Chapter 1: Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap
“BUCK FOR JUSTICE”
Infamous or legendary you decide. The Broder Buck was officially scored by the Boone & Crockett Club in 1962 and pronounced “The World Record non-typical Mule Deer with an unprecedented B&C score of 355 2/8 inches of antler” and as the story will be told by many became;
- Hunter: Ed (Edmund) Broder
- Location: Near Chip Lake, Alberta, Canada
- Date taken: November 1926
- Final Boone & Crockett score: 355 2/8 inches — the highest non‑typical mule deer ever recorded
The rack surpassed the previous record by over half as many points and holds the title of The World Record Non-Typical Mule Deer. It represents the largest non‑typical mule deer in The Boone & Crockett North American record books—and still holds that status today.
Its story is dramatic: Ed Broder didn’t leave a will. After his death in 1968, a dispute among heirs led to a decades-long legal battle that started in 1997 and continues to today as it changes from his heirs dispute to a dispute with The Crown, Justices of the Court, lawyers involved and the RCMP to expose Canada’s Department of Justice as a swamp full of white collar criminals that all willfully acted in a conspiracy to frame, falsely jail Donald Broder at Edmonton Remand Center and defraud his wife Joyce Broder of over $200,000.00 to secure his release.
But don’t take my word for it. The court documents will speak for themselves.
When Ed Broder passed (December 26, 1968), Donald Broder’s siblings took it upon themselves to help themselves to his personal belongings—despite no formal probate process being filed. George, Earl and Richard Broder took the more valuable items, including Ed’s Model T, firearms, tools, saddles, and collectibles. Richard Broder took ownership of the family home. The daughters, Margaret , Doris and Luella Broder took on of Hazel Broder’s possessions after she passed away in 1967, the year before Edmund.
In 1971 -72 time line, Donald Broder went to that family home and claimed the Broder Buck for his share of Edmunds personal effects, and maintained exclusive possession of it for over 25 years. Then, in 1997, after Donald and his son Craig voluntarily displayed the Broder Buck at the Edmonton Sportsman Show, Craig was served with a demand letter from Grace Parotta-King a lawyer from Emery Jamieson LLP on behalf of George Broder demanding the Broder Buck be returned to him after the Edmonton Sportsman show ended.
Lawyers at the time made it clear: none of the siblings had any legal right to demand its return without first going through probate and being appointed by the court. No such application had ever been made in over 25 years. The limitation period had long expired—unless the siblings could prove Donald had agreed to hold the Buck on behalf of them all, and account for what they themselves had already taken.
Donald Broder retained lawyer Joseph Kueber of Bryan & Company, who filed a Statement of Defence at Edmonton Law Courts within Action NO: 9703-12949 on July 28, 1997 pleading that the Plaintiff’s in their personal capacity had no legal or equitable right to claim The Broder Buck and only personnel representative would have such a right to make demands and act on behave of a deceased. Back in 1969–1970, Donald’s siblings had already taken what they wanted from their father Edmund Broder’s belongings without any formal process, so no Personnel Representative existed.
Now, if they wanted to make claims, they first had to apply for probate, appoint a Personal Representative, and follow Surrogate Court rules to formally demand the return of all personal effects—not just The Broder Buck. Donald Broder rightly pointed out that 27 years had passed and the limitation period had likely expired, but he was still willing to cooperate if probate was properly granted and an accounting of everything taken could be made.
The Plaintiff’s lawyer Grace Parotta-King of Emery Jamieson filed a cease to act on April 17, 1998 and Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen replaced her by filing a change of solicitor on June 1, 1998.
The Defendant’s lawyer Joseph J. Kueber of Bryan & Company was fired and replaced by Robert J. Sawers of R. J. Sawers & Associates on September 30, 1999.
The two year limitation period for the addition of a new party to this Statement of Claim filed and served on July 8, 1997 ended on July 9, 1999, or at the very least 2 years after the Statement of Defence was filed on July 28, 1997 which would be July 29, 1999.
Case Law – Rocklake Enterprises Ltd. v. Timberjack Inc., 2001 ABCA 191
It is now October 2000—over three years after the original Statement of Claim was filed on July 8, 1997.
The plaintiffs’ lawyer Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen requested consent from Donald and Craig Broder’s lawyer, Robert Sawers of R. J. Sawers & Associates to file the Certificate of Readiness and close pleadings within Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Action NO: 9703-12949. Donald Broder refused consent, because the application for probate had ever been applied for at the Surrogate Courts . Without probate and a properly appointed Personal Representative, the plaintiffs had no legal standing to sue on behalf of Edmund Broder’s estate. If Elizabeth MacInnis closes the pleadings within this action before filing an application for probate, Donald Broder & Craig Broder can reschedule their outstanding 129 Application that the action is frivolous, vexatious and abuse of process and must be struck as supported by Case Law. Mugford vs. Mugford.
