Chapter 1 – The Alberta Justice Department colludes with Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen to frame, defraud, and falsely jail Donald Broder and innocent elderly senior here in Canada.

The image is a re-creation of The World Record Broder Buck that was harvested by Edmund Broder in November 1926, west of Edmonton Alberta, in the back country south of Chip Lake an area known as Carrot Creek and Rat Creek that drain into The Pembina River. The Broder Buck was crated up in 1962 and shipped to New York for the annual scoring of the Boone & Crockett Club and was pronounce The World Record with a B&C Score of 355 2/8 inches of antler. This World Record still stands today.

Donald Broder was falsely jailed from April 26 – May 5, 2004, at Edmonton Remand Center until he followed Justice Bielby’s Court Order following the trial at The Court of Queen’s Bench to turn over the Broder Buck, or tell them what he did with it?

THE BUCK FOR JUSTICE

Website Exposes

Canadian Judicial Corruption

                      READ THE GO DADDY VERSION @                    

 www.kingsoutdoorcanada.com

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

This website is dedicated to.

THE MOST VULNERABE 

 The Elderly, Children and Special Needs People.  

for whom are led to believe they are protected by

The Canadian Constitution.

But instead, it’s the very people in positions of power,

Justices of the Court, lawyers, and politicians for whom all

conspire against them to victimize, frame, defraud and falsely incarcerate these innocent victims while defrauding them of their life savings.

Then when they try to fight back, these same white-collar criminals give out court orders to garnish their bank accounts and force them to go away to die. 

The Governments of Canada just act willfully blind, deaf, and dumb.

These politicans treat everyone as being stupid.

READ THE FACTS AND YOU BE THE JUDGE!

The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench trial before Justice Myra Bielby was January 19 – 23, 2004, The Alberta Court of Appeal in 2006 upheld Justice Myra Bielby’s decision, and later in 2006, The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Donald Broders application for leave to Appeal The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench decision that The Alberta Justice Department and lawyers conspired to frame, defraud, and falsely jail him. Once the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed his application for leave then The Alberta Justice Department could not ever use theat as an excuse that Donald Broder should of applied to the Supreme Court. This was the paln that Donald Broder had gone all the way before a law suit was commenced against all the lawyers involved.

Donald Broders lawyers;

Joseph Kueber of Bryan & Company, Robert Sawyers of R. J.  Sawers and Associates, Guy Lacourciere of Lacourciere Cervini, Bryan Kickham of Miller Thompson and his criminal lawyer Marvin Bloos of Beresh Depoe Cunningham for whom filed the The  Application to The Supreme Court of Canada.  

Guy Lacourciere filed an application to have the lawsuit dismissed with a supporting Affidavit.  

That allowed Donald Broder to cross examine Guy Lacourciere on his Affidavit. 

Below is an excerpt from a cross examination of Guy Lacourciere, Donald Broder’s lawyer that was retained following his release from jail to file an Appeal of Justice Bielby’s decision at

The Alberta Court of Appeal.

NOTE:

The Q. is Craig Broder asking the question.

The A. is Guy Lacourciere answering the question.

Mr. Wong is Guy Lacourciere’s lawyer appointed to represent him by

The Alberta Lawyers Insurance Association “ALIA”.

Guy Lacourciere swore an Affidavit to create the situation of being cross examined to be able to clear his name and forced to explain how the Courts framed Donald Broder.

 

We will add clarity to lines 7 through 24. 

“A” means – Guy Lacourciere is providing this answer.

Line 7 – 11: – A “The comment was made by the court of appeal well you ambushed Ms. MacInnis and we said, no, nobody was ambushed in respect to this. The matter was raised at the beginning in the statement of defence.”

“Q” means – Craig Broder is asking Gut Lacourciere a question.

Line 12 – Q “what do you mean by “ambushed Ms. MacInnis?”

Line 13 – A “The court had asked the question.”  

Line 14 – Q “If we ambushed Elizabeth MacInnis?“

Line 15 – 20 – A “It appears to us that Elizabeth 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.“

Line 21- 22 – Q ” I need some clarification that we ambushed Elizabeth MacInnis.”

