January 19, 2012, Andre Murray Affidavit B filed in response to First Motion Filed by THE CITY OF...

7/29/2019 January 19, 2012, Andre Murray Affidavit B filed in response to First Motion Filed by THE CITY OF FREDERICTON.

1/27

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 MURRAYPlaintiff,

-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 RODGERSCONSTABLE DEBBIE STAFFORD,CONSTABLE MICHAEL SAUNDERS,JOHN DOE 2

Defendants,

AFFIDAVIT B

I, Plaintiff Andr Murray, inhabitant of THE CITY OF FREDERICTON,County of York, in the Province of New Brunswick, Artist, MAKE OATH

AND SAY AS FOLLOWS:

1. I Andr Murray as above indicated am the Plaintiff in this matter assuch have personal knowledge of the matters herein deposed to except where

otherwise stated;


2/27

2

2. furthermore, I Plaintiff Andr Murray, am since year 2005 andcurrently a Residential Leasehold Tenant residing at 31 Marshall Street, in THE

CITY OF FREDERICTON, New Brunswick;3. I Plaintiff Andr Murray while travelling by bicycle within THE CITYOF FREDERICTON, May 7, 2008, was intercepted members of

FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE then without warning physically attacked

resulting in injuries by the conduct of members of the FREDERICTONPOLICE FORCE during the arrest procedure.

4. I Plaintiff Andr Murray required months, of physical therapy torecover from my subject injuries thereby suffered at the hands of members ofthe FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, moreover the subject injuries are

entirely as a consequence of the actions of members of the FREDERICTONPOLICE FORCE during the subject May 7, 2008 incident.

5. I Plaintiff Andr Murray have immediately following said subject May7, 2008 incident, been continuously pursuing remedy regarding this matter.

6. Tuesday, May 5, 2009 at 3:34 PM, I Andr Murray did file a complaintagainst the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, regarding the May 7, 2008

incident, with the NEW BRUNSWICK POLICE COMMISSION. The subjectComplaint, of which was titled Complaint against members of the Fredericton

City Police Department was sent by Andr Murray using e-mail:

[email protected] to: [email protected]

7. May 5, 2009 at 4:13 PM I Andr Murray did receive anacknowledgement of receipt of my e-mail correspondence from Jocelyn (Josh)Ouellette Executive Director as he then was of The NEW BRUNSWICK

POLICE COMMISSIONregarding my complaint against members of

FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, regarding the May 7, 2008 incident.

8. Tuesday, June 16, 2009 at 11:26 AM I Andr Murray did receive a e-mail reply from Office of Professional Standards of the FREDERICTON

POLICE FORCE, acknowledging receipt of my complaint from: S/Sgt. DanielR. Copp using his email address: [email protected]

to: [email protected] the subject of the email was Your complaint

against members of the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE


3/27

3

9. Chief of Police Barry MacKnight, did write a letter, Dated September29, 2009, Notifying me Andr Murray of his decision to summarily dismiss my

complaint, FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE File number, (FPF File 09-10302) regarding Plaintiff Andr Murrays complaint, against the

FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, regarding the May 7, 2008 incident.

RTIPPA Request - Police Commission file number 2010-RTIPPA-02.

10. Contrary to reasonable or common sense behavior, further thesubsequent utterly absurd or ridiculous justification of FREDERICTON

POLICE FORCE regarding the above mentioned subject incident of May 7,2008 obliged that I Andr Murray, September 27, 2010, pursuant to Right to

Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6 apply forcorrespondence and other documents, which may reveal other possiblemotivations for the outrageously violent behavior directed at Andr Murray by

members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE while at the same time

occurring in the presence of Trina Rodgers as a witness sitting in the front seatof an unmarked Police Detective Saunders car.

11. I Andr Murray as a consequence of having filed complaints with bothNEW BRUNSWICK POLICE COMMISSION(File: 2110 C- 09- 09), and theFREDERICTON POLICE FORCE regarding the here within above mentioned

Wednesday May 7, 2008 arrest of Applicant Andr Murray, therefore any

subsequent investigations and results/conclusions determined thereof, must bemade available for the Applicant (in this case) to peruse according to RTIPPA

(Police Commission file number 2010-RTIPPA-02).

12. Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 3:27 PM, I Andr Murray, received a letter fromThe New Brunswick Police Commission, which read After seeking third party

intervention from the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, we are partially

granting access to the requested records. The letter indicated that The NEWBRUNSWICK POLICE COMMISSIONwould be disclosing a portion of the

records requested and notably that the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE was

involved in that decision.

13. December 9, 2010, I Andr Murray did receive a reply correspondencefrom New Brunswick Police Commission, stating inter alia that NEWBRUNSWICK POLICE COMMISSIONin spite of RTIPPA (PoliceCommission file number 2010-RTIPPA-02) NEW BRUNSWICK POLICE


4/27

4

COMMISSIONis declining Andr Murray full access to documents specific to

this subject matter, further, in particular an Appendix C which consists of the

investigation report prepared by the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE andcopy provided to New Brunswick Police Commission. Please Note NEW

BRUNSWICK POLICE COMMISSIONis prepared to provide only partialdisclosure of the investigation report.

14. NEW BRUNSWICK POLICE COMMISSIONin spite of RTIPPA hasconfirmed verbally, further placed into written correspondence addressed to

Andr Murray denying full access to documents in their possession, specific to

this matter - 48 pages of Appendix C.

15. January 13, 2011 NEW BRUNSWICK POLICE COMMISSIONdidpartially make available the above mentioned subject documents as requestedby Andr Murray pursuant to NEW BRUNSWICK POLICECOMMISSIONFile: 2110 C- 09- 09 further, NEW BRUNSWICK POLICE

COMMISSIONFile: 2010 RTIPPA- 02.

16. I Andr Murray, subsequently, having reviewed subject NEWBRUNSWICK POLICE COMMISSIONFile: (File: 2110 C- 09- 09 ) 2010

RTIPPA- 02, subject investigation report summary and conclusion revealed

the cause of Applicant Andr Murrays battery and arrest resulted and causedby persons being obscured - the following is an exact excerpt:

Investigative Summary blacked out, a blacked out has provided a statementthat he observed a male closely matching the description of a suspect in some

type of crime, as a result he contacted the police station, and Cst. Debbie

Stafford attended the area and attempted to stop and identify the individual.

17. The partial disclosure did reveal that the Fredericton Police were calledby a person who gave a description of someone matching the Plaintiffs

description engaged in some illegal activity and that was the actual reason why

the Plaintiff was initially accosted May 7, 2008.

RTIPPA - Referral with Queens Bench

18. I Andr Murray did file with Court of Queenss Bench Client ServicesOn January 10, 2011, FORM 1 REFERRAL, Dated January 10, 2011.

