To Prime Minister of Canada Stephan Harper



Invoking Article 61 Magna Carta 1215
Amended June 17, 2014 letter to Stephan Harper Prime Minister of Canada

I Edward D. Achtem have been Exposing and Petitioning the crimes of Justices of our courts for the harbouring a city of Medincine Hat clerk Rhonda Sails's (my ex's) "Trial by Ambush" witness box attack, which is a "SMOKING GUN" Prema Facie Evidence .  That Resulted in yours and Doug Horner's cousin Karen Horner's fraudulent Judgement.




You now have 40 days, to have the said judges, and Rhonda Sails arrested for their crimes, and you must inform me that everything is going to be rectified.  You have 40 days to NOT have you be put onto my list of accused.  Alison
Redford, Ron Stevens, and Allen Wachowich, and Katherine Fraser will No matter what they become the accused too, as soon as I can.  If you do not fix this you will be on my list of accused too.




As for now I am only exhibiting the said judges crimes asking for signature.  Because I know you will ignore me as you and Linda Duncan always have.  Now you do your job get these judges and the city of Medicine Hat clerk, Rhonda Sails in the slammer.  Or you can have the cops carry out an unlawful ARREST of me, but be prepared to face a jury that will not rig anything like you cousin did to me.




I will never comply to any further orders and your cousin's Judgement.  Due to the conflict of interest.  I want Justice Miller to substitute himself with Justice Hughes for invoking article 61 Magna Carta 1215, and for change of venue from Medicine Hat to a city of a population of more than 1 million.













Attached is Alison Redford's Reply to my complaint of conduct of judges, so notice how Alison Redford called me the accused in her letter.  Her letter is a copy and paste letter of Ron Stevens sent to me 2 year prior.  I will therefore fax this to our current Justice Minister and Attorney General of Alberta, as well and broadcast it in open public format too.  Multitudes will view it.




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;
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

X_________________________________, June 25, 2014.
               Edward D Achtem

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.

Affidavit Sworn in Calgary October 3, 2011.

QB action: 4808 009302

 In the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta

Judicial District of Medicine Hat

              Between:

Edward Darren Achtem

Plaintiff                    

and

Rhonda Rose Achtem

Defendant                

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AFFIDAVIT | Victim-Witness Statement of Edward Darren Achtem

Criminal and Court Complaint to support the MEMORANDUM to Chief Justices of Alberta

of the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta and the Court of Appeal of Alberta

and Chief Calgary Police Service on the 3^rd day, of October 2011.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.   Requests to accommodate applications for; financial hardship, to get child support & arrears adjusted retroactively since January 2008; and waive having to pay Ms. Achtem $1,250. 

2.   Criminal complaint about the Defendant | Respondent; and complaint of misconduct of Judges; and remedy for an outrageous matrimonial split of93.2% in Rhonda Achtem's favor from zero exemptions, and remedy for sanctioned illegal cross-examination, fraud, and false pretense.

3.  complaint of preparation of defacto court's Reasons for Judgment of Justice Horner, on the 1^st day of July 2007, filed on the 22^nd day of October 2007; and

4.  complaint of preparation of defacto appellant's court Memorandum of Judgment, on the 1^st day of April 2008, filed May 7, 2008.

Re: Achtem v Achtem, QB# 4808 009302 | Appeal# 0701-0232AC | SCC#: 32805 | FC#: T-1724-10

I, Edward Darren Achtem, of the city of Calgary, in the province of Alberta, on the 3^rd day, of October 2011 A.D, make Oath as say as follows:

INTRODUCTION (paragraphs 1 to 30)

[1] [Federal Court Order of Prothonotary Lafreniener January 17, 2011 marked as EXHIBIT A, page D1]. [Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) Judgment December 11, 2008 marked as - EXHIBIT B, page D7]. Two Judgments I address in the matter is defacto appellant's court, [Memorandum of Judgment May 17, 2008 marked as - EXHIBIT C, page D8]; and defacto court's, [Reasons for Judgment of Justice Horner July 13, 2007 marked as EXHIBIT D, page D12].  Actions carried out by Trial Judge is she sanctioned offenses effecting the Plaintiff who was victimized in the witness box, leading to hardship and infringements. It is not the proper roll of the court to sanction offenses. I need remedy and I cannot afford to pay $1,250 for lawlessly sanctions offenses, under the color of law.

[2] Judges immunity, their misconduct, and Ms. Achtem's sanctioned offenses, has left me a suffering victim. My requested is for getting my passport and drivers license back, child support and arrears adjusted from January 2008 to present, disparity between households dealt with that has yet to be dealt with? And remedy for losing 43.2% from the 100% of matrimonial, as a result of the defacto court's Reasons for Judgment of Justice Horner, because I only did get 6.8%? Divorces with zero $0 exemptions are to be split 50|50. This is also to report breaches of the functus offico doctrine and separation of powers principal. Consider more requests and alternatives in this victim witness statement?

[3] Allow me back to court withOUT having to pay Ms. Achtem $750.00 for her sanctioned illegal cross-examination, fraud, and for what court has yet to sanction, the 362(1)(c) false pretense, that Ms. Achtem purported at appellant's court so I can make applications again? Because the Trial Judge and Ms. Achtem did breach sections 28(1)(2) of the Canada Evidence Act (CEA). Before, at, and after attending Trial Ms. Achtem committed acts and court sanctioned her offenses; paragraphs 126(1)(2), and 380(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada. No law permits Rhonda Achtem to breach the Canada Evidence Act C-5. I am a suffering victim of a Trial Judge's social engineering, illegal cross-examination, FRAUD, and false pretense. For defacto appellant’s court Memorandum of Judgment to state the Reasons for Judgment of Justice Horner is reasonable is false. Because a 6.8|93.2 percent split in Ms. Achtem favor is NOT reasonable. Defacto court's Reasons for Judgment, states that the parties had a prior oral agreement regarding matrimonial, before separation date of July 23, 2003. I did NOT have a prior oral agreement. I was in no position to hand over hard earned matrimonial earned during my career building years, which was short lived, because of Multiple Sclerosis MS and divorce effecting me. I paid for half the mortgage payments for 14 years. I should have received half of matrimonial

[4] I requested having to pay Ms. Achtem $750 waived. Due to the February 1, 2008 [Order of Justice Miller – EXHIBIT 1, page E1]. This is to pay Ms. Achtem extra for her sanctioned act of getting to disobey the said statute. Due to my fixed income less the $166.90 MEP every month, is over garnishing from the livelihoods of my 2^nd family. The Order of Justice Miller prevents me to make a hardship application, to get child support & arrears adjusted, and to get disparity between households dealt with as per the May 6, 2006 [Order of Justice Hughes - EXHIBIT 2, page E4] . It is impossible to pay $750 for sanctioned crime. It is also unfair and impossible to pay Ms. Achtem an additional $500 for her sanctioned offenses, as per March 9, 2009 [Order of Justice Sulatycky - EXHIBIT 3, page E7]. I also request having to pay Ms. Achtem this $500 waived too? MEP has included my 2^nd child's benefits as my income, when calculating child support for my 1^st child. MEP is supposed subtract all my 2^nd child's income when calculating and MEP is NOT. Current child support is as per December 24, 2004 [Order of Justice Hembroff – EXHIBIT 4, page E9]. And attached is the [January 17, 2007 Certificate of Divorce, marked as EXHIBIT 5, page 10].

[5] My income has decreased to $1,188 per month since May 2008. MEP continues to garnish too much, at $166.90 every month. Child support & arrears is too much, at $223 plus a $25 late fee every month is impossible since November 2008. Inspect [Edward D. Achtem's last 3 years of income; 2010, 2009 and 2008 Notice of Assessments - EXHIBIT 6, page E11]. Inspect my [July, August, and September 2011 pay stubs - EXHIBIT 7, page E13]. Inspect [MEP Statements of arrears - EXHIBIT 8, page E14]. Pursuant to section 12 of the charter, it is NOT fair to be penalized $1,250 to pay Rhonda Sails (Ms. Achtem) for getting away with lawlessly sanctioned offenses. Judges have a duty to protect everyone’s Rights and Freedoms, for which they have targeted me to be deprived thereof, lawlessly under the color of law. My request is retroactively adjust child support and arrears from January 2008 to present? Credit my Alberta Justice MEP debtor account the over arrears, plus all late fees, interest applied reversed, from January 2008 to present, and order interest paid to me? Apply credit to my MEP debtor account number 1499-680.

[6] I am being infringed upon by defacto courts' Judgments. This statement explains what is fictional, and what corrections are needed so Judgments are factual instead of defacto. Supported with Trial material, I will support my requests and allegations of socially engineered sanctioned crimes. Due to financial infringements caused by Orders and Judgments, it has been impossible to be in my older 1st child's life for 6 years, and for her to ever meet her half sister, my 2^nd child. Defacto court's Reasons for Judgment of Justice Horner, and the Trial judge's misconduct causes me to pay ongoing retribution to Ms. Achtem. She and the Trial Judge devastated me and my 2^nd family financially. I also support my younger 2^nd child, and my 2^nd wife too, who cannot work in Canada, because she is Mexican. Too high child support and arrears inhibits me to sponsor her on a landed immigrant application. Her NOT being permitted to work in Canada is hardship on my 2^nd family.

[7] My 2^nd wife is the mother to my 2^nd child Katherine Achtem 4 years old. Inspect my [2^nd wife's income for 2009, 2008, and 2007 is $0 - EXHIBIT 9, page E19] , She can only live in Canada with visitors permits therefore cannot work here. Defacto Court's Judgments did a nasty number on us financially. Adriana is now working in Mexico, and returning October 2011. Subsequently she does not have taxable income in 2010 and not so far in 2011 and Mexicans do not file Tax Returns. See copy of her signed statement of income. Inspect my [2^nd wife's 2010 income is $1,300.00 (Canadian) - EXHIBIT 10, page E20]. Her last 3 months of income for 2011 she made $318.00 (Canadian) per month. Inspect my [2^nd wife's last 3 months of pay stubs from her employer - EXHIBIT 11, page E21].

[8] Take into account hardship of supporting 2 children and a 2^nd wife who cannot work in Canada. Because child support and arrears being too high inhibits me to sponsor her, for a landed immigrant application. My 1^st child, Kayla Achtem 9 years old, her mother is my EX-wife, Rhonda Sails (Ms. Achtem). My 2^nd child Katherine Achtem 4 years old, her mother is my current and 2^nd wife. We support the 2^nd child from our limited income, and there are no custody issues to address for the 2^nd child. It is fair to take into account hardship of myself supporting 2 children and my 2^nd wife, since the birth of my 2^nd child. It is logically etiquette to pay the said 2 mothers equally. Based on a mathematical formula using the Canadian Child Support Guideline Table; for 2 children divided by 2 mothers. To provide for my 2 children equally. Attached is my [2^nd child's birth certificate - EXHIBIT 12, page E23].

