1

AFFIDAVIT
EXHIBIT 2.
ACTIONS- UNJUST, MEANT TO PREJUDICE-ARE THEY CRIMINAL:
I. CROWN LAWYER: Saskatchewan Government lawyer, Darryl Brown
i. advising the Appellant (Plaintiff) that she had to remove the names of all
public servants whom she named on the Style of Cause in the original
claim, because they had immunity from any legal action against them.
ii. His advising her to litigate the Governments named, Saskatchewan
Government instead of the public servants listed was misleading as Justice
Chicoine in his decision claims he can not understand why she is not
litigating the public servants (and this is the reason why).
iii. The appellant (Respondent) upon receiving this unsolicited advice, and did
as Mr. Brown requested may have purposely misled her to protect these
public servants.
iv. Why I am holding the Saskatchewan Government and the Government of
Canada accountable is because Mr. Brown told her to rather than the
public servants.
v. If this is correct, then Mr. Brown purposely misled her to undermine
justice for her.
vi. Mr. Brown breached his duties when he faxed Joyce LaPrise her amended
claim and she or he in turn gave it to Labour Standards where it was
circulated to the public domain under Access to Information.
II.

Registrar(s) of the Saskatchewan Court of Queens Bench:

i. tampering with the filing date stamped on the judgment of Justice Chicoine.
ii. lied in stating it had been faxed the judgment to her earlier.
iii. with counsel for the Saskatchewan Government arranged a teleconference with
Justice Kovach and herself to alter the intent of the fiat written on December 01,
2005 and the Order that she wrote on December 23, 2005. the wording was
changed to alter the course of justice for her.
iv. Lying to her that attempts were made to contact Justice Chicoine on the matter of
fresh evidence to support her pleading of a wrongful death of her infant
granddaughter.
v. Contacting Justice Chicoine on behalf of counsel for the Saskatchewan
Government et al but did not do the same for her.
vi. Indicating the October 03, 2006 hearing was not a special hearing but usual
chambers meeting and it was a special hearing audio-taped.
vii. Refusing her to file an Application to Change Venue and when she became upset,
the Chief Justice allowed a hearing but it was not given any serious consideration.
viii. Sending back filings of Affidavit and Fresh Evidence then refilling it all over
again.
ix. Intimidating her and yelling at her when she wanted a few questions provided to
Justice Kovach before the teleconference was to commence (2 hours later)
x. Changing judges to alter the course of justice for her.

There are other examples but this provides

1 some reality of the causes of action.

2
xi. tampering with the filing date stamped on the judgment of Justice Chicoine .
xii. lied in stating it had been faxed the judgment to her earlier.
xiii. with counsel for the Saskatchewan Government, Mr. Brown, he arranged a
teleconference with Justice Kovach and herself, with the intent of altering the fiat
written on December 01, 2005 and the Order that she wrote on December 23,
2005. the wording was changed to alter the course of justice for her, and further
removed or never did enter the December 01, 2005 Chambers hearing on the
Events Report but only this teleconference.
xiv. Knew that the matter was returning back to chambers the next day (after this
teleconference) but he (on behalf of Mr. Brown) filed an Order prematurely and
then,
xv. He removed or did not enter the Chambers meeting of January 17, 2006, on the
Events Report, the day after the teleconference.
xvi. When the Appellant (Plaintiff) requested he enter both chambers meetings in the
Events Report he refused to do it. After all the December 01, 2005, meeting was
crucial for her as was the fiat and Order.
xvii. The Appellant (Plaintiff)s Order she wrote is not even noted on the Events Report
and she could not find the original fiat any longer.
xviii. Rewrote the original fiat and replaced it with one which was worded so that the 4
infant children were not included in it, and were not even referred to as proposed.
It was worded so as to make one believe that Justice Kovach had not granted her
the addition of them to her amended claim and not even listed as proposed on the
Style of Cause after he managed this teleconference.
xix. Lying to her that attempts were made to contact Justice Chicoine on the matter of
fresh evidence to support her pleading of a wrongful death of her infant
granddaughter.
xx. Contacting Justice Chicoine on behalf of counsel for the Saskatchewan
Government et al but did not do the same for her.
xxi. Indicating the October 03, 2006 hearing was not a special hearing but usual
chambers meeting and it was a special hearing audio-taped.
Court Officials:
Breach of trust by public officer
122. Every official who, in connection with the duties of his office, commits
fraud or a breach of trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, whether or not the fraud or
breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a
private person. R.S., c. C-34, s. 111.
137. Every one who, with intent to mislead, fabricates anything with intent that it
shall be used as evidence in a judicial proceeding, existing or proposed, by any means
other than perjury or incitement to perjury is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years. R.S., c. C-34, s. 125.

There are other examples but this provides

2 some reality of the causes of action.

Breach of trust by public officer

122. Every official who, in connection with the duties of his office, commits fraud or a
breach of trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding five years, whether or not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it
were committed in relation to a private person.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 111.
Misleading Justice
Fabricating evidence
137. Every one who, with intent to mislead, fabricates anything with intent that it
shall be used as evidence in a judicial proceeding, existing or proposed, by any
means other than perjury or incitement to perjury is guilty of an indictable offence
and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years. R.S., c. C-34, s.
125.
Offences relating to affidavits - Obstructing justice
139.
(2) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner other than a manner described
in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an
indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
____________________________________________________________________

There are other examples but this provides

3 some reality of the causes of action.