Honourable Rob Nicholson – Federal Attorney General of Canada directs The Broder Family to The Law Society of Alberta to file formal complaint against the lawyers involved of collusion, contempt of court, fraud, forgery and perjury within Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Action no: 9703-12949 Broder vs. Broder without resolve ……

BRODERBUCK

Presents

THE BUCK FOR JUSTICE

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

Response by;

Ministerial Correspondence Unit

L. Bisson – Manager

on behalf of the;

 Minister of Justice and Attorney General of

 Canada

Honourable Rob Nicholson

 

 

 

Rob Nicholson Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

confirms to The Canadian Press that;

Ottawa – “The federal government is set to introduce tougher sentences for those convicted of elder abuse.”

OTTAWA – The federal government is set to introduce tougher sentences for those convicted of elder abuse.

The Canadian Press has learned that Justice Minister Rob Nicholson and seniors minister Alice Wong are to announce amendments to the Criminal Code on Thursday in Toronto. ” Minister of Justice Rob Nicholson is planning to amend the Criminal Code but refuses to criminally charge all the perpetrators that conspired to frame an innocent 75 year old senior Donald H. Broder”  

The stiffer sentencing provisions were among the Conservatives’ promises during the last election campaign, and were also mentioned in last year’s speech from the throne.

“Our government will continue to protect the most vulnerable in society and work to prevent crime. It will propose tougher sentences for those who abuse seniors and will help at risk youth avoid gangs and criminal activity,” the throne speech stated.  ” In the case identified within this web site it is the Government of Canada that has participated in the crime against Donald H. Broder;  a 75 year old senior and his family.”

Research by academics, Statistics Canada and seniors’ advocates suggests that almost one of every 10 older Canadians experiences some form of abuse.

But much of it goes under-reported. Statistics Canada said in 2009 that about seven in 10 crimes against older Canadians are not reported to police, mainly because victims didn’t think they needed help. ” Donald H. Broder reported the crimes against him multiple times to the Economic Crime Units – Edmonton and Calgary and the RCMP in Olds and Cochrane, Alberta without any cooperation by each of these enforcement agency to take the criminal charges and prosecute.”

In the rare instance when someone is convicted of abusing an elderly person, sentences are often lenient, says Susan Eng, who heads up the CARP seniors’ advocacy group.

” In the Donald H. Broder  case the sentence is very lenient the Crime Unit and RCMP have washed their hands of it and the perpetrators got off scot-free.”

Picture of the Edmonton Alberta Law Courts where crimes take place.

 

Rob Nicholson Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

willfully ignored the plea for help from one of the Senior Citizens whom he just said needed to have better protection

 rather than having The Federal Department of Justice investigate the Alberta Justice Department 

he has his office send a  correspondence to the Broder family directing their complaints to;

“The Law Society of Alberta”

Quote:  “because it is a provincial responsibility and the profession is self-governing

within the frame work of provincial legislation.”

Fedminjustice

The Broder family makes a Statement;

By bringing the following criminal acts identified within this tab to the attention of;

The Law Society of Alberta

expecting criminal charges to be laid as warranted by the conduct of the lawyer members

involved for their participation in this crime committed against a 75 year old

honourable senior citizen

Donald H. Broder

DBTUX

and we the Canadian people trust that;

Law Society of Alberta

you will  soon realized that

The Law Society of Alberta is

 not;

 ” SERVING the PUBLIC INTEREST”

The Benchers sitting on the  conduct committee;

found no inappropriate conduct deserving of sanction!

Or if they wanted too, they could have!

“we cannot say anything or we will be out of a job, lets not forget we are lawyers also”

Alison Redford – Premier of Alberta – Past Justice Minister / Attorney General, of Alberta Canada

speaks loudly to defend her colleagues in the legal profession

after all isn’t she one of them

as reported by;

Postmedia News.

Is Alberta’s Alison Redford about to get the Rob Ford treatment for conflict of interest?

Alberta Premier Alison Redford speaks at the 36th annual AUPE Conference at the Shaw Conference Centre in Edmonton, Ab on Saturday Oct. 20, 2012.
Alberta Premier Alison Redford speaks at the 36th annual AUPE Conference at the Shaw Conference Centre in Edmonton, AB on Saturday Oct. 20, 2012.
Photo: John Lucas/Edmonton Journal
Postmedia News
Published: November 29, 2012, 7:49 am
Updated: 19 days ago

By Keith Gerein

EDMONTON – An angry Premier Alison Redford, an outraged opposition and allegations of a conflict of interest provided the ingredients for an emotionally charged day at the Alberta legislature Wednesday.

The animosity reached its pinnacle in question period, when Wildrose and NDP leaders accused Redford of political patronage over the awarding of a lucrative contract to a law firm that employs her ex-husband.

“This raises disturbing questions of conflict of interest, perceived conflict of interest, manipulation of the process, and at the very least horrible judgment,” Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith said.

That was followed by an explosive exchange between Redford and Wildrose critic Rob Anderson, who suggested he might make a complaint to the Law Society of Alberta about Redford’s conduct.

“The tangled web never ends, does it?” he said, noting the president-elect of the society is a senior partner at the same firm in question.

An enraged Redford fired back at Anderson that he was denigrating the entire legal community. Staring down the Wildrose caucus, she dared him to make good on his threat.

“This getting absolutely absurd,” she said to loud applause from her caucus. “If this person (Anderson), who theoretically should understand what the Law Society is, is now prepared to malign the legal profession, I have no idea where this discussion is supposed to go. But I’ll tell you, if this honourable member decides to make a complaint, go ahead.”

The firm in question, Calgary-based Jensen, Shawa, Solomon, Duguid and Hawkes, is part of a consortium known as Tobacco Recovery Lawyers LLP representing the province in a $10-billion lawsuit against the tobacco industry. Robert Hawkes, one of the named partners, was married to Redford for five years while both were in their 20’s. The two have stayed friends and Hawkes led Redford’s transition team after she was elected PC leader.

The government insisted earlier this year that Tobacco Recovery Lawyers LLP was chosen through a competitive bid process in December 2010, when Redford was still justice minister. A review committee was appointed to consider three bidders.

However, an internal government memo obtained by CBC and the Wildrose indicates Redford was involved in the selection.

Personal life

Redford has been an active member of many community boards, including the Lycee Louis Pasteur Society, the Heritage Park Foundation and the Calgary Winter Club. She previously served on the Board of the Lakeview Community Association and the Alberta Human Rights Education Advisory Board.[citation needed]

She was married to Robert Hawkes, son of former Calgary West MP Jim Hawkes, between 1985 and 1991. They met while working for former MLA (and later Alberta PC leadership contestant and Senator) Ron Ghitter. Redford remains friends with her ex-husband and in 2011 he led her transition team when she became premier.[6]

Redford lives in Calgary with her husband Glen Jermyn, a lawyer with the federal Department of Justice, and daughter Sarah.[5][24]

Alberta Lawyers Insurance Association (ALIA)

Did You Know!

“The Law Society had to incorporate their own insurance (ALIA) as public insurance companies declined their application for error and omissions insurance and “ALIA – their own private insurance” now provides the means to pay out if they choose too and cover up fraud as public insurance companies would prosecute all criminal activity committed by the legal profession to the full extent of the law.”

 

A concise perspective of how the;

Federal and Provincial Justice Departments of Canada

and

The Law Society of Alberta

are serving the public’s best interest

by covering up

CORRUPTION

Did you know!

“It’s in the public’s best interest not to know that;

The Alberta Justice Department and Lawyers collude to

orchestrate the outcome within;

The Alberta Law Courts

and willfully frame innocent

Canadians.”

