Chapter 2: The Sounds of Silence
Alberta Justice, Justices of the Court and lawyers keep their silence while conspiring to frame, defraud and jail the innocent because they were all upset that The Defendant’s lawyer Robert Sawers allowed the Plaintiff’s lawyer, Elizabeth MacInnis to ambush herself.
“THE AMBUSH”
In the complex legal battle that was about to start over The World Record Broder Buck, one pivotal moment came to be declared by Justices of the Court and Lawyer Elizabeth MacInnis as;
On July 8, 1997, the simmering family dispute crossed the line into open warfare.
A Statement of Claim was filed in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, the siblings versus Donald Broder, and Craig Broder over possession of the Broder Buck. The Statement of Claim alleged it was an asset of their late father’s Edmund Broder’s estate for whom had passed away on December 26, 1968, Donald Broder was holding it for the benefit of all and demanded its return.
Donald wasted no time retaining counsel. His lawyer, Joseph Kueber of Bryan & Company, immediately spotted the flaw that would become the backbone of the defence: the plaintiffs had no legal standing to bring the action and a such plead that the action was frivolous, vexatious and abuse of process because the Plaintiff’s had no legal or equitable right to the Broder Buck.
Why? Because almost thirty years earlier, in 1969 and 1970, each of Ed Broder’s children had already taken the belongings they wanted from their father’s estate. The Model T, firearms, tools, saddles, collectibles, all divided up informally and without any legal process. The house itself had gone to one of the brothers. No one had ever applied for probate. No Personal Representative had been appointed. In Canadian estate law, that is a fatal oversight.
Without a probate grant and a court-appointed estate administrator, none of the siblings had the legal authority to sue over what remained. In Kueber’s words, this was not simply a weak claim, it was a claim that could not exist in law.
The case lingered on the docket for years, but the calendar was quietly closing a trap.
By October 2000, the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen, approached Donald with a request. She wanted his consent to close the pleadings within Court Action #9703-12949. Donald refused. To him, the absence of probate was not a minor technicality, it was the entire foundation of the case. Without it, the lawsuit had no legal legs to stand on.
Under Alberta’s Limitations of Actions Act, the two-year period to add or substitute proper parties, in this case a Personal Representative of the estate, expired on July 9, 1999. The clock had run out more than a year earlier. It was now December of 2000, MacInnis had been granted a Court Order to file the Certificate of Readiness on or before February 15, 2001. The pleading were court ordered closed by Justice Lewis at the request of Elizabeth MacInnis before probate and the request for Personal Representatives to be court appointed was ever brought before The Surrogate Courts, Edmonton.
On May 24, 2001, months after the pleadings were closed within this action and in a move that would later raise serious ethical questions, MacInnis applied for probate anyway, had her secretary swear a false Affidavit of Service on Donald Broder’s lawyer, Robert Sawers that he was served with the Application for Probate.
Document below confirms when Grant of Administration went ahead on May 24, 2001 – Donald Broder was served on May 28, 2001.
The Application for Probate to Appoint Personal Representatives was heard by The Surrogate Courts on May 24, 2001 and the Certificate Of Delivery Confirmation – Register Mail proves that Donald Broder was served on May 28, 2001, “see below Canada post confirmation” 4 days after Probate was Granted. Donald Broder and all beneficiary’s must be served personally and before the Application for Probate being brought before the Surrogate Courts.
White collar criminal #2 – JOAN C. HILL is the legal secretary for Elizabeth MacInnis, she attached this correspondence as an exhibit “A” to the Affidavit of Service she swore under oath that Robert J. Sawers had accepted service on behalf of Donald Broder for the Application for Probate to appoint Personal Representatives for the late Edmund Broder. It’s say clearly in the May 10, 2001 correspondence Elizabeth MacInnis wrote to Robert Sawers she was serving Donald Broder by registered mail a copy of the notice to Beneficiary … ” I am enclosing a copy of my letter to Mr. Broder together with copies of the documents for your information.” Robert Sawyers had not been retained by Donald Broder as legal counsel for the Estate litigation, and you cannot hire a lawyer for a lawsuit that hasn’t been initiated by being personally served a Statement of Claim.
She secured the appointment of two of her own clients, plaintiffs already suing Donald personally, as the Personal Representatives of Ed Broder’s estate.
This maneuver placed her in an impossible legal position. She was now and at the same time:
- Acting as legal counsel for for the Richard, Earl, George, Doris, Margaret and Luella Broder siblings in their personal capacity adverse to Donald Broder.
- Acting as legal counsel on behalf of all beneficiaries non-adverse to Donald Broder.
