The Commission for Public Complaints against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police “RCMP” – Orders that an investigation be initiated immediately into why the RCMP have not demanded The Crown Prosecutors Office criminally charge The Crown it’s self for specific Justices willful acts of collusion with the lawyers involved for whom were all participants in unconstitutional acts of conspiracy, fraud, perjury, forgery, backdating, circumventing a court order as described under the Criminal Code of Canada as Obstruction of Justice with willful intent to frame, defraud and falsely incarcerate an innocent senior citizen; Donald H. Broder thereby denying him of his Constitutional Rights as identified within the Alberta Justice Department lead Broder Buck scandal…..

The Commission for Public Complaints against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police “RCMP” – Orders that an investigation be initiated immediately into why the RCMP have not demanded The Crown Prosecutors Office criminally charge The Crown it’s self for specific Justices willful acts of collusion with the lawyers involved for whom were all participants in unconstitutional acts of conspiracy, fraud, perjury, forgery, backdating, circumventing a court order as described under the Criminal Code of Canada as Obstruction of Justice with willful intent to frame, defraud and falsely incarcerate an innocent senior citizen; Donald H. Broder thereby denying him of his Constitutional Rights as identified within the Alberta Justice Department lead Broder Buck scandal…..

BRODERBUCK

Presents

THE BUCK FOR JUSTICE

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

 

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

are to defend the innocent

even if it requires criminally charging and obtaining an injunction against;

” The Federal and Provincial Justice Department’s of Canada,

with appropriate criminal charges laid against

Justices of the Court “actors employed by the Government of Canada” 

and Lawyers “actors employed by the citizens of Canada”

 even after the primary victim’s pass away.

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

“As the evidence on this website page will prove a crime was orchestrated by the;

Federal and Provincial Justice Department’s of Canada with purposeful intent to;

  intimidate, threaten, defraud and maliciously victimize one of Canada’s senior citizens will to live!”

And therefore should be dealt with by;

Alberta’s – K Division of  The Royal Canadian Mounted Police “RCMP”

with the assistance of

Rob Nicholson – Attorney General / Justice Minister of Canada

by obtaining an Order / Injunction by the Courts against;

The Crown itself

for it’s own acts of unconstitutional conduct that was

willfully commited by the actors employed within; 

The Justice Departments of

 The Federal Government of Canada 

and

The Provincial Government of Alberta

with appropriate criminal charges laid under;

The Criminal Code of Canada

against all the participating lawyers,

obtaining indictable consequences for criminal acts more serious than;

“Manslaughter”

“because all the perpetrators named participated in willful and premeditated acts of conspiring to orchestrate the outcome of

Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench action No: 9703-12949 therefore deliberately framing, defrauding and falsely incarcerate an innocent senior citizen!”

This evidence being revealed within this page and in the Justices and Lawyers own words has been presented to;

 The Royal Canadian Mounted Police “RCMP”

 With an expectation for criminal charges to be laid immediately following the conclusion of their own investigation.

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

The primary victim;

A Grandfather, Father and 

Sincere Honest 75 year old Senior Citizen

Donald H. Broder

“October 11, 1929 – April 11, 2012;

DBTUX

“This page was created in his memory to prove that his

 Constitutional Rights  were breached and

expose to the world

the corruption within the Canadian Judicial system;”

primarily

The Provincial  Justice Department of Alberta, Canada.

and

The Federal Justice Department of Canada.

“the evidence provided will exonerate;

Donald H. Broder  

 as a gift on you’re second birthday”

“October 11, 2013.”

“since you’re passing.”

And also to make a formal demand that

The Federal Government of Canada legislate

in you’re honour;

“A Civil Protection Act”  

 To empower The RCMP to hold all actors employed by the

Federal and Provincial Governments of Canada

criminally liable for all deliberate ACT‘s of criminal conduct,

whether the actor was personally involved with the criminal ACT or had 

knowledge of the criminal ACT being committed for which such

criminal ACT‘s breach

The Constitutional Rights 

of a

Canadian citizen

with punishments of mandatory jail sentences

and specific provisions for a higher level of protection for

Canada’s most vulnerable;

Canadian children, senior citizens and persons with disabilities.

And within the ACT ensure that;

The RCMP

have the power and

are held accountable to enforce;

 The Act 

to protect the

 Constitutional Rights.

of all Canadians equally and without prejudice;

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

“WE CONTINUE TO WAIT FOR THE”

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

to defend the innocent and

lead the fight against organized crime by

initiating that criminal charges be laid by;

The Alberta Crown Prosecutor – Alberta Justice Department

on behalf of;

Donald H. Broder

against

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada

It is alleged;

” The Crown breached a duty imposed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and also violated a

constitutional division of power therefore “Donald Harrison Broder and Donald Craig Broder” seek

an injunction as relief because the government cannot enact legislation to protect itself

from the remedies imposed on it for acting unconstitutionally.”

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

The evidence within this page was provided to The RCMP  in the perpetrators own words 

and proves beyond a reasonable doubt that unconstitutional criminal conduct was willfully committed by the

Justices of  The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, Alberta Court of Appeal and specific lawyers for whom

have all provided their own identity within correspondences, court orders, court filed documents,

transcripts and cross examination within this Judicially orchestrated conspiracy to orchestrate the outcome of;

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

Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Action No: 9703-12949,

Alberta Court of Appeal Nos: 0403-0202-AC, 0403-0267-AC and 0403-0356-AC

and 

The Supreme Court of Canada Action No: 31335

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

 All actors employed by the Federal and Provincial Government’s of Canada and lawyers actions were orchestrated

with willful intent to frame and defraud an innocent Canadian senior citizen at the Edmonton and Calgary Law Courts

and the evidence before you on this page will prove beyond any doubt deliberate; 

Unconstitutional Criminal Acts of;

Contempt of Court – for failure to follow a Court Order by Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich that the Certificate of Readiness to close the pleadings

be filed with the clerk of the court within the said action on March 15, 2001.

Unconstitutional Conduct – by breaching the Statute of Limitations Act by substituting new Plaintiff’s after the applicable 2 year limitation period expired.

 Conspiracy to Defraud, Forgery and Backdating  – by  Donald H. Broders own lawyer obtaining a Court Order for a FIAT “permission to amended”

 The Statement of Defence on January 9, 2004 then backdating the FIAT to January 9, 2003 to predate the false date of April 17, 2003

for which the Certificate of Readiness had been filed and forging of the Justices second signature.

Conspiracy to Defraud – The Defendant Donald H. Broder’s own lawyer Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson Amended The Statement of Defence knowingly that it would take total

precedence at trial therefore concealing that the issue of lack of Personal Representatives had been raised within The Original Statement of Defence

from the trail Judge Justice Myra Bielby.

Perjury – The Plaintiff’s lawyer Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen when asked by the trial Judge Justice Myra Bielby as to the first time the issue of

Lack of Personal Representatives was raised mislead the Courts by answering early 2001 when as the evidence will be shown

Lack of Personal Representatives had been raised within paragraph 8 of The Original Statement of Defence filed on July 28, 1997.

Unconstitutional Conduct by acts of Conspiracy by Alberta Justice Transcript Management for;  Deleting the Opening Statements from the trial audio tapes of the

Defendant Donald H. Broder as read the first morning of the trial on January 19, 2004 at 10:00 am session. 

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

The evidence that was provided to The RCMP proves beyond any reasonable doubt that;

The Alberta Justice Department – “The Crown” at The Edmonton, Alberta Law Courts is guilty of;

Obstruction of Justice, Conspiracy to Defraud, Collusion to Orchestrate the Outcome and

 Fraud by the Courts in and allowing Perjury and Forgery within;

Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Action No: 9703-12949

The Alberta Court of Appeal Action No: 0403-0202-AC, 0403-0267-AC and 0403-0356-AC

The Supreme Court of Canada Action No: 31335

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

“In other words”

The concept behind this page is to ensure;

 The Royal Candian Mounted Police “RCMP”

Have been provided with all the necessary information to make examples out of each and every participant by using the alleged perpetrators

own documents as evidence against themselves to lay appropriate criminal charges and a guaranteed prosecution of   

100% successful conviction to put these criminals behind bars where they belong.

 Otherwise we as Canadians have;

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

It’s time for the Broder family to be exonerated;

It’s also time;

The Alberta Justice Department stops trying to figure out;

“How to pass the Buck!”

and starts trying to figure out; 

“How to get The Broder Buck back”

and to also;

“Make restitution to Donald H. Broder and Craig Broder for all the Bucks the Justices conspired with lawyers to defraud them of !”

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

kingstbe or not to be

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

“I guess the Buck stops here!”

“Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Alberta” 

The Provincial Crown

Where the Crown breaches a duty imposed by the

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or violates a

constitutional division of power, an injunction is available as relief because the government;

The Federal Crown

“Her Majesty The Queen in Right of  Canada”

“The Justices of the Court are federally appointed”

cannot enact legislation to protect itself from the remedies imposed on it for acting unconstitutionally.

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

And also criminally charge each and every lawyer involved.

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

What does the legislation say about this process?

Can the Crown defend themsleves or does the legislation say;

“If  The Crown is guilty they have a resposibility to Canadians to own up!”