Dateline of the Corruption within;

Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench

Action # 9703-12949

Broder vs. Broder

An accurate perspective of how

 corruption has now set

detrimental legal precedence

in Alberta

that will affect all

Judicial Jurisdictions in Canada.

December 26, 1968 –  Edmund Broder passed away without a Will and only with a few personal belongings inclusive of the World Record Mule Deer trophy determined to have little to no monetary value, Hazel Broder the wife of Edmund Broder passed away in October, 1967.

Early 1970 – Donald H. Broder the eldest living son of Edmund Broder removed the trophy buck from the family home that was being sold and maintained exclusive possession of the Mule Deer mount for over 25 years.

Then in; March 1997 – After media coverage the Broder Buck was going to be shown at the Edmonton Sportsman Show a letter was delivered to Craig Broder demanding the trophy be returned to George Broder. This request was denied as Donald H. Broder and Craig Broder’s legal counsel agreed only to return the trophy if an Application for Probate at The Surrogate Courts was successful with the appointment of Personal Representatives as legally only then these Administrators could  make such a demand for the return of Edmund Broder’s personal belongings.

July 8, 1997 – A Statement of Claim is filed on behalf and in personal capacity of Donald H. Broder’s siblings by Grace Parrotta King at Edmonton, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench action 9703-12949 Broder vs. Broder – demanding replevin of the world record Broder Buck that Donald H. Broder had in is exclusive possession since 1973 shortly after his Father Edmund Broder passed away on December 26, 1968.

Shortly after July 8, 1997 –  Donald Broder and Craig Broder were served with the Statement of Claim. They met and retained Joseph Kueber of Bryan & Company and Donald Broder explained to Joseph Kueber of Bryan & Company that his defence  should plead that the Broder siblings lacked standing to sue until probate was applied for at the Surrogate Courts and if successful only then The Personal Representatives could make demands and initiate a litigation for the return of the Broder Buck but the demand should also include the return of all Edmund Broder’s belongings taken randomly by his siblings for whom are the Plaintiff’s named in the Statement of Claim.

Joseph Kueber of Bryan & Company informed Donald H. Broder that; The New Statute of Limitations of Actions Act with a 10 year drop dead clause was in the process of being written and adopted  into law and it was understood that if Probate at the Surrogate Courts was not applied for before the New Statute of Limitations Act was adopted into law it would prevent Probate under the 10 Year Drop Dead clause.

Did You Know!

“The New Statute of Limitations Act was adopted into law on March 1, 1999 and The Application for Probate was not applied for until May 10, 2001 and subsequently the Grant of Administration to appoint Personal Representatives was Ordered by the Surrogate Courts in Edmonton Law Courts on May 24, 2001.”

Joseph Kueber of Bryan & Company also had discussion with Donald H. Broder regarding Rocklake Enterprises Ltd vs. Timberjack Inc. that was before the Alberta Court of Appeal and upon conclusion a decision would be render by Alberta Court of Appeal Justices regarding the substitution of new Plaintiff’s after the 2 year limitation period has expired.

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. 

July 28, 1997 – A Statement of Defence is filed by Joseph Kueber of Bryan & Company on behalf of Donald H. Broder  and pleads that the Plaintiff’s ion their personal capacity lack standing to sue and the limitation period had lapsed, as no one had been appointed as the Personal Representative of Edmund Broder in excess of 25 years and an application for Probate should be the first procedure and be successful before a demand can be made against Donald H. Broder  to turn over the trophy and then if successful at the Surrogate Courts a demand for all the personal belongings of Edmund Broder  must be made and  accounted for.

June 1, 1998 – Elizabeth MacInnis / Moore  of Weir Bowen replaced Grace Parrotta -King as legal counsel for the Plaintiff’s – Donald H. Broder’s siblings.

March 1, 1999 – Alberta’s New Statute of Limitations Act is adopted into law for which defines the 2 year limitation period to add or substitute a new Plaintiff and the 10 year drop dead clause.

May – 1999 – Donald Broder attended the Clerks office at the Surrogate Courts in Edmonton, Alberta to inquire if he could initiate the application for probate to appoint Personal Representatives and  he was told they would not allow the application as it had been excess of 25 years after Edmund Broder’s death.

Alberta’s New Limitation Act (Full version) PDF

Quote from the New Statute of Limitations Act;

This new Act contains significant changes to the law concerning limitation periods in Alberta.

This paper is intended to summarize provisions of the new Act, while highlighting the changes and how they might be
expected to affect insurers who are required to litigate in Alberta.
• Only two limitation periods: the earlier of
• two years from the time the claimant knew or ought to have known of the claim, or
• ten years from the time the claim arose

(3) When the added claim adds or substitutes a claimant, or changes the capacity in which a claimant sues,
(a) [he added claim must be related to the conduct, transaction or events described in the original pie
proceeding,
(b) the defendant must have received, within the limitation period applicable to the added claim plus time
provided by law for the service of process, sufficient knowledge of the added claim that the defendant is not,
prejudiced in maintaining a defence to it on the merits, and
(c) the court must be satisfied that the added claim is necessary or desirable to ensure the effective
the claims originally asserted or intended to be asserted in the proceeding.

July 9, 1999 – The two year limitation period lapses to add or substitute a new claimant within Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench action 9703-12949 Broder vs. Broder – Original Statement of Claim filed date of July 8, 1997.

September 30,  1999 – Robert J. Sawers  of R. J. Sawers & Associates replaced Joseph J. Kueber of Bryan & Company as legal counsel for the Defendant – Donald H. Broder.

  • Donald H. Broder prepaid Robert J. Sawers  double the retainer he requested to review the file and get up to speed as quickly as possible.
  • Robert J. Sawers legal team completes research regarding the “Plaintiffs” – Broder siblings suing in their personal capacity as of against the “Defendant’s” Donald H. Broder “sibling” and son Craig Broder –  grandson of Edmund Broder..

Heard November 9, 1992 – Newfoundland Supreme Court – Court of Appeal – Judgment rendered December 15, 1992 – Mugford vs. Mugford case law was located by Robert J. Sawers legal team and provided precedence set in Canadian law  that only Personal Representatives had standing to sue on behalf of a deceased and the Broder siblings had no standing to bring on an action in all Canadian jurisdictions against another sibling or grandson of the deceased Edmund Broder.

The application for probate at the Surrogate Courts must be successful to appoint Personal Representatives before an action can be heard at trial before the Canadian Courts as only Personal Representatives have the right to commence an action on behalf of a deceased.

October – 1999 – Edmund Broder had been deceased since  December 26, 1968 and the application of probate had still not been applied for in excess of 30 years.

Case Law mugford vs. mugford (full version PDF)

Case Law from; Newfoundland Supreme Court – Court of Appeal

Mugford vs. Mugford

Quote: Last page – last two paragraphs

    The conclusion to be drawn is that the respondent, having no interest in the land, has no standing to bring an action. Although it was, as described by the trial judge, a dispute between Gordon Mugford and Ernest Mugford, it was a dispute over nothing. While Ernest Mugford may or may not have acquired possessory title or a statutory defence, it is the role of the administrator and not the role of Gordon Mugford to put this to the test.

    The action was wrongly conceived for this reason, if for no other, and ought not to have proceeded, The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the trial judge is set aside. The appellant may have his costs both here and in the trial division.

GOODRIDGE C.J.N.  – I concur O’NEILL J.A. –  I concur CAMERON J.A.

  • Robert J. Sawers legal team also made Donald H. Broder and Craig Broder  aware that as of July 9, 1999 the 2 year limitation period had lapsed from the Statement of Claim original filed date of July 8, 1997  to add or substitute new Plaintiff’s as supported by precedence within Alberta Court of Appeal as per case law from  Rocklake vs. Timberjack.

