December 5, 2011, Unsworn Copy of Affidavit D, responding to Motion of Defendant Neil Rodgers and Trina Rodgers. Court file FC-45-11:

7/29/2019 December 5, 2011, Unsworn Copy of Affidavit D, responding to Motion of Defendant Neil Rodgers and Trina Rodg

1/30

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 D

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 whereotherwise stated;


2/30

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


3/30

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 partyintervention 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


4/30

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


5/30

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.


6/30

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.


7/30

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


8/30

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


9/30

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:


10/30

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


11/30

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


12/30

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


13/30

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


14/30

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 email

correspondence 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.


15/30

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 thecomplaint 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


16/30

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 email



17/30

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 Neil Rodgers and Defendant Trina Rodgers

55. 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 toCourt 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 Residential

Leasehold house this subject harassment was achieved by various meansalthough became repetitive since the initial encounter with the Rodgers year

2005. Defendant Neil Rodgers and Defendant Trina Rodgers have amused

themselves by bearing false witness against Andr Murray thereby complainingto FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE making frivolous complaints therefore

always found to be lacking substance whatsoever.

56. 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 be

realized that although the repetitions complaints were at times on a daily basisat other times several times on the same day members of FREDERICTON

POLICE FORCE continued to converge at the 31 Marshall Street residential

property of Andr Murray conducting investigations which since 2005 havenever resulted in any charges against Plaintiff Andr Murray.

57. Defendant Neil Rodgers and Defendant Trina Rodgers method ofharassing Plaintiff Andr Murray was not only confined to bearing false witness

against him therefore using members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE as a


18/30

18

weapon deployed to disrupt Plaintiff Andr Murrays peaceful enjoyment of his

residence as when members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE were not

within eye sight or hearing distance Defendant Neil Rodgers and DefendantTrina Rodgers would be attempting to provoke Plaintiff Andr Murray

therefore uttering obscenities by yelling over the privacy fence which separatesthe two neighboring 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;

58. 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 Murraydid 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 campaignthroughout 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 to

pursue him in their automobiles.

59. Defendant Neil Rodgers and Defendant Trina Rodgers from theirautomobiles using cell phone communication maintained a surveillance ofAndr Murray as he travelled about THE CITY OF FREDERICTON precincts

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

Marysville residence.

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

pictures of the Plaintiff while Andr Murray was mowing the lawn fromdistances uncomfortably close and often not less than five feet separation while

further aggravating the situation as Defendant Neil Rodgers would be

simultaneously yelling objectionable and offensive obscenities accusingPlaintiff Andr Murray of being a homosexual thereafter describing explicit

sexual acts amongst other false accusations. Moreover FREDERICTON

POLICE FORCE did continuously and repeatedly arrive soon after I PlaintiffAndr Murray would become visibly outside of my residential duplex

building/house at the Marshall Street Property, at 29 and or 31 Marshall Street,


19/30

19

in the city of Fredericton New Brunswick. On many occasions Defendant Neil

Rodgers in his truck, did follow Plaintiff Andr Murray all about the Marysville

area, harassing Plaintiff Andr Murray and further shouting objectionable andoffensive obscenities at Plaintiff Andr Murray.

61. After I Plaintiff Andr Murray, served the Fredericton Police Force,with 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, as I was attempting Court

Document process service upon Defendant Neil Rodgers and Defendant Trina

Rodgers, for the first time since 2005 the Rodgers began avoiding me

presumably in an attempt to not be served. I am not able to see locate theseabove mentioned actions and behaviors of Defendant Neil Rodgers and

Defendant Trina Rodgers did noticeably diminish in frequency.62. I Plaintiff Andr Murray verily believe that the 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 personal

movement, began a course of conduct intended to frustrate Plaintiff AndrMurrays Court Document Process Service attempts upon them.

63. 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.

64. 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, witness me serve

Defendant Neil Rodgers and Defendant Trina Rodgers, by way of leaving withDefendant Neil Rodgers a copy of the subject Court Documents. Defendant

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 servedaccording to the Rules of Court, that he was (based or incoherent claims), not at

all served furthermore by Defendant Neil Rodgers simply dropping the


20/30

20

documents onto the ground, Defendant Neil Rodgers then erroneously claimed

improper service.

