sent a man to purchase a copy of recording of the hearing held in
Sussex Provincial Court before Judge Tonning that I have already received a copy
of a transcript of. The tape recording is necessary evidence to be used in my
defense in my pending criminal trial in the USA.
The clerk in Hampton claimed that the recording has been destroyed. If so
why? Is it not the public record and is to be preserved? You know as well as I
that the tape will not agree with the transcript. I truly believe that the witnesses
who are members of the public that were in court that day will prove to be far
more trustworthy that the lawyers, clerks or judges employed by New
Brunswick to uphold the law and the Public Trust or in fact the Assistant
Attorney General and his boss Brad Green. What say you sir? Do I get the tape
or don't I?
The letter you sent to me while I was in the Beantown jail was very offensive. I
will be using it as evidence in my defense in a Yankee court before I come home
 and sue you ass. I look forward to meeting you in court and arguing you about your
integrity.
David R. Amos

----- Original Message -----

From: David Amos
To: Mosher Chedore
Cc: diane.bourque@flsc.ca ; alltrue@nl.rogers.com ; jcrosbie@pattersonpalmer.ca ; cei@nbnet.nb.ca ;
gbyrne@pattersonpalmer.ca ; corp.website@sunlife.com ; martine.turcotte@bell.ca ;
cynthia.merlini@dfait-maeci.gc.ca ; shickman@pattersonpalmer.ca ; lrikleen@Bowditch.com ;
John.Conyers@mail.house.gov ; smay@pattersonpalmer.ca ; bmosher@mosherchedore.ca ;
carterweb@emory.edu ; Robert.Creedon@state.ma.us ; Brian.A.Joyce@state.ma.us ; david@lutz.nb.ca ;
parkhill@stu.ca ; plee@stu.ca ; kentlib@nbnet.nb.ca ; leroyarmstrong.mla@nb.aibn.comm ;
police@fredericton.ca ; Mockler, Jeff (JUS)
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 5:17 PM
Subject: Re: Me and you and your little dog too.

Hey Brian have you been told lately?

If not here goes. Fuck you. I already know you to be a liar, however you just
proved it again. This is the very first time you ever acknowledged that I even
exist. Please sue me if you feel offended if fact I dare you to. Perhaps you should
ask Mockler to see what your partner and my brother in law witnessed that was
filed in US District Court in Beantown two years ago then read the following email
real slow. W5 knew about your Law Firm and me a long long time ago. For my
mother's benefit I left Nancy and Reid out of my affairs but when they upset her
over me being in jail and then let her stew about it, my gloves came off.
I have always been pissed at you for you taking my rent money a year in
advance and then selling Dewinters old property to that crooked Little bible
pounder who promptly ripped me off. Trust me, my family has never seen me angry
and everyone should beware of the fury of a patient man. You know what they say
about vengeance and cold plates. Say hey to Tommy for me will ya?
I never did anything about him and you even though you laughed at me because
you obviously thought I was incapable of addressing your wrongs. I did nothing out
of respect for Nancy and Reid. I always consider most things as just stuff it is
people that are important to me. Things changed the minute I was sent to jail by
crooked lawyers and my family lawyers laughed at me and made my mom worry
when it was totally unnecessary. Now I will bust you in front of your friends. Say
Hey to Bruce Noble and Michael Bray as well. They got the QC the same day you
did and long after David Lutz that god damned Yankee Carpetbagger did. I know
that none of you deserve it nor do any of you even understand the meaning of the
words honour, integrity or ethics let alone common sense. Watch me prove it. You
law firm did witness many wrongs and did nothing. It is my turn to the worm and
ask why not.
Cya'll in Court:)
David R. Amos
----- Original Message -----
From: Mosher Chedore
To: motomaniac_02186@hotmail.com
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 3:03 PM

Mr. Amos:
I asked you before to stop sending emails to me as I have nothing to do with anything that you are
involved in or working on. Please honor my request. Brian Mosher
***************************************************************************************************
When replying to this e-mail please indicate to whom you would like it directed.

This e-mail and any attachments is intended only for the use of the individual or entity
to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this e-mail is not the
intended recipient, or employee or agent responsible for delivering the transmission to
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying
of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
notify us immediately by telephone and delete it and any attachments from your computer
system and records. Thank you.

----- Original Message -----

From: David Amos
To: Romina Sestito
Cc: cynthia.merlini@dfait-maeci.gc.ca ; tor_news@tor.sunpub.com ; martine.turcotte@bell.ca ;
corp.website@sunlife.com ; kcarmichael@bloomberg.net ; davies.carl@nbpub.com ;
news@timestranscript.com ; oldmaison@yahoo.com ; nbombud@gnb.ca ;
advocacycollective@yahoo.com ; brad.green@gnb.ca ; dayja@sen.parl.gc.ca ; dan.bussieres@gnb.ca ;
slevin@mail.house.gov ; Layton.J@parl.gc.ca ; Efford.J@parl.gc.ca ; Easter.W@parl.gc.ca ;
Mackay.P@parl.gc.ca ; scotta@parl.gc.ca ; Brison.S@parl.gc.ca ; davidorchard@sasktel.net ;
rosent@math.toronto.edu ; Comartin.J@parl.gc.ca ; pm@pm.gc.ca ; Dryden.K@parl.gc.ca ;
Duceppe.G@parl.gc.ca ; Valeri.T@parl.gc.ca ; Dosanjh.U@parl.gc.ca ; randall.shafer@comcast.net ;
cei@nbnet.nb.ca ; Moore.R@parl.gc.ca ; alltrue@nl.rogers.com ; caomc@nb.aibn.com ;
jeffrey.rudman@wilmerhale.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 8:56 PM
Subject: Ron Show this to Joyce this is too funny

Romina
What are you trying to do sucker me? I am telling my own tale in court. I am suing your
company, Bell Canada. Get it?
May I suggest that you talk to your own lawyer, Martine Turcotte and decide what planet you all
come from. I just got out of a jail after being put there by the bastards your lawyers assisted to
cover up the crimes practiced against me. Discuss my troubles with Robert C, Pozen or Martine
Turcotte not me.
If you or any of your company wish to communicate with me, address your concerns to my
attorney, Joyce Richardson. Turcotte should have her number.
 If Sunlife ain't figured it out yet as to why I am about to sue them. They had best check
with Jeff Carp about the stuff I sent him at MFS and his prior association with Hale and Dorr.
Jeff Rudman would be good fella to start with but defintely not the last within the aforesaid law
firm.
David R. Amos
----- Original Message -----
From: Romina Sestito
To: 'David Amos'
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 4:01 PM
Subject: RE: My turn to tell a tale.

Dear David,

I would like to thank you for your recent email to W-FIVE. We review every story idea that we receive
and give it serious consideration.

At W-FIVE we have a limited number of stories to complete in a year, and although we do not plan to
pursue your suggestion at this time, your letter will remain on file for consideration at a later date.

We do feel your story is an important one and we appreciate your input.

Sincerely,

Romina
W-FIVE
-----Original Message-----
From: David Amos [mailto:motomaniac_02186@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 1980 2:07 PM
To: W-Five@ctv.ca
Cc: bcecomms@bce.ca; oldmaison@yahoo.com
Subject: My turn to tell a tale.