[9] Currently Ms. Achtem and I each receive $218.50 a month of CPP-disability Children's Benefit. May 2008 is when we started receiving it at $213.99 per month each for 1 child in our custody. Therefore she gets an increase for how much she gets for the 1^st child from $207 to $426.50 while at the same time my income drops below $16,000 a year by time 2009 is done. She collects CPP-disability children's benefit for the 1^st child and I collect CPP-disability children's benefits for the 2^nd child. At the same time Ms. Achtem is still receiving her child support from me, through MEP. There was a drastic decrease in my income because of disability and NOT having driver license I am not employable. My income decreased alot over 2008 and 2009. My 2^nd child's benefits are sent and taxed to my name Edward Achtem. Attached is information showing benefits I received, inspect [2^nd child's money from birth to present- EXHIBIT 13, page E24 to E29a].

[10] Ms. Achtem is getting $218.50 a month from CPP-disability Children's Benefit plus $223 a month for child support, which is a total of $441.50 per month. My income was above $28,000 in 2007 and monthly child support rate was at $207. It is NOT logical that my income decreased to $16,000 and how much Ms. Achtem's receives is increased to $441.50 every month for 1 child? I know how judges enjoy power to make families suffer. Instead of ripping shirts off of a 4 year old child's back, and her parents to pay Ms. Achtem extra. Take into account I support a 2^nd child and a 2^nd wife from 2007 to present. Consideration to my 2^nd family lacks causing financial torment. This break down does NOT include taking into account hardship that I want the court to consider something appropriate, that includes I support my 2^nd wife as a 3^rd dependent? WithOUT having a 3^rd dependent my 2^nd wife into this formula. Due to a significant decrease in my income from 2008 to present, an adjustment break down using the formula (2 children divided by 2 mothers) which does not include my 2^nd wife as my 3^rd dependent is presented from paragraphs 11 to 14. MEP includes my 2^nd child money as part of my income on line 150 of my tax returns. MEP is not subtracting my 2^nd child's money. That money is for my 2^nd child which is NOT to be in the equation when cross-referencing the child support amount for my 1^st child. Line 150 of my Notice of Assessments is my 2^nd child's money combined with mine. Therefore my 2^nd child money is subtracted from the time she was born until present from line 150 as follows.

[11] My line 150 for 2008 is $26,671.00. Less $1,800 for 2007's and 2008's Universal Child Care Benefit (UCCB) received in 2008 for my 2^nd child, is $24,871.00. 8 months of CPP-disability children's benefit that started May 1, 2008, was not received for my 2^nd child until November 2009, not applicable for 2008. Therefore my line 150 withOUT 2^nd child's money, is a base amount of $24,871.00 to cross-reference for 2008; as per child support guideline table, for 2 children, is $400. I support 2 children who have different mothers. It is logically etiquette to divide $400 by 2 is $200. Therefore $200 to Rhonda Sails (Ms. Achtem) and $200 for my 2^nd child.

[12] My line 150 for 2009 is $21,561.00. Less $1,200 UCCB received for my 2^nd child in 2009, is $19,761.00. Less $3,810.06 for 18 months of CPP-disability children's benefit received for my 2^nd child, is $15,950.94. Less $500 AISH Child Supplement for 2009 because I started collecting $100 per month starting August 1, 2009 is $15,490.94. Therefore a base amount of $15,490.94 to cross-reference for 2009; as per child support guideline table, for 2 children is $270. I support 2 children who have different mothers. It is logically etiquette to divide $270.00 by 2, is $135.00. Therefore $135.00 to Rhonda Sails (Ms. Achtem) and $135.00 for my 2^nd child.

[13] My line 150 for 2010 is $15,985.32. Less $1,200 UCCB for my 2^nd child is $14,785.32. Less $2,567.88 for 12 months of CPP-disability children's benefit received for my 2^nd child is $12,217.44. Less 1,200 AISH Child Supplement for 2010 is $10,217.44. Therefore, a base amount of $10,217.44 to cross-reference for 2010; as per child support guideline table, for 2 children is $70. Since I support 2 children who have different mothers. It is logically etiquette to divide $70 by 2 is $35. Therefore $35 to Rhonda Sails (Ms. Achtem) and $35 for my 2^nd child.

[14] My line150 projected for 2011 is fixed at $16,176.00. Less $1,200 UCCB projected for my 2^nd child is $14,976.00. Less $2,567.88 for 12 months of CPP-disability children's benefit I will received in 2011 for my 2^nd child is $12,408.12. Less $1,200 AISH Child Supplement for 2011 is $10,408.12. Therefore, a base amount of $10,408.12 to cross-reference for 2011 for 2 children is $78 I support 2 children who have different mothers. It is logically etiquette to divide $78 by 2, is $39. Therefore $39 to Rhonda Sails (Ms. Achtem) and $39 for my 2^nd child.

[15] For the least consideration for my 2^nd child set Child support at $39 per month, and Order MEP to make the said adjustments, and future adjustments as necessary. Ms. Achtem would be getting $39 for child support plus $218.50 of CPP-disabity Children's Benefit. Ms. Achtem will receive $257.50 per month. More than when my income was more than $28,000 a year like how it was back in 2008 or later for when she was getting $207. MEP has removed my drivers license, this has rendered me unemployable. I am unable to walk to bus stop more than 50% of the time. Next from the transcript, is this defacto court too? [Line 45 page 36 to line 18 page 37 - EXHIBIT T] in the back. Inspect [Doctor Lopez's prescription - EXHIBIT 14, page – E30]. The court can do something appropriate because I have MS supporting 2 children and a 2^nd wife. When she returns Canada this October she cannot be working, but would like to be applying to become a landed immigrant. Provided child support to Ms. Achtem is adjusted, and once remedy is provided, for infringements caused your judicial colleagues.

[16] Ms. Achtem's Notice of Intentions of what documents she was supposed to use at Trial. Compared to documents she was NOT suppose to use. Does not in accord to her Notice of Intentions, but she used them. It is sanctioned that Ms. Achtem gets to disobeyed a statute, sections 28(1)(2) of the Canada Evidence Act. She did the physical act of rigging a premeditated Trial by Ambush, and the Trial Judge is accessory who sanctioned the abuses on me. Statutes, boundaries of Law and Rules of Court, have been broken, but sanctioned. There is sanctioned breaches of the functus officio doctrine, and the separation of powers principal; that parallels [Doucet Boudreau v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education), [2003] 3 S.C.R. 3, 2003 SCC 6 - EXHIBIT 15, page E31]

[17] Disparity between households has never been dealt upon determining child support. Getting disparity between households dealt with is a request? I made application for spousal support, which was subsequently declined, withOUT disparity between households considered, as per the Order of Justice Miller. No disparity between households was considered as per the Order of Justice Hughes, who ordered it to be dealt with. Therefore disparity between households is still needing to be dealt with, in both matters. I clarify the sanctioned breach of the separation of powers principal. To sanction crime and breaches of common law doctrinal is not the proper roll of the court. Permit this to be dealt with in both matters of Child Support, and also Spousal Support from separation date July 23, 2003 to May 10, 2004 when I was single to be revisited due to the sanctioned breaches of the separation of powers principal and the functus officio doctrine? The court acted inappropriately for NOT carrying out manifested intentions to take into account disparity between households for spousal support because Justice Hughes Ordered it, Justice Miller did not take it in consideration. My income in the year of separation 2003 is only $5,514.00. And separation was half way through the year. The Court exceeded jurisdiction for not taking into account my income which you will verify soon for spousal support as Justice Hughes Ordered it. Stemming down to the unclear Pre-trail Order, that does not have the agreement concerning exhibits and parties obligations on it. Inspect the fine drafting of March 29, 2007 [Order of Justice Rawlins - EXHIBIT 16, page E69].

[18] Court Notes from Pre-trial, shows motives of people running our courts are sticking their nose(s) in places where it does NOT belong. This is NOT the proper role of the court. Individuals operating the Medicine Hat Court House, had prior concerns. Whoever thinks they have confirmed as to what I will be doing with matrimonial after Trial. This is nobodies business but my own. Nobody is to concern themselves with confirming a prior notion of it. Someone or a few somebodies were eye balling it up. Attached is the [Pre-trail Court Notes - EXHIBIT 17, page E71].

[19] Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, In the city of Medicine Hat should have been sent into disrepute but lawlessly sanctioned to NOT be sent into disrepute. Refusal of my sections 24(1) and 24(2) Canadian Charter Rights & Freedoms application, is sanctioned. Defacto appellant's court Memorandum of Judgment, protects Ms. Achtem's sanctioned acts of illegal cross-examination and fraud. And to not tarnish the integrity of the Trial Judge for her misconduct for slamming me into an ambush and for preparing defacto court's Reasons for Judgment of Justice Horner (maybe to push it under a carpet for her and her cousin Doug). Although, the appeal panel may have immunity. Defacto appellant's court Memorandum of Judgment is still riddled with 10 fictions, that nobody else can prove otherwise. Indictable offenses are sanctioned. Although section 96 judges may have immunity for producing defacto perjured Judgments, Ms. Achtem does NOT have immunity to breach the Canada Evidence Act and to be charge for offenses she commits.

[20] Kathleen Linton has purported a false statement in writing. Inspect [Kathleen Linton's legal opinion for Legal Aid - EXHIBIT 18, page E72]. This prevented me to have a lawyer for appeal. Ordering Legal Aid to pay for loss of matrimonial on divorce date, damages, and to pay for a lawyer of my choosing at their regular rate to represent me for hardship, child support & arrears adjustment, child access, and to have disparity between households dealt with, maybe appropriate? Having Kathleen Linton arrested for paragraphs 122 and 362(1)(c) of the Criminal Code of Canada , to NOT socially engineer it for her to get away with it, maybe appropriate? I want defacto appellant's court Memorandum of Judgment corrected or prove otherwise that it is not contrary? By supporting the perjury as not being lies, but being the truth. I want defacto appellant's court to show on the transcript, where fresh documents were adduced? Indictable offenses with no limit on status of limitations is committed, but what Kathleen Linton did is false. Perjured fictions remain on defacto appellant's court Memorandum of Judgment.

[21] I am disabled with multiple sclerosis. MS effects mobility, lateral balance, concentration, and short-term memory cognitive functions. I live every day feeling like a horse kicked my head. I can skim by self-represented if court accommodates me, for which they did NOT make an Order for sections 6(1)(2) of the Canada Evidence Act C-5. I would rather had a lawyer but legal Aid declined me. To protect the integrity of Kathleen Linton's false legal opinion and other suspects involved in the racket. Ms Linton was given 3 hours. In the Achtem v Achtem case 3 hours is impossible for confusion created at Trial for any lawyer who is human, however Ms. Linton winged it.

[22] The Trial Judge depleting me of matrimonial, is lawless bias social engineering. Engineered to make me poor and home owner-less at 40 years old. Inhibited opportunity to buy a home from my parents in 2007. Child support and arrears being higher than the child support guideline rate inhibits me to pay Ms. Achtem $1,250 for her sanctioned offenses at Trial and false pretense at appellant's court. Appellant's court kept me sanctioned as a victims to Ms. Achtem offenses sanction at Trial. Today I remain a victim of sanctioned offenses. It is impossible to pay the $75 MEP recalculation fee, and impossible to pay for supervised access to my 1^st child. Because of Judges corruption immunity and Ms. Achtem's sanctioned crime, lawlessly removed me from her life. Ms. Achtem's offense that was NOT sanctioned; false pretense is grounds for her arrest.

