Amended Notice of Motion City Sept 8. 2011

8/3/2019 Amended Notice of Motion City Sept 8. 2011

1/39

1

Court File Number: F/C/45/11

IN THE COURT OF QUEENS BENCH OF NEW BRUNSWICK

TRIAL DIVISION

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FREDERICTON

BETWEEN:

ANDR MURRAY

Plaintiff,-and-

THE CITY OF FREDERICTON,FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, CHIEF OF POLICE BARRY MACKNIGHT,SERGEANT MYERS,CONSTABLE MIKE FOX,CONSTABLE PATRICK SMALL,CONSTABLE NANCY RIDEOUT,JOHN DOE 1,TRINA RODGERSNEIL RODGERSCONSTABLEDEBBIE STAFFORD,CONSTABLE MICHAEL SAUNDERS,JOHN DOE 2

Defendants,

AMENDED NOTICE OF ACTION WITH STATEMENT OFCLAIM ATTACHED

(FORM 16A)

TO:(the above-named defendants)

The City of FrederictonLegal Services Division,Suite 100, 412 Queen Street,Fredericton,New Brunswick,Canada,E3B 4Y7Phone: (506) 460-2115Fax: (506) 460-2128

DESTINATAIRE:(le dfendeur susmentionn)


2/39

2

TO:Fredericton Police Force 311 Queen StreetFredericton, N.B.E3B 1B1

Phone: (506) 460 2300Fax: (506) 460 2316

TO:Chief of Police Barry MacKnightFREDERICTON POLICE FORCE311 Queen Street,Fredericton, NBE3B 1B1General Information Telephone Number:506 460 - 2300Fax Number: (506) 460 2316

TO:Sergeant Myers FREDERICTON POLICE FORCEChief of Police Barry MacKnight 311 Queen Street,Fredericton, New Brunswick,Canada, E3B 1B1General Information Telephone Number:506 460 - 2300Fax Number: (506) 460 2316

TO:Constable Mike Fox FREDERICTON POLICE FORCEChief of Police Barry MacKnight 311 Queen Street,Fredericton, New Brunswick,Canada, E3B 1B1General Information Telephone Number:506 460 - 2300Fax Number: (506) 460 2316


3/39

3

TO:Constable Patrick Small FREDERICTON POLICE FORCEChief of Police Barry MacKnight 311 Queen Street,

Fredericton, New Brunswick,Canada, E3B 1B1General Information Telephone Number:506 460 - 2300Fax Number: (506) 460 2316

TO:Constable Nancy RideoutFREDERICTON POLICE FORCEChief of Police Barry MacKnight 311 Queen Street,Fredericton, New Brunswick,Canada, E3B 1B1General Information Telephone Number:506 460 - 2300Fax Number: (506) 460 2316

TO:John Doe 1Address unknown

TO:Constable Debbie Staffordbadge number 358 FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE311 Queen Street,Fredericton, New Brunswick,Canada, E3B 1B1General Information Telephone Number:506 460 - 2300Fax Number: (506) 460 2316

TO:Constable Michael Saunders FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE311 Queen Street,Fredericton, New Brunswick,Canada, E3B 1B1General Information Telephone Number:506 460 - 2300Fax Number: (506) 460 2316


4/39

4

TO:Neil Rodgers 506-472-909615 Fisher AveFredericton, NBE3A 4J1

TO:Trina Rodgers506-472-909615 Fisher AveFredericton, NBE3A 4J1

TO:John Doe 2Address unknown

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEENCOMMENCED AGAINST YOU BYFILING THIS NOTICEOF ACTION WITHSTATEMENT OF CLAIM ATTACHED.

If you wish to defend these proceedings,either you or a New Brunswick lawyeracting on your behalf must prepare yourStatement of Defence in the form prescribedby the Rules of Court and serve it on theplaintiff or the plaintiffs lawyer at theaddress shown below and, with proof of such service, file it in this Court Officetogether with the filing fee of $50,

(a) if you are served in New Brunswick,WITHIN 20 DAYS after service on you of this Notice of Action With Statement of Claim Attached, or

(b) if you are served elsewhere in Canada orin the United States of America, WITHIN40 DAYS after such service, or

(c) if you are served anywhere else,WITHIN 60 DAYS after such service.

PAR LE DPT DU PRSENT AVIS DEPOURSUITE ACCOMPAGN DUNEXPOS DE LA DEMANDE, UNEPOURSUITE JUDICIAIRE A TENGAGE CONTRE VOUS.

Si vous dsirez prsenter une dfense danscette instance, vous-mme ou un avocat duNouveau-Brunswick charg de vousreprsenter devrez rdiger un expos devotre dfense en la forme prescrite par lesRgles de procdure, le signifier audemandeur ou son avocat ladresseindique ci-dessous et le dposer au greffede cette Cour avec un droit de dpt de $50et une prevue de sa signification :

a) DANS LES 20 JOURS de la significationqui vous sera faite du prsent avis depoursuite accompagn dun expos de lademande, si elle vous est faite au Nouveau-

Brunswick oub) DANS LES 40 JOURS de lasignification, si elle vous est faite dans uneautre rgion du Canada ou dans les tats-Unis dAmrique ou

c) DANS LES 60 JOURS de la signification,si elle vous est faite ailleurs.


5/39

5

If you fail to do so, you may be deemed tohave admitted any claim made against you,and without further notice to you,JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN AGAINSTYOU IN YOUR ABSENCE.

You are advised that:

(a) you are entitled to issue documents andpresent evidence in the proceeding inEnglish or French or both;

(b) the plaintiff intends to proceed inEnglish language; and

(c) your Statement of Defence must indicatethe language in which you intend to proceed

THIS NOTICE is signed and sealed for theCourt of Queens Benchby . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,Clerk of the Court at. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , onthe . . . day of . . . . . . . . . . . , 2011

Court Seal

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Clerk (address of court office)

Si vous omettez de le faire, vous pourreztre repute avoir admis toute demandeformule contre vous et, sans autre avis,JUGEMENT POURRA TRE RENDUCONTRE VOUS EN VOTRE ABSENCE.

Sachez que :

a) vous avez le droit dans la prsenteinstance, dmettre des documents et deprsenter votre preuve en franais, enanglais ou dans les deux langues;

b) le demandeur a lintention dutiliser lalangue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; et

c) lexpos de votre dfense doit indiquer lalangue que vous avez lintention dutiliser.

CET AVIS est sign et scell au nom de laCour du Banc de la Reine par. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., greffier de la Cour . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., ce . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2011

Sceau de la Cour

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(greffier) .

(adresse du greffe)


6/39

6

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Set out in separate, numbered paragraphs the following:

(1)The capacity of all persons who are parties to the proceeding.THE PARTIES:

1. The Plaintiff, Andr Murray, resides at 31 Marshall Street, Fredericton, New Brunswick.

2. Defendant, The City of Fredericton, place of business City Hall is located at 397Queen Street, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada.

3. Defendant FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE Office is located at 311 QueenStreet, Fredericton, NB, E3B 1B1 Canada.

4. Defendant Chief of Police Barry MacKnight FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE.Office is Located at 311 Queen Street, Fredericton, NB, E3B 1B1.

5. Defendant Constable Mike Fox is a member of FREDERICTON POLICEFORCE. Head Office is located at 311 Queen Street, Fredericton, NB, E3B 1B1 Canada.

6. Defendant Constable Patrick Small is a member of FREDERICTON POLICEFORCE. Head Office is located at 311 Queen Street, Fredericton, NB, E3B 1B1 Canada.

7. Defendant Constable Nancy Rideout is a member of FREDERICTON POLICEFORCE. Head Office is located at 311 Queen Street, Fredericton, NB, E3B 1B1 Canada

8. Defendant Police Sergeant Myers is a member of FREDERICTON POLICEFORCE. Head Office is located at 311 Queen Street, Fredericton, NB, E3B 1B1 Canada.

9. Defendant John Doe 1, address not confirmed.

10. Defendant John Doe 2 address unconfirmed.

11. Defendant Constable Debbie Stafford is a member of FREDERICTON POLICEFORCE. Head Office is located at 311 Queen Street, Fredericton, NB, E3B 1B1 Canada

12. Defendant Constable Michael Saunders is a member of FREDERICTON POLICEFORCE. Head Office is located at 311 Queen Street, Fredericton, NB, E3B 1B1 Canada13. Defendant,Neil Rodgers, resides at15 Fisher Ave Fredericton, NB E3A 4J1.

14. Defendant,Trina Rodgers, resides at15 Fisher Ave Fredericton, NB E3A 4J1.

The capacity of all persons who are parties to the proceeding of the Action as originallyCourt File Date Stamped 4th day of March 2011 and as AMENDED September 7, 2011.


7/39

7

Observations from incidents occurring 5th day of March, 2009

15. Plaintiff Andr Murray is the victim in this matter; a innocent man on all accountswho was forced to suffer because of criminal negligence and Malice on the part of

Members of FREDERICTON CITY POLICE and Malice on the part of witnesses, whowhile obstructing justice did provide false witness and or evidence, further, who intendedto commit unlawful acts and or cause harm to Plaintiff Andr Murray; moreover, for theherewithin stated reasons Plaintiff Andr Murray, without any recognizable properstandard of probable cause, for that reason, further at the hands of Members of FREDERICTON CITY POLICE suffered: assault, battery, wrongful / false arrestunlawful detention and False imprisonment, excessive use of force causing harm,transportation against his will, intentional infliction of mental suffering and or nervousshock , violation of his rights contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms et al., at thehands of the herewithin named Defendants at his residential civic address of 29 MarshallStreet, Fredericton, New Brunswick, on the 5th day of March 2009.

16. Defendant, The City Of Fredericton, has vicarious liability as the employer of theFREDERICTON POLICE FORCE in which numerous members are herein named asDefendants for matters occurring on Date March 5, 2009.