65. Since that time Defendant Neil Rodgers and Defendant Trina Rodgershave made it very difficult to serve them with prerequisite Court documents,frustrating even other Court document 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, while at thesame time unreasonably requiring that they Defendant Neil Rodgers and

Defendant Trina Rodgers must be served only by professional process server.

66. In Defendant Neil Rodgers and Defendant Trina Rodgers Statement ofDefence and Counter Claim October 4, 2011, (which not served until two

weeks past allowable time according to rules of Court) they did state that: NeilRodgers and Trina Rodgers have never ridden in the back of a police car,

either marked, or unmarked. Which is, a not so clever way, 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 PlaintiffAndr 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).

67. 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 the Fredericton Police Force, furthermore,

a AMENDED NOTICE OF ACTION WITH STATEMENT OF CLAIMATTACHED (FORM 16A), Dated September, 8, 2011, Court File Number:

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

68. March 5, 2009, Police arrest of Andr Murray resulted in physical injuryat the hands of members of the Fredericton Police Force. I Andr Murray have

been unable to work (full capacity) since the subject assault and battery of

March 5. 2009. Please note: I Andr Murray have been requiredby 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.

69. Late 2009, I Andr Murray did file a complaint with the FrederictonPolice Force, regarding the March 5. 2009 Assault, involving Battery and


21/30

21

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. The documents which NewBrunswick Police Commission have released into 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 does appear) to Plaintiff Andr Murray moreover,

although Andr Murray had removed all of his winter clothing all accessoriesincluding 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 sunny day. Therefore it could not possibly be true that a

distinctly identifiable man of Andr Murrays shape, size complexion blondcolor 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 justfinished shoveling the driveway to my residential dwelling, at 29 MarshallStreet, and 31 Marshall Street, in the City of Fredericton, was again assaulted,

battered and arrested by members of the Fredericton Police.

Please note: RTIPPA inquiries revealed that members of the FREDERICTONPOLICE FORCE attending the residence of Andr Murray March 5, 2009 had

been directed by persons (identities concealed) further, who by telephone

transmission identified Plaintiff Andr Murray to the FREDERICTON POLICE

FORCE as being outside his residence shoveling snow from the driveway.

70. 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

Marshall Street, in the City of Fredericton. Someone is bearing false witnessagainst Andr Murray and employing the possibly unsuspecting local

FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE with unfounded allegations which have lead

to Plaintiff Andr Murray in this case becoming the victim of repeat violence at

the hands of the Fredericton Police Force. I Plaintiff Andr Murray verilybelieve 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.

Defendant Neil Rodgers71. In reply to paragraph 6 of the Affidavit of Defendant Neil RodgersDecember 6, 2011, in which Defendant Neil Rodgers claimed that Prior to


22/30

22

September 15, 2011, I had no notice or knowledge of the Plaintiffs claim

against me as outlined in the Amended Claim.

72. FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE did investigate the subject membersof the Fredericton Police Force, were reportedly required to withstand scrutinyof an Police investigation into the possible criminality of their conduct

furthermore did investigate in regards to service of policy because of the

complaint filed May 5, 2009 by Plaintiff Andr Murray, resulting from the May7, 2008 incident. The FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE reasonably would

have contacted Neil Rodgers, regarding his involvement in the May 7, 2008

incident as alleged by Plaintiff Andr Murray. The summary to the subject

Police Report does state :Investigative Summary (blacked out), a (blacked out) has provided a statement

thathe

observed a male closely matching the description of a suspect in sometype of crime, as a resulthe contacted the police station, and Cst. Debbie

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

Emphasis added by me. The conclusion one reaches and I Andr Murray verily

believe to be true, is that from the above excerpt is that a male (the Plaintiffalleges this was Defendant Neil Rodgers), did contact the Fredericton Police

Force, as a consequence the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE would have

contacted Defendant Neil Rodgers to confirm his testimony of the event.