19. On the 8th day of February, 2011, at 2:15 PM I Andr Murray asAPPLICANT in that matter, served RESPONDENT New Brunswick Police


5/27

5

Commission, with FORM 1 REFERRAL (Right to Information and Protection

of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c.R-10.6, s.65(1)(a)) dated the 10th day of

January, 2011, by leaving a copy New Brunswick Police Commission, at NEWBRUNSWICK POLICE COMMISSIONOffice located at 435 King Street,

Suite 202, Fredericton N.B. with Coordinator Pauline Philibert, forRESPONDENT in that matter.

20. The matter of a referral was rescheduled several times, until finallyheard August 11, 2011, regarding both Court File Nos. F/M/1/11 and

F/M/22/11. As a part of the Referral request, the Plaintiff is attempting to have

an Order namely:

A. Order an investigation to determine is there is substance to thealleged abuse and malicious manipulation of the FREDERICTON

POLICE FORCE services.

B. The Investigation shall reveal the excessive volume of `nonproductive` complaint telephone calls regarding the Applicant and or

Applicants residence 29 31 Marshall Street over the 6 year periodfrom 2005-2011

C. The Investigation shall reveal the number of non eventresponses by FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE to Investigate theApplicant and or Applicants residence 29 31 Marshall Street over the

6 year period from 2005-2011

D. Moreover, the Investigation may conclusively reveal theunfounded substance of the telephone reports and complaints to

FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE regarding the Applicant and orApplicants residence of 29 31 Marshall Street over the 6 year period

from 2005-2011.

E. The Investigation may reveal the identity of the telephonereports and determine why the complaints are without substance

nevertheless caused suffering of the innocent Applicant by relentless

stalking and or surveillance or the Applicants residence of 29 31Marshall Street occurring regularly over the 6 year period from 2005-

2011.


6/27

6

F. Finally Order full disclosure of same investigation to theApplicant that the Applicant may acquire a Cease and desist Order for

his protection.

21. The Referral Court File Nos. F/M/1/11 and F/M/22/11, results are stillpending. Plaintiff Andr Murray verily believes and the balance of probability,

is that through the Plaintiffs actions to try to gain access to the FREDERICTON

POLICE FORCE Files, the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE must have beenmade aware that I Andr Murray was attempting to gain a Court order, to order

the Police to reveal their files and the identity of the unnamed caller.

Filing Action - Court File Number: F/C/45/11

22.

March, 4, 2011 I Andr Murray did file aNOTICE OF ACTIONWITH STATEMENT OFCLAIM ATTACHED (FORM 16A), Dated March, 4,2011 Court File Number: F/C/45/11 with the Court Client Services Fredericton

New Brunswick.

23. On the 2nd day, of September, 2011, at 3:55 PM, I Andr Murray,served, Defendants THE CITY OF FREDERICTON and others, with a

NOTICE OF ACTION WITH STATEMENT OF CLAIM ATTACHED

(FORM 16A), Dated March, 4, 2011, Court File Number: F/C/45/11 by leavinga copy, with (THE CITY OF FREDERICTON) Acting City Administrator and

(THE CITY OF FREDERICTON) Assistant City Clerk Chris MacPherson, at

City Hall, 397 Queen Street, Fredericton N.B.

24. September, 8, 2011, I Andr Murray did file (within 7 days of serviceof original claim) aAMENDED NOTICE OF ACTION WITH STATEMENTOF CLAIM ATTACHED (FORM 16A), Dated September, 8, 2011, Court File

Number: F/C/45/11 with the Court Client Services, Fredericton, New

Brunswick.

25. On the 9th day, of September, 2011, at 2:09 PM, I Andr Murray,served, Defendants THE CITY OF FREDERICTON and others, a AMENDED

NOTICE OF ACTION WITH STATEMENT OF CLAIM ATTACHED(FORM 16A), Dated September, 8, 2011, Court File Number: F/C/45/11 by

sending to City Solicitor Michelle Brzak, for subject named Defendants THE

CITY OF FREDERICTON and others a facsimile of herewithin abovedescribed documents, accompanied by a copy of a cover page marked by

telephone transmission to City Solicitors Fax 506-460-2128.


7/27

7

26. On the 15th day, of September, 2011, at 6:30 PM, accompanied by twowitnesses, I Andr Murray, Pursuant to Rules of Court Rule 18.02HowPersonal Service Shall be Made18.02(1)(a) I Andr Murray served, DefendantNeil Rodgers, at (his place of residence) 15 Fisher Ave, Fredericton, NB, E3A4J1 with an Envelope containing documents marked A, B, and C:

A: NOTICE OF ACTION WITH STATEMENT OF CLAIMATTACHED (FORM 16A), Dated March, 4, 2011 Court File Number:

F/C/45/11;

B: AMENDED NOTICE OF ACTION WITH STATEMENT OFCLAIM ATTACHED (FORM 16A), Dated March, 4, 2011 as AMENDED

Dated September, 8, 2011 Court File Number: F/C/45/11;

C: A letter, Dated September, 14, 2011, requesting of Mr. Neil Rodgers

his consent to be added, as a party, and for that reason further amendments

to the original NOTICE OF ACTION WITH STATEMENT OF CLAIMDated March, 4, 2011, further, for that reason, included for anticipated

convenience of the Defendant was attached a drafted DEFENDANTS

CONSENT FORM Court File Number: F/C/45/11;

27. On the 15th day, of September, 2011, at 6:30 PM, accompanied by twowitnesses, I Andr Murray, Pursuant to Rules of Court Rule 18.03(6), served,

Defendant Trina Rodgers, at (her place of residence) 15 Fisher Ave,Fredericton, NB, E3A 4J1 by leaving with Neil Rodgers (husband of Trina

Rodgers) an Envelope containing documents marked A, B, and C:

A: NOTICE OF ACTION WITH STATEMENT OF CLAIM

ATTACHED (FORM 16A), Dated March, 4, 2011 Court File Number:

F/C/45/11;

B: AMENDED NOTICE OF ACTION WITH STATEMENT OF

CLAIM ATTACHED (FORM 16A), Dated March, 4, 2011 as AMENDED


C: A letter, Dated September, 14, 2011, requesting of Trina Rodgers her

consent to be added, as a party, and for that reason further amendments tothe original NOTICE OF ACTION WITH STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Dated March, 4, 2011, further, for that reason, included for anticipated


8/27

8

convenience of the Defendant was attached a drafted DEFENDANTS

CONSENT FORM Court File Number: F/C/45/11;

28. I Andr Murray acting as Process Server was able to identify theperson Neil Rodgers (husband of Trina Rodgers) with whom I left theherewithin above mentioned Court Documents, as an adult and an occupant of

the dwelling in which the person to be served resides by means of the fact that,

Neil Rodgers is known to me, having previously met Neil Rodgers on severaloccasions, further having been a next door neighbor for a period of six years

2005 to 2011.

