April 20, 2010
Edward D. Achtem
26** ** Ave SE
Calgary, AB T2* 0M*
Ph: 403-6**-****
Action: EDWARD D. ACHTEM v RHONDA R. ACHTEM
QB# 4804 009302
Appeal# 0701-0232AC
SCC# 32805
MEMORANDUM TO CHIEF JUSTICES
THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA
AND
TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF ALBERTA
Dear Justice Wittmann and Justice Fraser,
INTRODUCTION
After having been through your courts I have lost most of my assets that I have acquired during the career building years of my life. My career building years were short live due to myself having MS and the results of Justice Horner's conduct at Trial and the result of her judgement did indeed yield my ex-wife Ms. ACHTEM more than 94.5% of matrimonial and myself only did receive a measley less than 5.5% of matrimonial. From a divorce with zero exemptions. I will expain how Justice Horner's Conduct and her neglect of the CEA c-5 deprived of my right know to have knowledge of documents, before having to answer to cross-examination at Trial me , my 2nd wife, my 2nd daughter all into a deep pit of poverty. I have been paying way to much for child support, and I have not been able to afford supervised visits access to the daughter my daughter Kayla of the marriage. So what the main point here is that only getting less than 5.5 percent of matrimonial, and having to pay too much child support has been devouring me created major finacial Hard-ship me. Justice Dallas Miller. Justice Millar made an Order which was unfrair punishment, were I cannot make application to adjust chiild support, base on my income and even more so how the effect of losing mostly everything to Ms. Achtem getting a 95.5%/4.5% split of matrimonial in her favor. Because it attrition, that has prevented to from beinmg in my daughter's (child of the marriage) life. And today I'm re-married, My wife is Mexico, and I cannot sponsor her to imigrate to Canada so she could become a Landed Imigrant, but when you have MP arrears that is way too much for me, based on my income ever since I became unemployable ever since December 2008, and since it has been impossible for me to pay the full amount of my monthly payments. You see something has to be done her or Justice Wittman because I am paying too much for child support. The payments from day i have been having to pay far more than I should have to pay.
COMPLAINT OF THE CONDUCT OF A JUDGE, JUSTICE HORNER
Now I know whats done is done, and this is not a request to ammend or change Justice Horner's Judments. But to explain the error in law that Justice Horner did and I have not had perfect clarity of this until recently about 2 weeks ago. There were things I could have done different at Trial if I had the mental capacity at the time of Trial or if justice Horner did not fail to respect the Canada Evidence Act C-5. And had respected me as the witness and that evidence. Justice Horner neglected my right to sections 28(1) and 28(2) use at the time I was incompetent to self-represent due to my memory capacity which Justice Horner for how she Trial that attacked my memory capacity, mental disabily which was because of brain damage caused by MS. But legal aid turned me down because my name on title of the home that was indispute prior to Justice Horner's Judgment. In the court of Appeal There were things I could have done different if I had the experience and memory capacity. Justice's Carole Conrad, Peter Martin, Alexander Park Judgment was based on many thing not taken from the appeal material. Such as the biggest discrepancy they made that does not fall within the boundaries of AB Rule of Court 158.8(1)(e). Their appeals judgment Stated that exhibits were adduced at Trial. Nowhere did the appeal material convey to them that exhibits were adduced,. Exhibits could not be adduced at Trial because this was not a Summary Trial. This was a trial, so I'd like to know where the appeal judges did find in the appeal material exhibits were adduced TRIAL, and nothing could be adduced because it was not a Summary Trial.