[With Emphasis]

[23] As per the Order of Justice Miller, do more than waiving having to pay Ms. Achtem $750 for Ms. Achtem's illegal cross-examination, fraud, and false pretense Alternatively craft an Order allowing for loss of 43.2% from the 100% of matrimonial as part of a hardship application or some other appropriate alternative. Matrimonial should be split 50|50, when exemptions are $0. Both parties did pay 50|50 on matrimonial for 14 years up until Justice Horner lopsided to a 93.2|6.8 percent split in Ms. Achtem's favor. Have integrity, correct defacto courts Judgment(s). Provide me the opportunity to show the court what each party has received based on percentage.

[24] Correct defacto court's Reasons for Judgment and or either correct defacto appellant's court Memorandum of Judgment stating nothing was adduced? Or do what is appropriate. Because no party adduced documents? Or alternatively indicate where documents were adduced on the transcript? And there is 9 other bias assumptions or fictions needing correction. I am suffering defacto courts causing a loss of 43.2% of matrimonial, because I only did get 6.8%. Alternatively craft an Order to allow the loss as part to a hardship application, or some other appropriate alternative, and correct defacto court's Judgment(s)? From my opinion the only appropriate thing do is Order a new Trial.

[25] To provide what corrections are needed to prepare a 100% correct Memorandum of Judgment to not be contrary. Attached is [copies of pages 2 and 3 of defacto appellant's court Memorandum of Judgment, with the fictions or perjuries underlined in red - EXHIBIT 19A, page E76]. And as you see half-truths underlined in green. Both Parties did have access to to Pre-trial procedures. However Ms. Achtem did not follow the procedures because most documents Ms. Achtem used does not accord to her filed notice of intentions. And how is examination of discovery going to inform me, predict the future that Ms. Achtem is going to use documents that does not accord to her filed notice of intentions?



[26] To provide what corrections are needed to prepare a 100% correct Reasons for Judgment to not be contrary. Attached is a [complete copy of defacto court's Reasons for Judgment of Justice Horner, with what is contrary underlined in red EXHIBIT 19B, page E78]. At the end of this I have questions I am expecting unanswered questions to be answered pertaining to what what is contrary or made up fiction underline in red for both EXHIBITs 14 and 15.

[27] The Reasons for Judgment of Justice Horner, is corrupted and 1 of many reasons is the court was not prepared for Trial, exceeding jurisdiction from convoluted Pre-trial Order. The Reasons for Judgment states I did not pay anything on the Medicine Hat matrimonial home after separation. While being cross-examined by the Trial Judge, I did touch on it. Then after, but before the argument stages Ms. Achtem beguiled me, which engendered fear over profanity in e-mails I sent within 6 months after separation, that breached the CEA c-5. It beguiled me so much, I had my tail between my legs. I failed to bring it up in arguments, the point law is Virgil Sails living in the matrimonial home as a renter. The cause is a surprise of court sanctioned illegal cross-examination carried out by Ms. Achtem.

[28] This statement provides proof that Rhonda Achtem is the triggering cause. Of what is sanctioned; her throwing off the course of Justice. Administration of justice, should have been sent into disrepute, but is lawlessly sanctioned to NOT be. Mrs. Rhonda Rose Sails formerly (Ms. Achtem) should be arrested for what she for sending a false statement in writing to appellant's courts to rely upon.

[29] Justice Horner let this happen. Infringements of my Canadian Charter Rights & Freedoms has been lawlessly sanction. Compromised for fictions. In court fiction it is not the proper roll of integrity. I was cheated by the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta it has been lawlessly sanctioned to NOT be sent into disrepute, but should have. Provide remedy, do NOT carry out a government cover up, and Order the arrest of Rhonda Rose Sails (formerly Ms. Achtem) for her false pretense at appellant's court.

[30] Ms. Achtem on 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 the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta. From then on, Rhonda Achtem has purported to have committed sanctioned offenses; paragraphs 126(1)(2), 380(a), for what was not sanctioned paragraph 362(1)(c), of the Criminal Code of Canada by preparing and producing documents that obstructed the course of justice, and should have brought the court into disrepute. It shall be advanced, and evidenced that she planned and committed the acts, ultimately leading to lawlessly sanctioned illegal cross-examination, and FRAUD because at Trial and unsanctioned false pretense for what she did at appellant's court. View [R v Kusk 1999 ABCA 49 (CanLII) – EXHIBIT 20, page E87].

Part I - The Trial Judge Sanctioned Rhonda Achtem's Offenses (paragraph 31 to 92 on page C28)

[31] Prior to Pre-trial Rhonda Achtem filed a Notice of Intentions of what documents she will be using at Trial. Her [1^st List of Exhibits - EXHIBIT 21, page E92], outlines the contents of her 1st Bundle of Documents. She served Mr. Achtem with copies of the filed original documents. This is what Mr. Achtem came to Trial prepared for. At Trial Rhonda Rose Achtem (Mrs. Sails) sneaked past the Bench tactfully arranged exhibits that deceived the witness, Edward Achtem who was attacked in the Witness Box. Ms. Achtem presented a premeditated beguiling unexpected surprise of documents she was NOT supposed to use at Trial. Her 2^nd Bundle of Documents with the corresponding list. Her [2^nd List of Exhibits - EXHIBIT 22, page E93]. The ambush started at 11:30 a.m. Ms. Achtem requested if she may present exhibits while I was still in the Witness Box, was not expected. Ms. Achtem's 2^nd Bundle of Documents breached sections 28(1)(2) of Canada Evidence Act C-5. Because it does not accord to her filed Notice of Intentions of what documents she was supposed to use, which led court to sanctioning illegal cross-examination, fraud and at appellant's court false pretense, that was NOT sanctioned.

[32] I was NOT competent to stand Trial and Appeal to self-represent. I do NOT have the capacity to confront beguiling Witness Box Attacks; illegal cross-examination over documents I was not served a notice of intentions outlining the documents. Before having to opening Ms. Achtem's 2^nd Bundle of Documents in the Witness Box. I sure hope court does NOT do this to the mentally retarded too. 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 the letter from Dr. Patry to Hunt January 13, 2000. It did inform her that Mr. Achtem suffers from memory function problems. Read [Transcript line 5 page 159 to line 11 page 161- EXHIBIT T]; (record time: 2:01:30 p.m. to 2:03:11 p.m.) Make special note of what Justice Horner said about the doctor's letter; “Okay, well this is -- this letter is over seven years old, right. Sorry, Mr. Achtem, are you telling me that you still suffer from --”

[33] The point of law in respect to Ms. Achtem's 2^nd Bundle of Documents. Should have been subject to sections 6(1)(2) of the Canada Evidence Act C-5 (CEA). Because Judges neglected [Medical Documents grouped together - EXHIBIT 23, pages E94 to E101] showing I suffer physical brain damage causing mental disability. MS attacks my brain restricting short-term memory cognitive functions. But ultimately subject to sections 28(1)(2) of the CEA. Because all documents used at a Trial a party must serve upon the witness with reasonable notice of intentions, no less than 7 days.  Then there is Alberta Rule of Court 158.5(1)(e). Because the appeal panel; Justice Conrad, Justice Martin, and Justice Park ruled that documents were adduced. The appeal material does NOT inform the appeal panel that documents where adduced. This is 1 of 10 contrary rulings.

[34] I want Appellant's Court to prove, that the appeal panel has NOT deliberately LIED or made a bias assumption on the Memorandum of Judgment. Alternatively prove it was accidental, and provide reasons to how they came up with it being contrary. Prove the fictional Memorandum of Judgment was NOT a deliberate preparation, and have defacto appellant's court Memorandum of Judgment corrected. Reverse Onus to the appeal panel is appropriate and sensible.

[35] This was a Trial. NOT a Summary Trial. The point of law regarding the ruling that documents were adduced on the Memorandum of Judgment. Documents were NOT adduced (period). Documents are NOT usually allowed to be adduced at Trials. This is false, because it was NOT taken from the appeal material. Adducing documents is subject to Alberta Rule of Court 158.5(1)(e). The Memorandum of Judgment is defacto. Mr. Achtem argues, possibly a bias assumption, but my gut feeling is the appeal panel relied on Ms. Achtem's letter to the case manager Justice O'Brien, would prove the bias does exist. A letter written by Ms. Achtem, who knew she deliberately and knowingly made false statement in writing to appellant's court, to rely upon. This is Ms. Achtem committing an offense that is NOT sanctioned, paragraph 362(1)(c) of the Criminal Code of Canada, resulting in an aggregated loss of my matrimonial. No court gave Ms. Achtem permission to commit an offense at appellant’s court;to carry out the offense paragraph 362(1)(c) of the Criminal Code of Canada. like how the the Trial Judge told her to do it. She gave Ms. Achtem permission to commit offenses paragraphs 126(1)(2) and 380(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada. What the Trial Judge should have said was “You're doing a great job at beguilingly Mr. Achtem you just keep that up Ms. Achtem and it is OK the court has granted you permission to breach the Canada Evidence”. The Trial Judge may have well said that to Ms. Achtem “Inspect Rhonda Sails's (Ms. Achtem) appellant's court offense [Ms. Sails's (Achtem) letter to the Court of Appeal of Alberta, September 12, 2007 - EXHIBIT 24, page E102]

[36] I want Calgary Police Service to make appellant's court to provide me, Edward D. Achtem a responses to questions in this paragraph 36 in particular; Why would Rhonda Sails (Ms. Achtem) send a letter to the Court of Appeal 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." ? How is Mr. Achtem going to feel documents are relevant if she does NOT serve him a Notice of Intentions to use them?  How am I to know that Ms. Achtem's exhibits are going to be relevant to the case since she did NOT inform me? How is it possible to have plenty time to obtain relevant information on documents relevant to a case withOUT a served notice of intentions outlining the documents, thus not knowing about the relevant documents? DO NOT LET THIS PARAGRAPH GO UN ANSWERED.

[37] Fiction was produced at appellant's Court. This one clue and another is it is a bias assumption in favor of Ms. Achtem to how the appeal panel came up with 1 fiction; of documents being adduced, which radiates bias assumption. Then another clue is all 10 fictions are written to conform to Kathleen Linton's defacto legal opinion is. Like what did Kathleen Linton do talk to appellant's court and say, “hey use my legal opinion, and just change the wording a little”? Other than that Rhonda Achtem (Mrs. Sails) Did NOT file Respondent’s appeal material to oppose mine. I was victimized and know, Ms. Achtem should be arrested for her false pretense. The course of Justice was thrown off by Ms. Achtem. Do Not become an accused to carry out a lawless a government covered it up of this! Refrain from lawless social engineering and racketeering.