29. Furthermore, in accordance to Rules of Court Rule 18.03;Other Waysto Effect Personal Service18.03(6), Service at Place of Residence; a successful

attempt was made to serve Trina Rodgers, at her place of residence, duringdaylight hours, by leaving a copy in a sealed envelope addressed to her, withNeil Rodgers, an adult and an occupant of the dwelling in which the person to

be served resides, in this way, documents marked A, B, and C, was

served on Defendant Trina Rodgers by leaving a copy in a sealed envelopeaddressed to her, and on next day another copy of the said documents were sent

prepaid mail by Canada Post, tracking number: 0067 0750 0011 9484,

addressed to Defendant Trina Rodgers, at her place of residence being 15 Fisher

Ave, Fredericton, NB, E3A 4J1.

30. On the 21st day, of September, 2011, at 3:40 PM, I Andr Murray,again served, Defendants THE CITY OF FREDERICTON and others, with aAMENDED NOTICE OF ACTION WITH STATEMENT OF CLAIM

ATTACHED (FORM 16A), Dated September, 8, 2011, Court File Number:

F/C/45/11 by sending to Leanne Murray, Associate with Mcinnes Cooper,Barker House, Suite 600, 570 Queen Street, PO Box 610 Fredericton NB E3B

5A6 for subject named Defendants THE CITY OF FREDERICTON and others

a facsimile of herewithin above described documents, accompanied by a copy

of a cover page marked B by telephone transmission to City Solicitors Fax506 - 458 - 9903.

31. I Andr Murray verily believed, because discussions with CitySolicitor Michelle Brzak and Staff Sergeant Danny Copp on previous

occasions, that it was unnecessary to serve all the named members of the

FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE and that law of agency applied in thisinstance, such that, Court document Process Service upon THE CITY OF

FREDERICTON was considered service upon all of its agents. Because I am


9/27

9

self represented and in as a cautionary step I did Endeavour to served each and

every named Defendant to this Action Court File Number: F/C/45/11.

32. September 27, 2011 at 1:30 PM I Andr Murray did attendFREDERICTON POLICE FORCE Office at 311 Queen Street, Fredericton,N.B. E3B 1B1 in an attempt to process serve the subject Court documents upon

the individual name Police Force member Defendants. D. S. Hughson

claimed arrangements for service would be unavailable at that time, eventhough some of the named Police Officers were supposed to be in the very

building at the time of inquiry. I was asked to call Lori Daniels, of Fredericton

Legal services for further information.

33. September 27, 2011 at 2:00 PM I called the number which I was givenby D. S. Hughson and spoke to Lori Daniels who directed me to call thesecretary of the Chief of Police Tanya Ramsay to make an appointment and atthat time I could affect Service. Further I was instructed to call ahead to make

appointments to serve the other officers so as to effect timely and efficient

service upon them.

34. In attempting to serve the various members of the FREDERICTONPOLICE FORCE September 28, 2011 I Andr Murray did e-mail Tanya

Ramsay Assistant to Barry MacKnight Chief of Police FREDERICTONPOLICE FORCE at email address ([email protected]) and further,

called the office several times to expedite matters. I indicated to TanyaRamsay, that I have been advised by the City solicitors office, that TanyaRamsay would facilitate me, to meet with and or make appointments, to meet

with certain members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE at Fredericton City

Police Force office, located at 311 Queen Street, Fredericton N.B. E3B 1B1.Namely Chief of Police Barry MacKnight, Sergeant Matt Myers, Constable

Mike Fox, Constable Patrick Small, Constable Nancy Rideout, Constable

Debbie Stafford, Constable Michael Saunders. I Andr Murray advised Tanya

Ramsay that I have documents of a legal nature which are time sensitive andrequire immediate Service.

35. On the 3rd day, of October, 2011, at 10:00am, I Andr Murray,Pursuant to Rules of Court Rule 18.02, 1(a), served, Defendant Chief of Police

Barry MacKnight, at FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE 311 Queen Street,

Fredericton, NB E3B 1B1 by leaving with Defendant Chief of Police BarryMacKnight the following documents marked A, B, and C:


10/27

10



F/C/45/11;



C: A letter, Dated October 3, 2011, requesting of Defendant Chief of

Police Barry MacKnight, his consent to be added, as a party, and for that

reason further requisite amendments to the original NOTICE OF ACTION

WITH STATEMENT OF CLAIM Dated March, 4, 2011, further, for thatreason, included for the anticipated convenience of the Defendant was

attached a drafted DEFENDANTS CONSENT FORM Court FileNumber: F/C/45/11;

36. On the 6th day, of October, 2011, at 1:00pm, I Andr Murray,Pursuant to Rules of Court Rule 18.02, 1(a), served, Defendant ConstablePatrick Small, at FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE 311 Queen Street,

Fredericton, NB E3B 1B1 by leaving with Defendant Constable Patrick Small

the following documents marked A, B, and D:


ATTACHED (FORM 16A), Dated March, 4, 2011, Court File Number:

F/C/45/11;


CLAIM ATTACHED (FORM 16A), Dated March, 4, 2011 as AMENDEDDated September, 8, 2011 Court File Number: F/C/45/11;

D: A letter, Dated October 3, 2011, requesting of Defendant Constable

Patrick Small, his consent to be added, as a party, and for that reason furtherrequisite amendments to the original NOTICE OF ACTION WITH

STATEMENT OF CLAIM Dated March, 4, 2011, further, for that reason,

included for the anticipated convenience of the Defendant was attached adrafted DEFENDANTS CONSENT FORM Court File Number:

F/C/45/11;

37. On the 7th day, of October, 2011, at 10:00 am, I Andr Murray,Pursuant to Rules of Court Rule 18.02, 1(a), served, Defendant Sergeant Matt


11/27

11

Myers, at FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE 311 Queen Street, Fredericton,

NB E3B 1B1 by leaving with Defendant Sergeant Matt Myers the following

documents marked A, B, and E:


F/C/45/11 Court File Number: F/C/45/11;


CLAIM ATTACHED (FORM 16A), Dated March, 4, 2011 as AMENDED

Dated September, 8, 2011 Court File Number: F/C/45/11 Court File

Number: F/C/45/11;

E: A letter, Dated October 3, 2011, requesting of Defendant SergeantMatt Myers, his consent to be added, as a party, and for that reason furtherrequisite amendments to the original NOTICE OF ACTION WITH


included for the anticipated convenience of the of Defendant Sergeant MattMyers was attached a drafted DEFENDANTS CONSENT FORM Court

File Number: F/C/45/11 Court File Number: F/C/45/11;

38. On the 7th day, of October, 2011, at 10:00 am, I Andr Murray,Pursuant to Rules of Court Rule 18.02, 1(a), served, Defendant Constable