17. John Doe 1 is the unidentified individual or party reportedly, who on the 5th day of March 2009, by telephone communicated advice to members of FREDERICTONPOLICE FORCE, regarding the location of innocent Plaintiff Andr Murray.

18. Defendant, FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, has vicarious liability, havingdispatched on Date March 5, 2009, three members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCEwho Andr Murray alleges did conduct themselves unprofessionally, further, in anoffensive manner against Plaintiff Andr Murray; as such these individuals are namedDefendants in this matter.

19. Defendant Chief Barry MacKnight of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, in thecapacity of Chief of Police is vicariously liable, as he is responsible for the professionalconduct of his members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, as such these individualsare named Defendants in this matter.

20. Defendant Constable Mike Fox (for the purposes of this matter) on Date 5th day of March 2009 was acting within the course of employment, 'scope of employment', in thecapacity of a Member of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, as he was dispatched toattend 29-31 Marshall Street in the City of Fredericton the residential address of Plaintiff Andr Murray.

21. Defendant Constable Patrick Small (for the purposes of this matter) on Date 5thday of March 2009 was acting within the course of employment, 'scope of employment',in the capacity of a Member of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, as he wasdispatched to attend 29-31 Marshall Street in the City of Fredericton the residentialaddress of Plaintiff Andr Murray.


8/39

8

22. Defendant Constable Rideout (for the purposes of this matter) on Date 5th day of March 2009 was acting within the course of employment, 'scope of employment', in thecapacity of a Member of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, as she was dispatched toattend 29-31 Marshall Street in the City of Fredericton the residential address of Plaintiff

Andr Murray.23. Defendant Sgt. Myers of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, (for the purposes of this matter) on Date 5th day of March 2009, was acting within the course of employment,'scope of employment', in the capacity of a Member of FREDERICTON POLICEFORCE, as supervisor.

24. Defendant,Neil Rodgers in the capacity of a person making representations,regarding Plaintiff Andr Murray therefore acting as an Informer to FREDERICTONPOLICE FORCE

25.

Defendant,Trina Rodgers in the capacity of a person making fraudulentmisrepresentations, regarding Plaintiff Andr Murray therefore acting as an Informer toFREDERICTON POLICE FORCE

The capacity of all persons who are parties to7th day of May 2008 Defendant therefore tobe joined in thisSeptember 7, 2011, AMENDEDStatement of Claim.

Observations from incidents 7th day of May 2008

26. Plaintiff Andr Murray is the victim in this matter; a innocent man on all accountswho was forced to suffer because of negligence and Malice on the part of Members of FREDERICTON CITY POLICE and Malice on the part of witnesses, who whileobstructing justice did provide false witness and or evidence, further, who intended tocommit unlawful acts and or cause harm to Plaintiff Andr Murray; moreover, for theherewithin stated reasons Plaintiff Andr Murray, without any recognizable properstandard of probable cause, for that reason, further at the hands of Members of FREDERICTON CITY POLICE suffered: assault, battery, wrongful / false arrestunlawful detention and False imprisonment, excessive use of force causing harm,intentional infliction of mental suffering and or nervous shock , violation of his rightscontrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms et al., at the hands of the herewithinnamed Defendants, Fredericton, New Brunswick, May 07, 2008.

27. Defendant,The City of Frederictonin capacity of principal/agent and oremployer has vicarious liability as the employer of the FREDERICTON POLICEFORCE in which numerous members are herein named as Defendants for mattersoccurring on the 7th day of May 2008.

28. John Doe 2 is the unidentified individual or party, reportedly, who on the 7th dayof May 2008, by telephone communicated advise to members of FREDERICTONPOLICE FORCE, the location of innocent Plaintiff Andr Murray.


9/39

9

29. Defendant, Fredericton Police Force, Defendant, FREDERICTON POLICEFORCE, has vicarious liability, having on Date 7th day of May 2008, dispatched threemembers (Defendants in this matter) of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE who allegedlyconducted themselves unprofessionally, further in an offensive manner against Plaintiff

Andr Murray.30. Defendant Chief Barry MacKnight of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, in thecapacity of Chief of Police is vicariously liable, for the incidents as set out below,occurring the 7th day of May 2008, as he is responsible for the professional conduct of his members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, as such his members namedDefendants in this matter.

31. Defendant Constable Patrick Small (for the purposes of this matter) on Date 7thday of May 2008, was acting within the course of employment, 'scope of employment', inthe capacity of a Member of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, as he was dispatched

to attend Two Nations Crossing,Fredericton, New Brunswick, a matter regardingPlaintiff Andr Murray.

32. Defendant Constable Stafford (for the purposes of this matter) on Date 7th day of May 2008, was acting within the course of employment, 'scope of employment', in thecapacity of a Member of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, as he was dispatched toattend Two Nations Crossing, north sideof Fredericton, New Brunswick, a matterregarding Plaintiff Andr Murray.

33. Defendant Constable Saunders (for the purposes of this matter) on Date 7th day of May 2008, was acting within the course of employment, 'scope of employment', in thecapacity of a Member of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, as he was dispatched toattend Two Nations Crossing, north sideof Fredericton, New Brunswick, a matterregarding Plaintiff Andr Murray.

34. Defendant,Neil Rodgers in the capacity of a person making certain representations,regarding Plaintiff Andr Murray, to FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE

35. Defendant,Trina Rodgers in the capacity of a person making certainrepresentations, regarding Plaintiff Andr Murray, to FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE

(2.) The place of residence of the plaintiff .

The Plaintiff ANDR MURRAY Address for service within New Brunswick:

31 Marshall StreetFredericton, N.B.E3A 4J8

(4.) Each allegation of a material fact relied upon to substantiate the claim.


10/39

10

36. Plaintiff Andr Murray, has no warrant(s) for his arrest, has never had an arrestwarrant for his arrest, never had a criminal record and is a productive member of societytherefore maintaining the peace.

37.

Plaintiff Andr Murray has been a Residential Tenant of 29 -31 Marshall StreetDuplex,City of Frederictonfor 6 plus years and is known by the neighbours.

5th day of March 2009

38. March 5, 2009, early afternoon, day light hours, Plaintiff Andr Murray wasremoving snow by hand shovelling the driveway to his residential Marshall StreetDuplex, in theCity of Fredericton. Plaintiff Andr Murrays facial features and physicalbody shape was clearly identifiable, as Andr Murray was wearing only a thin light woolsweater and pants, without wearing coats, hats and or even gloves. the day was well lit.

39. Having just finished shovelling snow from the driveway, Plaintiff Andr Murraywas now walking back towards his residential house entrance, therefore, past the arbourgated enclosed area.

40. Plaintiff Andr Murray had earlier removed all heavy/warm winter clothing andwas now actively retrieving / collecting and or reassembling the winter clothing &accessories. At this point Plaintiff Andr Murray was accosted by unidentified people.

41. Plaintiff Andr Murray now hearing sounds turned around to see what was thecommotion and saw someone (since identified as Constable Fox) quickly approachingPlaintiff Andr Murray at running speed, from the street side of 29 Marshall Street anddown the same driveway, from which Plaintiff Andr Murray had just finished removingthe snow. Plaintiff Andr Murray was surprised by this man in black, because, as of thattime Andr Murray had no prior indication that anyone else was in the area.

42. This unidentified man rapidly approaching Plaintiff Andr Murray, dressed inblack and not wearing a hat, (now known as Constable Mike Fox) was yelling in amanner and speaking quickly that could best be described as verbalizing in a stressedtone and incoherent manner. As Constable Fox rapidly approached Plaintiff AndrMurray, (who is standing still ) he immediately did and without warning grab Plaintiff Andr Murrays right arm, first contact was by Constable Fox seizing the right wristthereby, immediately inflicting pain to Plaintiff Andr Murrays wrist as Constable MikeFox simultaneously forced and caused Plaintiff Andr Murrays right arm to becometwisted around and behind Plaintiff Andr Murrays back.

43. Constable Fox, now having control of Andr Murrays right arm and wrist, didimmediately sweep Andr Murrays feet out from under him, sending Andr Murraysbody to the frozen ground, with Constable Foxs body applying further force againstAndr Murray as they hit the ground, with Constable Fox, now on top of Andr Murray;now continuing to apply pressure to the wrist and using arm lock techniques, whichConstable Fox had without warning initiated and would not relent. Immediately prior to


11/39

11

Constable Mike Fox attacking Plaintiff Andr Murray, Plaintiff Andr Murray washolding in his hands his usual winter clothing accessories.

44. Despite Plaintiff Andr Murrays attempts at reasoning with Constable Mike Fox,(now lying on his stomach face down) Constable Fox continued in the extremely painful

application of force, which was disproportional in the situation, unnecessary, and withoutreason. Plaintiff Andr Murray was at this point in a awkward position, thereforepinned on the ice and had his left arm pinned between his shoulder and face, extendedin front of face on the icy snow surface fortunately protecting Plaintiff Andr Murraysface from further injury by impacting the ground as Constable Mike Fox was at that pointliterally, physically on top of Plaintiff Andr Murrays back continuing to cause pain byapplying extreme force, in various twisted upward motions towards the back direction of his head.

45. At this point Constable Patrick Small arrived on the scene and both he andConstable Mike Fox continued battering, twisting pushing and generally manipulating the

Plaintiffs body into a further submissive position.46. Further to the application of the above mentioned force used against AndrMurray, which had by this point in time been extremely disproportional to the situation,absolutely unnecessary, and unreasonable, and unquestionably sufficient to contain thePlaintiff Andr Murray, (as he is now prostrated on the ground) further, despite the factthat resistance is not occurring, however, Constable Mike Fox instructs Constable PatrickSmall to pepper spray Plaintiff Andr Murray directly into the eyes and face despitethe fact that both Constable Mike Fox and Constable Patrick Small controlled and heldPlaintiff Andr Murray down on the ground.