Line 23 – 24 – Mr. Wong.  Guy Lacourcieres lawyer interjects.  “That’s what the court of appeal said.“

EXPLANATION BELOW

Donald Broder and Craig Broder’s lawyer Robert Sawyers waited until Elizabeth MacInnis request consent to close the pleadings within this action 9703-12949, consent was declined by Donald Broder and Elizabeth MacInnis made a court application on the 18th day December, 2000 and was granted a court order by Justice Lewis the Pleadings would be closed by February 15, 2001 allowing time for Donald Broder to make an application before Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich for a trial by jury. 

Note: The Plaintiffs have no standing to sue for the Broder Buck in their personal capacity or an Administrator appointed by The Surrogate Courts to act on behalf of a deceased can bring an action for the return of assets belonging to the late Edmund Broder 1891 – December 26, 1968. 

It was now over 30 years since Edmund death, and since his possessions were taken by all his children randomly, and now they are demanding the return of the Broder Buck from Donald Broder but none of them are offering to return what they took possession of at the time of their Fathers passing. 

Line 1: The Amended Statement claim Order by Justice Lewis to be filed in the form attached still lacks standing to sue until the Application is applied for and successful in appointing an administrator. from Edmund Broder’s death on December 26,1968 through December 18, 2000 ” the date on this Court Order” the Grant of Administration has never been applied for at The Surrogate Courts.

     Line 2 – 4:  The Application for a jury trial must be completed before February 15, 2001, along with production of any further documents and answers to undertakings 

Line 5: Donald Broder and Craig Broder had won the lawsuit as Elizabeth MacInnis just forced the Pleading closed on herself by making an application and being granted by Court Order to file.

The Certificate of Readiness by February 15, 2001 – which forces the pleadings closed.

Paragraph 2 – Justice Lewis orders – Donald Broder has until February 15, 2001 to file the pleading and make an application before Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich for a jury trial. 

Paragraph 5 – Justice Lewis orders that The Certificate of Readiness and close the pleadings on or before February 15, 2001. And if Donald Broder does not agree Elizabeth MacInnis can file The Certificate of Readiness and close the pleadings signed by her alone and the trial Coordinator must accept it. 

Paragraph 6 – Donald Broder is fined $500.00 on each application and ordered to pay $1000.00 before 4:00 pm on January 5, 2002 for not consenting to the Amended Statement of Claim and The Certificate of Readiness that closes the pleadings to be filed with the Clerk of the Court. 

As per instructions Robert Sawers files an Application for a Jury trial Jury before Chief Justice A. H.  Wachowich on 13th day of February 2001, just 2 days before the Pleadings are closed on February 15, 2001.

The Chief Justice A.H. Wachowich Court Order, below.

Paragraph 1: “The Defendants’ application for a jury trial is dismissed.“

No jury will be required as there will be no trial.

Paragraph 2: “The Defendants’ application to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ claim under Rule 129 shall be made on or before March 15, 2001.”

Paragraph 3: “Paragraph 5 of the Order of Honourable Justice J. L. Lewis granted December 18, 2000, is varied to provide that the Certificate of Readiness to set this action for trial shall be filed on or before March 15, 2001.“

No need to waste the time of the Courts as the Plaintiffs have no standing to sue in their personal capacity on an Administrator can bring an action on behalf of a deceased Edmund Broder for the return of all his possessions. 

Rule 129: the action is frivolous, vexatious and abuse of process, and as such has no standing to sue as the Plaintiff’s names have no legal or equitable right to the Broder Buck. And Donald Broder has had it in his exclusive possession for excess of 30 years and the other siblings have also had what they took from Edmund Broders’ personal possessions in their exclusive possession for 30 years. And at the least Donal Broder in minimum 1/7 owner has just as much right to holding it in his possession until such time as an Application is made to The Surrogate Courts to appoint an administrator to act on behalf of #Edmund Broder and a demand is made to all seven siblings for the return of all his personal belongings and estate assets to be valued and distributed as per surrogate Court rules.

