"A Wise Man Once Said An Error Does Not Become a Mistake Until You Refuse to Correct it" ~ John F. Kennedy ~ [click here to listen/view You Tube Video - re: JFK speech in 1961]

To The 2 Chief Justices of Alberta and Calgary Police Service

AFFIDAVIT Part I - paragraphs 1 to 149

Court file No.  T-1724-10






I, Edward Darren Achtem, of the city of Calgary, in the province of Alberta,


(paragraphs 1 to 4)
[1] I am the Applicant for Judicial Review pursuant to section 18.1(1)(2) of the Federal Courts Act. Who is a human in a common law jurisdiction, My Primary Relief Requested is for the Federal Court to determine if the the Honourable Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, in the Judicial District of Medicine is in disrepute. With an Application for both sections 24.1 and 24.2 of the Charter. Because that is what happened. Therefore, because of that and everything I have Advanced in my affidavit, the Federal Court is the competent court of jurisdiction. I am alleging a breach BOTH of the powers of separation principal and the functus officio doctrine by the Trial Judge. My opinion
- A2 -
is indictable offenses were committed, public sector crime. My opinion is that I am in the position of alleging that Rhonda Rose Achtem is the primary respondent. The Appeal panel and Kathleen Linton had no involvement at or before the Trial. That was the during appeal, therefore NOT within the circumstances, and complete whole different a motion to follow up this application, but the court first determines if the honourable court has been sent into disrepute, because of what happened at Trial. It is my opinion indictable offenses have committed. I want permission from the individual and an appeal panel's relevant fresh Evidence produced that I want to adduce into the Federal Court. Indictable offenses that do NOT have a status of limitations. Indictable offenses, pursuant to the Criminal Code of Canada. Let this affidavit also be known as my Victim - Witness Statement.
[2] From my observations of the transcript, and exhibits used at Trial by Ms. Achtem. My opinion is that I have nailed it precisely nailed it on the nose. The alleged premeditated Trial by Ambush I allege was deliberate by Ms. Achtem. From what I have observed in legislation statutes, boundaries of Law and rules of Rule of Court my opinion is you are to exercise jurisdiction of the Federal Court. From my thorough well mapped out observations. It is my opinion Rhonda Rose Achtem is the primary cause and is the triggering cause that sent the administration of Justice to become sent into disrepute. My other position is having knowledge of a breach of the functus officio so doctrine overwhelmingly and that being an understatement. I will exhibit distinct elements from the Pre-trial, and Trial an alleged breach of both the separation of powers principal and a breach of the functus officio doctrine. Justice Rawlins is the not intended Quarter Back who threw a functus football, to Justice Horner the Wide Receiver, and she ran it into the end zone, with an end zone dance.
[3] I am member of 2 minorities. First minority I am disabled with a chronic illness Multiple Sclerosis MS effects my mobility, lateral balance, concentration, memory, and cognitive function. I live every day of my life feeling like a horse kicked me in the head, but I can get by fine in court provided the court accommodates for the disabled, and treats me as equal as other disabled individuals. And the second minority is I am a member of parents who are struggling to remain in their child(s) life due to the ex-wife, courts, whatever. I am a father who's struggle has been made impossible by Ms. Achtem and Judges who have made the possibility of being in my older daughter's life impossible for 5 years, and this has made it impossible for my 2 daughter to ever meet. The trial judge depleting me of my matrimonial and let Ms. Achtem walks away with it. This was Justice
- A3 -
premeditated tool used to remove me from my daughter's life. Not because I am unfit as a parent. Or Not because it is unsafe for the child. Justice Horner let this happen because Ms. Achtem wanted this to happen. Please do NOT undermine my rights, or compromise me or the integrity of the court MY Lord | MY Lady. This was a premeditated tool used to create impossibility to be in my older daughter's, and for my 2 daughter to even meet. She has done that. Justice Horner has caused me me to live in a retribution undeserving wrath of a woman scorned my ex-wife who has a relentless heavy grudge for me, who has devastated me financially. I am a father of 2 daughter's and wife to support cannot work in Canada who only did get for a fact as result, less than 5 percent of matrimonial from a divorce with zero exemptions an this I do NOT have to allege because I know it is and no judge can argue numbers that do NOT Lie.
[4] I am one hundred percent correct that all the respondents after reading this affidavit you will most certainly come to realize. That Mr. Achtem was and is being infringed upon by the Trial Judge. Who sanctioned to what I would compare to as being a BUG trapped in a jar to be financially ravished into a spiraling poverty, that is getting deeper and continue to get deeper. Unless you Mr. or Mr. Justice the Decision Maker allow me to evidence it, so you come to the conclusion our honourable Court Queen's Bench of Alberta is sent into disrepute because of the Reasons For Judgment of Justice Karen Horner. I am asking you to please save me from this trap I have been forced against my will into. Please help me, it has come to the point where I am face starvation. If I get what I alleged that is mine which was my half of matrimonial instead of you permitting Justice Karen Horner to keep me in this sanctioned trap. Let the integrity of truth come out My Lord | My Lady, I know you are on a mission TRUTH and facts of what is, and what is not is. I give you for your search for questions and answers, complete forensic Logic.

Day 1 Reading

viewing reviewing inspecting, paragraphs 5 to 79, and EXHIBITS

[Estimated time required for thorough reading viewing and reviewing: 6.5 hours]

[5] 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 Achtem is purported to have committed offenses; paragraphs 126.(1)(2), 380(a), and 362(1)(c) of the Criminal Code of Canada by producing

- A4 -

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, ultimately leading to the alleged FRAUD and false pretense.

[6] Rhonda Rose Achtem sneaked past the Bench tactfully arranged exhibits that deceived the Plaintiff, Edward Darren Achtem who was attacked in the Witness Box. Ms. Achtem presented an alleged premeditated unexpected surprise. A 2nd Bundle of Documents with the corresponding [2nd List of Exhibits EXHIBIT 2 - page E2] into Trial. The alleged ambush started at 11:30 a.m. Ms. 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. Achtem filed a [1st List of Exhibits - EXHIBIT 1 page E1] which outlines the contents of the 1st Bundle of Documents, and she provided Mr. Achtem with copies of the her exhibits which is the contents of the 1st Bundle of Documents. This is what Mr. Achtem came to Trial prepared for. Ms. Achtem's 2nd Bundle of Documents is the 1 of 5 elements of the alleged fraud paragraph 380(a), and the element of the alleged breach of the Canada Evidence Act.

[7] The point of law in respect to Ms. Achtem's ;
2nd Bundle of Documents. Is alleged to be subject to sections 6(1), and 6(2) of the Canada Evidence Act C-5 (CEA). Because Mr. Achtem suffers physical brain damage caused by Multiple Sclerosis MS attacks to his brain restricting memory and cognitive function. Alleged to be subject to sections 28(1), and 28(2) of the CEA. Because all documents used at a Trial a party must serve upon the witness with reasonable notice of intentions of what documents that would be used at Trial.  Then there is Alberta Rule of Court 158.5(1)(e). Because the Court of Appeal of Alberta Justice Conrad, Justice Peter Martin, and Justice Alexander Park ruled that exhibits were adduced into Trial. The Appeal Material did NOT and does NOT inform the appeal panel that exhibits where adduced. Noway, that is one of the numerous many fictions NOT from the appeal material. Numerous fictions contrary to the truth, which will indeed become visible to you MY LORD | My Lady. Contrary to appellant's appeal materials provided. Contrary to the Truth I have laid out.

[8] Since this is an application to the court to find out 1st who may be responsible for sending the court into disrepute, and was it crime, deliberate or NOT? Then the Applicant will move for a motion in writing under rules 169, for Reverse Onus upon the appeal panel. I will file a Motion

- A5-

in writing to the courts to decide upon reverse onus in after my Application Record in filed when time permits. I will submit a list of Questions, to be answered by the appeal panel in writing, I, Edward Achtem want them to provide their own kept apart under supervision, to provide the opportunity to answers separately to compare. The Court will decide if they will be required to answer the questions, and decide if they shall have them ready inspection before the Hearing. From the answers produced the Court is to determine if the appeal panel deliberately LIED on their Judgment. The Court will determine if this was accidental untruth. Or deliberate. This application is for the Trial. The Appeal is NOT of relevance to this and NOT within the circumstances of the application at all. However the circumstances of the Appeal. That is a different and my intent is a motion application, filed before the Hearing. They are in separation from each other and the Trial intertwined with the Appeal. The results of the application will have direct effect on the appeal panel when would get to that stage sometime after as soon as practical.

[9] This was a Trial. NOT a Summary Trial. The point of law regarding the appeal panel's ruling that exhibits were adduced on their Memorandum of Judgment. Fresh exhibit were NOT adduced (period). This is alleged to be false. Adducing exhibits is subject to Alberta Rule of Court 158.5(1)(e). The Memorandum of Judgment is mostly fictional. Mr. Achtem argues, either possibly an assumption or possibly, the appeal panel read a letter written by Ms. Achtem, who knew she made a false statement in writing when she wrote the letter she sent to the Court of Appeal, on September 12, 2007. She knew when writing that letter, she was fabricating a false statement in writing. An alleged deliberate lie sent to the appellant's court to rely upon. The Appeal is NOT within the circumstances but some documents contrary relevance are produced from both appeal and the SCC application for leave to appeal will be presented thoughOUT in support of my argument.

[10] Ms. Achtem's letter is a key EXHIBIT of contrary interest. [EXHIBIT 12A, page E130 - Letter Ms. Sails (Achtem) sent to the Court of Appeal of Alberta, September 12, 2007]. This is presented again with the argument in paragraph 74. This letter will surely make more sense to the reader once you had read everything up to paragraphs 74. Some serious fiction was somehow fabricated over at appellant's Court.  This is not a joke.  This is dead serious, I am alleging the appeal panel has purported to committed perjury, and I will prove it, withOUT a doubt. There is no clue as to how and why they came up with so much fiction and untruth. The Applicant does have reason and

- A6 -

grounds to for an Ordered of reverse onus upon the appeal panel to put before the court. By the time you respondents are done today's reading and EXHIBIT inspections, you will realize that things went withOUT procedural fairness, and as my opinion is withOUT a doubt to allege crimes. You will then see how I was victimized. You will come to the plate and admit, but Ms. Achtem oh, I seriously feel she is a lot of trouble for the prank pulled on me in one our courts, deliberately as I allege. The course of justice was thrown off, and now I am the victim calling you respondents out over a bunch of alleged

fictions, untruths, and or lies. I cannot state anything less than what it really is.

[11] Although the the Appeal is NOT within the circumstances, and I will limit as little as humanly possible here. The Trial is within the circumstances of the appeal, and there is relevant contrary documents prepared by Ms. Achtem. Evidence I want to present to the court. I feel there may be a possibility for myself and the other parties to agree, with you as the judge of this court, and I myself find that it is best and most proficient for you to cease this case My Lord | My Lady at least up until you review again these items. Re-read when you have completed my affidavit then go back and read it again after, and when the court gets my Motion for Reverse Onus you may find that the courts position is Reverse Onus should be Ordered upon the appeal panel to provide answers to the Questions. Ordered to have the questions answered for the for the court to take the next position, of this case to read all 7 questions I will prepare, so this I intend to put before the court in the very near future. To have all questions answered, filed and served that Hearing date the court has fixed. The court may find

for proficiency reasons and to remain careful hat may be the courts position. I argue and guarantee when you the Decision maker and respondents who I have NOT Blamed for anything criminal, except for Justice Rawlins. Who are done the 1st day reading, I am more than certain everyone will be convinced that by the time you are done reading and inspecting all EXHIBITS.

[12] I humbly express I am more than certain of my prediction. That you will be convinced that, that is the time when Ms. Achtem's defense does indeed snowball that starts rolling downhill as it picks up momentum into a deep plunge from the top of mount Everest. And I will have only touched on it a little, the alleged functus journey of the breach of the functus officio doctrine as it is my opinion. A breach of the powers of separation principal. You will be delving into the deep of it, the functus journey has been all mapped out to the bottom, crashed justice that crashed into the appellant's court, that produced a fictional Contrary Judgment. If you are a hero like some good judges I know and some

- A7-

know me too. These are judges who I have the utter most deepest respect for, because I know who they are, I know of things they have had to stomach to view. I have the utter most deepest respect for these fine judges, like retired Mr. Justice Agrios, I know him as a super hero since I was a kid. And semi-retired (sort of) Justice Hembroff from Lethbridge. I know they frown upon any form of public sector crime. And Mr. Justice Ian Binnie from researching reading many judgments I am impressed. What will empress me more if Justice Binnie and the others could step forth and admit the course of Justice has been thrown of kilter, and admit that Ms. Achtem is a primary cause, and Justice Horner, and Rawlins were NOT organized with their agenda. To keep me out of my daughter's just because Ms. Achtem wants it and that is the reputation, that the system has NOT earned. No it's not the system.

[13] Today Ms. Achtem's defense will indeed roll downhill, and boy you still will have NOT seen nothing yet. You just wait til 2nd Days Reading comes My Lord/My lady you just wait until you delve into day 2 reading tomorrow. It will indeed blow your mind. I have some pretty functus officio

material, and a collaboration of an attempt to carry out a government cover up of it. And Please read because you will by the time you Mr./Madame Justice - Decision Maker when you are done part I and II, I am certain when you go back read the the appeal panels Memorandum Memorandum of Judgment again. I am so certain you are going to say to yourself that you would agree with the next sentence. ?hat did the appeal panel do, just look at each other in confusion a just wing it meaning make up the judgment with their own fabricated made up fiction. Yes it is all made up. This will become valid grounds and the reason for an Order for Reverse Onus. And a fine opportunity to exercise Jurisdiction.

[14] Fact is No exhibits were adduced. Fact is the neither party made a proposal nor an application at Trial to adduce fresh exhibits. Fresh exhibits were NOT adduced (period). Ms. Achtem just jammed her yellow high-lighted altered exhibit M, and her yellow high-lighted exhibits N to R into her 2nd Bundle of Documents, and everything was laid in a totally different exhibit marking sequence. WithOUT due application to the Court. In Alberta you can only adduce exhibits if this were a Summary Trial or on agreement. No surprises are to compromise a witness's integrity. Let me tell you I know I was taken by surprise by e-mails, I sure indeed send but there is no way some judge can argue that I was not provided the shall be no less than 7 days notice required.

- A8-

[15] This was NOT a Summary Trial. It was a Trial. Therefore the only way to adduce exhibits provided the documents has been properly produced into the action. Then a litigant may propose to a Judge, and if the other party agrees and the other party may request an adjournment to view and review, so he is not confused. Therefore, given the opportunity to answer to the best of his knowledge. Well I was NOT provided the 7 days of reasonable notice of intent from Ms. Achtem of

most of the documents she used at Trial. And Justice Horner's directions at 11:30 am on May 17, 2007 directed directly into a head on crash into a Trail by Ambush rigged by Ms. Achtem. This did NOT provide me an opportunity to answer to the best of my knowledge under Oath. Both Justice Horner and Ms. Achtem are the cause, and Rhonda Rose Sails is the primary triggering cause. If Exhibits need to be adduced. Trial may need to be adjourned the other party could appose, and may seek costs for having to come back again. Ms. Achtem's exhibits N to R were NEVER produced into the action. Therefore an alleged breach of Alberta rule of court 158.5(1)(e), in a Trial that was NOT a Summary Trial has occurred because of Ms. Achtem and Justice Horner permitting it. WithOUT application and withOUT my due consent. Both required did NOT happen because of Ms. Achtem

[16] I, Edward D. Achtem did NOT get the same careful equal consideration of section 15.1 of Charter treatment from the Trial judge. And my rights to section 15.2 of the Charter were infringed upon as well. I adduced medical documents before Justice Hughes at Family Chambers on May 6, 2006. Justice Hughes did parch about my medical notes written by doctors treating them as invalid, because doctors . Then she claimed to know all about MS. This has shown me that she does NOT know too much after giving it some thought for more for a few days, me in particular. One fact for sure, MS can never leave anyone, and one's condition cannot be invalidated by any judge, and I sure wish it could. Justice Hughes was very smug and condescending for bushing off my medical exhibits. She and treated [EXHIBIT 4A, page E35 Letter from Dr. Patry to Dr. Hunt January 13, 2000]. As NOT current enough, therefore assumed it as void.

[17] There is no cure for MS and the medical community has yet to determine a cause. MS does NOT improve thoughOUT the course of one's life particularly Mr. Achtem. However it was degradation, as she reluctantly permitted me to adduce medical information. You judges need to recognize that MS Never Goes Away. For those who have MS it does NOT improve. Dr. Bakker at the MS clinic in Red Deer Alberta can tell you that this is natural for those who have multiple sclerosis,

- A9 -

like me. The medical community has tonnes has research on MS to state that it never gets better, just maybe better today then yesterday. 3 steps forward 4 steps back and things are always worse from this time this year then last year, year after year. The judicial negligence of my condition is infringement.

[18] In retrospect Justice Horner infringed upon on my section 15.1 and 15.2 Charter rights along with sections 6(1) and 6(2) of the Canada Evidence Act. This is the triggering cause of a chain reaction leading to the causes of more sections of the Charter that have been in ringed upon. By directing me into a head on collision into the Trial by ambush premeditated by Ms. Achtem. On the other hand Justice Hughes is thorough with case material, but she has earned with non males and parents groups like www.ecmas.org to be a nasty lady. She enjoyed being harsh to me. She broke my

heart. I never saw my little doggy named Shelby again. Thorough and she was NOT lawless, but nasty to me. She stepped on my section 15.2 charter rights by neglecting it. Ignoring VALID medical documentation REGARDLESS of how current. MS in general will not get better.