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

Relief Against the Crown

 as written within the brief  from;

TORYS LLP

Untangling the Procedural Web in Litigation

Against the Crown

By John Terry and Raegan Kennedy

When are injunctions against the Crown available?

At common law, injunctions were not available against the Crown because of the inability of the Crown’s

court to issue an order against the Crown and to punish the Crown for contempt of court.

87

PACA and CLPA both expressly provide that an injunction cannot be brought against the Crown.

 88

However, both statutes provide that the courts “in lieu thereof may make an order declaratory of the rights of the

parties.”

89

Generally, a declaration may be just as effective as an injunction since the Crown will not likely

disobey a court order.

90

There is one exception to the general rule that an injunction is not available against the Crown.

Where the Crown breaches a duty imposed by the;

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

or violates a constitutional division of power,

an injunction is available as relief because the government cannot

enact legislation to protect itself from the remedies imposed on it for acting unconstitutionally.

91

In order to receive relief by way of an injunction, the moving party must show that;

(i) irreparable harm will result if the relief is not granted;

(ii) there is a serious issue to be tried; and

(iii) the balance of convenience favours the injunction.

 92

However, it should be noted that the court will only grant injunctions against the

government on the grounds of alleged unconstitutionality in clear cases.

 93

PACA and CLPA provide that injunctions are not generally available against servants of the Crown.

 94

Injunctions against these government actors are available only where they are acting beyond their

statutory authority

 95

or where these actors are sued in their personal capacity.

96

The Crown’s immunity from injunction does not apply to Crown agents and corporations.

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

 This page will be in brief form with specifics of each;

Justice of the Alberta Law Courts unconstitutional conduct for which initiated the

 Defendant’s lawyer’s colluding with the Plaintiff’s lawyer to orchestrate the outcome of;

Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Action No: 9703-12949 and

The Alberta Court of Appeal Action No: 0403-0202-AC, 0403-0267-AC and 0403-0356-AC and

The Supreme Court of Canada Action No:  31335 

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

As reported to;

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police “RCMP”

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

 The following evidence will prove willful acts of collusion to orchestrate

 The outcome of Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench action no: 9703-12949 heard at

The Edmonton, Alberta Law Courts and will identify all participants criminal acts of 

perjury, obstruction of justice, forgery, contempt of court, backdating and

deleting audio from the trial tapes to;

 Purposely frame, defraud and falsely incarcerate an innocent 75 year old senior citizen;

Donald H. Broder

And then how;

The Alberta Justice Department abuses their power by initiating intimidation tactics and threats against his family by ordering;

 search warrants, bank garnishes, salary garnishees and writs of enforcement

as scare tactics to deter their ability to defend themselves. 

The evidence proving this crime has been reported to the:

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

and now how;

The Commission for Public Complaints against the;

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

ordered an investigation on behalf of the Broder family;

with specific instructions to make the;

“RCMP”

“DO THEIR JOB!”

 rcmp response 1

 An informal resolution was agreed to with terms that the RCMP investigate the Broder Buck scandal and lay appropriate criminal charges.

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

Kingsfrontcover

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

The RCMP

accept the job to

investigate the following

criminal activity and initiate that;

The Crown

holds

The Crown

accountable

For Breaching 

Donald H. Broder and Craig Broder’s

 Constitutional Rights.

as per

“The Canadian Constitution”

Brief of the

“Criminal conduct of The Crown acting in collusion with specific lawyers.”

crime scene tape photo: CSM: Crime Scene Mystery crime-scene-tape-706717.jpg

“The RCMP have been provided the same timeline, evidence and proof in the lawyers own words as indentified to you the reader below.”

Photograph of Edmund Broder “the closest one” with two hunting partners probably carrying the same Winchester 32 special that took down the Broder Buck!

edmemories10

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

Dateline and Evidence in the form of excerpts from;

 Court Document, Justice Department Transcripts, Legal Correspondences and Supporting Case Law proving the 

Crime of Conspiracy to Defraud as presented to

The Royal Candian Mounted Police “RCMP”  – K – Division, Alberta, Canada

demanding that appropriate criminal charges be laid immediately against all identified participants.

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

Who would have thought it all started on;

 November 26, 1926 when; 

Edmund Broder with a single shot from his Winchester 32 special takes down the Broder Buck in an wilderness area west of Edmonton, Alberta south of the hamlet of Niton Junction known as Carrot Creek wilderness area.

1962 The Boone & Crockett Club pronounced The Broder Buck as The World Record Non-Typical Mule Deer with an unprecedented B & C score of 355 2/8.

December 26, 1968 – Edmund Broder passes away and as his wife predeceased him in 1967 all he had was a few personal possessions of little to no value.

Early 1973 – The Broder family decided not to apply for probate and Edmund’s personal possession were being taken and distributed randomly by all his siblings and it was at this time Donald H. Broder the eldest son took exclusive possession of The Broder Buck for;

Excess of a quarter century from Edmund Broders death until;

July 8, 1997 – Grace Parrotta – King of Hunt Young Parrotta King issues a Statement of Claim on behalf of the Plaintiff’s George Broder, Earl Broder, Richard Broder, Luella Adams, Doris Bibaud and Margaret Macphee against Donald Broder their oldest brother and Craig Broder a nephew and grandson to Edmund Broder for replevin of The Broder Buck.

July 28, 1997 – Joseph Kueber of Bryan and Company is retained by the Defendant’s Donald Broder and Craig Broder and files their Statement of Defence, within paragraph 8, of The Statement of Defence the Defendant’s raised the issue that the Plaintiff’s have no standing to sue as per Alberta Rules of Court Rule 129 and that only Personal Representatives formally appointed through an application for probate at The Surrogate Courts have such a right to sue on behalf of a deceased. 

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.

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

June 1, 1998Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen replaces Grace Parrotta – King of Hunt Young Parrotta – King as legal counsel for the Plaintiff’s.

March 1, 1999 – Alberta’s New Limitation Act came into legislation.

Limitatioact1

Limitationact2

July 9, 1999 – The two year limitation period from The Original Statement of Claim file date of July 8, 1997 as per; The Statute – The Limitations of Actions Act – expired to add or substitute a new Plaintiff and as such The Defendant’s Donald Broder and Craig Broder won the law suit as probate had still not been applied for at The Surrogate Courts and as such The Personal Representatives do not legally exist so therefore are not named as Plaintiff’s within;  Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Action No: 9703-12949

July 9, 1999Continued  – “below”  –  Rocklake vs. Timberjack  –  case law.

Rocklake vs. Timberjack (full version PDF)

timberjack01

timberjack02

timberjack03

timberjack04

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

July 9, 1999Continued – As per The Rocklake vs. Timberjack case law “above” from The  Court of Appeal of Alberta.

Quote;

“Besides, after the limitation period expires, adding a new plaintiff but preserving the defendant’s limitation defence against the new plaintiff would be a waste of everyone’s time and ink.”

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

The following evidence will prove not only how The Alberta Justice Department, Federally appointed Justices and lawyers wasted everyone time and ink but also orchestrated the loss of the defendant at trial, defrauded family members, incarcerated their senior Father Donald H. Broder, garnisheed their treminally ill mothers bank account, threatened and intimidated Donald H. Broder’s children and grandchildren and obtained search warrants to search their home to defraud them of The Broder Buck then holding a court auction to obtain the highest bid and concluding the sale of The Broder Buck to Don Shaufler of Innis Montana for approximately 325,000.00 cdn. 

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

September 30, 1999 – Robert J. Sawers of R. J. Sawers and Associates replaces Joseph Kueber of Bryan and Company as legal counsel for the Defendant’s; Donald Broder and Craig Broder.

November, 2000 – Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen requests consent from Donald Broder and Craig Broder to allow the requested Amendments to the Statement of Claim and to file The Certificate of Readiness to close the Pleadings and obtain dates to set the matter down for trial from the Clerk of the Court.

December, 2000 – Donald Broder and Craig Broder decline consent for reasons being that we have been and still are requesting for an Application for Probate be made at The Surrogate Courts to appoint Personal Representatives and as plead within paragraph 8 of Donald Broder and Craig Broder’s Original Statement of Defence filed on July 28, 1997 that the Plaintiff’s have no standing to sue as in this case The Statement of Claim requires The Personal Representatives to be named as Plaintiff’s and not only are they not named as Plaintiff’s they do not exist as the Application for Probate has never been before the Surrogate Courts in excess of 30 years since the death of Edmund Broder on December 26, 1968.

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

Note: If Donald Broder and Craig Broder’s intent was to ambush Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen they would have consented to the amendments being requested to

The Original Statement of Claim and also agreed to the filing of The Certificate of Readiness to close the Pleading.

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

December 18, 2000  –                                                                                    It was Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen that made the formal Application before Justice J. L. Lewis and

was successful in being granted a Court Order to force the Pleadings closed within Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Action No: 9703-12949

prior to and without making the Application for Probate to Appoint Personal Representatives and as such

the Plaintiff’s in their personal capacity had no standing to sue as

the Action was frivolous, vexatious and abuse of Court process.  

“The Court order of Justice J. L. Lewis from December 18, 2000” below”

Lewisorder1

Lewisorder2

Lewisorderbackerpage

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

December, 2000 Chief Justice W. Kenneth Moore – Elizabeth MacInnis – Moore’s father is replaced by Alberta’s new federally appointed Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich.