Paragraph 4: The Defendants’ “Donald Broder or Craig Broder” have leave to reattend upon the Chief Justice or any Justice of the Court of Queen’s Bench for the purpose of extending the time in paragraph 2 and 3 herein.”

The Defendants lawyer Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen forced the pleadings closed on herself before she had a legal right to sue. So, she was not allowed to extend the time on behalf of the Plaintiffs’ only Donald Broder and Craig Broder “the defendants” can make an application to extend the time to file the Certificate of Readiness and close the pleadings.  

Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen never adheres to the Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich Court Order to file the Certificate of Readiness on March 15, 2001. 

Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen misleads Justice Marceau during a case management meeting on May 7, 2003 that she filed The Certificate of Readiness on April 17, 2003. 

Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen was now in contempt of Court for not filing The Certificate of Readiness an close the Pleadings on or before March 15, 2001 as per The Chief Justice A. H.  Wachowich Court Order.  

Image of Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen.

Then the trial coordinator schedules the fake trial to start on January 19 – 23, 2004.

Elizabeth MacInnis has Donald Broder incarcerated for not following the fake trial Judge, Justice Myra Bielby Court Order to turn over The Broder Buck to the Plaintiffs.

When it was her, Elizabeth MacInnis that had not followed Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich Court Order to file The Certificate of Readiness and close the Pleadings within this action on March 15, 2001.

Image of Justice Myra Biebly.

Page 2 above 

Paragraph 1 – 5 

Elizabeth MacInnis admits obtaining a court order for a process server Georg Butler to attend Donald Broders private residence and search the premises. 

Below is the Affidavit of George Butler the process server.

George Butler clarifies “I was accompanied by R.C.M.P. Cst. Diebel, of Didsbury, Alberta, Detachment, and by locksmith Clayton Jackson.” 

Alberta Justice Department and Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen used the R.C.M.P. to enforce a crime she was commiting.  

Please, don’t blame the R.C.M.P. they just do what they are told, no thinking involved. they just get dressed up in their uniform, put their badge on, and a loaded firearm in the holster then ride in there squad car with good intentions heading to a 75 year old senior citzens private residence to intimidate and threaten them to let them search their premises and if not the will by force. 

Sorry, had to interupt and show the Affidavit of George Butler 

The continuation of page 3 and 4 of Guy Lacourcieres cross examination transcripts.

Paragraph 25 & 26

Elizabeth MacInnis asking Justice Biebly “I guess we’re asking the Court to enforce the order that it’s given.“

Justice Bielby should have enforced the February 13, 2001 Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich Order, but instead she enforced her Order from the conclusion of the trial on January 23, 2004.

You can’t enforce one Court Order and not the other?

They are either both enforceable and if not then presedence is set that no court orders are enforceable.

Below picture of Elizabeth MacInnis as she explained to Justice Myra Bielby

Paragraph 1 – 6 above. “really do not see any other effective remedy other than to request that the defendant be imprisoned for his contempt, you know, two or three days, something of the sort. And it’s my submission that’s the only way that the Court order, you know, can be effected, unless my friend has some other suggestion at this point.”

Donald Broder has asked numerous times, the last being on September 23, 2011, before Justice Karen Horner to enforce the Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich Court order and she replied

“The court order was too old.”

Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen. 

Direct Contact: (780) 424-2030 emacinnis@weirbowen.com

Page 2 –

ORDERED AND AJUDGED THAT:

Paragraph 1 below “The Defendant, Donald Broder, continues to be in civil contempt of court.“

This was because after the fake trial ended on January 23, 2004, Justice Myra Bielby ordered that Donald Broder turn over The Broder Buck and he refused. Elizabeth MacInnis had Justice Myra Bielby site him with civil contempt of court.

Paragraph 2 below “The Defendant, Donald Broder, is to be remanded into custody“

It was Elizabeth MacInnis that was in civil contempt for not following the Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich Court order from February 13, 2001. 

