Chapter 11; 911 – Terrorists in Canada Exposed, left mouse click then scroll down to read; The evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt The Alberta Justice Department conspired with lawyers to frame, intimidate by false incarcerate and defraud an innocent vulnerable 75 year old senior citizen, Donald H. Broder and his family.

BRODERBUCK

Presents

THE BUCK FOR JUSTICE

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

The Broder Buck Litigation Tab;

will provide the evidence need for the

Royal Canadian Mounted Police “RCMP” to;

lay criminal charges against each and every perpetrator

including

The Crown ” Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta

and

The Alberta Justice Department

for colluding and conspiring with the lawyers involved

to orchestrate the outcome of;

Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Action 9703-12949 from March 15, 2001 through the trial held at The Edmonton Law Courts from January 19 – 23, 2004,

The Alberta Court of Appeal and The Application to The Supreme Court of Canada.

This crime against innocent senior citizens was orchestrated by;

Alison Redford – Attorney General / Justice Minister

and her predecessors inclusive of, The Alberta Justice Department,

Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich, Justice C. P. Clarke, Justice Bielby, Justice Marceau and Master Quinn and

Alberta Court of Appeal Justice Carol Conrad, Peter Costigan and Ronald Berger

acting in a conspiracy to frame, defraud and falsely incarcerate an innocent senior citizen

with the Defendant, Donald H. Broder’s own lawyers;

Bryan Kickham and Bill Kenny of Miller Thomson

Joseph Kueber of Bryan & Company

Guy Lacourciere of Lacourciere Associates

Marvin Bloos of Beresch Depoe Cunningham

all of whom accepted retainer of substantial amounts of money then immediately

willfully conspired with the Plaintiff’s lawyer Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen

to frame their own client and milk him of his retirement income.

Yes, they all willfully participated in defrauding and framing

  vulnerable innocent Canadian Seniors Citizens!

Donald and Joyce Broder “below”

memories6

If The Federal Government of Canada allows;

” The Alberta Government to commit crimes against their most vulnerable;”

Then we as Canadians must realize;

The Justice Department’s in all Jurisdictions of Canada; 

“have been given the green light and they will do it to anyone!”

kingstbe or not to be

All the evidence below will prove criminal conduct by all involved!

Let’s remember that in December of 2000, Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich had just replaced Chief Justice W. Kenneth Moore – Elizabeth MacInnis – Moore’s  father.

FACTS

Edmund Broder –  harvested the Broder Buck in 1926, The Broder Buck was pronounce the World Record by The Boone & Crocket Club in 1962.

Edmund Broder – passed away on December 26, 1968, without a will and only had a few personal effects with very little worth at the time.

1969 – 1970 – Donald Broder sibling’s were taking and claiming as their own Edmund Broder’s personal effects, so Donald Broder took the Broder Buck.

July 8, 1997 – Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Action 9703-12949 was initiated by Donald Broder’s siblings, George Broder, Earl Broder, Richard Broder, Luella Broder-Adam, Margaret Broder-MacPhee and Doris Broder-Bibaud  versus Donald Broder “brother” and Craig Broder “nephew” or grandson to Edmund Broder for the return of The Broder Buck.

July 28, 1997 – Donald Broder and Craig Broder file a Statement of Defence and within paragraph 8, plead the action brought against them is frivolous, vexatious and has no standing as the parties that initiated this action have no right to sue only Personal Representatives appointed by the Surrogate Courts to act on behalf of Edmund Broder have the right to initiate an action.

December 2000 – Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen was counsel for the Plaintiff’s and requested consent to close the pleadings within the said action. Consent was denied by Donald Broder so Elizabeth MacInnis brought on an Application to force the Pleadings closed and obtained a Court Order from Justice Lewis that the Defendant’s must complete their Application to be tried by Jury as soon as possible and Order the Pleadings  closed on February 15, 2001 and that only the Defendants, Donald Broder or Craig Broder could extend the time for the Pleadings to be closed.

Prior to February 15,  2001 – Jury Trial Application was heard by Chief Justice A. H Wachowich – to be tried by Jury was denied but the time for closing of the Pleadings was extended to March 15, 2001 to allow time for the Defendant’s Donald Broder and Craig Broder to have their outstanding 129 Application heard  and challenge the issue of standing as the Plaintiff’s had know rights to sue on behalf of a deceased Father only Personal Representatives have the right to sue and the Application for Probate was yet to be initiated, so as such no Personal Representatives existed.

March 15, 2001 – Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen refuses to file The Certificate of Readiness and close the Pleadings within action 9703-12949 and as such is in Contempt of Court and that Alberta Justice incarcerated Donald Broder for not following a 2004 Court Order but to date;

May, 2001 – Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen files for Probate at The Surrogate Courts and without effective service on Donald Broder is granted that George Broder and Doris Broder-Bibaud are appointed as Personal Representatives of the late Edmund Broder on May 24, 2001.