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

February 13, 2001 – The Jury Trial Application is heard on February 13, 2001 by Alberta’s new Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich – just 2 days prior to the deadline of February 15, 2001 as per

The Court Ordere by Justice J. L. Lewis to file The Certificate of Readiness and close the pleadings. “Above”

“Below” – “The Court Order of Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich for the jury trial application from February 13, 2001 

two days before the deadline of February 15, 2001 set out by Justice J. L. Lewis to file;

The Certificate of Readiness and close the pleadings!

“Below” The Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich – Order granting an extention of time to The Defendants lawyer; Robert Sawers of R. J. Sawers and Associates;

Allowing the Defendant’s time to have an outstanding 129 application by extending the time for The Certificate of Readiness to be filed to March 15, 2001 to close the Pleadings.Below”

Wachowichorder1

Wachowichorder2

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

“above” “Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen was to follow The Court Order she was granted by Justice J. L. Lewis to file The Certificate of Readiness immediately following the Jury Trial Application that had to be completed before February 15, 2001 and as the time was only allowed to be extended for the filing of The Certificate of Readiness by the Defendant’s Donald Broder and Craig Broder and was requested by their lawyer Robert Sawers. The Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich accomodated by extending the time from February 15, 2001 to March 15, 2001 to file The Certificate of Readiness to allow Donald Broder and Craig Broder, the Defendant’s time to have an outstanding 129 Application heard by Courts. 

Note: Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich became aware there would be no trial and dismissed the jury trial application as no jury would be required as the

Plaintiff’s named in there personal capacity on The Statement of Claim lacked standing to sue within the said action and a 129 application would result in a dismissal

because only Personal Representatives have the legal right to sue on behalf of a deceased and probate had never been applied for at The Surrogate Courts and as such

The Personal Representatives did not exist but also the two year limitation period had expired to substitute a new claimant prior to the Jury Trial Application.

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

April 27, 2001 – The Alberta Rules of Court Rule 129 (1) (a) (b) (c) & (d) Application was heard before Master Quinn although it was scheduled before March 15, 2001 an adjournment was agreed to accomodate Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen due to her need to deal with an urgent family matter and then proceeded on April 27, 2001.

++++++

Rule129***************************************************************************************

On September 30, 1999 Robert Sawers of R. J. Sawers and Associates became defence council for the Defendant’s

Donald Broder and Craig Broder he became aware the limitation period of two years had expired from

The Original Statement of Claim date of July 8, 1997 to add or substitute a new plaintiff to 

Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Action No: 9703-12949 and then also waited until

Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen counsel for the Plaintiff’s forced the pleadings closed on herself before filing the

Alberta Rules of Court Rule 129 Application that was heard by Master Quinn on April 27, 2001 challenging the issue of standing and  plead;

 “Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Action No: 9703-12949 disclosed no cause of action without the successful Application for Probate at The Surrogate Courts and obtaining

The Grant of Administration appointing Administrators / Personal Representatives on behalf of Edmund Broder “deceased December 26, 1968.”

Case Law relied upon during the 129 Application – Mugford vs. Mugford;

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.

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

Within Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Action No: 9703-12949 – Broder vs. Broder as of the date;

  1. April 27, 2001 the Personal Representatives did not exist and for this reason were not named as Plaintiff’s within the said action.
  2. April 27, 2001 it was 3 1/2 years since the Original Statement of Claim was filed on July 8, 1997 and the two year limitation period had lapsed to add or substitute a new Plaintiff as of July 9, 1999.
  3. April 28, 2001  the day after April 27, 2001 –  as per The Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich Order – immediately following the Defendant’s Donald Broder and Craig Broder’s 129 Application, the Certificate of Readiness was to be filed at the Clerk of The Courts in Edmonton, Alberta Law Courts by Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen to close the Pleadings on herself within the said action.

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

Below: Page 28, line 12 – 17 of the Cross-Examination of Guy Lacourciere being asked the question;

Note:   Question (Q) – Being asked by Craig Broder  ~~~~~~~~~ Answer (A) – Being answered by Guy Lacouricere; lawyer for whom replaced Robert Sawers in January of 2002 to act as defence council for the defendants Donald H. Broder and Craig Broder and then he quit on October 30, 2003 just 3 months before the scheduled trial of January 19 – 23,  2004.

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

Line 12 – Q – What do you mean by  “ambushed Ms. MacInnes?”

Line 13 – A – The Court had asked the question.

Line 14 – Q – If we ambushed Elizabeth MacInnes?

Line 15, 16 and 17 – A-  It appears to us that Ms. MacInnes may have been ambushed by the  motion, by Sawer, in respect to —

in respect to the motion that had been filed in 2001.

crossexampage28

We repeat and refer to again!

Above excerpt from page 28 of the cross-examination of Guy Lacourociere;  

Line 13 – A – The Court had asked the question.

Line 14 – Q – If we ambushed Elizabeth MacInnes?

“Above” Line 15, 16 and 17 – A-  It appears to us that Ms. MacInnes may have been ambushed by the  motion, by Sawer, in respect to —

in respect to the motion that had been filed in 2001.

 

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

Below: Page 29, line 10 – 18 of the Cross-Examination of Guy Lacourciere being asked the question;

Note:   Question (Q) – Being asked by Craig Broder  ~~~~~~~~~ Answer (A) – Being answered by Guy Lacouricere; lawyer for whom replaced Robert Sawers in January of 2002 to act as defence council for the defendants Donald H. Broder and Craig Broder and then he quit on October 30, 2003 just 3 months before the scheduled trial of January 19 – 23,  2004.

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

Lines 10 -18 -A- Let’s be clear. You filed a statement of defence. In the statement of defence it raised the issue of standing, okay?

Later on a comment was made, first of all, by Ms. MacIinnes, that she had been ambushed.

At which point in time the court asked me about being ambushed.

And I said to the court, I said, no, that the — that Ms. MacInnes was not ambushed, that the matter had been raised originally

in the statement of defence that had been filed by Mr. Sawer.

crossexampage29

The 129 Application was heard on April 27, 2001

Master Quinn breaches Donald Broder and Craig Broder Constitutional Rights by

responding to Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen’s comment about being ambushed by Robert Sawers

“Below” – The Order by Master W. J. Quinn was orchestrated to assist Elizabeth MacInnis by;

Adjourning the Application to purposely circumvent the pleadings closing immediately after this hearing and

 also providing legal aid to Ms. MacInnis with instructions to apply for probate and

placing a gag order on Donald Broder not to interfere with the Application for Probate;

As referenced within Page 28 – Line 15 – 17 of Guy Lacourcieres cross-examination “Above”

 Line 15, 16 and 17 – A-  It appears to us that Ms. MacInnes may have been ambushed by the  motion, by Sawer, in respect to —

in respect to the motion that had been filed in 2001.

**********      “Below”The decision of Master Quinn from the motion that had been filed in 2001 – “Below”     **********

quinn1

quinn2

Let’s dissect – The Quinn Order! “above”

Under item – 1) Master Quinn’s adjourns the application to strike the Statement of Claim sine die to assist Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen and purposely extend the time to file the Certificate of Readiness as per the Justice J. L. Lewis Order on or before February 15, 2001 for which was extended at the request of The Defendants during the Jury Trial Application by The Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich Order to March 15, 2001, because it was also Ordered within The Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich Order that only The Defendant’s; Donald Broder and Craig Broder could extend the time to file The Certificate of Readiness to close the Pleadings.

“Reason being why Elizabeth MacInnis  of Weir Bowen could not extend the time to file the Certificate of Readiness was because

 it was her that filed the court application before Justice J. L. Lewis and obtained a court order to force the closing the pleadings on herself.”

 Under item – 2) Master Quinn then provides the Plaintiff’s lawyer; Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen with legal direction by telling her to make an application to appoint an administrator and then also Orders that the Defendant’s; Donald Broder and Craig Broder are not to intefere.

Under item – 3) Quinn say’s – If there is an unreasonable delay the party complaining of the delay may bring the matter back before me “Quinn” for further consideration.

  • ” Edmund Broder passed away on December 26, 1968 it is now April 27, 2001 excess of 30 years. “What is an unreasonable delay another 30 years.”
  • ” Quinn ordered that the Defendant’s are not to interfere with the application to appoint administrators assists and ensures there will be no delay as it will go before The Surrogate Courts under part II of The Surrogate Court Rules as non-contentious and The Grant of Administration will be successful in the appointment of Administrators / Personal Representatives.” 

Under item – 4) Quinn’s Order states – That if no one is appointed as administrator it is his intention to strike the Statement of Claim.

  • “If no one is appointed as administrator he will strike the Statement of Claim – Master Quinn just ensured The Personal Representatives will be appointed by Ordering that the Defendant’s Donald Broder and Craig Broder cannot interfere.”
  • “Even if someone is appointed as administrator under Part II – non-contentious of The Surrogate Court Rules, Donald H. Broder has never been contentious all he has ever requested was for an Application to be made at The Surrogate Courts to appoint Administrators / Personal Representatives  as plead within paragraph 8 of the Original Statement of Defence filed on July 28, 1997 within Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench action 9703-12949.”
  • As it is now April 27, 2001 and Master Quinn should not waste more time and ink and immediately strike the Statement of Claim that was filed and served on July 8, 1997 with costs awarded to Donald Broder and Craig Broder because even if;

 The Application for Probate is Granted the two year Limitation Period had expired on July 9, 1999 to add  The Personal Representatives as Plaintiff’s within the said action.”