47. Plaintiff Andr Murray experienced knees digging into his back as both of Plaintiff Andr Murrays arms were simultaneously being pulled backwards and away fromPlaintiff Andr Murrays back with great force.

48. The process of handcuffing Plaintiff Andr Murray wrists involved severalextreme and severe repetitions of lifting Plaintiff Andr Murray arms backwards whilepreventing Plaintiff Andr Murrays body from moving off the surface of the ground, aspressure was applied into Plaintiff Andr Murrays back sides.

49. Plaintiff Andr Murray was subsequentially (after being hand cuffed) physicallylifted up off the ground, by Constable Mike Fox and Constable Patrick Small, while thePlaintiff Andr Murrays wrists were handcuffed; this lifting of Plaintiff Andr Murraysbody procedure included being first dragged for a short distance, then literally suspendedby using Plaintiff Andr Murrays forearms as the fulcrum point (while wrists are handcuffed) to lift and carry Plaintiff Andr Murray reasonably nothing less than 30 feet;hereafter, members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE Constable Mike Fox andConstable Patrick Small continued to cause Plaintiff Andr Murray to be suspendedthrough the air by using Plaintiff Andr Murrays forearms as the fulcrum point (whilewrists are hand cuffed) to finally arrive at a sudden impact with what sounded like the


12/39

12

trunk hood of a motor vehicle; please note: as the Plaintiff Andr Murray at this pointwas completely blind from having had pepper spray, placed directly into Andr Murrayseyes, by Constable Patrick Small from a distance which was approximately less than 2inches away from Plaintiff Andr Murrays eyes.

50.

Plaintiff Andr Murray was subsequentially shoved forward into the back seatcompartment area of the motor vehicle which had become forced upon unwelcometransportation, causing his head to impact the top edge of (what is believed to be) thedoor opening as Plaintiff Andr Murray (not permitted to gain his balance) was shovedinto the motor vehicle (a compartment area of a seat less vehicle) which had now becomehis unwelcome transportation, which did not have seats instead only a hard surface.

51. Plaintiff Andr Murray was subsequently transported against his will, while stillexperiencing burning sensations to his eyes including other injuries endured andsustained to his shoulders, arms and wrists during the arrest procedure and pain from theimpact to his head, caused by the reckless and careless placement of Plaintiff Andr

Murray into a motor vehicle.52. Plaintiff Andr Murray upon arriving at a unknown location, and while stillexperiencing the blinding effect of the pepper spray in his eyes Plaintiff Andr Murraywas removed from the motor vehicle, which had been unwelcome transportation, thenescorted inside a building (what he now knows to be the Fredericton Police Station)where he was allowed to use (what was described to him) by the attending PoliceOfficers, as a Eye Washing Station.

53. Plaintiff Andr Murray did not have his Miranda rights read to him until sometimeafter arriving at the Police Station and not until after Sgt. Myers questioned ConstableMike Fox, as to why Constable Mike admitted that he had not read Plaintiff AndrMurray his rights.

54. Plaintiff Andr Murray while being illegally detained, was not being permitted tocontact a lawyer.

7th day of May 2008

55. Wednesday, May 07, 2008 at 6:30 pm Plaintiff Andr Murray was traveling bybicycle along Two Nations Crossing, on the North side of Fredericton, New Brunswick.

56. Plaintiff Andr Murray was intercepted and stopped by members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE.

57. Constable Stafford of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE did accost Plaintiff Andr Murray, demanding Plaintiff Andr Murray identify himself, which Plaintiff Andr Murray did provide a given name and family name to Constable Stafford.


13/39

13

58. Constable Stafford of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE did demand photo I.D.and threatened Plaintiff Andr Murray, with arrest and or potential fines to pay, if Plaintiff Andr Murray did not immediately produce photo I.D.

59. Constable Michael Saunders arrived at the scene at this time, in an unmarked car,

which appeared to have possibly three (not in uniform) people, observing from within asConstable Saunders departed the unmarked car; Please note Plaintiff Andr Murray atthat time observed sitting in the unmarked car the likeness of Trina Rodgers lookingdirectly at Plaintiff Andr Murray and reasonably believe that the man sitting in the backseat was Neil Rodgers.

60. Constable Michael Saunders and Constable Stafford proceeded to arrest Plaintiff Andr Murray.

61. At this time one more marked police car arrived with a single male occupantconstable Small, who jumped out of the police patrol car and ran over to join in,

therefore, assisting on the arrest of Plaintiff Andr Murray62. Plaintiff Andr Murray was arrested, handcuffed, detained and imprisoned withinFREDERICTON POLICE FORCE Marked Police Cruiser, then released without charge,given a written warning for not having a helmet and Constable Stafford claimed to haveissued a ticket for not having a bell in the bicycle, but would not provide same unlessAndr Murray agreed to place his signature on the ticket.

(5.) The plaintiffs claim.

The Plaintiffs Claim includes the following:

Defendant, The City of Fredericton

63. Defendant,The City of Frederictonhas vicarious liability for the actions anddamages caused bymembers of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCEin their negligentbehaviour, involving assault, battery, wrongful / false arrest and false imprisonment,employing excessive use of force, therefore causing intentional infliction of mentalsuffering and or nervous shock of Plaintiff Andr Murray.

64. Defendant,The City of Frederictonhas vicarious liability for the actions anddamages caused by the subject defendant members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCEin the application of force, which was disproportional in the situation, unnecessary, andunreasonable, furthermore, there was a breach of Plaintiff Andr Murrays Charter rightsunder sections 7, 9 and 12 especially the most egregious denial of Plaintiff AndrMurrays Charter rights under section 11(d ) the presumption of innocence.

65. TheCity of Frederictonis also liable to the Plaintiff Andr Murray for damagesunder the Police Act, S.N.B. 1977, c. P-9.2, as amended.According to of the Police Act,section 17(1) A municipality is liable in respect of a tort committed by a member of the policeforce in the performance or purported performance of his or her responsibilities under section 12


14/39

14

in the same manner as a master is liable, in respect of a tort committed, by the masters servant inthe course of the servants employment where(a) a municipality is maintaining a police force,(b)a municipality is contracting under paragraph 4 (c) for the services of a municipal police force,and(c) a municipality has established a board under section 7. AccordinglyThe City of Frederictonis liable in respect of a tort committed by a member of FREDERICTON POLICEFORCE in the performance or purported performance of his or her responsibilities.


66. Defendant,The City of Fredericton, has a department called Fredericton PoliceForce, which, did dispatch threemembers of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCEtothe 29 -31 Marshall StreetFredericton, New Brunswick on March 5, 2009.

7th day of May 2008

67. Defendant,The City of Fredericton, has a department called Fredericton PoliceForce and did send 3 Fredericton Police Force members to Two Nations Crossing, on theNorth side of Fredericton, New Brunswick May 07, 2008.

Defendant Fredericton Police Force

68. Defendant,FREDERICTON POLICE FORCEhas vicarious liability for theactions and damages caused by members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCEinnegligent, assault, battery, wrongful / false arrest and false imprisonment, excessive useof force, intentional infliction of mental suffering and or nervous shock of Plaintiff AndrMurray.

69. Defendant,FREDERICTON POLICE FORCEhas vicarious liability for theactions and damages caused by members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCEin theapplication of force, which was disproportional to that which determines or that shouldhave been considered in determining a correct course of action, thereby avoidingunnecessary, unreasonable breach of Plaintiff Andr Murrays Charter rights undersections 7, 9 and 12 especially the most egregious denial of Plaintiff Andr MurraysCharter rights under section 11(d ) the presumption of innocence.

70. As required by their oath of office, Fredericton City Police officers must actaccording to the law. The law is clear that police officers are not exempt from liabilityfor negligent conduct, and where acting unreasonably they are not entitled to the statutoryimmunity they could otherwise rely upon.

71. Defendant, Fredericton Police Force members of which have taken this oath:

NEW BRUNSWICKREGULATION 81-18under thePOLICE ACT(O.C. 81-143)


15/39

15

OATH OF OFFICE

CANADAPROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK

I, , do swear that I willwell and truly serve Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, HerHeirs and Successors, in the office of police officer for theProvince of New Brunswick without favour or affection,malice or illwill and that I will to the best of my powercause the peace to be kept and preserved and will preventall offences against the persons and property of Her Majestyssubjects and against all the laws enforceable in theProvince of New Brunswick and that while I continue tohold this office, I will to the best of my skill, ability andknowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully accordingto the law. So help me God.


72. Defendant,FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, on March 5, 2009, did dispatchthree Members, City of Fredericton Police Officers, to attend 29 -31 Marshall Street,Fredericton, New Brunswick, who participated in negligent, assault, battery, wrongful / false arrest and false imprisonment, transportation against his will, excessive use of force,intentional infliction of mental suffering and or nervous shock of Plaintiff Andr Murray.

73. Members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, March 5, 2009, responding toand or attending 29 -31 Marshall Street, Fredericton New Brunswick, should haveconfined themselves only to acting in a capacity of maintaining the peace and acting inthe publics best interest. Moreover, Defendant Members of the Fredericton Police wereunder a duty of care regarding maintaining the safety of Plaintiff Andr Murray andanyone else encountered at civic address 29 -31 Marshall Street, Fredericton.

