The Alberta Court of Appeal – Re: “Broder Buck Litigation Appeal of Action 9703-12949” – Evidence of how Justices; Carole Conrad, Ronald Berger and Peter Costigan willfully covered up backdating documents, forging of a Judges signature, obstruction of justice, conspiracy and perjury that had been committed by the lawyers named for whom were all wilfull participants in defrauding and falsely incarcerating an innocent 75 year old senior citizen; Donald H. Broder.

BRODERBUCK

Presents

THE BUCK FOR JUSTICE

*************************************

The Alberta Court of Appeal page

will provide you the reader

with the evidence that proves;

Justices;

Carole Conrad,

Carole M. Conrad (Chair)

Ronald Berger

and

Peter Costigan

pcostigan

 of;

The Alberta Court of Appeal

are on the run;

http://legalease.lesaonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/suitrun.jpg

because it has now been made public they;

willfully participated in the cover -up of an

orchestrated conspiracy between;

The Plaintiff’s Lawyer

Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen

and

The Defendant;

Donald H. Broder’s own defence lawyers;

Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson, 

Joseph Kueber of Bryan & Company,

Guy Lacourciere of Lacourciere Associates

and

Marvin Bloos of Beresh Depoe Cunningham

 to defraud, frame and

orchestrate the false imprisonment from

April 26 – May 6 2004 at

The Edmonton Remand Center.

Picture of an honorable and innocent senior citizen

for whom was framed by his own lawyers!

Donald H. Broder

Alberta Court of Appeal Justices;

Carole Conrad, Ronald Berger and Peter Costigan

a proud bunch of terrorists!

The Alberta Appeal Court page – provides evidence to you the reader that; Alison Redford / Attorney General  and The Department of Justice were  willful participants by allowing Justices, Carole Conrad,  Ronald Berger and  Peter Costigan to acted biased, prejudiced and in collusion by allowing Justice Bielby’s order to stand being made aware it had been orchestrated and that Donald H. Broder an innocent senior citizen had been falsely prosecuted, convicted, defrauded and  imprisoned willfully denying him of his rights within The Canadian Constitution and The Canadian Charter of Rights to a fair non biased and non-prejudicial trial for the sole purpose to;

  • Protect a Lawyer; Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen from being ambushed by Robert Sawers solicitor for the Defendant, Donald H. Broder.
  • Protect a Lawyer; Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen from committing perjury when asked by the trial judge Justice Bielby as to the first time Lack of Personal Representatives was raised was early 2001 during the Jury Trial Application before Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich, when as the evidence will prove it was contained within the Original Statement of Defence filed on July 28, 1997.
  • Protect a Lawyer; Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen by not reversing Justice Bielby’s decision as contained within paragraph [82] of the Reasons for Decision now that the Courts had been made aware that the first time the issue of standing / lack of Personal Representatives had been raised was in the Original Statement of Defence, July 28, 1997, and that perjury had been committed by Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen when asked by the trial Judge had responded knowingly and purposely misleading the trial Judge Justice Bielby during the closing arguments “The application was heard in April of 2001, and I think we were first told about it in around January or February of that year.”

Arguments by Ms. MacInnis at the trial of 9703-12949, quoted from transcripts;

January 23rd, 10:00 a.m. session – Justice Myra Bielby
Argument by Ms. MacInnis;

Quote:

  • the statement of claim was first issued in 1997
  • the parties acted promptly to have a personal representative appointed and have them added to the statement of claim.
  • THE COURT: When is the first time the defendants raised the issue of the lack of a personal representative?
  • MS.MACINNIS: The application was heard in April of 2001, and I think were first told about it in around January or February of that year. I could check the correspondence to confirm that for sure. I know it was raised when the defendants made application before Chief Justice Wachowich for a jury trial in February of 2001, and he set a deadline in which time they had to make the application.
  • THE COURT: OkaySo the first time even in correspondence to you as counsel for the plaintiffs that this issue was raised, was in early 2001?
  • MS.MACINNIS: That’s correct, My Lady. I can say that.