[19] Justice Miller's Order of February 1, 2008, to me is an Order that I have to pay Ms. Achtem $750.00 for her fraud. This was one his methods used to keep me out of my daughter's life, Kayla Achtem to help himself and his other colleagues who are judges determined to lawlessly help Ms. Achtem, by help by doing whatever possible to keep me financially poor, as the chosen method, to make it impossible to be in my oldest child's life. I was stripped of matrimonial by Justice Horner, so he choose to tack on another $750 to Ms. Achtem for what I have alleged. This Christmas I have no choice but to prepare to NOT see her this Christmas again while all you lawyers and Mrs. Achtem laugh. I have NOT seen her in 5 years. Justice Miller and Ms. Achtem the alleged fraudster, being the direct cause. To make a father pay for fraud is unconstitutional and violates the charter, and is NOT in the best interest of the child. Me being defrauded out of matrimonial was not in the best interest of the child. It was for Ms. Achtem's vindictiveness and greed.

[20] Justice Hughes verified with Ms. Achtem that my medical exhibits were properly produced into the action before, and that she was familiar with the medical document. The Trial judge becomes involved as an alleged accessory to MS. Achtem Alleged Fraud. The Appeal Panel stated exhibits were adduce that were NOT adduced, and they were NEVER produced into the action. Never mind the word "
properly". Stick with the word "NEVER". The grounds for Reverse Onus should be

- A10 -

evoked by the applicant upon the appeal panel to show the Federal Court Judge Decision Maker where exhibits were adduced along with many other fictions? What line and what page in the appeal material? Mr. Achtem would like for them to show us where something is that they said was, and I myself am better versed on the transcript appeal books and factum than anyone. And I know they will NOT find it anywhere in the appeal material where fresh exhibits were adduced. Since they are saying they were adduced. I say yes appeal panel, show me and the court where in the transcripts where. Exhibits where adduced? If you look, you will NOT find it. But NO judges have sanctioned that Ms.

Achtem has special rights against me, to bypass the Canada Evidence at at her own free will for when she is sneaky, they want to cover for another government employee exhibits for a paragraph 126(1)(2)? What page line number etc and whatever else to support the Judgment as valid and truthful?

[21] The appeal panel was confused when they passed judgment, so they made it up. I too was confused about all this evidence stemming down to an triggering cause. And a alleged breach of the powers of separation principal and a breach of the functus officio doctrine, and Ms. Achtem's alleged act of fraud. Mr. Achtem was so confused during the appeal process he failed to inform the appeal panel on his Factum the, 1st Climax and he informed them of the 2nd climax poorly of the ambush and the alleged breach of the functus officio doctrine, that was preventable by Justice Horner if she had been a keen Trial Judge, if she HAD decided that the court was not prepared for Trial, because of Ms. Achtem.  It is alleged that Ms. Achtem is the cause who did NOT want Mr. Achtem being

prepared for Trial.  She did not want Mr. Achtem to know anything about her alleged surprise exhibits before answering to them.  This was her plan.  These 2 Climaxes are outline in and argued throughout.

[22] At Trial and Appeal I had not researched functus offico, and the separation of powers principal yet. NOT having knowledge it, and the Charter. I was NOT clear on all facts that needed sorting and crime elements. I was NOT competent to stand Trial and Appeal to self-represent, and he is not competent to confront Witness Box Attacks and malicious cross-examination over exhibits he has not been informed of before he has to turn the page in Ms. Achtem
2nd Bundle of Documents and see it. Exhibits he has not viewed and where impossible to review in over 2.5 years, and had no access to because he had a computer crash. Mr. Achtem was NOT informed of most of the exhibits Ms. Achtem used. It does NOT matter, NO LESS THAN 7 DAYS NOTICE, BOTTOM LINE.

- A11 -

[23] Mr. Achtem has a history of more than 11 years of having his brain attacked By Multiple Sclerosis MS, and he has lived everyday of his life ever since November 11, 1998 always feeling like a horse kick him in the head. Leaning to live a new life with intense chronic pain, and manage it carefully. For More than 11 years Mr. Achtem has been suffering the disorientation that brain attacks have caused. Anyone who knows Mr. Achtem, then they know he lives a life of disorientation because his head always throbs due to MS. I am a law abiding citizen who has alleged to have alleged to have had rights and freedoms stepped on by the Tail judge, the appeal panel, and Ms. Achtem, and stepped on by Justice Miller and orders making me pay for the alleged fraud. Judges jumping over laws and

rules of court, are Ms. Achtem's alleged enablers to carry out the alleged crimes. The Pre-trial, Trial, and appeal panel's alleged misconduct shall be advance and evidenced. That they committed the alleged acts, and have brought the administration of justice into disrepute.

[24] The order of how Ms. Achtem has her [2nd List of Exhibits EXHIBIT 2 - page E2] laid out and most of the exhibits used are NOT the same as laid out in her [1st List of Exhibits - EXHIBIT 1, page E1], which is Ms. Achtem's notice of intentions of what documents she was going to use at Trial. Pursuant to section 28(2) of the CEA c-5. And Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta Q.B. Civil Practice Note 5 Family Law, Pre-trial Conferences.

Analysis of the Alleged Witness Box Attack

Broken down into 2 Climaxes and Analyzed
Instructions, with arguments, and review: Paragraphs 25 to
Supplemented with [EXHIBIT A audio record time: 11:30:02 a.m. to 12:03:08 p.m.] 

[25] Mr. Achtem describes 2 Climaxes of Ms. Achtem's alleged ambush; 1st Climax - of Ms. Achtem's alleged ambush/witness box attack that Justice Horner failed to prevent or just let it happen. Ms. Achtem presented her exhibits before starting her cross-examination of her exhibit A, and

then there is the moments marked as the 2nd Climax - when cross-examination turns into alleged malicious cross-examination. When cross-examination moves from Ms. Achtem exhibit L to exhibit M. simultaneously Mr. Achtem turns the page from exhibit L to exhibit M all the way to her exhibit R from Ms. Achtem's 2nd Bundle of Documents. This alleged ambush has 2 climactic moments in the alleged assault upon Mr. Achtem. The 2 Climaxes will be described with supporting EXHIBITS.

- A12 -

[26] The 2 Climaxes are listed in ascending order by time of day.  For efficiency, they are presented in descending order, showing you the 2nd Climax first, then taking you back about 12 minutes to the cause of the 2nd Climax; which is the 1st Climax, then you will be presented with Mr. Achtem's medical documents from the Trial and about his medical situation, and the Medical documents the appeal panel refused to consider. Then after we will go back to March 29, 2007 the Pre-trial. To the readers this will appear to have lead Justice Horner to breaching the separation of powers principle and the functus officio doctrine. The slip in drawing of the Judgment. I will provide you with a break down analysis and the monetary aspect of Justice Horner's judgment in Part II. I will touch on

the functus officio issues a little in Day 1 reading. You will see how that snowball rolling down hill on a slow slope in this Day 1 Reading in the functus aspect. Then in in the Day 2 Reading, I will be taking you on a journey with seeing that snowball as it picks up more momentum on sleeper scarier slope, with an alleged crash landing into an alleged abyss of lies over at appellant's Court therefore another motion pertaining to that will be filed as soon as time permits. You just wait and see My Lord/Lady.

[25] 1st Climax When Ms. Achtem presented her 2nd Bundle of Documents prior to cross-examination; With EXHIBIT T transcript page 108, line 40 to page 109, line 45; Supplemented with[EXHIBIT A - record time: 11:30:02 a.m. to 11:31:42 a.m.]

[26] 2nd Climax When Ms. Achtem cross-examined Mr. Achtem on her exhibits M to R;
With EXHIBIT 3 - Analysis of Ms. Achtem's Exhibits M to R and Cross-examination; Supplemented with [EXHIBIT A - record time: 11:43:32 a.m. to 12:03:08 p.m.]

2nd Climax

[27] Observation of the Trial Judge observing how Justice Horner let it happen. How it was so observable that Mr. Achtem was being maliciously cross-examined on exhibits Justice Horner knew Mr. Achtem knew nothing about, and Justice Horner did admit at Trial that Mr. Achtem did NOT see or have documents while being maliciously cross-examined. Justice Horner knowledge of this is the 3rd

Element of alleging a breach of the functus officio doctrine. This is Primary Element leading me to the opinion the Trial Judge breached the Canada Evidence Act, and is the alleged Accessory. It is alleged acts of both Justice Karen Horner, and Rhonda Rose Sails were deliberate, but NOT co-conspired.

2nd Climax Descriptions and Instructions: is in Paragraphs 33 to 38

- A13 -

[28] Ms. Achtem's suspect 2nd Bundle of Document and her carrying out cross-examination over it, is the elements of alleging Ms. Achtem breached the Canada Evidence Act C-5. This will be a

break down and an Analysis of only Ms. Achtem's cross-examinations of her Trial exhibits M to R. EXHIBITs used for this break down and analysis over Ms. Achtem Trial exhibits M to R.

[EXHIBIT 3; 3A to 3R - Analysis  of Ms. Achtem's Exhibits M to R and Cross-examination]

[EXHIBIT A2 - Record Audio of 2nd Climax | Time: 11:43:32 am to 12:03:08 pm].

[29] Ms. Achtem's exhibit M was altered with yellow high-light.  She did NOT inform Mr. Achtem of her other surprise, yellow high-lighted exhibits N, O, P, Q, and R. All e-mails sent by Mr.

Achtem marked as sub-exhibits to EXHIBIT 3. M is 3A, N is 3D, O is 3G, P is 3J, Q is 3M, R is 3P to; [EXHIBIT 3 Analysis of Ms. Achtem's Exhibit M to R and Cross-examination].  Out of Ms. Achtem's exhibits M to R.  Mr. Achtem was only informed of exhibit M, but this is where his confusion started because this exhibit was altered with yellow high-light and it was not marked as the same exhibit alphabetic Order.  The first 2 exhibits A and B; Ms. Achtem cross-examined me on are

listed on her [1st List of Exhibits - EXHIBIT 1, page E1].  I was informed of those ones, and Ms. Achtem choose to put those one's in front.  To get me started off on a roll with cross-examination.  Then cross-examination of other documents which have been properly produced into the action, but could not be adduced unless proposed and only if the other party had agreed, because this was NOT a Summary Trial.  Then it came to Ms. Achtem's exhibit M.

[30] The yellow high-lighting made exhibit M appear different from the document she served.  This confused Mr. Achtem.  If Mr. Achtem had NOT been confused by Ms. Achtem's alleged ambush he could have answered to cross-examination of exhibit M properly.  And he could have answered to.

>>> Readers Caution Addendum <<<

(Special Attention, consideration and comparison requested please?

As Laid OUT in Paragraph 29 above and paragraphs 33 to 38 bellow

[31] Readers Caution! Please use logic. Do NOT let your self become taken away by the profanity and the abusiveness nature of the e-mails Ms. Achtem's Trial exhibits I laid out in paragraphs 29 to 34. Because Mr. Achtem raises an OBJECTION that due to the fact that this is about alleged fraud and a matrimonial property Trial.  Profanity is NOT of relevance to the numbers, facts, and

- A14 -

figures, to the monetary elements of the alleged fraud, and matrimonial aspect. Pursuant to the exhibit agreement contracted at Pre-trial, we were to bring the exhibits laying out Numbers, facts, and figures of however many homes the parties all bought and sold where the money went. The parties were only to use exhibits filed prior to Pre-trial for the trial, however Justice Rawlins at Pre-trial did say ?ring it all So Justice Horner's Trial parameters was to, chase the paper trail is the basis of the agreement between the Pre-trial Judge and both parties regarding exhibits. Pursuant to the Medicine Hat Queen's Bench, Trial Coordinator Shauna Jobagy's directions sent to the parties.

[32] I would of had no problem with these e-mails being used for cross-examination and oral argument, ONLY if Ms Achtem had provided me with due notice intentions of them to be used.

However I have an issue with the e-mails because I was NOT informed by Ms. Achtem.  She used them as an alleged clever ambush upon a me who she knows well. She knows it has been medically

documented and all about the MRI brain scans of my head. I have been mentally restricted long before Trial date. It is alleged that Ms. Achtem premeditated this plan to make a fool out of me in court. She knew how to fool me. Although, I have short-term memory function and cognitive problems, I am very smart higher IQ person who knows how to do layout. And you My Lady or My Lord I am sure you and the respondents will agree, so no-one can pull the wool over my eyes. My belief is Ms. Achtem was thinking something along the lines of this: “Well I'm going to put my stupid brain damaged ex-husband in his place, show the the Trial Judge the fool who he really is, I will make him pay retribution I am sure you will come to agree with that statement Mr./Madame Justice Decision maker. My Lord/My Lady, Rhonda Rose Achtem made me function in that court room with my tail between my legs because I know I was maliciously cross-examined by Ms. Achtem over documents that breached An Act Respecting Witnesses and Evidence. This beguiled me. (See R. v Kusk, 1999 ABCA Canll)

[33] View Ms. Achtem's [exhibit M marked as EXHIBIT 3A page E3].  View Trial transcript cross- examination of exhibit M, page 116, line 5 to page 121, line 25; marked as EXHIBIT 3B page E4.  Compare the correct answers to cross-examination of exhibit M, marked as EXHIBIT 3C page E7.  These are the correct answers, NOT said for the record.  Prevented by Ms. Achtem's alleged breach of the CEA and the alleged Fraud.  Make thorough observations and comparison.

- A15 -

[34] View Ms. Achtem's exhibit N marked as EXHIBIT 3D page E9.  View Trial transcript cross- examination of exhibit N, page 121, line 27 to page 122, line 35; marked as EXHIBIT 3E page E10.  Compare the correct answers to cross-examination of exhibit N, marked as EXHIBIT 3F page E13.  These are the correct answers, NOT said for the record.  Prevented by Ms. Achtem's alleged breach of the CEA and the alleged Fraud.  Make thorough observations and comparison.

[35] View Ms. Achtem's exhibit O marked as
EXHIBIT 3G page E15.  View Trial transcript cross- examination of exhibit O page 122, line 37 to page 123, line 47; marked as EXHIBIT 3H page E16.  Compare the correct answers to cross-examination of exhibit O, marked as EXHIBIT 3I page E19.  These are the correct answers, NOT said for the record.  Prevented by Ms. Achtem's alleged breach of the CEA and the alleged Fraud.  Make thorough observations and comparison.

[36] View Ms. Achtem's exhibit P marked as EXHIBIT 3J page E22.  View Trial transcript cross-examination of exhibit P, page 124, line 5 to line 19; marked as EXHIBIT 3K - E24.  Compare the correct answers to cross-examination of exhibit P, marked as EXHIBIT 3L page E25.  These are the correct answers, NOT said for the record.  Prevented by Ms. Achtem's alleged breach of the CEA and alleged Fraud.  Make thorough observations and comparison.

[37] View Ms. Achtem's exhibit Q marked as EXHIBIT 3M page E26.  View Trial transcript cross- examination of exhibit Q, page 124, line 21 to line 33; marked as EXHIBIT 3N page E27.  Compare the correct answers to cross-examination of exhibit Q, marked as EXHIBIT 3O page E28.  These are the correct answers, NOT said for the record.  Prevented by Ms. Achtem's alleged breach of the CEA and alleged Fraud. Make thorough observations and comparison.

[38] View Ms. Achtem's exhibit R marked as
EXHIBIT 3P page E30.  View Trial transcript cross-examination of exhibit R, page 124, line 35 to page 125, line 47; marked as EXHIBIT 3Q, E31.  -

Compare the correct answers to cross-examination of exhibit R, marked as EXHIBIT 3R page E33. These are the correct answers, NOT said for the record.  Prevented by Ms. Achtem's alleged Breach of the CEA and alleged Fraud. Make thorough observations and comparison.

- A16 -

[39] Mr. Achtem requests all Respondents, and the Federal Court Judge / Decision Maker to please become well versed with EXHIBIT 3 and understand it completely, and every Exhibit as well. Because you will observe in this application Mr. Achtem has issues with judges NOT becoming well

versed with case material. VERY SLOPPY. If the Trial judge had become better versed with the Pre-trial material, then I may NOT have suffered the alleged FRAUD purported by RHONDA ROSE ACHTEM. PERMITTED by JUSTICE KAREN M. HORNER. IN JUDICIAL DISTRICTRICT OF MEDICINE HAT, COURT OF QUEEN's BENCH OF ALBERTA. As a result of REASONS OF JUDGMENT OF JUSTICE KAREN M. HORNER. This has sanctioned me in retrospect of how I said, this affidavit will expose, and send RHONDA ROSE ACHTEM's DEFENCE like a snowball rolling downhill. Why were you so sloppy Justice Horner? Why did the trial judge state on the judgment, ? can keep my RRSP” when it is fact that I have never owned an RRSP. I suspect the Judgment is templated in part. I can only wonder why The Trial Judge stated on the Judgment, we were only talking divorce/separation since May 2003. No we were getting divorced for 10 years, a week after the wedding

[40] Well today and at this very moment while you are reading this Madame or Mr. Justice Decision Maker and respondents I am suffering at this very moment, like I am a bug trapped in a jar

and impossible to get out. I know that the Judicature Act states Judges are to enjoy their jobs, and I am going to tell you my Lady or My Lord, Judges are NOT to enjoy making functus Judgments that can ravish law abiding citizens like me. Deprive me of justice not because I have done anything wrong. Only because of who I am. I have been suffering more than just from a FATAL ERROR. Justice Horner and Ms. Achtem caused me to face starvation that I allege the Trial did sure indeed did lead to Much more than a Fatal mistake. It lead to the Trial judge being taken away into malfeasance by Rhonda Rose Achtem, and it deprive me and my second family of their livelihood, thus keeping us financial torment keeping us in poverty. Keeping me in this situation like I am a bug thrown into a Ms. Achtem's glass jar that Justice Horner threw me into, and it is a big huge mess. That I my Lady or My Lord want you to please you to please craft an Order that will get me on the road to getting this mess fixed.  The Trial Judge's judgment yielded Ms. Achtem more than 95% of matrimonial assets from a divorce with zero $0.00 exemptions. Discrepancies on the Reasons for Judgment of Justice Horner, details of matrimonial, as to where assets and liabilities went, and the monetary element of Rhonda Rose Achtem's alleged offenses shall be advanced and evidenced . Please read on.