73. Further Defendant Neil Rodgers would have been contactedregarding 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, throughwhich I Andr Murray did apply for relevant documentation (PoliceCommission file number 2010-RTIPPA-02). FREDERICTON POLICE

FORCE was contacted regarding disclosure of the subject documentation andthe balance of probabilities is that Defendant Neil Rodgers would have been

contacted, specifically, to enquire with him if he consents to providing myself

Plaintiff Andr Murray with the requested information. I Andr Murray do

know that when someone is requesting information pursuant to Right toInformation 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 person

within the subject file of interest, the Public body holding the file, is as a matterof policy and protocol, compelled to contact the named party and enquire if that

party does consent to disclosure.

74. FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE did investigate the subject membersof the Fredericton Police Force, were reportedly required to withstand scrutiny


23/30

23

of an Police investigation into the possible criminality of their conduct

furthermore did investigate in regards to service of policy because of the

complaint filed November 5, 2009 by Plaintiff Andr Murray, resulting fromthe March 5. 2009 incident. FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE would have

contacted Neil Rodgers, regarding his or Trina his wifes, involvement in theMarch 5. 2009 incident as alleged by Plaintiff Andr Murray. A letter, which I

Andr Murray received from Staff Sergeant Katherin Alcorn, July 15, 2010, did

state that evidence which Staff Sergeant Katherin Alcorn did consider wastelephone conversation recordings to dispatch which indicates conclusively

that FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE did respond to a telephone call, which

resulted in the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE arriving at Plaintiff Andr

Murrays Marshall Street residence location. The conclusion one reasonablyreaches and I Andr Murray verily believe to be true, from the above excerpt, is

that someone did contact the Fredericton Police Force, I Andr Murray allegethat it was either Neil Rodgers or Trina Rodgers and as a consequenceFREDERICTON POLICE FORCE would have contacted the witness involved

namely, as I allege, Defendant Neil Rodgers or his wife Trina Rodgers to

confirm his or her testimony of the event.

75. Further Defendant Neil Rodgers would have been contactedregarding 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, throughwhich I Andr Murray did apply for relevant documentation [New Brunswick

Police Commission File: (File: 9000 C- 09- 61 ) 2010 RTIPPA- 01]

FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE was contacted regarding disclosure of thesubject documentation and the balance of probabilities is that Defendant Neil

Rodgers would have been contacted specifically, to enquire with him if he did

consent to providing myself Plaintiff Andr Murray with the requestedinformation. I Andr Murray am aware that when someone requests

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 person within the subject file of interest, the Public bodyholding 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.

76. Defendant Neil Rodgers did not claim that Defendant Neil Rodgerswas prejudiced in any meaningful way or at all by being served a Amended

Claim and what I believe to be a request by the Plaintiff to add me as a

defendant to the Amended Claim (Affidavit paragraph 5) on the 15th day, of

September, 2011. Defendant Neil Rodgers claims to have filed his Statement of


24/30

24

Defence and Counter Claim October 4, 2011 a full 19 days after being served

the subject Amended Notice of Action, the 15th

day, of September, 2011.

77. Plaintiff Andr Murray did October 5, 2011, and October 7, 2011search the Court File Number: F/C/45/11, for a relevant Statement of Defencefor Defendant Neil Rodgers and Defendant Trina Rodgers, but there was non

within the file. October 7, 2011, I Plaintiff Andr Murray did request of the

Clerk of the Court to Note Defendant Neil Rodgers in default for not havingfiled a Statement of Defence. The Clerk of the Court, Craig Carleton, did wait

until Tuesday, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:10 AM to reply, denying my request of

Noting of Default Defendant Neil Rodgers.

78. Defendant Neil Rodgers did not serve the Statement of Defence andCounter Claim, upon Plaintiff Andr Murray until October 19, 2011, a full 15days past the requirements of the Rules of Court. Despite same, the Clerk of theCourt, Craig Carleton, refused to Note Defendant Neil Rodgers in default.

79. February 23, 2011, Neil Rodgers did swear an affidavit, which madefalse and untrue claims that an fugitive from justice who Neil Rodgers further

claimed within subject Affidavit there is a arrest warrant issued for this

fictitious person furthermore, in an effort to have members of FREDERICTON

POLICE FORCE once again attack Andr Murray therefore Neil Rodgers liedgave false evidence under oath that Andr Murray was (to the effect) harboring

a fugitive at his Marshall Street residence in the city of Fredericton N.B.,

however Neil Rodgers never claimed to actually witnessed this fictitious personat Andr Murrays residence. Never the less this affidavit resulted in members

of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE illegally breaking and entering the

private residential premises of Plaintiff Andr Murray resulting in AndrMurray being arrested and physically injured in the process. I Andr Murray

verily believe that this is another example of bad faith claims made by Neil

Rodgers which continue to be frivolous, vexatious and an obstruction of justice

inter alia.