I think is time to let a little something out of the bag for the benefit
of a few Maritimers who think they know something about the Media.I
did notify CBC, the Rogers crowd and Harry Steele's folks that I knew
a little bit about the Media and that I had written a book about it.
Problem is I need an editor and I believe I may have found one.He
comes in the form of a disenchanted newspaper man. But the thing is I
want to put it on the web for all to read for free so there is no money
in it for him. So I guess I wiil sue some big company with a Prima
Facia complaint and settle for a lesser amount out of court. Lets just
say I am looking hard at you dudes. I had zeroed in on the Yankee
media long ago and I am certain folks within the Ottawa Citizen and
Democracy Watch had checked my work(Hey Duff say hey to Dan for
me) I have crossed paths with many of Globemedia's people many times
for many reasons and I can easily prove it. What I haven't bothered
to tell them that I knew the reason Gobal etc never mentioned me was
Frank McKenna and the Irving influence because basically that was a no
brainer anyway. However If Globemedia and all their cohorts didn't
think I knew about the influence Robert Pozen in Boston, you had best
think again. then give Mr. Spitzer, Mr. Galvin, Mr. Shelby and Mr.
Donaldson a call and drop my name along with Mr. Nesters and Mr.
Koski's and tell them my stuff is off to the Arar Commission I am
heading back to the USA to call Mr. Pozen and many folks he calls
friends to court. Perhaps in Ottawa Bill Rowe will truly speak for the
common man after all if the worm turns on his buddies. How do you
people sleep at night? What say you? Why not get honest with the
world and I will settle cheap? I will give one of your lawyers something
real soon before I serve Mr. Pozen his just due byway of this lawyer
Jeffrey N Carp MFS Investment Management
500 Boylston Street Boston MA 02116-3741 617-954-5747 Perhaps
he should call Putnam investments or the Brookline Savings bank and
say hey to Mr Chapman and Mr Tripp for me. I just called Bob Pozen
at 617 954-5707 and introduced myself so that he can never say that
he never heard my name.

MFS set to agree to second settlement

 MFS set to agree to second settlement
By SINCLAIR STEWART

00:00 EST Wednesday, March 31, 2004

By SINCLAIR STEWART

00:00 EST Wednesday, March 31, 2004

Sun Life Financial Inc.'s Boston-based mutual fund arm will agree to a $50-million (U.S.)
settlement today with U.S. regulators over allegations the firm directed trading commissions to
brokerages in exchange for preferential treatment, according to people familiar with the matter.
Sources said Massachusetts Financial Services Co. will announce a deal with the Securities
and Exchange Commission this morning that will also include "compliance reforms," in addition
to a token $1 disgorgement penalty.

Eric Morse, a spokesman for MFS, declined to comment. A spokesman for the SEC refused to
discuss any talks with the firm.

The embattled fund company is hoping this settlement will enable it to move beyond the intense
public and regulatory scrutiny it has endured in the past several months.

In early February, MFS agreed to a $350-million settlement with the SEC and New York State
Attorney-General Eliot Spitzer for allegedly permitting improper trades in some of its bigger
funds. That figure included $225-million in penalties and restitution to investors, along with
$125-million in fee reductions spread out over the next five years.

The fallout within MFS, which manages about $140-billion in assets, was also considerable. Its
two highest-ranking officials -- chief executive officer John Ballen and president Kevin Parke --
were each fined and slapped with temporary suspensions by the SEC, leading to their
departures from the firm. Long-serving chairman Jeffrey Shames also retired in the aftermath of
MFS's problems, and was replaced by Robert Pozen, formerly a senior executive at Fidelity
Investments and onetime associate general counsel at the SEC.

Mr. Pozen has been charged with cleaning up the mess, and tightening the firm's internal
controls.

He has already hired new legal and compliance officers, added monitoring staff, and imposed a
ban on so-called "soft dollar" transactions. The firm also prohibited the practice of directing
trading fees to brokerages in exchange for being placed on a preferred list of customers and
receiving better visibility for its funds.

This latter arrangement, known in industry circles as "pay for play," is at the centre of MFS's
pending settlement with the SEC. Sources said the current settlement talks advanced fairly
quickly because of the voluntary compliance improvements MFS has undertaken.

In a recent interview with The Globe and Mail, Mr. Pozen attacked the basis of the regulator's
case as "very weak" and said it should have raised this as a problem when it conducted audits
of the company.

Nevertheless, he said he hoped to settle the matter quickly, in large part to avoid a costly legal
battle and prevent nervous investors from pulling their money out of MFS funds. So far, the
damage has been contained to one major client, the Illinois Teachers Retirement System, which
fired MFS last month as lead manager on a $664-million portfolio.

The SEC is investigating about a dozen other fund companies for directed brokerage, although
sources say MFS will settle individually, rather than as part of a group.

Last fall, brokerage powerhouse Morgan Stanley agreed to pay $50-million to settle charges it
failed to tell investors it was promoting funds with which the firm had a special arrangement.
Morgan Stanley had a "Partners Program" of 14 funds, including MFS, that paid "substantial"
fees in return for the brokerage steering their funds to investors, the SEC claimed.

The regulator indicated a few months ago it would begin investigating a number of fund
companies for directing commissions, but did not say which firms it would target.
Sun Life revealed in a filing that MFS was under investigation for this practice just a couple of
weeks after its first settlement with the SEC and Mr. Spitzer. The news came as a surprise to
most observers, some of whom criticized the insurer's CEO, Donald Stewart, for not disclosing
this probe earlier.

MFS is hoping to recoup some of the $175-million it must repay investors under the terms of the
first settlement by suing firms and individuals that engaged in market timing and late trading of
its funds. Market timing involves making frequent trades in and out of funds in order to cash in
on minor pricing discrepancies. It is not illegal, but is usually prohibited by many fund
companies, since the quick trading can raise administrative costs and undermine returns to
investors.

----- Original Message -----

From: R. S. Webb
To: Amos David
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 12:50 AM
Subject: Fw: possble story

----- Original Message -----

From: R. S. Webb
To: Amos David
Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 9:15 PM
Subject: Fw: possble story

----- Original Message -----

From: W-FIVE Viewer Mail
To: 'R. S. Webb'
Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2002 3:03 PM
Subject: RE: possble story

Dear Mr. Amos,

I would like to thank you for your email to W-FIVE, sorry for the delay in responding.

We review every email and story idea that we receive here at W-FIVE and give it
serious consideration. Your email has been forwarded to our executive and senior
producer for review. If we are interested in pursuing your idea further, you will be
contacted by one of our researchers.

Thanks again for your input. Your interest in our program is much appreciated.

Sincerely,

Lisa-Marie

Production Coordinator

W-FIVE
-----Original Message-----
From: R. S. Webb [mailto:cei@nbnet.nb.ca]
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 2:28 PM
To: W-FIVE@ctv.ca
Subject: possble story

I am a Canadian Citizen who thus far, as a plaintiff, has two

Lawsuits in the US District Court of Massachucetts they are
numbered 02-11686- RGS and 02-11687-RGS. They were
removed to that Court from the Norfolk Superior Court by the US
Attorney Michael J. Sullivan very improperly. However they shall
remain there because of my status as a Canandian Citizen.
Judge Sterns has not even held a Conference about the matters
because he likely does not want to hear the matter because I
have presented all Members of the Bar with their worst fear of a
catch 22 problem. Accordinging to law he is late. I have
complained of 47 defendants 34 of whom are State Defendants(
the Attorney General, The Commission of Judicial Conduct
Board of Bar Overseers etc) and 3 are Federal Treasury Agents.
Some of the defendants are over two months late in their answer
to the Summons. The smallest suit amounts to 188 million
dollars in the form of relief. There is a lot to these matters and
too much to briefly explain. But in a nutshell my wife's Aunt, who
is buried beside Rose Kennedy, left my wife some money. It was
stolen by her relatives in executing the estate. No news there.
But the crooks are very well connected politically and every part
of the old crony network in Boston covered for them. The crook
and our cousin, Charles J. Kickham Jr of the Kickham Law Office
on Beacon St, has been past President of Bar Associations. He
has sat on the Board of Governors of Harvard Law School etc. I
have given much information to many members of the press who
have simply ignored some interesting facts. What should be
somewhat newsworthy is how far a wild colonial boy has come in
prosecuting Pro Se the most profund Yankee carpetbaggers. My
next two lawsuits Under title 18 are wickedly righteous. I have
left one copy of much information in Saint John New Brunswick
at a lawyer's Office, Mosher and Chedore 33 Charlotte St if
some one wishes to view them. I can be reached at this Cell
number 506 434- 1379

David R. Amos
LAW
Canadian Media Deregulation Provides Insight Into FCC
Proposal
Critics of consolidation say the integrity of the news is
being undermined by the effects of concentrated
ownership

Editor's Note: This story has been updated to

correct inaccuracies. Please see the corrected version
here.