- A17 -

1st Climax

2nd Element to the breach of the functus officio doctrine

Descriptions and Instructions paragraphs 41 to 52

When Ms. Achtem presented her 2nd Bundle of Documents:

[Listen to Audio EXHIBIT A2: 11:30:02 a.m. to 11:31:41 a.m. total time - 1 minute, 39 seconds]

[41] PLEASE understand and observe clearly as to exactly what happened in 1 minute and 39 seconds, before the onset of Ms Achtem's cross-examination of Mr. Achtem. Please read [EXHIBIT T4 Trial transcript page 108, line 40 page 109, line 44]. Supplemented with [EXHIBIT A - Record Audio Alleged Witness Box Attack 1st Climax | time 11:30:00 a.m. to 11:31:42 p.m.] 

[42] Mr. Achtem suggests, along with reading the transcript, he feels the readers will make a better observation from listening to the audio at the same time. Because in the transcript a lot information about human communication and behavior will get missed, go NOT observed.  In the paper transcript you do not hear tone of voice, tempo, for example if a witness is confused.  You do NOT hear paper shuffling.  Mr. Achtem argues that it is more effective to hear the audio and reading transcript simultaneously.  I know judges are to be outstanding in their professionalism. I am not telling judges how to do their jobs.  This is only a suggestion.  These are very serious allegations here.  I, Edward D. Achtem do not want anybody to miss anything again anymore.  Please do not miss anything. This is a complicated web of circumstances which requires absorbing lots of information.  I want to you to become well versed with everything. Listen to my audio-able physiology, then opinion-ate.

[43] Listen to [EXHIBIT A1 - Record Audio Alleged Witness Box Attack 1st Climax - time: 11:30:00 a.m. to 11:31:42 p.m.], Trial audio of this 1 minute and 39 seconds along with [EXHIBIT T Trial transcript page 108, line 40 page 109, line 44] page 108, line 40 to page 108. line 45.  When Justice Horner prevented Mr. Achtem from viewing fresh exhibits in which the reader may now know Ms. Achtem knew Mr. Achtem knew nothing about, therefore anther reason the new exhibits could NOT be adduced, and they were NOT adduced (period). I am alleging Justice Horner did NOT become

well versed with Ms. Achtem's Pre-trial material, her [1st List of Exhibits EXHIBIT 1- page E1] before passing judgment. And I am alleging she did NOT become well versed with the case material produced from the Trial either. Her what I am alleging to an impugned Judgment, base on Ms. Achtem's alleged malicious cross-examination of me. Listen to the audio from the Queen's Bench

- A18 -

Trial at Provincial Court in Medicine Hat Court Room #3, May 17, 2007 from 11:30:02 a.m. To 12:00:03 a.m. Put some time and concentrate on that half hour of time in particular. Observe my startled reaction from the start and thoughOUT the entire cross-examination because of documents I can say I was taken by surprise by Ms. Achtem.

[44] Ms. Achtem did NOT inform Mr. Achtem or the Court that her 2nd Bundle of Documents, contained documents which were different from the one's she informed me of, of her intentions prior to Trial. Ms. Achtem did NOT inform Mr. Achtem or the court that he had to answer 5 e-mail exhibits N to R which 5 were different from the e-mails she did inform Mr. Achtem of. Sections 28(1) and 28(2) of the CEA, states she must inform.  This is an alleged breach of sections 28(1) and 28(2) of CEA c-5, indeed.

[45] At 11:31 a.m.  Mr. Achtem was handed the unexpected 2nd Bundle of Documents while I was still in the Witness Box because I was just cross-examined by Justice Horner.  Then moments later still 11:31 a.m.  Mr. Achtem asked Justice Horner; "Yeah, why don't you give me a few minutes to

go through this".  Meaning the 2nd Bundle of Documents before having to open it.  To view the

contents before having to answer to it. Then Justice Horner replies deceptively; "you'll have some opportunity.  Miss Achtem gets to ask you a question Witnesses are supposed to have right to know precisely what exhibits are before having to answer to them.  Mr. Achtem was prevented by Justice Horner from knowing that there was a surprise waiting when the cross-examination goes from exhibit L to M.  When the page is flipped from exhibit L to M. Ms. Achtem did not make any proposal to adduce fresh exhibits and she did NOT inform. Therefore nothing was adduced.  She just jammed her fresh exhibits into her unsuspecting 2nd Bundle of Documents withOUT the required application.

[46] At 11:31:08 a.m. Justice Horner argues with Mr. Achtem,
"Like your evidence is finished, Mr. Achtem, she's just asking you a question. She'll give you an opportunity -- she may not

direct you to all of these documents. ILLOGICAL and Unintelligible. Ms. Achtem did not provide Mr. Achtem the opportunity as section 28(2) of the CEA c-5 states. As far as I was concerned it was the exact same bundle of documents that was provided in Ms. Achtem's notice of intentions of what documents she was going to use prior to Trial. Mr. Achtem argues how a witnesses answers is evidence too, and a witnesses has a right to be well versed on whatever document a witnesses has to answer to,

- A19 -

which is logically why, An Act Respecting Witnesses and Evidence exists. Ms. Achtem and Justice Horner were not the witness that had to answer to exhibits which, Mr. Achtem could have NOT known at the time Ms. Achtem had fresh exhibits in her 2nd Bundle of Documents for which she must inform, make a proposal, application to adduce.  Or Even get the parties consent before Trial, and inform the Judge too, for which she did NOT. Listen to the tones of voice of how beguiling it was from the start.

[47] Mr. Achtem had to become well versed with what was impossible because he had no way of knowing he was going to confront documents in which he knew nothing about. Mr. Achtem was put into a state of confusion due to Justice Horner telling him that he can use the documents for cross-examination, but what about having to answer to cross-examination?  Mr. Achtem did have to use these documents also when he was cross-examined as well, and Justice Horner sidetracked Mr. Achtem to NOT view fresh documents. Then after Trail I realized, without due application or proposal to the court and withOUT Ms. Achtem's giving due process notice of Intentions of what documents will be used, that she must provide Mr. Achtem more than 1 minute and 39 seconds, and no court Notice. She must inform him at least 7 days prior to Trial.  Or offer to adduce exhibits with my clear consent.  NO EXHIBITS WERE ADDUCED (PERIOD).  Ms. Achtem just jammed her fresh exhibits into her

2nd Bundle of Documents withOUT due application. 

[48] Then all of the sudden with Mr. Achtem still in the Witness Box confused by Justice Horner's directions, which was unintelligible to Mr. Achtem and does not make any sense.  This is a dirty trick on a witness who has restricted memory and cognitive function.  Why did Justice Horner NOT directed Mr. Achtem to view the exhibits when he requested, and instead sidetracks him?  Mr. Achtem feels it was because there was noway Justice Horner wanted Mr. Achtem to know about any of the exhibits before having to answer to them.  Do judges have a special right to play tricks on human minds, even people that courts have known and have on record, and in the file of mental disabilities such as Mr. Achtem? The Answer is

[49] Mr. Achtem was sidetracked by an unfair directions of the Trial Judge that attacked Mr. Achtem's mental disability at a sensitive emotional time in the Witness Box.  It confused Mr. Achtem

and did not provided him with reasonable intention of Ms. Achtem's exhibits presented at Trial before having to open Ms. Achtem's UNKNOWN suspect 2nd Bundle of Documents and answering to them.

- A20 -

Then all of a sudden, the page gets turned from exhibit L to M.   Wham Bam what a surprise.  Mr.Achtem was thrown off kilter, then as it moved into exhibit N to R, Mr. Achtem even became more more beguiling.  What a clever trick of Justice Horner's that fooled me, and directed me into an alleged premeditated ambush. And she permitted Ms. Achtem to fool Mr. Achtem right before her eyes and ears, and for judges who are to professional would not stop this alleged Witness Box assault. No-one who does than to anyone Mr. Achtem feel should NOT be a Judge.  Disability or NOT No one should be neglected like how Mr. Achtem alleges he was. And it sure did Not fool Justice Horner who admitted knowing. Mr. Achtem was cross-examined by Ms. Achtem over exhibits that breached sections 28.2 of the Canada Evidence Act C-5. I feel that Ms. Achtem may have thought for some reason you don't have to inform the other party. Ignorance of the law is now excuse, most definitely to the the courts. Ms. Achtem setting up her 2nd bundle of Documents like the way she did was NO accident. I allege it was deliberate and it was to fool me. No one can tell that I cannot say I was NOT taken by surprise, like the appeal panel ruled.

[50] At 11:31 a.m. Justice Karen Horner proceeded have Ms. Achtem carry out cross-examination on exhibits where Ms. Achtem proceeded to carry out her cross-examination withOUT due application.  Exhibits N to R could only have been adduced in Alberta if this had been a Summary Trial, provided the document has been properly produced into the action.  Pursuant Alberta Rule of Court 158.5(1)(e).  This was a Trial NOT a Summary Trial, and Ms Achtem's exhibit N to R were NEVER produced into the action.  Therefore the only way Ms. Achtem could have adduced her fresh exhibits is through application and consent at Court.  Ms. Achtem had exhibits in her exhibits N to R shamed into her suspect 2nd Bundle of Documents.  Fresh exhibit that could not be adduced.  She did NOT make a proposal or application before the court like the parties must.  Just like the parties were required to as outline in Mr. Achtem's Table of Authorities, Case Law.  They were required.  Or is there an exception to the law for Ms. Achtem because she is a government employee that permits them to bypass the Canada Evidence Act C-5?

[51] At 11:43 a.m. at exhibit M it suddenly turned into alleged malicious cross-examination.  When Mr. Achtem flipped the page from Exhibit L to Exhibit M.  This is when Ms. Achtem preceded with her malicious cross-examination until the end of Exhibit R.  Ms. Achtem knew Mr. Achtem knew he was not expecting to have to see her exhibit M altered with yellow high-light and have answer to

- A21 -

yellow high-lighted Exhibits N which could NOT be adduce pursuant to the rules the bar sets forth. Ms. Achtem's alleged ambush did NOT deceive Justice Karen Horner.  It will be confirmed Justice Horner knew later in this affidavit, and she participated in malicious cross-examination as well. Ms. Achtem maliciously cross-examining Mr. Achtem caused him to become an intimidated witness with his tail between his legs.  Mr. Achtem's ambushed state of mind caused his beguiling and to present is case poorly. Mr. Achtem fell apart emotionally, he was petrified with terror for the rest of the day.  It is alleged that Ms. Achtem caused this. I was self-represented and too beguiled to even know to object.

[52] Perhaps Ms. Achtem's alleged sneaky surprise may have been more observable if she had put her
2nd Bundle of Documents into a pretty gift box, rapped it up with pretty rapping paper, put a pretty bow on top and say to the Trial Judge; ? have a surprise here for Mr. Achtem, it's what I will cross-examine him on”. What Ms. Achtem did was a dirty trick on Mr. Achtem and his disability. An alleged dirty trick carried in one of Canada's Court rooms. This is court is for the people, not for the judge. They are supposed to just work there carry out there careers to do what is just.

N E X T These observations

Pre-trial observation of 1st element of alleging a breach of the functus offico doctrine.

Observation of attempted Coverup by Alberta Justice employees of the botched up Pre-trial Order. Observation of Chief Justice Wachowich (elderly person with dementia), an other public officials.

Trial observation of elements of alleging a breach of the functus officio doctrine
Mr. Achtem's Medical Situation, Appeal, and Application for Leave to Appeal Relevant materials
Paragraph 53 to 182

[53] My opinion is Justice Karen Horner was taken away into malfeasance by Ms. Achtem's alleged act of court fraud.  Either that or it was rigged or Judgment was predetermined before I even came to Trial, because of Justice Rawlins eye balling up being concerned about what Mr. Achtem does with his matrimonial for Justice Horner, which is NOT her business or Justice Horner.  Now today the alleged accessory to Ms. Achtem's alleged FRAUD. Because Justice Horner was the judge who had access to all records which she reviewed QUICKLY and BRIEFLY.  Mr. Achtem question, since Justice Horner's review was Quickly and Briefly, did she view before she reviewed?  Or did she just view quickly and briefly once?  It did not sound like she did to Mr. Achtem.  She admitted she observed Mr.

- A22 -

Achtem answering to exhibits he did not have, which he had no intent from Ms. Achtem of more than 60 percent of the documents she used at Trial.  She must have NOT observed after Trial, before Judgment that the exhibits outlined in Ms. Achtem's suspect 2nd Bundle of Documents were NOT the same as they were supposed to be as outlined in Ms. Achtem [1st List of Exhibits - EXHIBIT 1, page E1] filed with Ms. Achtem's Pre-trial Summary, before passing judgment.  Either that or Trial was rigged for a government employee. Justice Horner's intention was to beguile me as well.

[54] Justice Horner was not the best Judge who could have prevented Mr. Achtem from being victimized by Ms. Achtem's alleged Fraud.  She had access to examine all materials produced from the Trial, Pre-trail and everything else in the Achtem v Achtem action.  There was noway Justice Horner could have not known that she is an accessory to Ms. Achtem's alleged Fraud the moment she passed judgment.  If Justice Horner had allowed Mr. Achtem a view of all Ms. Achtem exhibits, before cross-examination.  Mr. Achtem argues he may NOT have been alleging criminal acts.  Mr. Achtem was victimized in the Witness Box by Justice Horner and Ms. Achtem together.  This does not mean that

hey conspired together.  They just happened to have worked together on the alleged Witness Box


[55] If Justice Horner admits to have not been aware that she was NOT careful and thorough. She and Ms. Achtem did NOT respect the Canada Evidence Act C-5 and Mr. Achtem the witness. Whether or NOT she was NOT aware of herself.  It is alleged she was partaking in malicious cross-examination and producing a Judgment that yielded Ms. Achtem more than 95 percent of matrimonial and a measly less than 5 percent to Mr. Achtem.  And Mr. Achtem stresses again that this was from a divorce with ZERO $0.00 EXEMPTIONS.  If it is deemed that she was not aware of herself at the Achtem v Achtem Trial, then it it should be deemed she is not appropriate to be a judge.  She is a public safety issue in the community of Bowness, and I feel that the court should NOT turn a blind eye to.

[56] Ms. Achtem deliberately prepared the ambush with a rigged suspect
2nd Bundle of Documents.  The tactfully rigged exhibits deceived Mr. Achtem.  By how she prepared her surprise the 2nd Bundle of Documents prepared especially to take advantage of me at Trial.

- A23 -

[57] This 2nd Bundle of Documents containing Ms. Achtem's exhibits A to R.  Only exhibits A, B, E, J, K, L and M is listed in her [1st List of Exhibits - EXHIBIT 1, page E1]  All marked with different letters and coordinates; than the one filed prior to Pre-trial.  They were the only exhibits that are from her 1st Bundle of Documents she sent to Mr. Achtem prior to Trial.  She tactfully placed the last 6 exhibits M to R at the end of her 2nd Bundle of Documents hiding behind her exhibit L.

[58] Ms. Achtem tactfully placed exhibits M to R behind exhibit A to L. Having exhibits M to R at the end of her
2nd Bundle of Documents.  Which means that Mr. Achtem would be answering to cross-examination over Exhibits which she did NOT inform Mr. Achtem to be prepared for at least 7 days before Trial.  Then Ms. Achtem the one who knew how to attack Mr. Achtem with malicious cross-examination gave Mr. Achtem a OK flow of cross-examination from exhibits that were produced in earlier affidavits, which Ms. Achtem was to make application went unnoticed by Mr. Achtem.  But Ms. Achtem was successful in getting Mr. Achtem going on exhibits that were not adduced (period).   Not until after Trial did Mr. Achtem realize it. Then suddenly it moves into an even more malicious cross-examination at her Exhibit M which was altered with yellow high-light.  Then 5 more yellow high-lighted e-mails, exhibits N to R that Mr. Achtem had no access to and he had no idea that such exhibit would be served at Trial. Ms. Achtem did not provide Mr. Achtem any intentions that she would be using her exhibits N to R as sections 28(2) of the Canada Evidence Act C-5 states; shall be no less than 7 days.

[59] Ms. Achtem's cross-examination moved all they way to exhibit L as acceptable, but NOT as if Mr. Achtem was served every exhibit with reasonable notice, pursuant to section 28(1), and 28(2) of the CEA c-5.  Everything went OK, up until exhibit L.  Than at exhibit M is when Ms. Achtem's cross-examination suddenly turns more malicious. When Mr. Achtem flips the page over from exhibit L to exhibit M. Mr. Achtem was completely thrown off kilter.  Justice Horner also participated in malicious cross-examination as well.  Justice Horner cross-examined Mr. Achtem and examined Ms. Achtem at Trial. Everything went OK, but could have been better if Ms. Achtem had any concern about An Act Respecting Witnesses and Evidence up until exhibit M. Mr. Achtem could have answered to Ms. Achtem's cross-examination better if Ms. Achtem and or Justice had any concern for An Act Respecting Witnesses and Evidence.  Bottom line is I was NOT a respected witness, by both Ms. Achtem and the Trial Judge.

- A24 -

[60] The appeal panel was baffled with the appeal material, so they made up their Judgment.  Mr. Achtem was baffled too. He did not layout the 1st Climax of the ambush because he is not competent to confront this type of alleged TRIAL BY AMBUSH oral argument situation where the Trial Judge does NOT permit a mentally restricted individual viewing of exhibits to confirm the exhibits are going to be the same as the one's served before Pre-trial.  The Pre-trial judge and the parties did NOT agree that we can change our exhibit line up. Just the document already served, but only documents to show the Trial Judge however many homes the parties bought and where it all went the parties instead of rushing a man into that situation. Baffled or NOT it did NOT give the appeal panel a right to make up there judgments and just wing it.

