A True Tale of Two Corrupt Governments

looneroo@hotmail.
com
From :
David Amos <motomaniac_02186@hotmail.com>
Sent :
January 30, 2005 4:58:04 PM
To :
<damos@hotmail.com>
CC :
<looneroo@hotmail.com>
Subject :
Fw: A True Tale of Two Corrupt Governments
Printed: January 31, 2005 11:47:33 AM
----- Original Message ----From: David Amos

To: Ind80@aol.com ; kbar@nbnet.nb.ca ; Herbert Snider ; cei@nbnet.nb.ca ; 2mollins@sympatico.ca
Cc: scotta@parl.gc.ca ; andrew.holland@nb.aibn.com
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 9:18 AM
Subject: A True Tale of Two Corrupt Governments
Hey Fellas
Yesterday in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland my friend, Bryon Prior gave
his word to a court he knows to be very corrupt not to publish or cause to have
published some of the following documents in order for Judge J. Dereck Green not
to throw him in jail. I have no doubt he will keep his word. Byron should not be
punished for my actions in the necessary defence of my freedom in another country.
Byron also also informed the court that there is no way for him to put a muzzle on
me.
I am sending this email out to men that I trust that have my Durable Power of
Attorney. Whether the bastards like it or not you are me in word and deed as long
as I keep breathing. All of you and the court know I must make these matters widely
known in order not to be put back in jail. As you all know I gave my fair warning to all
of publishing the words within this email before Byron was compelled to make his
promise. The Rules of Newfoundland Supreme Court do not hold nor do they mean a
Tinker's damn to me until I am named and properly invited to the circus. I would
gladly stand as a defendant beside Byron after the Court publishes that fact so it
becomes widely known the reasons for my coming home. However it is painfully
obvious that the Newfoundland Supreme Court and Byron Prior must wait until my
present pending criminal trial in the USA is over before I can become joined in a
civil matter up home. Never forget my native land denied me any assistance in trying
to stop my being persecuted down here and sent straight to jail without due process
of law. At least in compensation Canada is sending down Franky MaKenna to speak
for me as I sue his law firm. Won't that be interesting?
The sexual abuse of Byron 's family long ago and wrongful actions within the
Offshore Oil Industry in Newfoundland are far more important to everyone in
Newfoundland and the rest of the Maritimes than my arguments about Securities
Fraud, Tax Fraud and dead ex Fbi agents etc. with Yankees. That said, my must
protect my freedom and my own family's interests first before I can help anyone
else. I am certain my friends agree and I thank you for your help. Whereas no
lawyer would come to Byron's assistance, I did as best I could do from afar to study
the rules and write what I could for Byron to use in his defence and counterclaim to
expose the truth and to use in my own defence in the USA. The serious mischief
that is afoot is within the ex parte doings of the desperate law firm Patterson and
Palmer and a very corrupt justice system to have Byron's document stricken after
they had demanded them of him. John Crosbie's partner Stephen J. May speaking on
behalf of his own law firm and Billy Matthews a Member of Parliament was forced to
agree with Byron's inablitity to put a muzzle on me. As anyone can see Stevey Boy
May in his Affidavit has admitted to the knowledge of the reasons why I am very
angry with his law firm's malice towards Byron and I.
The fact that May refused to file his Affidavit and the court refused to accept
Byron's document requesting a postponement today should prove to all what Byron
and I say is true. If anyone wishes to view exactly the same documents as were
served upon Patterson Palmer and their cohorts up home or upon the Suffolk County
District Attorney down here, all they have to do is ask. I will fill their email inbox
with scans in a Tiff format. All the documents have been filed in the Public Record
during the course of my criminal trial and there are many more to follow. Many
Canadian Politicians have received exactly the same material from me and many have
answered me. the most recent Respond came from Senator Joe Day yesterday
after a five month delay. Any ethical lawyer could easily employ them in Byron's
defence and to support his counterclaim. Judge Green has ordered him to find a
lawyer to defend him "pro bono" by February 9th. Byron and I hold no illusions
about the impossible task. He has already emailed every lawyer within the
Newfoundland Law Society asking for assistance and not one has responded before
he stood in court yesterday. What is truly necessary is an ethical Royal Commission
to investigate T. Alex Hickman and his friends in order for the truth to be revealed.
Since we all know that the Liberal Caucus is now in Fredeicton. I ask that my
friends take many of their friends and go see the MP Andy Scott today and ask him
why he did not respond to the material I delivered in hand to his office with Dave
Mollins before I returned to the USA. The fact that I was falsely imprisoned makes
me very angry with people such as Andy Scott and his cohorts who are employed to
uphold the Public Trust. As a Member of Parliament he could have stopped this
nonsense out of the gate. As the Minister of Indian Affairs he certianly should have
contacted my friend the lawyer Barry Bachrach by now. I called his office today and
told them to expect some sincere men to turn up with some simple but serious
questions for him. I also forwarded him this email to share with the Liberal Caucus
now in Fredericton.
Please find within this email three Motions and an Affidavit of mine in a Yankee
Court and A court order in Newfoundland with the related Defence, Counterclaim
and Request of byron Prior all of which I wrote. Most importantly is an Affidavit by
the crooked lawyer Stevey Boy May.
Spotlight on N.B. culture for national Liberal caucus retreat
Maritime Kitchen Party welcomes Prime Minister, cabinet to Province

Fredericton (N.B.) New Brunswickers are putting on a really big show for Prime
Minister Paul Martin and his Liberal caucus when they come to Fredericton later this
month.
The National Liberal Caucus Winter Retreat will bring the 135 Liberal Members of
Parliament, including Mr. Martins entire cabinet, as well as the 61 Liberal Senators to the
Capital City for three days of meetings. The retreat is co-hosted by Tobique-Mactaquac
MP and Chairman of the National Liberal Caucus Andy Savoy and Hon. Andy Scott,
Fredericton MP and Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs.
A Maritime Kitchen Party, Wednesday, January 26, will feature a full evening of New
Brunswick-flavoured food, song and dance, from toe-tapping Acadian reels to highstepping Scottish jigs.
The party headlines Frederictons own Downtown Blues Band, Bairdsville singer and
songwriter Matt Andersen, the multi-talented La Famille Arsenault and fiddling sensation
Dominque Dupuis of Dieppe with Moncton comedian Marshall Button, better known as
Lucien, as emcee.
This is a one-of-a-kind occasion to share our rich cultural heritage with the leaders of our
nation, Mr. Savoy said. We are proud to be an example of cultural diversity and
harmony to the rest of Canada.

We want to give our friends in Ottawa the kind of warm welcome that New Brunswickers
are noted for, Mr. Scott said. This will be a showcase of our heritage and hospitality.
The Maritime Kitchen Party is open to the public and will begin at 8 p.m. at the Delta
Fredericton ballroom. Tickets are now on sale at all MP constituency offices in New
Brunswick, as well as the New Brunswick Liberal Association office in Fredericton. For
further information, contact the NBLA 1-800-442-4902;
Office of Andy Savoy at 1-866-542-4400 or the Office of Andy Scott, (506) 452-4110.
Office of the Hon. Andy Scott
Towne Centre Building
412 Queen Street
Suite 100
Fredericton, N.B.
E3B 1B6
Phone: (506) 452-4110
Fax: (506) 452-4076
This is the fella I just called.