Debbie Stafford, at FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE 311 Queen Street,

Fredericton, NB E3B 1B1 by leaving with Defendant Constable DebbieStafford the following documents marked A, B, and F:


F/C/45/11;



F: A letter, Dated October 3, 2011, requesting of Defendant Constable

Debbie Stafford, her consent to be added, as a party, and for that reason

further amendments to the original NOTICE OF ACTION WITHSTATEMENT OF CLAIM Dated March, 4, 2011, further, for that reason,

included for anticipated convenience of the Defendant was attached a


12/27

12

drafted DEFENDANTS CONSENT FORM Court File Number:

F/C/45/11;

39. On the 9th day, of October, 2011, at 11:00 am, I Andr Murray,Pursuant to Rules of Court Rule 18.02, 1(a), served, Defendant Constable MikeFox, at FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE 311 Queen Street, Fredericton, NB

E3B 1B1 by leaving with Defendant Constable Mike Fox the following

documents marked A, B, and G:



F/C/45/11;

B: AMENDED NOTICE OF ACTION WITH STATEMENT OFCLAIM ATTACHED (FORM 16A), Dated March, 4, 2011 as AMENDEDDated September, 8, 2011 Court File Number: F/C/45/11;

G: A letter, Dated October 3, 2011, requesting of Defendant ConstableMike Fox, his consent to be added, as a party, and for that reason further

amendments to the original NOTICE OF ACTION WITH STATEMENT

OF CLAIM Dated March, 4, 2011, further, for that reason, included for

anticipated convenience of the Defendant was attached a draftedDEFENDANTS CONSENT FORM Court File Number: F/C/45/11;

40. On the 11th day, of October, 2011, at 10:20 am, I Andr Murray,Pursuant to Rules of Court Rule 18.02, 1(a), served, Defendant Constable

Nancy Rideout, at FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE 311 Queen Street,

Fredericton, NB E3B 1B1 by leaving with Defendant Constable Nancy Rideoutthe following documents marked A, B, and H:


ATTACHED (FORM 16A), Dated March, 4, 2011, Court File Number:F/C/45/11;


Dated September, 8, 2011, Court File Number: F/C/45/11;

H: A letter, Dated October 3, 2011, requesting of Defendant Constable

Nancy Rideout, her consent to be added, as a party, and for that reason


13/27

13

further amendments to the original NOTICE OF ACTION WITH


included for anticipated convenience of the Defendant was attached adrafted DEFENDANTS CONSENT FORM, Court File Number:

F/C/45/11;

Defendant THE CITY OF FREDERICTON and DefendantFREDERICTON POLICE FORCE

41. I contest paragraph 6 of a Affidavit dated November 21, 2011, ofDefendant Chief of Police Barry MacKnight, in which is claimed that Prior to

September 21, 2011, THE CITY OF FREDERICTON /FREDERICTONPOLICE FORCE had no notice or knowledge of the Plaintiffs claim against

them regarding a May 7, 2008 incident, as outlined in the Amended Claim.Contrary to as herewithin claimed by Defendant Chief of Police Barry MacKnight,regarding lack and or delay of service of the subject Amended Claim; THE

CITY OF FREDERICTON / FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE were in fact

served in accordance with Rules of Court;May this please the Court: Rule 18.02 How Personal Service Shall be Made (1)

Personal service shall be made as follows:Municipality (b) on a municipality, by

leaving a copy of the document with any solicitor for the municipality;On the 9th day, of September, 2011, at 2:09 PM, I Andr Murray, served,

Defendants THE CITY OF FREDERICTON and others, a AMENDEDNOTICE OF ACTION WITH STATEMENT OF CLAIM ATTACHED

(FORM 16A), Dated September, 8, 2011, Court File Number: F/C/45/11 by

sending to City Solicitor Michelle Brzak, for subject named Defendants THECITY OF FREDERICTON et al. a facsimile of herewithin above subject

documents, accompanied by a copy of a cover page marked by telephone

transmission to City Solicitors Fax 506-460-2128.

42. Furthermore, THE CITY OF FREDERICTON /FREDERICTONPOLICE FORCE did receive Notice, by way of a complaint which I Andr

Murray filed at 3:34 PM, May 5, 2009 (File: 2110 C- 09- 09) against certainmembers of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, regarding a incident occurring

May 7, 2008, therefore, a complaint filed with the New Brunswick Police

Commission. Tuesday, June 16, 2009 at 11:26 AM; thereafter I Andr Murray

did receive a e-mail reply from S/Sgt. Daniel R. Copp Office of ProfessionalStandards of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, acknowledging receipt of my

complaint regarding a incident occurring May 7, 2008. The complaint was (asis procedure) first characterized by the Chief of Police, then the matter

investigated for criminal behavior, afterwhich the Service of Policy issue


14/27

14

investigation was concluded. Date September 27, 2010, pursuant to Right to

Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6 I Andr

Murray did apply for relevant documentation (Police Commission file number2010-RTIPPA-02). The FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE was contactedregarding disclosure of the subject documentation. After the NEWBRUNSWICK POLICE COMMISSION refused to disclose the full contents of

the subject file I Andr Murray did file with Court of Queenss Bench

Fredericton Client Services On January 10, 2011, FORM 1 REFERRAL, DatedJanuary 10, 2011 (Court File No. F/M/1/11). The matter of a REFERRAL

F/M/1/11 is still pending. Throughout the procedures herewithin referenced, the

balance of probability and further Plaintiff Andr Murray verily believes to be

true that THE CITY OF FREDERICTON /FREDERICTON POLICE FORCEwere contacted repeatedly regarding these issues, as a consequence THE CITY

OF FREDERICTON /FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE did know this issueof May 7, 2008 incident was remaining alive and active.

43. THE CITY OF FREDERICTON and the FREDERICTON POLICEFORCE did not claim that THE CITY OF FREDERICTON orFREDERICTON POLICE FORCE were prejudiced in any meaningful way or

at all by being served a AMENDED NOTICE OF ACTION WITH

STATEMENT OF CLAIM ATTACHED (FORM 16A), Dated September, 8,

2011, Court File Number: F/C/45/11 On the 9th day, of September, 2011.Service of the Amended Claim on the 9th day, of September, 2011 occurred

only 7 days from the dated of service of a NOTICE OF ACTION WITH

STATEMENT OF CLAIM ATTACHED (FORM 16A), Dated March, 4, 2011,Court File Number: F/C/45/11 which occurred on the 2nd day, of September,

2011. THE CITY OF FREDERICTON and the FREDERICTON POLICE

FORCE filed their Statement of Defence September 30, 2011 a full 22 daysafter being served the subject Amended Notice of Action.

