Statement to the Old’s, Alberta – RCMP Detachment Commanding Officer; providing comprehensive evidence that exposed how The Edmonton Commercial Crimes Unit participated in the cover-up to conceal that; The Alberta Justice Department and Justices within The Alberta Law Courts conspired with lawyers to orchestrate the outcome of Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench action no. 9703-12949 to; “frame, defraud and falsely incarcerate an innocent 75 year old senior citizen, Donald H. Broder.

BRODERBUCK

Presents

THE BUCK FOR JUSTICE

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

The RCMP in Sundre, Alberta   

contacted

 

The RCMP in Old’s, Alberta

and requested

The Commanding Officer;

Sergeant Morton

to call and arrange an interview with

Donald H. Broder and Craig Broder;

At this interview comprehesive evidence was provided to the Commanding Officer Sergeant Morton of the

conspiracy to defraud that had taken place at the T D Bank in Olds, Alberta where Donald Broder

had $225,000 cnd. extorted from his bank account while he was falsely incarcerated

with all the necessary evidence to prove how it was orchestrated by

The Alberta Justice Department, Justices and specific lawyers. 

Within this tab;

You the reader will be briefed of the evidence that was provided to;

Old’s RCMP commanding officer;

Seargent Morton for which;

 proves beyond a reasonable doubt of the allegations that;

 Conspiracy by Alberta Justice

acting in collusion with lawyers to

orchestrate the outcome  of;

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

Alberta Court of Appeal No: 0403-0202 AC, 0403-02676 AC and 0403-0356 AC

and

The Supreme Court of Canada Action No: 31335

was with purposelful intent to:

frame an innocent senior citizen and his family;

Donald H. Broder his wife Joyce Broder, children and grandchildren.

The Alberta Justice Department was also guilty of the use of

threats, scare tactics and suggesting other family members could take their Fathers place in jail

 to intimidate their children and grandchildren;

Alberta Justice Department has also court ordered garnishes to impose

  financial hardship, emotional stress and defamation of character

against the entire Broder family.

memories6

“And how the perpetrators identified garnisheed;”

Joyce Broder’s

pension depleting her of her ability to pay for her long term care at

Good Samaritans Care Center in Stony Plain, Alberta.

as she succumbed to;

 Dementia and  Alzheimer’s

Joyce Broder at the Good Samaritans Lodge

Picture above of Joyce Broder on July 7, 2011, living at
Good Samaritians Car Center in Stony Plain, Alberta with no money as her bank account had been garnished by;
The Alberta Justice Department.
Joyce Broder passed away on September 23, 2011.

“Crime of the Century”

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

Brief of the history

Edmund Broder, Father of Donald H. Broder passed away on December 26, 1968,

and among his personal affects were a few carpenter and blacksnith tools, saddle and chaps, rifle

1914 Model T and a Mule Deer Trophy harvested on November 26, 1926.

broder-buck-postcard-f

The eldest living son of Edmund Broder, Donald Broder removed the trophy from the family home in early 1973 and maintained exclusive possession for excess of 20 years, preserved, restored and insured it as his own and without family participation or reimbursement until;

July 8, 1997 Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Action 9703-12949 was commenced for replevin of the trophy by Grace Parrotta – King on behalf of Donald Broders’ siblings;

Plaintiffs to the said action were Earl Broder, George Broder, Richard Broder, Margaret Macphee, Doris Bibaud, and Luella Adams all siblings to;

The Defendant, Donald Broder and relatives to the Plaintiff’s – nephew, son of Donald H. Broder – Craig Broder.

Note:

“Donald H. Broder suggested to his lawyer Joseph Kueber of Bryan and Company that until Personal Representatives were appointed by the Surrogate Courts he had no obligation to return the trophy buck and if the application for probate was still a possibility with the Surrogate Courts since his Father; Edmund Broder had been deceased for over 25 years that he would dispute the Application based on the Statute of Limitations Act. He also stated that he would cooperate with and only with Personal Representatives as long as they made a demand for the return of all Edmund Broder’s assets and probate was hndle as per the Surrogate Court Rules.”