[38] You Cannot do to me what Justice Orr did to Bryon Prior who put him in the care of doctor gangsters in Newfoundland. Byron is is a political prisoner because he is an eye witness to the alleged events that let up to his 12 year old sister, being taken behind closed doors with the Honourable T. Alex Hickman in a Masonic Lodge. Byron Prior alleges Hickman is raped his 12 year old sister. You cannot send Constable Matt Ball and his PACT team from the Calgary Police to do dirty work, to some how get me into a psych ward slammer, so forget about that idea all together. Do not be a control freak over the mind of man. The criminal offenses is criminal matter, to be dealt with by the police. I do not need to get anyone to cough up a DNA sample. I do not have to convince anyone to take a fine opportunity to go on The Maury Popich Show to show he is not the dad, because my case is all about black lies on white paper, and you cannot prove it otherwise. I am a Victim who would rather see police duty done. Instead get the Ball rolling out to Medicine Hat to arrest Rhonda Rose Sails (Ms. Achtem) and get her all PACT teamed up in for processing. And something has got to be done about defacto appellant's court Memorandum of Judgment. I suggest you do not to become involved Social engineering - racketeering. Provide remedy to stop the social engineering, to stop the racketeering NOW.

[39] The appeal is within circumstances of the Trial, I limited this statement to what is contrary to the appeal material. Ms. Achtem did not file respondent’s appeal books. Ms. Achtem only sent 1 letter to the case manager. I will show what is contrary on the Reasons for Judgment of Justice Horner to the Trail material, Pre-trial, and relevant Hearings. Delve into this, it is mapped out to the bottom. That crashed into an abyss of fiction at appellant's court. Judges in positions of public trust, are to frown upon any form of perjury and public mistrust. Integrity is to admit and correct, or otherwise it is organized crime in the public sector, corruption of individuals to carry out a government crime cover up. From experience, I know organized crime in the public sector is running rampant. I do not know if what happened to is because I was bullied by Mark Carney when I was a kid. And do not know if it is because Mrs. Belzil blamed me for someone else who threw up in her flowers one night at one their block parties. But what I do know is my case is all about lies in black on white paper, by people who feel they are Black Kabbal priests who wear black robes|judges doing social engineering instead of being judges, and I know all about Justice Horner, and Mr. Wachowich's lineages and all about bloodlines. I do NOT buy the Lies.

[40] The Pre-trail Judge, Justice Rawlins was NOT organized, she produced a convoluted Order withOUT parties obligations. It was not a clear Order. Her Order was not read to the parties. Not read into the Record. But yet there was an Order that court staff attempted to cover up, by saying, no Order exists, and it was deleted on the the transcript, so I had TMS do it again. Things like this; is why our Justice and/or Legal system, could earn NOT such a fine reputation, and the problem is NOT with any system. The problem is humans employed in the public sector not adhering to a system; being bias, careless, corrupt, negligent, racketeering,social engineering in judicial, lawLIARs etc...

[41] Alberta Justice Transcript Management Services Regional attempted deleting transcript, the portion of the convoluted Pre-trail Order all the way to court adjourned, that made me go Hmm! So holding the Order in my hand I phoned the Trial Coordinator S. Jobagy and requested for her to send me a copy of the Order. She stated the Order does NOT exist. Inspect all documents grouped together [deleted transcript, denial of Pre-trail Order, Pre-trial Order recovered, and Mr. Wachowich's letter too – EXHIBIT 25A, pages E104 to E109b]. Also consider at how the Order was not given, and how it is drafted. Inspect the part TMS Regional attempted deleting on the transcript. [line 36 on page 37 to line 17 on page 38 in EXHIBIT T for Transcript portions]. Nobody, and NOT even Allen Wachowich who is performing a government cover up cannot argue the Trial Coordinators directions, the agreement concerning exhibits had to have been on the Order. Inspect Trial Coordinator directions, [QB Civil practice Note 5 – Family Law Pre-trial Conferences – EXHIBIT 25B, page E109c]. Chief Justice Wachowich I suspect he enjoyed carrying out a vendetta for Frank Jones on me to get back at my dad over something that was not my fault. Over something not involving me that happened when I was a child. I am a Canadian who cannot, and did not get a fair Trail with a judge appointed by the family and buddies... Canada is to not be a feudal society (period). Because he wrote a letter stating the portion of the Order was not on the Transcript because it has no relevance to the substantive portions of the application. EXCUSE me this was not an application it was a Pre-trial. Verbatim of an Order is substantive, is required given to the parties, to be read into the record and on the transcript and it sure better be on my transcript.

[42] If a judge crashes a car and does not order it repaired. Then the next judge who drives the car does not notice it is crashed, then he is driving a crashed car. If Judgments are corrected, then that is what is acceptable. John F Kennedy delivered a famous speech before multitudes back in September 1961. That speech where he was talking about throwing all public sector crooks working for corporate crooks. JKF was pretty much talking about throwing them all in the slammer. Within that speech he said; “...And error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it...” I am asking for errors that became defacto appellant's court mistakes to be corrected? Letting Ms. Achtem get away with illegal cross-examination, fraud, and false pretense and leaving me suffering as a victim is a mistake. It is racketeering and social engineering. There is no place for social engineering in court.

[43] For defacto appellant's court to state; documents were adduced, has corrupted sections 28(1)(2) of the Canada Evidence Act C-5, Alberta Rule of Court 158.5(1)(e), and it does NOT accord to the appeal material. Fact is the appeal material does not state anything about adducing documents. Neither parties made a proposal nor an application at Trial to adduce. Ms. Achtem used documents NOT according to her filed notice of intentions. Instead she used a 2^nd Bundle of Documents withOUT application to adduce. To adduce is a rare occasion at a Trial, and that did NOT happen. Most documents Ms. Achtem used is different documents with different exhibit coordinates, than her filed Notice of Intentions, her 1^st List of Exhibits outlining her 1^st Bundle of Documents.

[44] In Alberta the rule is you can only adduce documents if it is a Summary Trial and rarely it has happened on agreement at Trials. No surprises are to compromise a witness. I was taken by a beguiling surprise of documents not adduced which were other documents and e-mails. I sent the e-mails, and I could have answered to them to the best of my knowledge if I had NOT been deprived sections 28(1)(2) of the Canada Evidence Act C-5 (CEA). There is no way some judge can rule that I was not provided the shall be no less than 7 days notice required. I want a defacto appellant's court Memorandum of Judgment corrected, where it does NOT state; “Mr. Achtem cannot say he was taken by surprise, by e-mails sent by him”. I will continue to say, I was taken by surprise by e-mails sent by me.

[With Emphasis]

[45] This was NOT a Summary Trial. It was a Trial. Therefore the only way to adduce documents provided the documents have been properly produced into the action. If this was a Summary Trial, then a litigant may propose to the Trial Judge, and if the other party agrees and or the other party may request an adjournment to view and review, so he is not beguiled. Therefore, given opportunity to answer to the best of his knowledge. Well I was NOT provided the no less than7 days notice of intentions or any notice from Ms. Achtem for most documents she used.

[46] Half way through Trial Justice Horner directed me into a beguiling Trail by Ambush rigged by Ms. Achtem. This did NOT provide me opportunity to answer to the best of my knowledge under Oath. Both Justice Horner and Ms. Achtem are the cause, and Ms. Achtem is the primary triggering cause. If documents need to be adduced. Trial may need to be adjourned and or the other party could appose, and or may seek costs for having to come back again. Ms. Achtem's exhibits N to R were NEVER produced into the action. Therefore, a 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 sanctioning it. She may have NOT known when Ms. Achtem first presented her 2^nd Bundle of Documents, but transcript confirms Justice Horner knew about it after, and before filing defacto court's Reasons for Judgment of Justice Karen M. Horner. This is observable in the transcript in 2 places. When Mr. Achtem cross-examines me on her exhibit O. Then observable again when the Trial Judge is illegally examining Ms. Achtem on her exhibit P. Inspect transcript line 18 to line 20, when Justice Horner gave Ms. Achtem directions; “No that fine, Miss Achtem” that's fine...” This is NOT fine and this defeated reasonable notice of intentions. Because Ms. Achtem's 2^nd Bundle of Documents breached the Canada Evidence Act. These are the moments of sanctioning the Breach Inspect [Transcript line 37 page 122 to line 20 on page 123, is a CONFIRMED breach of sections 28(1)(2) of the Canada Evidence Act by the Trial Judge. Then line 45 on page 154 to line 24 on page 155 - EXHIBIT T]. Reconfirms the breach. Do not a carry OUT a government cover up of this. This is NOT the proper roll of the court or police.

[47] I did NOT get equal consideration of section 15.1 of Charter treatment from the Trial Judge that Justice Hughes gave Ms. Achtem. And section 15.2 of the Charter is infringed upon as well because there was no Order ordering section 6(1)(2) of the CEA. I adduced medical documents before Justice Hughes at Family Chambers on May 6, 2006. Justice Hughes parched at me about medical notes written by doctors on papers from their pads treating them as invalid, because some are not on letter head. MS can never leave anyone, and one's condition cannot be invalidated by a judge. Justice Hughes bushed off valid medical documents. She treated the Letter from Dr. Patry to Dr. Hunt dated January 13, 2000, as NOT current, disregarding it, and sent me to Trial withOUT sections 6(1)(2) of the CEA c-5 on the Order. Therefore sent me to Trial with infringement of my section 15.2 of the Canadian Charter Rights and Freedoms. Dr. Patry's letter is valid for life. Ms. Achtem who lived me and slept with me for 14 years knew how to attack my disability better than anyone. Both Trail and Pre-trial Judges observed my medicals documents too.

[49] 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. Justice Hughes reluctantly permitted me to adduce medical documents. Judges need to recognize that MS Never Goes Away. For those who have MS, it does NOT improve. Dr. Bakker from the MS clinic in Red Deer can lay it out for you from a witness box, this is natural for those who have multiple sclerosis, like me. And Justice Hughes did state she knows all about MS, when I argued my condition at family chambers.

[50] Documents were NOT adduced, and 5 of the documents were NEVER produced into the action. Never mind the word properly. Stick with the word NEVER. I would like anyone to show me what lines??? what pages??? in the transcript, where documents were adduced? I DEMAND AN ANSWER? I am better versed on the transcript than anyone. And I know nobody can find it. The Memorandum of Judgment states documents were adduced. I say sure... go ahead and show me in the transcripts where documents are adduced? NO judge can sanction based on our laws that Ms. Achtem has mother's immunity, to bypass the Canada Evidence Act. She was sneaky, but court sanctioned that Ms. Achtem gets to disobey the Canada Evidence Act, pursuant to paragraphs 126(1)(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

[51] I was stripped of matrimonial by Justice Horner, so Justice Miller tacked on an extra $750 to Ms. Achtem, to pay for her sanctioned illegal cross-examination, fraud, and false pretense. I do NOT want to have to keep prepared to NOT be in my 1^st child's life while you lawyers or your colleagues, your family, and Mrs. Achtem laugh. For treating me as a villain and Ms. Achtem as a damsel tried to the tracks. Pursuant to section 12 of the Charter I am being subjected to cruelty, unusual treatments and punishment. For court sanctioned crime, the enablers to Ms. Achtem to inhibit me to be in my 1^st child's life for 6 years, and being stripped of my matrimonial equity. Judges being the cause for sanctioning, illegal cross-examination, and fraud, so do NOT sanction the false pretense. Appellant's court maybe a victim too. To make the father pay for the mother's fraud is unconstitutional, violates my section 6.(1)(2b) of my Charter Rights and Freedoms. Me being defrauded out of matrimonial does not accord and defeats non-definitive law; of the best interest of my child. It was for Ms. Achtem's vindictiveness, and maybe for Sexist-Chivalrist Judges maybe for their royal bloodline relatives social preferences; of what fathers to target as villains, and to make assumptions of what mothers are damsels in distress tried to the tracks. Or maybe for Allen Wachowich who hates my father. He was a friend of my parent's until those animosities transpired between Frank Jones and my dad, that had nothing to do with me. I was a child then then , after that never saw that man at my parent's place again.