Rocklake vs. Timberjack (full version PDF)

The  Court of Appeal of Alberta;

Case Law  from;

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.  

December, 2000 –  Elizabeth MacInnis / Moore’s of Weir Bowen the lawyer for the Plaintiff’s within this action 9703-12949  father Chief Justice of Alberta, Canada -W. Kenneth Moore retires and is replaced by the new Federally appointed Chief Justice of Alberta, Canada A. H. Wachowich at the Edmonton Law Courts. 

December, 2000 – Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen lawyer for the Plaintiff’s requests consent from Robert J. Sawers  lawyer for the Defendant’s to amend the Statement of Claim and file the Certificate of Readiness to close the pleadings and schedule the action for trial, consent is denied by the Defendant’s  Donald H. Broder and Craig Broder.

December 18, 2000 – Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen lawyer for the Plaintiff’s makes a court application before Justice J. L. Lewis and obtains a Court Order to file the amended Statement of Claim in the form attached and the Certificate of Readiness to close the pleadings must be filed immediately following the Defendant’s Donald H. Broder and Craig Broder’s application to be tried by jury before Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich with a time restriction of February 15, 2001. Donald Broder and Craig Broder are ordered to pay costs to the Defendant’s of $500.00 on each count for not consenting to the amended Statement of Claim and for not agreeing  to a deadline to file the Certificate of Readiness totaling $1000.00.

 

February 13, 2001 – During the Jury trial application before Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich – Robert J. Sawers requests an extension of time to March 15, 2001 from the Lewis Order to file the Certificate of Readiness on February 15,  2001 to have an outstanding 129 application heard challenging the issue of standing as the Plaintiff’s have no interest in the trophy as precedence within  Mugford vs. Mugford and as such no right to sue, only Personal Representatives have such a right to bring on a action on behalf of a deceased. The Jury trial application was dismissed as The Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich realized that the Plaintiff’s had no standing to sue and that the action would be dismissed as the pleadings were forced closed by the Defendants lawyer Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen and probate had not been applied for to appoint Personal Representatives before the Plaintiff’s lawyer Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen obtained a Court order directing the pleadings closed ambushing  herself. As soon as Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen filed the Certificate of Readiness the pleading would be closed and the Plaintiff’s law suit would be dismissed as she lacked standing to sue without Personal Representatives named as Plaintiff’s for which did not exist at this time.

 

The Wachowich Court Order directing the Certificate of Readiness be filed by Elizabeth MacInnis on or before March 15, 2001, below are the minutes from a case management meeting that Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen with Donald Broder’s lawyer Guy Lacourciere in attendance and confirming the conditional Certificate of Readiness was filed on April 17, 2003.

Did You Know!

If there was no problem with filing the Certificate of Readiness on March 15, 2001 Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen would have filed it and not have complained she had been ambushed.

March 13, 2001 – The 129 application was scheduled and an adjournment  was requested by Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen for an urgent family matter.

Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen made the comment that she had been ambushed by Robert J. Sawers. “see the cross examination of Guy Lacourciere”

Within Page 28 lines 1 – 24 of Guy Lacourcieres Cross-Examination he admits;

The Alberta Court of Appeal Justices Carole Conrad, Ronald Berger and Peter Costigan made reference to Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen being ambushed by Donald H. Broders lawyer Robert Sawers by the motion in 2001 that was adjourned from March 13, 2001 two days prior to the deadline on March 15, 2001 for the Certificate of Readiness to be filed and upon a request from  Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen was respectfully adjourned by Robert Sawers because she explained she had an urgent family matter.

 

The following documents and excerpts from Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench action 9703-12949 will provide the evidence to criminally prosecute all involved for their willful criminal activity as of against an innocent senior citizen Donald H. Broder and how they orchestrated the outcome of  Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench action 9703-12939 to protect the Plaintiff’s lawyer Elizabeth MacInnis from being ambushed and in return after taking legal fee from an  innocent senior citizen’s  Donald H. Broder and his wife Joyce M. Broder collude and conspire to frame these vulnerable Canadian seniors citizens for their own satisfaction and greed breaching The Canadian Constitution and Human Rights by acting in collusion to frame, defraud and falsely incarcerate  Donald H. Broder at 75 years of age until his wife Joyce M. Broder  succumbed to the demands as the only means of her husband being released from jail she transferred $235, 347.30 from the TD Canada Trust Bank in Olds Alberta to Lacourciere Cervini bank on May 3, 2004 while Donald H. Broder was being held in jail at The Edmonton Remand Center.

http://www.broderbuck.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/TDtransfertolaccer.jpg

April 2001 – The 129 Application or Motion by Robert Sawers reference in Guy Lacourciere Cross-Examination that also made reference to Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen comment about being ambushed was reschedule with the Edmonton Law Court for April 27, 2001 as soon as Elizabeth MacInnis dealt with her urgent family matter and the court application was delayed and rescheduled to be heard by Master W. J. Quinn on April 27. 2001.

Case Law Mugford vs. Mugford was referenced as precedence.

The conclusion to be drawn is that the respondent, having no interest in the land, has no standing to bring an action. Although it was, as described by the trial judge, a dispute between Gordon Mugford and Ernest Mugford, it was a dispute over nothing. While Ernest Mugford may or may not have acquired possessory title or a statutory defence, it is the role of the administrator and not the role of Gordon Mugford to put this to the test.

The action was wrongly conceived for this reason, if for no other, and ought not to have proceeded, The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the trial judge is set aside. The appellant may have his costs both here and in the trial division.

April 27, 2001

Master W. J. Quinn rendered his decision below.

http://www.broderbuck.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/quinn1.jpg

Master Quinn heard and responded to the comment made by Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen that she had been ambushed by providing a delay in allowing;

Paragraph 1 above the Order of Master Quinn;

1) “the Defendants’ application to strike the Statement of Claim is adjourned sine die.”  Quinn had no right to adjourn our application!

Master Quinn adjourned the Defendants’ application to assist Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen as this would delay the filing of the Certificate of Readiness and keep the pleadings open.

2) “The present Plaintiffs are expected to make an application to appoint an Administrator of the Ed Broder Estate without delay and the Defendants are expected not to interfere with such an application.” Quinn also had no right to provide legal advice to Elizabeth MacInnis and then place a gag order on Donald H. Broder!

Master Quinn placed a gag order on the Defendants not to interfere and as such is demonstrating collusion and favoritism. Knowingly that the Defendants would appeal his decision and that would buy time for Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen to make an Application to the Surrogate Courts and most likely be successful in appointing Personal Representative if Donald H. Broder could not interfere.

Did You Know!

 At the time of the Application before Master Quinn on April 27, 2001 it had been excess of 3 1/2 year since the original Statement of Claim had been filed on July 8, 1997 and the Statute of Limitation of 2 years had lapsed to add or substitute a new Plaintiff. Elizabeth MacInnis would require the substitute the Personal Representatives as Plaintiff’s as soon as the were appointed by the Surrogate Courts.

 

 Did You Know! 

What would be the point of the Surrogate Court Application as the Personal Representatives could not be added or substituted as Plaintiffs within the said action as the 2 year limitation period had lapse from the Statement of Claim date of July 8, 1997 and it was now May of 2001.

 

May – 2001

The Surrogate Court application to appoint Personal Representatives .