Andrew Holland
Excutive Assistant
Phone: (506) 452-3516
Read this fellas and then go cause the Liberals that are having to much fun at
our expense to weep and worry about their own malevolent interests. Ask them if
they still wish to support the Diddlers T. Alex Hickman and their buddy Billy
Matthews. At the very least tell everybody to call Andy Savoy and Andy Scott and
ask them the same question Lois Skanes asked of Stevey Boy May. Who the Hell is
David Amos and what the Hell is he talking about?
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
THE TRIAL COURT
DORCHESTER, SS.
DEPARTMENT
THE COMMONWEALTH OF
MASSACHUSETTS
DISTRICT COURT
)
)
CRIMINAL ACTION
)
v.
DAVID R. AMOS
DOCKET NO. 0407CR004623
)
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY THE OFFICE OF THE SUFFOLK COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY ON THE BASIS THAT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST
EXISTS THAT WOULD RENDER IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE
DEFENDANT,
DAVID R. AMOS TO RECEIVE A FAIR TRIALNow comes the defendant, David R. Amos a
Citizen of Canada and a Legal Permanent Resident of the USA within the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts and demands that the Office of the Suffolk County District Attorney be disqualified
from prosecuting this matter. This motion is based on the affidavit previously filed with the clerk
of this court and recorded in the public record, the court herein and such matters as may be
presented at the hearing on this motion and points to his civil rights under the following authority:
the Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
PART THE FIRST Article XII which states as follows: "No subject shall be held to answer for
any crimes or offence, until the same is fully and plainly, substantially and formally, described to
him; or be compelled to accuse, or furnish evidence against himself. And every subject shall have
a right to produce all proofs, that may be favorable to him; to meet the witnesses against him face
to face, and to be fully heard in his defense by himself, or his counsel, at his election. And no
subject shall be arrested, imprisoned, despoiled, or deprived of his property, immunities, or
privileges, put out of the protection of the law, exiled, or deprived of his life, liberty, or estate, but
by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land." The defendant legally acting ithin his rights
was imprisoned.
In support of this motion, the defendant states that on October 1st, 2004 he returned from safe
haven in Canada to stand once more before Judge Coffey of this court as ordered. The judge
witnessed the signing the aforesaid affidavit. This was done prior to any hearing of this matter in a
court not recognized by the defendant as having the proper jurisdiction and venue for a trial of a
Canadian citizen involving serious criminal charges with an unsigned complaint. The defendant
was well aware that if he were to be convicted of the false charges he would be subject to a prison
term and the revocation of his status as a permanent resident of the USA and that his family would
suffer greatly. The plaintiff went to great lengths to inform the correct Canadian authorities of his
persecution in the USA. Judge Coffey witnessed the defendant serve the District Attorney and also
provide the clerk of this court an exact copy of the aforesaid affidavit before he properly
disqualified himself from hearing this matter as soon as he was informed that he lives the
defendants neighborhood. This was done before the defendant was ever served a complaint that
he would be compelled to answer. Attached to the aforesaid affidavit are two large exhibits
containing one or more affidavits and many other legal documents etc. that prove the malicious
actions of the District Attorney supporting a criminal conspiracy against the freedom, civil rights,
interests and property of the defendant.
In further support of this motion the defendant states that beginning in July of 2004, the defendant
had fully disclosed to the District Attorney the circumstances of this matter before the Clerk
Magistrate Owens went forward and filed his malicious complaint.
The defendant had every right to expect the District Attorney to uphold the law and properly warn
the Clerk Magistrate not to attempt to make an illegal compliant. Instead the District Attorney
attempted to explain the illegal action while claiming not to be involved. In response the defendant
received a letter from the District Attorney dated July 29th, 2004. In it the DA claimed that he as
not yet involved but attempted to explain the impending illegal action of the Clerk Magistrate on
August 13th, 2004. A true copy of the aforesaid letters to and from the District Attorney in July of
2004 are hereto attached for the court to review.
On September 3rd the District Attorney proved his malice and even demanded imprisonment or
bail to make certain that the defendant answer an unsigned complaint that had yet to be served.
Judge Coffey properly denied the DAs request, ordered the DA to serve the defendant copies of
all that was in the docket of the matter and ordered a hearing of the matter on October 1st in order
establish the legality of the complaint and the proper jurisdiction and venue. The judge suggested
that the defendant file the documents he had shown to the court byway of a proper means on
October 1st and then he would hear if the District Attorney wanted to continue to prosecute the
matter.
To date the defendant has not heard from or received on slip of paper from the District Attorney
other than the documents comprising of this complaint ordered by Judge Coffey on Sept 1st. If
there was in fact a signed complaint against the defendant dated August 13th, 2004, it should have
been served upon him at that time not by Judge Hanlon after he was compelled to waive his right
to counsel in order to receive swift justice. The defendant does have three separate copies of an
unsigned complaint. One is of the courts record, one is of the prosecutors copy and the last is the
defendants copy. The defendant strongly believes that the signed copy of the complaint was
created October 1st, 2004 after the District Attorney had asked for a recess and studied the
defendants affidavit. That fact should have been blatantly obvious to the court and Judge Coffey
because the District Attorneys Office had asked to confer with the defendant before he filed the
affidavit but afterwards they did not wish to continue with their own request.
It became blatantly obvious to the defendant and his witnesses that the court and the DA were
cohorts in the conspiracy against him as they watched the clerk of this court give the District
Attorney their copy of the affidavit that that had been filed in the Public Record before Judge
Hanlon had the matter called before her on October 1st. On that day Judge Hanlon did inquire
about the last statement in the defendants affidavit and of his concerns with the well being of his
friend Byron Prior in Newfoundland and of the defendants own concerns with Canada. The
defendant told the judge as much as she was willing to hear before she sent the defendant to jail
based on the false allegations of an ADA claiming that Judge Coffey was threatened. The
allegations were absurd. If Judge Coffey had in fact felt threatened then he would have dealt with
the defendant immediately. After the defendant was put in jail many Canadian authorities act
quickly to cover up their own conspiracy against the defendant and Bryon Prior. At the time of the
writing of this document a law firm of a well-known Canadian politician, John Crosbie has made a
statement of claim against Byron Prior on behalf of the Member of Parliament Bill Matthews
while ignoring the very same material that was served upon the Suffolk County District Attorney
and this court on October 1st. That matter will be addressed in Canada. However on October 19th
as the defendant stood before Judge Hanlon, she clearly affirmed the fact that Judge Coffey had
not been threatened but did nothing to chastise the ADA for her false allegations and denied that
the original wiretap tapes served upon the District Attorney on Sept 3rd were any sort of evidence
in this matter even though the Clerk Magistrate had made note of their existence on August 13th.
Thus there is a need to sue the District Attorney and the court.
Dated January 11th, 2005
David R. Amos, Pro Se

153 Alvin Ave.
Milton, MA. 02186
617 698-6549
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, David R. Amos of Milton, MA hereby certify that on January 12th, 2005, I with two friends
accompanying me as witnesses served upon the Suffolk County District Attorney, Daniel F.
Conley a true original copy of the attached Motion to his office within Dorchester District Court at
the following address 510 Washington St. Dorchester, MA
David R. Amos
153 Alvin Ave.
Milton, MA. 02186
THE TRIAL COURT
DORCHESTER, SS.
DEPARTMENT
DISTRICT COURT
THE COMMONWEALTH OF
MASSACHUSETTS
CRIMINAL ACTION
)
v.
)
)
DAVID R. AMOS
)
)
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE SIDNEY HANLON ON THE BASIS THAT A

CONFLICT OF INTEREST EXISTS THAT WOULD RENDER IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR
THE DEFENDANT, DAVID R. AMOS TO RECEIVE A FAIR TRIAL
Now comes the David R. Amos, a Citizen of Canada and a Legal Permanent Resident of
the USA within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts herein named as the defendant and demands
that Judge Sidney Hanlon be disqualified from hearing all further proceedings in the above stated
criminal prosecution because of her personal interest in the outcome. In support of this motion, the
defendant has attached a true copy of a letter received by Cynthia A. Robinson, the legal counsel
of Boston Municipal Court on January 4th,.2005 and a true copy of the docket sheet of this matter.
Also attached to the aforesaid letter is a copy of an email that was served upon the Suffolk County
District Attorney and a Judge of Dorchester District Count on November 19th, 2004. Within the
email are the irrefutable facts that support the defendants statements within an Affidavit and its
attached exhibits filed in the Public Record of this court on October 1st, 2004 and ordered removed
by Judge Hanlon on Oct 19th after she admitted that the defendant did not threaten Judge Coffey.
The defendant freely admits that this is a very important trial about Criminal Harassment.
However he has always maintained the Criminal Harassment has been practiced by the court
against him. The defendant maintains his declaration of innocence and only demands his right to a
swift trial in front of a jury of his peers in the proper jurisdiction and venue.
. As of this date the defendant has not received a response from Ms. Robinson either in the spoken
or written word to refute his allegations of criminal activity supported by many people employed
to up hold the law and the public trust in their elected or politically appointed positions within the
justice systems of Canada and the USA. Whereas this motion was the last day to file this motion
according to law and ordered by this court in order for it to be heard on January 21st, 2005, the
defendant must make it well known to the court that he is about to sue the court to regain lost
assets and seek relief for personal injury. Whereas it was Judge Hanlon who willing supported
with documents signed in her own hand the malicious actions of the Clerk Magistrate Mr. Owens
and the false allegations of the District Attorney, the defendant demands that she be disqualified.
The fact that Judge Hanlon went even further and maliciously declared that she believed the
defendant had a prior history of mental illness and did not believe his actions within the Canadian
justice system and the Parliamentary process was very offensive to the defendant. Please view
attachments bearing her signature.
David R. Amos, Pro Se

153 Alvin Ave.
Milton, MA. 02186
617 698-6549
I, David R. Amos of Milton, MA hereby certify that on January 12th, 2005, I with two
friends accompanying me as witnesses served upon the Suffolk County District Attorney, Daniel
F. Conley a true original copy of the attached Motion to his office within Dorchester District Court
at the following address 510 Washington St. Dorchester, MA
David R. Amos
153 Alvin Ave.
Milton, MA.
02186
THE TRIAL COURT
DORCHESTER, SS.
DEPARTMENT
DISTRICT COURT
THE COMMONWEALTH OF
MASSACHUSETTS
)
)
v.
CRIMINAL ACTION
)
)
DAVID R. AMOS
)
)
MOTION OF THE DEFENDANT, DAVID R. AMOS TO DEMAND THAT THE

MATTER BE
SENT TO US DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
MASSACHUSETTS IN ORDER THAT HE MAY RECEIVE A FAIR TRIAL BY A JURY