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

As Reported to The RCMP

Master Quinn an actor employed by The Crown was the first to respond to Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen complaining about being ambushed!

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

NOTE:

Craig Broder is not a Beneficiary so he would have no knowledge of the Application for Probate and could not interfere if he wanted too!

Donald H. Broder was a Beneficiary and as such would have to be served with the Application for Probate and The Notice to Beneficiaries for whom had been asking for

Personal Representatives since the Original Statement of Defence that was filed on July 28, 1997. Donald Broder was always willing to cooperated once if Personal Representatives were appointed

and now would cooperate if the Statement of Claim was struck and he was reimbursed court costs to date.

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

April 28, 2001 – The Defendant’s Donald Broder and Craig Broder make a request in writing to their lawyer Robert Sawers to file an Appeal of Master Quinns decision immediately to have the action dismissed and quit wasting everyones time and ink as it was April 28, 2001 excess of  3 years and 9 months since The Original Statement of Claim file date of July 8, 1997 and as such the 2 year limitation period lapsed on July 9, 1999 and if and when The Personal Representatives are applied for and possibly appointed by The Surrogate Courts would not be allowed to be substituted as Plaintiff’s within;

 The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Action 9703-12949 – Broder vs. Broder – as per –

The Alberta Court of Appeal case law – Rocklake Enterprises Ltd. vs. Timberjack Inc. “below”

timberjack01

timberjack04

May 10, 2001 – Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen writes a letter to inform Robert Sawers that she would be serving Donald Broder by registered mail and only providing Mr. Sawers with a copy of The Application for Probate and Notice to Beneficiaries for information purposes knowingly that he has not been retained by Donald H. Broder for The Surrogate Court Application as this is a new action and effective service must be directly on Donald H. Broder because Elizabeth MacIinnis of Weir Bowen had forced the pleadings closed on February 15, 2001 within action 9703-12949 by a Court Order and the time to file The Certificate of Readiness was only allowed to be extended by the Defendant’s Donald Broder and Craig Broder for which was granted during their Jury trial application before Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich on February 13, 2001. The Certificate of Readiness as Ordered by Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich to be filed on March 15, 2001, and as such the Estate litigation and Application for Probate would be a new action and required personal service directly on all Beneficiaries including Donald H. Broder. “Below”

Macinnisservingdon

May 24, 2001 – Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen made the Application for Probate under part II of The Surrogate Court Rules as being non-contentious as Donald H. Broder had not been served and was also order by Master Quinn not to interfere and as such The Grant of Administration was ordered by Justice R. P. Belzil appointing two of The Plaintiff’s as Personal Representatives.

See – The Grant of Administration “below”

grantofadministration

May 28, 2001 Donald H. Broder as being a Beneficiary was served by Registered Mail of the Application for Probate and Notice to Beneficiaries on May 28, 2001, four days after the The Surrogate Court had appointed Personal Representatives on May 24, 2001.

Donald H. Broder then retained Robert J. Sawers to obtain a stay and file an Appeal regarding the Application for Probate, which was brought before the Appeal Courts of Alberta and the Justices ordered that he was properly served when  Robert Sawers had confirmed he received the copy of the Application for Probate and Notice to Beneficiaries.

See the confirmation of Donald H. Broder being served on May 28, 2001 as per the;

Certificate Of Delivery  Confirmation – Register Mail – from Canada Post. “below”

canadapost2

False Affidavit of Service for The Surrogate Court Application sworn and filed by

Elizabeth MacInnis’s legal secretary Joan C. Hill. “Below”

joanhillaffidavit1

June 1, 2001 –  Robert Sawers sends a correspondence to Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen regarding the Application for Probate expressing he has a number of serious concerns regarding the Order of Justice Belzil. “below”

 

 September 18, 2001 –  The Appeal of Master Quinns order is heard by Justice C. P. Clarke for whom also responds to the comment made by Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen about being ambushed by the motion in 2001.

Note: The cross-examination of Guy Lacourciere – Re-confirming the comment made by Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen. “Below”

Lines 10 -18 -A- Let’s be clear. You filed a statement of defence. In the statement of defence it raised the issue of standing, okay?

Later on a comment was made, first of all, by Ms. MacInnes, that she had been ambushed.

At which point in time the court asked me about being ambushed.

And I said to the court, I said, no, that the — that Ms. MacInnes was not ambushed, that the matter had been raised originally

in the statement of defence that had been filed by Mr. Sawer.

crossexampage29

It was reported to The RCMP that; 

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

On September 18, 2001 – Justice C. P. Clarke heard The Appeal of Master Quinn  regarding the 129 Application.

Argument was that Master Quinn errored in adjourning the matter to favor Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen for the purpose of delaying the filing of The Certificate of Readiness

and allowing time to make the Application for Probate to appoint Personal Representatives and lets not waste everyone’s time and ink as they;

The Personal Representatives would not be allowed to be substituted as Plaintiff’s within the said actionas the two year limitation period had lapsed on July 9, 1999.

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

It was reported to The RCMP

Justice C. P. Clarke another actor employed by The Crown was the second to respond to Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen complaining about being ambushed!

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

Justice C. P. Clarke also breached Donald Broder and Craig Broder Constitutional Rights by responding to;

Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen’s comment about being ambushed by Robert Sawers and once again The Alberta Justice Department

lead the conspiracy to orchestrate the outcome of Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Action No: 9703-12949 by acting in collusion with Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen

 by substituting a new Plaintiff “The Personal Representatives”  after the two year limiation period had lapsed within the said action therfore breaching;

  The Statute of Limitations.

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

“Below” – The Order of Justice C. P. Clarke – “Below”

CPclarkeorder1September 18, 2001  – During the defendants Donald Broder and Craig Broders appeal on September 18, 2001 excess of 4 years since the orginal Statement of Claim file date of July 8, 1997 for which the 2 year limitation period to add or substitute a new Plaintiff had expired on July 9, 1999 – Justice C. P. Clarke takes the liberty to respond and assist Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen and on September 18, 2001 orders that;

See the Order of Justice C. P. Clarke  – Paragragh 2; “below;”

“The Plaintiffs have leave to file an Amended Amended Statement of Claim to add

the Personal Representatives of the Estate of Edmund Broder, also known as Ed Broder, Deceased as Plaintiffs in the form attached.”

CPclarkeorder2

Let’s dissect – The Clarke Order! “above”

Under item – 1) Justice C. P. Clarke dismiss the Defendant’s Donald Broder and Craig Broders appeal of Master Quinn.

Under item – 2) Justice C. P. Clarke then provides the Plaintiff’s lawyer; Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen with leave of the court to Amend the Amended Statement of Claim and add The Personal Representatives as Plaintiff’s after the expiration of the two yerar limitation period as the Original Statement of Claim was filed on July 8, 1997 and it was now September 18, 2001.

Under item – 3) Justice C. P. Clarke orders the Defendant’s Donald Broder and Craig Broder;  “are not precluded from raising the issues set out in this appeal at the trial of this matter, included but not limited to the issue of standing and limitations of actions.”

Under item – 4) Justice C. P. Clarke reopens the Pleadings because if The Certificate of Readiness is filed immediately upon the conclusion of the Appeal of the outstanding 129 Application the Defendants Donald Broder and Craig Broder do not have the right to examine the Personal Representatives.

timberjack01

timberjack04

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

As per The Rocklake vs. Timberjack case law “above” from The  Court of Appeal of Alberta we quote;

“Besides, after the limitation period expires, adding a new plaintiff but preserving the defendaant’s limitation defence

against the new plaintiff would be a waste of everyone’s time and ink.”

 It was reported to The RCMP that;

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

 It is alleged; Justice C. P. Clarke an actor employed by;

The Crown breached a duty imposed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or violated a

constitutional division of power; therfore Donald Harrison Broder and Donald Craig Broder seeks an injunction as relief because

the government cannot enact legislation to protect itself from the remedies imposed on it for acting unconstitutionally.

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

“Justice C. P. Clarke was acting unconstitutional by breaching the Statute of Limitations and providing leave of the Court during the Defendant’s, Donald Broder and Craig Broder’s appeal to circumvent the Order of The Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich and allow an Amendment to add new Plaintiff’s to The Amended Statement of Claim before the deadline which was immediately following this Appeal to file The Certificate of Readiness and close the pleadings.”

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

Limitatioact1

Limitationact2

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

January 9, 2002 – Guy Lacourciere of Lacourciere Associates replaces Robert Sawers or R. J. Sawers and Associates as defence council for the Defendant’s Donald Broder and Craig Broder.

October 21, 2002 – Guy Lacourciere of Lacourciere Associates files a Statement of Defence to The Amended Amended Statement of Claim and within paragraph 10 pleads estoppel and as such at the trial of the said action the trial judge would see that in paragraph 8 of The Original Statement of Defence the issue of lack of Personal Representatives was raised and in paragraph 10 of The Statement of Defence to The Amended Amended Statement of Claim estoppel had been plead for which if seen in conjunction with each other would prevent the Plaintiff’s lawyer Elizabeth MacInnis from relying on The Relation Back Doctrine at trial.