74. Here within mentioned Defendant Members of FREDERICTON POLICEFORCEwere Negligent in their duty, as they breached a Duty of Care, to takereasonable steps to ensure that in the capacity of City Police Officers, further, City PoliceOfficers who are obliged to Maintain the peace and act in the publics best interest,further, while in performance of their duty as City Police Officers that their conduct mustremain lawful and or legal, moreover, consistent with the circumstances and situation asdiscovered (in this instance) at the residential duplex of 29 - 31 Marshall Street, in theCity of Fredericton, on that subject March 5, 2009, midday afternoon, involving theapproach and address of (someone) not observed to be breaking the law, as Plaintiff Andr Murray was performing an obviously mundane task evidentially not likely to giveoffense or to arouse strong feelings or hostility, furthermore Plaintiff Andr Murrayssnow shovelling activities could not possibly be harmful or injurious to the observer;irregardless of the passive, non offensive, state in which Plaintiff Andr Murray wasdiscovered March 5, 2009, the Defendant Members of theFREDERICTON POLICE


16/39

16

FORCEdid boldly and aggressively accost Plaintiff Andr Murray despite observingPlaintiff Andr Murray maintaining the peace.

75. March 5, 2009 while responding to radio dispatch from Headquarters herewithin mentioned Defendant Members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCEfurther

following directions did attend the 29 -31 Marshall Street residential duplex propertysubsequentially, upon arrival, failed to observe the limits of what is permitted orappropriate, consequentially, going beyond what is right or proper, the Defendant Policehaving dispensed with properly identifying the situation Defendant Members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCEimmediately (without any preliminary process of first identifying the circumstances, person and situation) and with great prejudice,attacked Plaintiff Andr Murray inflicting harm and physical injury.

76. The Defendant Members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCEwho, March 5,2009, actually attended 29 -31 Marshall Street residential duplex property, were under aDuty of Care, to take reasonable steps to ensure that no unlawful or illegal conduct

caused injury to the plaintiff Andr Murray; March 5, 2009 great harm and injury toPlaintiff Andr Murray occurred, at the hands of the here within mentioned DefendantMembers of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, who while attending Marshall Street,Fredericton, New Brunswick, March 5, 2009 were Negligent in Duty of Care.

77. The here within mentioned incident occurring at Plaintiff Andr Murraysresidential address at Marshall Street, Fredericton New Brunswick, March 5, 2009, isprima face evidence of Police mis-conduct, as they interfered with the liberty of lawabiding Plaintiff Andr Murray, who was at that time maintaining the peace; subjectPolice conduct, as did occur that midday March 5, 2009, is not within the scope of aPolice officers duty, although connected with an authorized act, was however though animproper mode, moreover, the conduct of the Defendant Police officers that day,involved an unjustified use of powers not consistent with and outrageouslydisproportional to the observable circumstances, as was discovered, upon Police arriving(shortly after high noon) at the residential duplex 29-31 Marshall Street, Fredericton,further, as would be associated with that duty.

78. The attending members of Fredericton Police Force, where, also under a Duty of Care to act lawfully and legally, while attending the residential duplex 29-31 MarshallStreet, Fredericton, New Brunswick, March 5, 2009. The first negligent act by attendingmembers of Fredericton, Police Force, was to dispense with any attempt to identifyPlaintiff Andr Murray, instead (upon making visual contact on a bright well lightmidday) the Police immediately assaulted Plaintiff Andr Murray while simultaneouslyverbalizing (shouting) commands of instruction (stop and do not move) Police continueduttering threats of violence and promises of injury, as they actually, without hesitation,seamlessly transitioned to physically attacking Plaintiff Andr Murray. March 5, 2009the subject Defendants - members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCEwereNegligent in that DUTY OF CARE while uttering threats, simultaneously enforcingillegal battery, wrongful / false arrest and false imprisonment, excessive use of force,intentional infliction of mental suffering and or nervous shock of Plaintiff Andr Murray.


17/39

17

79. The subject Defendant Fredericton City Police officers breached the DUTY OFCARE they owed the plaintiff and were negligent. Their negligence resulted in Plaintiff Andr Murray suffering injury. Defendant Fredericton City Police officers did cause abreach of Plaintiff Andr Murrays Charter rights under sections 7, 9 and 12 especially the

most egregious denial of Plaintiff Andr Murrays Charter rights under section 11(d ) thepresumption of innocence. The subject Fredericton City Police officers are jointly andseverally liable to the plaintiff for their tortuous actions demonstrating malice an intentto commit unlawful acts and or cause harm to Plaintiff Andr Murray without legal justification or excuse.

80. The subject Defendant Fredericton City Police officers where acting unlawfully, inthe negligent, assault, battery, wrongful / false arrest and false imprisonment, excessiveuse of force, intentional infliction of mental suffering and or nervous shock of Plaintiff Andr Murray. Defendant Fredericton City Police officers where Negligent in theexecution of their duties and that in all the here within related circumstances, the police

conduct constitutes unjustifiable interference with the individual liberty of Plaintiff AndrMurray.

7th day of May 2008

81. Wednesday, May 07, 2008 at 6:30 pm Plaintiff Andr Murray was traveling bybicycle along Two Nations Crossing, on the North side of Fredericton, New Brunswick.

82. Defendant,FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, May 07, 2008, did dispatchthree City of Fredericton Police Officers to attend Two Nations Crossing, on the northside of Fredericton, New Brunswick, who participated in negligent, assault, battery,wrongful / false arrest and false imprisonment, for that reason inexplicably usingexcessive force, causing intentional infliction of mental suffering and or nervous shock of Plaintiff Andr Murray.

83. Members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, May 07, 2008, responding toand or attending Two Nations Crossing, on the North side of Fredericton, NewBrunswick, should have confined themselves, only, to acting in a capacity of maintainingthe peace and acting in the publics best interest, additionally, Defendant Members of theFredericton Police were under a duty of care regarding maintaining the safety of Plaintiff Andr Murray.

84. Here within mentioned Defendant Members of FREDERICTON POLICEFORCEwere Negligent in their duty as they breached a Duty of Care to take reasonablesteps to ensure that in the capacity of City Police Officers, furthermore, as City PoliceOfficers who are obliged to Maintain the peace and act in the publics best interest,further, while in performance of their duty as City Police Officers that their conduct mustremain lawful and or legal, moreover, consistent with the circumstances and situation asdiscovered (in this particular instance) at Two Nations Crossing, on the North side of Fredericton, New Brunswick, May 07, 2008 at or about 6:30 pm involving the approach


18/39

18

and address of (someone) not observed to be breaking the law as Plaintiff Andr Murraywas only performing a obviously mundane task of travelling by bicycle, as suchtherefore, not likely to give offense or to arouse strong feelings or hostility, furthermorePlaintiff Andr Murrays peaceful travelling activities could not possibly be harmful orinjurious to the observer; moreover and despite the passive non offensive state in which

Plaintiff Andr Murray was first encountered by the herein named Defendants/Membersof Fredericton Police Force, however, nevertheless and despite the evident passive natureof Plaintiff Andr Murray he was boldly and aggressively accosted.

85. May 07, 2008 while responding to radio dispatch from Fredericton Police ForceHeadquarters here within mentioned Defendant Members of Fredericton Police Force,further, following directions did attend Two Nations Crossing, on the North side of Fredericton, New Brunswick subsequentially, upon arrival, failed to observe the limits of what is permitted or appropriate, consequentially, going beyond what is right or proper,the Defendant Police having dispensed with properly identifying the situation, DefendantMembers of Fredericton Police Force did despite having Plaintiff Andr Murray identify

himself, continue with great prejudice, to attack Plaintiff Andr Murray therebyinflicting harm and physical injury.

86. The Defendant Members of Fredericton Police Force, who, May 07, 2008, actuallyattended Two Nations Crossing, on the North side of Fredericton, New Brunswick, whereunder a Duty of Care, to take reasonable steps to ensure that no unlawful or illegalconduct caused injury to the plaintiff Andr Murray. May 07, 2008, despite a Duty of Careharm and injury did befall to Plaintiff Andr Murray and occurred, at the hands of the here within mentioned Defendant Members of Fredericton Police Force, who whileattending Two Nations Crossing, on the North side of Fredericton, New Brunswick, May07, 2008, Fredericton Police Force were Negligent in Duty of Care.

87. The here within mentioned Two Nations Crossing, Fredericton, New Brunswick,May 07, 2008, incident of Police prima facie seriousmisconduct , initially refers to thematter of interference with Plaintiff Andr Murrays liberty. Subject conduct, as didoccur at or about 6:30 pm May 07, 2008, is within the scope of employment and orwithin the course of employment of Police officers duty, althought in this particular casean improper mode in performing said duties occurred; moreover, the conduct of theDefendant Police officers that day, involved an unjustified use of powers not consistentwith and outrageously disproportional to the observable circumstances, as wasdiscovered, upon Police arriving (at or about 6:30 pm) Two Nations Crossing,Fredericton, New Brunswick,

88. The attending members of Fredericton Police Force where also under a Duty of Care to act lawfully and legally, while attending Two Nations Crossing, Fredericton,New Brunswick, May 07, 2008. The first negligent act by the attending members of Fredericton Police Force was to, despite having identified Plaintiff Andr Murray,assaulted Plaintiff Andr Murray verbalizing (shouting) commands of instruction (stopand do not move) as they actually without hesitation seamlessly transitioned to physically


19/39

19

attacking battering Plaintiff Andr Murray. Furthermore, the subject Defendants -members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE were Negligent in that DUTY OFCARE uttering threats, illegally enforcing battery, wrongful / false arrest and falseimprisonment, excessive use of force, intentional infliction of mental suffering and ornervous shock of Plaintiff Andr Murray.

89. Defendant named members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE were negligentand breached the DUTY OF CARE they owed the plaintiff. Their negligence resultedin plaintiff Andr Murray suffering injury. Defendant; named members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE did cause a breach of Plaintiff Andr Murrays Charter rights under sections 7, 9 and 12 especially the most egregious denial of Plaintiff AndrMurrays Charter rights under section 11(d ) the presumption of innocence. SubjectFredericton City Police officers are jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff for theiractions.