Reason for Judgement /Justice Bielby (full version)PDF

Paragraph 2 and 82;

Quote;

  • [2] While the principle of “relation back” is normally available only in regard to actions  taken in advance of the granting of letters of probate by parties named by will and executors, it applies in this case to save the action because that action was commenced in advance of the granting of Letters of Administration for the purpose of preserving estate assets.
  • [82] The Defendant led evidence from his then counsel, Joseph Kueber to the effect that Mr. Kueber wrote to Plaintiff’s counsel in April, 1997 advising that he would advance a limitations defense but neither of his letters expressly raised the issue of  the Plaintiffs’ standing to sue at that time which, in any case, was before the original Statement of Claim was filed. Therefore, those letters create no estoppel which would prevent the application of the principle of relation back.

Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson had asked me, Donald Broder if he could call Joseph J. Kueber of Bryan & Company to testify at the trial.

After I fired Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson, we call Joseph Kueber to confirm he would still testify at the trial, and I trusted that he would bring the correspondences that were relevant to the first time the issue of standing / lack of personal representatives was raised, he obviously was also conspiring against me, as he brought two irrelevant correspondences  that were pre-statement of claim that did not raise Alberta Rules of Court Rule 129, when he was aware he had also issued two other correspondences in October of 1997 that were post Statement of Claim that raised Alberta Rules of court Rule 129.

Correspondences issue by Joseph J. Kueber of Bryan & Company referred to in [82] pre-statement of claim  (full version)PDF

These are the two irrelevant Pre-Satement of Claim correspondences Joseph Kueber brought on his own to the trial to testify to.
 Relevant correspondences issued by Joseph J. Kueber of Bryan & Company purposely concealed from the courts (full version)PDF

These are the two relevant correspondence I had expected him to bring, that raised Alberta Rules of Court Rule 129 / the issue of standing / lack of Personal Representatives.

Alberta Court of Appeal/Appeal Book Digest (full version)PDF

As contained Under Part I – Pleadings within the Appeal Books Table of Contents was;

  • Original Statement of Defence filed on July 28, 1997was included in the Appeal Books, for which was not seen by the trial Judge for which; “raised the issue of standing / lack of Personal Representatives – in paragraph 8.”
  • Statement of Defence to Amended Amended Statement of Claim and Counterclaim – dated/filed October 21, 2002; “had plead Estoppel and was included in the Appeal Books.”
  • The Amended Statement of Defence to Amended Amended Statement of Claim and Counterclaim – dated October 21, 2002/filed January 09, 2002  – “the FIAT was backdated to January 9, 2003, not showing  the accurate date it was filed on January 9, 2004 – and filed for the sole purpose to get the word Amended on it so it would have total precedence at the trial and exclude the Trial Judge Justice Bielby from seeing the Original Statement of Defence for the sole purpose to conceal that the issue of standing / lack of Personal Representatives had been raised within paragraph 8.”

By including all three Statements of Defence in the Appeal Books it clarified to the Appeal Court Justices,

 Carole Conrad, Justice Ronald Berger and Justice Peter Costigan

that the Amended Statement of Defence was filed for the sole purpose to conceal from the trial Judge

Justice Myra Bielby as to the first time the issue of standing / lack of personal representatives was raised

was not in early 2001 as Justice Bielby was lead to believe during the Arguments by

Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen

but confirmed it had been was raised within

The Original Statement of Defence.
(repeat of the arguments by Ms. MacInnis)

January 23rd, 10:00 a.m. session – Justice Myra Bielby
Argument by Ms. MacInnis; Quote:

Arguments by Ms. MacInnis at the trial of 9703-12949, quoted from transcripts;(partial version)PDF

  • the statement of claim was first issued in 1997
  • the parties acted promptly to have a personal representative appointed and have them added to the statement of claim.
  • THE COURT: When is the first time the defendants raised the issue of the lack of a personal representative?
  • MS. MACINNIS: The application was heard in April of 2001, and I think were first told about it in around January or February of that year. I could check the correspondence to confirm that for sure. I know it was raised when the defendants made application before Chief Justice Wachowich for a jury trial in February of 2001, and he set a deadline in which time they had to make the application.
  • THE COURT: OkaySo the first time even in correspondence to you as counsel for the plaintiffs that this issue was raised, was in early 2001?
  • MS. MACINNIS: That’s correct, My Lady. I can say that.

        Note: “Perjury had just been committed by Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen.”