[52] Confused during appeal I failed to inform the appeal panel in my [Factum - EXHIBIT 26, page E110]. I'm not or lawyer, so it is not the best Factum, too bad Legal Aid shut me down with their racketeering program. It does not inform of the 1st Climax and argued the 2nd climax poorly. However my Factum and transcript does not support 10 fictions on defacto appellant's court Memorandum of Judgment. Impossible to twist to conform to what is contrary or perjury. During appeal, I had no knowledge and Legal Aid left me out in the dark over matters of court breaching the functus officio doctrine, separation of powers principal, and the Canada Evidence Act. I do know what common sense is. And I do know defacto appellant's court Memorandum of Judgment is riddled with 10 fictions.

[53] It is sad that Legal Aid declined me because of Kathleen Linton's false legal opinion. However the ambush was preventable by the Trial Judge, if she had not sanctioned illegal cross-examination. If she 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 Paragraphs 55 to 8.

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.

[69] Ms. Achtem deliberately made physical actions, to prepare an ambush with 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 page.

Transcript used for this analysis; line 5 page 116 to line 47 page 125 - EXHIBIT T 
Trial Audio - 2^nd Climax time: 11:43:32 a.m. to 12:03:08 p.m. - EXHIBIT TA

[73] At 11:43 a.m. at exhibit M it suddenly is extreme malicious cross-examination.  When I flipped the page from Exhibit L to Exhibit M. Ms. Achtem knew, that I was not expecting to see her exhibit M altered with yellow high-light and answer to other yellow high-lighted Exhibits N to R which could NOT be adduced pursuant to the rules the bar set forth. Ms. Achtem's ambush did NOT deceive Justice Karen Horner.  Transcript confirms Justice Horner knew before filling defacto court's Reason for Judgment of Justice Horner. 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 beguiled ambushed state of mind caused him to present is case poorly. Mr. Achtem fell apart emotionally, he was petrified with terror for the rest of the Trail.  I was self-represented and too beguiled to even know to object. Confusion hindered my self-awareness.

[74] Out of Ms. Achtem's exhibits M to R.  Mr. Achtem was only informed of exhibit M, but this is where intimidation and confusion became extreme, and he was already a compromised witness before being cross examined on Ms. Achtem's other exhibits. Her exhibit M was altered with yellow high-light and it was NOT marked in the same alphabetic order.  The first 2 exhibits A and B; Ms. Achtem cross-examined me only on her exhibit A. Both her exhibits A and B are listed on her notice of intentions with different exhibit coordinates as in her filed 1^st List of Exhibits.  I was informed of those ones, and Ms. Achtem put those 2 in front.  After it started off on a roll with being illegally cross-examined over documents which have been properly produced in past affidavits, but were not adduced. A rare occasion to adduce documents did not occur at a Trial and was NOT proposed, and I stress again this was NOT a Summary Trial.  When sanctioned illegal cross examination came to Ms. Achtem's exhibit M is when escalated feelings of intimidation and confusion was engendered.

[75] Ms. Achtem knew I am dyslexic, just as my teacher knew back in school. The yellow high-lighting made exhibit M appear different to the original. This confused me.  If I had NOT been confused by Ms. Achtem's ambush I could have answered to cross-examination of exhibit M properly and exhibits N to R properly under Oath. Ordering the Edmonton Catholic Board would be requirement to confirm I am dyslexic. This is a nasty to leave this open like a loophole challenging the dyslexic.

[76] Do NOT be taken away by profanity and abusive nature of e-mails sent by me within the first 6 month of separation. These e-mails do NOT accord to the agreement concerning exhibits contracted at Pre-trial, because they were not disclosed and do NOT track or trace matrimonial as per the agreement contracted. They are proposals, NOT accepted by Ms. Achtem and breached the Canada Evidence Act, which Judges are NOT to sanction. Because Edward Achtem is a bad man communicating profanity in e-mails. Profanity is NOT of relevance to the numbers, facts, figures and monetary elements. Pursuant to the agreement concerning exhibits 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 it all went. The parties were to use only what was disclosed in a notice of intentions.

[77] I would of had no problem with these e-mails being used for cross-examination and oral argument, if I was provided a notice of intentions. Ms. Achtem knew how to use my disability against me long before Trial. Because of her sanctioned illegal cross-examination over documents that breached An Act Respecting Witnesses and Evidence. This beguiled me at Trial in front of my 2^nd wife who was 8 months pregnant then. Ms. Achtem hindered my opportunity to answer to the best of my knowledge under Oath. I have provided true and the best correct answers versus the court sanctioned illegal cross-examination answers as follows.

[78] Inspect Ms. Achtem's exhibit M marked as EXHIBIT 27A, page E118.  Read transcript of cross-examination of exhibit M, line 5 page 116 to line 25 page 121; marked as EXHIBIT T.  Compare the correct answers to cross-examination of exhibit M, marked as EXHIBIT 27B, page E119. 

[79] Inspect Ms. Achtem's exhibit N marked as EXHIBIT 28A, page E122. Read transcript of cross-examination of exhibit N, line 27 page 121 to line 35 page 122; marked as EXHIBIT T. Compare the correct answers to cross-examination of exhibit N, marked as EXHIBIT 28B, page E123.

[80] Inspect Ms. Achtem's exhibit O marked as EXHIBIT 29A, page E125.  Read transcript of cross-examination of exhibit O, line 37 page 122 to line 47 page 123; marked as EXHIBIT T. Compare the correct answers to cross-examination of exhibit O, marked as EXHIBIT 29B, page E126.

[81] Inspect Ms. Achtem's exhibit P marked as EXHIBIT 30A, page E129.  Read transcript of cross-examination of exhibit P, line 5 to line 19 page 124; marked as EXHIBIT T.  Compare the correct answers to cross-examination of exhibit P, marked as EXHIBIT 30B, page E131. 

[82] Inspect Ms. Achtem's exhibit Q marked as EXHIBIT 31A, page E133.  Read transcript of cross-examination of exhibit Q, line 21 to line 33 page 124; marked as EXHIBIT T.  Compare the correct answers to cross-examination of exhibit Q, marked as EXHIBIT 31B, page E134.

[83] Inspect Ms. Achtem's exhibit R marked as EXHIBIT 32A, page E137.  Read transcript of cross-examination of exhibit R, line 35 page 124 to line 47 page 125; marked as EXHIBIT T.  Compare the correct answers to cross-examination of exhibit R, marked as EXHIBIT 32B, page E138.

[84] If the Pre-trail Judge had made a clear Order, it does not mean it would have NOT caused the Trial Judge to exercise beyond jurisdiction, she pretty much slammed me head 1^st into an ambushed premeditated by another. If the Trial judge had become better versed with the Pre-trial and Trial materials, then I may NOT have become a victim of court sanctioned offenses purported by Ms. Achtem. Not prevented by Justice Horner. As a result of the defacto court's Reasons for Judgment of Justice Horner. Why did it state; He can keep his RRSP when it is fact that I have never owned an RRSP. Therefore, I suspect the Judgment is templated to a degree. I was too beguiled to argue with the bias Trial Judge. She stated, we were only talking separation since May 2003. No we were getting divorced for 10 years, a week after our wedding, and there is a slew eye witnesses. I was beguiled causing confusion made me put my tail between my legs, too confused to argue and carry myself at Trial. I expect to get a corrected Judgment that does NOT state I can have or can keep an RRSP I never had?

[85] The Judicature Act states Judges are to enjoy their jobs, and I am going to tell you Judges are NOT to enjoy breaching the functus officio doctrine and separation of powers principal, that leads to infringements. The breaches are sanctioned, and Judges are not to sanction breaches, because that itself is breaching the separation of powers principal. So I am requesting remedy to infringements and I want a corrected Memorandum of Judgment and Order an arrest of Rhonda R. Sails (Ms. Achtem)? I am suffering Judges mistakes for sanctioning Rhonda R. Sails's (Ms. Achtem) offenses.

[86] The Trial judge was taken away into malfeasance by Rhonda Achtem. This is like robbing me and my second family of our livelihoods, thus keeping us in a sanctioned pit of financial torment and poverty. Do not keep me in this situation like I am a bug trapped in Ms. Achtem's jar that Justice Horner threw me into. It is a big mess, I demand you Chief Justices, Calgary Police to clean it up. I want the court to craft an Order that will get the Court and myself, and Ms. Achtem on even balanced scale of justice, because the scale of justice, NOW is off kilter.  The Reasons for Judgment of Justice Horner aggregated Ms. Achtem 93.2.% of matrimonial assets from a divorce with zero $0.00 exemptions. This percentage split is unfair and crazy. It is quite the HEAVEY DUTY breach of Common Law doctrines.

[87] My Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) Notice of Application for Leave to Appeal was due August 6, 2008, and I did apply for extensions of time. My intentions were to have it filed on time, but by the end of June 2008 when I was walking out the door going out of town for 19 days with my 1 year old child, as planned. A process server served a Court of Queen's Bench, Notice of Motion upon me. Meaning I have to attended and prepare to be in Medicine Hat for July 31, 2008 and the SCC Application was due to be filed and served completed before August 6, 2008. I did NOT serve and file my SCC Application until September 9, 2008.

[88] Subsequently SCC did NOT accommodate, for myself having a difference being mentally restricted, having a Hearing to drive 7 hours from Edmonton to Medicine Hat return, to prepare for a Hearing, having to change and down grade our residence August 8, 2008 due to attrition caused by Ms. Achtem, and to complete the SCC application done simultaneously on the last 2 weeks before it is due. I could not do it all, for I have to drive to Medicine Hat for a Hearing in which Ms. Achtem was refusing to consent to an adjourn 2 weeks to accommodate for my SCC application. Ms. Achtem could have dealt with her matters reasonably out of court instead of making me drive out of town 7 hours, thus loosing 4 days spent out of town at a critical time. She threatened cost. If I had money to purchase the transcript to show that Ms. Achtem making me go out of town at a critical time was useless versus dealing with her matter outside court. This hindered my SCC Application: Attached is the [Order of Justice Wilkins July 31, 2008 EXHIBIT 33, page E141].