90. Defendant named members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE where acting

unlawfully, in the negligent, assault, battery, wrongful / false arrest and falseimprisonment, excessive use of force, intentional infliction of mental suffering and ornervous shock of Plaintiff Andr Murray. Defendant named members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE where Negligent in the execution of their duties andthat in all the here within related circumstances, the police conduct constitutesunjustifiable interference with the individual liberty of Plaintiff Andr Murray.

Defendant Chief of Police Barry MacKnight


91. Defendant Barry MacKnight as Chief of Police on the 5th day of March 2009, isresponsible for the dispatch of threemembers of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE,to therefore, attend the residential duplex at 29 31 Marshall Street, Fredericton, NewBrunswick, Police officers who upon arriving at 29 31 Marshall Street did discover alaw abiding and peaceful Plaintiff Andr Murray. Regardless of the peacefulcircumstances which existed, the attending Defendant Police officers negligently andwith apparent prejudice and entirely without probable cause did assault, then unlawfullyand illegally dispensed a prolonged physical beating on Plaintiff Andr Murray,including inhumanely spraying of PEPPER SPRAY directly into Plaintiff Andr Murrayeyes while he was pinned down on the ground. Violence disproportionate to thecircumstances, which was morally unwarranted, a physical battery of plaintiff AndrMurray, which was absolutely unnecessary as Plaintiff Andr Murray had not yet beenobserved or identified as breaking the law and was not, nor had any intention to avoidquestioning or arrest, this was a most significant part of the wrongful / false arrest andsubsequent false imprisonment, involving excessive use of force, intentional infliction of mental suffering and or nervous shock upon Plaintiff Andr Murray as he wastransported against his will on the 5th day of March 2009, please note, physical injurieswhich continue to plague Plaintiff Andr Murray till this day.


20/39

20

92. Defendant Chief of Police Barry MacKnight as Chief of Police has vicariousliability for the actions and damages caused by the here within named Defendantmembers of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCEwho in their negligence did assault,battery, wrongful / false arrest and falsely imprison, Plaintiff Andr Murray usingtherefore, excessive use of force, causing intentional infliction of mental suffering and or

nervous shock of Plaintiff Andr Murray while attending a peaceful law-abiding man athis residential civic address of 29 Marshall Street, Fredericton, New Brunswick, on the5th day of March 2009.

93. Defendant Chief of Police Barry MacKnight was negligent in the performance of his duties, particularly in his failure to properly supervise Defendant Constable Mike FoxBadge number: 346, Defendant Constable Patrick Small Badge number: 355, DefendantConstable Rideout Badge number: 320 and Defendant Sgt. Myers Badge number: 281.who was on duty as supervisor at the Police station.

94. Defendant Barry MacKnight as Chief of Police was negligent in the performance

of his duties, particularly in his failure to properly instruct Constable Mike Fox,Defendant Constable Patrick Small, Defendant Constable Rideout and Defendant Sgt.Myers about the sanctity of one's home. The sanctity of one's home is of fundamentalimportance in a free and democratic society. It is constitutionally recognized in ourcountry. Everyone must not only be secure, but feel, secure in their residence. A societythat tolerates significant criminal intrusions into the privacy of one's home is a societythat forces it citizens to resort to self-help to protect themselves against such wrongs.Absent effective responses from the judiciary, the alternative is for citizens to armthemselves in anticipation of a need to defend themselves against such criminalenterprises. A society like that is not ours today, has not been ours in the past, andhopefully will not become ours in the future. The obligation of the Court is to give properrecognition to the sanctity of the home, to protect all citizens against such intrusions, andto preserve the public's confidence in the administration of justice.

95. For the here within named Defendant members of FREDERICTON POLICEFORCEto violate the sanctity of one's home and threaten to enter into their dwellinghouse to accost the Plaintiff is considered as an aggravating circumstances, the fact thatthe dwelling-house would have been occupied at the time of the promised commission of the offence and that the person in committing the offence, were aware, knew that, or wasreckless as to, whether the dwelling-house was occupied, and used violence or threats of violence to a person or property is especially egregious. The presence of the occupants of their home, with the violation of their sense of sanctity and security in that place, and theattendant exposure to the threat (express or implied) of physical or psychological harm,that sets the home invasion apart from other offences committed in relation to a home.

7th day of May 2008

96. Defendant Barry MacKnight as Chief of Police May 07, 2008, is responsible forthe dispatch of the here within named Defendant members of FREDERICTONPOLICE FORCEto attend Two Nations Crossing, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Police


21/39

21

officers who upon arriving at Two Nations Crossing, Fredericton, New Brunswick diddiscover a law abiding and peaceful Plaintiff Andr Murray. Regardless of the peacefulcircumstances, the attending Defendant Police officers negligently with apparentprejudice and entirely without probable cause did assault, than unlawfully and illegallydispensed a prolonged physical beating on Plaintiff Andr Murray. Violence

disproportionate to the circumstances, a physical battery of plaintiff Andr Murray,which was absolutely unnecessary as Plaintiff Andr Murray had not yet been observedor identified as breaking the law. The wrongful / false arrest and false imprisonment,involving excessive use of force, intentional infliction of mental suffering and or nervousshock upon Plaintiff Andr Murray May 07, 2008, caused physical injuries to Plaintiff Andr Murray with lingering psychological mental aguish.

97. Defendant Chief of Police Barry MacKnight as Chief of Police has vicariousliability for the actions and damages caused by the here within named Defendantmembers of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCEwho in their negligence did assault,commit battery, wrongful / false arrest and false imprisonment, using therefore excessive

use of force, causing intentional infliction of mental suffering and or nervous shock of Plaintiff Andr Murray while attending Two Nations Crossing, North side of Fredericton, New Brunswick, May 07, 2008.

98. Defendant Chief of Police Barry MacKnight was negligent in the performance of his duties, particularly in his failure to properly supervise Defendant Constable Staffordbadge number: 358, Defendant Constable Saunders, (badge number refused), andDefendant Constable Small Badge number: 355.

99. Defendant Barry MacKnight as Chief of Police was negligent in the performanceof his duties, particularly in his failure to properly instruct Defendants: ConstableStafford, Police badge number 358, Defendant Constable Saunders, ( Police badgenumber refused when requested by victim Andr Murray), and Defendant ConstableSmall, Police Badge number 355; regarding the principle of a presumption of innocenceas set out in Section 11 (d) of the Charter Rights and Freedoms. The principle of thepresumption of innocence is of fundamental importance in a free and democratic society.It is constitutionally recognized in our country. For the here within named Defendantmembers of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCEto violate the principle of thepresumption of innocence as set out in Section 11 (d) of the Charter Rights andFreedoms, who did accost the Plaintiff and used random violence and or threats of violence against a reasonably innocent person is especially egregious. The presumptionof innocence requiring therefore an investigation of the circumstances, as they may haveappeared to attending members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCEwas in thismatter denied Plaintiff Andr Murray. The efforts of governments and Courts to upholdthese fundamental rights of a democratic society must never cease. These rights areentrenched in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Defendant Constable Mike Fox


22/39

22

100. Defendant Constable Mike Fox of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, on the 5thday of March 2009, negligently initiated a assault, battery, wrongful / false arrest andfalse imprisonment, using excessive use of force, intentional infliction of mentalsuffering and or nervous shock of Plaintiff Andr Murray at 29 -31 Marshall Street,Fredericton, New Brunswick as the Plaintiff Andr Murray was finally transported

against his will and conscience to places unknown.101. Defendant Constable Mike Fox on the 5th day of March 2009, owed plaintiff Andr Murray a duty of care, as a professional, on duty Police Officer, in the treatmentof Plaintiff Andr Murray; Defendant Constable Mike Fox was negligent in that duty.Defendant Constable Mike Fox did not take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions,which Defendant Constable Mike Fox could reasonably foresee, would for that reasonlikely cause harm or injury to Plaintiff Andr Murray.

102. Defendant Constable Mike Fox on the 5th day of March 2009, was negligent in nottaking reasonable steps to investigate the identity of Plaintiff Andr Murray.

103. Defendant Constable Mike Fox on the 5th day of March 2009, was negligent infalsely asserting that the identity of plaintiff Andr Murray was known to him.

104. Defendant Constable Mike Fox on the 5th day of March 2009, used unnecessaryand excessive force when arresting and detaining innocentPlaintiff Andr Murray.

105. Defendant Constable Mike Fox on the 5th day of March 2009 did cause a breachof Plaintiff Andr Murrays Charter rights under sections 7, 9 and 12 especially the mostegregious denial of Plaintiff Andr Murrays Charter rights under section 11(d ) thepresumption of innocence.

106. Defendant Constable Mike Fox 5th day of March, 2009, did illegally andunlawfully assault Plaintiff Andr Murray, first by uttering illegal and unlawfulcommands, while simultaneously battering Plaintiff Andr Murray. Defendant ConstableMike Fox while he tortured Plaintiff Andr Murray uttered continuous ultimatums impossible to comply with commands, that Plaintiff Andr Murray must move his (atthat moment) pined down to the ground body into a impossible contortion position, whichif Plaintiff Andr Murray did not comply immediately Defendant Constable Mike Foxwas threatening to inflict further pain and consequentially did inflict the pain which hehad initially threatened. Note: for Andr Murray to have been able to comply with thecommands of Defendant Constable Mike Fox while being physically restrained (as hewas) would have required that Plaintiff Andr Murray be physically double jointed andor have rare abilities to contort twist or bend his body out of its normal shape.