Statement of Defence to the Amended Amended Statement of Claim. (Full versionPDF)

statement of defence amended amended 2

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

  The Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich Court Order.”

The Certificate of Readiness was have been filed on March 15, 2001.

Wachowichorder1

Wachowichorder2

It was reported to The RCMP that;

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

Guy Lacourciere of Lacourciere Associates was the third to respond to Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen complaining about being ambushed

in not disclosing to Justice R. P. Marceau that Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich Ordered ;

The Certificate of Readiness to be filed by March 15, 2001. “Below”

Wachowichorder1

Wachowichorder2

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

“The Plaintiff’s lawyer Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen in cooperation with the Defendant’s lawyer Guy Lacourciere of Lacourciere Associates

commits fraud on the Courts by confirming to Justice Marceau that she, “Elizabeth MacInnis with Guy Lacourciere present had filed;

The Certificate of Readiness on April 17, 2003 “

“see case management meeting minutes below”

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

May 7, 2003 – Guy Lacourciere and Elizabeth MacInnis acted in collusion to mislead the Case Management Justice – Justice R. P. Marceau by;

Referencing below;

FRAUD as reported to The RCMP

STEPS IN LITIGATION

A) The Certificate of Readiness was to be filed as per The Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich Order on March 15, 2001

“Ms. MacInnis confirmed that the Conditional Certificate of Readiness had been filed with the Court on April 17, 2003.”

B) The pleadings within the said action were closed on March 15, 2001 and as such The Personal Representatives were not allowed to be add as Plaintiff’s to the said action for two reasons;

1) The Pleadings were closed on March 15, 2001 and as such Justice C. P. Clarke added the Personal Representatives as Plaintiff’s during the Defendant’s Donald and Craig Broder’s Appeal.

2) The two year limitation period from the Original Statement of Claim file date of July 8, 1997 had expired on July 9, 1999 and as such Justice C. P. Clarke breach the Statute of Limitation Act by adding

the new Plaintiff’s / Personal Representatives to the said action on September 18, 2001.

And for this reason the Defendant’s refused to proceed with further Examinations for Discovery on the Personal Representatives recently added as Plaintiff’s knowing that it would be nothing more than;

“wasting time and ink.”

“Mr. Lacourciere confirmed that his clients had elected not to proceed with further Examinations for Discovery.”

The Defendants did not elect not to proceed we were not allowed to perform Examination for Discoveries after the Pleadings were closed!

marceaucasemagmentmay7,2003

October 30, 2003 – Less than three months before the January 19 – 23, 2004 scheduled trial within the said action, Guy Lacourciere of Lacourciere Associates files a cease to act with the Clerk of The Courts office and quits abruptly on  Donald Broder and Craig Broder as defence council leaving the defendant’s in an position of having  to obtain new legal counsel as the trial was only 79 days from commencing at The Edmonton Law Courts.

November 12, 2003 – In speaking with Bill Kenny at Miller Thomson to act on behalf of Donald Broder and prepare for the trial he coordinates a meeting with Bryan Kickham also with Miller Thomson for whom accepts a retainer of $15,000. 00 – to prepare and defend Donald Broder at the trial that is scheduled to commence on January 19, 2004. November, 2003 –  In speaking with Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson he requested permission to contact Donald Broder’s first lawyer Joseph Kueber of Bryan & Company to testify at trial and permission was given and he arrangements were made. December, 2003 – Joseph Kueber of Bryan & Company makes an Application for a summary dismissal on behalf of Craig Broder and the Court grants the dismissal. January 9, 2004 –  Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson is granted by the Court a FIAT – “permission to amend The Statement of Defence” on January 9, 2004 from Master Breitkreuz at Edmonton Law Courts and files the Amended Statement of Defence with the Clerk of the Court also on January 9, 2004. Amended Statement of Defence (Full version PDF)

amended statement of defence 1

  amended statement of defence 2

Conspiracy to Defraud, Forgery and Backdating as reported to The RCMP

1) Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson was retained as defence council by The Defendant Donald Broder on November 12, 2003 so why is the;

FIAT – DATED this 9th day of January, 2003 “should have been January 9, 2004”- and the second judges signature is not authentic – obviously forged.

“Seems very convincing the date and second signature were added after the intial Judges signature.”

You ask why!

as reported to The RCMP

1) The Amended Statement of Defence is a total replica of The Statement of Defence to The Amended Amended Statement of Claim with only slight amendments to The Couterclaim and now The Amended Statement of Defence will have total precedence at trial therefore preventing the trial Judge – Justice Myra Bielby from seeing that the issue of lack of Personal Representatives had been raised in paragraph 8 of The Original Statement of Defence filed on July 28, 1997.

2) The date of January 9, 2003 predated the second false date of April 17, 2003 for which was confirmed during the case management meeting with Justice Marceau that the Certificate of Readiness had been filed. “Below” 

marceaucasemagmentmay7,2003

l************************************************************************************************************

“Below” – Proof provided by The Clerk of the Court – Page 0011 of The Procedural Record Print the FIAT was granted on January 9, 2004 – “Below”

“The MT that folows 09Jan2004 stands for Miller Thomson the law firm Bryan Kickham is employed by!”

procedurerecordfiat

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

FOR THE RECORD!

  1. Donald Broder and Craig Broder’s first lawyer Joseph Kueber of Bryan & Company had recommended Bill Kenny of Miller Thomson for a second opinion back in 2000 at which time he was retained and provided a second opinion for which became knowledge to the Broder’s as an expensive piece of illegal junk mail.
  2.  Then Guy Lacourciere quit on October 30, 2003 less than three month before the scheduled trial of January 19 – 23, 2004 at which time Donald Broder spoke with Bill Kenny of Miller Thomson for whom recommended  Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson was available to represent him and obvious now to orchestrate his own client Donald H. Broder’s loss at trial.
  3. It was agreed Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson would represent Donald Broder and a $15,000 retainer check was provided and made payable to Miller Thomson as per Bryan Kickham’s request to prepare for trial.
  4. Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson immediately started to act in collusion with the Plaintiff’s lawyer Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen by amending Donald Broder’s Statement of Defence on January 9, 2004 backdating the FIAT “permission to amend”  to January 9, 2003 for which predated the false date of April 17, 2003 for which the Certificate of Readiness had been filed that closed the pleadings within the said action.
  5. Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson should have had Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen cited with Contempt of Court for not filing the Certificate of Readiness as per the Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich order on March 15, 2001.
  6.  Instead Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson knowingly Amended Statement of Defence to assist Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen knowingly that the Amended Statement of Defence would take total precedence at trial and therefore conceal from the trial Judge that lack of Personal Representatives had been raised within The Original Statement of Defence filed on July 28, 1997 to assist the Plaintiff’s lawyer Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen to win the trial.
  7. Because if the trial Judge was made aware that the issue of lack of Personal Representatives was raised in the Original Statement of Defence and Estoppel had been plead within the Statement of Defence to the Amended Amended Statement of Claim and the trial judge would  see both Statements of Defence at the same time;

Estoppel would prevent Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen from relying on The Relation Back Doctrine.

 January 10, 2004 – Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson proceeded to call Donald Broder by telephone expressing that Donald Broder was going to lose at trial and in response to his arrogance;

 Donald Broder – FIRED HIM;

a tactful way of saying go to hell.”

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

“Tact is the ability to tell  someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip” 

Winston Churchill

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

January 11, 2004 – Craig Broder accepts the request of his Father Donald H. Broder  to conduct the trial and speak on his Fathers behalf. January 15, 2004 – Craig Broder contacted Joseph Kueber of Bryan & Company to confirm he had agreed to testify and he commented depends what you want me to say. He was told that he was to testify to correspondences that were exchanged between him and Elizabeth MacInnis for which he agreed to bring to trial the day of his testimony.

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

The trial of Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Action 9703-12949 Broder vs. Broder commences at The Edmonton Law Courts on;

Monday – January 19, 2004 and concluded wih the closing arguments on Friday – January 23, 2004

The Trial Judge was;

Justice Myra Bielby.

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

The trial is not under construction!

But rather the crime scene of

Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Action No: 9703-12949 is being 

Re-Constructed to assist

 The RCMP Investigation

based on transcripts from 

The Alberta Court of Appeal Books.

as provided by

The Alberta Justice Department – Transcript Management

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

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police – “RCMP”

were provide evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt of how

The Alberta Justice Department wasted everyones time and ink.

It was also reported to the

Royal Canadian Mounted Polic “RCMP”

that Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen

was in Contempt of Court for not following the Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich Court Order and also

committed Fraud on the Courts therefore Obstruction of Justice and that

Guy Lacourciere of Lacourciere Associates was present and conspired with

Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen in and allowing his own clients

Donald Broder and Craig Broder to be framed while he defrauded them with legal bills.

***W*A*S*T*I*N*G*E*V*E*R*Y*O*N*E*S*T*I*M*E*A*N*D*I*N*K***

There was no need for a trial but;

THE TRIAL COMMENCES ANYWAY!

The Trial Judges is Justice Myra Bielby

Prior to the trial starting and looking like he got caught with his hands in the cookie jar;

Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson was sitting in the court room directly behind Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen.