The original version of this story (see below) posted on

May 29, 2003 incorrectly stated that Canada's two
national newspapers, The Globe and Mail and the
National Post, recently laid off their online editorial
staffs. According to globeandmail.com editor Angus
Frame, there have been no recent editorial layoffs at
globeandmail.com; the site's 18-person staff continues to
write and edit stories that are published exclusively
online. The National Post did not have dedicated online
editorial staff, and did not have online editorial layoffs.
The story also failed to acknowledge that the country's
largest newspaper, the Toronto Star, also has a
significant online operation.

The Federal Communications Commission is poised to

unveil new media ownership rules June 2 that some
experts believe may change the face of American
journalism.

The new rules would allow media companies to

own television stations and newspapers in the same
cities.

The FCC barred companies from owning newspapers

and TV stations in the same market in 1975, but big
media owners like the Tribune Co., Knight Ridder,
MediaNews Group and the New York Times say it's time
to lift that ban.

They argue that cross-ownership makes for better

journalism: Staffers working for companies that own
newspapers and TV stations in the same market can
work together to create richer, multimedia news reports
that can then run in the company's paper and on their
stations and Web sites.

Advocates say the synergies of convergence lead to cost

savings, increased advertising revenues and greater
efficiencies.

Cross-ownership already exists in some markets: The

FCC granted about 40 exemptions to the cross-
ownership rule in cases where a company already had
television or radio stations and a newspaper in a single
city. The FCC also granted exemptions in larger markets
after media mergers produced cross-ownership
situations.

'The concentration of ownership in a lot of major

Canadian cities is of interest for a lot reasons, but mainly
because it provides too much news coming through one
pipeline.'
--Russ Mills, former publisher of the Ottawa Citizen

The Tribune Co., for example, owns television stations

and newspapers in Los Angeles, Chicago, New York and
Miami.

How further media consolidation and convergence would

play out if the FCC does lift the ban on cross-
ownership has been the subject of hot debate in the
weeks leading up to the commission's June 2 vote.

Experts familiar with the rapid consolidation of media in

Canada say the U.S. should look northward for some
lessons on what loosening cross-ownership restrictions
could mean to journalism in the U.S.

In Canada, the deregulation of cross-media ownership

occurred gradually over the last 20 years. Within the past
eight years, it has led to massive consolidation of media
companies.

Most of Canada's news media -- including newspapers

and broadcast stations in all of its major cities -- are in
the hands of two media giants: CanWest Global
Communications Inc., and Bell Globemedia -- a division
of the country's largest telephone company, Bell Canada.
The rapid media consolidation in Canada has inspired an
often-acrimonious debate over whether Canadian
journalists are able to report objectively on social and
political issues and whether the country's corporate
media has allowed business interests to undermine the
role of journalism in a modern democracy.

"Based on the experience in Canada, dropping

restrictions on cross-ownership certainly hasn't worked
out well," said Russ Mills, former publisher of the
Ottawa Citizen in Canada's capital city, who was fired by
CanWest in a fight over editorial independence.

"The concentration of ownership in a lot of major

Canadian cities is of interest for a lot of reasons, but
mainly because it provides too much news coming
through one pipeline," he said. "When companies use
ownership to control the news, and they do have the
ability to do so, it hurts everyone."

Though the two media conglomerates said cross-media

consolidation would improve online journalism, many
media observers say online journalism at local papers has
gone downhill in the wake of consolidation.

The country's two national newspapers, the National

Post, half-owned by CanWest, and The Globe and Mail,
owned by Bell Canada's media wing, Globemedia, have
laid off the online reporters and editors at the two papers
that once produced copy separate from print editions.

The two papers, former online staffers said, were the

only ones in Canada that were doing something other
than simply repurposing content from newspaper pages
into newspaper Web sites.

Executives at Bell Globemedia and CanWest have

defended the cutbacks, saying they were a result of cost-
cutting efforts and consolidations undertaken after
spending billions of dollars to acquire newspaper and
broadcasting properties.

Consolidation accelerated in 1990s

Canada's restrictions on cross-media ownership were

carved largely from regulatory decisions on broadcasting
licenses made since the 1950s by the Canadian Radio-
Television Commission -- Canada's version of the FCC.

By the mid-1980s, Canadian media experts say,

exceptions to cross-media ownership rules had eroded
the cross-ownership ban to the point that it was
unenforcable and largely ignored.

By the mid-1990s, consolidation of Canadian media

companies had accelerated on the strength of dot.com
economics. And in 2000, CanWest, the second largest
broadcaster in the country, announced a $3.5-billion deal
to purchase a majority of the nation's newspapers --
including papers in the nation's 12 largest cities.

Within weeks, Jean Monty, Bell Canada's CEO at the

time, announced that Canada's largest phone company
had set its sights on owning both content and the
multimedia pipelines into consumers' homes.

The decision prompted Bell Globemedia to purchase the

Globe and Mail and the nation's largest TV network,
CTV, in 2001.

Despite the rising consolidation of media outlets, the

massive purchases of newspapers by CanWest Global
and Bell Globemedia took many Canadian journalists
and media-watchers by surprise.

CanWest and Bell executives convinced Canada's CRTC

that convergence was necessary to attract advertising
revenue and reduce costs if newspapers in many
Canadian communities were to survive. And they
promised that resources from new revenues would be
devoted to improving the quality and reach of journalism
through the Internet.

When questions about convergence arose during CRTC

hearings on both companies' broadcast licenses shortly
after their newspaper purchases, they promised
regulators that they would separate management of
news-gathering operations by their television stations
and newspapers.

Officials from the Canada National Newspaper Guild

complained that keeping management separate would not
prevent companies from forcing journalists to perform
work for both newspapers and television, to the
detriment of journalistic independence.

Critics -- including journalism professors, journalists,

newspaper and broadcast union officials, and some
government officials -- have argued that the quality of
journalism has gone down, not up, as a result of
convergence.

Joyce Smith, an assistant professor at Canada's Ryerson

University, teaches online journalism and worked on the
online staff at the Globe and Mail before those
employees were laid off last year.

She said the one opportunity to see convergence succeed

might have been missed by Bell Globemedia in its
efforts to cut costs to recoup some of what it spent on
media acquisitions.

"What I found interesting was that the actual idea of

convergence wasn't a hit with people working with just
the newspaper or just television," Smith said. "Where it
really happened was with the online news team. There
were things the TV folks could clearly do much better
with the online newspaper. By pooling resources, it all
did work much better.