OF HIS PEERS IN THE PROPER JURISDICTION AND VENUE.
Now comes the defendant, David R. Amos a Citizen of Canada and a Legal Permanent Resident of
the USA within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and demands his right to a swift trial before
a jury of his peers in order to defend his freedom in the proper jurisdiction and venue of the US
District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The defendant has already spent time in a
malicious Sheriffs jail in a clear and irrefutable violation to his Eighth Amendment rights. He
asserts his rights as follows and prays that the Dorchester District Court to make note that there are
two other directly related motions filed along with this motion and that they should be heard first.
The aforesaid motions demand that the entire office of the Suffolk County District Attorney and
Judge Hanlon be disqualified because of their interest in the outcome of this matter. This motion is
based the affidavit previously filed with the clerk of this court and recorded in the public record,
the court herein and such matters as may be presented at the hearing on this motion.
In support of this motion the defendant states that he is being prosecuted for criminal harassment
byway of emails on behalf of the lawyer, Angela Troccoli whom he has been litigating against in
the USA for years. One of the emails that she claims as harassment contain pictures of police
surveillance tapes that contain recordings of the private conversations of several people that reside
outside of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Boston Municipal Court does not have
jurisdiction to even begin prosecution particularly in light of the fact that the Minister of Justice
who is also the Attorney General of Canada received the email that the court finds so offensive
before the lawyer Troccoli received her forwarded copy and made her false allegations. If the
emails were in fact criminally offensive then David Lutz QC, a lawyer who litigates on behalf of
the Attorney General of Canada in the Province of New Brunswick should have filed a complaint
against the defendant while he was on Canadian soil. The defendant was running against the
candidate Mr. Lutz was supporting for the same seat in Canadas Parliament. On July 29th, 2004,
the very same day that the Suffolk County District Attorney was composing his malicious letter,
the defendant was confronting David Lutz in front of many witnesses including the RCMP in
Sussex Provincial Court in the Province of New Brunswick. David R, Amos who was yet to be
charged with anything was demanding an answer for the many documents served upon David Lutz
in his capacity as a prosecutor for the Queen in June of 2004. Mr. Lutzs only answer was that he
had given the material to law enforcement. It appeared to the defendant that a solicitor appointed
to speak on behalf of the Queen was content in allowing a Clerk Magistrate of a Boston Municipal
Court to attempt to prosecute the defendant in order to assist in the cover up his own wrongs. The
defendants suspicions have since been affirmed many times over in many ways.
In further support of this motion the defendant states that he must call many witnesses to testify in
his defense in federal court. Many of these people act under the federal code of law enforcement.
If they had acted within the scope of their employment years ago then it would not have been
necessary for the defendant to run for Parliament in Canada let alone stand trail as an innocent
man being criminally prosecuted in order to protect the political interests of so many others.
Indeed the defendant will joyfully argue a criminal matter in defense of his freedom in order to
expose the rampant public corruption the people of the two countries that he is a person of know to
exist.
In further support of this motion, the defendant states that on October 1st, 2004, Judge Coffey of
this court witnessed the signing the aforesaid affidavit which has since been removed from the
public record under Judge Hanlons orders. This was done prior to any hearing of this matter in a
court not recognized by the defendant as having the proper jurisdiction and venue for a trail of a
Canadian citizen involving serious criminal charges in an unsigned complaint. The defendant was
well aware that if he were to be convicted of the false charges he would be subject to a prison term
of up two and one half years and the revocation of his status as a permanent resident of the USA
and that his family would suffer greatly. Attached to the aforesaid affidavit are two large exhibits
containing one or more affidavits and many other legal documents etc. that prove the malicious
actions of the District Attorney and this court supporting a criminal conspiracy against the
freedom, civil rights, interests and property of the defendant. The defendant will have the aforesaid
affidavit and many other documents and wiretap tapes to support this motion with him in court on
January 21st, 2005. The defendant would refuse to give this material to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation or any other law enforcement authority because he now needs it as evidence to be
used against them in a civil lawsuit. The material proves that he has been pleading for years fo law
enforcement authorities to act within the scope of their employment. Perhaps the District Attorney
Daniel Conley upon reading this motion should reconsider and ignore Judge Hanlons opinions of
the wiretap tapes that he has in his possession then give tapes to the FBI as soon as possible. He
has ten days to review all that the defendant has provided him appear as an ethical officer of the
court. A true copy of the aforementioned affidavit is hereto attached for the court to review.
Amos, Pro Se
David R.
153 Alvin
Ave.
Milton, MA.
02186
617 698-6549
I, David R. Amos of Milton, MA hereby certify that on January 12th, 2005, I with two
friends accompanying me as witnesses served upon the Suffolk County District Attorney, Daniel
F. Conley a true original copy of the attached Motion to his office within Dorchester District Court
at the following address 510 Washington St. Dorchester, MA
David R. Amos
153 Alvin Ave.
Milton, MA. 02186