Further to the issues I have raised about Justice Horner neglecting me when it comes down to section 28(1) and 28(2) of the CEA c-5. The CEA is the ACT respecting Witnesses and Evidence. I argue that sections 28(1) and 28(2) of CEA c-5 ACT is distinct direction to judges, and not to myself as I was the one who was the witness. My argument is not about Justice Horners judgment. My argument is that because Justice Horner conduct confused me and it was an asault on my disabity. I agrue that I was deprived of my common rights to said sections of the CEA c-5. This is not because I failed to Object when Justice Horner side tracked me when I asked Justice Horner as per page 109, line 23 to line 24; "Yeah, why don't you give me a few minutes to go through this?" Then Justice Horner Directs me on page 109, line "You will have some opportunity. Miss Achtem gets to ask you a question - -" Justice Horner did not provide me any opportunity to have any opportunity. I was already in the Witness Box, attacked confused, then without review I was answering to Ms. Sails Cross-Examination started of with Exhibit A and her cross-examination went agreable to me all thye way to Ms. Achtem cross-examination of her Exhibit L. Up until Exhibit L everything was fine with Ms. Achtem
Hence the slang term [BAM-BOOZALLED, BAM-BOOZAL, BAM-BOOZALLING] to provide just only one word to give discription what Justice Horner did to me at Trial in liu of having to use lots of words for each time I described what Justice Horner did to me at Trial in this Memorandum. I could not find a word in the English language that would Justice Horner's Conduct. Since the Canada Evidence Act is the Act Respecting Witnesses and Evidence I was the witness who was was BAM-BOOZALLED by Justice. transcript of how Justice Horner BAM-BOOZALLED will not have the same effect as it would if you were to hear the Audio Transcript it wood be so much more effective to really understand I was BAM-BOOZALLED. And I argue that I did not BAMBOOZAL myself. Justice Horner BAM-BOOZALLED ME. So if you feel that Justice Horner did respect me by BAM-BOOZALLING ME, how is that so? Please tell how me how did Justice Horner respect me as the witness by BAM-BOOZALLING ME? Please excuse the slang-term. It's just that I'm a lay person with a memory -mental disabilty, BAM-BOOZAL is just gibberish slang a term used throughout the entirity of the Memoradum. If Websters dictionary ever call me up to ask me to please provide them with the diffinition of the word BAM-BOOZAL. Then the difinition is; when a judge in Hearing, Trial or whatever other court room preceeding confuses or sidetracks party #1,and the judge lets the custodial parent Defendant knowing serve sudden surprize exhibits
During the time whole time I was at Court of Appeal of Alberta, Calgary, I was suffering from serious MS attack that made me feel like a horse kicked the left side of my head causing major major memory problers.
Next I will give you a precise description of what happened at Trial, because Justice Horner Failed to respect my rights to have and the knowledge of understanding of the new exhibits, and what they were about. Ms. Achtem did not inform me of her intent to using her Exhibits M to R. Persuant to Section 28(1) and 28(2) of the CEA c-5. Exhibits M to R were not the same exhibits that Ms. had provided prior to Pre-Trial. Ms. Achtem suddenly unexpectly produced exhibits after trial had started which were not the same exhibits that Ms. Achtem filed prior to Pre-trial. So I went to trial expecting to be cross-examined on the Exhibits the Exhibits which were already served prior coming to Pre-trial. So on May 7, 2007 had already Trial started with me in the witness box being cross-examined by Justice Horner. Then when Justice is done cross-examining me, I was still in the witness box already sworn into Oath and having haven't left the Witness Box, Justice directed Ms. Achtem to proceed with her cross-examination of. Then all of the sudden, Ms. Achtem asked if she could serve her exhibits right away, while I was still in the Witness Box not know or where I suddenly had to be cross-examined on a different set of documents I was expecting to be cross-examined
I need a good writer to help me. Due to brain damage caused by MS turning my brain into mush? So I need someone to help me prepare my legal document, and I'm self respesented. MS Society will give keen consideration for funding it, but I have to prepare a good pitch for them too, however the MS society likes the way my stuff is prepared, but it's incompleted. I'm well versed on FRAUD law and the rules of Court. I feel it would be great to work with an idividual who can help put everything in proper order, While at the same time I harness the collective knowledge of the principals of Grand Juries and the power of Judicial Watch. and Canada Court Watch.