"But in the tradition of journalism," she said, "reporters

were asking, 'What does this mean for me? Does it mean
that I have to file stories to the Web and then do stand-
ups in newsroom, while doing my piece for the deadline
at the end of the day?'

"Basically, (owners) wanted reporters to be one-man

bands," Smith said. "That has been played and replayed
here. It made sense from a business model, but
journalists, especially those who have been around for a
while, went into newspapers and TV for a reason. Some
are great at doing both, but not everyone has the same
aptitude. And no one has the time in the day to do it all.
Some of the expectations were outrageous."

Canada reexamining changes

While U.S. media critics and media executives have been

testifying over the past few weeks in Senate hearings on
the proposed changes in the FCC's media ownership
rules, Canada is busy reexamining what has come of its
own cross-media consolidations.

Two inquiries are underway by Canadian government

officials to explore the impact of cross-media ownership
and consolidation on journalistic integrity and media
responsibility.

The Canadian Senate's Committee on Transport and

Communication began taking testimony at the end of
April on those issues and is expected to report its
findings within the next year.

A House of Commons committee on Canadian heritage

is expected to release an 800-page report next month on
its own yearlong investigation into the impact of media
concentration and political efforts by corporations to
ease restrictions on foreign ownership of Canadian
media.

But media-watchers, who have a ringside seat on

Canada's great media debate, say they are doubtful that
government investigations will produce any new
regulation on media conglomerates.

"The horse is out of the barn," said Arnold Amber,

director of the National Newspaper Guild of Canada.
"But the good news is that this has at least inspired a
vigorous national debate on press freedom and
responsibility."

Amber and other critics of media convergence said

promises of more stories and better information from
combining print and broadcast news staffs have largely
failed in Canada.

"Bell Globemedia is talking about restructuring and

selling off its media wing," Amber said. "The failure of
convergence to bring in revenues was primarily
responsible for the resignation of Bell Canada's CEO,
Jean Monty," who stepped down in April 2002.

Geoffrey Elliot, vice-president of corporate affairs for

CanWest, said that convergence has not led to revenues,
or the reduced costs, the company had hoped for.

But Elliot, and other supporters of cross-media

ownership, argues that all sides have benefited from
consolidation.

"We are a family-owned business that saw an

opportunity in which the whole was greater than the sum
of the parts," Elliot said. "We saw substantial potential
synergies on the sales side by putting television and
newspaper assets together, since they both serve
primarily advertising clients as sources of revenue, and
serve a combination of local and national markets."

Amber said the companies likely saw their primary

financial advantages from a convergence of back-office
technologies -- combining circulation, sales, printing and
management operations.

But it was something else that brought issues to a head in

Canada over media consolidation and sharing newsroom
resources: The loss of diversity of voices within the
Canadian media took on new importance, observers say,
after a series of events that led to accusations of
censorship and political bias by CanWest's owners.

In December 2001, CanWest -- which owns 11 major

dailies and 22 smaller papers in Canada -- issued a
directive to its newspaper editors that they would be
expected to run three editorials per week that reflected
the position of CanWest's owners on political or social
issues.

The decision was met with a spate of criticism --

especially when editors were told that other local
editorials were not to contradict those from corporate
headquarters.

A byline strike ensued at the Montreal Gazette, and

inquiries by the newspaper guild there led to findings
that work by columnists and cartoonists was spiked when
it conflicted with opinions from corporate headquarters.

Several journalists quit; some staffers published a protest

Web site.
The furor finally boiled over into the public arena last
June when Russ Mills, the publisher of the Ottawa
Citizen, was fired by CanWest for running a series of
stories and an editorial that outlined alleged political and
financial irregularities in the administration of Canadian
Prime Minister Jean Chretien.

Elliot, the CanWest vice president, said the controversy

arose because Mills failed to let CanWest's owners know
in advance of the series or the editorial -- which called
on Chretien, a friend of CanWest patriarch Israel Asper,
to resign.

Mills said he had not sought permission for either the

investigative series, or the editorial, because he believed
in preserving "editorial independence."

The problem, Mills said, was that the new owners were
trying to dictate local editorial policy from corporate
headquarters.

Elliot described the concern over attempts at a national

editorial policy -- which has since been largely
abandoned -- as a tempest without substance.

He said CanWest's owners were "well within their rights

to propose national editorials," and that their actions
were no different that those of other newspaper
ownership groups prior to media consolidation.

"There has never been any effort to control what was

published in news stories," he said.

Since his firing, Mills has become an outspoken critic of

media consolidation in Canada, and he testified in April
before the Canadian Senate committee conducting media
hearings. He was also awarded a Neiman Fellowship at
Harvard University and is the incoming dean of the
journalism program at Algonquin College in Ottawa.

Meanwhile, Mills' firing prompted a public opinion poll

by Canada's largest media union that found that the
incident had caused the public to lose confidence in the
media's editorial independence.

The results, union officials said, showed that Canadians

were concerned about press freedom and wanted the
government to look into problems associated with media
concentration.

Peter Murdock, then vice-president of the

communications union, told Canada Newswire that the
poll "demonstrates that Canadians want their journalists
protected from the whims and prejudice of media barons.
It is a grim warning to media corporations and
government that Canadians believe that the very integrity
of the news that feeds our democracy is being
undermined by the effects of concentrated media
ownership."

It is clear that online journalism at Canada's newspapers

has changed dramatically under CanWest's corporate
control.

The company replaced independent newspaper Web sites

with a common site, Canada.com, which allows
consumers to access local news by clicking on the
community they are interested in.

Elliot said community news on the Web site comes from

local newspapers and television stations, and said that
consolidating that information on a single Web site
provides consumers better access to local news across
the country -- as well as reduces costs.

Bruce MacCormack, former head of interactive media at

CanWest, said supplementing newspaper and television
content with a common Web site has made access to
news more efficient and allowed the corporation to serve
consumers better.

"The consumers of online media ... were also television

viewers and newspaper readers, and at different points in
the day, different media were the best way to reach those
people," MacCormack said.

"Someone watching television in the evening could be

told about stories being developed for the next day's
newspaper, which is read on the commuter train as
people go to work," he said. "Then, during working
hours, the Internet was the most effective way to get
them up to date on news, and tease them for television
use at night."

"These were handoff mechanisms that worked to reach

people, so consumers and the public were able to access
services in the most appropriate media, for whatever
method they could best be served."

CanWest recently filed testimony with the FCC to

support the relaxation of cross-media regulations in the
U.S. That testimony challenges media critics on their
central objections to cross-media ownership.

"Today's media market is the richest and most diverse in

the history of modern media," the document says.
"Cross-ownership has strengthened media companies
and encouraged greater diversity and more sources of
information.

"Experience," it adds, "simply does not support the

contention of some opponents of cross-media ownership,
that consumers would have access to fewer point of
view, or would see only repackaged versions of the same
content across multimedia platforms."

Smith, the Ryerson professor -- despite her criticisms of

the handling of online media opportunities in Canada --
said she sees differences between media ownership
consolidation in Canada and in the United States.

"In the U.S., because of the size of the market, the

chance of one or two owners gobbling up everything, I
think, would be less than in Canada," she said. "But there
is some caution in that.

"If you are thinking about journalists, there are

wonderful things about operating in a converged
environment. It was really exciting thinking we could
potentially have video, and it may be good for news
consumers in the sense that (online video) will be a faster
way of converging types of media.