On July 28, 1997 a  Statement of Defence was filed by Joseph J. Kueber of Bryan & Company acting as defence counsel for the Defendants; Donald Broder and Craig Broder plead within the Original Statement of Defence “paragraph 8″ the issue of standing was raised as per Alberta Rules of Court Rule 129 “frivolous, vexatious, and otherwise an abuse of court process and that the plaintiff’s lack standing to sue in their personal capacity and required an Application for Probate at the Surrogate Courts to appoint Personal Representatives as only Personal Representatives can sue on behalf of a deceased.

Donald Broder and Craig Broders Lawyer Joseph Kueber of Bryan and Company also issued two Post Statement of Claim correspondences that raised the issue of standing as per Alberta Rules of Court Rule 129, “frivolous, vexatious and abuse of court process”, that the Plaintiffs in their personal capacity have no right to sue for a possession of thier deceased Father that they have no legal or equitable right to and only Personal Representatives have the right to make demands for the return of all assets of a deceased and in the event items are not returned then bring on a legal action. At minimum Donald Broder equally owned 1/7 of the trophy and had rights to defend a Surrogate Court Application to appoint Personal Representatives on the basis that the Limitation Period had expired as Edmund Broder had been deceased from December 26, 1968 and the first demand to return the trophy was not made until March – 1997 excess of 23 years since Donald Broder aquired possession and excess of 28 years since Edmund Broder passed away. 

On June 1, 1998 The Plaintiff’s lawyer Grace Parrotta – King was replaced by Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen as per John Weir of Weir Bowen’s recommendation; as Grace Parrotta – King had acted on behalf of Donald Broder and his siblings on a previous Estate matter and could not act against him now as per The Legal Profession Act. 

July 9, 1999 the two year limitation period lapsed to add or substitute a new party to the said action, and as of this date the Application for Probate had still not been applied for to appoint Personal Representatives at the Surrogate Courts. 

On September 30, 1999 The Defendant’s lawyer; Joseph Kueber of Bryan & Company was replaced by Robert Sawers of R. J. Sawers & Associates as defence council for the Defendants Donald Broder and Craig Broder.

In December of 2000, Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen requested consent from Robert Sawers of R. J. Sawers and Associates; to agree to the amendments and allow her to file The Amended Statement of Claim and the Certificate of Readiness to close the pleadings and set the said action down for trial.

Consent was declined by Donald Broder as he repeated his request that an application for probate to appoint Personal Representatives at the Surrogate Courts must be filed with the Surrogate Courts prior to the Certificate of Readiness being filed to argue that The Limitation Period had lapsed for Probate and determine if Administrators / Personal Representatives could be appointed in excess of 30 years after the death of his Father, Edmund Broder?

If I, Donald Broder was trying to ambush Elizabeth MacInnis, I would have consented to the Amended Statement of Claim and the filing of the Certificate of Readiness to close the pleadings.”

Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen made an Application before Justice J. L. Lewis on December 18, 2000 as per The Alberta Rules of Court and it was Ordered to accept the amendments and file the Amended Statement of Claim in the form attached, “which did not name Personal Representatives as Plaintiff’s” and a deadline was set by Court Order; The Certificate of Readiness was to be filed by February 15, 2001 allowing time for Donald Broder and Craig Broder’s Lawyer; Robert Sawers to make a Jury Trial Application before The Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich. Costs were imposed forthwith against Donald Broder and Craig Broder for $500.00 on each count totaling $1,000.00 to be paid forthwith for not consenting to the amendments within the Amended Statement of Claim and the filing of The Certificate of Readiness to close the pleadings.

On February 1, 2001 On behalf of Donald Broder and Craig Broder – Robert Sawers filed a Alberta Rules of Court 129 Application, claiming Action 9703-12949 was “frivolous, vexatious and abuse of court process” the Broder siblings had no right to sue for a possession they had no legal or equitable right to as in this case only Personal Representatives have such a right to bring on an action on behalf of a deceased.

Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen upon being served with the Application and case law Mugford vs. Mugford to support the Application realized she had just been ambushed by Donald Broder and Craig Broder’s Lawyer; Robert Sawers of R. J. Sawers and Associates by allowing her to close the Pleadings on herself; “hold on, Robert Sawers did not provide consent, Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen forced the pleadings closed by way of court order” before she filed an Application for Probate within The Surrogate Courts. “Seems quite apparent Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen ambushed herself” and now was continuously requested an adjournment as she realized that her clients; The Plaintiff’s action was; “frivolous, vexatious, and otherwise an abuse of Court process,” and that only Personal Representatives have standing to sue on behalf of the deceased.