107. Defendant Constable Mike Fox did without provocation initiate and did wilfullycommit Battery against Plaintiff Andr Murray, furthermore, Defendant Constable MikeFox without warning attacked Plaintiff Andr Murray, possibly inflicting injury of apermanent nature upon Plaintiff Andr Murrays right wrist; as of this date AndrMurray still attends physiotherapy treatment in an attempt to reduce pain and regain full


23/39

23

mobility of Andr Murrays right wrist arm and shoulder; furthermore, DefendantConstable Mike Fox without provocation and or probable cause did cause Plaintiff AndrMurrays legs to be without warning swept out from under Plaintiff Andr Murraythereby intentionally causing a painful and damaging fall onto the knees and upper body.Defendant Constable Mike Fox further applied excessive and unnecessary application of

pressure to plaintiff Andr Murrays right wrist, Defendant Constable Mike Fox didencourage, thereby instruct Constable Small to participate in an act of pepper spraying of plaintiff Andr Murrays face. Constable Mike Fox did participate in lifting plaintiff Andr Murray up and off the ground therefore carrying plaintiff Andr Murray by thehandcuffed wrists thereby creating a fulcrum point in a manner distributing and focusingall plaintiff Andr Murrays body weight causing further injury to plaintiff AndrMurrays shoulders and wrists, Defendant Constable Mike Fox did forcibly shoveplaintiff Andr Murray face first onto one of the Police vehicles, Defendant ConstableMike Fox did push plaintiff Andr Murray into a seat less compartment of the Policevehicles causing plaintiff Andr Murray to bang his heard onto the Police vehicles doorframe.

108. Defendant Constable Mike Fox on the 5th day of March, 2009, evidentially havingno intention to maintain the peace and or act in the best interest of a law abiding AndrMurray, did accost an innocent Plaintiff Andr Murray, for that reason did unlawfullyand illegally, arrest and detain an innocent Plaintiff Andr Murray.

109. Defendant Constable Mike Fox did on the 5th day of March, 2009, intentionallyconduct himself so as to cause infliction of mental suffering and or nervous shock by theflagrant and or outrageous conduct of Constable Mike Foxs use of excessive forceagainst Plaintiff Andr Murray. Defendant Constable Mike Fox committed a deliberate orreckless act which was the use of excessive force in the arrest of an innocent Plaintiff Andr Murray.

110. Defendant Constable Mike Fox on the 5th day of March, 2009, observed AndrMurray maintaining the peace, despite the following Defendant Constable Mike Foxchoose not to maintain the peace and or act in the best interest of Andr Murrayregardless of the fact Defendant Constable Mike Fox did not have an arrest warrant forPlaintiff Andr Murray.

111. Defendant Constable Mike Fox on the 5th day of March 2009 did not observePlaintiff Andr Murray committing a crime and or disturbing the peace, as such,Defendant Constable Mike Fox did not have probable cause to accost and or arrestPlaintiff Andr Murray.

112. Defendant Constable Mike Fox as he was transporting Plaintiff Andr Murrayagainst his will further on that date of 5th day of March 2009, verbalized to Plaintiff Andr Murray (now handcuffed in the back compartment of the Police Vehicle, furthervisually blinded by pepper spray a captured audience so to speak)was forced to listen tothe confession of Defendant Constable Mike Fox about how that he had accessedPlaintiff Andr Murrays unlisted home phone number the year before, further that he


24/39

24

Defendant Constable Mike Fox had anonymously telephoned Andr Murray threateningto break into Plaintiff Andr Murrays house to get you . Defendant Constable MikeFox continued to boast (while illegally transporting handcuffed, pepper sprayed, Plaintiff Andr Murray to the Fredericton Police station) confirming that he Constable Mike Foxhad further verbalized certain threats during that earlier herewithin mentioned anonymous

unsolicited telephone call I will get you further Constable Mike Fox continued to bragor boast that he had now done exactly that. Defendant Constable Mike Fox was aware of the effect of his conduct on Plaintiff Andr Murray and purposefully continued in thatconduct; consequentially Plaintiff Andr Murray has been psychologically injured.

Defendant Constable Patrick Small

113. Defendant Constable Patrick Small of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, on the5th day of March 2009, participated in the negligent, assault, battery, wrongful / falsearrest and false imprisonment, therefore using excessive use of force, causing intentionalinfliction of mental suffering and or nervous shock of Plaintiff Andr Murray.

114. Defendant Constable Patrick Small on the 5th day of March 2009, owed Plaintiff Andr Murray a duty of care as a professional on duty Police Officer in the treatment of Plaintiff Andr Murray; Defendant Constable Patrick Small was negligent in that duty.Defendant Constable Patrick Small did not take reasonable care to avoid acts oromissions, which Defendant Constable Patrick Small could reasonably foresee, wouldlikely cause harm or injury to Plaintiff Andr Murray.

115. Defendant Constable Patrick Small on the 5th day of March 2009, was negligent innot taking reasonable steps to investigate the identity of innocent Plaintiff Andr Murray.

116. Defendant Constable Patrick Small on the 5th day of March 2009, usedunnecessary and excessive force when, without probable cause, was arresting anddetaining an innocentPlaintiff Andr Murray.

117. Defendant Constable Patrick Small, on the 5th day of March 2009, did cause abreach of Plaintiff Andr Murrays Charter rights under sections 7, 9 and 12 especially themost egregious denial of Plaintiff Andr Murrays Charter rights under section 11(d ) thepresumption of innocence.

118. Defendant Constable Patrick Small did on the 5th day of March 2009, assaultinnocent Plaintiff Andr Murray by uttering threats, for that reason, illegal and unlawfulcommands, including ultimatums to comply or suffer further violence and injury, pleasenote this unprovoked aggressive behaviour victimizing Plaintiff Andr Murray wasoccurring, relentlessly, throughout the subject arrest procedure.

119. Defendant Constable Patrick Small on the 5th day of March 2009, did inter aliacommit Battery against plaintiff Andr Murray, for that reason pepper spraying the eyesand face of Plaintiff Andr Murray.


25/39

25

120. Defendant Constable Patrick Small did on the 5th day of March 2009, participatein, lifting/suspending plaintiff Andr Murray using the victims forearms as fulcrum pointwhile having previously handcuffed Plaintiff Andr Murrays wrists, subsequentiallycarrying Plaintiff Andr Murray a distance, suspended, consequentially causingextensive injury to plaintiff Andr Murrays shoulders, arms and wrists, Defendant

Constable Patrick Small did subsequentially participate in causing Plaintiff Andr Murrayto be forcibly shoved face first onto one of the Police motor vehicles, followed byDefendant Constable Patrick Small paticipating in pushing Plaintiff Andr Murray intothe (enclosed area) of Police motor vehicle thereby causing Plaintiff Andr Murray tobang his heard onto the car door frame.

121. Defendant Constable Patrick Small did on the 5th day of March 2009, unlawfullyand illegally arrest and detain Plaintiff Andr Murray.

122. Defendant Constable Patrick Small did on the 5th day of March 2009, commitintentional infliction of mental suffering and or nervous shock by the flagrant and or

outrageous conduct of Defendant Constable Patrick Small by his use of excessive forceagainst Plaintiff Andr Murray, which had not been provoked. Defendant ConstablePatrick Small committed a deliberate or reckless act, which was the use of excessiveforce in the arrest of innocent Plaintiff Andr Murray without warrant for his arrest, alsohaving not witnessed a crime in progress, thereby committing a illegal attack upon ainnocent man Plaintiff Andr Murray who was maintaining the peace.

123. On the 5th day of March 2009, Defendant Constable Patrick Small did conducthimself for the purpose of injuring Plaintiff Andr Murray, furthermore, DefendantConstable Patrick Small was aware of the effect of his conduct used against Plaintiff Andr Murray and continued in that abusive conduct; consequentially a result of violence used against Plaintiff Andr Murray injury resulted in the commission of thissubject illegal and unlawful arrest of innocent Andr Murray.

Defendant Constable Nancy Rideout

124. Defendant Constable Rideout of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, on the 5thday of March 2009, did negligently participate in the assault, battery, wrongful / falsearrest and false imprisonment, excessive use of force, causing intentional infliction of mental suffering and or nervous shock of including contributing to the transportation of ainnocent man against his will and or conscience, that being Plaintiff Andr Murray.

125. Defendant Constable Nancy Rideout on the 5th day of March 2009, owed plaintiff Andr Murray as a professional on duty Police Officer a duty of care in the treatmentof Plaintiff Andr Murray; Defendant Constable Nancy Rideout was negligent in thatduty of care. Defendant Constable Nancy Rideout did not take reasonable care to avoidacts or omissions, which Defendant Constable Nancy Rideout could reasonably foresee,would for that reason cause harm or injury to Plaintiff Andr Murray. Instead choose tobe complicit and further involved herself with other Defendant Members of


26/39

26

FREDERICTON POLICE FORCEin an illegal activity and or wrong doing byarresting an innocent Plaintiff Andr Murray.

126. Defendant Constable Nancy Rideout on the 5th day of March 2009, was negligentin not taking reasonable steps to investigate the identity of Plaintiff Andr Murray.

127. Defendant Constable Rideout on the 5th day of March 2009, participated in thearrest involving unnecessary and excessive force while arresting and detaining innocentPlaintiff Andr Murray.

128. Defendant Constable Rideout did on the 5th day of March 2009, did cause a breachof Plaintiff Andr Murrays Charter rights under sections 7, 9 and 12 especially the mostegregious denial of Plaintiff Andr Murrays Charter rights under section 11(d ) thepresumption of innocence.

129. Defendant Constable Rideout on the 5th day of March 2009, did wilfullyparticipate to assault Plaintiff Andr Murray by uttering illegal and unlawful commands,followed by ultimatums requiring compliance or suffer further violence and injury duringthe arrest procedure.