44. September 22, 2011, Leanne Murray, of McInnes Cooper (internal filenumber LE-162) Solicitor for Defendants THE CITY OF FREDERICTON, theFREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, Chief of Police Barry MacKnight, Sergeant

Matt Myers, Constable Michael Fox, Constable Patrick Small and Constable

Nancy Rideout did in fact provide consent as follows: Further to your emailcorrespondence dated September 21, 2011, THE CITY OF FREDERICTON

consents to your request to amend your Statement of Claim by adding parties as

Defendants. THE CITY OF FREDERICTON did in fact consent to PlaintiffAndr Murrays request to amend Plaintiff Andr Murrays Statement of Claim

by adding parties as Defendants.


15/27

15

45. As a consequence, of the actions and consent granted by THE CITYOF FREDERICTON and through the rule of agency,agentDefendantFREDERICTON POLICE FORCE did also provided consent to my request toamend your Statement of Claim by adding parties as Defendants, because hisprincipal, by THE CITY OF FREDERICTON did consent to same.

Defendant Chief of Police Barry MacKnight

46. In reply to paragraph 10 of the Affidavit of Defendant Chief ofPolice Barry MacKnight dated November 21, 2011, in which Defendant Chief

of Police Barry MacKnight claimed that Prior to October 3, 2011, I had nonotice or knowledge of the Plaintiffs claim against me regarding a May 7,

2008, as outlined in the Amended Claim.47. As a consequence of Service upon Defendants THE CITY OFFREDERICTON and others, a AMENDED NOTICE OF ACTION WITH

STATEMENT OF CLAIM ATTACHED (FORM 16A), Dated September, 8,2011, Court File Number: F/C/45/11, on the 9th day, of September, 2011, at

2:09 PM, I Andr Murray, served, City Solicitor Michelle Brzak, the law of

agency applies therefore Defendant Chief of Police Barry MacKnight, as agent

for THE CITY OF FREDERICTON and the FREDERICTON POLICEFORCE, was in fact served the same day.

48. I Plaintiff Andr Murray did receive a letter dated September 29,2009, signed by Chief of Police Barry D. MacKnight, which stated that my

complaint regarding the Wednesday, May 07, 2008 Bicycle incident,

FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE File number 09-10302 was summarilydismissed.

49. I did receive a letter addressed to me Andr Charles Murray DatedDecember 9, 2010, signed by Chief of Police Barry D. MacKnight, therewithinwhich he stated: I wish to advise you of my decision to summarily dismiss the

complaint that you have filed Dated November 7th, 2009. ; the letter referenced

FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE File number 09-24356.

50. Subject Members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE wereinvestigated criminally and investigated in regards to service of policy becauseof the complaint filed May 5, 2009 by Plaintiff Andr Murray, resulting from

the May 7, 2008 incident, as Chief of Police Defendant Chief of Police Barry


16/27

16

MacKnight would have been aware of this fact, the evidence of which was the

letter signed by himself to me Andr Murray initializing the review process of

the complaint, after first characterizing same. Further Defendant Chief of PoliceBarry MacKnight would have been contacted regarding the September 27,

2010, filing of a request pursuant to Right to Information and Protection ofPrivacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6, through which I Andr Murray did apply

for relevant documentation (Police Commission file number 2010-RTIPPA-02).The FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE was contacted regarding disclosure ofthe subject documentation and the balance of probabilities is that Defendant

Chief of Police Barry MacKnight would have been contacted specifically, to

enquire with him if he did consent to providing myself Plaintiff Andr Murray

with the requested information. I Andr Murray do know that when someonerequest information pursuant to Right to Information and Protection of Privacy

Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6, as I did have occasion to experience on thereceiving end, then as a named person within the subject file of interest, thePublic body holding the file, is as a matter of policy and protocol, compelled to

contact the named party and enquire if that party does consent to disclosure.

51. Defendant Chief of Police Barry MacKnight did not claim thatDefendant Chief of Police Barry MacKnight was prejudiced in any meaningful

way or at all by being served a Original Claim and the Amended Claim and

requested my consent to add defendants to the Amended Claim(Affidavitparagraph 9) on the 3rd day, of October, 2011. Defendant Chief of Police Barry

MacKnight filed his Statement of Defence October 31, 2011 a full 28 days after

being served the subject Amended Notice of Action Original Claim and the

Amended Claim and requested my consent to add defendants to the Amended

Claim (Affidavit paragraph 9) on the 3rd day, of October, 2011.

52. I have attempted to search independently to locate Constable MichaelSaunders, but have thus far been unsuccessful. I have requested in writing of

the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE to provide to me the forwarding contact

information for Constable Michael Saunders, but so far they have not fulfilledmy request.

53. September 22, 2011, Leanne Murray, of McInnes Cooper (internal filenumber LE-162) Solicitor for Defendants THE CITY OF FREDERICTON, the

FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, Chief of Police Barry MacKnight, Sergeant

Matt Myers, Constable Michael Fox, Constable Patrick Small and ConstableNancy Rideout did in fact provide consent as follows: Further to your emailcorrespondence dated September 21, 2011, THE CITY OF FREDERICTON


17/27

17


Defendants.

54. As a consequence, of the actions and consent granted by THE CITYOF FREDERICTON and through the rule of agency,agentDefendant Chief ofPolice Barry MacKnight did also provided consent to my request to amend your

Statement of Claim by adding parties as Defendants, because his principal, by

THE CITY OF FREDERICTON did consent to same.

Defendant Constable Patrick Small

55. In reply to paragraph 6 of the Affidavit of Defendant ConstablePatrick Small

dated November 22, 2011, in which Defendant Constable Patrick Smallclaimed that Prior to October 6, 2011, I had no notice or knowledge of the

Plaintiffs claim against me regarding a May 7, 2008, as outlined in the

Amended Claim.

56. As a consequence of Service upon Defendants THE CITY OFFREDERICTON and others, a AMENDED NOTICE OF ACTION WITH

STATEMENT OF CLAIM ATTACHED (FORM 16A), Dated September, 8,

2011, Court File Number: F/C/45/11, on the 9th day, of September, 2011, at2:09 PM, I Andr Murray, served, City Solicitor Michelle Brzak, the law of

agency applies therefore Defendant Constable Patrick Small, as agent for THE

CITY OF FREDERICTON and the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, was infact served the same day.

57. Defendant Constable Patrick Small was reportedly required towithstand scrutiny of an Police investigation into the possible criminality of his

conduct furthermore regards to service of policy because of the complaint filed

May 5, 2009 by Plaintiff Andr Murray, resulting from the May 7, 2008

incident. Further Defendant Constable Patrick Small would have beencontacted regarding the September 27, 2010, filing of a request pursuant to

Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6,

through which I Andr Murray did apply for relevant documentation (PoliceCommission file number 2010-RTIPPA-02). The FREDERICTON POLICE

FORCE was contacted regarding disclosure of the subject documentation and

the balance of probabilities is that Defendant Constable Patrick Small wouldhave been contacted specifically, to enquire with him if he did consent to

providing myself Plaintiff Andr Murray with the requested information. I


18/27

18

Andr Murray do know that when someone request information pursuant to

Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6, as I

did have occasion to experience on the receiving end, then as a named personwithin the subject file of interest, the Public body holding the file, is as a matter

of policy and protocol, compelled to contact the named party and enquire if thatparty does consent to disclosure.