Alberta Rules of Court Rule 129;

129(1) The Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any pleadings in the action, on the grounds that

(a) it discloses no cause of action or defence, as the case may be, or
(b) it is scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious, or
(c) it may prejudice , embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action, or
(d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court,

and may order the action to be stayed or dismissed or judgment to be entered accordingly.

The Application for the Jury Trial was heard by Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich on February 13, 2001.

Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich provided leave of the Court to extend the time for the filing of the Certificate of Readiness to March 15, 2001 to allow The Defendant’s; Donald Broder and Craig Broder time to have an outstanding 129 Application heard.

Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich had just replaced Chief Justcice W. Kenneth Moore the Father of Elizabeth MacInnis / Moore of Weir Bowen.

Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich denied the Jury Trial Application as he became aware that the Application for Probate was not considered by Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen to appoint Personal Representatives and the limitation period had lapsed of two years to add or substitute a new Plaintiff had Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen had also just forced the pleadings closed on herself so no Jury would be required as Donald Broder and Craig Broder would be successful with their outstanding 129 application and there would be no need for a jury because there would be no trial within Action 9703-12949.

Notice to reader; The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench tab provides accurate evidence of all of the proceeding from the start of the Statement of Claim July 8, 1997 until March 15, 2001 when the pleadings were order closed by Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich and such Donald H. Broder won the lawsuit as the Application for probate had not been made and Personal Representatives did not exist as of the date for which the pleadings were closed within this action.

Robert Sawers was successful with the 129 Application on behalf of Donald Broder and Craig Broder and the action should have been dismissed immediately but Master Quinn provided legal advice to Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen to apply for Probate.

****** Contained within the transcripts of the Cross-Examination of Guy Lacourciere for whom replaced Robert Sawers as legal council for the Defendants Donald Broder and Craig Broder evidence will be provided that Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen made the comment she had been ambushed at this point in time of the litigation, so the balance of the opening Statements will identify how the Alberta Justice Department and lawyers orchestrated the outcome to frame the Defendant’s Donald H. Broder and his son Craig Broder. ******

Evidence will be provided proving the conspiracy to defraud innocent Canadian citizens was committed by Master Quinn, Justices, C. P. Clarke, Veit, Belzil, Bielby, Appeal Court Justices;  Carole Conrad, Ronald Berger and Peter Costigan and how the  Defendant’s lawyers; Guy Lacourciere of Lacourciere Associates, Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson and Marvin Bloos of Beresh Depoe Cunningham and Joseph Kueber of Bryan & Company conspired with the Plaintiff’s lawyer Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen and the Justices named to orchestrate to outcome of  Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench action 9703-12949 to defraud an innocent 75 year old senior citizen and teach him a lesson because his lawyer Robert J, Sawers had been accused of ambushing the past Chief Justice W. Kenneth Moores daughter.

***** April 2001 the evidence will prove that all the court proceeding from this point in time within the said action were orchestrated right through and including The Appeal Court of Alberta and The Supreme Court of Canada, application for leave for which was declined being dismissed in – April, 2006
And the continuation through 2013 by the Calgary Law Courts dismissing each and every civil action brought on against each lawyer involved and the Edmonton Law Courts dismissing the action brought on against Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta.

“It was not of National importance for the Supreme Court of Canada to hear this matter and expose Judicial Fraud to the Canadian people.”

Evidence will prove  Master Quinn was the first to respond to Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen’s comment about being ambushed.

Master Quinn Ordered – “if no one is appointed as Administrator it is my intention to strike out the Statement of Claim” then he went on to adjourn the application sine die favoring Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen and delaying the pleadings being closed immediately following the Defendants 129 application knowing that the Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich order specifically stated that only the Defendants could attend before any Justice of the Court to extend the time to file the Certificate of Readiness then placed a gag order agaist Donald H. Broder “not to interfere with the application for probate.”

Master Quinn should have struck the action immediately!

Evidence will be provided that during the time Donald H. Broder’s lawyer Robert Sawers was filing for the Appeal of Master Quinn’s decision,  Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen filed the Application for probate relying on a false affidavit of service sworn by her own legal secretary Joan C. Hill that was based on a note to file that; Robert Sawers had accepted service on the behalf of Donald H. Broder for the Application for Probate and Notice to Beneficiaries.