January 19, 200410:00 am – Court convenes and Justice Myra Bielby takes the bench.

  • Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson explains he has been fired but wished to address the court and explain that the trial books were prepared and agreed to by both counsel prior to his being fired.

“Below” Pre-trial discussion regarding he firing of Bryan Kickham and that

Donald H. Broder is being Self Represented with permission from the Court that

Craig Broder may assist his 75 year old father.

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

Pre-Trial Discussion

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

 – Quote: page 3 – of the transcripts line 13 – 19

 Line 13 –  The Court:  

Line 15Mr. Broder, certainly it would be to your advantage

Line 16to have a lawyer represent you because that is always the

Line 17 – case, that is always the presumption in any lawsuit that

Line 18it is helpful, to say the least, for each side to have a

Line 19lawyer.

pretrialdiscussionpg1

pretrialdiscussionpg2

pretrialdiscussionpg3

pretrialdiscussionpg4

pretrialdiscussionpg5

pretriadiscussionpg6

Justice Myra Bielby grants permission of The Court to Craig Broder to speak on his Father Donald H. Broders behalf.

Guy Lacourciere agrees to review and assist Craig Broder and Donald Broder with every evening preparation for the next day of trial.

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

The trial books have never been made available to Donald Broder for review to date.

It would be an assumption but if the trial books were produced they would be missing the following Orders

resulting from pleadings that had taken place during the course of this litigation;

1) Justice J. L. Lewis Order.

2) Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich Order. 

3) Master Quinn’s Order.

4) Justice C. P. Clarke Order.

5) The Original Statement of Claim.

January 19, 2004 –  10:00 am session –  Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen reads in; The Opening Statements on behalf of the Plaintiff’s.

                                         10:00 am session –  Craig Broder reads in; The Opening Statements of  the Defendant his Father Donald H. Broder.

Limitatioact1

Limitationact2

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

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police were provided evidence that;

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

Within The Opening Statements as read in by Craig Broder on behalf of Donald Broder;

The Trial Judge Justice Myra Bielby was told that;

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

Justice C. P. Clarke breach legislation “The Statute of Limitations Act’  and acted unconstitutional towards the Defendant’s

Donald Broder and Craig Broder

by substituting the Personal Representatives as Plaintiff’s on September 18, 2001

excess of the two year limitation period from

The Original Statement of Claim file date of July 8, 1997 and also that

 Justice C. P. Clarke was aware that the Pleading closed immediately following the 129 Application

therefore Justice C. P. Clarke also acted unconstitutional by circumventing The Rules of Court therefore  breaching

 The Statute of Limitations to favor the Plaintiff’s lawyer Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen.

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

It was reported to The RCMP that;

Justice C. P. Clarke was the first on the crime scene responding to the comment made by Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen

about being ambushed by Donald Broder and Craig Broder’s lawyer Robert Sawers of R. J. Sawers and Associates by

adding new Plaintiff’s, “The Personal Representatives” to the said action on September 18, 2001

excess of 4 years since; The Original Statement of Claim file date of July 8, 1997. 

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

Justice Myra Bielby was also told to quit wasting everyones time and ink and

 dismiss the action immediately with costs payable to Donald Broder and Craig Broder as per;

Alberta’s Statute of Limitations Act

also supported by caselaw;

Rocklake Enterprises Ltd. v Timberjack Inc. ABCA 191 case law. “Below”

timberjack01

timberjack02

timberjack03

timberjack04

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police were also shown that;

Within the table of contents of The Alberta Court of Appeal Digest

Under Part III Evidence

The Opening Statements of Donald Broder are missing “Below”

appealbookopeningstatements missing

It was reported to The Royal Canadian Mounted Police that;

Craig Broder wrote Alberta Justice Transcript Management requesting;

The Opening Statement be transcribed that he read in on January 19, 2004 immediately following 

The Opening Statement by Ms. MacInnis 

“Below” – The response from Alberta Justice – Transcript Management Services

transcriptmanagementletter

January 20, 2004 –  Wasted everyone time and ink except for the Plaintiff’s lawyer Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen for whom had substantial legal bills paid for by the sale of The Broder Buck and by acting in collusion with Donald H. Broders own lawyers to framed, defrauded and falsely incarcerated an innocent Canadian senior citizen.

 Elizabeth MacInnis  of Weir Bowen was upset about being ambushed by Donald Broder and Craig Broder’s first lawyer; Joseph Kueber of Bryan and Company for allowing the 2 year limitation period to lapse to substitute new Plaintiff’s before being told she needed to apply for probate and appoint Personal Representatives and substitute them as Plaintiff’s for the action to have standing.

Elizabeth MacInnis was also upset about being ambushed by Donald Broder and Craig Broder’s second lawyer; Robert Sawers of R. J. Sawers and Associates for not inform her that she needed to apply for probate and appoint Personal Representatives before she obtained a Court Order to file the Certificate of Readiness and close the pleadings within the said action.  

January 21, 2004 –

January 22, 2004 – 10:00 am     Donald Broder and Craig Broders first lawyer Joseph Kueber of Bryan & Company shows up at court to testify and brings with him the two correspondence he and Bryan Kickham had discussed he would testify to.  While we consider the comment the trial judge made below regarding Joseph Kueber’s testimony lets consider;

1) Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson in final preparations for the trial Amended The Statement of Defence to conceal from the trial Judge Justice Myra Bielby

the first time Donald Broder and Craig Broder had raised the issue if lack of Personal Representatives.

“Below”  Justice Myra Bielby the trial Judge made a comment as to the evidence Joseph Kueber testified to within her; Reasons for Decision, page 17, paragraph [82];

Bielbycommentsonkueber

2) Justice Myra Bielby states very clearly; “that neither of his letters expressly raised the issue of the Plaintiffs’ standing to sue” which means lack of Personal Representatives.

3) But also goes on to state ; “at that time which, in any case, was before the original Statement of Claim was filed.”

So in reverse, if the letters or correspondences were after the Statement of Claim file date of July 8, 1997 and had raised the issue of standing / lack of Personal Representative or

if The Original Statement of Defence had raised the issue of standing / lack of Personal Representatives  

“estoppel would prevent the application of the principle of relation back.”

It was reported to the RCMP that

Joseph Kueber of Bryan & Company and Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson colluded to orchestrate the outcome of the said trial against their own client

Donald H. Broder and in favor of the Plaintiff’s lawyer Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen by their own willful actions colluding against their own client by

1) Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson amended The Statement of Defence knowingly the amended version would take total precedence at trial therefore concealing that the

issue of standing / lack of Personal Representatives had been raised within paragraph 8 of the original Statement of Defence. 

2) Joseph Kueber of Bryan & Company brought two correspondences to court the morning of January 22, 2004 to testify to knowingly they were

Pre-Statement of Claim and neither raised the issue of standing / lack of Personal Representatives, when as the factual document provided below and to the RCMP

 have proven their were two correspondences that were Post-Statement of Claim that raised the issue of standing / lack of Personal Representatives.

Post-Statement of Claim filed date of July 8, 1997  Correspondences dated October 9 and 27, 1997. “below;

Jkueberoct9letter

jkueberoct27letterClearly; Joseph Kueber of Bryan & Company had raised the issue of standing / lack of Personal Representatives within paragraph 8 of

The Original Statement of Defence he had also raised the same issue within the two correspondences dated October 9 and 27, 1997. “Above”

Elizabeth MacInnis also raised the issue of administration / Personal Representatives within a correspondence she wrote on May 31, 2000. “Below”

Macinnisleterregardingadministrationpg1

Macinnisletterregardingadministrationpg2

Perjury as reported to The RCMP

 As contained within the transcripts of the closing arguments by Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen when asked by the trial Judge Justice Myra Bielby

as to the first time to he issue of standing had been raised / lack of Personal Representatives. “Below”

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

January 23, 2004  10:00 am session – Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen reads in The Closing Arguments on behalf of the Plaintiff’s.

                                                                                                     Below: Pages 389, 407 and 408 of the Alberta Court of Appeal Books prepared by Transcript Management of the last day of the trial.

It was reported to The RCMP that;

“Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen commits perjury while answering questions from the trial Judge; Justice Myra Bielby during the closing arguments of the trial.”

Argumentsbymacinnis1

Argumentsbymacinnis2

Above: page 407 – paragraph 30; The Court: asked;

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

                                      Above: paragraph 35; MacInnis answered;

“the application was heard in April 2001, and I think we were first told about it in around January of February of that year”

MacInnis was not answering the question she was answering that she was told about the application in January or February of 2001.

Above: page 407 – paragraph 45; The Court: asks the question again;

” Okay. so the first time, even in correspondence to you as counsel for the plaintiffs that this issue was raised, was early 2001.”

Below page 408 – paragraph 5; MacInnis answered;

 Below – “Thats correct, My Lady. I can say that.”

Argumentsbymacinnis3

Cross-Examination of Guy Lacourciere (full version PDF)

 Guy Lacourciere represented the Defendant’s Donald Broder and Craig Broder for the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench action 9703-12949 from October 21, 2002

and then quit and filed a cease to act on October 30, 2003 knowingly that his own clients were being defrauded since the February 13, 2001;

 Order of  Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich that closed the pleadings on March 15, 2001 before the Personal Representatives had been appointed by the Surrogate Courts and

there was no need for trial if the Order was enforced but Guy Lacourciere wilfully colluded with Elizabeth MacInnis  to orchestrate a fabricated  trial from January 19 – 23, 2004.