Picture of Donald and Joyce Broder celebrating their retirement just before he was jailed.

Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen jailed Donald Broder, then while he was being held at Edmonton Remand Center Alberta Justice extorted $225,000.00 from his wife Joyce Broder to secure his release from prison.    

Paragraph 4 above & below – Justice Myra Bielby directs the clerk of the court to send the transcripts of evidence be sent to the Attorney General with a request for an investigation into possible criminal charges be laid against Donald Broder and Craig Broder.

 

 

Case Law

Proves only Administrators appointed by The Surrogate Courts can bring an action on behalf of a deceased person.

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.

Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen was served with the Defendants 129 Application supported by the case-law Mugford vs. Mugford.

Page 28 and 29 of Guy Lacourciere cross-examination

“Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen “made the comment that she had been ambushed”

The Court Order below has never been followed to date, for which closed the pleadings on or before March 15, 2001.

Below is an excerpt from the Statute of Limitations Act.

Donald Broder and Craig Broder instruct Robert Sawers to appeal Master Quinns order and it is heard by

Justice C. P. Clarke

on September 18, 2001 now excess of 4 years from the Original Statement of Claim file date of July 8, 1997.

Justice C. P. Clarke

also hears the comment made by Elizabeth MacInnis that she had been ambushed and

was aware the pleadings closed immediately following Donald Broder and Craig Broder’s 129 Application

so he takes the liberty to ambush the Defendant’s by ordering that;

“The Plaintiff’s have leave to file an Amended Amended Statement of Claim to add The Personal Representatives as Plaintiff’s.”

Justice C. P. Clarke is under 

for adding new Plaintiff’s on September 18, 2001

excess of 4 years after the Original Statement of Claim was filed on July 8, 1997

breaching the 2-year Statute of Limitation and acting biased and prejudiced by

ambushing an innocent 75-year-old senior citizen.

Donald H. Broder

Rocklake vs. Timberjack (full version)PDF

Rocklake vs. Timberjack was heard by the Alberta Court of Appeal and supports the Statute of Limitation period of 2 years to add or substitute a new Plaintiff.

Below are the relevant excerpts and for those of you that would prefer to read the entire case law also available in PDF.

Rocklake vs. Timberjack (full version)PDF

“The investigation was not wasted time and the website does not require ink!”

 Hold on lets review the Justice Bielby Court Order !

Didn’t it say to turn transcripts over to the Attorney General!

“If you forgot Alison Redford that was you at the time!”

“with a request for an investigation for possible criminal charges that could be laid against

Don Broder and Craig Broder?”

Justice Myra Bielby was also under

for ambushing an innocent 75 year old senior citizen.

Donald H. Broder

Can you imagine

 Justice Myra Bielby or is it because she is Honourable 

she thought Donald Broder and Craig Broder would be 

intimidate  by her using her authoritative position as a scare tactic!

 

Hold on again,

In paragraph 2 Justice Bielby’s order above it states.

2) 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 ……..

Oh, Marvin Bloos of Beresh Depoe Cunningham was on retainer as Donald H. Broder’s criminal lawyer!

Then why did Guy Lacourciere get involved to obtain the money from Donald H. Broder wife Joyce Broder while

Donald H. Broder was in prison and then turned it over to

Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen instead of Beresh Depoe Cunningham.

Answer: To stop the matter from going criminal!

Conspiracy to defraud

 Guy Lacourciere  clarified in the cross-examination Elizabeth MacInnis comment that she had been ambushed,

so it is alleged Guy Lacourciere was assisting with ambushing his own client Donald H. Broder!

Note: Guy Lacourciere had quit on Donald Broder and Craig Broder  on October 30, 2003;

just 2.5 month prior to the  scheduled trial date of January 19 – 23, 2004!

Guy Lacourciere admits in the cross-examination that he assisted the Broder’s by telephone during the trial!

You decide – “Was Guy Lacourciere assisting Donald H. Broder or was he really assisting Elizabeth MacInnis?”

See excerpts of the transcripts of page 40, 41, 42 and 43 of

Guy Lacourcieres cross-examination below.