A sworn Affidavit of Robert Sawers will be provided as evidence that Robert Sawers did not agree to accept service but only had agreed to accept a copy for information purposes as he had not been retained for the pending estate litigation by Donald H. Broder.

Evidence will prove Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen was granted probate on May 24, 2001 and prove will be provided Donald H. Broder was not served until Maty 28, 2001 by registered mail.

Robert Sawers appealed the Surrogate Court Application and The Edmonton Law Courts dismissed the Appeal and said we were properly notified.

Notice to reader; The Surrogate Court tab provides the evidence regarding the false Affidavit of Service sworn by Joan C. Hill legal secretary to  Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen.

Evidence will prove that In November of 2001, Justice C. P. Clarke was on the bench for the Defendants Appeal of Master Quinn’s decision for whom then willfully acted in collusion by circumventing The Alberta Rules of Court and Alberta New Statute of Limitations Act by winking while he was reading a printed predetermined decision and Ordered that the Personal Representatives could be added / substituted as Plaintiff’s within Action 9703-12949 to give assistance to Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen because Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich had Ordered that only the Defendant’s; Donald Broder and Craig Broder could go before any Justice to extend the time for the filing of The Certificate of Readiness and knowing that Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen would have to file the Certificate of Readiness and close the Pleadings on herself immediately following the conclusion of the Defendants appeal regarding the 129 application.

January 2002Robert Sawers was fired by Donald Broder and Craig Broder for accepting service for The Surrogate Court Application and failing to act or notify his clients and take the necessary legal procedures by filing a caveat against the Estate and subsequently was replaced by Guy Lacourciere of Lacourciere & Associates.

Guy Lacourciere should have immediately enforced the Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich Order but rather continued to milk his own clients.

November 2002 – Guy Lacourciere of Lacourciere Associates filed a  Statement of Defence to the Amended Amended Statement of Claim pleading Estoppel.

Guy Lacourciere of Lacourciere Associates conspired with Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen by allowing her to restart case management meetings and during one of the meeting with Justice Marceau allowed Elizabeth MacInnis to confirm the Certificate of Readiness was filed on April 17, 2003, rather than defending his own clients Donald Broder and Craig Broder by making Justice Marceau aware of the Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich order that the Certificate of Readiness was to be filed on March 15, 2001.

A trial date was assigned for January 19 – 23, 2004.

Guy Lacourciere looking for reason to quit cooperated with Elizabeth MacInnis requesting the Broder Buck be placed in his office know that Donald H. Broder would refuse then quit in October 2003 just 10 weeks before the trial. There was know need for this to occur as Guy Lacourciere new that his clients Donald H. Broder and Craig Broder had won the lawsuit on March 15, 2001 and all he had to do was enforce the Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich order.

Notice to reader; Guy Lacourciere provided evidence within his cross-examination that a comment was made by Elizabeth MacInnis that she had been ambushed so he was obviously also colluding against his own clients to assist with the orchestration of Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench action 9703-12949.

Evidence will be provided that immediately following Guy Lacourciere filing a cease to act  within the said action; Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson was retained as defence council to act on behalf of  Donald H. Broder  for the scheduled trial and that Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson immediate colluded with Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen by obtaining a FIAT on January 9, 2004 to amend the statement of defence, backdated the FIAT to January 9, 2003 forged the second judges signature below the FIAT and for the sole purpose that the Amended Statement of Defence would take total precedence at trial and for the trial Judge to rely on Estoppel she would require to be aware that the issue of lack of Personal Representatives had been raised within the original Statement of Defence. By Amending Guy Lacourcieres Statement of Defence to the Amended Amended Statement of Claim change nothing within except excluded the trial Judge from seeing the original Statement of Defence.

Donald H. Broder faxed Bryan Kickham a copy of the Wachowich Order and two letters issued by the his first lawyer Joseph Kueber that also raised the issue of lack of Personal Representatives  than subsequently  received a phone call from his lawyer Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson explaining that he was going to lose at trial fired him immediately.

Evidence will be provided by Guy Lacourciere within his cross-examination; That Elizabeth MacInnis when asked by the trial Judge Justice Bielby as to the first time the defendants raised the issue of lack of personal representatives committed purgery by answering early 2001, when as the evidence will prove it was within paragraph 8 of the original Statement of Defence dated July 28, 1997.