"But you get a lot of the same stuff. There is no

alternative. You are going to lose some (editorial) voices
in the process."
----- Original Message -----
From: David Amos
To: Mockler, Jeff (JUS)
Cc: cathy.maclaggan@fredericton.ca ; stephen.kelly@fredericton.ca ; tom.jellinek@fredericton.ca ;
scott.mcconaghy@fredericton.ca ; marilyn.kerton@fredericton.ca ; walter.brown@fredericton.ca ;
norah.davidson@fredericton.ca ; mike.obrien@fredericton.ca ; bruce.grandy@fredericton.ca ;
dan.keenan@fredericton.ca ; mrichard@lawsociety-barreau.nb.ca ; police@fredericton.ca ;
cynthia.merlini@dfait-maeci.gc.ca ; Matthews.B@parl.gc.ca ; scotta@parl.gc.ca ; dpm@pm.gc.ca ;
ethics@harvard.edu ; news@dailygleaner.com ; kcarmichael@bloomberg.net ; davies.carl@nbpub.com ;
oldmaison@yahoo.com ; advocacycollective@yahoo.com ; Easter.W@parl.gc.ca ;
Comartin.J@parl.gc.ca ; BushCheney04@GeorgeWBush.com ; tony.whalen@fredericton.ca ;
stephen.merrill@bingham.com ; charles.putnam@unh.edu ; carterweb@emory.edu ;
Robert.Creedon@state.ma.us ; Brian.A.Joyce@state.ma.us ; david@lutz.nb.ca ; cei@nbnet.nb.ca ;
info@johnkerry.com ; info@johnlynch04.com ; NHBAinfo@nhbar.org ; Craig Chevrier ;
info@leahyforvermont.com ; kstern1956@aol.com ; Libunion@sover.net ; crisericson@yahoo.com ;
chair@vermontgreens.org ; gaianbuddhist@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 12:43 PM
Subject: Re: You dudes had lots to say on Dec 11th

Law Society of New Brunswick

Jeffrey L. Mockler Vice-President
Department of Justice
P.O. Box 6000
Centennial Building
Fredericton, NB
E3B 5H1
Tel: (506) 444-2197
Fax: (506) 453-5364

Hey Jeff
 Not a chance in hell I will. Not only are you Bruce Noble's buddy, you are a
Canadian lawyer at the top of the Roster in Public Service in the Province where I
ran for Parliament. You must answer me. You and your associates knew the truth
about everything all summer long. You only opted show me your arse while I was
locked up in a Yankee Jail with no Bail because you all thought I was Screwed Blued
and Tattoed by Ashcroft's friends.
A Yankee judge ordered my head examined for giving the Suffolk County District
Attorney some of the same bunch of wiretap tapes and proof of other crimes that
I given to Canadian law enforcement and pleaded for help before leaving my native
land? Obviously I must have a screw loose to expect the Law and the Public Trust
to be upheld. I might as well carry it on through to the bitter end. Because of your
stated expertise in electronic surveilance alone you are a very important witness in
my pending Criminal Trial in the USA.
I do have your signature and Michael Bray's as well both of you did admit to me
as to having the CD of wiretap tape # 129 in your files. As I told you on the phone
your really should start listening to the tapes that I gave to the RCMP, CISNB and
you dudes. I will have many questions for you or some other Canadian legal
representitive in a Yankee court before I come back home to sue the Province and
a great number of your friends.
David R. Amos

P.S. Clearly CSIS is involved in my matters. I can prove it many times over and
you know it as well. If you don't believe me, talk to ladies Margaret Bloodworth,
Eva Plunkett and Anne McLellan who used to teach law school in Fredicton about my
crap. Better yet ask Josie Maquire why she did not accept some of the tapes from
my wife as she laughed at me fuming in jail. You will find my letters to many people
in Canadian public service amongst the material you aready possess. There is a
great more to follow ask Martine Turcotte about that she told me her office
printed my stuff for over three days and then told my lawyer to go to hell just
before I went to jail. Mr. Mockler I do have your signature as well as your boss
Brad Green's. Trust me I will not go away just because you ask me to. You have to
much to answer for on behalf of your political friends.

Prior to the formation of CSIS, the use of intrusive investigative techniques was
authorized by the Solicitor General. Today, only the Federal Court of Canada can
authorize such a warrant. The warrant itself is the end product of a long and
intensive decision-making process. The warrant's affidavit, which establishes the
justification for an intrusive investigative technique, must first be reviewed by
CSIS managers, and subsequently by a senior committee within the Service chaired
by the Director. This committee includes representatives from the Department of
Justice and the Department of the Solicitor General. If the decision is to proceed
with the warrant application, the affidavit is then submitted to the Solicitor
General, who must approve it personally. Only after receiving the Solicitor
General's approval is the affidavit submitted to a judge of the Federal Court for a
decision.

"Jeffrey a pratiqué dans le domaine des poursuites civiles depuis 1979. Il débuta à
Woodstock, Nouveau-Brunswick, travaillant dans divers domaines de poursuites et
dans des cas de protection de la jeunesse. En 1986, il devint procureur responsable
pour le bureau de Woodstock de tous les dossiers importants, dont des cas
d'homicides.

Depuis 2003, il oeuvre dans le bureau des poursuites spéciales à Fredericton, où il

se spécialise dans les dossiers de fraudes majeures, de mandats d'écoute
électronique, en plus de donner des conseils aux divers départements provinciaux
au sujet de lois provinciales. Jeffrey a plaidé devant tous les niveaux de tribunaux
au Nouveau-Brunswick, ainsi que devant la Cour suprême du Canada.

Jeffrey a été représentant régional au Barreau du Nouveau-Brunswick pendant

huit ans. En 2003 il a été élu sur l'exécutif du Barreau comme trésorier, puis
comme vice-président en 2004. "

Law Society of New Brunswick

Bruce A. Noble, Q.C. President
City Solicitor's Office
City Hall PO Box 130, Stn. A
Fredericton, New Brunswick
E3B 4Y7
Tel: (506) 460-2034
Fax: (506) 460-2128
 The fact that you dudes are willing to cover up the fact that T Alex Hickman
does not deserve the Order of Canada makes you not only not worthy of a QC but
you should be allowed to practice law whatsoever.

The fact that Bruce Noble chums with the asshole Brad Woodside is just too
funny for words. What is truly sad is that the Human rights issues of Byron Prior
are deliberately ignored while we all worry whether or not gays are allowed to
prance with pride in a parade? Who cares but Brad about such nonsense as that?
Let the gays dance. It does no harm to our vanity. Send Hickman and his friends to
jail for the damage he has done to all of our dignity. Make me proud to be the
Canadian I am or shame on you for being the lawyers you are.

PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK

IN THE MATTER of the Human Rights Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. H-11, as amended

AND IN THE MATTER of a Board of Inquiry appointed pursuant to s. 20(1)(a) of

the Human Rights Act

AND IN THE MATTER of complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual

orientation contrary to s. 5(1) of the Human Rights Act

BETWEEN:
Kim Hill and Allison Brewer,

Complainants

and

Mayor Brad Woodside,

Respondent

INTERVENORS:

Atlantic District of the Wesleyan Church Christian Action Federation of New

Brunswick Inc. EGALE Fredericton Lesbians and Gays (FLAG) Fredericton Rainbow
Pride Youth Project Knights of Columbus United Baptist Convention of the Atlantic
Provinces

BOARD OF INQUIRY:

Brian D. Bruce

DATES OF HEARING:

July 9 and 10, 1998

Fredericton, N.B.