130. Defendant Constable Nancy Rideout on the 5th day of March 2009 did wilfullyparticipate to commit Battery against Plaintiff Andr Murray, inter alia, wilfullyparticipating in the pepper spraying of plaintiff Andr Murray, which ultimately led toplaintiff Andr Murray being harmfully and injuriously lifted and suspended in the air byusing his handcuffed wrists as a fulcrum point for that reason causing further extensiveinjury to plaintiff Andr Murrays shoulders and wrists, Defendant Constable NancyRideout did assist with an unlawful arrest in which included causing Plaintiff AndrMurray to be shoved face first onto the body of one of the Police motor vehicles,Defendant Constable Nancy Rideout was for these reasons an accomplice to the pushingof Plaintiff Andr Murray into the back compartment Police motor vehicles causingplaintiff Andr Murray to bang his head onto the Police motor vehicle door frame.

131. Defendant Constable Nancy Rideout on the 5th day of March 2009 did withoutprobable cause, thereby, unlawfully participate in the illegal arrest and detainment of aninnocent Plaintiff Andr Murray.

132. Defendant Constable Rideout on the 5th day of March 2009 did participate tocommit intentional infliction of mental suffering and or nervous shock by the flagrant andor outrageous use of excessive force against innocent Plaintiff Andr Murray.

133. Defendant Constable Nancy Rideout acted negligently on the 5th day of March2009 in her behaviour towards Plaintiff Andr Murray, therefore, deliberately committedrecklessly violent acts against innocent Plaintiff Andr Murray which subject negligenceis evidentially confirmed by the arrest of an innocent Andr Murray. Moreover,Constable Rideout having never witnessed Plaintiff in an illegal act, and or committing acrime, furthermore, having no reasonable probable cause to believe that Plaintiff Andr


27/39

27

Murray is guilty of a crime, nevertheless proceeded with extreme prejudice againstinnocent Plaintiff Andr Murray.

Defendant Sergeant Myers

134.

Defendant Police Sergeant Myers of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, on the5th day of March 2009 was supervisor in charge and responsible for managing alloperations on that shift of duty as such, the handling and processing of Plaintiff AndrMurray was negligent, first of all allowing for the dispatch of the Members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE and the subsequent illegal arrest of Andr Murrayfollowed by Andr Murrays illegal imprisonment, which was further exasperated byDefendant Police Sergeant Myers not permitting Plaintiff Andr Murray access to alawyer; Plaintiff Andr Murray was made to suffer interrogation further delaying arelease of innocent Plaintiff Andr Murray; Defendant Police Sergeant Myers having hadmore than sufficient time to assess the situation since reasonable he would have oversight on the dispatch of the herein named Defendant Police the day of the false arrest and

subsequentially confirmed at the Police station located at 311 Queen Street, Fredericton.Defendant Constable Stafford

135. Defendant Constable Stafford a member of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, onthe 7th day of May 2008, participated in the negligent assault, battery, wrongful / falsearrest and false imprisonment, for that purpose did use excessive force, causingintentional infliction of mental suffering and or nervous shock of Plaintiff Andr Murray.

136. Defendant Constable Debbie Stafford the 7th day of May 2008, owed plaintiff Andr Murray a duty of care as a professional on duty Police Officer in the treatment of Plaintiff Andr Murray; Defendant Constable Stafford was negligent in that duty of care Defendant Constable Stafford did not take reasonable care to avoid acts oromissions, which Defendant Constable Debbie Stafford could reasonably foresee, wouldlikely cause harm or injury to Plaintiff Andr Murray.

137. Defendant Constable Debbie Stafford, May 07, 2008, was negligent in notmaintaining the peace while acting as a Peace Officer, thereby acting in the publics bestinterest in particular (for our purposes) towards Plaintiff Andr Murray.

138. Defendant Constable Debbie Stafford May 07, 2008, was negligent in falselyasserting that innocent Plaintiff Andr Murray was required by law to producephotographic identification.

139. Defendant Constable Debbie Stafford May 07, 2008, used unnecessary andexcessive force when arresting and detaining innocentPlaintiff Andr Murray.

140. Defendant Constable Debbie Stafford May 07, 2008, did cause a breach of Plaintiff Andr Murrays Charter rights under sections 7, 9 and 12 especially the most egregious


28/39

28

denial of Plaintiff Andr Murrays Charter rights under section 11(d ) the presumption of innocence.

141. Defendant Constable Debbie Stafford May 07, 2008, did illegally and unlawfullyassault Plaintiff Andr Murray by uttering illegal and unlawful commands, while

simultaneously transitioning to physical battering of Plaintiff Andr Murray; impossiblecommands that Plaintiff Andr Murray must move his body one way then the other,evidentially, since Plaintiff Andr Murrays body was not malleable sufficient to thesatisfaction of arresting Police Constable Debbie Stafford, Plaintiff Andr Murray wasfurther subjected to utterances of a threatening nature spoken by Defendant ConstableDebbie Stafford who was promising to and who did actually nevertheless inflict furtherpain.

142. Defendant Constable Debbie Stafford did May 07, 2008, commit assault andbattery against Plaintiff Andr Murray.

143.

Defendant Constable Debbie Stafford without warning to Plaintiff Andr Murraydid secure Plaintiff Andr Murrays right arm, thereby pulling his arm behind Plaintiff Andr Murrays back and at the same time pulling Plaintiff Andr Murrays body off balance, so as to drag Plaintiff Andr Murray off of his bicycle, consequentially,(considering the resulting momentum) causing the slamming of Plaintiff Andr Murraysbody, and face thereby colliding with great force onto the automobile trunk (rear end) of the Police marked vehicle.

144. Defendant Constable Debbie Stafford on the 7th day of May 2008, did unlawfullyand illegally arrest and detain a peaceful law abiding Plaintiff Andr Murray.

145. Defendant Constable Debbie Stafford did the 7th day of May 2008, commitintentional infliction of mental suffering and or nervous shock by the flagrant and oroutrageous conduct of Defendant Constable Debbie Staffords use of excessive forceagainst Plaintiff Andr Murray. Defendant Constable Debbie Stafford committed and ordeliberately contributed to further reckless acts therefore further victimizing Plaintiff Andr Murray which included use of excessive force.

146. Defendant Constable Debbie Stafford the 7th day of May 2008, had no warrant forarrest of Plaintiff Andr Murray.

147. Defendant Constable Debbie Stafford the 7th day of May 2008, did not observePlaintiff Andr Murray committing a crime or disturbing the peace and as suchDefendant Constable Debbie Stafford did not have probable cause to arrest or even toaccost Plaintiff Andr Murray .

Defendant Constable Saunders

148. Defendant Constable Michael Saunders of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, the7th day of May 2008 participated in negligent, assault, battery, wrongful / false arrest and


29/39

29

false imprisonment, excessive use of force, intentional infliction of mental suffering andor nervous shock, by these means inflicted upon and for this reason victimized Plaintiff Andr Murray of 29 -31 Marshall Street, Fredericton, New Brunswick

149. Defendant Constable Michael Saunders as a professional on duty Police Officer

the 7th day of May 2008, owed plaintiff Andr Murray a duty of care in the treatment of Plaintiff Andr Murray; Constable Michael Saunders was negligent in that duty.Defendant Constable Michael Saunders did not take reasonable care to avoid acts oromissions, which Defendant Constable Michael Saunders could reasonably foresee,would reasonably cause harm or injury to Plaintiff Andr Murray.

150. Defendant Constable Michael Saunders on the 7th day of May 2008, usedunnecessary and excessive force when arresting and detaining an innocentPlaintiff AndrMurray.

151. Defendant Constable Michael Saunders did the 7th day of May 2008, cause abreach of Plaintiff Andr Murrays Charter rights under sections 7, 9 and 12 especially themost egregious denial of Plaintiff Andr Murrays Charter rights under section 11(d ) thepresumption of innocence.

152. Defendant Constable Michael Saunders did the 7th day of May 2008, assaultinnocent Plaintiff Andr Murray by uttering threatening commands, followed byultimatums of comply or suffer further violence and injury throughout the subsequentillegal and unlawful subject arrest procedure which followed.

153. Defendant Constable Michael Saunders on the 7th day of May 2008, did commitBattery against Plaintiff Andr Murray, by participating in a arrest procedure, which wasillegal and unlawful furthermore, can not be sanctioned by our laws or customs, further,Defendant Constable Michael Saunders in this matter arrested an innocentPlaintiff AndrMurrayunder circumstances which were absolutely unprovoked and for that reasonunnecessary.

154. Defendant Constable Michael Saunders the 7th day of May 2008, didillegally/unlawfully arrest and detain Plaintiff Andr Murray.

155. Defendant Constable Michael Saunders on the 7th day of May 2008, did commitintentional infliction of mental suffering and or nervous shock upon an innocent AndrMurray (Plaintiff) by Defendant Constable Patrick Smalls flagrant and or outrageousconduct in his use of excessive force against Plaintiff Andr Murray; furthermore,Defendant Constable Patrick Small committed deliberate or reckless acts, which inter aliaincluded the use of excessive force in the arrest of innocent Plaintiff Andr Murray, whowas lacking an arrest warrant for Andr Murray, had not witnessed Plaintiff AndrMurray in progress of a crime.

156. Defendant Constable Michael Saunders, on the 7th day of May 2008, did transportcivilians in his unmarked (not identifiable as official Police property) a matter of questionable Police protocol, where a unmarked car and himself not in uniform did attend


30/39

30

the questionable incident scene of the following matter elaborated heretofore,furthermore, said civilians, who for these reasons became witnesses, consequently, interalia, violating Plaintiff Andr Murrays right to privacy. Plaintiff Andr Murray hasgood reason to believe that Plaintiff Andr Murray recognized two civilians, sitting in theunmarked car driven by Defendant Constable Michael Saunders the 7th day of May

2008, furthermore, Plaintiff Andr Murray recognized Trina Rodgers and reasonablybelieve that a man sitting in the back was appropriate for the known description of NeilRodgers.