Evidence will be provided that; Elizabeth MacInnis had Donald H. Broder falsely incarcerated on a contempt of court charge for not following the trial Judge Justice Bielby’s order to turn over the Broder Buck and as the facts will prove it was Elizabeth MacInnis that was in contempt of Court for not following the Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich court order.

Evidence will prove that; Donald H. Broder hired Marvin Bloos of Beresh Depoe Cunningham as his criminal lawyer for whom also defrauded him and did not expose to the trial Judge that the Pleadings were closed by The Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich order on March 15, 2001 before probate and the appointing of Personal Representatives and that it was Elizabeth MacInnis that was in contempt of court.

Evidence will prove that; Guy Lacourciere obtained excess of $235,000 from Donald Broder’s wife Joyce Broder while he was being held in the Edmonton Remand Centre then turning the money over to Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen to secure Donald Broder release from jail while knowing all along he had been framed and the contempt of court charge had been orchestrated.

Evidence will prove; Guy Lacourciere on behalf of Donald H. Broder filed an Appeal at the Alberta Court of Appeal showing that Justices; Carole Conrad, Ronald Berger and Peter Costigan that the isue of lack of Personal Representatives had been raised within the original Statement of Defence and that Elizabeth MacInnis had committed purgery when asked by Justice Bielby during closing arguments at trial as to the first time the issue of lack of Personal Representatives had been raised.

Evidence will prove that; When the Appeal Books were completed and reviewed Donald H. Broder’s opening statement read at trial on January 19, 2004 had been deleted from the trial audio as confirmed within a correspondence from Alberta Justice Transcript Management. 

Evidence will prove; Guy Lacourciere on behalf of Donald H. Broder filed an Appeal at the Alberta Court of Appeal showing that Justices; Carole Conrad, Ronald Berger and Peter Costigan that the only reason Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson amended the Statement of Defence to the Amended Amended Statement of Claim was to collude with Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen to allow her to win at trial by relying on the relation back doctrine knowingly that Estoppel had been plead and purposely preventing  the trial Judge from seeing the original Statement of Defence. 

Evidence will prove; That even the Appeal Court Justices Carole Conrad, Ronald Berger and Peter Costigan made a comment that Elizabeth Macinnis had been ambushed.

Evidence will prove; Marvin Bloos of Beresh Depoe Cunningham orchestrated the Application for leave to The Supreme Court of Canada with purposeful intent to  exclude all of the evidence  provided within the website of the Judicial fraud, collusion and purgery committed by all parties identified within the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Action 9703-12949.

On behalf of all senior citizen’s of Canada

Be aware and guard yourself from

Fraud by the Canadian Justice Department

Which should also raise a serious concern.

The results from the evidence provided can be only one of two scenarios.

1) Was The Supreme Court of Canada a willful participant?

or now that;

The Chief Justice of

The Supreme Court of Canada has been made aware of;

the conspiracy by Alberta Justices and lawyers for whom

  orchestrated the outcome Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench 9703-12949

and have willfully chose to do nothing then;

2) The Supreme Court of Canada must be a willful victim!

“YOU THE READER DECIDE”

        Did You Know!

The Supreme Court of Canada will dismiss applications if it’s not;

In The Public’s Best Interest or of National Importance!


“It is of National Importance”

Donald H. Broder’s Application for Leave to The Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed in April 2006 and within this website evidence will be provided  that it was not in The Supreme Court of Canada’s best interest to hear this case for which would make the public aware of the “National Importance” that; The Alberta Justice Department, specific Judges and Lawyers had all conspired by willfully acting in collusion to orchestrate the outcome of Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench action no. 9703-12949 with purposeful intent to frame, falsey incarcerate an innocent 75 year old senior citizen, Donald H. Broder while his own lawyers conspired  with the Plaintiff’s lawyer to defraud him.

Prime Minister; Stephen Harper.

Mr. Prime Minister; you should be ashamed for failing to address these serious issues in allowing the Supreme Court of Canada to willfully participate with Judges and Lawyers within the Alberta Legal System to take part in acts of Conspiracy to Defraud innocent and vulnerable senior citizens.

You the readers be the Jury.