Notice to Reader;

The Appeal Court Justices; Carole Conrad, Ronald Berger and Peter Costigan conspired to conceal that the first time the issue of standing had been raised was not in early 2001 during the Jury Trial Application before Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich as was stated within the Arguments of Ms. MacInnis when questioned by Justice Myra Bielby but rather contained in paragraph 8 of the original Statement of Defence. “see above Closing Arguments by Ms. MacInnis”

Once again; Alison Redford / Attorney General – allows the Department of Justice and Justice Carole Conrad, Ronald Berger and  Peter Costigan to act biased and in collusion with Elizabeth MacInnis to conspire against an innocent senior citizen by knowingly that I, Donald  H. Broder had been framed, falsely incarcerated and substantially fined because my Lawyer, Robert Sawers had been accused of ambushing Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen.

Amended Statement of Defence (partial version page 1 and 2)PDF

 

amended statement of defence 2

Evidence the FIAT on the Amended Statement of Defence was backdated by Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson.

The true date of January 9, 2004 is listed on the Procedural Record Print below;

provide by the

Clerk Of The Court

 

procedurerecordfiat

Notice to Reader;

 See the Procedural Record Print (partial version page 11) *note  the date the FIAT was granted on page 11

  • The FIAT to amend the Statement of Defence was granted by Justice Brietkreuz on January 9, 2004.
  •  See the FIAT on the bottom of page 1 of the Amended Statement of Defence  (“dated January 9, 2003”)
  • See Justice Brietkreuz second signature authenticity as being without a doubt very questionable.

Paragraph 10: In the further alternative, the Defendants say and the fact is that if the Plaintiffs Earl Broder, George Broder, Richard Broder, Margaret MacPhee, Doris Bibaud and Luella Adam had any interest in the Trophy which is not admitted and specifically denied, they failed to commence any action or to attempt to recover the Trophy within a reasonable period of time, and as such are guilty of laches, and are estopped from claiming any right or interest in the Trophy. Don Broder further states that the Plaintiffs by their failure to make any inquiries about the Trophy and the cost of restoring, preserving, and promoting the Trophy led Don Broder to believe that the Trophy was his, and they are estopped from claiming otherwise.

Cross-Examination of Guy Lacourciere May 26,2010 (partial version)PDF

Cross-Examination of Guy Lacourciere (full version)PDF

Quote:

GUY LACOURCIERE, having been duly affirmed, testified as follows:

(page 9 line 27 – page 10 line 1-8 )

  • Q: Mr. Broder: Was the first time lack of standing rule 129, “the action is frivolous, vexatious and an abusive process of the court” raised in the original statement of defence?
  • A: I believe so. Oh, yes, it is. Yes. “The defendants claim that the claim against them by the plaintiffs is frivolous, vexatious and an abusive process.”

(page 10 line 15 -24)

  • Q: Again, it’s the amended amended statement of claim; correct?
  • Q: Was the amended amended statement of claim filed on November the 5th, 2001?
  • A: I’m going to have to apologize. There was no —
  • Q: Were you the solicitor on the record for Donald Broder and Craig Broder when the amended amended statement of claim was filed?
  • A: I’m not 100 percent sure, but I believe I was.

(page 10 line 27 and page 11 line 1 – 13)

  • Q: Was this the first time the personal representatives named as plaintiffs?
  • A: Yes, it is.
  • Were the personal representatives added as plaintiffs after the deadline set out by way of an order that the certificate of readiness was to be filed?
  • Yes.
  • Q: Was Elizabeth MacInnis solicitor for the plaintiffs at the time of filing the amended amended statement of claim?
  • Yes.
  • Q: Was it necessary to file a statement of defence to the amended amended statement of claim?
  • A: Not necessarily.

(page 11 line 22 – 27 and  page 28 line 1-20)

  • Q: Identifying for the record that this is the granting of administration of Edmund Broder?
  • Yes.
  • Yes. Was Edmund Broder’s date of death December the 26th, 1968?
  • A: According to this document, that’s the date of his
  • Q: Did you raise in your submissions — did you raise the issue that the first time lack of personal representatives was raised was not early 2001, which is tab A, page 13, Sawyer’s motion, but was pleaded within the original statement of defence?
  • A: As a matter of fact, it was told to the court of appeal. The comment was made by the court of appeal — well, you ambushed Ms. MacInnes and we said, no, nobody was ambushed in respect to this. That matter was raised at the beginning in the statement of defence.
  • Q: What you mean by “ambushed Ms. MacInnis?”
  • A: The court had asked the question.
  • Q: If we ambushed Elizabeth MacInnis?
  • A:  It appears to us that Ms. MacInnis may have been ambushed by the motion, by Sawyer, in respect to in respect to the motion that had been filed in 2001. And at that point in time what I had told the court of appeal is that the matter had originally been set out in the statement of defence.