Below the evidence of collusion of  how

Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen

was provided the necessary time by

The Edmonton Law Courts between the;

Order of Master Quinn – April 27, 2001

and the;

Appeal before Justice C. P. Clarke – September 18, 2001

to ambush the Defendants lawyer

Robert J. Sawers

and granted two of the Plaintiff’s to be

The Personal Representatives of Edmund Broder by

The Surrogate Courts

Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen had her legal secretary

Joan C. Hill file a;

 false Affidavit of Service on 7th day of December 2001,

when the  Application for Probate had

already been heard and granted on

May 24, 2001;

“Original copy of the FALSE Affidavit below.”

Note: Robert J. Sawers wrote in: note; “not @ that time!”

 

Did you know!

For Service to be Effective regarding

The May 2001 – Application for Probate

it would have to be served directly on all Beneficiaries

  inclusive of

Donald H. Broder

and could not be served on

 Robert J. Sawers

because

Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen

 had forced the Pleadings closed

on March 15, 2001, within Action 9703-12949

for which Robert J. Sawers was retained

to act on behalf of

Donald Broder and Craig Broder.

“Robert J. Sawers had not been retained by Donald H. Broder for any matters dealing with the Estate of Edmund Broder” 

 An Affidavit provided by Robert J. Sawers through his solicitor’s Gerald F. Scott, John Pak, and Chris Triggs at Fraser Milner Casgrain whereby Mr. Sawers swore under oath that; he did not accept service for the Application for Probate and that Donald H. Broder was effectively served by registered mail on May 28, 2001, while; the desk Application  went before Justice R. P. Belzil at the Surrogate Courts on May 24, 2001, for whom acted in collusion with Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen by allowing and relying on a; False Affidavit of Service within Surrogate Court Action SES03 113567.

Robert J. Sawers Affidavit(full version)PDF

Read the full version if you like;

Paragraphs 7,8,9 and 11. are quoted below;

  • [7.] On or about May 10, 2001, counsel for the plaintiffs In the Queen’s Bench Action, Elizabeth Maclnnis of Weir Bowen LLP (MacInnis), filed an application with the Surrogate Court of Alberta, being Court file No. SES113S67, tor a Grant of Administration of the Estate of Edmund Broder (the “Surrogate Court Action”) A copy of the procedure record for the Surrogate Court Action, which my counsel advises and I verily believe is a true copy of the procedure record received from the court, is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit
    5.
  • [8.] Maclnnis served Donald Broder with a copy of the required Notice to Beneficiary and of the Application for Grant of Administration, via registered mail, but Donald Broder did not receive these documents until on or about May 28, 200t. A copy of an affidavit sworn by Donald Broder on October 16, 2001, and subsequently filed in the Surrogate Court Action, in which he deposes to his receipt of the Notice, is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit 6.
  • [9.] Maclnnis provided me with a copy of the letter and documents served on Donald Broder, which I received on or about May 15, 2001. However, at that time I was not counsel for Donald Broder in the Surrogate Court Action, and did not believe that service would be effective on Donald Broder until he himself received the documents. A copy of Maclnnis’ May 10, 2001 letter, providing me with a copy of the Notice to Beneficiary and Application for Grant of Administration being served on Donald Broder, is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit 7.
  • [11.] I represented Don Broder in the Surrogate Court Action beginning at some point in time on or after May 28,2001.  

May 10, 2001 –  letter from Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen confirming she would serve Donald Broder by registered mail below;

On May 10, 2001, Elizabeth MacInnis informs Robert Sawers she would be serving Donald Broder with the Application for Probate and only provide him with a copy for information purposes.

Joan C. Hill legal secretary to Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen must be criminally charged with swearing a false Affidavit.

May 24, 2001 –  the Surrogate Court grants administration  on May 24, 2001 without any proof by an Affidavit of Service that Donald H. Broder had been effectively serviced’

The Canada Post receipt proved that Donald H. Broder had  been served by registered mail on May 28, 2001.

The Jone C. Hill Affidavit was sworn December 7, 2001 whereby she confirms Robert Sawers accepted service based on a note to file.

The Grant of Administration application was heard on May 24, 200 1  – 4 days prior to Donald H. Broder being served on May 28, 2001.

Did you know!

Justice R. P. Belzil grants administration on May 24, 2001 without any Affidavit of Service to be relied upon;

as Joan C. Hill’s Affidavit was sworn on 7th day of December 2001.

Donald Broder’s lawyer Robert Sawers warns

Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen of

“a number of serious concerns”

he has with her actions in obtaining the

Order for the Grant of Administration.

 

May 28, 2001 –   Canada Post  provided proof that Donald H. Broder was served by Registered Mail for the Application for Probate on May 28, 2001, four days after the Grant of Administration was order by Justice Belzil on May 24, 2001.

 

Robert Sawers was counsel for Donald Broder and Craig Broder in action 9703-12949 and because the Pleadings were ordered closed by the Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich prior to the Application for Probate and as such Robert J. Sawers was not retained by Donald H. Broder to accept service in the event of a pending Estate Litigation / Application for Probate.

              In Summary

                        1. Robert J. Sawers did not accept service for the Application for Probate, he only received a copy for information purposes.

           2. The Application for Probate  for the Grant of Administration was before the Edmonton Surrogate Courts on May 24, 2001.

3. Donald Broder was effectively served by Registered Mail the Application for Probate on May 28, 2001.

                 4. Elizabeth MacInnis had her legal secretary, Joan C. Hill file a false Affidavit of Service that was 

based on a note on the file that Robert Sawers received a copy of the Application for Probate.

                        5. Justice Belzil Ordered the Grant of Administration on May 24, 2001 without any confirmation of an Affidavit of Service on Donald H. Broder

for the Application for probate at The Surrogate Courts in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

                        6. Robert Sawers warned Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen that he had a number of serious concerns regarding the Order.

                        7. The Application for Probate was filed at the Surrogate Courts by Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen in May 2001 after she had

be granted a Court Order  which directed the closing of  the Pleadings by Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich on or before March 15, 2001

and should not have acted in a legal capacity on behalf of the Beneficiaries because

she was in a conflict of interest position being against Donald H. Broder in an action for which she had just forced the pleadings close and

was upset because she had been ambushed by Donald H. Broder’s Lawyer Robert J. Sawers so the Surrogate Courts at Edmonton Law Courts

were willful participants to assist Elizabeth MacInnis to ambush Robert J. Sawers even if the victim would be 

an innocent senior citizen;

Donald H. Broder.

 Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen cries ambush then with the clout of her father past Chief Justice W. Kenneth Moore bullies her way through to get even with Robert J. Sawers

and turned their  urgent family matter into an urgent family matter for an elderly senior citizen and his  family to figure out how she was getting away with all her criminal conduct.

Robert J. Sawers represented Donald Broder and Craig Broder at the Appeal of Master Quinn; 

Justice C. P. Clarke told Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen she need not speak and  immediately pronounce his order that Elizabeth MacInnis had leave of the Court to amend the Amended Statement of Claim and add the Personal Representatives as Plaintiffs.

Let it be known that;

Justice C. P. Clarke –

“yes Joe Clarke’s brother”

also came to the aid of

 Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen

after she made the comment about being ambushed 

by Donald H. Broder’s lawyer

Robert J. Sawers.

 

September 18, 2001 – Below is what transpired when Justice C. P. Clarke ambushed Donald H. Broder during his Appeal

as he read off a predetermined decision and order that the Personal Representatives are to be substituted as Plaintiff’s

on the 18th day of September, 2001 excess of 4 years from the original Statement of Claim date of July 8, 1997,

breaching the Statute of Limitation time restrictions to add or substitute a new claimant of 2 years and circumventing the rules of court by

substituting the Personal Representatives as Plaintiff’s.

Justice C. P. Clarke was obviously aware that the pleadings within this action closed immediately following

Donald H. Broder Appeal of Master Quinn’s decision regarding the 129 application.

Did You Know!