I will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that when Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen made the comment that she had been ambushed by the 129 application made challenging the issue of lack of Personal Representatives at Edmonton Law Courts on March 1, 2001 on behalf of the Defendant’s Donald Broder and Craig Broder within Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench action no. 9703-12949 by the defendants lawyer Robert Sawers prior to the deadline set out in the Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich order before March 15, 2001 for which time the Plaintiff’s lawyer Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen was to file the Certificate of Readiness for which end up being adjourned out of a request by Elizabeth MacInnis to April of 2001 due to her having an urgent family matte and since that application was heard  the Justice Department lead by;

Alison Redford – The Attorney General / Justice Minister 2004 – 2010 and;

David Hancock / Past – Attorney General / Justice Minister – 1999 – 2004 – Current – Minister of Health and Wellness

And Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Justices inclusive of;

Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich – from December 2000 – 2009 – Retired shortly after this information came to the attention within the Justice Department.

Previous – Chief Justice W. Kenneth Moore – from February 1984 until December 2000 – and Father of Elizabeth MacInnis

  • Chief Justice N. C. Wittmann – current
  • Justice J. L. Lewis
  • Master Quinn
  • Justice J. P. Clarke
  • Justice Myra Bielby
  • Alberta Court of Appeal Justice Carole Conrad
  • Alberta Court of Appeal Justice Ronald Berger
  • Alberta Court of Appeal Justice Peter Costigan
  • Justice G. C. Hawko
  • Justice K. Horner
  • Justice J. B. Veit
  • Justice R. P. Marceau
  • Justice R. P. Belzil
  • Justice Marshall
  • Master Prowse
  • Master Hannebury
  • Master Mason
  • Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin / Supreme Court of Canada

For whom all willfully colluded to commit this crime of Conspiracy to Defraud an innocent senior citizen because they chose to protect a Lawyer, Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen for whom had complained that she had been ambushed by Donald H. Broder solicitor Robert J. Sawers and denying him of his Rights within the Canadian Constitution for a fair non-biased and nonprejudicial trial by;

  • Relying on a false affidavit of service for the Application for Probate.
  • Allowing a mock trial with no consequences to the Lawyers involved.
  • Justice J. P. Clarke allowing Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen to add the Personal Representatives to the said action without following the Alberta Rules of Court Rule 132 but rather during the Defendants 129 Appeal to circumvent the pleadings being closed in action 9703-12949 immediately after the Appeal.
  • Falsely imprisoning an innocent senior for contempt of Court for not following a Court Order issued by Justice Bielby shortly after the trial concluded in January of 2004, when in fact it was Elizabeth MacInnis that was in Contempt of Court for not following the Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich Order and close the Pleadings on or before March 15, 2001 and then allowing Elizabeth MacInnis to commit Fraud on the Courts by misleading Justice Marceau that the Conditional Certificate of Readiness had been filed with the Courts on April 17, 2003.
  • Editing the trial audio and deleting the Opening Statements of Donald H. Broder.
  • The Appeal Court Justices, Carole Conrad, Ronald Berger, and Peter Costigan were made aware Purgery was committed by Elizabeth MacInnis during the Closing Arguments when asked by Justice Bielby as to the first time the issue of standing / lack of Personal Representatives was raised to circumvent that estoppel would prevent her from relying of the Relation Back Doctrine and for acting biased, prejudice and in collusion with Elizabeth MacInnis by only reducing Donald Broder’s fine, and dismissing his contempt charge, but should have overturned Justice Bielby’s decision and incarcerated Elizabeth MacInnis for Fraud on the Courts, Perjury, and Obstruction of Justice.
  • Acting in collusion with Elizabeth MacInnis, Brian Kickham, Guy Lacourciere, Marvin Bloos, and Joseph Kueber to frame a 75 year old innocent senior that had relied on his Solicitors to act in his best interest, but chose to all participate to conceal pertinent information, and conspire to commit fraud.

