Previous month:
February 2017
Next month:
April 2017

March 2017

PROVE IT - Alberta Courts! What is so detrimental in the transcript that you won't release them? #LannyMcDonald Lawsuit


Here's what the Alberta Appeal Panel stated in a decision on December 23, 2016

"The panel never ruled during the oral argument that the fresh evidence was admissible, and merely confirmed that it could be referred to. The fact that the evidence was subsequently ruled inadmissible is not inconsistent with permitting its use during the oral argument. As stated in Stolar at p. 487: " .. . there is a distinction between an order which actually admits the proffered evidence and one which allows consideration of the evidence for the purpose of determining whether it will be admitted".

"The request for release of the transcripts of the oral argument is accordingly refused."

This is NOT what shareholders in attendance in the courtroom remember.

The shareholders version is entirely different. 

The easiest way for the Alberta Court of Appeal to settle this matter would be to release the transcript to avoid all appearances of impropriety. 

But, they won't.

Conclusion: There must be some impropriety!

What don't they want you to know? Corrupt Alberta Courts? #LannyMcDonald

Have the judges been influenced by Brookfield? 

It's real simple.

The evidence on record shows that “they did” [Birch] and the Alberta Court decision states “they did NOT.”

Is the English different in Alberta?

If it’s like English elsewhere, then clearly there has been a miscarriage of justice.

It doesn't take a Oxford English professor to know the difference. 

Why won't the Appeal Court release the transcripts unless:

  1. They have been lobbied by Brookfield?
  2. They are hiding their incompetence?
  3.  Or both?


Unethical Alberta Court contradicts evidence #LannyMcDonald

Excerpt from complaint to the Appeal Panel:

f.  the Appeal Panel has chosen to ignore the evidence that the Appeal Panel confirmed was part of the evidentiary record and which evidence proves that there is a genuine issue requiring a trial:

i.  the Appeal Panel in the December 05, 2016 Judgment stated:

“[42] ... Birch Mountain did not have the funds available to pay the interest, but Tricap consented to the interest being paid out of a new issue of equity. ... .”;

ii. the Appeal Panel, for unknown reasons, overlooked the following evidence set forth in the July 03, 2008 Birch Mountain email (Extracts of Key Evidence, exhibit 19, which was discussed at length during the oral argument):

“Jim [Reid] responded that we had 30 days to rectify the payment and he was confident we could do it within this time. He [Reid] seemed surprised to read the draft news release that we were waiting their approval to pay the interest. I noted that ComputerShare had the cheque and we had the funds set aside to make the payments. ... .”

iii. the draft press release of July 03, 2008, edited by Brookfield/Tricap, deleted the following sentence, highlighted by strikeout, and thereby created the contrived interest default:

“CALGARY, July 3, 2008 - Birch Mountain Resources Ltd. (“Birch Mountain” or the “Company”) (BMD: TSX and AMEX) announces that is has not made the scheduled June 30, 2008, interest payment to the holders of the Convertible Unsecured Subordinate Debentures. As a consequence it the company being in breach of a single minor loan financial covenant under its senior secured credit facility, the lender, Tricap Partners Ltd. has exercised its rights under the loan agreement to direct Computershare Trust Company not to make the scheduled interest payment until further notice from the lender. Birch Mountain which it is working to rectify the breach and secure the necessary liquidity to make the interest payment., the Company has applied to and is waiting for its secured lender, Tricap Partners Ltd., to authorize release of the interest payment by Computershare Trust Company.”

g. again, the significance of the deletion from the draft press release of July 03, 2008 is that the draft press release is evidentiary proof that Brookfield and Tricap orchestrated the contrived interest default to acquire the Birch Mountain asset valued at $1.6 billion for less than $50 million;

The "single minor" breach of the financial covenant under the loan agreement was NOT MATERIAL.  Brookfield turned it into a MATERIAL event by NOT ALLOWING Birch to pay the interest payment for the unsecured debenture and thus began the rapid demise of Birch Mountain and the $1.6B asset falling into Brookfield's hands.



Laughable - Canadian Courts Access to Justice #LannyMcDonald

Dear Shareholders,

If you can accept that the Alberta Court of Appeal decision states:

Birch "... did not have the funds available to pay that interest, ..."

with the evidence we submitted that states:

[Doug Rowe to Brookfield] "I noted that ComputerShare

had the cheque and

we had the funds set aside

to make the payments. ... .”

then you can probably accept that 2 + 2 = 5.

If you can't accept the obvious contradiction error and bias and losing a $1.6 billion dollar asset, then get your pens ready and give us an hour of your time and show solidarity.

Details soon.

We have complained to the Appeal Panel to release the transcripts and were shut out.

We complained to the Canadian Judicial Council to release the transcripts based on bias, errors, and misconduct by the Appeal Panel and were shut out.

We have sent a complaint to the Supreme Court of Canada, Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin.

We need to add your voices to the uproar.

Please Tweet and Retweet appropriately. 


Alberta Appeal Court Cover-Up? #LannyMcDonald v. Brookfield Asset Management


After the December 5th, 2016 decision from the Alberta Court of Appeal we submitted a request for the transcripts of the court hearing that took place on June 15th, 2016.

We were denied the transcripts.

We wrote letters to the Appeal Court asking why. But, it was just "no" without any realistic justification. There are no juvenile names mentioned in the case, no industry secrets - if you don't count exposing the methods by which Brookfield takes over companies in an underhanded predatory way.

We wrote letters to the Canadian Judicial Council. We were shut-out.

Attendees at the June hearing heard things. And those things were different than what was in the Appeal Court decision.

So, why won't the Appeal Court release the transcripts unless they are trying to hide their mistakes?

If there is nothing to hide, then why hide?

Don't you find it interesting that attendees at the hearing heard a judge state: "something smell" and ask "is there a precedent for overturning a receivership."

Gotta wonder if there is more behind the Appeal Court decision.