DATE OF DECISION:

September 17, 1998

APPEARANCES:

For the New Brunswick Human Rights Commission—Charles Ferris

For Kim Hill—Arlene Glencross

For Allison Brewer—Catherine LeFeuvre

For Mayor Brad Woodside—Bruce Noble.

----- Original Message -----
From: Mockler, Jeff (JUS)
To: 'David Amos'
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 8:09 AM
Subject: RE: You dudes had lots to say on Dec 11th

Please remove me from your mailing list.

-J. Mockler

From: David Amos [mailto:motomaniac_02186@hotmail.com]

Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 4:13 AM
To: stephen.merrill@bingham.com; charles.putnam@unh.edu
Cc: carterweb@emory.edu; Robert.Creedon@state.ma.us; Brian.A.Joyce@state.ma.us;
david@lutz.nb.ca; cynthia.merlini@dfait-maeci.gc.ca; cei@nbnet.nb.ca; Matthews.B@parl.gc.ca;
BushCheney04@GeorgeWBush.com; info@johnkerry.com; info@johnlynch04.com;
NHBAinfo@nhbar.org; info@leahyforvermont.com; kstern1956@aol.com; Libunion@sover.net;
crisericson@yahoo.com; chair@vermontgreens.org; gaianbuddhist@aol.com; dpm@pm.gc.ca;
Easter.W@parl.gc.ca; kcarmichael@bloomberg.net; chuckmorse@morseforcongress.com;
davies.carl@nbpub.com; jeff.mockler@gnb.ca; Stoffer.P@parl.gc.ca; martine.turcotte@bell.ca;
TheJudge@JudgeJim.com; rick@rickcrawford.org; info@delamar.us; dmajette@majetteforcongress.org;
info@isakson.net; buckley@buckleyforsenate.org; alltrue@nl.rogers.com; info@kucinich.us;
rosent@math.toronto.edu; info@votebass.com; edmarkey@edmarkey.org; campaign@johntierney.com;
info@hodesforcongress.com; congress@belforti.org; mail@jebforcongress.com; info@nadeau2004.com;
kblevens@totalnetnh.net; info@juddgregg.com; delahuntforcongress@hotmail.com;
jimhallforcongress@hotmail.com; contact_chase@chaseforcongress.com; mike@stephenomalley.com;
marty@martymeehan.com
Subject: You dudes had lots to say on Dec 11th

How come you dudes were struck dumb about what I filed the very next day? I
say the Affidavit caused Cardinal Law to step down and run off on Dec 13th. No
one will argue that fact with me. What I would like to know is who scares you guys
the most Bush or Kerry?
Clearly they both hate me so your answers won't hurt my feelings any. Off
hand I would have to say Stevy is hard to the right side of the fence with a big
bag of peanuts and Chucky is sitting on the fence shitting his pants because he is
scared of both elephants and jackasses and he is ever so sorry he sent me the
cocky letter. We shall soon see want you will soon have to say in Court. Lawyers
can answer a summons with a Motion to Dismiss that their buddy the judge will
usually allow. However I don't think they can duck out the back when called as a
witness in a Criminal Trial. A jury will see that taking the Fifth ain't playing dumb
but obviously deceitful. It was a lawyer that made the false allegations against me.
It is only fair that I call lawyers to refute her claims. Interesting EH?

Reaction: Diocese, A.G. deal serves both interests

By Katharine McQuaid
Manchester (NH) Union Leader
December 11, 2002

Former New Hampshire Attorney General Steve Merrill said the state's case against the Catholic
Diocese of Manchester was strengthened when documents were released last week in Massachusetts.

"The recent documents released by the Diocese of Massachusetts suggests that vigorous prosecution
was not only warranted but called for," said Merrill, of yesterday's settlement with the New Hampshire
diocese.

Those documents showed New Hampshire Bishop John B. McCormack may have ignored some abuse
allegations against priests when he served under Cardinal Bernard Law in Massachusetts.

An agreement reached yesterday says New Hampshire Attorney General Philip McLaughlin's office will
not prosecute the Catholic Diocese of Manchester for its past handling of sexual abuse allegations
against the clergy.

Merrill, who served as attorney general from 1985 to 1989, said convicting the diocese would have been
difficult.

"There are only losers in this case . . . the church loses, the victims lose, and even the attorney general
loses for not seeking a prosecution, although it would have been very, very, difficult," he said.

Merrill, who also served as New Hampshire governor, said prosecutors likely had not gathered enough
documents to prosecute the diocese yet, but they were clearly very close when the settlement was
announced yesterday.

"The more documents that are released, the more prosecutors have to use against clear wrongdoing,
including Bishop McCormack," he said.

But prosecuting an institution is difficult, Merrill said, "because there is no single wrongdoer that you can
demonize."

It is also difficult to prosecute someone for failing to report abuse, he added.

Former state prosecutor Charles Putnam said McLaughlin's effort to charge the diocese under the state's
endangering the welfare of a child statute "ground breaking."

"For a person to violate that statute they have to break a duty of care owed to a child -- more traditionally
applied to parents and custodial guardians of child," he said.

But in this instance, prosecutors have broadened the scope of that statute by applying it to an institution.
"The legal theory was that the church broke trust with the children that its priests regularly came in
contact with," he said.

He said, "It's really not practically possible to put an institution in jail."

Putnam was a prosecutor with the Attorney General's Office from 1986 to 2001, and a member of the
criminal justice bureau from 1996 to 2001.

He said that while McLaughlin may have been confident in securing a conviction, he was still aware of
the risks of going to trial.

"As professionals, (prosecutors) have to perform pretty complicated balancing acts, and assessments of
what the risks are. And my own view of it is that no intelligent lawyer overlooks the possibility that they
might lose and doesn't actively plan for that possibility."

Under yesterday's agreement, the Manchester diocese admitted some of its decisions resulted in the
abuse of minors. It also agreed to release thousands of its personnel records and to report future abuse
to law enforcement.

"When there is a non-litigated resolution that is going to get you 80 or 90 percent of what you could get
through litigation, that's going to be attractive to a prosecutor," Putnam said.

Putnam said the release of the church personnel files will help everyone move forward. The church did
not receive leniency from the attorney general's office, he said.

"Given the possibly ground-breaking nature of the investigation, and the legal theories involved in the
investigation, and ultimately the plea, I don't think it would be correct to say the church received lenient
treatment . . . I'm not aware of a similar acknowledgment of responsibility," he said.

". . .What I do think is the resolution of this investigation through this plea sends an important message
that prosecutors will vigorously pursue new legal theories if they believe it's in the public interest," he
said.

Oct. 21, 2003

PC Party management committee contact information

October 24 and 25, the Management Committee of the PC Party of Canada are meeting in
Ottawa to decide on the process by which this merger agreement will be brought before the
membership.

The MacKay/Harper accord (find it on the PC site: www.pcparty.ca under the link, 'Agreement
in Principle') calls for implementation by December 12 of this year (6 weeks from now!). It is
proposed that the membership vote be by mail-in ballot.

The agreement allows for membership sign-up in both parties to extend to November 30. This
enables the Canadian Alliance with a far bigger membership base than ours to swamp our ranks
and dilute our vote by directing their members to join the PC Party to vote not once but twice,
(once in the CA and once in the PCPC) this agreement into place.

The legal implications of this 'agreement in principle' are great. Among other things, the
constitution of the PCPC does not provide for dissolution of our Party, or for a mail-in vote for
that matter.