November 5, 2001 – Justice C. P. Clarke hears Donald Broder and Craig Broder’s Appeal regarding the right to sue – Broder siblings have no right to sue only Personal Representatives have such a right, Justice C. P. Clarke then Orders the substitution of the Personal Representatives as Plaintiff’s on the Statement of Claim after the expiration of the two year limitation period had lapsed to add or substitute a new party to an action and to also circumvent the Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich Order that closed the Pleadings immediately following the Appeal of the 129 Application and as Ordered only the Defendants could extend the time.

 

Honourable Mention:

When Donald Broder sued Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen for FRAUD;

Justice Jed Hawko at Calgary Law Courts dismissed the action declaring;

“You can not sue the lawyer that won, people often sue the lawyer that loses but in this case you are suing the lawyer that won!”

The matter was Appealed and was heard by Justice Karen Horner and it was requested by Donald Broder that;

The Chief Justice  A. H. Wachowich Court Order be enforced and

Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen be sited in Contempt of Court.

“Justice Karen Horner declared that The Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich Court Order was to old!”

 The Alberta Justice Department continues to refuse to charge;

Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen with Contempt of Court.

Justice Karen Horner dismissed the action against Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen awarded Court costs.

Because they could get nothing from Donald H. Broder;

The Court ordered a garnishee of his wife Joyce M. Broders bank account.

Yes, while she was in a permanent care facility suffering with Alzheimer’s and Dementia.

Garnishes of Joyce Broder and Letter of Doctor (full version PDF)

The Evidence

 below will prove beyond any doubt that;

Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Action 9703-12949

was orchestrated from March 15, 2001 at

The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench,

The Alberta Court of Appeal and

The Application to The Supreme Court of Canada

for whom all mentioned were involved in this

Conspiracy to defraud an innocent senior citizen Donald Broder and

 his wife Joyce Broder, children and grandchildren by;

The Alberta Justice Department and all Justices and lawyers involved whose plan was to;

                                                                             Milk the senior who’s living on limited pensions $$$$$$$$$++++++$$$$$$$$$ and he will go away.

lewisorder1

lewisorder2

Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen ” the plaintiff’s lawyer” obtained a Court Order from Justice Lewis on December 18, 2000 “above” to close the pleadings within action 9703-12949 on February 15, 2001 immediately following the Defendant’s “Donald and Craig Broder’s” Jury Trial Application, at which time Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich extended the time to close the pleadings to March 15, 2001 to allow the Defendant’s time for their outstanding 129 application challenging the issue of standing, the plaintiff’s right to sue on behalf of a deceased as probate had never been applied for in excess of 30 years, so no Personal Representatives were ever appointed and the action should be struck as the Plaintiff’s in their personal capacity had no right to sue.

Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen has never followed the Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich Court Order, but instead Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen with Donald Broder’s lawyer Guy Lacourciere present inform Justice R. P. Marceau during a case management meeting The Certificate of Readiness had been filed to close the Pleadings within action 9703-12949 on April 17, 2003.

Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen later had Donald Broder incarcerated for not following a 2004 Court Order, when as the evidence proves she was the one in Contempt of Court and if she had file The Certificate of Readiness to close the Pleadings on March 15, 2001 as per The Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich Court Order, Donald Broder would have won the law suit as Probate had not been applied for at that time and as such Personal Representatives did not exist and the named Plaintiff’s on the Statement of Claim did not have standing to sue in their personal capacity only Personal Representatives as appointed by the Surrogate Courts have he right to sue on behalf of the deceased person they are representing.

  • The Cross-Examination on his affidavit of Guy Lacourcieres “one of the defendant’s lawyers” will confirm that Elizabeth MacInnis “one of the plaintiff’s lawyers” made the comment she had been ambushed by the defendant’s lawyer Robert Sawers Albert Rules of Court – Rule 129 Application immediately after Elizabeth MacInnis and applied for and was granted by a justice of the court  a Court order to close the pleadings within the said action.

  • Conspiracy and collusion by Donald Broder’s own lawyer Bryan Kickham filed an Amended Statement of Defence on January 9, 2004 – 10 days before the scheduled trial of January 19 – 23, 2004 with purposeful intent knowingly it would be total precedence at trial and that the Original Statement of Defence would not be seen by the trial Judge to willfully frame Donald Broder by concealing from Justice Bielby that the first time the issue of standing; “lack of Personal Representatives” had been raised was within the Original Statement of Defence file on July 28, 1997.

  • Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson conspired against his own client “Donald Broder” by obtaining a court ordered  FIAT; “permission to amend the Statement of Defence;” then back dated the FIAT date from January 9, 2004 to January 9, 2003 to mislead the trial Judge it was filed before the second Conditional Certificate of Readiness filed date of April 17, 2003 and the second Judges signature below the FIAT was forged.