1) A Request was made to the Commanding Officer of the RCMP Detachment in Olds, Alberta to lay criminal charges against; Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen for her willful participation in the crime against Donald H. Broder a senior citizen by obtaining an Order for Contempt of Court, and incarcerating him for 11 days in the Edmonton Remand Center until his elderly wife for whom was suffering with Dementia succumbed to the Courts demands to provide $170,000 US to secure his release from prison, and as the evidence provided to you the reader I will prove it was Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen that had committed Fraud on the Courts and should have been charged in Contempt of Court, Obstruction of Justice, Perjury, and Conspiracy to Defraud by;

  • Not following the Chief Justice A H. Wachowich order to file the Certificate of Readiness on or before March 15, 2001, but rather misleading Justice Marceau during a second round of case management meetings that the conditional Certificate of Readiness was filed at a later date of April 17, 2003.
  • Elizabeth MacInnis’s legal secretary, Joan C. Hill for whom is employed at the firm of Weir Bowen relying on a note on the file to swear a false Affidavit of Service On Decemeber 7, 2001, that Mr. Sawers had confirmed he had received a copy of the Application for Probate for information purposes only for the Application for Probate Granted at the Surrogate Courts May 24, 2001.
  • Orchestrating with Justice C. P. Clarke to adding / substituting the Personal Representatives to the said Action without following the Alberta Rules of Court Rule 133, and being accused by Donald Broder’s solicitor Guy Lacourciere to address the issue that someone from her office was speaking to the Alberta Justices without Donald Broder’s counsel present..
  • Misleading the trial Judge Madame Justice Bielby that in early 2001, was the first time Alberta Rules of Court specifically Rule 129 which raised the issue of standing / lack of Personal Representatives, when as the evidence will prove it was raised within the Defendants Original Statement of Defence filed on July 28, 1997 for which was concealed form Justice Bielby by Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson by his actions of conspiracy to frame his own client by Amending the Statement of Defence on January 9, 2004 just 10 days before the scheduled trial but backdating the FIAT :permission to amend” to January 9, 2003 and forging the Judges second signature below the false date.
  • Criminal charges to be also laid against Joan C. Hill legal secretary to Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen for swearing a false Affidavit of Service for the Surrogate Court Application.

Robert Sawers Affidavit(full version)PDF

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

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

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

2) A Request was made to the Commanding Officer of the RCMP Detachment in Olds, Alberta to lay criminal charges against; Guy Lacourciere of Lacourciere & Associates for whom acted on behalf of Donald Broder and for his participation with this crime against a senior citizen by acting in collusion with the Plaintiff’s Lawyer Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen and The Alberta Justice Department by;

  • Not informing his client Donald H. Broder that the Pleadings were closed as per Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich order as of March 15, 2001 but rather allowed Elizabeth MacInnis to deceive the case management Judge Justice Marceau that she had filed the Certificate of Readiness on April 17, 2003.
  • Filing a cease to act in October of 2003, three months before the trial and withholding pertinent information then returning to assist with the trial by telephone from January 18 – 23, 2004 purposely playing his own clients only to return again after the conclusion of the trial when Donald H. Broder was incarcerated to extort over $235,000 from Joyce Broder the wife of Donald Broder knowing that Donald Broder had been framed and that the lawsuit had been orchestrated causing Donald H. Broder to be falsely incarcerated .
  • Not informing Donald H. Broder that the first time the issue of standing / lack of Personal Representatives was raised needs to be identified to the trial Judge for estoppel to prevent the Plaintiff’s lawyer from relying on the relation back doctrine.

3) A Request was made to the Commanding Officer of the RCMP Detachment in Olds, Alberta to lay criminal charges against; Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson for whom acted on behalf of Donald Broder and for his participation with this crime against a senior citizen by committing Fraud on the Courts to purposely conspire to defraud his own client by;

  • Obtaining a FIAT ”leave of the Court to Amend the Statement of Defence” by way of Court Order on January 9, 2004 – 10 days before the trial, and purposely back dating it to January 9, 2003, forging Judge “Breitkreuz” second signature to lead on the trial Judge he had been retained as Counsel for Donald Broder for over a year, and that the FIAT had been granted by the Courts prior to the second Certificate of Readiness was filed on April 17, 2003.
  • Filing an Amended Statement of Defence in order for it to become total precedence so that the trial Judge Justice Bielby would not be privy to see that Alberta Rules of Court Rule 129 / the issue of standing / lack of Personal Representatives was raised on July 28, 1997 within paragraph 8 of the Original Statement of Defence,