58. Defendant Constable Patrick Small did not claim that DefendantConstable Patrick Small was prejudiced in any meaningful way or at all by

being served a Original Claim and the Amended Claim and requested my

consent to add defendants to the Amended Claim(Affidavit paragraph 9) on the

6th

day, of October, 2011. Defendant Constable Patrick Small filed hisStatement of Defence November 4, 2011 a full 29 days after being served the

subject Amended Notice of Action Original Claim and the Amended Claimand requested my consent to add defendants to the Amended Claim (Affidavitparagraph 9) on the 6th day, of October, 2011.

59. September 22, 2011, Leanne Murray, of McInnes Cooper (internal filenumber LE-162) Solicitor for Defendants THE CITY OF FREDERICTON, the





Defendants.

60. As a consequence, of the actions and consent granted by THE CITYOF FREDERICTON and through the rule of agency,agentDefendantConstable Patrick Small did also provide consent to my request to amend my

Statement of Claim by adding parties as Defendants, because his principal, by

THE CITY OF FREDERICTON did consent to same.

Defendant Constable Debbie Stafford

61. In reply to paragraph 6 of the Affidavit of Defendant ConstableDebbie Stafford November 17, 2011, in which Defendant Constable Patrick

Small claimed that Prior to October 7, 2011, I had no notice or knowledge of

the Plaintiffs claim against me regarding a May 7, 2008, as outlined in the

Amended Claim.


19/27

19

62. As a consequence of Service upon Defendants THE CITY OFFREDERICTON and others, a AMENDED NOTICE OF ACTION WITH

STATEMENT OF CLAIM ATTACHED (FORM 16A), Dated September, 8,2011, Court File Number: F/C/45/11, on the 9th day, of September, 2011, at

2:09 PM, I Andr Murray, served, City Solicitor Michelle Brzak, the law ofagency applies therefore Defendant Constable Debbie Stafford, as agent for

THE CITY OF FREDERICTON and the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE,

was in fact served the same day.

63. Defendant Constable Debbie Stafford was reportedly required towithstand scrutiny of an Police investigation into the possible criminality of her

conduct furthermore Constable Debbie Stafford investigated in regards toservice of policy because of the complaint filed May 5, 2009 by Plaintiff Andr

Murray, concerning the incident of May 7, 2008.64. Further Defendant Constable Debbie Stafford would have beencontacted resulting from Andr Murray having filed on Date September 27,

2010, a request pursuant to Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act,S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6, through which I Andr Murray did request for relevant

documentation (Police Commission file number 2010-RTIPPA-02).FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE was subsequently contacted for disclosure

of the subject documentation I Andr Murray verily believe therefore that thebalance of probabilities indicate that Defendant Constable Debbie Stafford was

contacted, specifically to enquire whether she consents to providing the subject

requested information to Andr Murray. I Andr Murray verily believe thatwhen anyone requests information pursuant to Right to Information and

Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6, then as a named person

within the subject file of interest, the Public body holding the file, is compelledto contact the named party and enquire if that party does consent to the

disclosure of subject documents.

65. Defendant Constable Debbie Stafford did not claim that she wasprejudiced in any meaningful way or at all by being served a Original Claim

and the Amended Claim and requested my consent to add defendants to the

Amended Claim(Affidavit paragraph 6) on the 7th

day, of October, 2011.Defendant Constable Debbie Stafford did not file a Statement of Defence and

as a consequence has been noted in default.

66. September 22, 2011, Leanne Murray, of McInnes Cooper (internal filenumber LE-162) Solicitor for Defendants THE CITY OF FREDERICTON,


20/27

20





Defendants.

67. As a consequence, of the actions and consent granted by THE CITYOF FREDERICTON and through the rule of agency,agentDefendantConstable Debbie Stafford did also provided consent to my request to amend

my Statement of Claim by adding parties as Defendants, because his principal,

by THE CITY OF FREDERICTON did consent to same.

Neil Rodgers and Trina Rodgers68. I Andr Murray verily believe that on 9th day, of September, 2011 orshortly thereafter (based on the significant behaviour change of herein named

Defendants) Defendant Neil Rodgers and Defendant Trina Rodgers, obtainednotice and or were advised that they were named as Defendants pursuant to

Court File Number: F/C/45/11. Prior to 9th day, of September, 2011

the significant behaviour of Defendant Neil Rodgers and Defendant Trina

Rodgers included a unrelenting continuous day by day harassment campaignbeginning each day with either or Neil Rodgers and Defendant Trina Rodgers

observing Andr Murray as his daily property management chores were

conducted about the yard and or property surrounding his ResidentialLeasehold house this subject harassment was achieved by various means

although became repetitive since the initial encounter with the Rodgers year

2005. Defendant Neil Rodgers and Defendant Trina Rodgers have amusedthemselves by bearing false witness against Andr Murray thereby complaining

to FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE making frivolous complaints therefore

always found to be lacking substance whatsoever.

69. I Andr Murray verily believe that were FREDERICTON POLICEFORCE required by this honourable Court to produce the chronological history

of all reports since 2005 made by the Defendants Rodgers it would therefore berealized that although the repetitions complaints were at times on a daily basis

at other times several times on the same day members of FREDERICTON

POLICE FORCE continued to converge at the 31 Marshall Street residentialproperty of Andr Murray conducting investigations which since 2005 have

never resulted in any charges against Plaintiff Andr Murray.


21/27

21

70. Defendant Neil Rodgers and Defendant Trina Rodgers method ofharassing Plaintiff Andr Murray was not only confined bearing false witnessagainst him therefore using members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE as a

weapon deployed to disrupt Plaintiff Andr Murrays peaceful enjoyment of hisresidence as when members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE were not

within eye sight or hearing distance Defendant Neil Rodgers and Defendant

Trina Rodgers would be attempting to provoke Plaintiff Andr Murraytherefore uttering obscenities by yelling over the privacy fence which separates

the two neighbouring adjacent properties; Plaintiff Andr Murray has at all

times remained passive to the many assaults of Defendant Neil Rodgers and

Defendant Trina Rodgers which have occurred since 2005;

71.