  • Joseph Kueber of Bryan & Company, ” Donald Broder’s own defence lawyer” conspired with Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson, ” Donald Broder’s trial lawyer” to testify to two irrelevant correspondences that were Pre-Statement of Claim, Joseph Kueber knowingly conspiring to conceal the two relevant correspondences that were Post-Statement of Claim for which also raised Alberta Rules of Court Rule 129, the issue of standing  –  lack of Personal Representatives.

  • Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen’s ” the plaintiff’s lawyer” willful act of purgery by misleading the trial Judge Justice Bielby when asked as to the first time lack of Personal Representatives was raised, MacInnis confirmed to Justice Bielby it was early 2001 during the Jury trial Application, when as the evidence will prove that; the issue of standing; “lack of Personal Representatives” was raised within the Original Statement of Defence filed at the Edmonton Law Courts within the said action on July 28, 1997.

Order of Justice C. P. Clarke (full version)PDF

During Donald and Craig Broder’s –  Alberta Rules of Court Rule 129 Appeal of Master Quinn’s decision my Lawyer Robert J. Sawers argued that;

  • Master Quinn was correct that the Plaintiffs in their personal capacity had no standing to sue only Personal Representatives had a right to bring on an action on behalf of a deceased person.

  • The action 9703-12949 was a nuilty and the action must be struck.

  • The Plaintiffs in their personal capacity had no legal or equitable right to the deceased belongings.

Case Law mugford vs. mugford (full version)PDF

Quote: page 9 – Mugford vs. Mugford

“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 describe 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 an administrator and not the role of Gordon Mugford to put this to the test.”

Proves siblings cannot sue siblings only Personal Representatives / Administrators appointed by the Surrogate Courts have the right to make bring an action on behalf of a deceased.

Justice C. P. Clarke told Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen he did not need to hear her arguments, then took a ten minute recess, returned to the Court room and Ordered the Personal Representatives be added to the claim circumventing the Alberta Rules of Court Rule 133 by which Elizabeth MacInnis could not follow because the Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich had ordered that;

4. The Defendants “not the Plaintiff’s” have leave to reattend upon the Chief Justice or any Justice of the Court of Queen’s Bench for the purpose of extending the time in paragraphs 2 and 3 herein.

2. The Defendants’ application to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim under Rule 129 shall be made on or before March 15, 2001.

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

Upon leaving the Court Room Robert J. Sawers expressed to me, my sons, and others in attendance that Justice C. P. Clarke was winking at him when he read the pre-printed, predetermined, and orchestrated decision to add the Personal Representatives as Plaintiffs knowingly that Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen could not extend the time to file the Certificate of Readiness and as such would have to close the Pleadings on herself upon conclusion of the Defendant’s 129 Application.

A posting of a document that was written as a brief whereby it is confirmed that Justice C. P. Clarke was winking will be uploaded in due course

Amended Amended Statement of Claim (full version)PDF

  • The Personal Representatives Doris Bibaud and George Broder were added to the Statement of Claim on November 5, 2001 during the Defendant’s 129 Appeal by Justice J. P. Clarke over 7 months after the Pleadings were closed by Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich on March 15, 2001, and without consent by Donald Broder an also without an Alberta Rules of Court Rule 133 application.

  • I Donald H. Broder along with others present was told by Robert J. Sawers that during my Appeal of Master Quinn’s Order, Justice J. P. Clarke winked at him as he read the predetermined decision to add the Personal Representatives to the Statement of Claim in action 9703-12949, as he was colluding to assist Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen to circumvent from her having to make an Application as per Alberta Rules of Court to avoid the consequences of the pleading being closed before the Personal Representatives were added as Plaintiffs.

Statement of Defence to the Amended Amended Statement of Claim.(full version)PDF

Amended Statement of Defence (full version)PDF

The Amended Statement of Defence was Amended by Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson 10 days before the scheduled trial of January 19 – 23, 2004 for the sole purpose to;

  • Maintain total precedence during the trial to conceal the issues raised within The Original Statement of Defence and The Statement of Defence to The Amended Amended Statement of Claim from the Trail Judge Justice Myra Bielby to purposely conceal the first time the issue of standing was raised was within the Original Statement of Defence, and that Estoppel had been plead within the Statement of Defence to the Amended Amended Statemet of Defence.

Review on the bottom of the first page of The Amended Statement of Defence the FIAT. (permission from the authority to amend)

FIAT: That the Amended Statement of Defence to the Amended Amended Statement of Claim be filed notwithstanding that the 15 day time limit set out in paragraph 4 of Justice R. P. Marceau’s Order dated November 10, 2003 has expired.