[89] To answer No to the question; did it yield a 93.2|6.8 percent split of matrimonial in Ms. Achtem's favor as the result of the Reasons for Judgment of Justice Horner? Would be false. If it was Ms. Achtem who had said No then it would be a bald faced lie. Because those percentages are correct less an estimated figure of $8,000.00 to close my former home business is omitted, as you will observe in paragraph 91, but I still owe about $1,500 in GST from 2002 and 2003. And yes I was contributing towards towards the Medicine Hat home because there was a renter in the house. Namely Mr. Virgil Sails, and yes I did answer that while Justice Horner was cross-examining me before Ms. Achtem did. But the issue, is by the time Ms. Achtem cross-examined me, rendered a compromised witness. I will let this speak for itself, Inspect [Ms. Achtem's Supreme Court of Canada Response - EXHIBIT 34, page E144] Response to Edward D. Achtem's SCC Notice of Application for leave to Appeal.

[90] When Justice Horner was examined Ms. Achtem. She did answer that we agreed to split matrimonial 50|50 or 40|50, then 60|40. Something to that respect and she said the agreement was always changing. That is because we never did come to an agreement before separation or after, to make any changes to. Read [Transcript line 40 page 141 to line 10 page 142; and line 30 to line 32 on page 147 EXHIBIT T]. It was a far mile more than a 60|40 split in Ms. Achtem's favor. As a result of defacto court's Reasons for Judgment of Justice Horner. It is a calculated split of 6.8|93.2 percent in Ms. Achtem's favor from a divorce with ZERO $0 exemptions. If I had received half the value of the Medicine Hat home then Justice Horner's Judgment would have yielded a more reasonable 65|30 split of matrimonial in Ms. Achtem's favor. In Part II of this this victim witness statement, I show a break down formula using that as the variable. But the thing 6.8|93.2 or 65|30 is not 50|50. And numbers do not lie.

[91] Yes, as a result of the Reasons for Judgment of Justice Horner it was a 6.8|93.2 percent split of matrimonial in Ms. Achtem's favor. Although I am slowed by MS, I well versed on the figures, so I had a CMA accountant write a letter to Supreme Court of Canada. That he would verify everything and prepare a balance sheet. I made an application to SCC to put it in abeyance before passing judgment. Which was dismissed. Everything was dismissed for being late. Attached hereto is the [Letter CMA accountant Ron Allen to Supreme Court of Canada – EXHIBIT 35, page E151].

[92] Major discrepancies on court's Reasons for Judgment of Justice Horner, details of matrimonial, as to where assets and liabilities went. The monetary elements of Rhonda Rose Sails's (Ms. Achtem's) court's sanctioned fraud, is advanced and evidenced in with a precise break of figures and numbers on on a 2 page balance sheet, to the results is presented in Part II.

PART II – Monetary Elements of Sanctioned Fraud

Analysis of Division of Matrimonial as a Result of the Reasons for Judgment of Justice Horner

 (paragraphs 93 to 132)      

[93] As per the Orderless agreement made concerning exhibits at Pre-trial on the [Transcript pages 34 to 38 - EXHIBIT T] , was to show the Trial Judge however many homes the parties all bought and sold and where it all went, and all disclosure should be there. And both parties did agree. But due to a beguiling ambush that it engendered confusion, fear, frustrations, and mental blocks. Therefore I failed to argue my case as intended. Which should have been based on my Trial exhibit, [Statement of Division of Assets Since Separation - EXHIBIT 36, page E152]. This is a break down of matrimonial assets of who did get what and where it all went, up to the point after the Achtem's sold the Calgary home on February 27, 2004, reflects more than 93.2% in Ms. Achtem's favor. But before the result of defacto court's Reasons for Judgment of Justice Horner. This was the only document produced at Trial with tabulations as to where matrimonial went after separation. It was to be supported with other Trial documents, for which I was too beguiled. Next paragraph I present is an Adjusted Sheet. Which is a balance sheet that reflects a 93.2% split in Ms. Achtem' favor because where it shows that I have to pay an accountant who is better versed on corporate tax applications than me, to close of the books for my home business; operations ceased exist within days of separation. I removed the $8000.00 figure. And not used on my adjusted sheet and not used to calculate. And you will see other minor figures on EXHIBIT 32A, used to calculate the split percentage.

[94] Just like in the R. v Kusk case (to review it is on page E80), illegal cross-examination was NOT kept poles apart. Therefore at Trial I was too beguiled to function. Defacto court's Reasons for Judgment of Justice Horner changed everything to a lopsided 6.8|93.2 percent split in Ms. Achtem's favor. Due to the change in circumstances of NOT getting my 50 percent share of matrimonial as a result of defacto court's Reasons for Judgment of Justice Horner, facts in an update of the figures and numbers and numbers adjusted. Using only documents that were used at Trial. Updated facts, figures, and numbers tracked and traced to accord with the result of the defacto Reasons for Judgment of Justice Horner . Attached is a balance sheet [Adjusted Sheet, Statement of Division of Matrimonial Assets and Liabilities Since Separation, prepared September 6, 2011 - EXHIBIT 37, page E155]. Read, analyzed, inspect the facts, figures, and numbers. (For ease of reference, there is a scrap copy of EXHIBIT 37, which the reader uses to check things off. Used to follow along from this point on, have it beside you as you read. The 2 pages of this balance sheet are stapled together and slipped into the back behind the transcript, Label as “Scrap Copy EXHIBIT 37”.

[95] On July 23, 2003 separation date we sold our Red Cliff home to buy 2 other homes, 1 in Medicine Hat, and 1 in Calgary. Ms. Achtem and I agreed, the Calgary home was to be intended as an investment home to profit from the Calgary real estate market. My intentions always was to live in the Medicine Hat home with Ms. Achtem and our child. I had no intentions to separate or divorce. To clarify yes to remain living with Ms Achtem and our child and remain married to Ms. Achtem. That was intention in my mind, before agreeing to sell our Red Cliff home and before buying the 2 other said homes. My intentions, before signing the offer to buy a home in Medicine Hat, Alberta on June 22, 2003. For which the Achtem's put a $45,550.00 deposit on with a 13 year mortgage. Attached here is the [June 22, 2003 Medicine Hat home Real Estate Purchase Agreement - EXHIBIT 38, page E157]. EXHIBIT 38 confirms Ms. Achtem used a $1,000.00 cheque initial deposit for the offer to purchase the Medicine Hat home on June 22, 2003.

[96] The Red Cliff home sold and closed within 3 weeks. Since we did well with buying and selling our first 2 homes. I thought yes why NOT agree with Mrs. Achtem, to purchase a second home as an investment property with a renter so we did. The Achtem's put a 25 percent,deposit of $33,825.00 with a 25 year mortgage on the Calgary home. I was too beguiled at Trail to function and carry himself at Trial so yes I failed to argue the facts about the different deposits and mortgages times line terms on the 2 homes. The Achtem's also did get a personal of $8000 loan from a friend because of a condition to purchase the Calgary home That had to be paid back later, you will observe The Achtem's did sign the offer with a $500 initial deposit paid by Edward Achtem on July 14, 2003. Attached here is the [July 14, 2003 Calgary home Real Estate Purchase Agreement - EXHIBIT 39, page E161]. EXHIBIT 39 confirms Edward Achtem paid the $500.00 initial deposit on the Calgary home from on July 14, 2003.

[97] Ms. Achtem did NOT inform me before signing the 2 offers. Of her hidden agenda of separation the day we vacated the Red Cliff home for the buyer on July 23, 2003. She did NOT inform me that I would NOT be living at her mother's temporarily while in transition for a few weeks to take possession of the other 2 homes we agreed to purchase together. She said to me that I am not welcome at her mother's home after moving out of the Red Cliff home. Suddenly homeless for 2 weeks. We NEVER reached a separation matrimonial division agreement before the move out (period).

[98] As far as I was concerned and for how it was in my mind, the Calgary home was to be an investment property and our joint ATB MasterCard balance was $10,592.59. ATB Financial gave us a condition for the mortgage since it was intended to be an investment home with a renter. ATB agreed to sell us a longer 25 year mortgage with a 25% deposit, on condition we pay down our joint ATB MasterCard to less than $2,500. This is why I asked a friend to loan me and Mrs. Achtem $8000.00, so he did. Then ATB Master Card was paid and ATB Financial sold us the mortgage. I did get a renter, but I could not finish the house; minor washroom and kitchen renovations with a new floors on time. I was doing renovations myself and at the time as MS is riddling me and gets worse and worse as time rolls on. Medical documents already presented confirms my medical condition. I was not physically able to work within 3 months of separation. Review doctor's letter on page E95 to E87. I will present an ambulance bill at the end. MS is UN predictable.

[99] The problem was MS made me ill, ultimately caused my marriage and business to cease. I could not finish renovations. The house was in a renovator shambles condition. Tools, saws and materials were sitting everywhere more than being used for renovations. Due to the house condition and how I was struggling with MS, the renter camped out at his girl friend's all the time and he did not even sleep there once. He moved his furniture and things out within 2 months of moving in. I was living in lower suite and the renter was on the main floor. The renter said he left because he was tired of tools, renovation materials all over the place not being used and work not being done. Attached is [August 8, 2003 Investment Property Information Calgary home purchase - EXHIBIT 40, page E165].

[100] Because of the matrimonial funds $45,550.00 Ms. Achtem aggregated from the sale of our Red Cliff Home where you see on EXHIBIT 32A on page E144 about ¾ the way down the page where it states; Total Assets received by Rhonda Achtem....$40,466.58. Her getting the $45,550.00 will adjust the $40,466.48 figure to $86,016.48. I used the $86,016.48 on adjusted Sheet. Inspect information regarding the sale of the Red Cliff Home received from Your Lawyer, Barristers Solicitors Notaries [July 30, 2003 Re: Sale to MACKENZIE - EXHIBIT 41, page E168] As “Your lawyer's Law Office's” STATEMENT OF TRUST FUNDS received AND DISBURSED. It is showing on July 30, 2003 $45,550.00 is Transferred to Medicine Hat Purchase File. As a result of the Reasons For Judgment of Justice Horner this entire $45,550. 00 went to Rhonda Achtem (Mrs. Sails).

[101] Although, it did not work out well for the renter, we did get the 25 year mortgage for. ($95,625.00). Inspect [August 8, 2003 ATB Loan Agreement Calgary home purchase - EXHIBIT 42, E173]. After getting approved then we were required to pay the rest of the 25 percent deposit at the law firm. At $127,500.00 (less the mortgage of $95,625.00 and less initial deposit ( -$500) (E151) all ready paid July 14. Therefore the Achtem's have to bring another $30.875.00 to the law firm. To make a full deposit of $32,375.00 plus legal fees which was paid by Rhonda Achtem making up the difference of where I was short at the law office, which I will get back into.