Defendant Constable Patrick Small

157. Defendant Constable Patrick Small of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, the 7thday of May, 2008, participated in the negligent, assault, battery, detainment/ false arrestand false imprisonment, excessive use of force, intentional infliction of mental sufferingand or nervous shock of Plaintiff Andr Murray.

158.

Defendant Constable Patrick Small on the 7th day of May 2008, owed plaintiff Andr Murray a duty of care, as a professional on duty Police Officer in the treatmentof Plaintiff Andr Murray; Defendant Constable Patrick Small was negligent in thatduty. Defendant Constable Patrick Small did not take reasonable care to avoid acts oromissions, which Defendant Constable Patrick Small could reasonably foresee, wouldlikely cause harm or injury to Plaintiff Andr Murray.

159. Defendant Constable Patrick Small on the 7th day of May 2008, used unnecessaryand excessive force when arresting and detaining an innocentPlaintiff Andr Murray atTwo Nations Crossing, Fredericton.

160. Defendant Constable Patrick Small did on the 7th day of May 2008, cause a breachof Plaintiff Andr Murrays Charter rights under sections 7, 9 and 12 especially the mostegregious denial of Plaintiff Andr Murrays Charter rights under section 11(d ) thepresumption of innocence.

161. Defendant Constable Patrick Small did on the 7th day of May 2008, withoutprobable cause assault innocent Plaintiff Andr Murray by uttering illegal and unlawfulcommands, followed by ultimatums of complying or suffer further violence and injurythroughout the subject arrest procedure.

162. Defendant Constable Patrick Small on the 7th day of May 2008, did commitBattery against Plaintiff Andr Murray, by participating in the unnecessary arrest of innocentPlaintiff Andr Murray.

163. Defendant Constable Patrick Small on the 7th day of May 2008 did unlawfullyarrest and detain Plaintiff Andr Murray.

164. Defendant Constable Patrick Small on the 7th day of May 2008, did commitintentional infliction of mental suffering and or nervous shock by his flagrant and oroutrageous conduct, furthermore, by his use of excessive force against Plaintiff Andr


31/39

31

Murray. Defendant Constable Patrick Small committed a deliberate or reckless act, whichwas the use of excessive force in the arrest of innocent Plaintiff Andr Murray, withoutwarrant for arrest of Plaintiff Andr Murray, also having not witnessed a crime inprogress, and or committed by Plaintiff Andr Murray.

JOHN DOE 1165. John Doe 1 is the unidentified individual who reportedly contactedFREDERICTON POLICE FORCE by telephone, resulting in members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE being dispatched, therefore, arriving at 29 31Marshall Street, City of Fredericton, New Brunswick the 5th day of March 2009,(possibly same as John Doe 2) is unknown to the Plaintiff and is (once again) believed tobe responsible for instigating incidents provided here within, in that connection orrelation, did instigate the circumstances leading up to an innocent Plaintiff AndrMurray, thereby, suffering offensive acts against and causing harm and or injury toPlaintiff Andr Murray. John Doe 2 or 1 (as the case may be) reportedly initiated, caused

to occur, by purposely falsely accusing innocent Plaintiff Andr Murray, John Doe 1 or2, did bare false witness against innocent Plaintiff Andr Murray and or as the case maybe found to be, John Doe 1 or 2 reportedly identified by telephone to members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, the location of innocent Plaintiff Andr Murray,resulting in members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, being dispatched, to thelocation of this subject incident, subsequently occurring at Plaintiff Andr Murraysresidential duplex 29 31 Marshall Street, City of Fredericton, New Brunswick, on the5th day of March 2009, The entire complicity of John Doe 1 (possibly same person asJohn Doe 2) in causing the subject incident to occur it not at this time fully known.

166. Defendant John Doe 1 "wilfully obstructs a public officer" evidently committedFraudulent Misrepresentations thereby intending to bring harm and or injury to innocentPlaintiff Andr Murray.

167. Defendant John Doe 1 is engaged in the tort of abuse of process by utilising thePolicing Mechanism, for a collateral and improper purpose, and secondly Defendant JohnDoe 2 "wilfully obstructs a public officer" has called the Fredericton Police Force on the5th day of March 2010, a definite act in furtherance of a purpose of harassing and harmingthe Plaintiff Andr Murray which is not a legitimate use of the process.

JOHN DOE 2

168. John Doe 2 who "wilfully obstructs a public officer" is the unidentified individualwho reportedly contacted FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE by telephone, resulting inmembers of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE arriving at Two Nations Crossing,Fredericton, New Brunswick, the 7th day of May 2008, (possibly same as John Doe 1) isunknown to the Plaintiff and is (once again) believed to be responsible for causing,(incidents as found provided here within), in that connection or relation, instigatedoffensive acts against an innocent Plaintiff Andr Murray, thereby, victimizing andcausing harm and or injury to Plaintiff Andr Murray. John Doe 2 or 1 ( as the case may


32/39

32

be) reportedly initiated, caused to occur, by purposely falsely accusing innocent Plaintiff Andr Murray, therefore, did bare false witness against innocent Plaintiff Andr Murrayand or as the case may be found to be, John Doe 2 or 1 reportedly identified by telephoneto members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, the location of innocent Plaintiff Andr Murray, resulting in members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, being

dispatched, to the location of this subject incident, subsequently occurring at TwoNations Crossing, Fredericton, New Brunswick, on the 7th day of May 2008, The entirecomplicity of John Doe 2 (possibly same person as John Doe 1) in causing the subjectincident to occur it not at this time fully known.

169. Defendant John Doe 2 committed Fraudulent Misrepresentations thereby intendingto bring harm and or injury to innocent Plaintiff Andr Murray.

170. Defendant John Doe 2 was engaged in the tort of abuse of process by utilising thePolicing Mechanism, for a collateral and improper purpose, and secondly Defendant JohnDoe 2 has called the Fredericton Police Force on the 7th day of May 2008 a definite act

in furtherance of a purpose of harassing and harming the Plaintiff Andr Murray whichis not a legitimate use of the process.

Defendant,Neil Rodgers

171. Defendant,Neil Rodgers is believed to be the unidentified individual or partyreportedly, who "wilfully obstructs a public officer" on the 5th day of March 2009, bytelephone communicated advice to members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE,regarding the location of innocent Plaintiff Andr Murray,Defendant,Neil Rodgers whowas therefore, intending to bring harm and or injury to innocent Plaintiff Andr Murray.Neil Rogers committed Fraudulent Misrepresentations thereby intending to bring harmand or injury to innocent Plaintiff Andr Murray

172. Defendant,Neil Rodgers is believed to be the unidentified individual or party, who"wilfully obstructs a public officer" further who reportedly on the 7th day of May 2008,by telephone communicated advice to members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE,regarding the location of innocent Plaintiff Andr Murray,Defendant,Neil Rodgers whowas intending to bring harm and or injury to innocent Plaintiff Andr Murray. NeilRogers committed Fraudulent Misrepresentations thereby intending to bring harm and orinjury to innocent Plaintiff Andr Murray

173. Defendant Neil Rodgers is engaged in the tort of abuse of process, by utilisingthe Policing Mechanism, for a collateral and improper purpose, and secondly DefendantNeil Rodgers has called the Fredericton Police Force on the 5th day of March 2009, adefinite act in furtherance of a purpose of harassing and harming the Plaintiff AndrMurray, which is not a legitimate use of the process.

174. Defendant Neil Rodgers is engaged in the tort of abuse of process by utilising thePolicing Mechanism, for a collateral and improper purpose, and secondly Defendant NeilRodgers has called the Fredericton Police Force on the 7th day of May 2008, a definite


33/39

33

act in furtherance of a purpose of harassing and harming the Plaintiff Andr Murraywhich is not a legitimate use of the process.

Defendant,Trina Rodgers

175.

Defendant,Trina Rodgers is believed to be the unidentified individual or partyreportedly, who "wilfully obstructs a public officer" on the 5th day of March 2009, bytelephone communicated advice to members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE,regarding the location of innocent Plaintiff Andr Murray the intending to bring harmand or injury to innocent Plaintiff Andr Murray. Trina Rogers committed FraudulentMisrepresentations thereby intending to bring harm and or injury to innocent Plaintiff Andr Murray

176. Defendant,Trina Rodgers is believed to be the unidentified individual or partyreportedly, who "wilfully obstructs a public officer" on the 7th day of May 2008, bytelephone communicated advice to members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE,

regarding the location of innocent Plaintiff Andr Murray who was intending to bringharm and or injury to innocent Plaintiff Andr Murray. Trina Rogers committedFraudulent Misrepresentations thereby intending to bring harm and or injury to innocentPlaintiff Andr Murray

177. Defendant Trina Rodgers is engaged in the tort of abuse of process by utilising thePolicing Mechanism, for a collateral and improper purpose, and secondly DefendantTrina Rodgers has called the Fredericton Police Force on the 5th day of March 2009. adefinite act in furtherance of a purpose of harassing and harming the Plaintiff AndrMurray which is not a legitimate use of the process.

178. Defendant Trina Rodgers is engaged in the tort of abuse of process by utilising thePolicing Mechanism, for a collateral and improper purpose, and secondly DefendantTrina Rodgers has called the Fredericton Police Force on the 7th day of May 2008 adefinite act in furtherance of a purpose of harassing and harming the Plaintiff AndrMurray which is not a legitimate use of the process.

Motor Vehicle Act

179. Plaintiff Andr Murray claims that as a man travelling on a conveyance, in a noncommercial endeavour capacity, is and was not subject to the Motor Vehicle Act, as theapplication of the Motor Vehicle Act is defined by the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.N.B.1973, c. M-17. As a consequence of the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. M-17 notapplying to Plaintiff Andr Murray in

Amended Notice of Motion City Sept 8. 2011

Documents

Transcript of Amended Notice of Motion City Sept 8. 2011