The Alberta Court of Appeal Justices were shown proof as contained within the Appeal Books that;

Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen had committed Perjury.

(page 29 line 6 – 18)

  • Q: MR. BRODER: All I’m saying, if you’re going to wait to file motion 129, would it not be to our advantage if our solicitor waited for a timely application?
  • A: Let’s be clear. You filed a statement of defence. In the statement of defence it raised the issue of standing, okay? Later on a comment was made, first of all, by Ms. MacInnis, that she had been ambushed. At which point in time the court asked me about being ambushed. And I said to the court, I said, no, that the — that Ms. Maclnnis was not ambushed, that the matter has been raised originally in the statement of defence that had been filed by Mr. Sawyer. 

Note: The Original Statement of defence was  filed by Joseph Kueber on July 28, 1997

(page 38 line 11-27, page 39 line 1-27 and page 40 line 1-13 )        

  • Q: Was Justice Marceau ever informed when he was accepting the conditional certificate of readiness, that there was an order — previous order to file a certificate of readiness?
  • A: No.

Note: Paragraph 82 is quoted from “The Reasons for Judgment of Justice Myra Bielby”

  • Q: I refer to page 17, paragraph 82I quote“The defendant led evidence from his then counsel, Joseph Kueber to the effect that Mr. Kueber wrote to the plaintiff’s counsel in April 1997, advising that he would advance a limitation defence, that neither of his letters expressly raised the issue of the plaintiff’s standing to sue at that time, which, in any case, was before the original statement of claim was filed; therefore, those letters created no estoppel which would prevent the application of the  principle of relation back.” Was this action unsuccessful for Donald Broder because MacInnis relied on the principle of relation back?
  • MR. WONG: Well, you’re asking for an opinion of the court.
  • A: THE WITNESS: Do you mind? I believe the reasons for judgment provided by the Honorable Madam Justice Bielby are very clear and are very, very straightforward. So if you want to know the reasons why she did this, they are set out in her reasons.
  • Q: MR. BRODER: I refer back to tab A, page 13. Just identify for the record that this document is the notice of motion raising the issue of the plaintiff’s stand to rule 129. Is it correct in saying that the grounds upon which this application is brought are as follows. That the plaintiffs have no standing to commence an action against the defendants and as such, the statement of claim discloses no cause of action, and the action is frivolous and vexatious and is an abuse of the process of court; is that correct?
  • A: That’s what the document says.
  • Q: Is that correct?
  • A: That’s what the document says.
  • Q: I refer you to tab A, page 6, 7 and 8. I’ll turn you, actually, to the page which is page 12 of that document, but it’s page 7 at  tab A. Was there anything said in that motion that is similar to that in paragraph 8?
  • A: Just so we’re on the same page, tab A
  • Q: Was there anything that was said in that motion that is similar to paragraph 8?
  • A: The documents are very clear.
  • Q: So they’re similar?
  • A: Absolutely.

(page 41 line 21-27 and page 42 line 1-5)

  • A: I would point out that you don’t file a statement of claim where an amended statement of claim has been filed, because the court wants to see the amended statement of claim and the amended statement of defence, if there is any. That’s how that works.
  • Q: But do they want to see the original statement of defence?
  • A: No, they do not.
  • Q: So the one that’s filed later, the amended one becomes precedent?
  • A: That’s correct.

The Alberta Appeal Court Justices – Carole Conrad, Ronald Berger and Peter Costigan were shown;

 Proof of conspiracy by Donald Broder’s Lawyer – Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson had filed an amended Statement of Defence 10 days before the trial to conceal that the Original Statement of Defence had raised the issue of standing / lack of Personal Representatives from the trial Judge Justice Bielby.

(page 42 line 19 – 27 /  page 43 line 1- 8 )

  • Q: Now you’re asking me a question as to whether or not I should have told you that you had the right to produce the amended — or the statement of claim, the original statement of claim. No, you didn’t have that right. I didn’t have that right?
  • A: No.
  • Q: So the amended one takes precedence?
  • A: That’s correct.
  • Q: Total precedence?
  • A: Absolutely. … for that matter, is not evidence. All it is is matters that have been raised.