80. Neil Rodgers in a February 23, 2011 sworn Affidavit, submitted by himto the Court of Queens Bench, did admit to be monitoring Plaintiff AndrMurray while at his Marshall Street, Fredericton N.B. residence, thus Plaintiff

Andr Murray verily believes to be true is an admission of Neil Rodgers

engaging in invasion of privacy regarding Plaintiff Andr Murrays affairs andfurther is conclusive evidence of Neil Rodgers, having a illegal and unlawful

interest in Plaintiff Andr Murrays affairs. Plaintiff Andr Murray verily


25/30

25

believes that this Affidavit is strong circumstantial evidence that the Plaintiffs

claims are valid and well founded.

Defendant Trina Rodgers81. In reply to paragraph 6 of the Affidavit of Defendant Trina RodgersDecember 6, 2011, in which Defendant Trina Rodgers claimed that Prior to

September 15, 2011, I had no notice or knowledge of the Plaintiffs claim

against me as outlined in the Amended Claim.

82. FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE did investigate the subject membersof the Fredericton Police Force, were reportedly required to withstand scrutiny

of an Police investigation into the possible criminality of their conductfurthermore did investigate in regards to service of policy because of the

complaint filed May 5, 2009 by Plaintiff Andr Murray, resulting from thesubject May 7, 2008 incident. FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE would havereasonably contacted Trina Rodgers, regarding her alleged involvement in the

May 7, 2008 incident, as alleged by Plaintiff Andr Murray. I Andr Murray

verily believe that Trina Rodgers was sitting in the front seat of the unmarkedPolice Car driven by Defendant Constable Michael Saunders. The conclusion

one reaches and I Andr Murray verily believe to be true, is that Trina Rodgers,

being a witness and participant in the May 7, 2009 incident, as alleged by

Plaintiff Andr Murray, consequentially FREDERICTON POLICE FORCEwould have contacted Defendant Trina Rodgers to confirm her testimony of the

event by eye witnessing and identifying Andr Murray.

83. Further Defendant Trina Rodgers would have been contactedregarding 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, throughwhich, 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 are that Defendant Trina Rodgers would have beencontacted specifically, to enquire with her, if she did consent to providing

Plaintiff Andr Murray with the requested information. I Andr Murray am

aware that when anyone requests information pursuant to Right to Informationand 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 person within the subject file

of interest, the Public body holding the file, is as a matter of policy andprotocol, compelled to contact the named party and enquire if that party does

consent to disclosure.


26/30

26

84. FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE did investigate the subject membersof the Fredericton Police Force, who were reportedly required to withstandscrutiny of an Police investigation into the possible criminality of their conduct

furthermore did investigate in regards to service of policy the complaint filedNovember 5, 2009 by Plaintiff Andr Murray, resulting from the March 5. 2009

incident. FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE would have contacted Trina

Rodgers regarding her involvement in the May 7, 2008 incident as alleged byPlaintiff Andr Murray. A letter, which I Andr Murray received from Staff

Sergeant Katherin Alcorn, July 15, 2010, did state that evidence which Staff

Sergeant Katherin Alcorn did consider was telephone conversation recordings

to dispatch which indicates conclusively that FREDERICTON POLICEFORCE did respond to a telephone call, which resulted in the FREDERICTON

POLICE FORCE arriving at Plaintiff Andr Murrays Marshall Street residencelocation. The conclusion one reaches and I Andr Murray verily believe to betrue, is that from the above excerpt, someone did contact the Fredericton Police

Force by telephone, furthermore, I Andr Murray allege that it was either Neil

Rogers or Trina Rogers and as a consequence the FREDERICTON POLICEFORCE would have contacted the witness involved namely, as I allege,

Defendant Neil Rodgers or Trina Rodgers to confirm his or her testimony of the

event.