Justice C. P. Clarke heard and responds to the comment made by Elizabeth MacInnis that she had been ambushed and substitutes the Personal Representatives as Plaintiff’s during the Defendants Appeal of the Order of Master Quinn, knowingly the pleading would be closed immediately following this Appeal. Needless to say the time that had lapsed from the original Statement of Claim file date of July 8, 1997 to the Appeal date of September 18, 2001 was excess of 4 years and more than double what the Statute of Limitations allows to add to substitute a new claimant of 2 years.

Detecting frauds with a magnifying glass -

The CBC News Release should have read;

The News release following the trial should have read a 75 year-old man was sent back to jail because his lawyer Robert J. Sawers ambushed the Plaintiff’s lawyer Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen by not consenting to her request to close the pleadings and she obtained a court order forcing the pleadings closed then when Robert Sawers challenged the issue of standing or that the Plaintiff’s action was frivolous, vexatious and  abuse of court process only Personal Representatives could sue on behalf of a deceased and non existed or the Application for Probate had never been before the courts the Justices and Lawyers involved all colluded to orchestrate and frame this innocent 75 year old senior citizen that had won the lawsuit on March 15, 2001 the date for which the pleadings were closed and prior to the May 24, 2001 application for probate.

CBC News

Investigative Journalism

you should be better at reading between the lines;

or at least now write the true story!

The Headline should have said;

Alberta Man sells prized antlers as a means to

recover his retirement savings he was defraud of by

Alberta Justices conspiring with lawyers to frame him.

But instead it read!

 

NEWS RELEASE

Alberta man admits selling prize antlers

Last Updated: Friday, April 30, 2004 | 1:40 PM ET

CBC News

After a week in an Alberta jail for refusing to turn over a set of prize deer antlers, a 75-year-old man was sent back to his cell on Thursday for refusing to say what he did with the money when he apparently sold the family heirloom last year.

Don Broder admitted in an Edmonton court he sold the world-record rack last May.

The trophy had been in the family since Broder’s father, Ed, shot the buck in 1926.

The antlers are famous in hunting circles, still holding the world record for a non-typical mule deer.

Don Broder has had the antlers since 1973, but in 1997 his six siblings launched a lawsuit to have the trophy antlers sold and the money divided.

RECORD HUNTING TROPHIES
Hunting trophies such as antlers and skulls are judged on a point system derived by the Boone and Crockett Hunting Club. World Records: Typical Mule Deer: 5 points on the left 6 on the right inside spread of 30 7/8″ Non-typical Mule Deer (The Broder Trophy): 21 points on the left 22 on the right inside spread of 22 1/8″ Alaska-Yukon Moose: 15 points on the left 19 on the right largest spread of 65 1/8″ Source: Boone and Crockett

The Broder siblings won a court decision in March. Saying he promised his dying father in 1968 never to let the antlers be sold, Broder was found in contempt of court for not handing them over and put in jail last Friday.

On Thursday, he admitted he doesn’t have the antlers anymore.

Elizabeth MacInnis, the lawyer for Broder’s siblings told the court she had been in contact with a lawyer representing a man in Montana man who claimed he had purchased the antlers.

MacInnis said the antlers were sold last May for $171,000 US. Tests are planned to prove the rack in Montana is the Broder buck.

A judge has ordered that Broder remain in jail until he tells the court where the money went.

Justice Myra Bielby also said she would report the new developments to the justice minister. Broder and one of his sons could face further charges including perjury and obstruction of justice.

CBC News reported on Tuesday that an American businessman specializing in taxidermy was offered the antlers by someone who said he bought them from Broder.

 The question being asked as to the first time the Defendant, Donald H. Broder lawyer  had  raised the issue of lack of Personal Representatives and as

answered within the Cross-examination of Guy Lacourciere was in the original Statement of Defence for which was filed at

Edmonton Law Courts by

Joseph Kueber of Bryan & Company on July 28, 1997.

Confirmation is within the transcripts  below of

the Cross-Examination of Guy Lacourciere 

see page 28 lines 1 – 24 and page 29 lines 10 – 18

 Guy Lacourciere – Cross- Examination line 6 – 11

Confirms the issue of Lack or Personal Representatives was raised in the

Original Statement of Defence filed on July 28, 1997 and not as 

Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen deceived the trial Judge by telling;

Justice Bielby that lack of Personal Representatives

was raised in early 2001.

 

 

 Perjury

 The trial Judge Justice Bielby asked Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen

during the closing arguments at trial;

When was the first time Lack of Personal Representatives was raised?

 Her answer was early 2001. “see below”

 

http://www.broderbuck.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Argumentsbymacinnis3.jpg

Ms. MacInnis: “That’s  correct, my Lady. I can say that.”

It was a lie, the first time Lack of Personal Representatives was raised was in the;

Original Statement of Defence filed on July 28, 1997.

Then the question has to be asked why Justice Bielby would have to ask  the question;

“when is the first time the defendants raised the issue of the lack of personal representatives?”

If it was contained within the Defendants original Statement of Defence !

Why would

  Donald H. Broder lawyer, Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson 

conspire against his own client to  assist Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen by purposely concealing

the first time the issue of lack of Personal Representatives was raised from the trial Judge!

” So that Estoppel would not prevent Elizabeth MacInnis from relying on the relation back doctrine to win at trial”

Answer: Because Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen had made the comment she had been ambushed to her daddy past Chief Justice W. Kenneth Moore!

Bielby11

Bielby12

Bielby13

Donald H. Broder provided the following evidence to;

The Law Society of Alberta

and

The Edmonton Economic Commercial Crimes Unit

and

The RCMP in Olds and Cochrane, Alberta.

proving that;

That Donald H. Broder’s defence lawyer, Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson;

conspired against his own client by purposely amending the Statement of Defence

on January 9, 2004 – 10 days before the scheduled trial of January 19, 2004 then back dated the;

FIAT- “permission to amend” to January 9, 2003 to;

predate the false Certificate of Readiness date of April 17, 2003 for which

a Court Order had already been granted by Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich to file;

The Certificate of Readiness with the Clerk of the Court no later than March15, 2001 then

forged the Judges second signature below the FIAT on the Amended Statement of Defence

knowingly it would take total precedence at trial therefore concealing

that the issue of lack of Personal Representatives had been raised within paragraph 8 of;

The Original of Defence from the trial Judge;

Justice Myra Bielby.

http://www.broderbuck.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/amended-statement-of-defence-1.jpg

The FIAT above was dated January 9, 2004 when the true date is on the

Procedure  Record Print below of January 9,  2003  !procedurerecordfiat

Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson

for whom had just provided $16,000 by Donald H. Broder and made payable to Miller Thomson

as a retainer to act as legal council and prepare for the schedule trial January 19, 2004

as Guy Lacourciere, Donald H. Broder lawyer had quit on him in October of 2003.

Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson willfully conspired to frame his own client Donald H. Broder

by completing the necessary legal steps to assist the Plaintiff’s lawyer Elizabeth MacInnis by;

  1.   Amending the Statement of Defence to conceal that the issue of Lack of Personal Representatives had been raised within the Original Statement of Defence.

  2.   Backdating the FIAT to January 9, 2003 to predate the false Certificate of Readiness file date of April 17, 2003 for which was added in after the Judges first signature then the second signature forged.

Hold on! 

Didn’t Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich pronounce a

COURT ORDER 

from a previous court application Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen had filed  

and request that the pleading be forced closed by the filing of

  The Certificate of Readiness on or before February 15, 2001 then extended to March 15, 2001 by

The Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich order.

Wait a darn minute!