(page 43 line 20 – 27)

  • Q: And you said previously that you there was no need to file an amended — or a statement of defence to the amended amended statement of claim. There was not necessarily a need to file that?
  • A: Yeah, it’s not necessary to file it.
  • Q: Why would you file it?
  • A: Why would you file it?
  • Q: Yes.

Alberta Court of Appeal/Appeal Book Digest – Part II – FINAL DOCUMENTS

Did you know!

(Justice Lewis and Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich Order’s have been excluded from the Appeal Book Digest – Part II – FINAL DOCUMENTS)

(Master Quinn and Justice C. P. Clarke Order’s have also been excluded from the Appeal Book Digest – Part II – FINAL DOCUMENTS)

This is the document list that was included in the Appeal Books!

Description
Order of Belzil, J., C.Q.B.A. – June 20, 2001
Order of Marceau, J., C.Q.B.A. – dated/filed September 10, 2003
Order of Marceau, J., C.Q.B.A. – dismissing claim against Craig Broder – November 10, 2003/filed January 8, 2004
Order of Marceau, J., C.Q.B.A. – November 10, 2003/ filed December 3, 2003
Reasons for Judgement of Bielby, J., C.Q.B.A. – March 9, 2004
Order of Bielby, J., C.Q.B.A. – dated/filed March 19, 2004
Order of Viet, J., C.Q.B.A. – dated/filed April 13, 2004
Order of Bielby, J-I C.Q.B.A. – April 23, 2004
Order of Bielby, Jq C.Q.B.A. – April 26, 2004
Order of Bielby, J., C.Q.B.A. – April 29,2004
Order of Bielby,, J., C.Q.B.A. – M:iy 3, 2004
Order of Bielby, J., C.Q.B.A. – July 13, 2004
Judge Roll of Bielby, J. I C.Q.B.A. – Issued on 9th  March

Alberta Court of Appeal/Appeal Book Digest – Part III – EVIDENCE

Description

January 19, 2004 10:00 a.m.
Discussion
Opening statement by Ms. MacInnis

Immediately following Opening Statements by Ms. MacInnis should have been;

The Opening Statements of Donald Broder (full version)PDF

“Opening Statements of Donald Broder should have been here but do not exist on the trial audio as confirm by Alberta Justice Transcript Management”

Correspondence issue by Alberta Justice April 24, 2009 regarding the Opening Statements of Donald Broder at the trial were not included in the Alberta Court of Appeal Books.

Alberta Justice Letter regarding The Opening Statements (full version)PDF

Quote:

“In reference to your letter “The Opening Statements of Donald Broder as read by Craig Broder were not included,” and your last paragraph “Opening Statements would have been on January 19, 2004 following the opening statements of MacInnis,” I can advise upon careful listening of the audio there is nothing missing in the transcripts as you suggest.

The Opening Statements of Donald Broder have been deleted off the trial Audio!

Court of Appeal Memorandum of Judgment  (full version)PDF

E. M. MacInnis and P. G. Kirman for the Respondents “Plaintiffs in action 9703-12949”

Guy Lacourciere for the Appellants “Defendants in action 9703-12949”

As per Justice Carole Conrad, Ronald Berger and Peter Costigan memorandum of Judgment;

“page 6”  –  Quote;

[27] Thus,  we vacate the citation and the fine. That does not mean, however, that we cannot consider Don’s conduct when we impose costs of the appeal. In addition, during argument, Don acknowledged that he should be responsible for the fees incurred in the contempt proceedings and offer to pay $15,000.00. We agree that he should do so.  In addition, we are of the view that although he was successful with respect to the contempt appeal, he was unsuccessful on the appeal with respect to the merits of the conversion, detinue actions. The contempt appeal would never have been necessary but for Don Broder’s deceptive conduct. As a result, in addition to the $15,000.00 the appellant has agreed to pay, we order one set of costs of the appeal in the sum of $13,500.00.

[28] In the result, we vacate the order for payment of a fine of $53,208.26 and direct that the appellant pay to the respondents (personal representatives of the estate), the sum of $28,500.00 in costs.