[61] For example, consider every scenario of all mentally restricted humans, like if mentally a retarded individual. Someone with a higher level of cognitive function problems than Mr. Achtem. And lets imagine that Legal Aid Alberta persisted to declined him too. Mr Achtem would like to know if that would be the same systematic procedure by the Trial Judge and Legal Aid Alberta.  Would legal Aid really decline him too?  And He has kids too, his ex-wife hates him and she is like Ms. Achtem, hates Mr. Achtem. This is NOT something Mr. Achtem wished for.  Would the Trial judge give his ex-wife more than 95% of matrimonial, and the mentally retarded only gets a measly less than 5%.  And even if

he paid for half of that house with her for 10 years.  Is this reasonable just as the 3-judge appeal panel

ruled it is, but NOT based on numbers, facts, and figure, like the agreement made between the parties with the Pre-trial Judge. The agreement that did not appear on the Order, of the Order that was not read to the parties and NOT read into the record. The Trial was Not based on that as Ms. Achtem states on her SCC response. What did they base that on? And in actuality sense.  Would the Trial Trial Judge really do this again, and would legal Aid decline him too?  Mr. Achtem wants to know if Legal Aid Alberta would follow the same procedure as they did to Mr. Achtem?

[62] Please know precisely what Ms Achtem's exhibits M to R are.  Be certain to know how Mr. Achtem has answered to Ms. Achtem's cross-examination.  Be certain to have made a comparison of the correct answers verses the answers given at Trial.  As Mr. Achtem has outline in paragraphs
13 to 22.  Reviewing and re-reviewing is best. Be well versed with the descriptions of Ms. Achtem's exhibits M to R as it is laid out in paragraphs 31 to 36 - 2nd Climax.  Be certain to have identified Exhibit M as altered with yellow high-lighting.  Be certain to have identified exhibits N to R as fresh Trial exhibits,

- A25 -

that were NOT adduced.

[63] The appeal panel stated in their Memorandum of Judgment; exhibits were adduced, Mr. Achtem will make a Reverse Onus application for the 3-judge appeal panel to show where in the appeal material how they ruled exhibits were adduced along with many other fictions, when Mr. Achtem knows they cannot find it anywhere. So lets have the appeal panel show the court where documents were adduced at Trial? I intend to have my reverse onus motion for the appeal panel to submit to the decision Makers for before the Hearing. To Support their findings of how they came up with what I alleged to be contrary fiction. Mr. Achtem wants to see the proposal or application to adduce exhibits?  for which I know it is NOT there or anywhere?  Outline this for the court when Ms. Achtem did do this before proceeding with her cross-examination of Mr. Achtem that started at 11:30 am? 

[64] Ms. Achtem had to have made an application to adduce fresh exhibits, and as far as Mr. Achtem concerned he has read the transcript hundreds of times and the audio too.  No-one is better versed on that transcript than Mr. Achtem.  Mr. Achtem knows there was no application or proposal made to the Court adducing fresh exhibits.  There is No application to adduce exhibits (period).  Mr. Achtem knows that Ms. Achtem just put her exhibits her exhibits in her 2nd Bundle of Documents withOUT any application.  Mr. Achtem knows that Ms. Achtem knows this, and she knows it that Mr. Achtem knows that she knows this too.

[65] Please make note that Ms. Achtem's exhibits N to R used at Trial are e-mails sent by myself, Mr. Achtem.  For which I was NOT informed by Ms. Achtem that she would be using them at Trial, and they were never produced into the action.  These e-mails do express profanity.  Please do remember that this was a matrimonial property Trial and elements of profanity are NOT of any relevance to Matrimonial Property Trials.  Only the facts, figures, numbers, and as to whether or not an offer was accepted, then does it become relevant. These e-mail do NOT track or trace figures of where the matrimonial went. Justice Horner slammed me for me calling Ms. Achtem a pig or who knows what.

[66] These e-mails are offers that were not accepted by Ms. Achtem.  Have relevance of numbers, facts, and figures isolated away from any of the profanity.  The numbers of who did get what

- A26 -

from matrimonial is broken down in Part II.  Mr. Achtem confesses that they do express profanity, he feels Justice Horner may have been taken away by it.  Mr. Achtem regrets sending such abusiveness and insults to Ms. Achtem in e-mails.  Most of these e-mails sent to Ms. Achtem were sent in the early stages after a breakup.  One may consider the fact of where one's mind is during those times as Justice.

[69] If required review the description of Ms. Achtem exhibits M to R; from paragraphs 
16 to 23 on pages 8 to 10 of this affidavit.  Re-View Ms. Achtem's [2nd List of Exhibits - EXHIBIT 2, page E2] which outlines the contents of her 2nd Bundle of Documents.  Do make note of Ms. Achtem's Exhibits N, O, P, Q, and R are listed. Next, review and observe all of Ms. Achtem's exhibits N to R.  Then Review and observe the dates of the e-mails. Clear understanding of Ms. Achtem's exhibits M to R is required to identify the elements of the offenses.  As it is laid out in the remaining paragraphs of this Queen's Bench Alberta portion of this Affidavit Part I.

[70] Okay, take out of those 2 work sheets I told you about in the introduction. Identify that Ms. Achtem's original [1st List of Exhibits -
EXHIBIT 1, page E1] was filed prior to Pre-trail, and identify it as being Ms. Achtem's only Notice of her Intentions of what documents she was going to bring to cross-examine Mr. Achtem, pursuant to section 28(2) of the CEA c-5.  Identify in her [1st list of Exhibits - EXHIBIT 1, page E1] that she has 6 mails listed closer to the top. Please observe dates, and how Ms. Achtem has described. Then compare to see if these were the e-mails Ms. Achtem used at Trial as described.  If you do not see exhibits her exhibits N to R on Ms. Achtem's 1st List of Exhibits, then you know that Ms. Achtem did NOT provide Mr. Achtem any notice of intentions that she was going to use them at Trial.  No Ms. Achtem thought it would be her advantage if Mr. Achtem did NOT know about exhibits before Trial.  That was her plan.

[71] Review the 5 e-mails fresh exhibits which were Ms. Achtem's exhibits N to R from her suspect 2nd Bundle of Documents.  View how the e-mails are outlined in her [2nd List of Exhibits -EXHIBIT 2, page E2]. Identify that Ms. Achtem's [2nd List of Exhibits - EXHIBIT 2, page E2] is a list of documents for which Ms. Achtem did NOT inform Mr. Achtem of. Make note of the dates, descriptions to see if they are the same e-mail in Ms. Achtem's [1st "List of Exhibit" EXHIBIT 1, page E1] which is the list showing Ms. Achtem's intent of what documents she was to use at Trial?  Do the

- A27 -

dates all match up?  Do the e-mails from Ms. Achtem's [2nd List of Exhibits- EXHIBIT 2, page E2] appear to be the same e-mail as list in her [1st List of Exhibits- EXHIBIT 1, page E1]?

[72] Identify as to whether or NOT Ms. Achtem has informed Mr. Achtem that she would be using her exhibits N to R at Trial?  If you have come to the conclusion that Ms. Achtem did not inform him of her exhibits M to R.   Then you know that Ms. Achtem has breached the sections 28(1), and

28(2) of the Canada Evidence Act C-5.  Unless Ms. Achtem can provide proof of what is said here as

being contrary to truth.  Ms. Achtem is now going to have to prove to the court that she did indeed inform Mr. Achtem with a notice of intentions that she was going to use her exhibits N to R at Trial and if she cannot then could be in trouble for committing criminal offenses.

[73] Mr. Achtem suggests to the reader to have deep concentration on the ambush and malicious cross-examination, Trial transcript, [EXHIBIT T - page  108, line 40 to page 125, line 46.  - time: 11:30:00 a.m. to 12:00:03 p.m.]

[74] Draw your attention back to the first item I showed you. View, read and inspect again [EXHIBIT 12A, page E136 - Letter Ms. Sails (Achtem) wrote to the Court of Appeal of Alberta September 12, 2007].  Please ask yourself; Why would Ms. Achtem send a letter to the Court of Appeal of Alberta and state in 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph; "The Appellant had plenty of time before the Trial to obtain any information he felt relevant and to support his case." Now ask yourself how is Mr. Achtem going to know that exhibits are relevant if Ms. Achtem does NOT inform him of her intentions

to use them?  How am I to know that Ms. Achtem exhibits N to R are going to be relevant to the case since Ms. Achtem did NOT inform me?

[75] It is Mr. Achtem's firm belief that out of any the Respondents that if they were not to admit, that they were totally in the wrong. Is that, what ever evidence they attempt to even try to appose this argument, Mr. Achtem assures it will cave in on itself.  Respondents could face trouble with the police or whoever or whatever else.  My belief all of Ms. Achtem's evidence from her documents filed in court, sent to a court, sent to Mr. Achtem will start caving in on itself from this point on. I have only touched on the breach of the functus officio doctrine, and the powers of separation principal You will be astonished to see what is going next in this functus journey. Next I will take you into the And

- A28 -

still you have yet see tomorrows Day 2 Reading when we delve into to the deeper overwhelming darker

deeper stench trenches of functus offico and the alleged attempted government cover-up of it carried out by Alberta Justice employee and a judge who has known me and my family ever since before the 1950's Yes I know Allen Wachowich personally, but NOT on the best level anymore because of my

father, and Allen Wachowich's relationship with Frank Jones, the Former Dean of Law of U of A. Mr. Wachowich and Frank Jones want to fry me because my father rigged a vendetta to have Mr. Jones busted in a hooker house that the police raided.

[76] I know Allen Wachowich personally, especially my parents. Allen Wachowich and Frank Jones both hate my father and family. Please see why I feel threatened, and please let the Federal Court earn my respect. We will leave those issues out My Lady | My Lord you have an impartial duty to carry out, for which I have serious reasons to be concerned. Please understand and lets leave that on that note. You need to leave these issues out My LORD | My Lady, because this happened when I was a child and it had nothing to do with me an most importantly it is NOT within the circumstances, unless you make it. Please do NOT dismiss my case, because if you do it is a Vendetta for a fellow who everyone knows, a former dean of law. To touch on it NOT too much and NOT as much as I could. I will just touch on that issue a little. I am not here to pull skeletons out of closets like I could. I will show you how this potential infection has spreed thoughOUT our fine Canadian Country Side. MY intuition tells me due to facts that I see, a respected York University professors and Frank Jones buddy making blogs on the internet about my case, and he even stated I am a lawyer. NO I am NOT a lawyer. Please do not let what happen between them to NOT have bearing on your Judgment?

[77] It is alleged that the Trial judge's actions of misconduct deciding to have Mr. Achtem

served unknown not viewed not reviewed exhibits while being in the witness box.  Sending Mr. Achtem flying into alleged premeditated self crafted setup by Ms. Achtem of an alleged Trial by

Ambush.  Ms. Achtem set Mr. Achtem up to having SUDDENLY to answer to exhibits that breached the CEA. Justice Horner permitted Ms. Achtem to cross-examine Mr. Achtem over exhibits Ms. Achtem knew Mr. Achtem knew nothing about and NOT until after Trial did he become fully aware of the suspect e-mails as bona fide e-mails sent by him.  Due to the said facts it is the applicant's position that Ms. Achtem has purported to have breached section 6(1), 6(2), 28(1),and 28(2) of the Canada Evidence Act C-5.  As is alleged to be deemed by the Federal judge as NOT appropriate. It is alleged

- A29 -

that Justice Karen Horner is purported to have breached the functus officio doctrine. It shall be advanced and evidenced that this was a prelude to an alleged Deliberate Premeditated Ambush by Ms. Achtem.  For NOT respecting a witness.  Deliberately ambushing him, thus ignorance of An Act Respecting Witnesses and Evidence.

[78] Together their alleged actions aggregated my matrimonial to Ms. Achtem. This is the cause that deprived Mr. Achtem of the sections 6(1), 6(2), 28(1), 28(2) of the Canada Evidence Act C-5.  Thus, infringing upon my sections 6(1), 7, 15(1), 15(2), and 7 of the Charter.  It is alleged to have caused the destruction of Mr. Achtem and his second family's livelihoods.  It is alleged that the alleged acts of Fraud and false pretense has and had a devastating effect on Mr. Achtem's Livelihood.

Detrimental to best interest of the child of the marriage, infringing upon the child's livelihood to be with her father and paternal family, and her half-sister, to meet be her and play together. Many memory vanished, A paradox manifested by, Ms. Achtem, Justice Bonnie Rawlins, and Justice Karen Horner of the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta. Therefore, that is was this is why an application under sections 24(1) and 24(2) of the Charter, as well.

[79] Mr. Achtem wants the readers to take a break to digest this, do some thinking.  Then come back tomorrow or something.  Take a break.  Mull everything through then come back to reading after a break.  This is only a suggestion.  This is about a complicated web of circumstance.  You have lots of information to absorb you may need to unwind? My intentions are to provide consent and agree with all Respondents for parallel time line extensions above the 10 days I have suggested, as noted on my Application for Judicial Review.  My intentions are to remain flexible with the Respondents within the 30 days starting from the time this lengthy affidavit is filed.  All parties will want agree to move the time-line forward. To accommodate Respondents, because in particular as well we are rapidly

barreling into the Holiday season. I want all you readers to Enjoy this time with friends and family.

You need time to mind-meld to be logical. from the illogical alleged functus material malfeasance actions of judges all rolled together with Ms. Achtem allege act of Fraud all mapped out in a niffy package for observations and inspections.

[The End of Day 1 Reading]

Day 2 reading - A30 -

Paragraphs 75 to 141

Thorough reading, view and review and inspecting EXHIBITS:

[Estimate time required - 6.5 hours]

[75] Now that we have viewed and reviewed how Ms. Achtem deceived Mr. Achtem with her rigged exhibits, please view [Ms. Achtem's SCC Response, Parts II, III, IV, and V.  Read the all pages

and become well versed with it - EXHIBIT 12I, page E153]  Mr. Achtem will reserve comment until

the Hearing. We are at the point where Ms. Achtem's Fraud, and the Trial Judges malfeasance has already been exposed. But do make note of what she states about Mr. Achtem disability, and what she states about Mr. Achtem self-representing.  The reader will feel differently about this as Mr. Achtem take you on this alleged breach of the functus officio doctrine and powers of separation principal journey.  It will speak more so for it self. I will lay OUT the fact that it was an unfair split of 5 percent 95 percent in Ms. Achtem's favor? For the appeal panel to state this is reasonable is contrary.

[76] Although Mr. Achtem has brain damage that effects concentration, the reader may agree with Mr. Achtem. From reading this affidavit and seeing how he has it laid out. The readers should know although Mr. Achtem does suffer from having restricted memory and cognitive function problems. This Affidavit prepared by Mr. Achtem will convey hat he is better today to self represent in writing more so than in an oral argument.  He was not competent to self-represent himself in either the appeal for the fact that he was not clear on the laws and the results of the Court of Queen's Bench Trial because he alleges he was deliberately ambushed. It was NOT an accident.  Bottom line is it is unfair for a judge to take advantage of a mentally restricted persons to aggregate their livelihood from them to

custodial ex spouses.  Lawlessly under the color of law. I am a member of a minority who judges have destroyed.

[77] Doing whatever to make it harder for a parent to remain in their child's life, Not because the parents is unfit or not because it is unsafe for the child.  It is just because the other parent wants to do what ever possible to remove the other from their child life for what ever reason, all for their own agenda.  And that Agenda is for Ms. Achtem is to remove Mr. Achtem from his daughters life. Making Mr. Achtem an instant poor man is the cause keeping Mr. Achtem out the daughter's life. Ms. Achtem is

an obsessed parental alienator (period).  She will NOT stop at nothing.  She and judges have compromised Mr. Achtem's rights and freedoms together.  NOT conspire together, but done together. 

[78] By way of alleged fraud and false pretense.  It was the Pre-trial judge who was eyeballing up whatever I was going to do with his matrimonial after I gets it.  Therefore it was the Trial Judge who carried out this act to deplete me of what ever my fair share of matrimonial was, as the chosen method of achieving the courts objective which was to turn Mr. Achtem into a poor man (a dead

- A31 -

beat dad)  Throw me in a pit of poverty.  Make it impossible for me to pay for supervised visits.  By taking what ever NOT yet split matrimonial I earned throughout my short-lived careers building days and lawlessly giving it to Ms. Achtem under the color of law.

[79] View and inspect all Mr. Achtem's Medical Documents, filed prior to Trial:
EXHIBIT 4 Mr. Achtem's Medical documents], marked as exhibit 2K at Trial. All documents marked as Sub-Exhibits to EXHIBIT 4, are as followsEXHIBIT 4A, page E35 Letter from Dr. Patry to Dr, Hunt January 13, 2000.EXHIBIT 4B, page E36 Letter from Dr. Patry to Dr, Hunt November 13, 2003.EXHIBIT 4C, page E38 Medical Visit Record with Dr. Hunt, October 28, 2003EXHIBIT 4D, page E39 Medical Visit Record with Dr. Hunt July 16, 2004.EXHIBIT 4E, page E40 Letter from Dr. Patry to Dr, Hunt August 4, 2004.EXHIBIT 4F, page E42 Letter from Heidi Friesen to Dr. Hunt August 17, 2004.EXHIBIT 4G, page E 44A Doctors Note from Dr. Gawlinski December 30, 2005.

EXHIBIT 4H, page E45 Medical Visit Report with Dr. Bakker March 12, 2007.

[80] Mr. Achtem addressed his mental condition before the onset of cross-examining Ms. Achtem. Justice Horner was informed that Mr. Achtem does have MS. She read EXHIBIT 4A - letter from Dr. Patry to Hunt January 13, 2000]. It did inform her that Mr. Achtem suffers from memory function problems, which is because Mr. Achtem does have brain damage caused by MS attacks to his head. Justice Horner does NOT have any awareness of what MS is. She could possibly be thinking that MS is NOT a permanent chronic illness or something. She must think it supposed to improve during the course of one's life. IT DOES NOT IMPROVE and has not improved from the time of diagnosis particularly Mr. Achtem.

