The Justice Minister of Alberta Mandate and Arbitrary Duty to the Judges Act:

Institution: Alberta Ministry of Justice and Attorney General More Details
Organization: Alberta Justice Communications
Last Revised: 2009-12-21

Justice and Attorney General - Mandate
The mission of Alberta Justice and Attorney General is to protect the rights of all individuals in Alberta and advance the interests of society by fostering: safe communities; access to justice; respect for the law; understanding of and confidence in the justice system, and the legal foundation for social cohesion and economic prosperity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 63.(1) of Part II - The Judges Act; states; [The Justice Ministers of the provinces's Arbitrary Duty to Instruct the Canadian Judicial Coucil to proceed with a Judicial Inquiry]
Inquiries concerning Judges
Inquiries
63.(1) The Council shall, at the request of the Minister or the attorney general of a province, commence an inquiry as to whether a judge of a superior court or of the Tax Court of Canada should be removed from office for any of the reasons set out in paragraphs 65(2)(a) to (d).

Report and Recommendations
Report of Council 65.
Recommendation to Minister
65.(2) Where, in the opinion of the Council, the judge in respect of whom an inquiry or investigation has been made has become incapacitated or disabled from the due execution of the office of judge by reason of
(b) having been guilty of misconduct,
(c) having failed in the due execution of that office, or

[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