Summary;

The Alberta Appeal Court specifically Justice Carole Conrad, Ronald Berger, and Peter Costigan had been made aware; 

  • The deceptive conduct was by Elizabeth MacInnis off Weir Bowen as she had mislead the trial Judge Justice Bielby during arguments at the conclusion of the trial as to the first time the issue of standing / lack of Personal Representatives was raised was not early 2001, but rather an issue raised with the Original Statement of Defence on July 28, 1997.
  • That Estoppel had been plead with Donald Broder Statement of Defence to the Amended Amended Statement of Claim.
  • That Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson Amended Donald Broder’s Statement of Defence in order for it to become total precedence, 10 days before the trial to conceal that the first time the issue of standing / lack of Personal Representatives was raised was within the Original Statement of Defence on July 28, 1997.

The Court of Appeal asked the question; “if we ambushed Elizabeth MacInnis?”  ” as contained within Guy Lacourcieres Cross-Examination”

Alberta Appeal Court Justices Carole Conrad, Ronald Berger, and Peter Costigan were made aware of;

The Reasons for Judgment of the Honorable Justice Bielby;

  • [2] While the principle of  “relation back” is normally available only in regard to actions taken in advance of the granting of letters of probate by parties named by will as execurirs, it applies in this case to save the action because that action was commenced in advance of the granting of Letters of Administration for the purpose of preserving assets.

“It became obvious that Justice Myra Bielby had not been provided with a copy of all the Pleadings at the commencement of the trial as per Alberta Rules of Court Rule 239.”

Rule 239; The party entering an action for trial shall at the time of entry file a record for the trial judge at trial containing the whole of the pleadings and the particulars, if any.

“In other words Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen and Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson conspired to orchestrated the trial books in favor of Elizabeth MacInnis because she made the comment she had been ambushed.”

Justice Myra Bielby went on to say;

  • [82] The Defendant led evidence from his then counsel, Joseph Kueber to the effect that Mr. Kueber wrote to Plaintiff’s counsel in April, 1997 advising that he would advance a limitations defence but neither of his letters expressly raised the issue of the Plaintiff’s standing to sue at that time which, in any case, was before the original Statement of Claim was filed. Therefore, those letters created no estoppel which would prevent the application of the principle of relation back.

If Joseph Kueber had not testified to two irrelevant correspondences date April 1997, the Trial Judge Justice Bielby would not have made these comments and assisted us with realizing that Joseph Kueber’s testimony was also orchestrated as he was aware he had also issue two correspondences in October 1997, that were post July 7, 1997 Statement of Claim that also raised the issue of standing / lack of Personal Representatives.

Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson by filing an Amended the Statement of Defence and Joseph Kueber of Bryan and Company by bringing and testifying to two irrelevant correspondences were conspiring to conceal from the trial Judge as to the first time the issue of standing / lack of Personal Representatives was raised.

Bryan Kickham and Joseph Kueber were acting in collusion with Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen to frame, defraud, and orchestrate the outcome of the trial to purposely milk an innocent 75 year old senior that had paid them a substantial sum of money for legal representation.

The Alberta Court of Appeal was not made aware that Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen was in contempt of Court for not adhering to the Order of Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich which directed the Pleadings within action 9703-12949 to be closed on March 15, 2001, prior to the application for probate.

Guy Lacourciere without the direction of Donald Broder offered the $15,000.00 for the costs associated with the Contempt Proceedings, instead of arguing that it was Elizabeth MacInnis that was in contempt of court for not following the Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich order and that she had committed perjury by misleading the trial Judge Justice Myra Bielby as to the first time the issue of standing / lack of Personal Representatives was raised. 

Alberta Court of Appeal Justices Carole Conrad, Ronald Berger and Peter Costigan were protecting Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen because they felt she had been ambushed rather than protecting an innocent senior citizen that had been framed, defrauded and wrongfully imprisoned.

“Let’s not forget these colluding, conspiring Appeal Court Justices for whom were more concerned about Elizabeth MacInnis being ambushed dismissed Donald H. Broders contempt charge to prevent the matter from  being criminally investigated to cover for these perpetrators and then offered in their court of appeal memorandum of judgment;”

E. M. MacInnis and P. G. Kirman for the Respondents “Plaintiffs in action 9703-12949”

Guy Lacourciere for the Appellants “Defendants in action 9703-12949”

As per Justice Carole Conrad, Ronald Berger and Peter Costigan memorandum of Judgment;

“page 6”  –  Quote;

[27] Thus,  we vacate the citation and the fine. That does not mean, however, that we cannot consider Don’s conduct when we impose costs of the appeal. In addition, during argument, Don acknowledged that he should be responsible for the fees incurred in the contempt proceedings and offer to pay $15,000.00. We agree that he should do so.  In addition, we are of the view that although he was successful with respect to the contempt appeal, he was unsuccessful on the appeal with respect to the merits of the conversion, detinue actions. The contempt appeal would never have been necessary but for Don Broder’s deceptive conduct. As a result, in addition to the $15,000.00 the appellant has agreed to pay, we order one set of costs of the appeal in the sum of $13,500.00.