- A32 -

[90] Read the Trial transcript [EXHIBIT T page 159, line 5 to page 161, line 11]; (record time: 2:01:30 p.m. to 2:03:11 p.m.) Make special note of what Justice Horner said about the letter; marked as EXHIBIT 4A on page 160; “Okay, well this is -- this letter is over seven years old, right. Sorry, Mr. Achtem, are you telling me that you still suffer from --”

[91] [EXHIBIT 4A - page E35] and [EXHIBIT 4B E36] were the only medical documents that Mr. Achtem had brought to Justice Horner's attention. He did not bring any other medial documents to Justice Horner's attention as he should have not had too. Mr. Achtem's medical condition is of relevance to judges to know that sections 6(1), and 6(2) of the CEA C-5, should always apply to him, and treat him as such. Mr. Achtem's medical condition was not expected to come to play at the Trial. Because Mr. Achtem has alleged it was a ?rial by Ambush Therefore, Mr. Achtem alleges his Medical condition is of relevance to parties who will plan sneaky attack. Relevant to the Notice of Application for Judicial Review, and to judges. This is of relevance the criminal and civil cases, this may lead to at the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta Jury Trial only, that maybe stemming from the Application for Judicial Review.

[92] I do can get my doctors into the Witness Box to layout how MS effects Mr. Achtem, if required. My general practitioner and 3 neurologists. Whatever happened to My, in the future judges should NOT turn a blind eye. Do whatever in their power to prevent this from happening to anyone else particularly a brain damaged individuals such as I. Consider using both Justice Bonnie Rawlins

and Justice Horner's alleged misconduct I have outlined, and the alleged breach of functus officio doctrine as an example for judges of, ?HAT NOT TO DO?”

[93] It is the applicant's opinion that Justice Horner has breached the Functus Officio Doctrine. For relying upon a directionless Pre-trial Judge's BLANK ORDER (with kid scribbling on it), and only using her alleged LACKING KNOWLEDGE of the clerks and parties Pre-trial materials, when she should have been well versed on all Pre-trial materials. Her knowledge of the prerequisite case material such as what the the parties had informed each other regarding what documents they would be using at Trial was lacking. She candidly admitted in Court that her review of the Pre-trial material was BRIEF instead when a judge who getting paid in excess of $127K courtesy of the tax payer, then the tax payer should expect nothing less than outstanding performance from our judges. She used her alleged lacking knowledge of Pre-trial case material and the a Pre-trail Judge's Blank Order to Rely upon before engaging the parties at Trial as Plaintiff and Defendant. This is what she used to to rely upon to start her fact finding mission at Trial. Mr. Achtem and many long-term standing members of Bowness allege that Justice Horner is a serious concern for public safety.

[94] The transcript confirms, that the trial judge did read the Order from the Family

- A33 -

Chambers Hearing that directed the action to Trial. View and inspect the Family Chambers Order ordering the action to a Matrimonial Trial; [EXHIBIT 5A, page E47 Order of Justice Hughes May 6, 2007, filed June 28, 2007]. Justice Rawlins did NOT read an Order into the record at Pre-trial. She did state she would draft one in Calgary.  After after asking the Clerk, if an Order is needed. However Mr. Achtem did receive an Order shorty after. A blank Order that appears to have kid scribbling on it.

[95] The transcript confirms that Trial Judge did NOT state for the record that she read the Pre-trial Order as she did state for the record she read the Family Chamber Order. View and inspect [
EXHIBIT 5B, page 51 Pre-trial Order of Justice Rawlins, March 29, 2007, filed April 2nd, 2007]. This Pre-trial Order was not read into the record. This Order was NOT read to the parties. This order drafted by, Justice Rawlins does NOT outline the agreement made concerning exhibits that the parties agreed to. Drafted by Justice Rawlins in Calgary, sent to Medicine Hat Queen's Bench for filing then mailed to the parties. There is no possible way of confirming or verifying, if Justice Horner did read the Pre-trial Order. Mr. Achtem suspects that last portions of word for word verbatim went missing from the transcript. Mr. Achtem alleges that Justice Rawlins's Pre-trial Order was sloppy the way she did was NOT delivered to the parties at court that she would daft one in Calgary.  It is alleged that the drafting of the order was sloppy. She only asked the clerk, if an Order is needed. Speaking of sloppy

Mr. Achtem admits he was sloppy in his a appeal. His Factum he admits it looks like a kids wrote it. .

[96] The Pre-trial did provide exhibit instructions, and the parties agreed. Mr. Achtem understood the agreement concerning exhibit, pursuant to the clerks directions sent to the parties before Pre-trial. Section B paragraph 6(a) of the Court of Queens Bench of Alberta - Q.B. Family Law Practice Note 5 Family Law Pre-trial Conferences. Which was to bring documents to show the Trial Judge however many house the Achtem's all bought and sold and where it all went.  She said to use documents to trace and trace figures and numbers from the exhibits we have already served upon each other.  Justice Rawlins did not agree with any of the parties that they can bring documents that we have NOT informed the other party of. Although her Order being sloppy, she did provide the parties instructions that Ms. Achtem did NOT follow. [
EXHIBIT 6C, page E56 Clerks Pre-trial instructions, Civil Practice Note 5 Family Law Pretrial Conferences, Shauna Jobagy, February 14, 2007].

- A34 -

[97] Mr. Achtem addressed it repeatedly to Justice Rawlins at Pre-trial THAT he was NOT comfortable about having to go to Trail withOUT a lawyer, and that he was in no position to pay for one. This was NOT Mr. Achtem's choice to have to self-represent at freewill. This is where there was no choices. It was not an option. To state Mr. Achtem made his choice is NOT logical. The only legal representation available to Mr. Achtem was NO CHOICE self-represent. Mr. Achtem was doing the proper thing by going to court. Therefore, his only 2 choices were to go to court withOUT a lawyer or do NOT go to court withOUT a lawyer. Mr. Achtem choose going to court.

[98] Whatever Mr. Achtem was going to do with the proceeds of his matrimonial is NO BODIES business but his own. What business is it of Justice Rawlins to confirm what Mr. Achtem does with his matrimonial? Where it goes after Trial is not any judges business to have thoughts like this,
"Well what is Mr. Achtem going to do with his money?” This is of NO-one's concern except Mr.

Achtem's. So why did Justice Rawlins eye balling up what I chooses to do with my money then later

confirm it?  Mr. Achtem argues that confirmation of Justice Rawlins confirming what Mr. Achtem does with his money also confirms it for Justice Horner too.

[99] Stripping Mr. Achtem down clean of matrimonial meant to the judges means that this was Justice Horner's and Justice Rawlins's alleged premeditated method selected by Justice Rawlins of which route to take to remove Mr. Achtem from the child of the marriages life. Throw him into a pit over poverty at time he is about to have a second child, thus making it impossible for Mr. Achtem's 2 daughter to ever meet a be in each others life is what Ms. Achtem Objective is. An this was judges allege selected business way of dealing/racketeering it/aggregating Mr. Achtem's remaining matrimonial equity into the , doing their business as they see fit. That is too many judges like Justice Horner yield to serious public safety issues that MUST STOP not now, BUT RIGHT NOW! This alleged objective is and it fits the reputation of what Queen's Bench Federal appointed judges are like and is what they are trained to do and enjoy. The enjoyment of giving into alleged fraudsters must stop.

[100] Mr. Achtem had alot more respect for Justice Rawlins before Pre-trial.  He is offended to have discovered the Pre-trial Court Notes after the appeal.  View and inspect [EXHIBIT 5C, page E53 Pre-trial Court Notes of Justice Rawlins].  The Pre-trial Judges Court Notes are down right intrusive to Mr. Achtem.

- A35 -

[101] Justice Rawlins at Pre-trail gave instructions of what documents to bring.  Documents that would show the Trial Judge however many the houses that the parties all bought and where it all went.  As Justice Rawlins agreed with the parties at Pre-trial.  It is all based on facts, numbers,and figures. This is how Mr. Achtem understood it.  But only restricted to using documents from what the parties have already served as per their notice of intentions what documents they would be using states or at least 7 days pursuant to sections 28(1) and 28(2) of the CEA.

[102] For continuity sake please maintain reading these paragraphs in ascending order by number and keep viewing the exhibits I have grouped in paragraphs by ascending order by date, for at

least your first reading of this affidavit, and Mr. Achtem hopes you will be reviewing this affidavit and EXHIBITs thoroughly again. This is a complicated web of circumstances.  This affidavit is prepared to get the reader thinking proficiently and precisely.

[103] Prior to Pre-trial both parties filed and served upon each other a Notice of Intentions of what documents they would be using at Trial pursuant to sections 28(1) and 28(2) of the CEA C-5. The

Court of Queen's of Bench clerk Shauna Jobagy sent both parties the same instructions to prepare a Pre-trial summary.  As already presented to the readers in paragraph 70 [EXHIBIT 6C, page E56 Clerks Pre-trial instructions, Civil Practice Note 5 Family Law Pretrial Conferences, Shauna Jobagy, February 14, 2007]. I did include whatever I used at Trial, Nothing was argued about my Pre-trial Material. But it is here.

[104] View and inspect [EXHIBIT 7 - Mr. Achtem Pre-trail Material, filed March 26, 2007]. Sub- Exhibits to EXHIBIT 7, all documents NOT opposed filed together, are listed as follows:EXHIBIT 7A, page E73 Mr. Achtem's Pre-trial Summary, filed March 26, 2007.EXHIBIT 7B, page E79 Statement of assets, liabilities and exemptions, filed March 26, 2007.EXHIBIT 7C, page E80 Memorandum to Pre-trial Judge Dated March 4th, 2007, filed March 26, 2007.EXHIBIT 7D, page E88 Index to Originally filed and served Blue Binder, Mr. Achtem's Notice of Intentions of what documents he would be using at Trial, pursuant to sections 28(1) and 28(2) of the CEA C-5. Filed March 26, 2007.

- A36 -

[105] View and inspect [EXHIBIT 8 Ms. Achtem's Pre-trial Material, filed March 26, 2007]. Sub- Exhibits to EXHIBIT8 all documents filed together, are listed as follows:EXHIBIT 8A, page E94 Ms. Achtem's Concise Letter - Pre-trial, In lieu of a Pre-trial Summary, filed March 26th, 2007. (Pre-trial Summary is included)EXHIBIT 8B, page E108 Ms. Achtem's Statement of assets, liabilities, and exemptions,filed March 26, 2007.EXHIBIT 8C, page E112 (same as EXHIBIT 1) Ms. Achtem's 1st list of Exhibits, filed March 26, 2007

[106] It is alleged Justice Rawlins was NOT operating at her best capacity. She has earned a reputation for doing far better than she did at the Achtem v Achtem Pre-trial. She has earned a reputation within the legal community, ECMAS (www.ecmas.org) , Mr. Achtem she ?ad and others to be not as harsh of a judge. Which is Mr. Achtem's reason for choosing her as his Pre-trial judge.

We humans sometimes have accidents we do not intend, due to poor concentration or mental blocks or for whatever other reason. When we do have accidents and if you were a truck driver for a company

and you crash the truck. The driver is NOT liable. If a person who is employed as a judge and the judge somehow accidentally crashes the course of justice, then a judge is NOT civilly liable. Just to make it clear Mr. Achtem understands this. It is NOT that we are bad people or anything. Justice Rawlins maybe be a nice lady and everything, but it is Justice Rawlins who did an unsatisfactory job at work on March 29, 2007. I guess everyone cannot always expect to have a perfect day at work. Maybe it was just one of her screw up days. And I do cannot show this as deliberate. Just ditzy. At my expense. At the expense of Alberta Justice and the taxpayer. No one can argue the fact that Justice Rawlins had a ditzy day. And we cannot argue the fact that she is a human.

[107] Alberta Justice Transcript Management Services Regional in Red Deer will now be referred to as ?MS Regional Read [EXHIBIT T1, page 34, line 44 to page 35, line 4; 2nd transcript prepared by TMS] Regional; Trial instructions, vague agreement concerning exhibit, and the Order]. Justice Rawlins's Trial instructions. Read the transcript and inspect it thoroughly from page 34, line 44 to page 38, line 21 - court adjourn.

- A37 -

[108] This is a description of what happened within those moments near the end of Pre-trial. TMS Regional in Red Deer tried to delete from the transcript.  View and inspect the 1st transcript prepared by TMS Region of that ending portion about the Order is missing.  Read that ending portion about the Order and look to see if you can observe that part about the Order is omitted from the 1st transcript.  Read [EXHIBIT X, page 1 - 1st transcript prepared by TMS Regional; withOUT the Order/Order deleted from transcript, 1st page 37]. Read Page 37 , line 36 to page 38, line 21 - court adjourn. In this segment of transcript you can observe, and some may even say Justice Rawlins may appear to be rather ditsy the afternoon of Pre-trial. Mr. Achtem knows Justice Rawlins has a fine track record.  Her fine track record did NOT shine though in this Achtem v Achtem Pre-trial.

[109] Mr. Achtem suspects TMS Regional, coincidentally deleted that important bit of verbatim out of the transcript, about the Pre-trial Order NOT given to the parties, NOT read into the Record.  It was only just Justice Rawlins asking Shauna Jobagy if an Order is needed. Mr. Achtem's respect for Justice Rawlins has dropped drastically from what he saw about her when he researched her before he discovered her Pre-trial Court Notes. I am offended by Pre-trial Court Notes and so should any citizen.

[110] Mr. Achtem alleges Justice Rawlins's actions contributed towards Justice Horner's Functus Officio.  Mr. Achtem alleges Justice Karen Horner is a functus officio Judge. This does NOT go to say the Pre-trail judge has a bad track record. It was just one of her NOT so fine tuned moments.  She just happened to have one of those crazy afternoons people sometimes have.  View and observe from the the last page of the 1st transcript Alberta Justice TMS Regional prepared. Observe that 1st page 37 is different to the 2nd page 37 and 38, leaving out the part about the Order. View and inspect again [EXHIBIT X, marked as page 1 1st page, transcript of the first page 37 prepared by Alberta Justice TMS Regional]. Compare this to EXHIBIT T, the 2nd page 37 and 38, prepared by TMS Regional, prepared after.

[111] I heard about Justice Rawlins from Heidi Mackl before she became an Alberta Justice employee. Mr. Achtem learned she is thorough and a fine judge, Mr. Achtem knows she can do better than NOT giving an Order to the parties to be read for the record. Justice Horner.  Well, Mr. Achtem has heard some NOT so nice things about her, from many long-term standing members of the Bowness

- A38 -

Community while Mr. Achtem has inquired upon them. Much of what of what they have said about

Justice Horner's conduct parallels to this case now under investigation by Cheryl McTaggart of the City of Calgary Whistle Blowers Program. I have not researched this, other that speaking to residents, and I do NOT feel a blind eye should be turned, but I do see an infestation I will pursue in due course..

[112] From what many of the Bowness residents have stated; Justice Horner's conduct parallels this to a large degree, and I descend upon what ever the Whistle Bower program is doing. Because I know from first hand experience what she is all about and I know how poor she is at viewing case materials. From what I have been told I cannot wait to verify what everyone has said about Justice Horner and a group they refer to as racketeers. I will in due course turn over every stone and map it out as I have in this alleged Functus Officio Fraudster case. Just to make you aware I know who Justice Horner is and I know what she is all about. She has earned a reputation with many and advocate groups to be lousy at viewing, review, and reading of case material. She is NOT thorough, and I my case you will most certainly learn who she was NOT. You will have learnt she is a functus officio judge.

[113] Mr. Achtem is a former ECMAS member, when he lived in Edmonton.  He heard from others Justice Horner does poor case material observation, viewing and reviewing. Before she goes walking into court. She has developed a reputation for NOT knowing much about the case material. Many have agreed with Mr. Achtem she is BRIEF. At Trial Justice Horner did state she was BRIEF and QUICK with the Pre-trial material. View transcript to see if Justice Horner stated that she was brief and quick with materials, and make note that she does NOT state for the record that she has read

the Pre-trial Order of Justice Rawlins. She only states that she read the Family Chambers Order of Justice Hughes. Read Transcript at the start of Trial [EXHIBIT T2 Transcript page 39 to page 45].

[114] One may research on the Internet alot of what others have alleged about Justice Horner as well. There is lots of stuff. One may Google ?ustice Karen Horner Or even better go knocking on some doors in Bowness, and see how and infamous Justice Horner is with many of the residents?  Mr.

Achtem will return to Bowness again to research this other Justice Horner case thoroughly.  And another question is is what transcript did Justice Horner read?  The one withOUT the Order verbatim, when the Pre-trial Judge states she will draft an Order in Calgary or did she read a transcript with it?  Confusing, noway to confirm. Justice Horner is a public safety issue.

- A39 -

[115] Mr. Achtem realized after getting the 1st transcript from TMS Regional.  There was verbatim missing from both the Pre-trial and Trial.  When Justice Rawlins asked the clerk if there needs to be an Order at the end of Pre-trial withOUT even reading an Order to the parties and to be on the record.  This was Mr. Achtem's first experience where at the end of a court preceding.  Where the judge does NOT announce the Order to be read into the record to the parties withOUT particulars and Trial Parameters just as how Justice Rawlins put it at Pre-trial. She only asked the clerk if there needs to be an Order withOUT giving an actual Order.  That is why Mr. Achtem feels TMS Regional made that little segment of verbatim go missing off the transcript.  Justice Rawlins did NOT give an Order properly at Trail.  She only just asked the clerk, and said she would draft one in Calgary.  She did NOT give an Order.  Just a directionless Order given to the parties NOT in the court.  Just a directionless Order sent via Canada Post with some pen scribbling on it.  It looks like a little kid drafted it.