As you well know, Peter MacKay won the leadership of the PC Party on the strength of a signed
agreement with David Orchard, the first clause of which read, "no merger, joint candidates" with
the Canadian Alliance

Those pushing this merger are absolutely serious about dissolving the PC Party into the Canadian
Alliance. We have to be more vigilant than they in stopping this!
Help in pressuring the Management Committee of the PC Party to stop the ratification of this
merger agreement, and to demand that new members brought into the Party since Peter MacKay
became leader ( May 31, 03) be ineligible to vote on this deal (if it comes to a vote).

Tell the committee that this is an unconstitutional and illegal attempt to destroy the PC Party of
Canada, and that they (Management Committee) must not allow that to happen.

Please email or fax, the National PC Party President, Bruck Easton and the Members of the
Management Committee at fax (613) 238-7429, e-mail: easton@winlaw.ca

Send a copy to PC Caucus Chair, Norman Doyle and the PC Caucus at fax (613) 992-2178, e-
mail: doylen@parl.gc.ca

To email all the management committee members individually and cc the members of the
caucus, just copy and paste the e-mail lists below into the sender window of your email message:

mackap@parl.gc.ca
easton@winlaw.ca
lois_johnson@davetek.com
d.bellemare@videotron.ca
b_mitchell@sympatico.ca
glanville@mckenzielake.com
irg@attcanada.ca
keddyg@parl.gc.ca
kgallagher@businesslawyers.com
bmahood@wmc.ca
jonicolas@videotron.ca
president@pcyouth.com
prisco@nipissingpc.org
madeweyplante@hotmail.com
kimpuddister@roadrunner.nf.net
iswindells@hfx.eastlink.ca
burgemik@yahoo.com
bmosher@nb.aibn.com
rarchambault@adesskypoulin.com
dgray@globetrotter.gc.ca
judith.seidman@sympatico.ca
joannelsenecal@yahoo.ca
ianfraser@pro-pharma.com
howardwarr@aol.com
phoroe@uwaterloo.ca
lauriescott@sympatico.ca
gvb@tdslaw.com
mrepo@sasktel.net
kimberleylinkletter@shaw.ca
sjt@interbaun.com
marilynloveless@hotmail.com
mredmond@generalcounsel.ca
donc@nms.ca
mbruce@pcparty.ca
macs@nv.sympatico.ca

cc

brisos@parl.gc.ca
mackap@parl.gc.ca
barnes.r@parl.gc.ca
caseyb@parl.gc.ca
doylen@parl.gc.ca
hearnl@parl.gc.ca
herroj@parl.gc.ca
marki@parl.gc.ca
schelg@parl.gc.ca
thompg1@parl.gc.ca
waynee@parl.gc.ca

========

Below is the contact information for the Leader, the members of the Management Committee
and the Caucus. Keep this for future reference.

PC PARTY LEADER:

Peter MacKay, Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada

House of Commons
155 Queen Street- Suite 1050
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
Tel: (613) 947-4552 Fax: (613) 947-8898
E-mail: mackap@parl.gc.ca

PC PARTY MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE:

Mr. Bruck Easton, Q.C.

National President, PC Party of Canada
Belowus, Easton, English
100 Ouellete Ave 7th floor
Windsor, ON N9A 6T3
(R) 519-945-8116
(B) 519-973-1900
(F) 519-973-0225
Email: easton@winlaw.ca
Mrs. Lois Johnson
Executive Vice-President, PC Party of Canada
(R) 105A-8988 Fraserton Court
Burnaby BC V5J 5H8
(B) (604) 430-3680
(F) (604) 435-5490
Email: lois_johnson@davetek.com

Mr. Dominique Bellemare

National Secretary, PC Party of Canada
805 Pointe Saint-Louis St.
Beauharnois QC J6N 3S2
(R) (450) 429-2638
(B) (514) 288-1687
(F) (514) 288-4998
Email: d.bellemare@videotron.ca

Mr. Brian Mitchell

National Treasurer, PC Party of Canada
7 Douglas Ave
Westmount QC H3Y 1V5
(R) (514) 483-1659
(B) (514) 284-2322
(F) (514) 284-2322
Email: b_mitchell@sympatico.ca

Mr. Mort Glanville, Q.C.

National Past President, PC Party of Canada
18 Buttermere Road
London, ON N6G 4L1
(R) (519) 432-1874
(B) (519) 672-3630
(F) (519) 672-2674
(C) (519) 878-0591
Email: glanville@mckenzielake.com

Mr. Irving Gerstein

Chair PC Canada Fund
55 Clarendon Ave
Toronto ON M4V 1J2
(R) (416) 944-2804
(B) (416) 929-3719
(F) (416) 925-9690
Email: irg@attcanada.ca
Mr. Gerald Keddy, M.P.
Caucus Representative
Room 141 - Confederation Building
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
(B) (613) 996-0877
(F) (613) 996-0878
Email: keddyg@parl.gc.ca

Mr. Denis Jolette

National Director, P.C. Party of Canada
806-141 Laurier Ave W/O
Ottawa, ON K1P 5J3
1-800-856-8818
(B) (613) 238-6111
(F) (613) 238-7429

Mr. Kevin Gallagher

National Campaign Committee Co-Chair
(R) 229 Palmerston Ave
Toronto ON M6J 2J3
(R) (416) 603-4709
(B) (416) 368-0491
(F) (416) 368-6068
Email: kgallagher@businesslawyers.com

Ms. Bev Mahood

National Campaign Committee Co-Chair
(R) 6812 100 Ave NW
Edmonton AB T6A 0G2
(R) (780) 465-4640
(B) (780) 401-2805
(F) (780) 429-0256
Email: bmahood@wmc.ca

Mr. José Nicolas

National Campaign Committee Co-Chair
(R) 189 rue de la Montagne
Sainte-Julie QC J0L 2S0
(R) (450) 649-3080
(B) (514) 830-6227
Email jonicolas@videotron.ca

Mr. Keith Marlowe

President, PCYF
(R) 11 Lake Bonaventure Pl SE
Calgary AB T2J 5J3
(R) (403) 278-8558
(F) (403) 271-0136
Email: president@pcyouth.com

Mr. Dave Prisco

Vice-President Anglophone, PCYF
(R) 555 Copeland St
North Bay ON P1B 3C7
(R) (416) 979-0047
(B) (416) 327-0655
(F) (416) 327-0665
Email: prisco@nipissingpc.org

Ms. Mary Anne Dewey-Plante

Vice-President Francophone, PCYF
(R) 4550 Magloire St
Rock Forest QC J1N 1R9
(R) (819) 564-3043
Email: madeweyplante@hotmail.com

Ms. Kim Puddister

Vice-President (NF)
(R) 20 Beacon Hill Cres
St Johns NL A1E 4S5
(R) (709) 745-5958
(B) (709) 364-8770
(F) (709) 729-0328
Email: kimpuddister@roadrunner.nf.net

Mrs. Irene Swindells

Vice- President (NS)
19 Grossvenor Road
Halifax, Nova Scotia B3M 2E3
(R) (902) 443-1322
(B) (902) 477-3313
(F) (902) 457-9494
Email: iswindells@hfx.eastlink.ca

Mr. Michael Burge

Vice-President (PEI)
(R) PO Box 66
St-Peters Bay PE C0A 2A0
(R) 902-961-2220
(F) 902-961-3148
Email: burgemik@yahoo.com
Mr. Brian Mosher
Vice-President (NB)
(R) 300-33 Charlotte St
Saint John NB E2L 2H3
(R) (506) 652-5044
(B) (506) 634-1600
(F) (506) 634-0740
Email: bmosher@nb.aibn.com