[102] We took possession of the Calgary home and I moved in August 8, 2003. View [Land Title Certificate Calgary home - EXHIBIT 43, page E175]. We took possession of the Medicine Hat home and Rhonda Achtem moved in August 16, 2003, and I was too ill to be there to help move and Ms. Achtem did NOT want me there. I was hood winked by Ms. Achtem. View [Land Title Certificate Medicine Hat Home - EXHIBIT 44, page E178]. Because of this law firms letter and the result of Reasons for Judgment of Justice Horner, confirms $45,550.00 of matrimonial was aggregated to Rhonda Achtem. Therefore this $45,550.00 of matrimonial to Rhonda Achtem on August 16, 2003. She manipulated the paralegal to make a cheque to me for $35,937.09 which was deposited into my personal Chequing account on July 30, 2003 for fast clearing and because I needed to eat. I did not want to keep it in my personal account because I knew I was being hood-winked by Ms. Achtem. I was kicked to the curb in a struggling situation on separation date, Not like how Justices Horner's defacto Judgment said my financial situation became worse after date. No my situation became worse on separation and was worse even before and you will soon observe my income for 2003 and 2004. The objective to buying the Calgary was to make mine and Ms. Achtem's Financial situation better, but I did not happen that way. I was hood-winked and later hood-winked again at Trial with the help of Justice Horner to ambushed me for sanctioning illegal cross-examination and fraud with documents that breach An Act Respecting Witnesses and Evidence.

[103] You could possibly pick up on, that I was bouncing checks, kiting trying to get my business going while in transition. The Calgary home was sold 6 months later and Rhonda Achtem did manage to aggregate another $4000 from the sale of the Calgary home on February 27, 2004, which you will observe. To observe the other transactions laid out in paragraphs above to the the end of the end of the paper trail and money trail, or anything else you observe on the statements. For tracing and tracking the money throughout the rest of this presentation. After presenting the next 5 EXHIBITS for money transactions for ease of reference where you see a money figure “ $ “ to confirm, will be the page number in parenthesis “( )” to reduce wordage. So there is a little jumping back and forth from page to page to track the money from paragraph 103 on.... Bank statements do tell a story, so my story is being told. Included is scrap copies of the next 5 EXHIBITS.

[104] Attached is [Edward Achtem's July and August 2003 Canada Trust bank Account Statement - EXHIBIT 45, page E180]. And [The Achtem's August 23, 2003 Joint ATB Savings Account Statement - EXHIBIT 46, page E182]. And Attached is [The Achtem's August 7, 2003 joint ATB MasterCard Statement EXHIBIT 47, page E184]. And [Edward Achtem's July 12, 2003 to August 12, 2003 TD Visa Statement EXHIBIT 48, page E185]. And view my business bank Statement; [Hatfax Laser Products July and August 2003 Bank Statements - EXHIBIT 49, page E186].

[105] I was hoping to reconcile my marriage before it became escalated, and was hoping Ms. Achtem would not be so harsh. However I did not know, but later found out she is involved with a former boyfriend Virgil Sails. She cheated on me with him a few years before our wedding. On July 30, 2003 I made a bank draft of $31,375.00 and the $4.50 service fee (page E170). Deposited the $31,375.00 into our joint ATB savings account on July 30, 2003 to keep it there for transition (page E172). On August 8, 2003 we used the $29,375.00 (page E173) from our joint ATB account and another $2,450.00 (E171) from the original $35,937.09 (E165 & E170) cheque from the sale of the Red Cliff home which is a total of $31,825.00. With Ms. Achtem making up the difference of an estimated $400 as per Cheryl Polvi request, for which Mrs. Achtem wrote check from matrimonial funds being her bank account together we used $33,825.00 on August 8, 2003 to complete the purchase of the Calgary home. Of the remaining $2,112.09, was used by me personally within the transition period between the sale of the Red Cliff home and the purchases of the other 2 homes, and for renovation materials and supplies. I paid $1,644.68 cash back to Jim Markley in October 2003 to pay back some of the $8000 (E174) he loaned us. Which Ms. Achtem and I used to pay the Achtem's joint ATB MasterCard to satisfy the condition to purchase the Calgary home.

[106] I suspect Ms. Achtem received a small refund check from the law firm. Furthermore I suspect Cheryl Polvi the paralegal who never did like me because I used work for the law firm, I suspect she was meddling with my marriage thus influencing the break up, and feel she could a make prime witnesses in the criminal case. Rick Lehan fired Cheryl Polvi and heard though the grape vine what he thinks about her, and I suspect he may tell a lot if he feels safe. The office girls would never let me speak to him or get my messages to him. But some day it will happen. And one funny factor is Cheryl Polvi would never send me the Statement of Adjustments for the purchase of the homes. However we have enough information to map the facts of the money and paper trail. Something sneaky was going on, I do have knowledge of Ms. Achtem and Cheryl Polvi meeting in private, before this all unfolded.

[107] On separation date my income was below the poverty line until May 10, 2004 which you will confirm. Ms. Achtem had all UN-split matrimonial tied up, and refused to pay ATB. While I was too ill to work. MS started effecting me at the end of July 2003 and kept getting worse. October 21, 2003 I woke up and could not walk for few weeks and could not work for another 7 months. The Calgary mortgage was not getting paid, and Ms. Achtem refused to let me have the rest of my 50% share of matrimonial. View [January 4, 2004, ATB Financial Delinquent Payment Notice - EXHIBIT 50, page E190].

[108] Ms. Achtem and held me at bay, so we sold the Calgary home and I was pressured by Ms. Achtem, by her keeping her hand on UN-split matrimonial that I alleged is still mine today. I was sick of dealing with the ATB bank pressure while MS was attacked me. I would much rather had my half of matrimonial so that the ATB mortgage payments on the Calgary home would be paid, and not being home owner less. Instead of in duress pressure to agree with Rhonda Achtem to sell the Calgary home, with her taking an extra $4,000 too. On February 27, 2004 it was sold. Thus not owning a home today at 45 years old, with a second family. The Trial Judge Socially Engineered by aggregating matrimonial to Ms. Achtem by breaching the Canada Evidence Act as method used make it impossible to in my 1^st child's life to have my 2^nd child as new born, born into poverty, thank you Justice Horner! The Judicature Act said Judges are to enjoy their job's therefore Justice Horner enjoyed financially pillaging my 2^nd family.

[109] To get the proceeds of sale of the Calgary home we had to pay back Jim Markley the remaining $6,355.32 (page E182) we owed him from the $8000 (page E174) he loaned us to pay down our joint ATB MasterCard. We had pay the money he loaned us, and he wanted it back. He was angry because he had no idea before August 8, 2003 and I had no idea before July 23, 2003 either that I was separating on July 23, 2003, and took me sometime to accept it. I do not want to rip anyone off. Selling the Calgary home was an in duress requirement otherwise Rhonda Achtem intentions were to let Jim Markley go ripped off. So to get a friend out of this ripped off position selling the Calgary home was required, and I did NOT want to continue to feel that way for the mess us the Achtem's put him in. And we had to pay back the realtor $1,200 for the money he loaned us to clean up and finish bathroom renovations to get the home in a half hazard selling condition. Essentially I paid the $8000 as a result of defacto courts Reasons for Judgment of Justice Horner and that is what shows on the adjusted sheet

[110] Inspect [3 Letters from Litwiniuk and Company February 27 to March 2, 2004; for the sale of the Calgary home - EXHIBIT 51, page E191]. The sale was completed by the law firm Inspect [2 Letters with sales information from Litwiniuk and Company April 8 and 12, 2004 - EXHIBIT 52, pages E194 to E204] This confirms Rhonda Achtem received $4000.00 (page E196) of matrimonial funds from the sale of the Calgary home. This confirms that I received $18,164.36 (page E196) of matrimonial funds from the sale of the Calgary home. Furthermore,at trial I was confused over what the division date should be, as to whether or not it should be divorce date. I was too beguiled about it and too confused due to lack of experience. Paul Adam's even explained it was divorce date This was because a beguiling, I wanted division to be divorce date, but due to my incompetence to self-represent somehow I communicated by error to divide matrimonial on separation. However that date is impossible in a numbers and figures and facts sense because our Calgary investment home did not sell until February 27, 2004. So It want it to be recalculated for divorce date. Separation is impossible due to all UN-split matrimonial.

[111] That's the end paper trail of however many houses the parties bought and sold and where it all went, and what resources where used. Up until the adjustment of defacto court's Reasons for Judgment of Justice Horner offset the scale of justice that bought it to whopping lopsided of 93.2|6.8 percent split in Ms. Achtem's favor. Now let's move onto to adjustments of matrimonial percentage caused as result of defacto court's Reasons for Judgment of Justice Horner. From the Statement of Division of Assets Since Separation to the Adjusted Sheet Statement of Division of Matrimonial Assets and Liabilities Since Separation.

[112] Justice Horner observed my 2003 income at $5,514.00. So why does defacto court's Reason for Judgment of Justice Horner state that my financial situation became worse after separation and me wanting my 50% of matrimonial is only for convenience because my financial situation became worse? No that is wrong, my financial situation became worse long before separation date, and a reason why Ms. Achtem did not want me anymore. It was not a marriage for in sickness but only in health. Not a marriage for poor but only if you are not poor. And what is wrong with convenience of wanting more than 10 percent?

[113] I was in no position to hand over my hard earned matrimonial earned during my short lived career building years. Being stripped financially of my needed matrimonial is cause to make matters a far mile more worse. My belief is a social engineering tool used by the Trial Judge for her's or extend family members and or other extended family member to Royal family's preference to maneuver me in emotional dismay for sanctioning the ambush of undisclosed documents that breached the Canada Evidence Act C-5. To put me into financial peril. For her to reach her objective to control others paradoxes, to make it impossible for me to be in my 1st child's life and to social engineer devastation upon me and my 2nd family. It made things unequal for me and my 2 children. Infringement upon our livelihoods. Due to illness and my financial situation I was in no position to loose to Rhonda Achtem any of my 50% of matrimonial. No let us get into brief serious back ground per-history about Justice Horner and myself. Then let us move right back into matrimonial history relevant to the Achtem v Achtem case.

[114] Inspect and make note of my income for 2003 and do make note of how much tax I owe on the next document. Attached hereto is [Mr. Achtem's 2003, 2004, and 2005 income Notice of Assessment - EXHIBIT 53, page E205].

[115] Under Rhonda Achtem's Assets; July 23, 2003 Bank account; This was before Ms. Achtem who was the 1^st one to retain a lawyer. $8000.00 was a reasonable estimate for how much cash was in Ms. Achtem's bank account. To support attached hereto is a copy of [Ms. Achtem's November 6, 2003 CIBC bank statement – EXHIBIT 54, page 206]. Therefore I have used the $8000.00 as a reasonable estimated figure on the Adjusted Sheet and to calculate.

[116] Under Rhonda Achtem's Assets July 23, 2003 - Sun Life RRSP; $10,500 was a reasonable estimate for how much her RRSP is worth. View copy of [Rhonda Achtem's Sun Life RRSP dated March 26, 2004 - EXHIBIT 55, page E210]. Instead of using the $10,500.00, I will use the figure of from the copy of Ms. Achtem's March 26, 2004 Sun Life Financial RRSP statement Value figure of $10,459.70 for the adjusted sheet and to calculate.

[117] Under Rhonda Achtem's Assets July 23, 2003 - Canada Savings Bond; $2,966.58 was a reasonable estimate for how much her Saving Bond was worth. View copy of [Rhonda Achtem's Canada Savings Bond dated March 26, 2004 - EXHIBIT 56, page E211]. I will use the figure of $2,966.58 for the adjusted sheet and to calculate.