DATED this 9th day of January, 2003 ” reference the second signature of Justice Breitkreuz’ on the first page just below the FIAT.” and; make the determination as to it’s authenticity.

Note: we will provide evidence below “Procedural Record Print” it should have said; DATED this 9th day of January 2004.

Procedure Record Print (partial version)PDF

Provided by the Clerk of the Court on November 14, 2008 and proves;

  • The Procedural Record Print will confirm the FIAT was granted by the Courts on January 9, 2004.

  • The FIAT on The Amended Statement of Defence was purposely back dated to January 9, 2003.

  • The FIAT was back dated to January 9, 2003 to pre-date the second Conditional Certificate of Readiness filed date of April 17, 2003. See ” Case Management Meeting Minutes” under the Litigation 9703-12949 Tab.

Note: The FIAT date on the Amended Statement of Defence was back dated to January 9, 2003, and the second Judges signature was forged.

Note: Alberta Rules of Court Rule 129 contained within Paragraph 8 of the Original Statement of Defence;

Paragraph 8: “The Defendants claim that the claim against them by the Plaintiffs is frivolous, vexatious, and otherwise an abuse of process ” Alberta Rules of Court Rule 129″ and claim costs on a solicitor and his own client, full indemnity basis.”

The Amended Statement of Defence now takes total precedence and will conceal the first time the issue of Standing / lack of personal representatives” was raised as the trial Judge will not see the Original Statement of Defence.

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

*answers provided by Guy Lacourciere during the Cross – Examination on his Affidavit May 26, 2010.

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

(page 41 line 21 – 27)

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

(page 42 line 19 – 27)

  • Q: Now you’re asking me a question as to whether or not I should have told you that you had the right to produce the amended — or the statement of claim, the original statement of claim. No, you didn’t have that right. I didn’t have that right?
  • A: No.
  • Q: So the amended one takes precedence?
  • A: That’s correct.

(page 29 line 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. MacInnis, that she had been ambushed. At which point in time the court asked me about being ambushed. And I said to the court, I said, no, that the — that Ms. Maclnnes was not ambushed, that the matter has been raised originally in the statement of defence that had been filed by Mr. Sawyer.

Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson requested to Donald Broder that Joseph J. Kueber of Bryan and Company might be willing to testify at the trial and requested permission to call him and make the request.

Joseph J. Kueber was the Lawyer that represented the Defendants, Donald Broder and Craig Broder from the onset of this litigation for whom prepared and filed The Original Statement of Defence.

Joseph J. Kueber of Bryan and Company attended the Edmonton Law Courts during the course of the trial to testify, he willing brought two pre-statement of claim correspondences to testify too. He was willfully acting in collusion by not bringing the two correspondence that were Post-Statement of Claim for which raised the issue of Standing / lack of Personal Representatives as per Alberta Rules of Court Rule 129 for which coincides with why Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson Amended the Statement of Defence to also conceal that the issue of standing / lack of Personal Representatives was raised within The Original Statement of Defence.

 

Correspondences of Joseph J. Kueber of Bryan and Company / Pre-Statement of Claim (full version)PDF

For comparison purposes; “two correspondences dated April 8, and 24, 1997, inclusive of the two correspondences Post-Statement of Claim that raised the issue of standing as per Alberta Rules of Court Rule 129.”

  • The first two correspondences dated April 8, 1997, and April 24, 1997 are the documents reference in Madam Justice Myra Bielby’s Reasons for Judgment paragraph [82]

Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Madam M. B. Bielby (full version)PDF

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

This action is nonetheless not statute-barred, nor a nullity through application of s. 61 (1) (b) of the Limitation of action Act, R.S.A. 1980, c.L-15 (“the Limitation of Actions Act”) or, alternatively, through application of the principle of “relation back”.

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

Correspondences of Joseph J. Kueber of Bryan and Company / Post-Statement of Claim (full version)PDF
For comparison purposes; “two correspondences dated October 9 and 27, 1997 that raised the issue of standing as per Alberta Rules of Court Rule 129, inclusive of the two correspondences Pre-Statement of Claim.”

October 9, 1997 Post Statement of Claim Correspondence;

“I may also combine this with an application under Rule 129 to strike out the claim. I think the limitation date has been missed and I do not believe that the claim can stand.”

October 27, 1997 Post Statement of Claim Correspondence;

“I am in the process of finalizing a Motion under Rule 159 and 129 of the Rules of Court regarding this claim,”

Arguments by Ms. MacInnis at the trial of 9703-12949 (partial version pages 389, 407, and 408 from the Alberta Court of Appeal Books)PDF

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

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

Purgery was committed by Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen knowingly that the issue of standing / lack of Personal Representatives had been raised within the original Statement of Defence on July 28, 1997.

Proceeding before Justice Bielby April 23 & 26, 2004