CASE LAW
Mugford v. Mugford (Nfld. C.A.)
“The conclusion to be drawn is that the respondent, having no interest in the land, has no standing to bring the 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 costs both here and in the Trial Division.”
Even if a Personal Representative had been appointed, the two-year limitation to add or substitute a party had already expired in July 1999. Still, MacInnis sought and obtained a court order allowing her to file the Certificate of Readiness by March 15, 2001, and Donald Broder was ordered to pay $1,000 in costs for not consenting. But she never filed the Certificate as ordered. Instead, on May 24, 2001 (well past the deadline) she suddenly applied for probate and falsely claimed Donald had been served. She then succeeded in appointing two of her own clients as Personal Representatives, creating a clear conflict of interest.
Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen should never have been allowed to represent the estate while acting against a beneficiary, Donald Broder, in the same legal action she herself had just forced the pleadings closed by bring an Application and being granted by Justice Lewis in the form of a Court order the Certificate of Readiness was to be filed by February 15, 2001. Siblings cannot sue each other over estate property until probate is granted and a Court-appointed Personal Representative is in place to act properly on behalf of the deceased.
Donald Broder and Craig Broder had already won the lawsuit—legally and procedurally—because:
- Elizabeth MacInnis forced the pleadings closed on herself by court order before ever applying for probate or appointing Personal Representatives through the Surrogate Court. That means the plaintiffs locked themselves out of the ability to sue properly, because no one had the legal authority to act on behalf of Edmund Broder’s estate at the time pleadings were closed.
- The 2-year limitation period had already expired. The original Statement of Claim was filed July 8, 1997. By July 9, 1999, the time limit to add or substitute parties—like legally appointed Personal Representatives—was over. By December 18, 2000, when they tried to move things forward, it was far too late.
Knowing this, Donald and Craig Broder had their lawyer, Robert Sawers, file for a jury trial—but only to secure the procedural win. They didn’t even need a jury, because the plaintiffs had no standing left. Just before the jury application, Sawers filed a Rule 129 Application, arguing the entire lawsuit was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of court process—because the plaintiffs, in their personal capacities, had no legal right to sue. Only properly appointed Personal Representatives could do that.
Supporting this was a precedent-setting case: Mugford v. Mugford, from the Newfoundland Court of Appeal. The case made it clear: only an estate administrator or Personal Representative has standing to bring legal action on behalf of someone who has passed away. In the Mugford case, the court ruled the claim invalid because the person suing had no legal right to do so—just like in the Broder case.
Quote from the Mugford v. Mugford ruling:
“It is the role of the administrator and not the role of [a sibling] to put this to the test… The action was wrongly conceived… and ought not to have proceeded.”
In short: Donald and Craig Broder had already won, because the lawsuit against them was fatally flawed from the start.
Robert Sawers initiated the 129 Application and Master Quinn took it upon himself to adjourn the application to allow time for Elizabeth MacInnis to apply for probate. Donald Broder and Craig Broder appealed Master Quinn’s decision and the Appeal was heard by Justice C. P. Clarke. By the Appeal date November 2, 2001 Elizabeth MacInnis now applied for probate by relying on a false affidavit of service of the Application on Donald Broder, then at the appeal Justice C. P. Clarke ordered that MacInnis could substitute the Personal Representatives Plaintiff’s, we were watching and it came with a wink wink.
9-11 Terrorist #1 – Justice C. P. Clarke substituted new plaintiff’s “the personal representatives” to Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Action NO: 9703-12949 “ON TUESDAY, The 18 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2001,” “see Justice C. P. Clarke order below” – 4 years and 2 months after the Statement of Claim file date of July 8, 1997. It was Donald Broder and Craig Broder’s Appeal and he new that the pleadings were closed and Elizabeth MacInnis needed his assistance to create standing because she could not file any pleading due to her own actions of closing the Pleadings on herself immediately following Donald Broder and Craig Broder’s 129 Application, and the Wachowich Order stated that only the Defendants could extend the time to file the Certificate of Readiness that closes the Pleadings within this action 9703-12949.
Remembering the victims of 9-11.
Justice C. P. Clarke initiated a form of terrorism exactly 17 days after 9-11 – September 11, 2001 had occurred in New York, USA.
Justice C.P. Clarke just gave the Courts permission to his lawyer friends for what’s to come next, conspiracy, collusion, fraud, forgery, perjury, garnishees and extortion of personal property by forced entry into Donald and Joyce Broder private residence for whom were vulnerable elderly innocent Canadian’s.
And I’m sure Justice John Moir the father of Elizabeth MacInnis / Moir had nothing to do with it!
Then Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen had Justice Myra B. Bielby falsely incarcerate Donald Broder at the Edmonton Remand Center from April 26 – May 5, 2004 when he refused to follow her court order to turn over the Broder Buck to the Personal Representatives after the fake trial concluded January 19 – 23, 2004.