Are you telling me that Court Orders granted by  Justices in Alberta even the

Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich  do not have to be followed if the lawyer, Elizabeth MacInnis

of Weir Bowen for whom obtained the Court Order has a daddy she can call on that was the past

Chief Justice W. Kenneth Moore for whom was replaced by A. H. Wachowich in December 2000.

Do you;

 Citizens of Canada

understand now how our Justice System does not

acted

BIASED and PREJUDICED!

“Or do they”

They wouldn’t do that to harm a senior citizen, would they?

BUT WHAT IF THEY “I mean the Justices in Alberta”  –

DID DO THAT!

I guess we would all have to be aware that if they would do this to our most vulnerable citizens; “I mean seniors”

Wouldn’t we the people of Canada have to think;

They, I mean –  Justices and lawyers would do it to anyone!

O K you asked be clear on what “do it” means”

It simply means that when a lawyer, Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen whose father was the past Chief Justice prior to A. H. Wachowich

makes a comment that she had been ambushed by Donald H. Broder’s Lawyer Robert Sawers

every lawyer and Justice will come to her aid and in return conspire to ambush an innocent

75 year old senior citizen; Donald H. Broder for whom didn’t even try to ambush anyone!

Let see, they will all conspire, collude, orchestrate, breach court orders by Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich and not file the Certificate of Readiness on March 15, 2001 but wait until April 17, 2003, backdate, forge judges signatures, amend the Statement of Defence to conceal that the first time the issue of lack of Personal Representatives was raised was within the original Statement of Defence and have Alberta Justice Transcript Management delete the opening statements of Donald H. Broder from the trial audio.

Oh and don’t let me forget!

On April 23, 2004

They; I mean Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen had Justice Myra Bielby incarcerated

Donald H. Broder a 75 year old senior citizen

for not following the Court Order that was pronounces in March 2004 after the conclusion of the

orchestrated trial held from January 19 – 23, 2004

when as the evidence provided has proven it was

Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bownen

that should have been charged with Contempt of Court on March 15, 2001

for not adhering to

Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich order.

Yes contempt of Court !

The Law Society of Alberta has refused to charge  Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen with;

Contempt of Court, Perjury, Obstruction of Justice, Fraud on the Courts and Elder Abuse.

If Donald H. Broder was incarcerated until he breached his false contempt charge then;

Elizabeth MacInnis should be incarcerated until she pay restitution to all the Broder Elders families and return the trophy.

The transcript below demonstrates how  Elizabeth MacInnis insisted that

  Justice Bielby incarcerate Donald H. Broder!

When it was Elizabeth MacInnis that was in contempt of court!

Lets take a look at the transcripts below and see how low Elizabeth MacInnis will go.

A proud bunch of thieves!

Donald H. Broder a 75 year old senior was framed and falsely imprisoned at the Edmonton Remand Center on April 23, 2004 for 11 days

because his lawyer Robert Sawers was accused of ambushing the Plaintiff’s lawyer Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen

for whom is the daughter of past Chief Justice W. Kenneth Moore.

News Release from Edmonton Alberta Canada

The streets are safer tonight a 75 year old senior citizen known as the antler-man is behind bars

Toady they got him said Alison Redford – Justice Minister of Alberta, he could run but there was no place to hide.

Nobody gets away with ambushing lawyers especially not Justice W. Kenneth Moores daughter Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen.

I would have thought the antler-man would have been broke by now in spirit and financially and  quit a long time ago. What I mean by that is; we sent George Butler a civil enforcement sheriff with RCMP escort and a locksmith to the antler-mans home searched his house while he was away for the real deer antlers he snookered us he had left replicas on the dining room table we didn’t know so we took them and  forensic just confirm they are plastic and not real bone. We will sift through everything on the property until we find the real bone.

Just to make sure everyone one involved during the search was safe I heard that the mayor of Sundre was called for a character reference, the antler-man was described as a caring, modest well respected senior that worked for the town after he retired from Public Works in Calgary. He was a member of the Legion, a volunteer at the local church to help with construction and considered by his peers at Alberta Public Works to be respectful and peaceful. S o clearance was provided not to use excessive force; we only sent one sheriff; George Butler, one RCMP officer from Sundre detachment and a local lock smith. I heard a request was made that the  lock-smith bring a slug hammer but he refused.

The Edmonton Police Services apprehend the antler man today after he told Justice Bielby “do what you gotta do”, Bielby order him incarcerated until he cooperates then suggested that Donald H. Broder son Craig Broder could take his place in jail, you know because he was an senior. Craig Broder was not in court at the time but we are waiting for his response. The word is out they took his cane away now he can’t run and for safety reasons you know he’s been known to swing it at lawyers now and then. A local photographer provided the pictures below to satisfy the people of Alberta and Canada that we handle him gingerly these reputably policemen carted him off to jail as he could not walk without a cane he was on the short list for a hip replacement.

 When asked what was the antler-man yelling about;

An unidendtified spokesperson confirmed that he was saying;

“You cannot do this to me – I’m entitled to an  appeal  – you’re not going to get away with this!”

Edmonton streets are a bit safer tonight as the antler – man is on his way to The Edmonton Remand center and being taught a lesson.

Cops Crack Down On Occupy Sesame Street

Elizabeth MacInmis had Justice Bielby incarcerated the 75 year old senior on a Friday afternoon and did not provide any cookies until Saturday noon!

Boy was he pissed as he new everyone had fallen for the corruption and he was the only one that called it for what it was;

“A conspiracy to defraud him!

He was right!

Within paragraph 4 above and continued below;

Justice Bielby instructs the Clerk of the Court that this matter before her;

“be turned over to the Attorney General for an investigation into possible criminal charges against Donald Broder and Craig Broder.”

Let it be known!

Donald Broder and Craig Broder have insisted as per Justice Bielby’s Court Order to turn over the complete court file to the;

Attorney General for an investigation and we have been declined!

Simply another Court Order the Edmonton Justices and Attorney General refuse to adhere too!

Alison Redford was the

Minister of Justice /  Attorney General at the time;

Lets see what Alison Redford – Attorney General said when we requested the investigation ordered by Justice Bielby;

Donald Broder and  Craig Broder did not request that

Alison Redford – Attorney General of Alberta

“interfere with matters judicially decided by the Court”

All the Broder’s requested of Alison Redford – Attorney General was to initiate the  investigation ordered by Justice Bielby

 to exonerate and prove our innocence  of the accusation against us and

also prove that;

Donald H. Broder

had been framed by his own lawyers for whom were willfully acting in collusion with the Plaintiff’s lawyer and as a result of;

“being framed was wrongfully imprisoned and defrauded”

Come on this doesn’t happen in Canada!

Or does it!

We are all protected by The Canadian Constitution and

Canada is recognized by the United Nations for a high regard for Human Rights!

Within Paragraph 2 above;

Justice Bielby ordered;

“The Defendant, Don Broder, is to be remanded in custody until he deposits the sale proceeds from the sale of the trophy into the trust account of his Solicitors,

Beresh, Depoe, Cunningham”

That would be Marvin Bloos  for whom was on retainer to act as Donald H. Broder criminal lawyer and deal with the false contempt of Court charge!

“Then why was it Guy Lacourciere obtained the money from Joyce Broder while Donald H. Broder was in custody?”

Copy of the wire transfer below.

WOW: At the time Donald H. Broder was still incarcerated for not following a court order, to be taught a lesson they said.

It should be very clear to all readers of the website that Donald H. Broder was the only innocent participant in this whole ordeal!

http://www.broderbuck.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/TDtransfertolaccer.jpg

Under SAFEKEEPING OF TROPHY above;

Let it be known it was Guy Lacourciere and Elizabeth MacInnis that requested the trophy be listed on E Bay.