[116] Mr. Achtem alleges verbatim is still missing on both the court audio and text transcript he received from TMS Regional.  This is why courts have to go back to a mechanical reel to reel

audio recording machines.  To record a first original copy on a mechanical tape reel.  Because it is tamper proof.  The digital system courts are using now can be manipulated and impossible for a victim of the fraud to prove.  Mr. Achtem alleges verbatim sometime around 3:00 p.m. to 3:20 p.m. went missing. Justice Horner said she would review of my Blue Exhibit Binder used at Trial. I cannot quote the exact words but the verbatim is still missing on the 2nd transcript at the Trial within these moments around 3:00 p.m. to 3:20 p.m. and that bit of verbatim is missing from the audio transcript.  During this time in about September October 2007, Mr. Achtem misplaced the Order by Justice Rawlins from Pre-trial.  In about late October2007 court clerk Rose Hall and the Trial Coordinator, Shauna Jobagy the Trial Coordinator state during the appeal process there is no record of any such Pre-trial Order.

[117] View and inspect the following Exhibits in ascending order by date:
EXHIBIT 6A, page E54 - Envelope used to send Pre-trial Instructions to wrong address March 11, 2007.
EXHIBIT 6B, page
E55 - Family Special Chambers Instructions sent to wrong address Shauna Jobagy, March 9, 2007. I suspect Shauna Jobagy deliberately did this.
EXHIBIT 6C, page
E63 - Pre-trial Order prepared - letter from Shauna Jobagy April 2, 2007.EXHIBIT 12A, page E130 - Letter Rhonda Sails SENT to the Court of Appeals, September 12, 2007.

- A40 -

EXHIBIT 6E, E64 - Letter from Gerry Marsh,/Alberta Justice TMS Regional, October 29, 2007.
EXHIBIT 13A, page
E132 - Complaint Sent to TMS Regional, October 29, 2007.
EXHIBIT 13B, page
E133 - Complaint Sent to TMS Regional, October 29, 2007.
EXHIBIT 13C, page
E134 - Complaint Sent to Court of Appeal, October 30, 2007.

EXHIBIT 6F, page E65 - Letter from AB Justice TMS Regional C. Reynolds October 31, 2007.
EXHIBIT 13D, page
E136 - Complaint Sent to TMS Regional October 31, 2007.
EXHIBIT 6G, page
E66 - Reply from Court of Appeal to Mr. Achtem, November 2,2007.

EXHIBIT 6H, page E67 - DENIAL of Pre-trial Order from S. Jobagy, November 6, 2007.

(an attempt to fool me, Mr. Achtem)

EXHIBIT 13E, page E137 - Complaint Sent to Shauna Jobagy, November 6, 2007.
EXHIBIT 13F, page
E186 - Complaint Sent to TMS Regional, November 6, 2007.EXHIBIT 6I, page E68 - Shauna Jobagy Recovers the Pre-trial Order November 7, 2007.
EXHIBIT 13H, page E141 - Complaint sent to Shauna Jobagy, November 9, 2007.

[118] It is alleged that Justice Rawlins happened to have a ditsy moment at Mr. Achtem's expense. Mr. Achtem argues if he had NOT noticed how TMS Regional prepared the transcript and made verbatim from [EXHIBIT X, page 1 - 1st transcript page 37 to bottom of page]. NOT appear is an attempt to make Justice Rawlins's conduct NOT so bad. Mr. Achtem sometimes has ditsy mornings too. Everyone has their ditsy moments from time to time. This has cause me detriment.

[119] We are only humans who can make errors. This was one of Justice Rawlins's more foggy headed moments, where her thinking was NOT clear. And her head was unclear which may have caused her to NOT formerly announce the Order as judges always do. She did NOT read an Order in

Court stating what the Order is and particulars. She did NOT give an Order informing the parties what the Order is. She only asked the clerk if there needs to be an Order. The Order itself did NOT express any instructions to the parties either. However she did give document instructions at Pre-trial. It would have made Justice Rawlins look a lot better if how she delivered her instructions and how no Order went to the parties, had went unnoticed. But it was noticed, and the attempted cover-up was noticed.

- A41 -

[120] Orders that get manifested in such a way by the Pre-trial judges Justice Rawlins, and how the Trial Judge Justice Horner may have have used it to rely on, or she may NOT even have read

it. There is NO verifiable proof available if she did read it or NOT. Justice Horner stated at Trial she was only BRIEF, NOT thorough with the Pre-trial material. Mr. Achtem suspects that Justice Rawlins did NOT read the Pre-trial Order. Mr. Achtem court clerk Shauna Jobagy, Mr. Achtem has valid reason to believe she would have hidden on her, or taken it out of view. Mr. Achtem also suspects she may have only had the same transcript that had segment about the Pre-trial Order removed so Justice Horner can read that one instead, just like the first set of transcripts that was sent to Mr. Achtem. Needless to say the Pre-trial Order stirred up confusion for Ms. Achtem, but that's no excuse to break the law, and rules of court. The Pre-trial Order did NOT grant Ms. Achtem to jam different documents in from what she has informed me, and file before Pre-trial.

[121] Mr. Achtem alleges Justice Justice Rawlins exhibit instruction where not clear to Ms. Achtem. Not clear with her Order she drafted in Calgary. The Order she did NOT give and read into the record at Pre-trail Mr. Achtem alleges that she was not working up to par at Pre-trial. It was one of her not so clear headed afternoons that caused her to NOT deliver an order to the parties at court, ask the the clerk if it is needed. She only said she would draft on in Calgary. Then court adjourned. Mr. Achtem's alleges Justice Rawlins's head was in the gutter that afternoon. People sometimes have mental blocks. And it is alleged Justice Rawlins did indeed have a careless morning in the Achtem v Achtem case. She was NOT aware of herself the afternoon of Pre-trial, March 29th, 2007.

[122] Alberta Justice - Transcript Management Regional in Red Deer attempted to make that bit of segment of verbatim disappear from the transcript. Thus creating an added complication to the appeal process. Mr. Achtem had to get them to prepare the transcript a second time. Today he
argues verbatim is still missing from the Trial towards then end of Trial, when Justice Horner informed

Mr. Achtem that she would take time reviewing his exhibit binder, at Trial prior to telling the parties

she reserve Judgment then Trial ended. Mr. Achtem leaving with his tail between his legs feeling like a

bewildered fool. It is alleged Ms. Achtem deliberately caused it as well as the lack of information. No mention of the Agreement made concerning exhibitson the Pre-trail Order, pursuant to Civil Practice Note 5: Family Law, Pre-trial Conferences. The was nothing outlining any of these directions. Nothing outlining any details to the parties.

- A42 -

[123] The readers of this affidavit are aware that verbatim went missing off the transcript, and Mr. Achtem alleges verbatim is still missing on the 2nd transcript , and somehow audio verbatim was deleted at about 3:00 p.m. to 3:20 p.m.

[124] Mr. Achtem was not competent to stand Trail and self-represent. He no had no choice, but to self-represent. He did NOT have enough understanding of legal and court room procedure. However he has made attempts to attain lawyers.

[125] Today Mr. Achtem knows how to better carry himself in court, provided he is NOT ambushed. These Exhibits are meant to provide the readers with insight to the frustrations of what it is like to be a law abiding citizen that has verbatim go missing off of his or her transcripts, what it is like to be ambushed with unknown exhibits.  And what it is like to get allege Functus Officiated by a trial judge who may not seen the lame Pre-trial Order to rely upon. The Trial judge judgment along with the the standing access Order and the Order of Justice Dallas Miller Permits Ms. Achtem to continually rape Mr. Achtem's Second family financially, and keep Mr. Achtem buried in this position like he is a bug stuck in a jar, that can never escape and achieve freedom and livelihood.

[126] The jar that judges threw him into for Ms. Achtem to torment. Ms. Achtem has Mr. Achtem like he is a bug trapped in her jar to starve him. That Justice Horner,l Justice Miller, and the appeal panel threw him, and his second family and the 3 year old sister of the child of the marriage all thrown into a deep pit of poverty into. Now Ms. Achtem causes me to face starvation on a daily basis. Mr. Achtem's situation, thanks to Justice Karen Horner for making it possible for Ms. Achtem to carry out the said alleged acts, under the color of law. Mr. Achtem believes, he KNOWS he is just one of many non custodial parents of the child of the marriage who has been oppressed by judges, by permitting ex spouses to walk on their rights and freedoms. This was the method used by handing over whatever matrimonial Mr. Achtem still alleges to own which is is fair 50 percent share of matrimonial.

[127] For the next exercise; Identify the Justice Minister of Alberta provincial Mandate. NOT the misleading web-link that is currently posted now at Justice Minister of Alberta website.  That is NOT the MANDATE, that is misleading by ed Stelmach.  What the Alberta PC party has posted there is a letter from Ed Stelmach to Alison Redford, that is a fake.  Ed Stelmach cannot just go changing our longtime precedent on a whim.  It is not the Mandate (period).  Identify the real mandate, not the fake one posted

- A43 -

up now which would be to Mr. Achtem's guess, is that Alison Redford feels the website belongs to her while in office or something.  Please have identified with each and every word expressed in the Alberta Justice Justice Mandate the provincial Justice Minister's arbitrary duty to instruct Canadian Judicial Council to proceed with Judicial inquiry, which may lead to investigation, my opininion is this is required. Mr. Achtem seeks the following to be carried out by the Justice Minister; sections 63.(1), 65(b), and 65(c) Part II : Judges Act. I have requested. Nothing done. Therefore has escalated. Now I want it done. But 1st My Lord | My Lady you determine if the Court of Queen's Bench has been sent into disrupte, and determine who my be responsible

[128] View and inspect the following Complaints sent by Mr. Achtem and Complaint Replies from the public sector, either appointed or elected officials. View and inspect these Exhibits as laid out in ascending order by date:
EXHIBIT 13G, page E139 - Complaint sentto Chief Justice Wachowich, Canadian Judicial Council and other public elected/appointed officials, November 7, 2007
EXHIBIT 14A, pages
E162 to E166 - Transcript Judicial conduct Complaint replies Grouped together.

EXHIBIT 14B, page E167 - Complaint reply from Chief Justice Wachowich, November 26, 2007.
EXHIBIT 13I, page
E142 - Complaint Sent to Chief Justice Wachowich, December 4, 2007.
EXHIBIT 13J, page
E144 - Complaint Sent to Justice Minister of Alberta Ron Steven and Canadian Judicial Council, December 5, 2007.

EXHIBIT 13K, pages E145 to E161 More complaints sent to public official too many.
EXHIBIT 14C, page
E169 to 181 Batch of Complaints Replies medium to high ranked elected

and appointed public officials or their representatives.

[129] Okay My LORD | My LADY I will lay out some fragmented facts, then I start putting two and two together so that it makes logical sense as to why I could NOT, and CANNOT get a fair Judge in Canada. Because I have an over powering suspicion I was setup Alberta Justice into judges by certain people like Allen Wachowich, or a former infamous Dean of Law who can seriously influence it or other humans who know them and my father. This posses as a serious treat to me Because my name is the 1
st factor in the equation being my is Edward Darren Achtem and my father's name is Edward Peter Achtem. In light of Chief Justice Wachowich's Complaint Reply EXHIBIT 14B and Mr. Achtem's complaint to his letter he wrote stating; the ending segment of missing verbatim stating it was not relevant to the substantive portion of the application This was NOT an application (period). That little bit missing verbatim does NOT have any relevance to any a application because this was NOT an application, but it most certainly has relevance to the Order NOT given to the parties at court, and NOT read into the record. Chief Justice Allen Wachowich is an elderely suspected to have Dementia, and my opinion he was is the OLDTYMER who attemped to slide this under carpet. His actions were in my position is improper. An the complaint reply I would hope that you agree when Mr. Wachowich wrote that letter November 26, 2007, Mr. Wachowich's dementia symptoms maybe be visible. And you may aggree with me My Lord | My Lady that was NOT was note a well though up and drafted letter. Mr. Wachowich is far too old, and I do not want to make this a dementia case either, So please all I request is you excise jurisdiction, and leave the old tymers out, and become incombint upon being a impartial non biast Justice of the Federal Court powers. Our province needs fine judges who will NOT breach the powers of separation principal, to protect the integrity of another judge who has breached the powers of separation principal, because a huge slip in drawing of the Judgment. A 95 percent 5 percent split from a divorce with zero exemptions withOUT a written separation agreement is a HUGE SLIP.

- A44 -

[130] Mr. Wachowich, and a someone who became a former Dean of Law, my dad, my uncle, and a lot of other fellows from the The the Barr Association aka “The Boys Club Now you know what I am talking about. They have known me ever since I was born. I grew up in a political crony nepotistic judge lawyer doctor neighborhood in west Edmonton. I was bullied by Mark Carney & his bothers, the Boyer brother, and all the kids at St. Rose School in Edmonton. Today dispected by lawyers, the Boyer, and Mark Carney and his bother, Louis Belzil, Teddy Feehan, Todd Lee, former students to a Dean of Law. All people who know we have fine laws, but people who feel I should deprive of. Not because of anything I have ever done, but because of who I am. It is my opinion that Allen Wachwich was to make ammendments to the inpugneted decision, as Chief Justice. Intution tells me, due to past animosities, and the one's on mainstreem national news and news papers. That had nothing to do with me because I was a child. Yes, School records will confirm I was a bullied child. I remember the Carney bothers instigating and rousting up all the other kids to circle arround me, forcing me to to have to fight every recess and lunch hour. Whatever animosities I am victim and eye witness to should have NOT has potencially spilled over into me getting a fair judge. Seeing me an Achtem family member get lawlessly, stripped down and destroyed, it is my parents's position that Mr. Wachowich had pleasure and joy. I have heard many times through the Grapevine, and my mom has said it, “he has dementia, and so does my father. See the surprise photo [Exhibit 15, page E Photo; 1953 St. Joseph's High School Basket Ball team]

Time to use Logic. Mr. Wachowich stated in a letter that wordage missing from the transcript implying sending a message to Canadian it is NOT such a big deal because it has no relevance to an application, and this was not an application. It was Pre-trial. The only application made was myself wanting an Order to get documents from ATB Financial, docment that required and Order. And those documents do nt exist anymore and were destoyed after 5 years. That there is Mr. Wachowich exceeding his jurisdiction and at th e same time NOT exercising it. Pushed this off as irrelvant is illogical; [the Order Not given to the parties, NOT read for the record, the Pre-trial Judge asking the the Trial Coordinator as the clerk if an Order is need, the Pre-trial Judge stating she will draft the Order in Calgary. Then the parties get pretty much a blank Order, withOUT the aggreement pertaining to exhibits to be used, as Chief Justice. few paragraphs. And I will prove that He was not too aware of himself and was too old to be a judge. Okay, My Lord | My Lady I am going to start putting two and two together now, please follow as I make more sense of this as how an infection within the legal community that started in Edmonton has spread to members everywhere of Barr associations from coast to coast and how it has effected me getting judges who have time and time again jumped over the boundaries of law and or the Rules of Court.

[131] I suspect a vendetta from Mr. Wachowich's for his long-term good buddy a former Dean of Law. Whatever happen then was not my fault. I was only 9 years old or so. Look justices how far does this infection go? I can sure see it goes as far as eastern Canada. It does go half way across our country. A well respect Law Professor was somehow mislead to believe that I am a LAWYER, and I never was.” I am not a lawyer and Mr. James Morton has posted blogs about me. I had requested that he take them down. Read his comments posted online about the appeal. He is a witness who said he saw on a report that, I am a lawyer. No I am Not a lawyer. Between seeing blogs made by a York University law professor. I feel terrified MY LORD | MY Lady of you breaching the powers of separation principal to protect other lawyer colleagues by DISSMISSING my application. To protect alleged misconduct of your colleagues who are other federally appointed judges as well, and the judges in my case I allege trampled on my livelihood, the Rules of Court, the boundaries of Law, An Act

Respecting Witnesses and Evidence. I worry about you My Lord | My Lady trampling on me too. To protect your colleague who judges me is a crimal act. You do NOT take advantage of the fact that it is NOT easy to make the public listen to me.

[132] My Lord | My Lady learn that I know our country does need fine judges, and that I do NOT want to attack you unless you were to deprive me of rules of court and the laws that the Trial judge deprived me of sections 6(1), 6(2), 28(1), and 28(2) of the CEA. Earn my respect. We can get along with laws if you follow them unlike I allege the Trial Judge neglected. Do understand this, because my position isI was infinged upon by judges. This is NOT to attack Judges in General. This application pertains to the Conduct of Justice Horner. Because if a judge drives a car and gets into a crash. Then if next judge to use that car, for some reason he did not see the damage before or after using it. Well he was still driving rashed car withOUT even realizing. I do respect Justices Honourable Mr. Hembroff in Lethbridge, Alberta and Mr. Agrios (retired) in Edmonton. This Federal Court process has made me change my mind about Mr. Justice Ian Binnie too. My issues are with SCC in General, in my case the issue here is there was accomdation for difference, and Legal Aid Alberta sure did NOT accomdate, thus just letting fall thtough the cracks. If they do NOT come to realized this then this issues remains esclated because people commited crime in one of our court rooms, and public sector crooks just want to cover up for Justice Horner and Ms. Achtem who work in the public sector as well Do Not protect the integrity of your Queen's Bench Colleague the Trial Judge because I promise Justice Horner will come into Federal Court again in another case as a named respondent because of her poor work, your colleague alleged fatal mistakes, but a few weeks ago that has changed. These 3 fellows are Genuine Canadian Super Heroes, and I have seen their work I know what they are all about. I know of things they have had to stomach and about tough decisions they have made, and I will always respect them. I would hope that although my Application for Leave to Appeal at Supreme Court was all dismissed, and that the Supreme Court panel's hands were tied to DISMISS just on the basis that my application at Supreme Court was Late, and that they could NOT and did read my application because it was late. And if they did read my application, then I have some issues get into with them as well and their Chief Justice. I need to make it clear we need good safe judges, and if they are a hero, Great.

