I WILL ALWAYS LOVE YOU * WHITNEY HOUSTON – In my father’s memory teaching all his family only the strong survive, his last words to his son “I pity the next person the tries to hurt you or your 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”

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!”

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.

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 nullity 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 Statement 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 (full version)PDF

Transcript are attached concurrent and what is said is referenced below, should the reader wish to confirm then review the PDF of the Official Transcripts above.

April 23, 2004 

Elizabeth MacInnis is speaking the trial Judge Justice Bielby knowingly it was her not following the March 15, 2001 Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich Order, but requesting imprisonment of Donald Broder for not following the 2004 Order of Justice Bielby to turn over the Trophy to the Personal Representatives;

Donald Broder and Jeff Broder are present – Craig Broder is not present and you will read that Justice Bielby suggested that Craig Broder could take his Fathers place in Jail.

(page 3 – lines 25 – 27 )

Elizabeth MacInnis speaking;

And at this point, I guess we’re asking the Court to enforce the order that it’s given. And although I’m somewhat reluctant to ask for this remedy, I

(page 4 – lines 1 – 14)

really do not see any other effective remedy other than to request that the defendant be imprisoned for his contempt of the Courts order. It’s — clearly, he’s been ordered to give this. He hasn’t done so. I don’t know of any other effective way to get Mr. Broder to comply with the order of the Court. And what I would be asking for would be, you know, a short period perhaps of imprisonment, after which he could perhaps be brought before the Court to have an opportunity to purge his contempt, you know, two or three days, something of that sort. And it’s my submission that’s the only way that the Court order, you know, can be effective, unless my friend has some other suggestion at this point.

(page 7 – lines 11 – 27)

THE COURT:Ms. MacInnis has asked that I send you to gaol “jail” until you produce the deer head. Do you have anything that you would like to say in response to that?

MR. DON BRODER: No. put me in gaol “jail”, put me in gaol “jail” I guess.

Ruling

THE COURT: Then I order that you be taken into custody and held in custody until the deer head is produced in —

MR. DON BRODER: And I want to say —

THE COURT: Excuse me. Let me finish. I will however direct in light of your age that your son Craig Broder can take your place in custody, should he chose to do so. I also direct that you be

(page 8 – lines 1 – 9)

brought back before me at 9:30 next Monday morning, which is t the 27th — is it — of April?

MS. MACINNIS: That would be the 26th, I believe, My Lady.

THE COURT: 26th of April. And we will discuss the matter further at that time. You may have had a change of heart and may be prepared to comply with the orders that were given by myself and Justice Veit.

Justice Bielby incarcerated Donald Broder at 75 years of age on Friday April 23, 2004 for Contempt of Court “for not following her March 2004 Court Order”, he was never read his rights and denied food and medications until mid day Saturday April 24, 2004, and denied him a Tylenol 3 all weekend that he required to sleep because he was on the list for a hip replacement.

Donald Broder was brought back before Justice Bielby at 10:00 AM Monday April 26, 2004 with his sons Jeff and Craig Broder present – and this was what was said;

April 26, 2004  Donald Broder, Jeff Broder and this date Craig Broder are present to deal with Justice Bielby on the offer made to Craig Broder regarding taking his Fathers place in Jail when Craig was not present during the April 23, 2004 hearing.

Note: During the course of the trial January 19 – 23 2004 , I am of the belief it was January 21, 2004 when a young man being escorted to Court died falling into an elevator shaft at the Edmonton Law Courts.

Upon arrival at the Edmonton Law Courts on April 26, 2004 Donald Broder in a wheelchair was escorted by an Officer to Court, upon entering the Court Room, Jeff Broder offered Donald Broder a Tylenol 3, the Officer intervened and would not allow, radioed for back up, upon the arrival of two more officers Jeff and Craig Broder met them half way across the Court Room, face to face, it was then said to the officers that neither of them would be pushing us down the elevator shaft today.

Then the Court resumed and this is off the April 26, 2004 transcript from above;

Justice Myra Bielby enters;

THE COURT: Good Morning. Please be seated. Ms. MacInnis has the trophy been returned?

