Blog under construction:
When the satement of Question are precisely worded then you will see the questions here.
Furthmore, I do not have the memory capacity and I missed stating on my Factum the crucial part of the ambush. However the 3-judge panel does not have the authorty to Fabricate a fictional Judgment based fiction. Inconclusion of this my findings are Mr. Achtem was not competent to Carryout oral argument at Court. Had he been well versed on the appeals books and factums, then he could have prepared a prescript argument. If the court of appeal had considered his condition then the 3-judge appeal panel could have allowed him, but dit not accomodate for his disabity. Perhaps their descision may have been appropiate considering judges are busy an the show must go on. Therefore Mr. Achtem has closed the matters involving Carole Conrad, Peter Martin, and Alexander Park. This matter remains closed do to the impede of confusion over this first question in issue. inlight of that this statement remains for the Federal Court of Canada to decide what is the approprate measures are.
The question will be posted here on the 25th, other than that please feel welcome to view my You Tube video. LawLIARs Lies Have genuine Intregrit - Alison Redford Cover-up for Judicial Fraud. at;
1. This is the biggest lie on Justices Conrads, Martin, and Park stated on their Memorandum of Judgment. In paragraph 3 the judges stated. "Mr. Achtem also submits he was denied a fair Trial because he was taken by surprize by documents adduced at Trial, including e-mail his wife used to cross-examination."
Mr. Achtem did claim he was taken by surprise by documents that were e-mail he did send to Ms. Achtem. The e-mails were not adduced at Trial and it does not indicate that on the transcript. However there were e-mail in which could not be adduce at Trial that Ms. Sails used to cross-examine, but Ms. Sails did sneaked past the bench exhibits as covert act without due process. She did not did not make any application to adduce exhibits. She did not make any proposal to the Court, that she wanted to adduce exhibits. Mr. Achtem was cross-examined only on 4 Exhibits in which Ms. Sails did inform Mr. Achtem of her intent. Her exhibits A, B, l1, L2 were the only Exhibits in which Ms. Achtem did inform Mr. Achtem of her intent that she would use them at trial. In which Ms. Sails did cross-examine. Ms. Sails did cross-examine Mr. Achtem on other Exhibits that have been produce in ealier Hearings and special Chamber application, but Ms. Sails did not inform Mr. Achtem of her intent to be used at Trial. However, Mr. Achtem was hindered by Ms. Sails's covert Fraud, of her "2nd bundle of documents" by the element of Surprize. Mr. Achtem could have answered to this exhibit better only if could of had the opportunity to know that Ms. Achtem was going use then. These are Ms. Sa
No comments:
Post a Comment