[Fed app Statement of Claim - Delayed]
(Rentry QB app delayed due to new evidence) [Everything delayed until atleast July 20,2010]
(1)----- It is ALLEGED, on or before the 17th day, of May, 2007 A.D. Prior to, at, and after attending Trial. In the Province of Alberta in city of Medicine Hat at Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta it is the applicant's position that Rhonda Rose Sails is purported to have committed offences paragraphs 380(a), 362(1)(c) of the Criminal Code of Canada by Preparing and producing documents that may have obstructed the course of justice, and thusly brought the honourable court into disrepute. It shall be advanced, and evidenced that she planned and committed the act of false pretense, ultimately leading to the alleged FRAUD. She sneaked past the Bench tactfully arranged Exhibits that deceived the Plaintiff, Edward Darren Achtem who was attacked in the Witness Box. Ms. Sails presented a new "2nd Bundle of Documents" with the corresponding ["2nd List of Exhibits" EXHIBIT #2] into Trial which started at 11:30 a.m. Ms. Sails's (Achtem) requested if she may present Exhibits while Mr. Achtem was still in the Witness Box, which was not expected. Because prior to Pre-trial Ms. Sails's (Achtem) filed a ["1st List of Exhibits" - EXHIBIT #1] which outlines the contents of the "1st Bundle of Documents", and she provided Mr. Achtem with copies of the her Exhibits which was the "1st Bundle of Documents".
(2)----- Ms. Sails (Achtem) failed to prepare Mr. Achtem for her surprise of [Exhibits M, N, O, P, Q, and R. - EXHIBIT #3] . If Ms. Achtem had provided Mr. Achtem with reasonable intent like no later than 7 days as the Canada Evidence Act states. Then Mr. Achtem would have been able to answer Ms. Sails's (Achtem) Cross-examination of Exhibit M to R much differently than he did at Trial. Lets view and examine in great detail [EXHIBIT #4 - Comparison List of Correct Answers - verus - Answers at Trial to Exhibits M to R] Further to Ms. Sails's unexpected surprise "2nd Bundle of Documents", she only informed Mr. Achtem of her intent that she was going to use Exhibits A, B, E, J, and K. For which her Exhibits C, D, E, G, H, I, J, K, and L Ms. Achtem did NOT inform him of her intent either as the law states she has to. however they have been produced into the case earlier by either of them. They are based on numbers facts and figures and shows were some portions of matrimonial of where it went.
[For internet users only click here instead having to perform a Vulcan Mind Meld with my case Just Like Spock had to do with the creature that tunnelled bellow the planet. She was steam rolling over people because of some confused humans who invaded her planet. Seeing the video will save you from having to do a Vulcan Mind Meld with my case.]
(3)----- Mr. Achtem is not arguing the facts on these Exhibits, but it just for the fundamental fact that Ms. Achtem was to have prepared Mr. Achtem for whatever Exhibits he had to answer to. So no Mr. Achtem is not going to argue with numbers, because properly tabulated numbers CANNOT lie like people can. like for example how the 3-judge panel came up with 13 fictions. on their Memorandum of Judgment pretty much did this. They looked each other in confusion, gave their heads a shake in confusion because they were just as confused as Mr. Achtem was throughout from the time Ms. Achtem pulled a trick out of her sleeve up until the legal process became exhausted in the Supreme Court of Canada. Mr. Achtem's impression is The 3-judge panel just must have colluded horribly some how to the point they all agreed like this. "oh well let's just wing it", thus producing a fictional "Memorandum of Judgment". Mr. Achtem is going to lay it all out for you on day 3, and hopefully not having do it on day 4 as I plan to have my opening argument all wrapped up by Thursday at 2:30, then giving the floor to the Defence on Friday.
(4)-----Let Mr. Achtem present to you on the overhead projector a comparison. To compare Ms. Sail's's ["1st List of Exhibits". Which was the List of Exhibits for which is the list of what documents that Ms. Sails sent to Mr. Achtem informing him. Of What documents she was to use at Trial. Which is the list of what documents Ms. Achtem did prepare for Mr. Achtem informing him of what documents she was to use for cross examination]- versus - [Ms. Sail's's ["2st List of Exhibits". Which was Not a List of Exhibits for which is the list of what documents that Ms. Sails sent to Mr. Achtem informing him. Of What documents she was NOT to use 8 Exhibits at Trial. Which is NOT the list of the exact same documents containing the same Exhibits as the one's Ms. Achtem did Prepare Mr. Achtem for cross examination]
(5)----- Mr. Achtem requests permission to provide the Jurors each and the judge with a scape copy of Exhibit 1 and 2. And a YELLOW high-lighter pen. for the Jurors and the judge to follow Mr. Achtem as he continues with presenting the comparison difference between the 2 exhibits. (EST time - 8 minutes, then continue on)
(6)----- Depending on how long the Defence takes good chance you be done Friday, go home for the weekend relax and think. Then maybe good chance you'll be back hope on Monday and you'll all decide a Verdict.