MS. MACINNIS: Pardon me?

THE COURT: Have you got the trophy back?

Although the transcripts have been edited to delete Craig Broder interrupting and accusing Justice Bielby of suggesting someone other than Donald Broder had the ability to return the trophy, and that she had the person in Jail all weekend who has it and should have directed the question accordingly to Donald Broder.

MS. MACINNIS: No, we do not.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Mr. Broder, have you anything that you would like to say this morning?

MR. DON BRODER: What can I say?

THE COURT: All right. When I dealt with this matter on Friday, I directed that your son Craig Broder could take your place in custody in light of your age if he was prepared to do that. Are you prepared to do that, Mr. Broder?

MR. DON BRODER: I don’t want him to.

MR. CRAIG BRODER: He doesn’t want me to, but I object to even that offer being made, My Lady. First of all, I have a family and children that I provide for, and I have employment, a place I have to be, and you’re making a very unreasonable offer to me.

THE COURT: So you are not inclined to —

MR. CRAIG BRODER: NO —

THE COURT: — take your father’s place.

MR. CRAIG BRODER: — I’m not

THE COURT: All right. Well, Mr. Broder, I do not have much more than I can suggest than what we did on — talked about on Friday. You —

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Can I ask —

THE COURT: — were unsuccessful in the trial. You were directed to return to the estate of your father the trophy so that your brothers and sisters could share in it. You have declined to do that. Really, there is no remedy that I have to require you to compel you to comply with that order other than what we are pursuing here today, and so you are going to remain in custody until you return the trophy,

Note: Once again contempt of Court is criminal and they did not read Donald Broder his rights, knowingly as per the Edmonton Law Court file it was Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen that had breached the earlier Court order which directed the Certificate of Readiness to be filed on March 15, 2001, the courts continue to ignore that Elizabeth MacInnis was in contempt of court, committed  purgery and was acting in a conflict position now that she was mad because Donald Broder’s Lawyer Robert Sawers ambushed her and her actions were now taking out her anger on an innocent senior citizen that did not try to ambush Elizabeth MacInnis  as Donald H. Broder denied her consent to close the pleadings on herself and continued to request Personal Representatives to his Lawyer..

MR. JEFF BRODER: I have something to say, My Lady, as I brought up on Friday. I had to turn you in on my divorce for — to the judiciary council for, one, information that was —

MS. MACINNIS: My Lady —

MR. JEFF BRODER: — in the letter.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. MACINNIS: — I think this matter has been —

MR. JEFF BRODER: I’m speaking, My Lady. Just —

THE COURT: Okay

MS. MACINNIS: Excuse me.

THE COURT: Just — Ms. MacInnis, thank you.

MR. JEFF BRODER:I have the Judges —

THE COURT: Mr. —

MR. JEFF BRODER:— in Alberta scared —

THE COURT:Excuse me.

MR. JEFF BRODER:— for their safety.

THE COURT:Okay. Mr. Broder, I appreciate you have had other litigations in front of the court, some of which I am aware of and some of which I am not, but that is not relevant to this lawsuit and to your father’s —

MR. JEFF BRODER:— biased and prejudiced against us because we turned you in to the judiciary council.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, that is news to me, but totally aside from that, —

MR. JEFF BRODER: That letter was there.

THE COURT:— That is irrelevant today.

MR. JEFF BRODER: It was from —

THE COURT: Okay

MR. JEFF BRODER: — Pam Fischer. Guy turned you in —

THE COURT: Okay

MR. JEFF BRODER: — from Calgary, a lawyer.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you Mr. Broder. I am going to turn to your brother, the other Mr. Broder, who is also standing. Do — did you have something that you wanted to say?

MR. CRAIG BRODER: Yes, My Lady, I —

MR. JEFF BRODER: to be expunged.

MR. CRAIG BRODER: I — I’m — I would like to draw your attention to a couple of matters that I’ve been informed of. I was drawn in again from my job. First of all, there has been a discontinuance issued against myself on this action.

THE COURT: Right.