 

 

Prelude to the second part of the investigation;

Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson was retained as defence counsel for Donald H. Broder shortly after Guy Lacourciere quit in October of 2003.

The first thing Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson did was Amend The Statement of Defence on January 9, 2004;

“Hold on that was not the first thing Bryan Kickham did;

The first thing he did was take a $15,000.00 retainer from an innocent senior citizen to prepare for trial!

so the second thing Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson did was;

Amend Donald H. Broder’s Statement of Defence on January 9, 2004.”

As the investigators from the Attorney Generals office should have asked themselves;

1)              Why would Donald Broder’s own lawyer Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson apply for and be granted by The Court a;

FIAT on January 9, 2004

FIAT means – “permission to amend The Statement of Defence”

then prepare and file an Amended Statement of Defence to 

The Amended Amended Statement of Claim on January 9, 2004

just 10 days before the scheduled trial of January 19 – 23, 2004

then back date the FIAT to January 9, 2003?

So why wouldn’t the trial Judge Justice Bielby see that?

Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson Amended The Statement of Defence on January 9, 2004 just 10 days before the trial!

Because this would prevent the trial Judge from seeing that the issue of lack of Personal Representatives had been raised within the

The Original Statement of Defence.

           Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson backdated the FIAT “permission to amend” to January 9, 2003

or as the evidence will prove the backdate was added in after the Judge signed then the same Judges second signature was forged? 

See the Amended Statement of Defence below! 

Close up of the FIAT – “permission to amend”

Below is page 0011 of The Procedure Record Print provided to Donald Broder and Craig Broder by The Clerk of The Court at The Edmonton Law Courts on the

14 day of the 11 month of 2008 for which confirms the FIAT was granted by the Courts on

January 9, 2004!

Not on January 9, 2003!

Donald H. Broder’s own lawyer Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson conspire with

the Plaintiff’s lawyer Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen to

frame, orchestrate the outcome and falsely incarcerate then jointly defraud this innocent 75-year-old senior citizen, Donald H. Broder

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

Page 43 – lines 25 and 26  of the cross-examination of Guy Lacourciere

Q – Why would you file it?

A – Why would you file it?

Page 42 – lines 26 and 27 of the cross-examination of Guy Lacourciere

Q – So the amended one takes precedence?

A – That’s correct.

Page 43 – line 1 and 2 of the cross-examination of Guy Lacourciere

Q – Total precedence

A- Absolutely.

Was there an issue that was raised within the Original Statement of Defence that

Donald H. Broder’s lawyer Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson

was purposely concealing from the trial Judge Justice Bielby

to assist Elizabeth MacInnis Weir Bowen from ambushing herself?

Closing argument from the trial below!

Wait let’s ask Guy Lacourciere if the issue of lack of Personal Representatives was raised within

The Original Statement of Defence

and not in early 2001 as

Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen

told the trial Judge Bielby during the closing arguments.

Craig Broder asked Guy Lacourciere the question see excerpts from The Cross-Examination of Guy Lacourciere page 28 below.

Doesn’t this prove

The Crown participated in a criminal activity.

I wonder if it is possible to have Alison Redford / The Attorney General / Chief Legal Advisor provide advise as to

  who an innocent 75 year old senior citizen should call to have

The Crown lay criminal charges against The Crown!

WOW, I not sure who

Donald H. Broder should have arrested!

You mean to tell me that Guy Lacourciere showed The Alberta Court of Appeal Justices;

Carole Conrad, Ronald Berger and Peter Costigan

that Elizabeth MacInnis had committed perjury and they did nothing about it!

Hold on The Alberta Court of Appeal held up Justice Bielby’s decision and

dismissed Donald H. Broder’s contempt charge,

oh ya they also reduced his fine.

But refused to overturn the trial Judges decision

But wait a minute,

above on page 28 of the cross-examination of Guy Lacourciere

line 7 and 8

“The comment was made by the court of appeal _ _ well you ambushed Ms. MacInnis”

T

 © 2011-2012 Broder Buck All Rights Reserved