(7)----- If Justice Horner had been an excellent judge that had not let herself become led into malfeasance by Ms. Sails, then this may have been prevented. If Justice Horner had permitted Mr. Achtem time to examine Ms. Sails's Exhibits before having to answer to them. Then maybe Mr. Achtem could have prevented this too, thus exposing the fraudster's. Then maybe Mr. Achtem could have explained or objected to Ms. Sails's FRAUD, that threw off the course of Justice, indeed. Then maybe Mr. Achtem would have not been home ownerless crawling out of the pit of poverty that Ms. Sails with the help of Justice Karen Horner together, threw him and his 2nd family into. But Justice Horner choose to NOT provide Mr. Achtem that opportunity. Justice did not want Mr. Achtem knowing anything about Ms. Sails's Exhibits before having to answer to them. Justice Horner could have been an Excellent Judge who could have done the best thing by seeing through the Fraudster's Fraud and saying to Ms. Achtem (Sails) you're busted. But No! Justice Karen Horner was not the best judge. She was not the best judge who could have prevented this complicated web of circiumstanses from happening. She was a rather careless accessory to Ms. Sails's act of FRAUD Under The Colour of Law as you will all see explicitly throughout this jury presentation. Mr. Achtem is just one of many individuals who was singled out by a female biassed female judge who started her career, being trained by the due to a tyrannical bias non custodial parents legal system it is. But it's not any system it is because of human and also because the Defendant is a Fraudster, the Trial Judge is the accessory. [She was a very very nasty lady (w/Irish accent)]. Mr. Achtem needs you needs you all to understand and observe clearly as to exactly what happened in 1 minute and 39 seconds Lets see how nasty she really was. Please read with me while as I read out loud [Please view EXHIBIT #5 let's become well versed with Transcript page 109 -from line 3] Then we will we get to hear the audio of this moment when Justice Horner prevented Mr. Achtem from viewing Exhibits in which we know for certain at least Ms. Sails knew he knew nothing about soon after you get back from the lunch break.
(8)----- Later in the on day 3, we will examine what Ms. Sails's FRAUD aggregated into her. Then Mr. Achtem will have an expert witness, a CMA Accountant with his Balance Sheet will lay it all out for everyone from the Witness Box. That Justice Horner's Judgment did indeed net more than a 94.5%/5.5% split in Ms. Sails's favour. Then show some contrary evidence to what the truth is because numbers do not Lie. There is only one answer and one precise figure. There will be MINOR discrepancies on items discussed that is estimated matrimonial items. However, Mr. Achtem's facts, figures and numbers are bang on correct and the estimated figures were always over estimated in Ms. Sails's favour. So when we are done you will most certainly realize that the split was redicously loped side as a result of malfeasance and FRAUD into Ms. Sails's favour.
(9)----- Contrary to the truth Ms. Sails wrote in her Response to Mr. Achtem's Supreme Court of Canada Application, that she did not receive a 94.5/5.5% split in her favour which why she was charge for making a false statement in writing. Mr. Achtem will take you through the numbers, facts, and figure on Day 3 and on day 4 of the closing arguments phase of this Trial.
(10)---- Mr. Achtem reviews quickly with the jury a time line for the rest of his Jury Presentation:
Day 1 - Mr. Achtem from the Witness Box Evidence Presentation. Observation of Ms. Sails offences and some of Karen Horner's offences
Day 2 - Mr. Achtem from the Witness Box an Evidence Presentation more observation of Ms. Sails's offences and finishing off observation of Karen Horner's Offences.
Day 3 - Mr. Achtem from the Witness Box Evidence Presentation observation of Ms. Sails's and Karen Horner, Robert Rehm's offences. The completion of Karen Horner's offencesDay 4 - (a short day) Closing Arguments (unless the defence take more than half the day, Then it is up to the Jury. )
(11)---- Mr. Achtem will not be having an opening argument after the introduction of Evidence. He will let the evidence speak for itself. Then hand the floor over to the Defence to hear their cross-examination. then after the Defence presents will open the argument stage of this trial Then Mr. Achtem will close with only a rebuttal. Then defence welcome to an opportunity to rebuttal Mr. Achtem's Rebuttal as well. (point at the judge) If it's ok with that fine fine fellow over there Mr. Justice?[Wait for a response from judge - EST 3 mins]
(12)---- Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, See ya back here within 1 hour, Thank you.
[ 11:50 am Adjourn - Break , Lunch hour]