Defendant Neil Rodgers and Defendant Trina Rodgers evidentlyrealized that uttering threats and or obscenities (as were constantly occurring)therefore directed across the dividing property line, at Plaintiff Andr Murray

did not provoke the Rodgers escaladed the harassment by actually departing

from their property and entering onto the leasehold property of Plaintiff AndrMurray and using video cameras continued their harassment campaign

throughout all seasons, literally following Andr Murray about his property as

he performs his daily outdoor chores. Apparently at a certain point the subject

methods of victimizing of Andr Murray was not satisfactory in achieving thereasonably irrational goals of Defendant Neil Rodgers and Defendant Trina

Rodgers which they then began to stalk Andr Murray as he departed from his

property by bicycle or on foot as a pedestrian which was easy for them topursue him in their automobiles.

72. Defendant Neil Rodgers and Defendant Trina Rodgers from theirautomobiles using cell phone communication maintained a surveillance of

Andr Murray as he travelled about THE CITY OF FREDERICTON although

the severity was noticeably greatest when within one mile of his Marysville

residence and most certainly upon Andre Murrays each departure from hisresidence.

73. Defendant Neil Rodgers and Defendant Trina Rodgers didcontinuously and repeatedly run over onto the Plaintiffs property to take

pictures of the Plaintiff mowing the lawn from distances uncomfortably close

and often not less than five feet separation while further aggravating thesituation as Defendant Neil Rodgers would be simultaneously yelling

objectionable and offensive obscenities accusing Plaintiff Andr Murray of


22/27

22

being a homosexual thereafter describing explicit sexual acts amongst other

false accusations. Moreover FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE did

continuously and repeatedly arrive soon after I Plaintiff Andr Murray mademyself visible, out side the walls of the building at the Marshall Street Property,

at 31 Marshall street Fredericton New Brunswick. On many occasionsDefendant Neil Rodgers in his truck, did follow Plaintiff Andr Murray all

about the Marysville area, harassing Plaintiff Andr Murray and further

shouting objectionable and offensive obscenities at Plaintiff Andr Murray.

74. After I Plaintiff Andr Murray, served FREDERICTON POLICEFORCE, with a AMENDED NOTICE OF ACTION WITH STATEMENT OF

CLAIM ATTACHED (FORM 16A), Dated September, 8, 2011, Court FileNumber: F/C/45/11 on the 9th day, of September, 2011, as I was attempting

Court Document process service upon Defendant Neil Rodgers and DefendantTrina Rodgers, for the first time since 2005 the Rodgers began avoiding mepresumably in an attempt to not be served. I am not able to see locate these

above mentioned actions and behaviours of Defendant Neil Rodgers and

Defendant Trina Rodgers did noticeably diminish in frequency.

75. I Plaintiff Andr Murray verily believe that FREDERICTON POLICEFORCE, following Service of the relevant Court documents, 9th day, of

September, 2011, did contact Defendant Neil Rodgers and Defendant TrinaRodgers and as a result of this contact Defendant Neil Rodgers and Defendant

Trina Rodgers did temporarily discontinue their usual course of confrontational

conduct and alternatively initiated strategic behavior regarding their personalmovement, began a course of conduct intended to frustrate Plaintiff Andr

Murrays Court Document Process Service attempts upon them.

76. Serving of Defendant Neil Rodgers and Defendant Trina Rodgersbecame very difficult because Defendant Neil Rodgers and Defendant Trina

Rodgers were no longer making their daily routine appearances outside their

house and when I did approach their house they would run into their house,locking the door refusing to answer my knocks upon the entrance door to their

house, no answer to my knocking was forthcoming.

77. Finally I Andr Murray was successful at service, of the relevant Courtdocuments, September 15, 2011, by driving up their driveway in the back seat

of a marked cab van, and further I had two witnesses, observe me as I servedDefendant Neil Rodgers and Defendant Trina Rodgers, by way of leaving with

Defendant Neil Rodgers a copy of the subject Court Documents. Defendant


23/27

23

Neil Rodgers did at that time attempt to evade service, first attempting to run

into the house, and secondly denying repeatedly that though he was served

according to the Rules of Court, that he was uttering incoherent claims to theeffect that he Neil Rodgers, had not at all been served for that reason Neil

Rodgers simply dropped the documents onto the ground, Defendant NeilRodgers then erroneously claimed improper service.

78. Since that time Defendant Neil Rodgers and Defendant Trina Rodgershave made it very difficult to serve them with prerequisite Court documents,

frustrating every other Court document Process Servers, who I Andr Murray

did retain to effect service upon them. Defendant Neil Rodgers and Defendant

Trina Rodgers have refused Court document service by Registered mail, asreported to me by Canada Post Office attendant name Maggie who advised me

Andre Murray that she was present when Neil Rogers accompanied by TrinaRodgers, thereby produced photo identification in response to a Canada PostDelivery Notice who Neil Rodgers when realizing the correspondence was

from Andre Murray returned the documents to Maggie. Furthermore, while at

the same time unreasonably requiring that they Defendant Neil Rodgers andDefendant Trina Rodgers must be served only by professional process server.

79. In Defendant Neil Rodgers and Defendant Trina Rodgers Statement ofDefence and Counter Claim October 4, 2011, (which not served until twoweeks past allowable time according to rules of Court) they did state that: Neil

Rodgers and Trina Rodgers have never ridden in the back of a police car,

either marked, or unmarked. Which Andre Murray contends is, a not so cleverway, of obfuscating the fact, that Defendant Trina Rodgers did not deny sitting

in the front seat, of the unmarked Police Cruiser, as witnessed and alleged by

affidavit of Plaintiff Andr Murray, regarding the subject May 7, 2008 incident.Plaintiff Andr Murray verily believes, that the claims made, against Defendant

Trina Rodgers regarding the May 07, 2008 incident are justified and the

Amended Statement of Claim deserves to be heard on its merits (following

discovery).

80. Plaintiff Andr Murray verily believes, that the claims made againstDefendant Neil Rodgers regarding the May 07, 2008 incident are justified, asevidenced by the Investigative Summary provided by the NEW BRUNSWICK

POLICE COMMISSION and authored by FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE,

furthermore, a AMENDED NOTICE OF ACTION WITH STATEMENT OFCLAIM ATTACHED (FORM 16A), Dated September, 8, 2011, Court File

Number: F/C/45/11, deserves to be heard on its merits.


24/27

24

81. March 5, 2009, Police arrest of Andr Murray resulted in physical injuryat the hands of members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE. I AndrMurray have been unable to work (full capacity) since the subject assault and

battery of March 5. 2009. Please note: I Andr Murray havebeen required by my doctor to wear an arm brace and attend physiotherapy,

which continues to this day, resulting from those subject injuries which are not

yet healed.