“Ask you’re self why it had to be listed on e bay after Elizabeth MacInnis had made the comment she had been ambushed.”

Honourable Rob Nicholson;

Maybe this matter it to big for the Law Society to handle seems apparent it is white collar crimes against elders, a form of elder abuse by the Canadian Government

It would be prudent for your office to get involved and start by completing the investigation ordered by Justice Bielby and lay criminal charges.

Justice Bielby might be disappointed as these criminal charges  probably would not be against Donald H. Broder or his son Craig Broder.

Or is this too big for the Federal Government of Canada also!

 Rob Nicholson;

For starters it would be in your best interest to enforce the Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich order below or until such time that it is enforced

detrimental precedence has been set in law that;

“NO COURT ORDERS HAVE TO BE FOLLOWED”

Below the excerpts from the Cross Examination of Guy Lacourciere

he confirms that the Amended Statement of Defence takes total precedence at trial and

the trial Judge Justice Bielby would  not see the Original Statement of Defence.

Go figure that must be why Justice Bielby asked Elizabeth MacInnis during the closing arguments

“when was the first time the Defendant raised the issue of lack of Personal Representatives!”

Fedminjustice

WE HAD BETTER DO WHAT

ROB NICHOLSON- Federal Minister of Justice 

SAID TO DO;

REPORT THIS TO THE LAW SOCIETY!

After all isn’t he the Federal Minister of Justice in Canada!

” he, I mean Rob Nicholson – Minister of Justice 

must know Canadian Law and know exactly what he is instructing the 

Broder family to do!”

Maybe Not!

Maybe we should call Rob Nicholson Minister of Justice of Canada

and explain the letter we received from

The Economic Commercial Crimes Unit in Edmonton, Alberta

And that he, Rob Nicholson; Minister of Justice in Canada might have the power to make contact with the;

FBI in the United States of American and;

explain that Donald H. Broder had been framed and the whole court case was orchestrated by Justices and lawyers in Alberta

and discuss what measures could be taken to return  Donald H. Broders property that he was defrauded by clarifying that;

  The Edmonton Law Courts had no right to sell stolen property it to an American in Montana.

Rob Nicholson could also explain that we desperately need the help of the FBI because;

Sgt. K. Whitton of the Edmonton Economic Crime Section letter;

concluded all involvement from the Edmonton Police Services and the Crown Prosecutors Office.

Wonder whose pulling his leash!

Knowing what we know now;

I wonder how it would work when The Crown would have to lay charges against The Crown!

KNOW WONDER  Sgt. K. WHITTON CONCLUDED THE MATTER!

It is probably not possible in Canada for;

“The Crown” to criminally charge “The Crown”

I thought if the Crown was at fault the law states they;

“I mean the Government of Canada”

were suppose to own up!

WHAT IF!

This kind of crime cannot be exposed because it would tarnish Canada’s image!

“What would the rest of the World think of Canada”

Brief

As soon as Elizabeth MacInnis made the comment she had been ambushed because  Robert Sawers filed a 129 application after she had obtained a court order that had closed the pleadings om herself in March 2001 the conspiracy to defraud an innocent senior citizen was initiated by;

  • Elizabeth MacInnis obtaining cooperation from Master Quinn by adjourning the 129 application to keep the pleadings open and provide time to appoint Personal Representatives.

  • Elizabeth MacInnis proceeded at the Surrogate Courts on May 24, 2001 without prove of service of the Application for Probate on Donald H.   Broder then in January 2001 had her legal secretary Joan C. Hill file a false Affidavit of Service.

  • Elizabeth MacInnis obtained cooperation from Justice C. P. Clarke by substituting the Personal Representatives to the action after the limitation period had lapsed and without service and during Donald H. Broder’s appeal of Master Quinns decision. 
  • Elizabeth MacInnis was warned by Robert Sawers that he had some very serious concerns with what she was doing.
  • Elizabeth MacInnis obtained the assistance of Guy Lacourciere , lawyer for the Defendant Donald H. Broder for whom replace Robert Sawers and Guy Lacourciere allowed Elizabeth MacInnis to ignore the Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich Order to file the certificate of Readiness om March 15, 2001 but rather deceive Justice Marceau during a second round of case management meeting that the Certificate of Readinesss had been file on April 17, 2003.
  • Elizabeth MacInnis was granted everything she required by all the Justices ‘you know friends of the family” that heard all Donald H. Broders Appeals, even when Donald H. Broder won it was set up for him to lose.
  • Elizabeth MacInnis obtained the assistance of Bryan Kickham, lawyer that replaced Guy Lacourciere after he quit on Donald H. Broder three months before the trial. Bryam Kickham immediately obtained a FIAT on January 9, 2004 “permission to amend the Statement of Defence” backdated the FIAT on the front of the Amended Statement of Defence to January 9, 2003 – to predate the false date of April 17, 2003 of filing of the Certificate of Readiness and also  replicated the Judges second signature below the in incorrect date on the FIAT to purposely conceal  that Donald H. Broder’s  original Statement of Defence   had raised the issue of  lack of Personal Representatives from the trial Judge Justice Bielby.
  • Elizabeth MacInnis lied to the trial Judge on January 23, 2004 during the closing arguments when she was asked when was the first time Lack of Personal Representatives was raised by the Defendant was not early 2001, but actually contained within the Defendants Original Statement of Defence to prevent Estoppel from allowing her to rely on the relation back doctrine.
  • Elizabeth MacInnis had Donald H. Broder’s home searched inflicted intimidation tactics and then had him incarcerated for not following a court order when it was her that was not following the Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich order of February 2001 that directed the Certificate of Readiness must be filed by her on or before March 15, 2001.
  • Elizabeth MacInnis and Bryan Kickham orchestrated the trial books and did not provide the trial Judge Justice Bielby with a copy of all the pleadings.

Donald H. Broder rehired Guy Lacourciere to file for the Appeal of Justice Bielby’ decision.

Rob Nicholson – Minister of Justice / Attorney General of Canada

Which Government agency did you say to report this charade to?

Lets see what Appeal Court Justices; Carole Conrad, Ronald Berger and Peter Costigan were shown!

 

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.

” If the Court of Appeal made a comment to Guy Lacourciere,  Donald H. Broder’s  defence lawyer;

then we the Canadian people ask the question how is it he lost at the Court of Appeal? 

No, –  it can’t be! Even when there are three Honourable Justices with the credentials of;

Justices; Carole Conrad, Peter Costigan and Ronald Berger on the bench

really – the outcome can still be fixed.

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

Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen had committed Purgery during the closing arguments when she was asked

“when was the first time the defendants raised the issue of lack of Personal Representatives?”

appealbookargumentsmacinnis

Excerpts from Arguments by Ms. MacInnis.

http://www.broderbuck.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Argumentsbymacinnis3.jpg

Excerpts from the Cross-Examination of Guy Lacourciere

Prove of purgery is provided below;

 The first time lack of Personal Representatives was raised was within the original Statement of Defence

and not as Elizabeth MacInnis told Justice Biebly during closing arguments.

that the first time lack of Personal Representatives was raised was in January or February of 2001.

Justice Carole Conrad, Ronald Berger and Peter Costigan seemed more worried about Elizabeth MacInnis being ambushed

rather than having Elizabeth MacInnis charged with Purgery, Fraud and Obstruction of Justice and

reversing Justice Bielby’s decision by providing a Court order that;

The Issue of lack of Personal Representatives was raise within the original Statement of Defence and as such;

“Estoppel prevented the relation back doctrine.”

Excerpts from Justice Bielby’s decision below.

Bielby12

Bielby13

Appeal Court Justice Carole Conrad, Ronald Berger and Peter Costigan were shown

all three;

Original Statement of Defence that raised Lack of Personal Representatives.