[133] I would hope that the SCC panel will now recognize just because of this affidavit that there was no accommodation for my difference because of what MS and what Ms. Achtem caused , and in the future that they would do whatever in their effort to NOT let what happened to me to do what ever in their power to NOT let happen to anyone else. It is hard to say anything about the SCC panel, other than it was NOT fair to me to NOT get a reasons of Judgment outlining the reason. Now I want to know their Reasons? And you can sure count on me to do the research you Mr./Madame Justice Decision Maker, after this case is closed. My hope is that you are pillar of society. Please carry out Justice. Please be an impartial judge. I bear serious fear you taking advantage of the fact that the public in general do not care about those, neighbors, friends, and sometimes family who have been victimized by Judges. For committing judicial fraud by jumping over the boundaries Law, and the Rules of Court, and stating fiction on their Judgments. You the SCC panel you are lucky if your hands were tied, if NOT then you are NOT so lucky because you will have more of me to deal with. I want to know if your hands were tied SCC panel? That is very important that I know this.

[134] My opinion of Justice Karen Horner and long-term standing residents of the Bowness Community know that she is serious safety stumbling treat to society, and I know it is your duty to do something about safety issues you observe My Lord | My Lady. This potential threat appears to have over spilled onto my Trial and Appeal. A well respected law professor who I do NOT attack his integrity because I have research him thoroughly because he made a blog that startled me. That radiates that he was misinformed and I know what he is all about. He is a fine sharp Law Professor. Although, he did make a blog about me titled; “A Lawyer Who Represents Himself... The Perils of Self

- A46 -

Representation This can be confirmed by going to the blog he made 1 of the 2 blogs for which 1 blog still remains posted because it is impossible to delete. The blog still exists is on the internet at; http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/search.php?search=Achtem He is a fine character who was misinformed. He is a man of integrity who is to be respected.

[135] Mr. Morton's Blog is about a Lawyer (I am NOT a lawyer) who took it upon himself to self-represent, and now he is suffering the peril of it. He is correct when he states I facing the perils of self-representation, but he is wrong about me being a Lawyer. In retrospect I claim that I am a victim from fraud, and malfeasance, and that is the main reason of my suffering. I am claiming the peril was NOT because of me, but because I allege that a few somebodies caused the course of Justice to be

totally beyond the proper roll of the court, and the slip in the drawing of the Judgment. Because of the

nature of the alleged breach of both the functus offico doctrine, and the powers of separation principal., and the alleged breach of the Canada evidence Act C-5, and the alleged fraud. Now that is what I am claiming.

[136] Taken from: Doucet-Boudreau v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education), 2003 SCC 62, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 3
[10th and 11th paragraphs]:
?er Major, Binnie, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.  (dissenting):  While superior courtspowers to craft Charter remedies may not be constrained by statutory or common law limits, they are nonetheless bound by rules of fundamental justice and by constitutional boundaries.  Such remedies should be designed keeping in mind the canons of good legal drafting, the fundamental importance of procedural fairness, and a proper awareness of the nature of the role of courts in our democratic political regime. In the context of constitutional remedies, courts

fulfill their proper function by issuing orders precise enough for the parties to know what is expected of them, and by permitting the parties to execute those orders.  Such orders are final.  A court purporting to retain jurisdiction to oversee the implementation of a remedy, after a final order has been issued, will likely be acting

inappropriately on two levels: (1) by attempting to extend the court jurisdiction beyond its proper role, it will breach the separation of powers principle; (2) by acting after exhausting its jurisdiction, it will breach the functus officio doctrine.

"Here, the drafting of the reporting order was anything but clear.  The order gave the parties no clear notice of

- A47 -

their obligations, the nature of the reports or even the purpose of the reporting hearings. The uncertainty engendered by the order amounted to a breach of procedural fairness.  For this reason alone, the order can be found to be inappropriate under s. 24(1) and therefore void.  In addition, the reporting order assumed that the judge could retain jurisdiction at will, after he had finally disposed of the matter of which he had been seized. As a general rule, courts should avoid interfering in the management of public administration.  Once they have rendered judgment, they should resist the temptation to directly oversee or supervise the administration of their orders and operate under a presumption that judgments of courts will be executed with reasonable diligence and good faith.  In this case, the trial judge assumed jurisdiction over a sphere traditionally outside the province of

the judiciary, and also acted beyond the jurisdiction with which he was legitimately charged as a trial judge, thereby breaching the constitutional principle of separation of powers and the functus officio doctrine.  His remedy undermined the proper role of the judiciary within our constitutional order and unnecessarily upset the balance between the three branches of government. Since no part of the Constitution can conflict with another, the trial judge's order for reporting hearings cannot be interpreted as appropriate and just under s. 24(1)."

[137] In the Achtem v Achtem et al case the Trial Judge assumed jurisdiction based on the Pre-trial Order not given to the parties at court in that was NOT read into the record. Is NOT a Clear order and alleged NOT valid, and alleged undue process. Therefore, Justice Horner assuming jurisdiction for acting on a Order no one can verify she did read. And for Justice Rawlins for passing a case off like that. To proceed with Trial because of an Order NOT given to parties, and NOT read into the record assuming that she and Mr. Achtem was prepared for Trial because of evidence that she know that Mr. Achtem did NOT have. Even Proceeding with Trial base on the Pre-trial Order was beyond the courts roll, and because of Justice Horner directing Mr. Achtem into a an alleged premeditated Trial by Ambush premeditated Trial by Ambush undermined the proper role of the judiciary It is alleged that Ms. Achtem deliberately has breached the Canada evidence Act C-5.

[138] This is beyond the courts roll. Justices Horner and Rawlins cause to court to go beyond it's jurisdiction. My feeling would improve a little for Justice Horner if she was provided the same transcript I received the first time. But that I do NOT know, and I suspect it. If she was NOT provided the Order then it does make her NOT as bad, but I cannot forget that she knew I was being cross-examined on exhibits that Ms. Achtem did not submit to Mr. Achtem or did NOT inform him . Then clerk attempted to make me think there was No Order and Alberta Justice Transcript regional disappear, and then Chief Wachowich's letter. Their goof ups at my detriment. I was walked on by

- A48 -

individuals for the benefit of Ms. Achtem. Taking a father's matrimonial is NOT in the best interest, but what I do know was for Ms. Achtem and Mr. Wachowich did get his kicks.

[139] Ignorance of Acts is no excuse. Rhonda Rose Achtem was the only one prepared for Trial with a premeditated rigged prepared suspect 2nd Bundle of Documents. Prepared especially for Me too fool me and it did NOT fool the Trail Judge. Justice Karen Horner permitted this to happen. I do NOT accuse her of knowing while she was involved in the 1st Climax at Trial, that I have doubt. But she most certainly knew when passing judgment Mr. Achtem was questioned on an exhibits he did NOT have, and I honestly did NOT come to know from the transcript, until after Supreme Court of Canada passed judgment based on fraud and functus officio. As to whether or NOT SCC knew that their judgment was Stemming from a fraud functus officio Judgment, that I do not know. What I do know is I expressed the Fraud to them, my application was late. I do not know if they have even read it, but they must have the application extension of time for it being late, and If the read anything further

I do not know. I can say Ms. Achtem most certainly did me fool me, and no judge can say that, like the appeal panel did. They cannot feed me what is confirmed to be NOT True and tell me that I cannot say; “I was taken by surprise

[140] I DO NOT BUY IT (period). Pardon me, You the Federal Court Judge / Decision Maker DO NOT feed this to me too. DO NOT dismiss the application, because if you do. I argue that it is to protect the integrity of your colleagues Lies and/or what is NOT the TRUTH, and/or mistakes. I fear you the Decision Maker, just to protect the integrity of your colleagues mistakes, and you will push me

off as a measly father case, any action on your part to do this is criminal. Pardon me, but I know what it is like to have judges ravish my life and livelihood. For the benefit of Ms. Achtem. So that she may profit from pulling off a fraud on her daughter's father is disgusting. How would you feel if someone did this to your father because he was disabled?

[141] The transcript shows that Justice Karen Horner did part-take in malicious cross-examination with Ms. Achtem as well, and I do not accuse her of knowing that while doing that to me, but as per the transcript she most certainly knew I did NOT have access to exhibits before Trial. I was cross-examined by Ms. Achtem and Justice Horner on them, prior to Justice Horner preparing her judgment. If she forgot something from yesterday or from the Trial. I do NOT know. I do know when

- A49 -

people work for their employers and cause accidents they are NOT liable, and I know that Justice Karen Horner is not liable civilly. Her employer is. And most certainly Ms. Achtem is. This is a complicated web of circumstances and it only took Ms. Achtem waltzing into court late with document that breached section 28(2) of the CEA and at 11:30 p.m/the1 minute and 39 seconds that triggered this to happen. Thank God I am intelligent enough to map it out and lay it all out for you readers. I'm not saying I am a good at legal drafting. But I'm much better than the factum I prepared for appellant's court. I do understand that you judge people are only human, but feel you need NOT be smug and condescending with me a see me as a law abiding citizen. Therefore Justice Decision Maker please treat me like a law abiding human. Let's make this world a better place.

[142] There was an agreement between the parties and Pre-trial judge to bring just exhibits that tract or trace figures, and then she said; “bring it all meaning only the documents the parties have informed each of before Pre-trial. The letter she wrote to appellant's court [EXHIBIT 12A, page E130] reveals Ms. Achtem's confusion about what exhibits she was to bring. Her rigged 2nd Bundle of

Documents was Not setup by accident. I allege deliberate premeditated to fool me, and she most certainly made a fool out of me. Bottom line it is a breach of the CEA. NOT anything outside her filed notice of intentions of what documents to be used at Trial which is outlined in her filed list of exhibits [EXHIBIT 1, page E1]. Ms. Achtem knew when she wrote that letter she knew Mr. Achtem did NOT have all relevant material available, and how was it possible for Mr. Achtem to know of all her exhibits. This is deception of Ms. Achtem. [EXHIBIT 12A, page E130] does Not correspond to as it should with EXHIBIT 1.

[143] ILLOGICAL Whatever happened to Mr. Achtem of how he alleges he was attacked in the Witness Box and how he alleges it was NOT prevented by Justice Horner, but preventable by Justice Horner, indeed. Judges have to do whatever possible to NOT let this happen again and detour it.  Dismissing Mr. Achtem's case will NOT detour it.  It would ultimately mean that the Federal Court decision maker wants to protect the integrity of his/hers colleagues conduct and the integrity of people that choose to ambush witnesses.  Mr. Achtem alleges a breach of sections 6(1), 6(2), 28(1), and 28(2) of the CEA c-5. Logic needs to be applied My Lord | My Lady.

[144] If Ms. Achtem had provided Mr. Achtem with reasonable intent.  NO LATTER THAN 7

- 50 -

DAYS as section 28(2) of the CEA c-5 states. Then I could have answered Ms. Achtem's cross-examination of Exhibit M to R much differently than he did at Trial. Mr. Achtem was miss guided into not providing his full truthful know about those e-mails sent to Ms. Achtem.  Mr. Achtem alleges, then he could have come prepared for the cross- examination and arguments.  He alleges if he were respect as a witness, he could have prepared.

[145] Further to Ms. Achtem'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, K, and L. and L was was altered from the first one she provide me a copy of.  For which her exhibits C, D, F, G, H, I, N, O, P, Q, and R; Ms. Achtem did NOT inform me of her intent as the CEA c-5 states she has to.  They are based on numbers facts and figures and shows where some matrimonial assets went and where some matrimonial liabilities remained, and where it went.  They where less of a surprise, and Mr. Achtem does not argue the contents because numbers, figures, and facts do not radiate deception.  Ms. Achtem presented 18 fresh new exhibits at Trial without proposal orapplication. She only informed Mr. Achtem of her intentions that she would be using 7 of those 18 exhibits.  Mr. Achtem was only informed of 39 percent of the exhibits, and the other 61 percent Ms. Achtem did NOT inform him of her intentions.

[146] I was too confused by the alleged ambush and he was too confused by the Trial Judges alleged actions of misconduct Not permitting Mr. Achtem a view of the 2nd Bundle of Documents, at his request.  To view documents before having to answer them.  This was the cause that confused Mr. too much to Object.  He could have objected that Ms. Achtem is in breach of the CEA. Maybe due to Mr. Achtem's brain being restricted.  Maybe he was too stupid. The Judicature Act state Judges are to enjoy their careers.  For as much as judges enjoy toppling and setting peoples life off kilter, stupid people do NOT deserve a
Trial by Ambush.

[147] Mr. Achtem argues that Justice Horner and Ms. Achtem did NOT respect Mr. Achtem as a witness pursuant to sections 6(1), 6(2), 28(1), 28(2) of the CEA c-5.  Ms. Achtem may have BREACHED the CEA c-5, ultimately committing the alleged act of FRAUD, committing her 1st alleged offense, charge 1, paragraph 380(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

- A51 -

[148] Mr. Achtem's experience is judges in his case have NOT recognized that MS is a chronic illness. It is a neurological disorder that does not improve over the course of one's life. The course of MS always worsens. Some people with MS have treatments that have earned a reputation within the

MS community to slow the course of MS down. Whatever one's course is there is NO cure for MS. It only gets worse. Mr. Achtem feels like he is living in a shark pit for Justice Horner for permitting Ms. Achtem to eat him and his second family money.

[149] The Supreme Court of Canada could not or did not accommodate for Mr. Achtem's difference of having physical brain damage caused by Multiple Sclerosis. Mr. Achtem was late with the application. Maybe SCC could not or did not consider, that Ms. Achtem did not or would not accommodate for Mr. Achtem's SCC Application for Leave to Appeal.  She instead made a lower Court application, which forced Mr. Achtem to have to travel at this pressing time, thus impeding his SCC

application which was not necessary. View [EXHIBIT 9B, page E113 - Order of Justice Wilkins July 31, 2008], and he was denied legal aid. Mr. Achtem to laying it all out for you in ascending order with the required jumping into contrary exhibits new fresh evidence produced from Appellant's Court and SCC, by others to support my application for the review of the Court of Queen's. Then step by step to Appellant's Court in an Notice of Motion Application. Then from to the Court where I cannot say much SCC. In my opinion that Court did indeed, follow the rule of law. It is of my view as being disabled having MS for over a Decade, I do have a serious issue because that Court posts words on the SCC Court Website and the reads; “...respect for fundamental rights. And the Rule of Law, and accommodation of difference... Judges give effect to our laws... Our Commitment to these values... I want to become my last Notice of Motion, and I do NOT want it to become an issue for anyone as is has me...

[150] The 3-judge SCC panel were most likely compelled to Dismiss My case because the application was late. I feel they maybe they did NOT see a public importance because they did NOT see it on TV. Well, In a later motion stemming from this application I will argue a valid argument as

to my case is about a serious public safety issue, and that safety hazard is Justice Horner, many others I do have my finger on. My opinion is that you judges should NOT turn a blind eye to or just take this lightly. Mr. Achtem feels every member of society should become incumbent upon holding issues like this to the fire when the people are appointed as judges like Justice Horner botch up, causing people

- A52 -

like Ms. Achtem to reap from alleged fraud because parties in cases, were deprived section 6(1), 6(2), 28(1), AND 28(2) of the CEA C-5. Alot of people in the Bowness the community of Calgary have alleged that Justice Horner is a sloppy, careless judge, and there is currently an investigation by the City of Calgary Whistle Blower Program. And I have been informed that Federal Court will be welcoming Annie Yen Thai before Christmas over other Justice Horner issues.

[151] I did NOT choose to self-represent by choice as Ms. Achtem and judges have claimed. I did NOT have a choice. Mr Achtem was denied legal aid because his name was on title for the matrimonial home that was disputed. Mr. Achtem was denied Legal Aid in his appeal because he was denied due to Kathleen Linton's legal opinion, of likelihood of success which is that different motion I keep telling you about after it has determined by Federal Court that Court of Queen's Bench is sent into disrepute.

[152] Justice Horner's alleged misconduct deprived Mr. Achtem of his rights and freedoms. And An Act Respecting Witnesses and Evidence, and sections 6(1), 6(2), 28(1) and 28(2) of the Canada Evidence Act C-5. Justice Karen Horner's misguided Mr. Achtem into an unexpected surprise. An alleged ambush of fresh exhibits that could not be permitted; by the Trial Judge to be adduced. Ms. Achtem did NOT make an application or proposal to the court. Mr. Achtem was lead into an alleged ambush and premeditated malicious cross-examination by Ms. Achtem.

[153] The documents that Ms. Achtem informed Mr. Achtem of, for which she was to be using at Trial is outlined in Ms. Achtem's [1st List of Exhibits EXHIBIT 1, page E2]. This was the only List of documents she filed and provided Mr. Achtem which is her only notice of her intentions of what exact documents she was to be using at Trial, pursuant to sections 28(1), 28(2) of the CEA c-5. The exhibits Ms. Achtem has outline in her [1st List of Exhibits EXHIBIT 1, page E1] Which was the documents Mr. Achtem came to Trial prepared for, to be cross-examined as the witness.

[154] Justice Horner permitted Ms. Achtem to impede Mr. Achtem's opportunity to be prepared for Trial. Thus preventing Mr. Achtem the administration of sections 28(1) and 28(2) of the

CEA resulting in an application of sections 24.1 and 24.2 of the Charter at Trial and in the trial judge's judgment.