In estate law, that is a structural conflict of interest. Siblings cannot sue each other over estate property without probate in place from the outset. Once probate is granted, the Personal Representative is the only party with authority to sue on behalf of the estate, not individual heirs.
Donald’s position was ironclad. The pleadings had closed before probate was ever granted, the limitation period had expired years earlier, and the lawsuit had been fatally defective from the day it was filed.
What began as a family fight over a historic trophy had now crystallized into something else entirely, a procedural showdown where the rules of civil litigation were as decisive as any fact about who shot the Mule Deer in 1926.
The Justice R. P. Bezil Order dated May 24, 2001 granting ADMINISTRATION appointing Doris Bibaud and George Broder Personal Representatives of the deceased Edmund Broder on December 26, 1968.
R. J. Sawers warns Elizabeth MacInnis about serious concerns with this Order. “below”
Conflict of Interest.
The most serious concern Robert J. Sawers was referring too.
1) Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen was against Donald Broder in the ongoing Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Action No: 9703-12949 for which she had just forced the pleadings closed
2) Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen was now acting for all the Broder siblings including Donald Broder in The Estate litigation.
Justice J. L. Lewis December 18, 2000, Court Order below.
Elizabeth MacInnis was granted a Court Order she made the Application because Donald Broder and Craig Broder would not consent to her request to the filing of the Certificate of Readiness to close the pleading and set this matter down for trial.
Justice Lewis Order allows to February 15, 2001 for the Pleadings to be closed allowing time for the Defendants to complete a few steps, one of which was to bring an Application for trial by Jury.
Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich Court Order regarding the Trial by Jury on February 13, 2001 just 2 days before the deadline as set out by Justice Lewis of February 15, 2001.
Defendants’ application for a jury trial is dismissed. the application to dismiss the claim under rule 129 shall be made before March 15, 2001, allow. This Application could only proceed if the date was extended of the filing of the Certificate of Readiness was also extended to March 15, 2001.
And only the Defendants Donald Broder and Craig Broder have leave to reattend upon the Chief Justice or any Justice of the Court of Queen’s Bench for the purpose of extending the time in paragraph 2 & 3 herein.
Ambush #1 – Now you understand why Justice C. P. Clarke 129 Application substitute the Personal Representatives as Plaintiff’s to this action during the Defendant’s Donald Broder and Craig Broder’s Appeal arguing Master Quinn had no right to adjourn the 129 Application allowing time for Elizabeth MacInnis to apply for probate. Really should have mattered because by the time Elizabeth MacInnis had applied for Probate is was May 24, 2001 well after the Pleading were closed on March 15, 2001 within Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Action No: 9703-12949.
Justice R. P. Bezil granted Probate on May 24, 2001. “below” must be a new lawsuit because the Pleadings were closed on March 15, 2001 within Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Action No: 9703-12949.
Transcript from Guy Lacourciere the lawyer that was retained by Donald Broder to act for him and Appeal the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench decision before the Alberta Court of Appeal. Justices Conrad, Berger and Costigan heard the Appeal.
Guy Lacourciere was examined on his Affidavit by Craig Broder on behalf of Donald Broder and Craig Broder asks him.
Line 12 – Q. What do you mean by “ambush Ms. MacInnis?”
Line 13 – A. The court had asked the question
Line 14 – Q. If we ambushed Elizabeth MacInnis?
Line 15 – 17 – A. It appears to us that Ms. MacInnis may have been ambushed by the motion, by Sawer, in respect to –in respect to the motion that had been filed in 2001.
Guy Lacourciere of Lacourciere & Associates transcript “below” being examined on his affidavit during a lawsuit against him initiated by Donald Broder.
Donald Broder and Craig Broder make Guy Lacourciere sweat, his knees were shaking his face had the look of scared and that’s how he lives to this day if he’s still alive.
Read page 29; of the transcript below where Guy Lacourciere explains it was Elizabeth MacInnis that made the first comment about being ambushed.
The Sounds of Silence were lingering within the Alberta Court of Appeal that fateful day. The court room smelled of deception there was silence in the air and during the Appeal nobody spoke those words in the transcripts it was all communicated through these white-collar criminals gestures, and expressions covering up for Elizabeth MacInnis’s crimes against the innocent. Strictly ego driven with the attitude how dare Robert Sawer ambush me, Elizabeth MacInnis / Moir daughter of Justice Moir. The smell of corruption still lingers to this day. After all they could reverse the decoision now, Elizabeth MacInnis had falsely jailed Donald Broder and extorted the Broder |Buck from him, sold it and pockets $140,000.
“Below” The decision of The Alberta Court of Appeal that day, now keep in mind Conrad, Berger and Costigan all new Elizabeth MacInnis had committed a crime but they chose to cover for her.
These are the really leaders of organized crime in Canada.