Mr. Robert Archambault

Vice-President (QC)
(R) 100-1080 Rockland Ave
Outremont QC H2V 3A1
(R) (514) 272-8088
(B) (514) 288-9797
Email: rarchambault@adesskypoulin.com

Mr. Darryl Gray

Vice-President (QC)
(R) 30 Escuminac Flats Rd
Escuminac QC G0C 1N0
(R) (418) 788-5331
(F) (418) 788-5919
Email: dgray@globetrotter.gc.ca

Ms. Judith Seidman

Vice-President (QC)
(R) PH7-90 Berlioz St
(R) (514) 767-4115
(B) (514) 767-4115
(F) (514) 766-7250
Email: judith.seidman@sympatico.ca

Mrs. Johanne Sénécal

Vice-President (QC)
(R)5027, 5th Avenue
Val Morin (QC) J0T 2R0
(R) (819) 322-3402
(B) (514) 879-1597
(O/A) (450)663-3168
(C) (514) 912-4261
Email: joannelsenecal@yahoo.ca

Mr. Ian Fraser

Vice-President (ON)
(R) 506-330 Mill Street, South
Brampton, ON L6V 3V3
(R) (905) 453-906
(B) (905) 459-9728
(F) (905) 459-9894
Email: ianfraser@pro-pharma.com

Mr. Warren Howard

Vice-President (ON)
(R) 31 Budgell Terrace
Toronto ON M6S 1B3
(R) (416) 762-0934
(F) (416) 762-0934
Email: howardwarr@aol.com

Mr. Peter Roe

Vice-President (ON)
(R) RR 3
Waterloo ON N2J 3Z4
(R) (519) 886-6395
(B) (519) 888-4567
(F) (519) 746-1417
Email: phoroe@uwaterloo.ca

Ms. Laurie Scott

Vice-President (ON)
(R) PO Box 10
Kinmount ON K0M 2A0
(R) (705) 488-2737
Email : lauriescott@sympatico.ca

Mr. Garry Brickman

Vice-President (MB)
(R) 317-5445 Roblin Blvd
Winnipeg MB R3R 3W7
(R) (204) 889-6232
(B) (204) 934-2428
(F) (204) 943-6445
Email: gvb@tdslaw.com

Ms. Marjaleena Repo

Vice-President (SK)
(R) 201 Elm St.
Saskatoon, SK S7J 0G8
(R) (306) 244-9724
(B) (306) 664-8443
(F) (306) 244-3790
Email: mrepo@sasktel.net

Mrs. Kim Linkletter

Vice-President (AB)
(R) 208-915 44 St SE
Calgary AB T2A 5K7
(R) (403) 207-0265
(B) (403) 685-0774
(F) (403) 686-1543
Email: kimberleylinkletter@shaw.ca

Mr. Scott Thorkelson

Vice-President (AB)
(R) 18303 77 Ave
Edmonton AB T5T 2G5
(R) (780) 484-3604
(B) (780) 433-4748
(F) (780) 434-6174
Email: sjt@interbaun.com

Ms. Marilyn Loveless

Vice-President (BC)
(R) RR#5 - 5825 West Saanich Road
Victoria, BC V8X 4M6
(R) (250) 479-6898
(B) (250) 656-5537
(F) (250) 656-9974
Email: marilynloveless@hotmail.com

Mr. Mike Redmond

Vice-President (BC)
(R) 733 rue 13th St.
New Westminster BC V3M 4M6
(R) (604) 522-7096
(B) (604) 430-6033
(F) (604) 435-8181
Email: mredmond@generalcounsel.ca

Mr. Don Cox

Vice President(YT)
(R) 59 Hyland Cres
Whitehorse YT Y1A 4P6
(R) (867) 668-4679
(B) (867) 667-4255
(F) (867) 667-2742
Email: donc@nms.ca
Mr. Bruce McLaughlin
Vice-President (NWT)
(Res) P.O. Box/C.P. 2429
Yellowknife, NT X1A 2P8
(R) (613) 232-7263
(B) (613) 238-6111
(F) (613) 238-7429
Email: mbruce@pcparty.ca

Mr. Hugh McLellan

Vice-President (Nunavut)
(R) PO Box 155
Iqaluit NU X0A 0H0
(R) (867) 979-6686
(F) (867) 979-4604
Email: macs@nv.sympatico.ca

Mr. Scott Brison

Chair, Policy Advisory Committee
Room 709
Justice Building
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
(B) (613) 995-8231
(F) (613) 996-9349
Email: brisos@parl.gc.ca

PC PARTY CAUCUS:

Andre Bachand, MP for Richmond-Arthabaska, Québec

876 Confederation Building
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
Tel.: (613) 992-4473 Fax: (613) 995-2026
E-mail: bachaa@parl.gc.ca

Rex Barnes, MP for Gander-Grand Falls, Newfoundland and Labrador

Room 06, Justice Building
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
Tel: (613) 996-3935 Fax: (613) 996-7622
E-mail: barnes.r@parl.gc.ca

Rick Borotsik, MP for Brandon-Souris, Manitoba

668 Confederation Building
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
Tel: (613) 995-9372 Fax: (613) 992-1265
E-mail: borotr@parl.gc.ca

Scott Brison, MP for Kings-Hants, Nova Scotia

Chair, Policy Advisory Committee
Room 709
Justice Building
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
(B) (613) 995-8231
(F) (613) 996-9349
Email: brisos@parl.gc.ca

Bill Casey, MP for Cumberland-Colchester, Nova Scotia

712 Confederation Building
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
Tel.: (613) 992-3366 Fax: (613) 992-7220
E-mail: caseyb@parl.gc.ca

The Rt. Hon. Joe Clark, P.C., C.C., MP for Calgary Centre, Alberta
Room 157 East Block
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
Tel: (613) 995-1561 Fax: (613) 995-1862
E-mail: clark.j@parl.gc.ca

Norman Doyle, MP for St. John's East, Newfoundland and Labrador

430 West Block
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
Tel.: (613) 996-7269 Fax: (613) 992-2178
E-mail: doylen@parl.gc.ca

Loyola Hearn, MP for St. John's West, Newfoundland and Labrador

648-S Centre Block
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
Tel.: (613) 992-0927 Fax: (613) 995-7858
E-mail: hearnl@parl.gc.ca

John Herron, MP for Fundy-Royal, New Brunswick

879 Confederation Building
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
Tel.: (613) 996-2332 Fax: (613) 995-4286
Email: herroj@parl.gc.ca

Gerald Keddy, MP for South Shore, Nova Scotia

Caucus Representative
Room 141 - Confederation Building
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
(B) (613) 996-0877
(F) (613) 996-0878
Email: keddyg@parl.gc.ca

Inky Mark, MP for Dauphin-Swan River, Manitoba

686 Confederation Building
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
Tel.: (613) 992-3176 Fax: (613) 992-0930
E-mail: marki@parl.gc.ca

Gary Schellenberger, MP for Perth-Middlesex, Ontario

Room 368, Confederation Bldg.
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
Tel: ( 613) 992-6124 Fax: (613) 998-7902
E-mail: schelg@parl.gc.ca

Greg Thompson, MP for New Brunswick Southwest, New Brunswick

702 Justice Building
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
Tel.: (613) 995-5550 Fax: (613) 995-5226
E-mail: thompg1@parl.gc.ca

Elsie E. Wayne, MP for Saint John, New Brunswick

711 Justice Building
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
Tel: (613) 947-4571 Fax: (613) 947-4574
E-mail: waynee@parl.gc.ca