THE TRIAL COURT
DORCHESTER, SS.
DEPARTMENT
DISTRICT COURT
THE COMMONWEALTH OF
MASSACHUSETTS
)
)
CRIMINAL ACTION
DOCKET NO.
0407CR004623
v.
DAVID R. AMOS
)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID R. AMOS
Now comes, David R. Amos, a Citizen of Canada and a Legal Permanent Resident of the USA and
asserts his Constitutional Rights pursuant to Title 42 Sections 1981, 1982, 1985 and 1986 of the
Federal Code and freely swears under the penalties of perjury that the following statements are
true and to the best of his knowledge.
On September 3rd, 2004 I returned to the USA and stood before the Dorchester District
Court in response to a summons served upon my home in Milton MA dated August 13th,
2004.
rd
2. On September 3 , 2004 I reported to the probation officer as ordered after he joked and
made fun of me he directed me to serve upon the District Attorney the many original
wiretap tapes that I had promised I would bring to court and ask if they wished to continue.
The District Attorney Office wished to prosecute me so I returned to the probation office
and the required documentation was filled out. I did not discuss the matter with anyone
working for the Commonwealth on September 3rd or since that time other than register my
indignation about the lack of diligence, professional behavior and malicious acts practiced
against me in an effort to impeach my character.
rd
3. On September 3 , 2004, before any hearing of the matter began I protested the fact that the
Clerk Buckley had claimed that I was pleading not guilty. I had made no plea whatsoever. I
refused to waive any of my Rights and I demanded that the court prove its jurisdiction to
hear the matter.
4. For over a period of almost three months I had tried to resolve the issues of this matter with
1.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
the Clerks Office of this court, the Boston Police Dept., the Police Commissioner, the
Citys Legal Dept. the Mayors office, the Suffolk County District Attorneys Office, The
Governors Office, the US Ambassador to Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
CSIS and the Canadian Consulate in Boston. I was refused the right to know what the
allegations against me were and no one would discuss my concerns about the possibility of
foul play. I knew I had done nothing wrong and I had fully disclosed the circumstances to
the Suffolk County District Attorney as Chief Justice Robert A. Mulligan had suggested. I
had received an answer from the DA weeks before he was willing to prosecute me on false
charges. I had no understanding of the matter. I had not been given information to work
with and no one would speak to me. If the District Attorney Daniel F. Conley had acted
ethically and diligently the lawyer, Angel Troccoli and her cohorts within the law firm of
Dane M. Shulman should have been the ones charged with criminal actions against me.
On September 3rd after the hearing and another hearing was marked for today October 1st,
Judge Coffey ordered ADA attempting to prosecute me to give me a copy of the
documents that I was entitled to view. In return I gave her my Canadian contact number so
that we may confer about this matter. I then returned to Canada to defend my rights and
freedom. The ADA never called. I was not surprised because upon viewing the material
provided I discovered that there is in fact no complaint against me.
The complaint in this matter is not signed or witnessed by anyone. Apparently the DA did
not expect me to make it to court on September 3rd and certainly did not wish to discuss it
with Canadian authorities. I now consider the DA Conley to be just another corrupt
politician just like Tom Finneran and further proof of why it was so necessary for me to go
to Canada and run for Parliament in order to speak in a public forum of my knowledge of
public corruption. I gave all the crooks to the last possible minute for one to act ethically
and uphold the Public Trust. All I got in return was continued harassment with the little
perk of Colonel Foley quitting his job before I left and Tom Finneran quitting his as soon
as I got back. It appears that I must complain of the Queen and President Bush if no one in
public service is willing to uphold the law and act within the scope of their employment.
For the record I must state the reason I was alarmed by this malicious action against me.
The fact is it was the Trail Court of Massachusetts on April 1st, 2003 that had made false
allegations against me to agents of the DHS claiming that I had threatened the life of
George W. Bush. Now the same court was demanding that I return to the USA to stand in
court and answer charges it knew to be false the morning after the Presidents big Political
Speech in New York. I had no doubt whatsoever that the DHS would pounce on me at the
border and use a policy of rather than safe than sorry upon me and take me away for the
benefit of many a low man in high places. The RCMP would do nothing to protect me and
in fact attempted to run me out of Canada on Sept 2nd That was the very day of the
Republican National Convention was much in the news about protests and presidential
propaganda. In order to be of no possible threat to the President I was compelled to come
to the USA after the President left New York and drive all night in order to appear in court
on the morning of the 3rd.
The most alarming fact of all is that everybody knows that I am bounty hunting for Whitey
Bulger. The order to come to his old stomping grounds and amongst his friends by the
same corrupt justice system that allowed him to practice his criminal behavior for so long
and then allow him to escape justice is indeed a very malicious summons.
April 1st, 2003 was also the only day that I ever met with the lawyer, Angela Troccoli
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
before Sept 3rd. I argued her before Judge Livingstone in Plymouth Probate Court. I have
argued her again in Norfolk Probate Court on Sept. 21st, 2004. That court found it
necessary for no stated reason to place six court guards around me. I am far more than a
mere acquaintance to her but obviously a rather formidable litigant against her criminal
actions. I did send her emails asking her to ask her clients to stop harassing me with
attached photos of the proof. The emails were necessary because she would not return my
phone calls and sent my correspondence to her partner Dane M. Shulman to Barry
Bachrach claiming that I was his client. I am not and never was. Mr. Bachrach had
informed Troccoli many times that he only represented my wife, Jean F. OMeara because
the court had Stricken my right to do so pursuant to M.G.L 201B.
Barry Bachrach has now withdrawn from all of my wifes matters with my assent because
of a conflict of interests over one of his partners and myself about a fraudulent Title V
inspection. However he is an important witness to be called because he has complete
knowledge of all my contact with Troccoli during the time frame that I have been accused.
Barry Bachrach also has several original wiretap tapes in his possession in case the ones
given to the District Attorney have disappeared like so much of my other material has.
On April 1st, 2003 I became aware that Troccoli and the Massachusetts Trial Court had
practiced fraud against me and had created a Notice of Appearance in my name with a
false document in order to strike me and cover up their own wrongs.
On April 1st, 2003 I had also spoken to a Judge in Quincy District Court in my best effort
to have the court place a restraining order against my brother in laws William, Robert and
Brian OMeara in my name because after I had tried to do so a few days before in my
wifes name under her Durable Power of Attorney the court laughed at me and denied it.
Within a day of my first appearance in Quincy District Court William OMeara called my
wife at her work and implied that the homes would burn down and he was willing to pay
the insurance premiums. Those same insurance premiums were continued to be paid by us
and one policy was canceled over one month after the property in Plymouth was destroyed
by Troccoli clients. The Plymouth Probate Court called a Trial quickly with no notification
to the litigants after Sept 3rd and on September 9th it authorized a very fraudulent real estate
sale about a property that had been illegally destroyed for five months.
The lawyer Troccoli and the Massachusetts Trial Court have been assisting the criminal
actions of my brother in laws and many others in order to protect the interests of many
lawyers and politicians from my actions in other courts.
My wifes family have forged her signature on a Purchase and Sale Agreement, created
fraudulent Title V inspection, broke into our home, assisted in the theft of her rightful
inheritance, stolen personal property and food, made false allegations against me in other
states, threatened to burn down the homes and harassed us on sometimes a daily basis with
the knowledge and assistance of several Police Departments. It is time we sought relief.
Whereas two of my most recent documents have disappeared from the Public Record in
two countries I have attached them to this affidavit for the court and the public to view.
Exhibit A is a Motion to Dismiss Troccolis latest malicious action. It was filed on
September 13th, 2004 and stricken from the Public Record by Judge Langlois on September
21st. Exhibit B is a copy of two letters with the same enclosures that were sent to the
RCMP in Newfoundland byway of the Canada Post and one was sent to the Canadian
Consulate by US Mail. Both mailings were tracked and not received. They are obviously
now in the possession of some sort of secret authority. As the court views these documents
it can easily see what I say is true and my material is of no concern for the public safety.
They are filed in the public record for the benefit of all in my best effort to see that the
Public Trust is upheld. I have also brought to court a case of documents requested by Utica
Mutual Insurance Company of New York to investigate the actions of their client Jan
Whiting. However once they knew the truth they refused to accept or pay for what they
had requested. If the court deems it necessary I shall file it into evidence to refute the false
allegations made against me.
17. Since I have last appeared in this court a great deal has transpired that cannot be told of
within this affidavit but it concerns the pursuit of justice for many people in two counties.
Much has been done by many to stop my friends and I in revealing the truth of our
concerns. Thus far we have been able to thwart our adverasies actions. The court should
pray that it does not get our blood on its hands. The proof of some of what I state can be
found in Exhibit B.
Signed before the court and
under the Pains and
Penalties of Perjury by
Dated October 1st , 2004
David R.Amos, Pro Se

153 Alvin Ave.
Milton, MA. 02186
617 698-6549
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI,
David R. Amos hereby certify that on October 1st, 2004, I served upon the Suffolk
County District Attorney Daniel F. Conley a true copy of this document with all its attachments.
David R. Amos
153 Alvin Ave.
Milton, MA. 02186
2005 01 T 0010
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR

TRAIL DIVISION
BETWEEN: WILLIAM MATTHEWS
PLAINTIFF
AND: BYRON PRIOR
DEFENDANT
AND BETWEEN: BYRON PRIOR

COUNTERCLAIM
DEFENDANT/PLAINTIFF BY
AND: WILLIAM MATTHEWS

COUNTERCLAIM
PLAINTIFF/FIRST DEFENDANT BY
AND: T. ALEX HICKMAN

COUNTERCLAIM
SECOND DEFENDANT BY
AND: THOMAS MARSHALL

COUNTERCLAIM
THIRD DEFENDANT BY
AND: DANNY WILLIAMS

COUNTERCLAIM
FOURTH DEFENDANT BY
AND: EDWARD M. ROBERTS

COUNTERCLAIM
FIFTH DEFENDANT BY
AND: JOHN CROSBIE

COUNTERCLAIM
SIXTH DEFENDANT BY
AND: PATTERSON PALMER

COUNTERCLAIM
SEVENTH DEFENDANT BY
ORDER
Before the Honourable Chief Justice Green.
Filed January 21, 2005
UPON HEARING Stephen J. May, of Counsel for the Plaintiff, AND UPON READING the Application and
Affidavit filed herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, until further order of the court, Byron Prior is prohibited
from publishing, causing to have published, distributing or causing to have distributed the Statement of
Defence and Counterclaim pending the determination of the Applicants Application to strike the Statement
of Defence and Counterclaim in its entirety, and that the Courts file in this proceeding is not to be made
available for review by anyone other than the parties or their legal counsel pending the determination of the
Applicants Application to strike the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim in its entirety, and that the
requirements relating to the obligations of the Defendants to the Counterclaim to file Defences are be
waived pending the determination of the Applicants Application to strike the Statement of Defence and
Counterclaim in its entirety. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the content of the Statement of
Defence and Counterclaim shall not be published or broadcast in any manner whatsoever until further order
of the court.
AND IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the Application to strike the Statement of Defence and
Counterclaim is scheduled to be heard on January 26, 2005.
AND IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that costs of this Application be in the cause.
st
DATED at St. Johns, Newfoundland and Labrador this 21 day of January, 2005.
Signed by J. Derek Green, Chief Justice
2005 01 T 0010
TRAIL DIVISION
BETWEEN
WILLIAM MATTHEWS
PLAINTIFF
BYRON PRIOR
DEFENDANT
and:
DEFENCE
1. The Defendant, Byron Prior, admits to the statements of the plaintiff, William Matthews in the
paragraphs numbered one (1), two (2) and seven (7) of his claim.
2. Defendant, Byron David Prior (Prior) and his friend David Raymond Amos (Amos) With respect to
this claim for damages by a Member of Parliament, have no understanding how the Supreme Court
of Newfoundland and Labrador can legally proceed with this civil matter until the Attorney General
Thomas Marshall (Marshall) and the Premier Danny Williams (Williams) answer the Defendants
and Amos criminal allegations proven to them in September of 2004. The Defendant has the right
to know the results of any of the Attorney Generals investigations of his concerns about Public
Corruption before any proceedings in this matter. Furthermore Amos as a candidate for a seat in
Parliament in the last election certainly deserves an answer from the Arar Commission. That
Commission has ignored him and allowed him to be illegally imprisoned in the United States of
America (USA) long after it was made irrefutably aware of his supporting evidence to Mr. Arars
th
th
matters. Every Member of the 37 and the 38 Parliament has been made well aware of the facts
of this matter by the Defendant and Amos for over one year byway of email if not hard copy in the
mail or personal service. The Defendant and Amos are just members of the Public but they
demand that those in Public Service uphold the Public Trust and expose Public Corruption.
3. The Defendant further states that hard copy of much evidence of many crimes practiced against
th
the Defendant and Amos were given to Williams by the Defendant on September 9 , 2004 and to
th
Marshall by the Lieutenant Governor Edward Moxon Roberts (Roberts) on September 10 . On
th
September 11 , the Governor General of Canada Adrienne Clarkson (Clarkson) affirmed to Amos
that he had taken the appropriate steps and properly contacted all authorities having jurisdiction
over his and the Defendants concerns about criminal actions. In support thereof Defendant states
th
the Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan (McLellan) of the 37 Parliament had directed Amos to
do so in December of 2003 and the Defendant was directed to do so by the Minister of Justice Irwin
th
Cotler of the 38 Parliament in July of 2004. Both aforesaid persons are members of the same
Liberal caucus as the Plaintiff now seated on a backbench in Parliament.
4. The Defendant further states that former law firm of Williams had successfully defended him in a
criminal trial against other false allegations and charges of criminal acts in 1998. At that time law
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
firm Williams was completely informed by the Defendant of the sexual abuse of his family. The
Defendant has no doubt Williams used that knowledge to become the powerful person of his
political party he is today rather than assisting his client, the Defendant in attempting to up hold the
law and see that criminals with other politically powerful positions be properly prosecuted.
The Defendant further states that whereas this claim of much embarrassment of the Plaintiff as a
Member of Parliament, he feels no pity towards a man that had practiced sexual abuse against his
family and was never punished.
The Defendant clearly states in his web site (Site) and now in this document signed in his own
hand that every word he has published is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help
him his God.
The Defendant further states that whereas this claim by the Plaintiff against him comes about
byway the words he legally published in his web site ("Site") published in the USA under the First
Amendment its Constitutional pursuant to the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press, the
onus is upon the Plaintiff to prove without any reasonable doubt that the Defendants allegations
are false. The defendant is well prepared to argue that every word he has ever said or written
about the Plaintiff is true and he is willing to call many witnesses to support the true facts of this
matter.
The Defendant further states as he does within his Site that the quickest way for the Plaintiff to
prove one of the allegations false without burdening the court would be a few blood tests to prove
he is not the father of the person named Aaron whom he chooses to mention within paragraph
three (3) his own statement of claim. That is a very small task for a Member of Parliament to do in
order to help protect his reputation and save himself from a lot of further embarrassment.
The Defendant further states that he does in fact welcome this claim against him. Plaintiff has
finally given the Defendant an opportunity to see justice served upon the plaintiff and his cohorts
after over forty years of seeking it for over fifty years of much abuse. Hopefully this will be done
byway of this answer and a very justifiable counterclaim that should not be easily dismissed. It is
quite honestly the only way a man on welfare can make a legitimate complaint against some of
wealthiest and most corrupt persons in Canada.
The Defendant further states whereas the Plaintiff complains that the published words of the
Defendant can be found on the Internet, other web sites and within many emails etc, the Plaintiff
should complain all the other persons that support the Defendant allegations as well. Otherwise
this malicious claim is fruitless to stop the justifiable embarrassment of the Plaintiff and his lawyers.
The Defendant further states if the claim against a layman on welfare were to be won by the legal
trickery of a malevolent wealthy law firm it would merely support all what the Defendant has
published is true. If the Plaintiff truly wishes to protect his reputation in a legal fashion he must
prove with witnesses and evidence in front of a jury that all the allegations of the Defendant are
false. The Plaintiff merely claiming falsehoods does not prove the allegations untrue.
The Defendant further states that the Plaintiff makes mention of many emails in his statement of
claim paragraphs numbered five (5) and six (6) containing the Defendants published work. The
Defendant states that one of the persons to send thousands of emails in support of the Defendant
and his allegations is his friend Amos. The defendant points out the fact that Amos had sent emails
th
containing the entire text of the Defendants Site to every Member of the 37 Parliament before he
th
came to Canada to run for a Seat in the June Election of the 38 Parliament. One of the persons to
respond to Amos emails was an assistant of McLellan as the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
th
of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness on March 16 2004. That person sent back the
entire text of the Site the Plaintiff finds so offensive. The Plaintiff should name McLellan as a
defendant.
The Defendant further states that Amos would welcome the opportunity to be joined into this matter
as a defendant and argue the lawyers he has already crossed paths with his own matters and the
Defendants during the time he was in Canada running for a seat in Parliament. If any Member of
Parliament including the Plaintiff had acted ethically one year ago. Amos would not have been
imprisoned to sleep on a cement slab in the Physc Ward of a Downtown Boston Jail while being
illegally held against his will under the false charges of "other" until the Yankees could think of
something to charge him with. Furthermore the statement of claim of the Plaintiff would not exist
and the Defendant would not be still suffering today from more abuse by the Judicial System.
14. The Defendant further states that this answer and many other documents etc. involving the
governments of Canada and several Provinces including Newfoundland will be used in defence of
Amos freedom during the course of his pending Criminal Trial before a jury of his peers in the
USA. However this answer in this civil matter is no less important for the Defendant because the
justice system of his own province has failed to uphold the law with regards to the crimes practiced
against him for over forty years.
15. The Defendant states in defence of Plaintiffs claim in paragraph numbered three (3) that the
lawyer Stephen J. May ("May") of the law firm of Patterson Palmer acting for the Plaintiff, the
benefit of his own law firm and many others maliciously edited many words from the very first
statement in the Defendants Site This is a very fraudulent attempt by a lawyer to exclude the
names of many other parties who should be plaintiffs as well if in fact the Plaintiffs claims were
valid. For the sake of brevity demanded by the rules of this court the defendant offers only the first
statement in the Site because that is where his edited words were gleaned from in the plaintiffs
third statement of his claim. The first words of the Site in their entirety are as follows:
Canadian Corruption Sexual Abuse & Political & Legal Conspiracy.
RCMP Incompetence & Cover up. Priors Of Grand Bank NFLD Canada
How do I get a corrupt legal system to investigate, charge and convict itself? If T. Alex Hickman,
Justice Minister, 1966 to 1979 also Health Minister 1968 to 1969 and Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court of Newfoundland 1979 to 2000, 34 YEARS OF COMPLETE LEGAL SYSTEMS CONTROL,
at 41 years of age, rapes and impregnates your younger sister Susan, at 12 years old, what would
you do? Liberal MP Bill Matthews & his friends, raped the same child repeatedly, for more than 3
Yrs. At 14 ,she had a second baby, Aaron, she said she was 80% sure he is Matthews son. A third
baby, Harriett, at 18 & 3 miscarriages also, by this time, what abuse of a child. Matthews & his
lawyer, Ed Roberts, pressured me to sign papers, saying Matthews had nothing to do with my
family & I imagined it all. NOT SO. I have copies of their letters. 2 weeks after I signed these
papers, MR ED, THE HORSE'S ASS, ROBERTS was made LT. Governor of NFLD. & LAB. by MR
JEAN, THE JACK ASS, CHRETIEN, soon to be known as Canada's most CORRUPT Prime
Minister After the Justice Minister, Rapes & Impregnates a 12 Yr. old child, in a small town &
everyone knows, who will stop or charge anyone else, for Raping & abusing that same child??
PAUL MARTIN, IS THIS FEDERAL ENOUGH FOR YOU OR MUST I NAME MORE LAWYERS &
JUDGES?? DO SOMETHING NOW or I will be forced to name many more, RESPECTABLE
NEWFOUNDLANDERS, many names you won't like to read yourself. I am willing to take any tests
and answer all questions regarding my entire life. All they have to do is take one blood test. It's time
for them to stop manipulating our legal system and face the truth, which I have be telling anyone
else who would listen, all of my life.I didn't just awake one morning and decide to accuse the most
powerful and most corrupt legal animal in this province. I have had, no childhood, no education, no
family, no hometown, no self- esteem or self-respect and no past, present or future as a
contributing person. By the time I was 14 years old I was responsible for 9 younger children, all of
us abused and molested while our hometown either joined in, bothered us about our situation, or
looked the other way and said we were all trouble
16. The Defendant altered the above statement published within the Site in October of 2004 upon
taking the advice of Amos after he had been released for jail on bail. Amos advised the Defendant
take back his promise to the Plaintiffs lawyer Roberts years ago and tell all that he knew to be true
about all things as soon as possible for their own protection and the benefit of all Canadians.
17. The Defendant further states that one of the aforesaid named parties in his published Site Roberts
is a former partner of the law firm Patterson Palmer. In 2002 acting on behalf of the Plaintiff with
the assistance of the law firm of Patterson Palmer. Roberts, the well-known and powerful political
lawyer had maliciously threatened to sue the unemployed Defendant and his family if his clients
name was ever mentioned in the Defendants Site as it existed at that time.
18. The Defendant further states that it was not the Defendants fault that the Plaintiffs guilty
conscience about his own sexual abuse of children had compelled him to hire lawyers to cover up
his crimes. However the defendant buckled under Roberts pressure and signed a document
promising never to mention the Plaintiff within the Site;
19. The Defendant further states that at that time in of his encounter with Roberts in 2002 and until
October of 2004 the Defendant was seeking justice for the sexual abuse of his family by T. Alex
Hickman (Hickman), the former Minister of Justice and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. That
fact was plainly stated for the world to view from the very beginning of the Defendants first
published web site. Not once over the years did Hickman openly refute the Plaintiff allegations but
he did indeed send many of his cohorts employed within law enforcement and others to harass the
Defendant.
20. The Defendant further states that within mere months of the Defendants signature on the
documents demanded by Roberts he was appointed the 11th Lieutenant Governor of
Newfoundland and Labrador. The defendant has no doubt whatsoever it was a political reward to
Roberts for protecting the false integrity of a Member of Parliament with a very guilty conscience
within Jean Chrtiens scandalous government. The fact that May employs the phrase "inter alia"
which means "among other things" does not indeed negate the fact that he is a deliberate
conspirator in a scheme to cover up Public Corruption assisted and practiced by members of his
own law firm of Patterson and Palmer.. The Defendant demands to argue all of his published words
not just the words a malicious lawyer has chosen to take out of context to suit his own ends.
Justice would not be served again.
21. The Defendant further states that the following words found within his published Site were also
edited by May within the Plaintiffs fourth (4) paragraph of his claim for the same aforesaid reasons
stated in paragraph number two (2) of this defence. The complete context of the Defendants words
are as follows:
To Whom It May Concern:
July 24, 2001
My name is Byron Prior. I'm the oldest living of these 12 children. I not only had to livethrough my
abuse but, watch as the rest of my sisters and brother were abused and raped. Three of my sisters
raped, 1 by a grandfather at the age of 4, a second raped by T. Alex Hickman, Justice Minister, at
age 12 & Bill Matthews & friends from 13 on. A third sister raped by a young man in our home
town. The legal system are onlyconcerned with keeping all this under cover and protect
themselves. Please people, if you have a heart, walk one day in my shoes and tell me you would
just forget because these bureaucrats say so. I have copies of my full statement on all the details of
what happened, which I gave the R.C.M.P. on March 9, 1998, 52.5 hours at their office. I will send
it to anyone who will send me an E-mail address. I will never forget the abuse, shame, and
persecution to this day, from the animals who did this to my family.
Sincerely,
Byron Prior
22. The Plaintiff should have joined as plaintiffs T. Alex Hickman, Edward M. Roberts, Jean Chretien
and Paul Martin the persons first mentioned in the Site and numerous others including many
members of the RCMP and the justice system named throughout the remainder of the Site
pursuant to Rule 7.02 (2) which states as follows: Subject to the provisions of any statute and
unless the Court otherwise orders, a plaintiff, who claims any relief that any other person is entitled
to jointly with the plaintiff, shall join all persons so entitled as parties to the proceeding, and any of
them who do not consent to be joined as a plaintiff shall be made a defendant. The fact that the
lawyer May carefully edited the defendants published work in the plaintiffs statement of claim does
not negate the fact that many parties are named within the Defendants Site.
23. The Defendant further states in answer to the Plaintiffs statement of claim paragraph six (6) that
denies his allegations of the criminal actions made on his published Site against the Plaintiff and
many others are false. The defendant clearly states that all of his allegations made against all
parties mentioned within the Site are absolutely true and he has sworn to the truth of some of the
stated allegations the Courts of Newfoundland in the past. The text of one of his statements to the
RCMP can be found on the published Site. The Plaintiff desires the Freedom of Speech and the
Freedom of the Press in another country to be ignored in order to save himself from
embarrassment from his own wrongful acts for which he has never been prosecuted and punished
because of his association with T. Alex Hickman, the former Minister of Justice an Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador.
24. The Defendant clearly states that the Plaintiff, Bill Matthews and his cohorts living in Grand Bank
many years ago used against the Minister of Justice at the time, their knowledge of the sexual
abuse of the minor children of the Prior family by T. Alex Hickmans in order not to be prosecuted
for their own many crimes including their own sexual abuse of the same family. The Plaintiff has
continued to prosper ever since that time because of crime not integrity. The Defendant will not
take back one word of his truthful publications in the USA. The defendant prays to the court for his
right to a jury trial in his own native land in accordance with all the rules of the Supreme Court in
order to call many witnesses in support of his defence to insure that the truth about many criminal
acts become widely known in order that all the perpetrators including the Plaintiff, William Matthews
and the Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, T.Alex
Hickman may be finally prosecuted for the sexual abuse of his family and himself. The Defendant
prays that the crimes against his family will never be forgotten, never repeated upon anyone and
never covered up by any Judicial System ever again.
25. In closing the Defendant, Byron Prior sincerely believes that the conspiracy by so many highly
placed public officials over the past forty years to cover-up the crimes of others warrants an
investigation by a Royal Commission immediately. .
st
DATED at Conception Bay South Newfoundland and Labrador this 21 day of January, 2005.
Byron Prior
Readers Crescent,
Conception Bay, NL
A1W 5B4
The Defendant
TO: Stephen J. May