MR. CRAIG BRODER: I still see my name on the paperwork that’s being passed around or being served upon my father. I have never received service. I am here again. I demand costs because my name is still on the paperwork. This woman is in — or this firm that she represents is in conflict of interest. They sued him. They filed a lawsuit against my father and in the wrong context. They had no right to ask for replevin of any of the items. Regardless, my father has joint tenancy, at the minimum, of the deer head. And she had no right to demand replevin for four years until the administrator was finally appointed. And that was only because we challenged it with the Courts. They had no intent to ever appoint administrators. And those administrators should have never been added to the statement of claim, and you know that as well as other people in this room. And this firm not only owes us a formal apology for what they’ve done to him and to us and to our family and to my children, they owe us money for the costs that we’ve incurred to defend ourselves.

THE COURTS: Thank you, Mr. Broder . You were not required to appear today. I did not direct that you appear.

MR. CRAIG BRODER: My name is on the docket and the paperwork, My Lady.

THE COURT: Okay, but

MR. CRAIG BRODER: And I do not show up in court — I do not assume anything.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Broder, it is not necessary for you to attend again unless you wish to.

MR. JEFF BRODER: Then his name shouldn’t be on the paperwork, My Lady.

THE COURT: All right, Mr. Broder, that is it.

MR. JEFF BRODER: My God.

There is a couple of more pages on the transcripts.

It was adjourned until Thursday April 29, 2004 at 1:00 PM

My son Jeff Broder retained a criminal Lawyer, Marvin Bloos from Beresh Depoe Cunningham to act on my behalf for the pending Contempt of Court charges, as no formal charges had been laid, and I had been held now for excess of 72 hours.

Marvin Bloos came to the Edmonton Remand Center to speak with me, and suggested that I tell Justice Bielby where the trophy was and she would then release me from jail. So I told him I had a lease to purchase agreement with a buyer, as per The Wildlife Act it had to be registered for sale for three years before it could be sold.

On April 29, 2004 I told Justice Bielby that it was tentatively sold.

Justice Bielby then pronounced the Order below;

Order of Justice Bielby April 29, 2004(full version)PDF

1) The Defendant, Don Broder, continues to be held in civil contempt of Court.

2) The Defendant, Don Broder, is to be remanded into custody until he deposits the sale proceeds from the sale of the trophy into the trust account of his Solicitors, Beresh Depoe Cunningham, or provided information to show where the sale proceeds are. ………

3) Irrelevant ………

4) The Clerk of the Court is to have a transcript of the evidence given by Don Broder and Craig Broder at trial, and of this days proceedings prepared and referred to the Attorney General with a request for an investigation into possible criminal charges that could be laid against Don Broder and Craig Broder for perjury, obstruction of Justice or any other appropriate charges, this is over and above the civil proceedings.

5) Irrelevant

6) Irrelevant

My son, Craig Broder as he was told and contained within the April 26, 2004 transcripts he does not need to show up anymore, so he was not here on April 29, 2004 and was threatened with criminal charges and all he did was requested and was granted permission to speak for me at the trial because of my age and medical condition.

Why: Justice Bielby and Elizabeth MacInnis knew Craig was close to solving what they were doing, see the Transcript above where Craig tells Justice Bielby what has proven to be accurate now.

It has been highlighted in this same red within the April 26, 2004

Once again Justice Bielby incarcerated Donald Broder and did not read him his rights.

Guy Lacourciere called on my wife Joyce Broder and obtained $170,000 US from her to secure my release from prison, but instead of the money being placed in my Criminal Lawyers Beresh Depoe Cunningham’s Trust Account as per the April 29 Order – line 2, above, he gave it to Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen and then I was released from prison.

The Edmonton Law Courts then re-auctioned the Trophy and the fellow in Montana that had it up his offer by another $55,00o US. for at total of $225,000 US exchanged in 2004 to over 320,000 cdn.

Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen was provided the full amount, she finalized the Estate and kept excess of $250,000 for her legal bills.

Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen made a comment to the Justices at Edmonton Law Courts in March of 2001 that she had been ambush by Donald Broder’s Lawyer Robert Sawers. Elizabeth MacInnis then obtained assistance from The Alberta Justice Department to then ambush a vulnerable senior citizens for whom did not know that he was being punished because his Lawyer Robert Sawers did his job as his defence Attorney. Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen’s bill of costs and legal fees now became excess of $150,000 for which she charged the obtained payment from the Estate proceeds.

 Terrorism inflicted on vulnerable innocent people of Canada to steal their life and social security pensions by the Canadian Regime operating within the Alberta Justice System.

They did not want this to become a Criminal Charge as it would not be in the Justice Departments and Lawyers involved best interest, and then it would make Marvin Bloos of Beresh Depoe Cunningham liable.

Public documents provided by the Clerk of the Courts, Alberta Justice / Transcript Management and correspondences obtained through the litigation process as contained within Robert J Sawers, and Guy Lacourciere’s producible records prove that the issue of standing / lack of personal representatives was not only raised within the Original Statement of Defence but also within two correspondences post-statement of claim, and was concealed from the trial Justice Madam Justice Myra Bielby by the actions of Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson, Joseph J. Kueber of Bryan and Company, and Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen acting in collusion to frame an innocent senior citizen for the sole purpose to protect Elizabeth MacInnis from being ambush by Robert Sawers.

Madam Justice Myra Bielby falsely incarcerated Donald H. Broder for 11 days in the Edmonton Remand Centre to teach him a lesson that when a court order is given it ought to be obeyed.

I, Donald H. Broder an innocent senior citizen for whom was framed by the very lawyers I paid to defend me within Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Action 9703-12949.

Joseph J. Kueber of Bryan and Company and Bryan Kickham of Miller Thomson conspired with Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen and the Alberta Justice Department to frame me because Elizabeth MacInnis had made the comment she had been ambushed by my Lawyer, Robert J. Sawers.

The evidence provided by The Clerk of the Courts, Alberta Justice / Transcript Management and Cross- Examination of Guy Lacourciere proves it was Elizabeth MacInnis that ambushed herself.

Citations have been provided to the Law Society of Alberta.

It is alleged that;

Elizabeth MacInnis of Weir Bowen, acted in Contempt of Court for not adhering to the Chief Justice A. H. Wachowich Order, Obstruction of Justice and Perjury for misleading Justice Myra Bielby as to the first time the issue of standing / lack of Personal Representatives was raised and for filing a false Affidavit of Service for the Application for Probate at the Surrogate Courts.

The Canadian People should not tolerate this kind of conduct and this conduct is deserving of sanctions inclusive of a criminal investigation and charges being laid as of against all Justices and Lawyers involved as per the evidence provided within their own documents that proves beyond any doubt that conspiracy, forgery, purgery, obstruction of justice, fraud on the courts has been willfully committed by all Justices and lawyers involved.

The evidence proves in their own words that all participants acted with willful intent to orchestrate the outcome of Action 9703-12949 and frame innocent Canadian senior citizens and his children and grandchildren for their own personal gain and satisfaction with no fear of consequences.

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

ORGANIZED CRIME IN CANADA

 Canadians need to be aware that the;

Government of Canada Members of Parliament have had their spines surgically removed!

Edmonton Commercial Crimes Unit was instructed to cover it up!

Royal Canadian Mounted Police are glorified traffic cops!

Un-Justice Ministers like Alison Redford!

Un-Opposition parties in Government!

Media investigative reporters unwilling to investigate!

The Alberta Law Society “serving the lawyers or publics best interest – you decide!

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

Justices and lawyers believe they are above the law and can participate in judicial corruption without consequences!  

Well they are all caught now and exposed to the world!

Carma is a bitch!

Look in a mirror MacInnis!

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

The creator of this website was prepaid to develop and maintain this online information exposing judicial corruption by;

Donald H. Broder.

For the benefit of all Canadian families caring for

vulnerable senior citizens and innocent children.

It’s purpose is to provide all Canadian’s with knowledge

and how to guard you’re families.

Donald H. Broder “deceased “October 11, 1929 – April 11, 2012”

reply to;

cbrodertech@gmail.com

© 2011-2012 Broder Buck All Rights Reserved