4) A Request was made to the Commanding Officer of the RCMP Detachment in Olds, Alberta to lay criminal charges against; Joseph J. Kueber of Bryan & Company for whom was retained to represent Donald Broder and Craig Broder within Action 9703-12949 from July 1997 – October 1999 willfully also participated by acting in collusion to assist the The Plaintiff’s Lawyer Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen with Orchestrating the outcome of the trial by is predetermined testimony at trial of irrelevant correspondences knowingly concealing relevant correspondences that would have proven to the Courts the first time the issue of standing /lack of Personal Representatives was raised by;

  • Accepting a request from Bryan Kickham to testify at the trial, knowingly testifying to two irrelevant correspondences that were pre-statement of claim, and purposely colluding to conceal the first time Alberta Rules of Court Rule 129 was raised within two other correspondences he wrote post Statement of Claim that raised the issue of standing / Lack of Personal Representatives.

5) A Request was made to the Commanding Officer of the RCMP Detachment in Olds, Alberta to lay criminal charges against; Marvin Bloos of Beresh, Depoe and Cunningham for whom acted on behalf of Donald Broder for the pending criminal charges for Contempt of Court and as such colluded with The Alberta Justice Department and Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen to frame an innocent senior citizen and milk him of his retirement money by ;

  • Not fulfilling his legal obligation to his own client Donald Broder’s and securing the immediate release of Donald Broder from The Edmonton Remand Center by identifying to the Courts that Donald Broder had been framed but rather participated in concealing that the outcome of the trial had been orchestrated in and allowing; A CRIMINAL ACT TO BE COMMITED AGAINST HIS OWN CLIENT FOR WHICH HE WAS PAID EXCESS OF $15,000 TO REPRESENT AND ACT AS DONALD BRODER’S CRIMINAL LAWYER.
  • Allowing the Justice Department to falsely incarcerate an innocent man, Donald Broder and hold him for 11 days in the Edmonton Remand Center until he succumbed to the demands being falsely ordered against him.
  • Concealing pertinent information from Donald Broder and his family by acting in collusion to protect the Alberta Justice Department, Elizabeth MacInnis, Bryan Kickham and Guy Lacourciere from Fraud, Perjury, and Conspiracy to orchestrate the outcome of The Court of Queen’s Bench Action 9703-12949 to willfully frame an innocent man.
  • Accepting a retainer to make the Application for Leave to the Supreme Court of Canada on Donald Broder’s behalf and again acting in collusion to not expose Alberta Justices and Lawyers for conspiring to frame, convict, and incarcerate an innocent senior by concealing that the trial had been orchestrated.

FACT: If you were to calculate the percentage of willful participants meaning Judges and lawyers that were involved in this conspiracy to defraud an innocent senior citizen  within Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench action no. 9703-12949 the average would be  above 95% of those involved are corrupt.

Question to:  The Prime Minister of Canada – Stephen Harper:

What are the odds of being heard by an honest Justice of the court?

We provide the following answer to the Canadian citizens.

Less than 2% chance of being tried within the Canadian Justice System.

Greater than 98% chance of being tried within The Canadian Injustice System.

We, as Canadian Citizens must ask the question.

Are we, all Canadian Citizens  willing to live under the false presences of the

Canadian Constitution?

The evidence that will be revealed in each of the following tabs will prove every allegation made against these perpetrators

identifying their roles and willful criminal acts  in this horrendous crime.

The evidence will prove all name parties guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of;

  Conspiracy to Defraud an;

Innocent 75 year old senior citizen;

Donald H. Broder and his family.

DBTUX

Provided below is proof of the money trail that was extorted by means of transfer on May 3, 2004 from

Donald H. Broder’s T. D. Canada Trust Bank account in Olds, Alberta to;

Guy Lacourciere  of

Lacourciere Cervini bank account;

while he was being falsely held in custody at;

The Edmonton Remand Center from;

April 26 – May 6, 2004 on an orchestrated contempt of court charge.

The proof of the money trail was provided to the

Commanding Officer at the Old’s, Alberta

RCMP Detachment.

TDtransfertolaccer

To date we,

The Family of Donald H. Broder

continues to demand that

The Commanding Officer at

The Olds, Alberta RCMP Detachment

have criminal charges initiated by the Crown immediately

 as of against all Perpetrators inclusive of the Crown for their involvement

to orchestrate the

Conspiracy to Defraud

our senior parents

Donald H. Broder and Joyce M. Broder.

 

© 2011-2012 Broder Buck All Rights Reserved

 

7 comments

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

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

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