82. Late 2009, I Andr Murray did file a complaint with FREDERICTONPOLICE FORCE, regarding the March 5. 2009 Assault, involving Battery and

unlawful Arrest. NEW BRUNSWICK POLICE COMMISSION File: (File:9000 C- 09- 61 ) 2010 RTIPPA- 01 regarding the March 5, 2009 Assault,

involving Battery and Arrest, which I have not completely received. Thedocuments which NEW BRUNSWICK POLICE COMMISSION have releasedinto my possession revealed that the Police regarding the March 5, 2009

Assault, involving Battery and Arrest, were being directed and or guided by

telephone communication with the Police Department dispatcher (as it doesappear) to Plaintiff Andr Murray moreover, although Andr Murray had

removed all of his winter clothing all accessories including hats scarves and

gloves in a effort to maintain a lower body temperature, to complete the

laborious task of shoveling out the snow from his driveway on a warm sunnylate winter day. Therefore it could not possibly be true that a distinctly

identifiable man of Andr Murrays shape, size complexion blond color of hair

could possibly be mistaken for anyone else other than who he actually is.March 5, 2009, during daylight hours; I Andr Murray having just finished

shoveling the driveway to my residential dwelling, at 29 Marshall Street, and

31 Marshall Street, in THE CITY OF FREDERICTON, was consequentlyassaulted, battered and arrested by members of FREDERICTON POLICE

FORCE. Please note: subsequent RTIPPA inquiries revealed that members of

FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE attending the residence of Andr Murray

March 5, 2009 had been directed by persons (identities concealed) further, whoby telephone transmission identified Plaintiff Andr Murray to

FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE as being outside his residence shoveling

snow from the driveway.

83. Plaintiff Andr Murray has been subject to an apparent plan of actiondesigned to achieve a particular goal (object yet unknown) a unreasonablenonstop harassment program against Plaintiff Andr Murray in this matter since

Andr Murray year 2005 became a Tenant at 29 Marshall Street and 31


25/27

25

Marshall Street, in THE CITY OF FREDERICTON. Someone is bearing false

witness against Andr Murray and employing the possibly unsuspecting local

FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE with unfounded allegations which have leadto Plaintiff Andr Murray in this case becoming the victim of repeat violence at

the hands of the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE. I Plaintiff Andr Murrayverily believe that those persons making fraudulent representation against

Plaintiff Andr Murray include both Defendant Neil Rodgers and Defendant

Trina Rodgers, as will be revealed once the parties conclude discovery.


complaint, FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE File number, (FPF File 09-10302) regarding Plaintiff Andr Murrays complaint, against the

FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, regarding the May 7, 2008 incident. Acopy of this letter is attached hererto as Exhibit A.

85. Tuesday, June 16, 2009 at 11:26 AM I Andr Murray did receive a e-mail reply from S/Sgt. Daniel R. Copp Office of Professional Standards of theFREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, acknowledging receipt of my complaint

from: Copp, Danny [email protected]

to: [email protected] the subject of the email was Your complaint

against members of the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE. A copy of thisletter is attached hererto as Exhibit B

86. Letter from Chief of Police characterizing complaint. A copy of thisletter may be provided at a later date, at the Courts discretion and or consent.


complaint, FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE File number, (FPF File 09-

10302) regarding Plaintiff Andr Murrays complaint, against the

FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, regarding the May 7, 2008 incident. Acopy of this letter is attached hererto as Exhibit C.

88. Summary of procedure regarding RTIPPA request - May 07, 2008 Acopy of this Summary will be provided at a later date, at the Courts discretion

and or consent.


26/27

26

89. Summary of procedure regarding RTIPPA request March 5, 2009. Acopy of this Summary will be provided at a later date, at the Courts discretion

and or consent.90. September 27, 2010, pursuant to Right to Information and Protection ofPrivacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6, I Andr Murray did apply for copies of

specific correspondence and other documents, according to RTIPPA (PoliceCommission file number 2010-RTIPPA-02) to the New Brunswick Policecommission. When the NEW BRUNSWICK POLICE COMMISSIONrefused

full access. I Andr Murray did file with Court of Queenss Bench Client

Services On January 10, 2011, FORM 1 REFERRAL, Dated January 10, 2011.

A copy of this FORM 1 REFERRAL is attached hereto as Exhibit D.

91.

September 22, 2011, Leanne Murray, of McInnes Cooper (internal filenumber LE-162) Solicitor for Defendants THE CITY OF FREDERICTON, theFREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, Chief of Police Barry MacKnight, Sergeant


Nancy Rideout did in fact provide consent as follows: Further to your email

correspondence dated September 21, 2011, THE CITY OF FREDERICTON


Defendants. THE CITY OF FREDERICTON did indeed consent to Plaintiff

Andr Murrays request to amend Plaintiff Andr Murrays Statement of Claimby adding parties as Defendants. A copy of this letter is attached hereto as

Exhibit E.

92. February 23, 2011, Neil Rodgers did provide an Affidavit to Court ofQueens Bench Moncton Trial Division Dated February 23, 2011, which made

false and untrue claims regarding a fictitious character who Neil Rodgerscontinued to make unfound claims regarding outstanding arrest warrant(s)

further that this subject fictitious character was essentially being harbored at the

residence of Andr Murray on the Marshall Street, City of Fredericton N.B.

residential duplex, yet Neil Rodgers confirms to having observed this thereforefictitious character. I Plaintiff Andr Murray verily believe that the claims made

by Neil Rodgers were made in bad faith, meant to be vexatious, therefore

potentially causing harm to Andre Murray (which was actually the result) andmost certainly obstruction of justice if not simply an abuse of process. A copy

of this Affidavit is attached hereto as Exhibit F.


27/27

93. I Andr Murray do verily believe that the relevant Rules of Court andrelevant statutory Acts provide the Court of Queens Bench appropriate tools by

which to allow the Subject Action to be heard on its merits.

94. I Andr Murray do verily believe that pursuant to Rule 27.10(2)(c)Plaintiff Andr Murray, may amend his pleading with leave of the court, unless

prejudice will result which cannot be compensated for by costs or an

adjournment, the court may, at any stage of an action, grant leave to amend anypleading on such terms as may be just and all such amendments shall be made

which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in issue.

95. This affidavit is made in response to a Notice of Motion, Dated 22 ndday of November 2011, to Court of Queens Bench, filed by McINNES

COOPER, Solicitors for the Moving Parties, THE CITY OF FREDERICTON,FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, Chief of Police Barry MacKnight,Constable Patrick Small and Constable Debbie Stafford per Leanne Murray.

SWORN TO AT THE CITY OFFREDERICTON,In the County of York andProvince of New Brunswick this_________day of __________ 2012.

BEFORE ME:

_______________________________A NOTARY PUBLIC or

COMMISSIONER OF OATHS

PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK

)

)

))

)

))

)

))

)

)

)

________________________Andr Murray

January 19, 2012, Andre Murray Affidavit B filed in response to First Motion Filed by THE CITY OF...

Documents

Transcript of January 19, 2012, Andre Murray Affidavit B filed in response to First Motion Filed by THE CITY OF...