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

As reported to The RCMP – Perjury by Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen

During the litigation against Guy Lacourciere

Guy Lacourciere was being Cross-Examined on his affidavit by Craig Broder on behalf of Donald Broder as

Guy Lacourciere was rehired immediately after the trial to file an Appeal at

The Alberta Court of Appeal on behalf of Donald H. Broder.

Below: Page 28, of the Cross-Examination of Guy Lacourciere being asked the question by Craig Broder;

Q. Did you raise in your submission?  – “meaning his submission to The Alberta Court of Appeal”

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, Sawer’s motion but was plead 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. MacInnis and we said no,

nobody was ambushed in respect to this.

That matter was raised at the beginning in the statement of defence.

Below lines 1 – 24; Guy Lacourciere says he made it clear to the Appeal Court Justices that the first time lack of Personal Representatives was raised was within;

“The Original Statement of Defence prepared on behalf of the Defendant’s, Donald Broder and Craig Broder by Joseph Kueber of Bryan & Company;

 was filed with The Clerk of the Court on July 28, 1997.” 

The RCMP were provided with proof of Perjury as transcribed in;

 The transcripts above of the closing arguments whereby Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen told Justice Myra Bielby that;

“the first time the issue of lack of Personal Representatives was raised was 

January or February  2001.”

crossexampage28

Below: Page 41, 42 and 43 of the Cross-Examination of Guy Lacourciere being asked the question;

Below:  page 41, line 27 – page 42, lines 1-5, 26 and 27 and page 43, lines 1 and 2.

Guy Lacourciere makes it very clear that if

 The Original Statement of Defence has been Amended

the trial Judge does not see the Original Statement of Defence as The Amended takes;

” total precedence” 

amendedprecedence1

lacexamamendedprecedence2

lacexamamendedprecedence3

January 23, 2004 10:00 am session –  Craig Broder reads in the closing arguments on behalf of The Defendant, Donald H. Broder.

SUMMARY

as reported to;

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police “RCMP”

crime scene tape photo: CSM: Crime Scene Mystery crime-scene-tape-706717.jpg

Guy Lacourciere showed The Alberta Court of Appeal Justices

Carole Conrad, Ronald Berger and Peter Costigan that;

1) The Original Statement of Defence had raised the issue of; “lack of Personal Representatives within paragraph 8”

2) The Statement of Defence to The Amended Amended Statement of Claim had plead “Estoppel”

and

3) That the Amended Statement of Defence was filed by Donald Broders own lawyer Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson for whom replaced;

Guy Lacourciere after he quit on October 30, 2003;

 For the sole purpose to conceal from the trial Judge Justice Myra Bielby that;

The Original Statement of Defence filed on July 28, 1997 – “was the first time the issue of lack of Personal Representatives was raised.”

Amended Statement of Defence (full version PDF)

Below the FIAT “permission to amend” on the front page of The Amended Statement of Defence;

” backdated by Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson, Donald Broders own lawyer to

January 9, 2003 and Justice Breitkreuz second signature is forged.”

amended statement of defence 2

It had to be backdated from January 9, 2004 – to January 9 – changing the 2004 – to 2003 –

 to predate the filing of The Certificate of Readiness on the false date of April 17, 2003.

It was reported to The RCMP that; Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen obtained a Court Order first from Justice J. L. Lewis to file the Certificate of Readiness on or before February 15, 2001

then an extension of time was granted and Court Ordered during the Jury Trial Application by The Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich that the filing of the Certificate of Readiness must later than March 15, 2001

allowing time for the Defendants Donald Broder and Craig Broder to have an; outstanding 129 application heard challenging the issue of standing / lack of Personal Representatives.

marceaucasemagmentmay7,2003

As Reported to The RCMP

“Below” Scanned copy of the FIAT that was printed on the bottom of the Amended Statement of Defence and dated January 9, 2003 but as the

evidence shown to The RCMP, Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson – Donald H. Broder’s own lawyer for whom obtained the

FIAT “permission to amend” and was not on retainer as defence council for Donald H. Broder until November 2003 shortly there after

Guy Lacourciere quit as Donald H. Broder’s defence council on October 30, 2003 and that the true date the FIAT was granted by

Justice W. Brietkreuz was January 9, 2004 – just 10 days before the scheduled trial of January 19 – 23, 2004 . “FIAT shown again below”

amended statement of defence 2

As Reported to The RCMP

Below; Is page 0011 of the Procedural Record Print for Alberta Court Of Queen’s Bench action 9703-12949 proving the FIAT was granted by Justice W. Breitkreuz on

January 9, 2004 – just 10 days before the scheduled trial of January 19 – 23, 2004 and not as it is dated “January 9, 2003” 

They should have done a better job forging the second signature of Justice Brietreuz!

procedurerecordfiat

Let’s refresh your memory as to what Guy Lacourciere said during his cross-examination on his Affidavit;

below: page 28 – line 7 and 8;

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

Yes, that was;  Justice’s  Carole Conrad, Ronald Berger and Peter Costigan for whom conspired to conceal that 

Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen had conspired with Donald H. Broder’s lawyers to;

frame, defraud and falsely incarcerate him;

an innocent 75 year old senior citizen

Donald H. Broder

crossexampage28

Yes there is more evidence of Judicial Fraud that was reported to The RCMP.

More – CSI –  Re-Construction to help he RCMP !

What was shown to The Alberta Court of Appeal Justices; Carole Conrad, Ronald Berger and Peter Costigan!

Appeal Book Digest “Below”

The Appeal Book Digest page 1 – identifies lawyer and firm for the Appellant / Defendant’s and the lawyer and firm for the Respondent / Plaintiff’s;

Appealbookdigestpg1

The evidence of Judicial Fraud from the Appeal Books was presented to The RCMP.

The Appeal Book Digest page 2 – provides evidence that The Court of Appeal of Alberta; Justices Carole Conrad, Ronald Berger were shown;

 The Original Statement of Claim filed date of July 8, 1997 for which did not name The Personal Representatives as Plaintiff’s,

The Amended Statement of Claim filed date of March 12, 2001 for which did not name The Personal Representatives as Plaintiff’s,

The Amended Amended Statement of Claim filed date of November 5, 2001 for which substituted  The Personal Representatives as Plaintiff’s,

Evidence that proves Justices Carole Conrad, Ronald Berger and Peter Costigan were made aware that Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen was allowed by a

Justice of the Court in this case; Justice C. P. Clarke for whom breached the Rules of Court and substituted new  Plaintiff’s to the said action

after the expiration of the 2 year limitation period expired as per The Statute of Limitations Act.   

Appealbookdigestpg2

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

Appealbookdigestpg3

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

Appealbookdigestpg4

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

Original Statement of Claim below proving that The Personal Representatives were not named as Plaintiff’s and the Clerk of The Court file date of July 8, 1997 

Statementofdefencebackerpage1

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

The Amended Statement of Claim still without The Personal Representatives not named as Plaintiff’s and the Clerk of The Court file date of March 12, 2001

three days before the deadline to file the Certificate of Readiness and close the pleadings on March 15, 2001 as set out in The Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich Order.

Statementofdefencebackerpage2

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

Limitatioact1

Limitationact2

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

timberjack01

timberjack03

timberjack04

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

crossexampage28

Above excerpt from page 28 of the cross-examination of Guy Lacourociere;

Line – 7 – A – The comment was made by the court of appeal

Line – 8 – A – – well, you ambushed Ms. MacInnes

Line 13 – A – The Court had asked the question.

Line 14 – Q – If we ambushed Elizabeth MacInnes?

“Above” Line 15, 16 and 17 – A-  It appears to us that Ms. MacInnes may have been ambushed by the  motion, by Sawer, in respect to —

in respect to the motion that had been filed in 2001.

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

Robert Sawers – Donald Broder and Craig Broders defence lawyer new that within paragraph 8 of the Original Statement of Defence the issue had been raised that the action was frivolous, vexatious and abuse of court without Personal Representatives named as Plaintiff’s, the two year limitation period had lapsed to add or substitute a new claimant on July 9, 1999 and he brought a motion on March 13, 2001 challenging the issue of standing just 2  days prior to The Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich order that Elizabeth MacInnis  of Weir Bowen had requested and was granted to close the pleadings within the said action on March 15, 2001.

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

Conspiracy and Unconstitutional Conduct was reported to The RCMP that

Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Action No: 9703-12949  was orchestrated by;

Justice C. P. Clarke allowing Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowe  to breach the Statute of Limitations Act after the two year limitation period expired on

July 9, 1999 from the Original Statement of Claim file date of July 8, 1997 and substitute The Personal Representatives as Plaintiff’s on

November 5, 2001. “see the Amended Amended Statement of Claim below”

 The Personal Representatives  were only just appointed by The Surrogate Courts on May 24, 2001.

Amendedstatementofdefencebackerpage3

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

As reported to The RCMP

Donald H. Broder’s Original Statement of Defence, Statement of Defence to The Amended Amended Statement of Claim and

The Amended Statement of Defence to The Amended Amended Statement of Claim to be inserted here to expose the criminal evidence within.