[28] In the result, we vacate the order for payment of a fine of $53,208.26 and direct that the appellant pay to the respondents (personal representatives of the estate), the sum of $28,500.00 in costs.

Instead they should have put Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen and Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson behind bars for conspiring to frame an innocent senior willfully committing  contempt of court, obstruction of justice, perjury, fraud and collusion, but instead the Appeal Court Justices Carole Conrad, Ronald Berger and Peter Costigan willfully chose to participate in the conspiracy to frame a 75 year old  innocent senior citizen, Donald H. Broder.

The Alberta Court of Appeal Justices; Carole Conrad, Ronald Berger and Peter Costigan would have also been made aware that the substitution of new Plaintiff’s – Personal Representatives took place in November of 2001 on the Original Statement of Claim of July 8, 1997 excess of four years breaching The Statute of Limitations period of two years.

Must be why The Alberta Court of Appeal Justices;  Carole Conrad, Ronald Berger and Peter Costigan also made the comment that Elizabeth MacInnis had been ambushed!

Did you know!

Justice Ronald Berger was on the bench for the Appeal for Rocklake vs. Timberjack!

 

Rocklake vs. Timberjack (full version)PDF

Rocklake Enterprises Ltd. vs. Timberjack Inc.

Quote: Paragraph [15], [18] and [19].

[15]   The problem in the present case is not that the Rules of Court lack powers to amend parties or pleadings. They have them. No modern decision on amendment suggests that there is any difficulty curing parties before the limitation period expires. The problem is that there was an independent statute, the Limitation of Actions Act, which restricts times to sue.

[18]  The analytical approach adopted in Alberta is simple. One cannot sue after the limitation period. Adding a new plaintiff or a new defendant or a new cause of action to a suit after the period expires, in effect creates a new suit, so far as that new party or cause of action is concerned. Limitations legislation is intended to give repose after a certain length of time, and adding a new plaintiff or new cause of action violates that policy almost as much as adding a new defendant.

[19]  The Rules of Court do not speak about limitation periods or times to amend. They have always been reconciled with limitations legislation by presuming that the powers under the Rules are to be exercised subject to the time limits under the legislation, when those are relevant; cf. Nagy v. Phillips (#1) (1996) 187 A.R. 97, 41 Alta. L. R. (3d) 58, 64 (C.A.); Leesona v. Consol. Textile Mills[1978] 2 S. C. R. 2, 8-9, 18 N. R. 29. Furthermore, the Rules of Court are Regulations, and were not confirmed by statute until the 1970s.    Regulations cannot override statutes.


I quote;

To the people of Canada;

The Provincial and Federal Government’s have created a Justice System that;

“is nothing more than an interlocking beneficial relationship between Lawyers and Judges at the expense of the vulnerable and terminally ill.”

I remain,

Donald H. Broder

 To; The past Chief Justice of The Court of Queen’s Bench  – February 1984 – December 2000 W. Kenneth Moore and “Father of Elizabeth MacInnis”

W. Kenneth Moore;  your daughter Elizabeth MacInnis “Moore” is a reflection of  a “dis-honorable upbringing” that you would assist your daughter to orchestrate proceeding because of your position of power to frame, defraud and falsely incarcerate an innocent senior for personal satisfaction and gain.

Past Chief Justice W. Kenneth Moore!

I was wondering what other roles in your past have you played within the

Alberta Justice Department

to orchestrate and frame innocent citizens of Canada?

© 2011-2012 Broder Buck All Rights Reserved

 

 


No comments

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Contact us: info@broderbuck.com
Copyright © 2016 - 2017 Broder Buck. All Rights Reserved. Created by Blog Copyright.

Copyright © 2016 - 2017 Broder Buck. All Rights Reserved. Created by Blog Copyright.