PATTERSON PALMER
Suite 1000, Scotia Centre
235 Water Street
P.O. Box 610
St. Johns, NL. A1C 5L3
Solicitors for the plaintiff
2005 01 T 0010
TRAIL DIVISION
BETWEEN WILLIAM MATTHEWS PLAINTIFF
and
BYRON PRIOR
DEFENDANT
AND BETWEEN BYRON PRIOR
PLAINTIFF
and
WILLIAM MATTHEWS
T. ALEX HICKMAN
THOMAS MARSHALL
DANNY WILLIAMS
EDWARD M. ROBERTS
JOHN CROSBIE
PATTERSON PALMER
DEFENDANTS
COUNTERCLAIM
1. The Plaintiff, Byron Prior was born and raised Grand Bank Newfoundland. He is an out of work
former employee of the offshore oil exploration industry who is now on social assistance. He has
been unable to find employment in the area of his expertise because his outspokenness in the
1980s about oil industry matters that caused Crosbie Offshore Services to be investigated for its
wrongful acts. The aforesaid company was then controlled by Andrew Crosbie, brother to John
Crosbie a former Minister of Justice of Canada
2. The Defendant, John Crosbie, is now a partner in the law firm of Patterson Palmer. He was served
much evidence of many crimes including the crimes practiced against the Plaintiff byway of his
partner, Gregory Byrne a former Minister of Justice of New Brunswick in Fredericton N.B. on
th
August 24 , 2004. This was done by personal service by David Raymond Amos (Amos) a friend of
the Plaintiff.
3. The Defendant, Edward M. Roberts was once a member the law firm of Patterson Palmer who
acted against the Plaintiff years ago on behalf of the Defendant William Matthews. He knew the
truth of the plaintiffs allegations and did nothing to up hold the law in the pursuit of his own gain. On
th
September 8 , 2004, the Plaintiff made personal service upon Edward Roberts as the Leutenant
Governor of Newfoundland Hard irrefutable evidence proving the crimes that concern his friend
David Amos on the same day that Amos was having a lawyer file the same documents attached to
his affidavit in defence of a friend unjustly charged with criminal behavior in a New Brunswick
Provincial Court in Sussex NB. Roberts continued to stay the course of his deceit and merely
passed the evidence on the Defendant, Thomas Marshall the Attorney General of Newfoundland
and Labrador who has done nothing whatsoever to uphold the law. Marshall has refused to answer
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
or return one phone call or email in order answer or ask one question about the allegations of crime
by the plaintiff and his friend Amos.
The Plaintiff further states the Defendant, William Matthews was born and raised Grand Bank
Newfoundland. on July 22, 1947. He attended Memorial University and in 1969 he earned a B.P.E.,
B.Ed. He was first elected to the Newfoundland and Labrador Legislature in 1982 as the MHA for
the Grand Bank District. He was re-elected in 1985 and was appointed Minister of Culture,
Recreation and Youth. In 1988, Mr. Matthews was appointed Minister of Career Development &
Advanced Studies. In 1989, Mr. Matthews was re-elected to the Newfoundland and Labrador
Legislature and was appointed Finance Critic. From 1990 to 1995, he served as Fisheries Critic,
and in 1991 was appointed as Opposition House Leader. In 1993, Mr. Matthews was again elected
to the Legislature and was re-appointed House Leader and Fisheries Critic. On June 2, 1997, he
was elected as the Member of Parliament for Burin-St.Georges. the Defendant did serve as ViceChair of the Standing Committees on Fisheries & Oceans. On Sept 1st, 2000, he was appointed
Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queens Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs. The defendant was re-elected November 27, 2000 as the Member of
Parliament for Burin-St. Georges and re-appointed September 1, 2001 as the Parliamentary
Secretary to the President of the Queens Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
th
Intergovernmental Affairs. The Defendant was reelected on June 28 , 2005 but is now a
th
backbencher in the Liberal caucus of 38 Parliament of Canada still representing the constituency
of Random-Burin-St. Georges having apparently fallen out of favor with Paul Martins minority
government.
The Plaintiff further states he has no doubt that his actions are part of the reason for the
Defendants loss of Stature within the Liberal Caucus and the cause of his stated embarrassment
in paragraph number six (6) of his statement of claim.
The Plaintiff further states the Defendant, T. Alex Hickman was born and raised Grand Bank
Newfoundland. The Plaintiff whose mother was a whore with Hickman as a client has known him
since childhood. The Plaintiff witnessed the fact that Hickman sexual abused his younger sibling at
12 years old on the night of his first political win in 1966. Hickman and his associate John Crosbie
rose to positions of great power and wealth beginning under the corrupt leadership of Joey
Smallwood before turning coat on the Liberal party and climbing even higher on the political totem
pole of Public Corruption. Hickman finally retired as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of
Newfoundland and was later awarded the Order of Canada with the courthouse in Grand Bank now
bearing his wicked name.
The Plaintiff has never made any secret of the fact that he hated and despised the Defendants
Matthews and Hickman ever since he was a child chucking rocks in the street at Matthews big
green fifties Chrysler as he sped away to sexually abuse another one of the Plaintiffs underage
siblings. Both the Plaintiff and Matthews knew that that he would never be punished because of
what everybody in Grand Bank never of the sexual misdeeds of Hickman. The Plaintiff is grateful
for the invention of the World Wide Web in his lifetime in order that he may tell all who wish to read
of it what he knows to be true in Newfoundland. Now the Plaintiff can hurl simple truths far and
wide at the defendants done the Internet highway. He will not stop telling the world the truth
because the defendant, William Matthews feels embarrassed and justifiably hated and despised by
many others. The Plaintiff is proud of his work legally published in another country so that the
crooks in his home Province of Newfoundland can no longer keep their dirty secrets to themselves.
Plaintiff was denied legal aid in this matter by the government lawyer, John Duggan for no stated
reason that the Plaintiff can find within the Legal Aid Act. However the Plaintiff is well aware that he
will never receive any assistance from law enforcement or the judicial system because of the cover
up the sexual abuse of his family when he was a child by T. Alex Hickman, the former Minister of
Justice and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The Plaintiff further states that when his friend Amos heard that the Province was unwilling to offer
legal to him or even look at the supporting evidence from Amos they knew for certain all
government employees in Newfoundland were acting against the Plaintiff under orders from the
Premier Danny Williams. Amos did the best he could to help compose the Plaintiffs answer and
countercomplaint within the time allowed by the rules of this court.
The Plaintiff further states that Amos also went one step further to make certain their suspicion of
th
11.
12.
13.
14.
the malice of Danny Williams was true. On January 20 , 2005, Amos called Danny Williams office
personally and asked why he had not responded to the identical letter and materials Roberts,
Crosbie and the Newfoundland Law Society had received. The Plaintiff had served it upon his
th
office on September 9 and the receipt is signed by one of his assistants. The aforesaid material
also included a copy of a police surveillance tape numbered 139 recorded in the USA of the mob. It
letter certainly warranted a valid answer for someone in law enforcement. However later in the day
another one of Danny Williams assistants called Amos back and denied any knowledge of
anything. That mans words affirmed what the plaintiff and his friend already knew and that is
almost everyone employed within the justice system is willing to be a liar and support Public
Corruption for their own personal gain. People employed in the Public Service of law enforcement
only act ethically and do their job if it politically correct to do so in order to keep their job. It truly is
just that simple and everybody knows it. The plaintiff and his friend merely went to great lengths to
prove it after the Justice Systems of two countries had practiced many crimes against each of
them.
The true facts of this matter are stated as best the Plaintiff could in his answer to William Matthews
now a defendant in this Counterclaim. For the sake of brevity for the court, the benefit of the
Plaintiff and the Public Trust, the Plaintiff, Byron prays the court to review his answer filed at the
same time as this counterclaim in a timely fashion as per the rules of this court.
The Plaintiff is now prepared to reveal all that he knows to be true about wrongful actions within the
offshore oil exploration industry and to be a supporting witness to the allegations of much Public
Corruption within Canada and the United States of America (USA) recently exposed by Amos. The
Plaintiff truly believes that is the reason he was served the malicious claim against him by William
st
Matthews at this time and compelled to answer it on by January 21 , 2005 is because of the
actions of actions of Amos in the USA and his court ordered appearance in Dorchester District
Court in Boston Massachusetts on the very same day. All of the above named defendants are
involved in a cross border conspiracy to cover-up many crimes.
The Plaintiff further states that he and his friend are well aware that their knowledge and evidence
of many crimes are a very serious and legitimate threat to the false integrity of many persons
employed to protect the Public Interests of the people around the world. They have no doubt
whatsoever that their lives are in great danger. History has proven many decent men acting as they
have died for much less. However history has also proven that if good men do nothing evil will
prevail. The Plaintiff and his friend have no choice but to proceed in their efforts to expose Public
Corruption because it is not in their nature to quit. They also recognize the fact that as fathers they
owe to their children what their forefathers fought so hard in so many wars to secure for them,
Freedom within a Just Democracy.
The Plaintiff further states that the sincere actions of he and his friend to make what they know of
many crimes become common knowledge has the entire corrupt Justice Systems of Canada and
the USA greatly concerned. If the two friends do prevail in revealing the truth to all it will be to the
detriment of many malevolent Global Corporations, Bankers, Politicians, lawyers and the most
importantly the Catholic Church. There has been much ado in recent times about the affiliations
within such societies as Skull and Bones and the involvement Presidents and Senators who
attempt to appear to be on the opposite side of the political fence. Politicians come and every four
years or so. However it is the puppet master that pulls the strings who always remains behind the
scene that is the one who is truly obscene. The Plaintiff, Byron David Prior and his friend David
Raymond Amos want the world to know they truly believe their most evil foe is none other
than
Count Peter-Hans Kolvenbach the Superior General of the Jesuits.
15. The Plaintiff therefore claims:

a. general damages to be assessed;
b. aggravated, exemplary and/or punitive damages;
c. pre-judgment and post-judgment interest pursuant to the provisions of

the Judgment Interest Act, R.S.N. 1990, c. J-2;
d. cost on a solicitor if one is found and own client basis;
e. such further relief deems to be equitable and just in the circumstances.
st
Byron Prior
Readers Crescent,
Conception Bay, NL
A1W 5B4
The Plaintiff
2005 01 T 0010
TRIAL DIVISION
BETWEEN:WILLIAM MATTHEWS
PLAINTIFF
AND: BYRON PRIOR
DEFENDANT

COUNTERCLAIM
DEFENDANT/PLAINTIFFBY

COUNTERCLAIM

COUNTERCLAIM
SECOND DEFENDANT BY

COUNTERCLAIM
THIRD DEFENDANT BY
AND: DANNY WILLIAMS

COUNTERCLAIM
FOURTH DEFENDANT BY

COUNTERCLAIM
AND: JOHN CROSBIE
COUNTERCLAIM
FIFTH DEFENDANT BY
SIXTH DEFENDANT BY

COUNTERCLAIM
REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT

RE: An Amended Interlocutory Application of the Plaintiff to maintain an Order of the Court
restricting publication; to strike portions of the Statement of Defence pursuant to Rule 14.24; and
strike the Counterclaim in its entirety pursuant to Rules 11.02 and 14.24 and ss. 93 and 94 of the
Judicature Act, RSN 1990, c. J-4 as amended.
(Inter Partes)
The Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim in this proceeding requests a postponement before attempting to
argue the above stated Application served upon him on January 25, 2005. In support thereof he states as
follows:
1. The Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim is a resident of Conception Bay South who is a layman on
welfare with a Grade Eleven GED who has yet to secure legal assistance in his defence and
counterclaim in this matter and is ordered by the court to argue a very long and very complicated
memorandum of law within one day of being served.
2. The Plaintiff/Defendant by Counterclaim and Applicant is a resident of Mount Pearl, Newfoundland
and Labrador, and a Member of the 38th Parliament of Canada who is represented in this action by
the wealthy and influential law firm of Patterson Palmer, which is also the Seventh Defendant by
Counterclaim.
3. The Defendant by Counterclaim, Patterson and Palmer had acted hastily and maliciously in an "ex
parte" fashion in order to protect its own interests in this matter and later was compelled to amend
the first Interlocutory Application it had composed in order to correct errors and cover up the
justifiable existence of the other Defendant by Counterclaim.
4. The past managing partner of the Seventh Defendant by counterclaim, Stephen J. May (May) had
caused the above stated documents to be served upon the Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim in
an admitted untimely fashion. May promised not to oppose this request for postponement within a
cover letter signed in his own hand one day before the scheduled hearing, The text of Mays letter
states as follows:
Please find enclosed our further materials that now seek to strike only portions of your
Statement of Defence but still seeks to strike the entire Counterclaim. Our Application also now
seeks to refer this proceeding to case management in order to address the service and scheduling
of any future Applications that may be brought in advance of a Trial. As I advised previously, the
Application is scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court at the Court House off Duckworth
Street on Wednesday, 26 January 2005 at 10:00 a.m. The enclosed Affidavit has not been filed
with the Court but I will seek leave to do so on Wednesday. As weather prevented these
documents from being served yesterday, we will not oppose a request for a postponement to allow
you further time to prepare your position.
Signed by S, J. May
5. May declares to have served upon the Defendant/Plaintiff by counterclaim his own sworn Affidavit
in which he has admitted to the prior contact between himself, his law firm and other named
Defendants by the counterclaim with the Defendant/Plaintiff by counterclaim and David R. Amos a
willing Joiner in this matter pursuant to Rule 7 02.
6. Whereas it appears that May does not wish to file his Affidavit in this matter until the counterclaim
has been stricken from the Public Record, the Defendant/Plaintiff by counterclaim prays that the
court allows May to file his documents immediately and that his Affidavit and related Exhibits be
studied closely by the court before considering the Defendants latest untimely Application.
st
Byron Prior
Readers Hill Crescent,
Conception Bay South, NL A1W 5B4
The Defendant/Plaintiff by
Counterclaim
TO: Stephen J. May