The Statement of Defence to the Amended Amended Statement of Claim that plead Estoppel

and that

The The Statement of Defence to the Amended Amended Statement of Claim had been;

Amended to conceal the original Statement of Defence from the trial Judge.

See below!

appealbook3sod

Appeal Court Justice Carole Conrad, Ronald Berger and Peter Costigan would have also realized that it was

Donald H. Broder’s own lawyer

Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson that purposely

Amended the Statement of Defence to the Amended Amended Statement of Claim

to conceal the original Statement of Defence as it would be necessary for the trial Judge to see both;

The Original Statement of Defence – that raised lack of Personal Representatives

and 

The Statement of Defence to the Amended Amended Statement of Claim that plead Estoppel.

By Amended the Statement of Defence to the Amended Statement of Claim the trial Judge only realized that

Estoppel had been plead but would not be aware that

Lack of Personal Representatives had been raised within the

Original Statement of Defence.

Honourable Rob Nicholson Ferderal Justice Minister of Canada

I ask which department is responsible to stop deleting audio from trial tapes?

The evidence below proves that

Donald H. Broder’s opening statement at trial disappeared!

Come on who would believe nothing was said!

Mr. Rob Nicholson;

I ask the question;

Is the Canadian Justice System really that corrupt?

That Alberta Justice and lawyers will go to this extent to frame an innocent 75 year old senior citizen

because a lawyer

Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen

made the comment she had been ambushed?

So they did it again;

Donald H. Broder had won but they insisted he had ambushed

Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen even though all Donald H. Broder had ever requested from the very onset was

Personal Representatives we needed to deal with his Father

Edmund Broder’s Estate.

The Alberta Appeal Court pronounced

“Donald H. Broder contempt charge is dismissed and his fine is reduced.”

Justice; Carol Conrad Ronald Berger and Peter Costigan

could not reverse Justice Bielby’s decision as it would

EXPOSE

Purgery, Fraud and Obstruction of Justice by lawyers

and the trophy had been auctioned off by the Edmonton Law Courts

how would they get it back!

Then they would have to deal with

Wrongful Imprisonment of

a 75 year old senior;

So they continued to punish

The Honourable Donald H. Broder  and his wife Joyce M. Broder

by defrauding them of all they had saved for retirement.

memories6

And continued victimizing with more;

‘ Oh – look at that Ronald Berger was on the Rocklake Enterprises Ltd. vs. Timberjack Inc.”

Justice Ronald Berger

“would have also been made aware that the Personal Representatives had been substitute as Plaintiff’s

after the expiration of the Limitation Period of two years.”

The  Court of Appeal of Alberta;

Case Law  from;

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. 

appealbookdigestcover

appealbookopeningstatements missing

 Above listed in the digest are the; – Opening Statements  by Ms.  MacInnis

Someone she knows  even has the power and connections to delete from trial audio;

“The opening Statements of Donald Broder”

transcriptmanagementletter

This crime has got to be the Federal Government of Canada’s responsibility!

Rob Nicholson are you sure we the Broder family should report this to the Law Society of Alberta,

because I think the Law Society of Alberta is making a comment;

You know it’s not really a comment more like a gesture kinda like the message given to Guy Lacourciere  by The Court of Appeal !

“it appears that Donald H. Broder was ambushed by the federally appointed Justices “

and we said

no one was ambushed because this issue was raised a long time ago

and the Alberta Justice Department and The Law Society of Alberta

have been given ample opportunity to make amends.”

It’s to late now and we leave it in the hands of a higher power than mankind.

“IN GOD WE TRUST”

 

Formal reports and citations against lawyers submitted to;

The Law Society of Alberta

and

their responses for what there worth.

Under development all reports submitted to The Law Society of Alberta and their responses!

The Law Society of Alberta’s

Management & Departments

Please contact the Law Society of Alberta or the Alberta Lawyers Insurance Association (ALIA) through the departments listed below:

You will immediately be assigned a resolution officer, and we were!

that is, was or might be;

“serving the public’s interest.

Law Society of Alberta

Executive Leadership Team

Don Thompson, QC, Executive Director 403-229-4700
Elizabeth Osler, Deputy Executive Director
& Director, Regulation
403-229-4796
Michael Penny, QC, Deputy Executive Director
& Director, Policy & Research
780-412-2306
Brenda Kaminski, Senior Counsel 780-412-2302
Greg Busch, Director, Lawyer Conduct 403-229-4768
Nona Cameron, Director, Human Resources 403-229-4707
Andrew Norton, Director, Business Technology 403-229-4735
Lisa Sabo, Director, Insurance 403-229-4717
Drew Thomson, Director, Corporate Services 403-229-4763

Departments and Key Contacts

Communications and Media Relations

Drew Thomson, Director, Coporate Services 403-229-4763 Email

Equity Ombudsperson

Jocelyn Frazer, Equity Ombudsperson 403-229-4769
888-229-4769
Email

Membership Services

Tina McKay, Manager, Membership Services Email
Toll-free: 1-800-661-9003
 Fax: 403-228-1728

Practice Advisors

Jocelyn Frazer, Practice Advisor (Calgary) 403-229-4769
888-229-4769
Email
Nancy Carruthers, Practice Advisor (Calgary) 403- 229-4714
866-440-4640
Email
Ross McLeod, QC, Practice Advisor (Edmonton) 780-412-2301
800-661-2135
Email

Privacy Officer & Information Officer

Jessica Arts, Privacy & Information Officer 403-229-4785 Email

The Alberta Law Society; correspondences with citations alleging fraud, conspiracy and collusion committed by the named Alberta Justices and Lawyers for whom were all willful participants  in a conspiracy to frame an innocent senior citizen, incarcerate him at 75 years old to purposely extort the personal property and retirement savings of Donald H. Broder his wife Joyce Broder, but little did they know the truth would be told and someday they will be held accountable by their own families and face judgment for their conduct;

Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen, Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson, Marvin Bloos of Beresh Depoe Cunningham, Guy Lacourciere of Lacourciere Associates and Joseph Kueber of Bryan and Company for whom were all willful participants acting in collusion with The Alberta Justice Department to orchestrate the outcome of Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Action 9703-12949.

 

Alberta Law Society citations against Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen (PDF full version)

Under Development

 

Alberta Law Society citations against Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson (PDF full version)

Alberta Law Society- September 22, 2011 reply to the citation against Bryan Kickham (PDF full version)

Under Development

Donald Broder’s correspondence – November 2, 2011 to The Alberta Law Society September 22, 2011 correspondence. (PDF full version)

Alberta Law Society, November 7, 2011 reply regarding citiations against Bryan Kickham (PDF full version)

 Also

Coming Soon

Citations and Allegations against; Marvin Bloos of Beresh Depoe Cunningham and Joseph Kueber of Bryan and Company

 

 

OATH of office of an Ontario Lawyer upon His/Her Call to the Bar

Required oath: Class L 1 license

21. (1) The required oath for an applicant for the issuance of a Class L 1 license under the Act is as follows:

“I swear or affirm that I will conduct all matters and proceedings diligently and faithfully and to the best of my ability. I will not seek to destroy any person’s property. I will not promote suits upon frivolous pretenses. I will not pervert the law to favor or prejudice any person. In all things, I will conduct myself truly, honestly and with integrity. I will abide by the standards and rules governing the practice of law in the province of Ontario. I will seek to improve the administration of justice. I will uphold the rule of law and I will uphold the interests, rights and freedoms of all persons according to the constitution and the laws of Canada and of the Province of Ontario.

 

© 2011-2012 Broder Buck All Rights Reserved

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 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.