85. Further Defendant Trina Rodgers would have been contactedregarding 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, throughwhich I Andr Murray did apply for relevant documentation [New Brunswick

Police Commission File: (File: 9000 C- 09- 61 ) 2010 RTIPPA- 01] The

FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE was contacted regarding disclosure of thesubject documentation and the balance of probabilities is that Defendant Trina

Rodgers would have been contacted specifically, to enquire with him if she did

consent to providing Plaintiff Andr Murray with the requested information. I

Andr Murray do know that when anyone requests information pursuant toRight 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 person

within the subject file of interest, the Public body holding the file, is as a matterof policy and protocol, compelled to contact the named party and enquire if that

party does consent to disclosure.

86. In Defendant Neil Rodgers and Defendant Trina Rodgers Statement ofDefence and Counter Claim October 4, 2011, paragraph 1, they did state that:


27/30

27

Trina Rodgers may have contacted the Fredericton Police Force, however if

she did, the phone call would have been in regards to Andr Murray . Which

is, a not so clever way, of obfuscating the fact, that Defendant Trina Rodgersdid not deny calling the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE as alleged by

Plaintiff Andr Murray, regarding the subject March 05, 2009 incident. PlaintiffAndr Murray does verily believe, that the claims made, against Defendant

Trina Rodgers regarding the March 05, 2009 incident are justified further the

Amended Statement of Claim deserves to be heard on its merits.

87. Defendant Trina Rodgers did not claim that Defendant Trina Rodgerswas prejudiced in any meaningful way or at all by being served a Amended

Claim and what I believe to be a request by the Plaintiff to add me as a

defendant to the Amended Claim (Affidavit paragraph 5) on the 15th day, of

September, 2011. Defendant Trina Rodgers claims to have filed her Statementof Defence and Counter Claim October 4, 2011 a full 19 days after being servedthe subject Amended Notice of Action, the 15th day, of September, 2011.

88. Plaintiff Andr Murray did search the Court File Number: F/C/45/11,October 5, 2011, and October 7, 2011 for the subject Statement of Defence and

Counter Claim, but there was non within the file. October 7, 2011 I Plaintiff

Andr Murray did request of the Clerk of the Court to Note Defendant Trina

Rodgers in default for not having filed a Statement of Defence. The Clerk ofthe Court, Craig Carleton, did wait until Tuesday, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:10 AM to

reply, denying my request Noting of Default Defendant Trina Rodgers.

89. I Andr Murray verily believe Defendant Trina Rodgers did not makeany attempt to serve the Statement of Defence and Counter Claim, upon

Plaintiff Andr Murray until October 19, 2011, a full 15 days past therequirements of the Rules of Court. Despite same the Clerk of the Court refused

to Note Defendant Trina Rodgers in default.


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

10302) regarding Plaintiff Andr Murrays complaint, against theFREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, regarding the May 7, 2008 incident. A

copy of this letter is attached hererto as Exhibit A.

91. 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 the


28/30

28

FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, acknowledging receipt of my complaint

from: Copp, Danny [email protected]

to: [email protected] the subject of the email was Your complaintagainst members of the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE. A copy of this

letter is attached hererto as Exhibit B

92. 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.

94. Summary of procedure regarding RTIPPA request - May 07, 2008 Acopy of this Summary will be provided at a later date, at the Courts discretionand or consent.

95. Summary of procedure regarding RTIPPA request March 5, 2009. Acopy of this Summary will be provided at a later date, at the Courts discretionand or consent.

96. 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.

97. 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 email




29/30

29

Defendants. THE CITY OF FREDERICTON did indeed consent to Plaintiff

Andr Murrays request to amend Plaintiff Andr Murrays Statement of Claim

by adding parties as Defendants. A copy of this letter is attached hereto asExhibit E.

98. 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, thereforepotentially 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.

99. 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.

100. 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 anadjournment, the court may, at any stage of an action, grant leave to amend any

pleading 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.


30/30

101. This affidavit is made in response to a Notice of Motion, Dated 6 th dayof December, 2011, to Court of Queens Bench, Trial Division, filed by

Defendant Neil Rodgers and Defendant Trina Rodgers.

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 OATHSPROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK

)

)

))

)

)

))

)))

)

)

________________________Andr Murray