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

As reported to The RCMP that

The Alberta Court of Appeal Justice Carole Conrad, Ronald Berger and Peter Costigan were made aware within the

Appeal Books that all the lawyers involved should be criminally charged for

 Obstruction of Justice, Conspiracy to Defraud, Perjury, Forgery.

Let’s see what Alberta Court of Appeal Justices; Carole Conrad, Ronald Berger and Peter Costigan have to say!

AppealRD1

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

AppealRD2

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

Donald H. Broder filed for an Appeal to The Alberta Court of Appeal because he;

1) Wanted to know why he was incarcerated for not following Justice Biebly’s court order of 2004 when Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen did not follow February 13, 2001 The Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich Order to close the pleading on March 15, 2001.

2) Wanted to know why Justice C. P. Clarke was allowed to substitute the Personal Representatives as Plaintiff’s on November 5, 2001 after the pleadings were closed within the said action on March 15, 2001 and also after the two year limitation period had expired since the Original Statement of Claim date of July 8, 1997.

3) Wanted to know why Elizabeth Macinnis was allowed to commit perjury when asked by Justice Bielby as to the first time he the defendant” had raised the issue of lack of Personal Representatives and she answered early 2001 during the jury trial application before Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich when as the Alberta Court of Appeal Justices Carole Conrad, Ronald Berger and Peter Costigan were made aware the issue of lack of Personal Representatives was plead within Donald Broder and Craig Broder’s Original Statement of Defence filed on July 28, 1997.

4) Wanted to know why his own lawyer Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson was not criminally charged for amending his Statement of Defence on January 9, 2004 backdating the FIAT to January 9, 2003 for the sole purpose to conceal from the trial Judge Justice Myra Bielby that the issue of lack of Personal Representatives had been raised within paragraph 8 of The Original Statement of Defence.

 THE TRUTH WAS TOLD;

TO THE RCMP!

Donald H. Broder was not fighting with his family all he ever asked for was Personal Representatives, it was not his fault Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen ambushed herself by allowing the 2 year limitation period to expire to substitute a new party to the action and also her own initiative and court application that was granted at her request by way of a court order to close the pleadings within the said action before she applied for probate to appoint Personal Representatives.

AppealRD3

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

AppealRD4

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

AppealRD5********************************************************

AppealRD6*************************************************

AppealRD7**********************************************

AppealRD8************************************

Let’s not forget what the Court of Appeal said;

see lines 15 through 23 below.

crossexampage28

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

As Reported to The RCMP

Table of “No-Contents” within

The Application for Leave to The Supreme Court of Canada

as orchestrated by;

Donald H. Broder’s own lawyers

Marvin R. Bloos of Beresh Depoe Cunningham – Edmonton

and

Henry S. Brown of Gowling Lafleur Henderson – Ottawa

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

Marvin and Henry you played the wrong people!

How much did you charge an innocent senior only to orchestrate the dismissal of;

The Application for Leave to The Supreme Court of Canada? 

Supremecourttableofcontentspg1

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

Supremecourttableofcontentspg2

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

Supremecourttableofcontentspg3

Marvin R. Bloos and Henry S. Brown surely will be criminally charges by The RCMP for  defrauding an innocent senior citizen for

each of your roles in orchestrating  the dismissal of The Application for Leave to The Supreme Court.

Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen must have made the comment to everyone involved about;

Donald H. Broder’s lawyer Robert Sawers ambushing her! 

We received the following correspondence from Sgt. Gingerysty of the RCMP on 2013-07-26 = “July – 26, 2013”  – “Below

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

Responsefromthe RCMPcrowntorenderdecision

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

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police as per their last correspondence date 2013-07-26 regarding the order for an investigation from the

Commission for Complaints against the RCMP initiated March 12, 2013. “Above” 

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

January 12, 2014  correspondence was sent to he RCMP attention Commanding Officer requesting a meeting to

review what the outcome of the RCMP investigation we were informed had concluded to discuss why we have still heard nothing from the Crown; 

The following correspondence was received from The RCMP on January 21, 2014. “Below”

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

RCMPresponse

 The subject is not dealing with – “Re: Your civil court matter dealing with estate issues

The subject is; Conspiracy to defraud, fraud on the courts, perjury, forging a Justices signature, backdating the FIAT, collusion to orchestrate the outcome of Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Action no: 9703-12949

because the Plaintiff’s lawyer Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen made the comment that she had been ambushed by Donald Broder and Craig Broder’s lawyer Robert Sawers for which initiated

all the Justices and lawyers involved to orchestrate the ambush of Donald Broder and Craig Broder.

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

Referenced one more time – below is page 28 of the cross-examination of Guy Lacourciere the lawyer that represented

Donald H. Broder at the Alberta Court of Appeal

Lines 1- 24

crossexampage28

Clearly the Court of Appeal suggested that Donald Broder and Craig Broder’s lawyer Robert Sawers  had ambushed Elizabeth MacInnis.

Line 23 and 24 –     Mr. Wong: That’s what the court of appeal said.

Mr. Wong was the lawyer defending Guy Lacourciere in a civil action brought against him by Donald H. Broder.

Yes, Justice Ged Hawko at The Calgary Law Courts dismissed the action and ordered court costs against Donald H. Broder. 

You can bet on it that the discussion during the Alberta Court of Appeal regarding Elizabeth MacInnis being ambushed is missing from the Court audio! 

Let’s wait and see if;

THE RCMP

 Have the authority to deal with criminal conduct  a higher level than

youths stealing a chocolate bar, speeding tickets or under age teenagers smoking !

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

 We will try to shed some light on how

 Alison Redford Q.C. has so many – AIRMILES

redfordairmiles

It’s no joke, last I looked I had 100’s of thousands of

AIRMILES.

Redfraud Q.C.  goes on to say;

We have cut lot’s of other programs –  If ya want’a know one example;

We cut back on Veteran Affairs Services –

I was informed their are no veterans still alive!

“so my expensive trips will not come out of the new schools for Alberta fund!”

redfordveteranaffairs

Alison Redford the Attorney General / Justice Minister at the time was ordered by Justice Myra Bielby to investigate. 

For which Alison Redford continues to act financially responsible saving the cost of the investigation to

fund her all expense paid trip all over the world

inclusive of;

Neslon Mandela’s

funeral.

Alison Redford 2011

Is this who Albertan’s want to be the;

Premier of Alberta, Canada?

For whom is guilty by association with her friends in the legal profession and the justice department

for the wrongful imprisonment of an innocent 75 year senior citizen

from April 26 – May 6 – 2004

Donald H. Broder

for whom his friends were primarily Veterans.

Donald H. Broder would participate in parades and allow war veterans from local legions to ride in his carriages. He had a deep respect for democracy and the freedom these men and women fought for.

Donald H. Broder would participate in parades and allow war veterans from local legions to ride in his carriages. He had a deep respect for democracy and the freedom these men and women fought for.

Donald Broder’s carriages were also sold to pay for this fraudulent orchestrated lawsuit

carriagebridalfair

The next page will deal with;

THE REDFRAUD Q.C. FILES!

Showing the Court Order from Justice Myra Bielby Q.C. 

ordering the;

Attorney General – Alison Redford Q.C.

to investigate

Donald Broder and Craig Broder!

 We will try to shed some light on how

 Alison Redford Q.C. got so many – AIRMILES

and how the

Alberta Department of Justice

victimized

Donald H. Broder

October 11, 1929 – April 11, 2012

 by breaching his 

Constitutional Rights !

The Ode of Remembrance

They went with songs to the battle, they were young.

Straight of limb, true of eyes, steady and aglow.

They were staunch to the end against odds uncounted,

They fell with their faces to the foe.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:

Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.

At the going down of the sun and in the morning,

We will remember them.

Lest we forget.

In the First World War 61,000 Canadians died, in the Second World War 42,000 Canadians died.

Many of these soldiers were dual citizens serving in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Donald H. Broder

passed away at 82 years of age on

April 11, 2012 at the Hospital in Sundre, Alberta.

A victim of;

 The Federal and Provincial Governments of Canada.

For whom had orchestrated his demise by;

allowing his own lawyers to defraud him,

garnish his bank accounts,

send sheriffs to search his home,

 collude to wrongfully imprison him

 for 11 days in the;

Edmonton, Alberta

Remand Center

UNTIL HE SUCCUMBED TO THEIR DEMANDS!

ONE MORE DEAD SOLDIER!

Canadians should not have to fight for Constitutional Rights as per;

 The Canadian Constitution.

We as Canadian’s are made to believe we are born with these rights. 

In Conclusion;

We ask all the citizens of Canada that if the Canadian Courts are based on;

 PRECEDENCE

be aware of what has become law in Canada

 that if

The Chief Justice A H. Wachowich

Court Order is not enforceable by;

The RCMP

or

The Justices of the Court!

Wachowichorder1

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

Wachowichorder2

**********************Wachowichbackerpage

Then all Court Orders are non-enforceable!

Then that would leave the Justices and Masters of the courts unemployed!

What would happen to the Canadian Law Court Buildings?

 I guess they would be vacated except for the skeletons it the closets.

There must be closet the Justices come from somewhere when court convenes!

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.