PATTERSON PALMER
Suite 1000, Scotia Centre
235 Water Street
P.O. Box 610
St. Johns, NL. A1C 5L3
Seventh Defendant by Counterclaim and
Solicitors for the Plaintiff/Defendant by Counterclaim
2005 01 T 0010
TRIAL DIVISION
BETWEEN:WILLIAM MATTHEWS
PLAINTIFF
AND: BYRON PRIOR
DEFENDANT

COUNTERCLAIM
COUNTERCLAIM
DEFENDANT/PLAINTIFFBY

COUNTERCLAIM
SECOND DEFENDANT BY

COUNTERCLAIM
THIRD DEFENDANT BY
AND: DANNY WILLIAMS

COUNTERCLAIM
FOURTH DEFENDANT BY

COUNTERCLAIM
FIFTH DEFENDANT BY
AND: JOHN CROSBIE

COUNTERCLAIM
SIXTH DEFENDANT BY

COUNTERCLAIM
SUMMARY OF CURRENT DOCUMENT Court File Number(s):2005 01 T 0010Date of Filing of

Document:25 January 2005Name of Filing Party or Person:Stephen J. MayApplication to which Document
being filed relates:Amended Application of the Plaintiff/Defendant by Counterclaim to maintain an Order
restricting publication, to strike portions of the Statement of Defence, strike the Counterclaim in its entirety,
and to refer this proceeding to case management.Statement of purpose in filing:To maintain an Order
restricting publication, to strike portions of the Statement of Defence, strike the Counterclaim in its entirety
and refer this proceeding to case management.
AFFIDAVIT
I, Stephen J. May, of the City of St. Johns, in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Barrister and
Solicitor, make oath and say as follows:
THAT I am a Partner in the St. Johns office of PATTERSON PALMER solicitors for William
Matthews, the Member of Parliament for Random-Burin-St. Georges in the Parliament of
Canada.
THAT Mr. Matthews originally retained Mr. Edward Roberts, Q.C. on or about 30 April 2002
after Mr. Byron Prior, the Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim, had made allegations
against Mr. Matthews in a publication called "My Inheritance - The truth - Not Fiction: A
Town with a Secret". In that publication, the allegation was made that Mr. Matthews had
had sex with a girl who had been prostituted by her mother. That girl was alleged to have
been Mr. Priors sister.
THAT upon being retained, Mr. Edward Roberts wrote a letter to Mr. Prior. That letter to Mr.
Prior is attached as Exhibit "1" to my Affidavit.
THAT subsequent to Mr. Roberts letter to Mr. Prior, Mr. Roberts received a 1 May 2002 email from Mr. Prior. That e-mail is attached as Exhibit "2".
THAT subsequent to Mr. Roberts receipt of the e-mail, Mr. Prior swore an Affidavit
acknowledging that what had been said in that publication was false. That Affidavit is
attached as Exhibit "3" to my Affidavit. Following Mr. Roberts receipt of that Affidavit, Mr.
Matthews advised that he was satisfied not to pursue the matter any further and our firm
closed our file.

THAT on or about 25 October 2004, I was retained by Mr. Matthews following his gaining
knowledge that a web site, made a series of allegations against him relating to my having
sex with a girl of approximately 12 years old through to an approximate age of 15 years
old. It also accused him of being a father of one of her children and accused him of having
raped that girl. Upon checking the web site I saw that Byron Prior, the Defendant, had been
identified as the author of the material on the site.
THAT Mr. Matthews instructed me to write Mr. Prior, to remind him of the fact that the
allegations had been admitted to being false through a 16 May 2002 Affidavit to advise him
of Mr. Matthews intentions to commence legal proceedings if the comments were not
removed from the web site. A copy of my letter to Mr. Prior is attached as Exhibit "4" to
this Affidavit.
THAT I attach as Exhibit "5" a transcript from a 5 November 2004 voicemail left by David
Amos, identified in the voicemail as a friend of Mr. Prior.
THAT I attach as Exhibit "6" a portion of a 6 November 2004 e-mail from Mr. Amos.
THAT until I received his voicemail and e-mail, I had never heard of Mr. Amos.
THAT Mr. Amos has continued to send me e-mail since his 5 November e-mail. Including
his 6 November 2004 e-mail, I have received a total of 15 e-mails as of 23 January 2005.
All do not address Mr. Matthews claim or my involvement as Mr. Matthews solicitor. I
attach as Exhibit "7" a portion of a 12 January 2005 e-mail that Mr. Amos sent to me but
originally came to my attention through Ms. Lois Skanes whose firm had received a copy.
This e-mail followed the service of the Statement of Claim on 11 January 2005 on Mr.
Prior. I also attach as Exhibit "8" a copy of a 19 January 2005 e-mail from Mr. Amos.
THAT I attach as Exhibit "9" a copy of a 22 November 2004 letter addressed to me from
Edward Roberts, the Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland and Labrador covering a 2
September 2004 letter from Mr. Amos addressed to John Crosbie, Edward Roberts, in his
capacity as Lieutenant Governor, Danny Williams, in his capacity as Premier of
Newfoundland and Labrador, and Brian F. Furey, President of the Law Society of
Newfoundland and Labrador. I requested a copy of this letter from Government House
after asking Mr. Roberts if he had received any correspondence from Mr. Amos during his
previous representation of Mr. Matthews. He advised me that he received a letter since
becoming Lieutenant Governor, portions of which involved his representation of Mr.
Matthews. Mr. Roberts letter also covered his reply to Mr. Amos.
THAT I attach as Exhibit "10" an e-mail from Mr. Amos received on Sunday, 23 January
2005.
THAT I swear this Affidavit in support of the Application to strike Mr. Priors counterclaim.
SWORN to before me at
St. Johns, Province of Newfoundland
and Labrador this 24th day of

January, 2005.
Signed by Della Hart STEPHEN J. MAY Signature
STAMP
DELLA HART
A Commissioner for Oaths in and for
the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
My commission expires on December 31, 2009.

A True Tale of Two Corrupt Governments

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A True Tale of Two Corrupt Governments

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

looneroo@hotmail.

David Amos <motomaniac_02186@hotmail.com>

January 30, 2005 4:58:04 PM

Fw: A True Tale of Two Corrupt Governments

Printed: January 31, 2005 11:47:33 AM

----- Original Message ----From: David Amos

Maritime Kitchen Party welcomes Prime Minister, cabinet to Province

harmony to the rest of Canada.

This is the fella I just called.

DOCKET NO. 0407CR004623

David R. Amos, Pro Se

DOCKET NO. 0407CR004623

MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE SIDNEY HANLON ON THE BASIS THAT A

Dated January 11th, 2005

David R. Amos, Pro Se

MOTION OF THE DEFENDANT, DAVID R. AMOS TO DEMAND THAT THE

MASSACHUSETTS IN ORDER THAT HE MAY RECEIVE A FAIR TRIAL BY A JURY

THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

David R.Amos, Pro Se

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR

AND: BYRON PRIOR

AND BETWEEN: BYRON PRIOR

AND: WILLIAM MATTHEWS

AND: T. ALEX HICKMAN

AND: THOMAS MARSHALL

AND: DANNY WILLIAMS

AND: EDWARD M. ROBERTS

AND: JOHN CROSBIE

AND: PATTERSON PALMER

TO: Stephen J. May

AND BETWEEN BYRON PRIOR

15. The Plaintiff therefore claims:

c. pre-judgment and post-judgment interest pursuant to the provisions of

AND: BYRON PRIOR

AND BETWEEN: BYRON PRIOR

AND: WILLIAM MATTHEWS

AND: T. ALEX HICKMAN

AND: THOMAS MARSHALL

AND: DANNY WILLIAMS

AND: EDWARD M. ROBERTS

AND: PATTERSON PALMER

REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT

TO: Stephen J. May

AND: BYRON PRIOR

AND BETWEEN: BYRON PRIOR

AND: T. ALEX HICKMAN

AND: THOMAS MARSHALL

AND: DANNY WILLIAMS

AND: EDWARD M. ROBERTS

AND: JOHN CROSBIE

AND: PATTERSON PALMER

SUMMARY OF CURRENT DOCUMENT Court File Number(s):2005 01 T 0010Date of Filing of

closed our file.

and Labrador this 24th day of

You might also like