Calgary Police ignored investigating my ex-wife because my ex-wife is a government employee and the cops in Cahoots with judges don't have the balls, they only protect the integrity of judges lies fraud, and crimes. The often take part in the Government cover-up too.
Therefore, I am proceeding to a private information private prosecution of my ex who prepared a false Statement in writing As her Responce to my SCC application. In her Response Statement to the Supreme Court of Canada, which proves that Justic Horner's jusdgment agrigrated all my assets in my ex-wife and her news husbands pockets. and this was from a divorce with ZERO exemption Thus throwing me and my 2nd family into a deep pet of poverty. I do not know if I was deprived justice because my father had the former Dean of Law of U of A busted in a hooker house. My dad did that when I was only a child and he has the same name as me. Allen Wachowich's best buddy Frank Jones the ex-Dean was given special treatment and not charged for purgery over the hooker house thing. however The Faculty of Law of U of A fired Frank Jones because they did want his hooker house image on campus anymore. http://www.wachowich.blogspot.com/
Therefore, I will be fighting for an investigative jury-jury trial and short jury Hearings, because that is the only possible neutral judge for me. Frank Jones as educated to many judge prior to being lawyer, and hjad many of them at his parties at his house too. I should be the last person in Canada to be stuck in the confines of appionted judges. Especial me out of all albertans.
I don't know if this has anything to do with me only getting less than 4.5% of matrimonial as per Justice karen Horner's Judment. But what I do know ist that I can verifiably say that my ex-wife lied. This ordeal was cause by justice Horner bamboozaling me by letting my ex ambush me with new exhibit. Justice Horner bamboozaled me by taking advantage of my memory an cognitive problems with was cause by MS attacks attacks attacking my brain since 1998.
At trial for matrimonial in Medicine Hat, Alberta my ex-wife Rhonda Sails (Achtem) ambushed me with new exhibits while I was still in the witness box after being cross-examined by Justice Karen Horner. Both Rhonda Sails knew that her ambush would be a great way to throw me off track at trial, as it did confuse me totally as anyone would observe from the trial transcript. You see Ms. Sails (Achtem) knew me, sept with me, we were together fore more than 14 years prior to separation so at the rime of Trial she know me better thna anyone. She also knew about my memory and brain damage problems and knew better than anyone how to use my disablity against me better than anyone.
My Statement of facts and all Supreme Court of Canada material maybe view at; http://www.applicationleavetoappeal.blogspot.com/
The Ambush started after being cross-examined by Justice Horner at 11:30 am on which on the transcript is on page 109. I requested that Justice Horner give me a few moments to go the exhibits on page 109, line 16 and line 17. This is where Justice Horner neglected the law by stepping over Sections 28.1 and 28.2 of the Canada Evidence Act c-5. Justice Horner totally bamboozelled me and attacked my cognitive an memory disablitiesw and of course Ms. Sales knowing me and living with me for more than 14 years knew me better than anybody so she knew how to attack my memory, thus throwing me off kiltre at Trial.
Audio transcript and written transcipt of the Trail showing how Justice Horner was cross-examining prior to the ambush which was on page 109 of the transcript. All the way to when Ms. Sails's (Achtem) cross-examination ambush ended on page on the bottom of page 125, line 23 From oberserving anyone listening carefully could tell I was ambushed by my e-wife who knew better than anyone how to confuse me and throw me off so Justice Karen Horner BAM-BOOZALS me:
Click here to listen to transcript of the Ambush a (please advance the video to 6 minutes)t; http://www.youtube.com/user/eachtem#p/u/7/V6gHPrHI9RI
Click here to listen to how I break down the ambush by providing correct answers to questions Ms. Sails asked in the ambush if I was not ambushed, thus given a chance to answer to sometime if I had been giving the opportunity to know what it was I was being cross-examined on before being cross-examined. I know my mistake was not objecting to not being able to see the exhibits when Horner and ms. Sails ambushed me.
The correct answers for comparison purpose can be viewed at; http://listofambushexhibits.blogspot.com/
I did go to the Court of Appeal then to the Supreme Court of Canada. So I have dicovered my ex committed a crime, and since the trial was rigged maybe because she's a Government employee, and married to a Sherrif. My ex comitted an indicable offence and I'm going to proceed and do whatever possible to prevent some crooks my wife knows from covering it up. My Police Complaint is bellow the line. Oh and I have a certified accountant who willing to prepare a balance sheet, and be a witness for me once I proceed to court. at nocharge to me. My time in court cost me nothing because I have had no other choice but to self-represent. I just cannot handle ambushes due to MS causing a disabity. My es and the judge took advantage of it of course.
This is a complicated web of circuimstance how ever it all mapped out web configured whatever. It's all mostly in point and click display.
Sincerely,
Eddie Achtem - Calgary, AB
Ph: 403-668-0233
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From
Eddie Achtem
Date
Fri, 09 Apr 2010 16:19:41 -0600
To
Kevin Brookwell
Subject
Criminal Complaint & request to Press charges
Witness/Victim Statement
Hi Kevin,
Remember me from last summer and the e-mails amungst us and Bob Fenton (LawLIAR)?
Well I have discovered that my ex, Rhonda Sails lied to the Supreme Court of Canada. She committed the offence; Paragraph 362(1)(c) - making a false statement in writing.
The Elements of the Offence are;- representation of fact, past or present, known to be false with fraudulent intent, to induce someone to act on it - Sub-section 361(1)
- knowingly make or cause to be made, false statement in writing, with intent that it should be relied on, with respect to financial condition or ability to pay. Rhonda Sails (Achtem deliberately and knowingly Lied on her Supreme Court of Canada statement; Responce to the Application For Leave to Appeal filed on October 7, 2008. The fact that number do not lie in court, and only people lie. On page 7 of her Part II; Statement of Questions In Issue; Ms Sails (Achtem) lie on paragraph 27 she stated; "I did not receive 94.5% of matrimonial assets, nor did Justice Horner's Judgment reflect this."
In lite of this I Edward Achtem do know for a fact that Rhonda Sails (Achtem) did indeed lie by saying the said satement above. Because I know for an absolute fact that Justice Horner's Judgment did indeed yield Ms. Sails a big huge whopping split of matrimonial of more 95.4%. Because I have served entered into evidence at Trial in Medicine Hat on May 17, 2007 my Exhibit 1, Tab 2A1; Statement of Division of Assets Since Separation. Which is a precice Statement of tabulations of who did get what and my numbers angon correct. This statement may even be verified by an accountant or since Ms. Sails has objected to me using a balance sheet for Supreme court of Canada. To show The Court who got what and where it all went, then I am willing to agree with the Jury that it would be alright to ajourn Trial for Ms Achtem to go out an get her another accountant of her choice to prepare a balnace sheet, then that's ok with me. Because there is no way in the Hell any accountant is going to fudge numbers for anyone especially when under the microscope, and indeedn it will be under the microscope for discrepancies or anything that may be found UNTRUE.So to you Kevin. About you telling me that the matter below was judicial and not criminal. Well that is because judges do not have any right to commit crime anyway what so ever. I know for a fact that Bob Fenton handed you lie and then you pass it on to me. I know this because the Judisure Act Does not say in anyway shape or for that a judge can lie or commit fraud. But that will be a couple action in crimal court verse judges after the one with my ex-wife is done. So is CPS going to investigate or must I proceed with a private information? If CPS does not do this will it will refect horrbly upon yourself, CPS, and maybe others. As for Fenton he indeed lied to me but let that be a different case in the future. Because for him to say that issues bellow or just judicial is a bold face lie. This is so easy it's piece of cake however, I fear that CPS will not do this and if that is the case then it can only be to protect the integity of judges, crimes, fraud, whater. For what ever is going to come next.... This will stick and trigger a domino reaction. Repect law enforcementment.
I look forward to hearing from you,
Sincerely,
Eddie Achtem - Calgary
No comments:
Post a Comment