- A53 -

[155] If Justice Horner had been an outstanding judge that had not let herself become lead into alleged malfeasance by Ms. Achtem, then this may have been prevented. If Justice Horner permitted Mr. Achtem time to examine Ms. Achtem's fresh exhibits before having to answer to them. Then maybe Mr. Achtem could have prevented this too, thus possibly exposing an alleged fraudster Red Handed. That may have thrown off the course of Justice, indeed.  Then maybe Mr. Achtem would have

NOT be feeling so home owner less struggling in pit of poverty that Ms. Achtem with the help of Justice Karen Horner together, threw me along with my 2nd family into sudden poverty. It was Justice Horner who chose NOT provide Mr. Achtem that opportunity at a sensitive time. And it was Justice Horner who either knew or was careless to the fact that Mr. Achtem was cross-examined on Ms. Achtem's exhibit that breached the CEA c-5.

[156] Mr. Achtem alleges Ms. Achtem is and has been and she is right in the process of committing the act fraud now at this very moment and she has do so ever since she presented her 2nd Bundle of Documents My opinion she is an alleged Fraudster.  It has being going on from the time she plan her exhibit ambush before Trial up until today and after.  Only when she is stopped by the court then the victimizing will stop..

[157] Justice Horner could have been the excellent Judge who could have done the best thing by seeing through the alleged Fraud. By being thorough instead just brief. Viewing thoroughly ALL the IMPORTANT Pre-trail case material and the Important lame looking kid scribbling Pre-trial Order that was NOT given to the parties at court. Then re-view it thoroughly as well, and reviewing it again

if needed before passing judgment. If she had been thorough instead of brief the this may lead to her and saying to Ms. Achtem, to use these exhibits is violation of the CEA. But No. Justice Karen Horner was not the best judge. She was not the outstanding judge who could have prevented this complicated web of circumstances from happening. She could have prevented Mr. Achtem from being victimized by his ex-wife's alleged FRAUD. She was a rather careless alleged accessory to Ms. Achtem's alleged

act of FRAUD under the color of law. Justice Horner could have done the best judge who could have permitted Mr. Achtem time to view Ms. Achtem's surprise 2nd Bundle of Documents.

[158] It is in the applicant's position that Justice Horner has purported to have committed offenses paragraphs 463(a), 362(1)(c), and 122 of the Criminal Code of Canada. For preventing Mr.

- A54 -

Achtem any time to view documents at his request in the Witness Box. Justice Horner observed, admitted in the midst of Mr. Achtem's confusion from being an alleged intimidated Witness. By an alleged ambush of documents that she could not permit Ms. Achtem to adduce. Justice Horner stated at Trial that Mr. Achtem did not have exhibits she subjected him to answer to. Justice Horner knew Mr. Achtem did not have documents presented at Trial. This is alleged to be one of the many elements Justice Horner used to deliberately produce an alleged false judgment. It shall be evidenced that she is an accessory that may have brought the honourable court into disrepute. That ultimately lead to the alleged act of false pretenses. Which in turn ultimately gave way to Ms. Achtem's alleged act of FRAUD, Thusly bringing our honourable court into disrepute.

[159] Justice Horner allowed and observed Mr. Achtem as alleged, be maliciously cross-examined by Ms. Achtem and attack him in the Witness Box with her 2nd Bundle of Documents with

exhibits that were NOT proposed to the court to be adduced and Ms. Achtem was required to do so. Justice Horner may have allowed Ms. Achtem to do as alleged, breach the Canada Evidence Act C-5.

[160] Justice Horner continued to permit Ms. Achtem's malicious cross-examination carry on beyond the point of it being observable. Justice Horner admitted, she knew Mr. Achtem did NOT have exhibits presented into Trial by Ms. Achtem.

[161] Justice Horner filed her Reasons of Judgment for the Achtem v Achtem Trial, on July 13, 2007. Knowing with having prior knowledge as admitted at Trial, that Mr. Achtem was cross-examined by Ms. Achtem over exhibits that he did NOT have, prior to coming to Trial. Mr. Achtem did

not have these exhibits because he did NOT have any possible way of knowing he would be cross-examined on most of them, prior to coming to Trial. At Trial Mr. Achtem was too confused because he was suffering from the effects of the intimidated Witness Justice Horner observe cross-examination breached sections 28(1), and 28(2) of the CEA C-5, because she too helped Ms. Achtem cross-examine

Mr. Achtem over exhibits that he did not have before Trial. Then filed her judgment on July 13th, 2007.

[162] Ms. Achtem presented exhibits she was required to propose with a description to the court. She did NOT propose the to fresh exhibits she was required to give a description of that she

- A55 -

suddenly presented moments before she cross-examining Mr. Achtem on them. For which Justice

Horner knew very well Mr. Achtem knew nothing about and she watched me as be maliciously cross-examined by Ms. Achtem. As a result of Justice Horner's, Reasons of Judgment it

aggregated 95% of matrimonial property from a divorce with ZERO EXEMPTIONS $0.00. Which lead to all NOT yet split household items, 1 RRSP, 1savings bonds, all remaining NOT yet split matrimonial assets went to Ms. Achtem, and all remaining matrimonial liabilities went to Mr. Achtem. Based on the date of separation July 23, 2003. Furthermore, Justice Horner stated twice on her

Judgment, that I can keep my RRSP and I have NEVER had one. This is because Justice Horner is poor at reading and reviewing case material, and she has earned that reputation. I even asked SCC for them to view a CMA, accountant's balance sheet in abeyance. See [EXHIBIT 11, page E129 - Certified General Accountant's Letter to the Supreme Court of Canada], offer to prepare balance sheet, November 5, 2008. Motion for the abeyance was dismissed.

[163] The 3-judge appeal panel Memorandum of Judgment indicated this was reasonable. There was no way shape or form I was in a position to agreement, with Ms. Achtem. To agree with her

so that she gets more than 95% of matrimonial, having short-lived career building years, which is the reason why Ms. Achtem did NOT want me. It is legal for her to NOT want me, but her waking away with 95% is lawless. I did make any agreement with her prior to separation. My intent was to live in Medicine Hat on the weekends and in Calgary during the week days. But on July 23, 2003, Mr. Achtem was in for a big surprise. He was not allowed to stay during the transition period of taking possession of the Calgary home and the Medicine Hat home which I still intend to live after July 23, 2003 as his primary resident. It was a Constable Stacey Kesler who threatened to arrest me if I continue to claim I live there, and that I am only allowed into my house as a guest. I was hood winked by Ms. Achtem.

[164] This is all outlined as a statement of facts, Mr. Achtem's [Statement of Division of Assets Since Separation]; marked as exhibit 2A1 at Trial. Marked as [
EXHIBIT 16 - Statement of Division of Assets Since Separation, page E182] This is a display of facts, figures, and numbers.

[165] At Trial Ms. Achtem knew everything about Mr. Achtem and she knew Mr. Achtem better than anyone. She was with him for more than 14 years. She knew how to attack his disability of

short-term memory function better than anyone at the time of Trial. Mr. Achtem has suffered from MS

- A56 -

the effects of intense pain which is known to many MSers as the pins and needles effect. Intense pain in Mr. Achtem Head, and in various parts of his body. The results is assimilation of Mr. Achtem nerves ever since the day he woke up the morning of November 11, 1998 next to Mrs. Achtem.

[166] Mr. Achtem claims that their is no precise way to tabulate at any given moment. The painful sensation feels like a horse kick him his head.  Waking up having intense pain going from doctor to doctor to doctor. From medical clinic to medical clinic to medical clinic. Going to at least 4 or 5 hospitals. Trying fine a way to deal an intense pain on the left side of his incompletely left in the dark as to what was wrong. Then a MediCentre doctor sent Mr. Achtem to a Neurologist Dr. David

Patry in Mid-December 1998. Which is when Dr. Patry informed Mr. Achtem that It looks like he may have Multiple Sclerosis. Dr. Patry confirmed it March of 1999. Mr. Achtem has an UN CURABLE diagnosis of MS.

[167] Mrs. Achtem observed Mr. Achtem's disease progress from November 1998 onward. Mr. Achtem's disease did continue to progress to the point that, she did not want him anymore because MS hindered My employ ability, my lacking physical and sexual performance. My short-term memory caused by MS that constantly jogs my conversation abilities over things that have not been registered in my long-term memory function which is well intact. Ms. Achtem both knew his long-term memory is excellent because I do not forget anything from a month ago than I would from 5 minutes. I have to reviewed and reviewed again and again and again. When it's new material then I will need the time to become well versed on it. I cannot deal with a Trial by Ambush.

[168] Ms. Achtem who knew how to attack Mr. Achtem's memory better than anyone. Decided to attack him with e-mails, rigged to fool him. He had no access to the e-mails because his computer crashed long before Trail. How is anyone like Mr. Achtem who sends hundreds of e-mails

every month, how are they going to remember old 2.5 year old e-mails on the spot? Sent during the time of first 4 months of separation.

[169] Mr. Achtem and most men do send many e-mails to their separated wives. Mr. Achtem did this just because he wants his half of the matrimonial from the divorce with ZERO $0.00 EXEMPTIONS and to be with his daughter. Ms. Achtem's alleged FRAUD and both Pre-trail and Trial

- A57 -

judges eye balling up the fact that Mr. Achtem want to matrimonial to assist with a bilateral assessment, meaning Alberta Rule of Court 219. It was Justice Rawlins from Pre-trial who was eye balling up for the Trial judge, the fact of what Mr. Achtem wanted to use funds from the proceeds of his matrimonial to assist with assessment to be in his child's life.

[170] Both the Pre-trail and the Trial Judge's motives was to remove Mr. Achtem from his daughter's life, not because he is an unfit father, and NOT because it is unsafe for the child. And Not because the child of the marriage has ever been harmed by Mr. Achtem. This was just because Ms. Achtem does Not want the father her daughter in their daughters life. Therefore taking all Mr.

Achtem's matrimonial which he earned during the career building years of his life that was short-lived due to MS rendering his employable, and further more Mr. Achtem has last his drivers license because he is has been paying near twice the child support guideline rate to Ms. Achtem, and this was NOT a second in life to Mr. Achtem. This is downright infringement. He today is paying way too much more

than based on what he earns, and Justice Millers Order is and has been preventing Mr. Achtem to make

an application because he cannot afford to pay Ms. Achtem $750 fine base on application stemming from matrimonial to Ms. Achtem for the alleged Fraud. He also is supporting a second family with a

wife from Mexico and Mr. Achtem cannot sponsor his wife to emigrate to Canada as a landed emigrant, because of the over calculated arrears which does NOT take into account the financial loss of his house. The fact that Mr. Achtem's entire second family is living only on 1 CPP-disabity pension and AISH Alberta benefits. A 3 year old child, a wife who make zero dollars $0.00 income, and then Mr. Achtem has to survive, with minimal food and has face starvation so that his second daughter and wife do NOT starve. I put my family before me.

[171] Losing my 50 percent of matrimonial in a divorce with zero exemptions is NOT the proper role of the Courts. This was the main significant matrimonial assets NOT yet divided. Justice Horner read the Pre-trial notes and saw this as a method to remove the father completely from the child's life. Needless to say this cause the onset of Mr. Achtem's life into a deep sudden Not expected poverty. Justice Horner's judgment resulted in Ms. Achtem with more than 95 percent from a divorce with zero exemptions. Ms. Achtem getting more than 95% of matrimonial, thus Mr. Achtem only did get less than 5%. This was the the method use to remove me from my daughters completely by turning me into a poor man. She has been achieve thought the form of alleged malfeasance, Fraud, and false

- A58 -

pretenses. Justice Horner's intent was premeditated from the information Justice Rawlins Pre-trail Court Notes before Mr. Achtem gets to Trial was to do what ever possible to make it impossible for Mr. Achtem to be apart of his daughters life. She used the rather functus Pre-trial Order to rely upon. Or maybe she did NOT even read the Functus Pre-trial Order. No one can confirm that from the transcript.

[172] Mr. Achtem was completely thrown off kilter from the alleged ambush and malicious cross- examination. Mr. Achtem's was so confused at Trial in the argument stages of the Trial. Mr. Achtem forgot to lay out the math regarding numbers, facts and figures for matrimonial of who did get what since separation and where it all went. Justice Horner did absolutely NO MATH either, and a statement laying it all out was entered into the record, but the alleged trial by ambush totally threw me off kilter. Her Judgment is not based on tabulations or math. She just gave whatever NOT yet split matrimonial assets to Ms. Achtem withOUT consideration of [EXHIBIT 16, page E182]. She aggregated what ever matrimonial left over; assets,cash, equity that was left NOT yet split at the time of Trial into Ms. Achtem's pockets under the Color of Law.

[173] Mr. Achtem has outlined the division of matrimonial in his exhibit 2A1 used at Trial, of

Ambush Mr. Achtem was too confused and terrified to lay it all out. So I, Edward D. Achtem have laid it out in Part II of this affidavit.

  • ONLY $15,000.00 rebutted at Trail on my EXHIBIT 16 page E182

[174] Okay my Lord I my to present the bottom line, an orally present a Trial EXHIBIT 16 A precise map with minor items estimated as to who received what and where it all went, is Exhibit 16 and it's all there. Please provide me a 1.5 hours to lay this out on the overhead and the witness box, and we can all keep on the same page. Please let me come in an layout the monetary element to the alleged fraud. The only thing argued by Ms. Achtem was the $15,000.00 estimated figure which is based on new replacement house hold item I purchase because of my property I allege is mine and was never permitted to it. That figure is based on what I had to buy for just 1 person and it was $8000 and I still have receipts. And where Ms. Is that was 2.5 people living there is the formula I used. Not easy to calculate items as such.

- A59 -

[175] All I need to do is layout the facts, number and figure of the alleged fraud.. All the monetary items are from page E259 on. All information is there. It will be best and easiest for me and the best for your understanding. All documents that support [Exhibit 16. page E182] is within pages E259 to E394. I need to come in and lay it out. I have MS have brain damage. I am sharp, just a very intelligent as per what the teachers said when I was a kid, but slow with problem solving, but in a gifted way, you may want me to view medical documents and in particular a MRI brain scans, and Appellant's Court Refused to wait and look at. They just wanted me to forfeit my rights and freedom.

[176] There is No way I will stop being a dissenter of THE ORGANIZED CRIME, of individuals WITHIN OUR JUDICIAL. And this is NOT about a legal system this is about criminal individuals human that are lawyer and in my opinion they are public sector crooks. Accommodate me. I live every day of my life feeling like and walk around, and often I cannot walk, more than 50% of the time. I always live everyday like a horse kicked my head. We are Only about 97 percent done reading

this affidavit if you have mind meld with it logically. The remaining 3 percent, is an Oral presentation of EXHIBIT 16 and supporting documents, I request My Lord | My Lady; for you direct me to provide

an Oral Presentation on the over-head under Oath from the witness box for a maximum 1.5 hours to trace the money Trial right before your very eyes My Lord | My Lady. The Court requires me to do a compelling presentation. And Iron clad cross-examination, for that I am confident. Because no-one can argue with the TRUTH.

[177] Grant me an 90 minutes to lay it out Orally. Grant me an abeyance for the Court to first determine as to where the percentage split lies as to how much the Plaintiff and the Defendant received. Determine a percentage result of The Reasons for Judgment of Justice Horner. Determine what the split result was and is? All the the supporting EXHIBITS to support EXHIBIT 16 is in this affidavit provided all thoughOUT and I need to come in and lay it out orally with use of an over-head projector from the witness box, and cross-examination. This has been enough of a mind-meld already, but I am confident with laying it OUT for anyone and everyone all in the same court room. Please give that chance because this is the monetary element of everything I alleged.

- A60 -

~ Finally and Concluding ~

Applicant's List of Discrepancies with the Reasons for Judgment of Justice Horner:

[178] List: slips in drawing of the Judgment;

1. Numbers do NOT Lie, as a result of no math done, and because Mr. Achtem was taken buy surprise no matter what anyone says, and no judge can argue this. I will continue to say I was taken by surprise Because Rhonda Rose Achtem did it, and Justice let it happen. As a result matrimonial was divided by Horner give Ms. Achtem a huge whopping split 95 percent in her favour. And only a measly 5 percent to Mr. Achtem. Public officials want me to forfeit matrimonial right. That is wrong for them to be this way. I want to hold there feet to the fire over their mandate and the Part II Judges Act. Most Canadians do NOT have knowledge of what taxation withOUTrepresentation.

  1. Justice Horner on her Judgment claimed twice that I had an RRSP, and that I can keep my RRSP, Only Rhonda Sails had an RRSP, I did NOT get my 50 percent of that. I have never own an RRSP other than the 50 percent of the one that is not exempt. I want it and I allege it is mine.
  2. Justice Horner stated on her Judgment, that the Achtem's were no getting along since my of 2003, and therefore were talking divorce, and as a result sold the red Cliff home and purchase a home in Medicine Hat, and another in Calgary. I say NO NO NO, The Achtem's were fighting ever since a week after they were married, for over 10 year. They were fighting before they were even married and Virgil Sails has been after Mr. Achtem Rhonda Sails even before the Achtem's were married in 1994. The Achtem's remained together and were getting divorced for more than 10 years, so Mr. Achtem was confused over divorce and he never made a final choice of divorce. That was Ms. Achtem who broke up with me. My intentions were to remain together. So Mr. Achtem never knew this divorce was going to happen since the married 10 years earlier and this whole time Ms. Achtem was taking divorce. Not Me Edward Achtem. I want that Oral agreement that Justice Horner imposed her Judgment void and the Judgment quashed. I want my equity that own back. I was defrauded out of as alleged. I want every penny
  3. - A61 -

and I want Ms Achtem to pay for the crime with hard-time in a woman's Pen. I want her to pay for victimizing me for 8 years. Please set me free My Lord | My Lady. (Now my next step is the show you numbers, let me know when you are ready?) I still need to lay out all infringements in fine detail, in court. This is only about what happened at court.

SWORN BEFORE ME at the city of Calgary, )

in the province of Alberta, this 3rd day of )

October 2010. )



) _________________________________



______________________________ )

A Commissioner for Oaths in for the Province of


No comments: