[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 2nd Bundle of Documents that does NOT accord to her 1st 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.
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
2nd Bundle of Documents. You should have already identified that Ms. Achtem knew Mr. Achtem knew nothing about it, therefore 1 of many reasons her 2nd 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
1st 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd 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
2nd Bundle of Documents. Is start to the
1st 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 2nd 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.
2nd 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 2nd Bundle of Documents, that deceived me. By how she prepared it. Her undisclosed 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 filed notice of intentions, her 1st List of Exhibits. All marked with different coordinates. Much different to her filed notice of intentions, her 1st 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 1st List of Exhibits with same names, but different coordinates. Her 2nd 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 1st 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 2nd List of Exhibits. That does not accord to her filed 1st 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 2nd 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 2nd 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, 2nd Climax on the following pages in older posts.
