Stephan Harper's & Doug Horner's cousin Justice Karen Horner's Witness Box Assault

[53]   Legal Aid declined me because of Kathleen Linton's crappy legal opinion, she will get disbarred for it.  This is about the Trial Judge Karen Horner Railroading Eddie Achtem into a Trial by Ambush.  Forget about all powder coated truth.  Readers can see through the powder coating.  These judges are real life bastards, the bottom of the barrel that belong in the slammer.  Let us  not forget what was not be sanctioned.  This is fraud that was sanctioned  "organized crime in our public sector" at it's best.  July 2016 is confrontation time to confront the public sector crook Justice Miller for seizing my court.  Next July 2016 time will have come to nail it to lead this Public Sector Crook.  His destiny is to do hard time in the slammer along with 6 other section 61 Federal appointed Judges, and my ex Rhonda Sails is going to the slammer too.
 

[53a]  Illegal cross-examination. If that Harper's Justice Whore Karen Horneer HAD decided court was not prepared for Trial, because of Ms. Achtem and a directionless Pre-trail Order, because Ms. Achtem needs better directions than what she was given at Trial. Justice Horner who is to be outstanding in her profession knew I was being cross-examined on documents I did not have before Trial. Transcript confirms that Justice Horner knew Ms. Achtem did NOT submit documents that accords to her Notice of Intentions. The transcript raises suspicion the Trial Judge did NOT read the Pre-trail Order. During appeal, Q.B. Trial Coordinator S. Jobagy attempted to convince me, that no Pre-trail Order exists, but I did argue. Then the next day she confirmed it exists. Possibly it did not exist for Justice Horner and possibly she was reading the transcript with missing verbatim too. And the Pre-trail Order is preposterous. However Ms. Achtem and the Trial Judge hindered me, before the onslaught of Ms Achtem's court sanctioned illegal cross-examination.

[54]   Pursuant to Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, Clerks Directions Q.B. Civil Practice Note 5 Family Law, Pre-trial Conferences. The Pre-trial Order did NOT have directions that all disclosure should be there. The Pre-trail Judge did state that all disclosure should be there. Ms. Achtem did file disclosure, a notice of intentions with her Pre-trial Summary as in her 1st List of Exhibits. Instead she has a beguiling surprise, a 2^nd Bundle of Documents that does NOT accord to her 1^st List of Exhibits. The Pr-trail Order does not have the parties obligations and the Pre-trial agreement concerning exhibits on it.

Analysis of the Witness Box Attack - Broken down into 2 Climaxes.

Supplemented Trial Audio marked as EXHIBIT TA -

Time: 11:29:50 a.m. to 12:03:09 a.m. May 17, 2007.

1st Climax - When and after Ms. Achtem presented her undisclosed 2nd Bundle of Documents; and cross-examination of her exhibit A; is presented from paragraphs 55 to 66 on page C22.

Transcript used for Analysis; line 40 page 108, to line19 page 111 - EXHIBIT T, in back.


 Trial Audio - 1st Climax | time 11:29:50 a.m. to 11:33:50 p.m.- EXHIBIT TA, on disk.
 

[55] Read transcript and listen to audio simultaneously. Listen for audio-able physiology of voice, tempo, and for example if a witness is confused.  You can hear tone tempo and paper shuffling.  It is more effective to listen to audio and read transcript together and even few times over. These are very serious allegations.  I, do not want anybody to miss anything. This is a complicated web of circumstances, and observing audio-able physiology is effective.  Become well versed with it. Carefully listen to 15 minutes of audio-able physiology of audio. This is a premeditated witness box assault.

[56] Read [Transcript line 40 on page 108, to line 19 page 111- EXHIBIT T]. [Trial Audio time - Witness Box Attack 1st Climax: 11:29:50 a.m. to 11:33:50 p.m. - EXHIBIT TA] When Justice Horner prevented Mr. Achtem from viewing Ms. Achtem's 2^nd Bundle of Documents. You should have already identified that Ms. Achtem knew Mr. Achtem knew nothing about it, therefore 1 of many reasons her 2^nd Bundle of Documents could NOT be adduced, and they were NOT adduced. Justice Horner did NOT become well versed with Ms. Achtem's Pre-trial material, her 1^st List of Exhibits before passing judgment. She did NOT become well versed with the material produced from the Trial. Observe my startled reactions from the start at 11:30 a.m. and thoughOUT the cross-examination of the 1^st Climax and 2^nd Climax.
 

[57] Ms. Achtem did NOT inform me or the Trial Judge, that her 2^nd Bundle of Documents, contained documents, that does not accord to her filed notice of intentions. Ms. Achtem did NOT inform me or the court that I was to answer 5 e-mail exhibits N to R which 5 were different from the e-mails in her filed Notice of Intentions. Although the Pre-trial Judge botched the Order, she did informed the parties disclosure should be there, is not on the Order. However it is common sense to disclose. 
 

[58] At Trial at 11:31 a.m. I was handed the unexpected 2^nd Bundle of Documents while I was still in the Witness Box, because I was just cross-examined by the Trial Judge.  Then moments later still at 11:31 a.m.  I asked Justice Horner; "Yeah, why don't you give me a few minutes to go through this".  Meaning the 2^nd Bundle of Documents. To view 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.  I was prevented by Justice Horner from knowing that there was a beguiling surprise and more beguiling 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 a proposal to adduce documents used not according to her filed Notice of Intentions. She put undisclosed documents that could not be adduced she was not supposed to use in her surprise 2nd Bundle of Documents.
 

[59] At 11:31:08 a.m. Justice Horner argues with me, "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.” This is illogical and unintelligible. Ms. Achtem did not provide me opportunity as sections 28(1)(2) of the CEA c-5 states. As far as I was concerned it must have been the same documents as per Ms. Achtem's filed notice of intentions of what documents she was supposed use. I was a witnesses who was stripped of his right to be well versed on documents used at Trial, which is logically why, An Act Respecting Witnesses and Evidence exists. Ms. Achtem was not the witness that had to answer to the documents. I could have NOT known at the time Ms. Achtem had fresh undisclosed documents in her 2^nd Bundle of Documents for which she must outline in her notice of intention. Listen to how beguiled I was from the start at 11:30 am. (I cannot prove Trial was staged or rigged, but suspect it was. Who knows maybe Rhonda Achtem and Justice Horner rehearsed it too, perhaps I will never know, however it is possible. But I know Judgments are defacto and nobody else can prove otherwise.)
 

[60] I had to become well versed with what was impossible because I was not given disclosure, thus not having knowledge I will confront documents in which I knew nothing about. I was put into a state of confusion due to Justice Horner telling me I can use the documents for cross-examination, but what about having to answer to cross-examination?  I did have to view these documents before I was cross-examined, but instead Justice Horner sidetracked me to NOT view undisclosed documents. Not until after appeal it became clear, without application or proposal, and Ms. Achtem's documents are NOT listed in her filed notice of Intentions. She must provide me more than 1 minute and 39 seconds in the midst of Trial, before an onslaught of illegal cross-examination. She must serve notice of intentions at least 7 days prior to Trial or by consent.
 

[61] Suddenly with Mr. Achtem still in the Witness Box confused by Justice Horner's unintelligible directions, that does not make sense.  Why did Justice Horner NOT directed Mr. Achtem to view the documents when he requested, instead of sidetracking?  Because Justice Horner did NOT want Mr. Achtem knowing anything about documents before having to answer to them.  Do Judges have a right to play tricks? “No”, it is a Judge taking advantage of her immunity used to take advantage of Mr. Achtem who has short-term memory cognitive disabilities. The Judicature do NOT state judges are to enjoy their jobs being involve in ambushes that attack the mentally restricted, or anyone.
 

[62] Mr. Achtem was sidetracked by unclear 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 defeated reasonable Notice of Intentions. I was deprived having the knowledge of Ms. Achtem's Undisclosed 2nd Bundle of Documents, Which beguiled me to answer incorrectly. Beguiled I was rendered a compromised witness.
 

[63] At 11:30:00 a.m. is when Ms. Achtem presented her undisclosed 2^nd Bundle of Documents. Is start to the 1^st Climax and when Ms. Achtem cross-examines on her Exhibit A. [Trial Audio time: 1:30:00 a.m. to 11:33:50 a.m. - EXHIBIT TA] On [transcript line 7 on page 110 to line 10 on page 111 – EXHIBIT T]. The Trial Judge did make a Judgment , half-way through Trial. She passed a Judgment during cross-examination of me, in the midst of my beguilement. She made a Judgment before the argument stages and before Trial had ended. And I was too confused because I had my tail between my legs, that engendered mental blocks, and bad feelings. The transcript speaks for itself I was all over the map. A good Judge can tell.

[64] Let me clarify from the [transcript line 29 to line 45 page 110 - EXHIBIT T]. I did not admit $35,937 went to only me. Because I did not say exactly that at Trial that it went to me. Without me, Ms. Achtem made arrangements with the paralegal who was handling the sales and purchases of homes. She instructed the paralegal behind my back to make a check out to me for $35,937.09. Which was deposited into my checking account temporarily because of a temporary transition between buying and purchasing 2 other homes. I clarify to buy 1 of the 2 homes designated as an investment home in Calgary. Which we both used when we both signed the Mortgage Agreement for the Calgary home together meeting our legal obligation. Ultimately Ms. Achtem had a different agenda she was hiding, she wanted to separate, and make me lose owning a home that I am on title for half. This is only one of a number times of how I was deceived by Ms. Achtem. She deceived me before and after separation up until she deceived me with illegal cross-examination. You will observe how $4000.00 of that $35,937.00 went to Ms. Achtem and how $8000 of it was used to pay our Joint ATB MasterCard.
 

[65] After Ms. Achtem's exhibit A she did not cross-examine me on her exhibit B. She moved onto her illegal cross-examination of her undisclosed documents, the shock of first getting it was stifling to say the least. Then all of a sudden, the page gets turned from exhibit L to M, what a surprise to have only focused on the yellow high lighted portion of an e-mail sent by me. Unlike the copy of the original non-altered one. Such as the one withOUT yellow high-lighting on it. Ms. Achtem served her exhibit L with her notice of intentions. This threw me off kilter. Then as it moved into exhibit N to R it became more beguiling.  Tricks of Ms. Achtem that fooled me. Justice Horner directed me into a premeditated ambush and while being cross-examined. She sanction it. An outstanding Judge would have stopped this Witness Box assault, fined Ms. Achtem , adjourned, and would have not passed Judgment. No-one who does this to a Witness should be a Judge.  Disability or NOT, No one should be neglected like how I was. The transcript confirms, it did NOT fool Justice Horner who admitted knowing. Justice Horner is a public safety issue. Ms. Achtem's intention to ambush me was carried, and lawlessly sanctioned.



[66] Perhaps Ms. Achtem's trick may have been more observable to me, if she had presented her 2^nd Bundle of Documents in a pretty gift box, rapped it up with pretty rapping paper, put a pretty bow on top and said; “I have a surprise here for Mr. Achtem, it's what I will cross-examine him on”. Ms. Achtem did a dirty trick on me as a witness and my disability. A dirty trick in one of Canada's Court rooms. Documents used, I have not reviewed before Trial, impossible to review in over 2.5 years. I was NOT served a notice of intentions of most documents Ms. Achtem used, and nothing was adduced. 

2^nd Climax (paragraphs 67 to 83 on page C26)

[67] Observation of the Trial Judge of how it is highly observable that I was being cross-examined on exhibits Justice Horner knew Mr. Achtem knew nothing about, and Justice Horner did admitted at Trial that I did not have documents before Trial. After that the Trial Judge continues to have illegal cross-examination carry on. That breached the Canada Evidence Act.

[68] Justice Horner is not an outstanding Judge who could have prevented the ambush.  She had access to all materials produced from the Trial, Pre-trail and everything else in the Achtem v Achtem case.  There was noway Justice Horner could have not known that she is an accessory to Ms. Achtem's illegal cross-examination and fraud when she filed defacto court's Reasons for Judgment.  If Justice Horner had allowed me to view all Ms. Achtem exhibits, before cross-examination it may have led to me objecting and Trial to being adjourned, thus exposing the fraud.  I was victimized in the Witness Box by Justice Horner and Ms. Achtem together.  This does not mean that they conspired.  They just happened to have worked together on the ambush together with Rhonda Sails using her dirty surprize.  A tactfully rigged undisclosed 2^nd Bundle of Documents, that deceived me.  By how she prepared it. Her undisclosed 2^nd 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 filed notice of intentions, her 1st List of Exhibits. All marked with different coordinates. Much different to her filed notice of intentions, her 1^st List of Exhibits that outlines her 1st Bundle of Documents. She tactfully placed the last 6 exhibits M to R which are e-mails at the end of her 2^nd Bundle of Documents hiding behind her exhibit L.

[70] Ms. Achtem tactfully placed exhibits M to R behind exhibit A to L. Having exhibits M to R at the end of her 2^nd Bundle of Documents.  Means I was answering to cross-examination over documents I was familiar with because they were produced into the action but not adduced. For which she did not serve a notice of intentions, as outlined in her 1^st List of Exhibits with same names, but different coordinates. Her 2^nd List of Exhibits, marked as exhibits C, D F, G, H, and I were produced into the action, but not adduced. Her exhibits N to R where NEVER products into the action, and do NOT accord to her filed notice of intentions, as in her 1^st List of Exhibits. She did NOT have consent and she did NOT adduce exhibits C, D F, G, H, I and N to R as listed in her 2^nd List of Exhibits. That does not accord to her filed 1^st List of Exhibits which is her notice of intentions, pursuant to sections 28(1)(2) of the Canada Evidence Act C-5.

[71] Ms. Achtem the one who knew how to attack Mr. Achtem's disability and dyslexia with malicious cross-examination better than anyone. Startled Mr. Achtem from the start with an unknown 2^nd Bundle of Documents. Ms. Achtem who did NOT make a proposal to adduce did NOT adduce. Went unnoticed by Mr. Achtem, because he was beguiled that engendered intimidation.  Ms. Achtem was successful in getting Mr. Achtem going on exhibits that were not adduced. Not until after Trial did Mr. Achtem realized it. Cross-examination moves into a more extreme malicious cross-examination at her Exhibit M which was altered with yellow high-light.  Then 5 more yellow high-lighted e-mails it gets worse. Her exhibits N to R that Mr. Achtem had no access to and he had no idea that such documents would be at Trial. Ms. Achtem did not provide Mr. Achtem any notice of intentions of her exhibits N to R as sections 28(1)(2) of the Canada Evidence Act C-5 states; shall be no less than 7 days. 
 

[72] At 11:43 a.m. Justice Karen Horner continued to have Ms. Achtem carry out malicious cross-examination, over documents not adduced and NEVER produced into the action. For Ms Achtem's exhibits N to R could only have be adduced in if this was a Summary Trial, provided the documents were produced into the action. Ms. Achtem's exhibits N to R were NEVER produced into the action.  The only way Ms. Achtem could have adduced her documents, could only be a rare occasion through application. But not for Ms. Achtem's exhibits N to R, however they are in her 2^nd Bundle of Documents. Fresh document that could not be adduced.  Neither did she make a proposal nor an application. Parties are required to, just as it has in cases outlined Mr. Achtem's Table of Authorities, Case Law.  Or is there a law that permits Ms. Achtem to bypass the Canada Evidence Act C-5? The analysis of Ms. Achtem's cross-examinations of her Trial exhibits M to R, 2^nd Climax on the following pages in older posts.

[01] Taxation withOUT Representation

APPELLANT'S FACTUM

Court of Appeal's Memorandum of Judgment

*****Click to view Mr. Achtem's complaint (Mar 4 & 10, 2009)

*****Click to view my Compaint sent to Linda Duncan & Steven Harper (04-03-2009)

*****Click to view Complaint respone from Normand Sabourin, CJCoucil. (30-03-2009)

*****Click to view Alison Refords reponce to my many judicial complaints (06-04-2009)

Hence the phase term: "TAXATION withOUT Representation"

I produced this video a little over a year ago. These were made after the dust started to settle. At the time this video was made I left out 2 facts:

2. When I filed my Factum. I left out the most important fact. My Factum or the Motion with my Factum did not convey anything to the Court of Appeal. At what time the ambush happenned and left out the the 1 minute and 39 seconds. On May 17, 2007. Audio from 11:31 to 11:31:40 (there `bouts) In Medicine Hat provincal. In the basement Court Rm #3. Because there was contruction in the Court house and alot of contruction at QB, so that why the trial was in provincial. (audio will be posted here again soon as it was in the jury script for which for a special Federal app. Requesting to the chief Justice to recuse all Canadian judges from coast to coast in my case.

Soon i will repaost the Grounds here soon. I will be using refective riveting fact as to why King Henry II Law Maker Dawn in the Era of the Grand Jury. So many things are happening today events are so parallel during Henry II time. if one was to study the case law back then, that i have studied they would be in for a serious wake up call. Because History is reapeating itself similar to that but an new high tech twist. It's has made me so curious to study case law of those antiquated times.

[05] Appeal Dialogue; ammended from what was a - Reverse Onus Application to 3-panel Judge Appeal Panel

Primary Statement: The 3-judge appeal panel could have only relied on Rhonda Sails the alleged FRAUDSTER's Letter sent to Justice O'brien, September 12, 2007. Which is could have only been an asumption. Too many things on there "Memorandum of Judgment" was fiction. Too many things not taken from the appeal material provided, and Mr. Achtem is left in the dark as to how they came up with so many fictional statments said on the 3- panels's judgment.

Their judgment took an extreme amount of time to map out there deluded Kangaroorudeded judgment. Mr. Achtem would appriciate being provided an explaination as to how they came up with some much fiction not taken from the appeal material? Having the knowledge how they may have acidently came up with so many fictional thing may restore Mr. Achtem's faith in the judges our elected members of Goverment to the individual they appoint as judges. I have made an agreement to not make the 3 judge panel. So as to this statement of truth. This nothing less than the truth and nothing we be left out all the way from beginning to end. Mr. Achtem has made a choice to let the 3 judge panel of the hook. However when it comes to a judicial Review. Mr. Achtem does not prepare judgments and he is not the judge or a Decision Make of the Federal Court of Canada. Mr. Achtem has stepped away from issue that have arisen at the Court of appeals of Alberta, Calgary.

The hooker house incident with Fank Jones has potentialy effected Mr. Achtem's case. Mr. Achtem's father who has the same name fine tuned the Dean's Bust for the cops. yeah, I remeber the EPS Detective coming over to my parents house often when I was a child to Plan the Hooker house Bust with my dad. You will have opportunit to know every single word that I state all the way from the introduction of the Evidence when I'm in the Witness Box. I will not have a openning argument either, just a prescripted rebuttal. My words in the rebuttle will not change either because they cannot. Because what I say will be nothing less than the precise TRUTH. You will know my rebuttal before I will hear your your argument. I will lay it all out for you when I lauch my case on Monday May 25, 2010.

Furthermore, the changes of me of getting a nuetral judge is impossible due to the Frank Jones incident infecting my case considering his past position as the former Dean of Law. This incident which happen when I was child was totally not of me doing and I haven't seen my father in years and I will never see him again. Mr. Morton somehow, something led him to Believe I was a lawyer. So if any lawyers out there want to think that I was a lawyer thinking I am father who represented myself in my appeal. Such as York University Law Proffessor James Morton writing blog as such [please view a copy of a blog James Morton has posted, Exhibit #?] Mr. James Morton cannot take that one down, because the blog here is undeletable. He is stuck with that blog. University proffessors and a Dean of Law do have great infuence. My father had the dean busted in retaliation of over the Millwoods landscandal which my dad has said Frank Jones was the one to blame. I am so terrified that all you judges want to burn me alive. So I hope you appeals court judges understand my frustrations. I said time a time again to Justice Rawlins at Pre-trial, that I was incompetent to stand trial Last night started to have dought about one of the untuths on your "Memorandum of Judgment". That 1 of the 13 lies in my You Tube Video my not be a lie. It may be an untruth because of Ms. Sails misleading justice. I just started to think objectively about it. My understanding of this must be Precise and perfect. I do not want to fry a judge, if a judge does not want to fry me. however today I feel because of the Frank Jones perhaps judges want to fry me. My truth cannot be twisted with dought. I will have to review it and keep reviewing it until I do get it right. Nothing less that truth. I will not make my claim vexacious.

Justice Horner was biast without any dought. She always cross-examined Mr. Achtem , and examined Ms. Sails (Achtem). I have been looking at your "Memoradum of Judgment" objectictivily with Kevin Moore about my my biggest question in issues about you stating Exhibits were adduced that I may have a dought it was a deliberate lie, and It did not ever occur until last night. Althouth it is untruth and as fictional as Star Treck. Mr. Achtem has decided he feels the 3-judge appeal panel judgment because it's just to much fiction, and the judgment does not indicate anythng at all as to how their findings were so fictional. Mr. Achtem is not going tackle and articulate on fiction. He does not want to make this Federal Court Application a huge wordy slog of fiction. He will make it simpler buy just providing the Federal Court 2 photo copies of the "Memorandum of judgment". One with all the untuths underlined in red. Then another one issolating the untruth in red with most of the text errellevant whited out and the untruths number from untuth #1 to untuth #13. As to how the 3-judge panel was mislead to beleive this was fact was not indicated on the judgment. If the Federal Court want Proform a Vulcan Mind Meld with something as fictional as Star Trek then they can do that based on that Mr. Achtem will not direct them into a complicated web of fiction.

Please by all means Stay tuned. There's alot more to come on the 25th

This will become the first case in Canadian History where the Defendents will know exacty what Mr. Achtem is agoing to say, and the script will not have to be change. Mark my Word Rhonda. let me whisper in your ear psss. You will know what my rebuttle will be even before this Action Starts. And Remember when we lived in QueensLand when you said to me; "You can really get things done when you you put your mind to it"?

Here a smug and condescending Good Luck to you Rhonda.

[06] Fragmented/Unsorted Appeal Dialogue - ammended from what was Questions in Issue to Reverse Onus Application

Blog under construction:

When the satement of Question are precisely worded then you will see the questions here.

Furthmore, I do not have the memory capacity and I missed stating on my Factum the crucial part of the ambush. However the 3-judge panel does not have the authorty to Fabricate a fictional Judgment based fiction. Inconclusion of this my findings are Mr. Achtem was not competent to Carryout oral argument at Court. Had he been well versed on the appeals books and factums, then he could have prepared a prescript argument. If the court of appeal had considered his condition then the 3-judge appeal panel could have allowed him, but dit not accomodate for his disabity. Perhaps their descision may have been appropiate considering judges are busy an the show must go on. Therefore Mr. Achtem has closed the matters involving Carole Conrad, Peter Martin, and Alexander Park. This matter remains closed do to the impede of confusion over this first question in issue. inlight of that this statement remains for the Federal Court of Canada to decide what is the approprate measures are.

The question will be posted here on the 25th, other than that please feel welcome to view my You Tube video. LawLIARs Lies Have genuine Intregrit - Alison Redford Cover-up for Judicial Fraud. at;

1. This is the biggest lie on Justices Conrads, Martin, and Park stated on their Memorandum of Judgment. In paragraph 3 the judges stated. "Mr. Achtem also submits he was denied a fair Trial because he was taken by surprize by documents adduced at Trial, including e-mail his wife used to cross-examination."

Mr. Achtem did claim he was taken by surprise by documents that were e-mail he did send to Ms. Achtem. The e-mails were not adduced at Trial and it does not indicate that on the transcript. However there were e-mail in which could not be adduce at Trial that Ms. Sails used to cross-examine, but Ms. Sails did sneaked past the bench exhibits as covert act without due process. She did not did not make any application to adduce exhibits. She did not make any proposal to the Court, that she wanted to adduce exhibits. Mr. Achtem was cross-examined only on 4 Exhibits in which Ms. Sails did inform Mr. Achtem of her intent. Her exhibits A, B, l1, L2 were the only Exhibits in which Ms. Achtem did inform Mr. Achtem of her intent that she would use them at trial. In which Ms. Sails did cross-examine. Ms. Sails did cross-examine Mr. Achtem on other Exhibits that have been produce in ealier Hearings and special Chamber application, but Ms. Sails did not inform Mr. Achtem of her intent to be used at Trial. However, Mr. Achtem was hindered by Ms. Sails's covert Fraud, of her "2nd bundle of documents" by the element of Surprize. Mr. Achtem could have answered to this exhibit better only if could of had the opportunity to know that Ms. Achtem was going use then. These are Ms. Sa

[13] For Future Posting

[14] unsorted jury trial dialogue

At Trial Ms. Sails knew everything about Mr. Achtem and she knew Mr. Achtem better than anyone. She was with him for more than 14 yerars. She knew how to attack his disabilty of short-term memory function better than anyone at the time of Trial. Mr. Achtem has suffered from MS ever since he woke up the morning of November 11, 1998 next to his wife Ms. Sails, and Mr. Achtem's head felt like a horse kick him in the head. So Ms. Sails did get to watch Mr. Achtem's disease progress from that point onward. For which later she did not want him anymore because MS hindered Mr. Achtem's employability, his lacking physical and sexual proformance. Mr. Achtem's short-term memory caused by MS that constantly joggs his conversation abilities over things that have not been registered in his long-term memory function which is well intact. Mr. Achtem and Ms. Sails both knew his long-term memory is enhance because Mr. Achtem does not forget alot if he has reviewed and reviewed again and again and again. When it's new material then Mr. Achtem will need the time to become well versed on it. Ms. Sails who knew how to attack Mr. Achtem's memory better than anyone decided to attack him with old e-mails as rigged Exhbits yo fool Mr. Achtem, and boy did she ever make him feel like a fool for which he did NOT deserve it. He had no access to the e-mail because his computer crashed, and how anyone and Mr. Achtem who sends hundreds of e-mails every month, going to remember old 2.5 year old e-mails. During the time of first 4 months of separation Mr. Achtem and most men do send hundreds to their separated wife that they still love and out of dispare they send numerous e-mails. Mr. Achtem did this just because he wanted to reconcile his marriage with Ms. Sails and to be with his daughter for which Ms. Achtem FRAUD and judges eye balling up the fact that Mr. Achtem want to use some of the proceed of his matrimonial to help with paying for suppervised visits with my daughter. It was Justice Rawlins from Pre-trial who was eye balling up the fact that Mr. Achtem wanted to use funds from the proceeds of his matrimonial.