[118] Under Rhonda Achtem's Assets February 27, 2004. Proceeds of Sale of Calgary home paid to Rhonda Achtem; $4,000 is exactly is what Rhonda Sails manipulated with the paralegal to her. I will use the $4,000.00 already confirmed figure used on the adjusted sheet.

[119] As per the Achtem's joint ATB MasterCard presented in paragraph 99 page A28. It is a joint credit card. Was NOT divided equally to both parties. As already presented in paragraph 102, with EXHIBIT 47 the statement is on page E184. I did incur (-$8000.00). Ms. Achtem on March 8, 2004 paid (-2571.69) and cancel the ATB joint MasterCard Therefore, it is a confirmed figure that Rhonda Achtem incurred (-$2,7571.69) of matrimonial liability. As seen in EXHBIT 36, the change correction adjustment will show on the adjusted sheet and is used to calculate. Attached hereto is a copy of Ms. Achtem's exhibit G used at Trial, [Ms. Achtem Payment of (-$2,571.69) to the Joint ATB MasterCard - EXHIBIT 57, page E212]

[120] Under Rhonda Achtem's Personal property in Medicine Hat which was to be half mine; $15,000.00 is a reasonable estimate for how much the replacement value is for all the new household items, and personal items. I did NOT go off of a used values because all the household items, I did get some old crap, and not much from the Medicine Hat and Red Cliff homes after separation but was not anything near what the cost was when we first purchase it new before separation. Like for example she did get the new bed I did get a 10 year old bed with broken springs and wobbling frame. Rhonda Achtem took the BBQ, all kitchen items, $400 freezer, 2 used washer and dryer sets. All the newer furniture that was acquired as new. I did get an old couch and love seat that was infested by mice from the Medicine Hat home storage shed, and a throw into landfill. Subsequently everything most of it was old and thrown out. Therefore I did get replacements for me living as a single person. Everything new I acquired cost in excess of $6000.00.

[121] Based on replacement, When I was living alone cost was $6000.00 for the new household items. When I was living with Ms Achtem and my 1^st child, ultimately still having way more household items than me and her having our daughter living with her taking everything and what is our daughter's for the home which I paid for it too. Since I was alone, and as it was before separation there was 2.5 humans living together in the Red Cliff home. The 0.5 human is my 1^st child, Kayla Achtem. The estimate is a calculated figure of $15,000.00; ($6000 x 2.5 humans = $15,000.00). If I was to sell the $6000 of house items I had to acquired, then I have to sell it as used. The figure is based on replacement cost with out depreciation on household items I acquired cannot be based on used. It needs to be new. I do not enjoy sleeping on a used couch that someone has been sleeping on for a few years or so or mice were living in. It works like underwear and you refuse buy used underwear too. To me it is a hygiene issue.

[122] I made an agreement with my father so I could charge his Brick Card with a major purchase at The Brick. My father loaned me in excess of the $6000.00 to help me out. I do have all the receipts in my possession. The receipts have been produced into to action before, but were not used at Trial as exhibits as I have used them in Affidavits for the Family Chambers Hearing before Justice Hughes on May 6, 2006. So Ms. Achtem is aware. Therefore, I could have adduced those documents at Trial. However I was too beguiled by sanctioned illegal cross-examination to function at Trial. Because of that I have NOT included those receipts proving all those household effects and items were delivered to where I lived in Calgary such as the major purchase at The Brick. Because I was too beguiled I failed to make proposal to adduce them at Trial, so that is why you do not see them me here. For the $6000 figure with those receipts are not in this affidavit. Upon request or Order for the receipts, will be submitted. For Trial as per my notice of intentions filed for Trial. I only used the Statement of arrears which my mother gave me is used in this affidavit because it was used at Trial and Appeal. However I failed to use it properly because I was too beguiled to function. I have the receipts to back up every penny of Statement of Arrears my mother gave me. Inspect the Trial exhibit I did use; [Statement of arrears from Edward Achtem parents February 11,2007 - EXHIBIT 58, page E213]

[123] Under Rhonda Achtem's liabilities; July 23, 2003 - CIBC VISA....(-2,000.00) I do have a copy of Ms. Achtem's CIBC Visa Statement used at Trial. The (-$2000.00) is a reasonable estimate based on memory. As per exhibit, I used at Trial I will use Ms. Achtem’s November 14, 2003 CIBC Visa Statement that shows a balance of (-$1,697.43) owing. I will use the figure of (-$1,697.43) for my adjusted sheet and to calculate. Attached hereto is [Rhonda Achtem's November 14, 2003 CIBC Visa Statement - EXHIBIT 59, page E215]. Also let's not forget as per Justice Hughes Order Ms. Achtem gets keeps our dog we paid $210 for before we were married.

[124] Under Edward Achtem's Assets; Toner remanufacturing equipment. I lost the invoice for the equipment sold to Calgary Toner Cartridge for a deal of $3000.00 cash. Rhonda did receive a copy of the invoice and she may still have it Therefore, I will use that figure of $3000.00 to calculate and I have observed my adding error of those 4 items you see under Edward Achtem's Total Assets. I will correct the adding error in my adjusted sheet. We have observed how much I did get from the sale of the Calgary home as observed in paragraphs 108 on page C34; $18,164.36 Therefore, received by Edward Achtem is $18,167.51, I will correct it to $18,164.36 on the adjusted sheet and correct my adding error. Therefore I will use the figure of $21,164.36 as the corrected figure and to used on my adjusted sheet

[125] Under Edward Achtem's Liabilities; Sept 2, 2003 TD Canada Trust Visa...(-$5,103.75) As per my TD Visa Statements of July 13, 2003 it confirmed the figure of (-$5,103.75) is an accurate figure as per, paragraph 102 and the Statement already presented is on page E185. My TD Visa was used extensively to upgrade the Red Cliff home, and it has been maxed out before separation of the marriage. Therefore I will use that figure of (-5,103.75) to calculate. The figures are the same. Therefore, I will make no adjustment to the adjusted sheet for this figure.

[126] As seen in under Edward D. Achtem's Liabilities; Personal back taxes (income tax) owed since before separation...(-$2,100.00). This figure is not correct, as per the 2003 income Notice of Assessment presented in paragraph 113, I will adjust my back tax owed, change the (-2,100.00) figure to (-$3,077.18). The (-$3,077.18) figure is used my adjusted sheet.

[127] Corporate GST money and penalty owed (owed since separation). Should have been written as owed from before separation. Because it was accumulated before separation. Again I was too beguiled to present. This figure is based on my knowledge of how much GST I still must pay and have not paid it yet. The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency as per their (-$4,284.03) figure. I have not file a GST Return and once I do it will bring it down to around only (-$1,500.00). I have not filed it because I have never had the money to pay it, but GST I collected must be paid no matter what. All money I owe for GST was collected before July 31, 2003. My business GST Returns were always due to be filed and paid before July 31 for each year. I operated a business from home for 10 years as an individual fiscal Year End was always July 31 of each year. And I know the company ceased to operate in 2003 shortly after separation due too my illness.

[128] Once I get everything all rectified and get the GST returns filed I know it will be around only $1,500.00 that I must pay. It's just that it would take me about 6 months, because of my disability. It even took me 4 years to complete this affidavit because my short-term memory is restricted due to how MS has attacked my brain, but I am still smart, it just takes me alot longer to map out and solve problems more than most, but unlike most I never give up. However I am good a figures and numbers, figuring things out without giving up. It just takes longer to sort it our on paper than most. I can solve any math complication with numbers as long as I have to time to become one with it. Therefore I will not adjust this (-$1,500.00) on my Adjusted Sheet and will use it to calculate. Attached hereto is [Canada Customs Statement of Arrears, for GST owed - EXHIBIT 60, page E216].

[129] Late October 2003 I could not walk due to lateral balance problem as you have already observed. So an ambulance came by to get me over a urinary tract infection notorious to those who have MS was the cause. I still owe City of Calgary (-$310.25) for the ambulance bill. Attached hereto is the [Ambulance Bill October 2003 – EXHIBIT 61, page E217].

[130] Of course it snowed in winter November and December 2003. I was not physically able to shovel show, so City of Calgary had the snow cleared and sent me the bill to the Calgary home owned by both parties. Attached hereto is [City of Calgary snow removal bill - EXHIBIT 62, page E218].

[131] Gas bill from the Calgary home March 30, 2004. The bill for (-$671.01) still remains in arrears. Attached hereto is the [Calgary home ATCO Gas bill March 30, 2004 - EXHIBIT 63, page E219].

[132] I lost a $100,000.00 National Life of Canada insurance policy for which Ms. Achtem did make the last payment on, but she refused to pay it when it came up for renewal deadline in July of 2004. Now that have MS, I cannot get the policy again.

[133] I want answers to the fallowing questions and all questions asked and where you see a question mark “ ? ” in the paragraphs above. Important questions, some reiterated below is my Statement of Questions in Issue is as follows:

a) Indicate where on the transcript, what lines? What pages? did Rhonda Achtem adduce fresh documents at Trial? Show where she made an application or proposal to adduce? Transcript confirms nothing was adduced. However, defacto appellant's court Memorandum of Judgment states documents were adduced, therefore show me?

Or

admit nothing was adduced and rectify it, for the fact that nothing was adduced? And be informed, nobody is better verse on the transcript, than I am and I know you will not find it. Therefore this being a primary reason why my position is the appeal panel produced a defacto appellant's court Memorandum of Judgment. It is assumptive.

Or

on the basis for which I do NOT capitulate, prepare a letter or Order acknowledging nothing was adduced and state; it does not matter as to whether not what the appeal panel has done, and state that as to whether it is defacto or not if it shall prevail on the livelihoods of me and/or my 2^nd family and/or my 1^st child. And if i shall live with it the way it is. And please state in your letter or Order. “Edward D. Achtem shall live with defacto appellant's court Memorandum of Judgment and defacto court's Reasons of Judgment of Justice Karen M Horner and Rhonda Achtem's illegal cross-examination, fraud, and false pretence, is sanctioned and Mr. Edward Achtem shall remain a suffering victim.” Judges have not been honest, and the quite frankly this is honesty.

b) From a divorce of Zero $0.00 exemptions that comes from a couple who was living together 14 years. And they both paid half each on the mortgage. Is a 6.8|93.2 percent split of matrimonial in Rhonda Achtem's favour reasonable? if yes why?

c) Do you have me where you want me? Like has the court put me in a trap like a chess game, and do you have me in check mate? Because, the feeling is like being a bug trapped in Ms. Achtem's jar, are you going to keep me in it? With no remedy to reduce child support & arrears like it is prior to the dawning in of Magna Carta? I have no money to pay Ms. Achtem $750 and additionally $500; for her sanctioned illegal cross-examination, fraud, and for unsanction false pretence, for which she is getting away with withOUT being charged for the offences, because it has been sanctioned.

d) Let us NOT forget the fact that no one can say I was NOT assaulted in the witness box. From reading this, in your opinion was I assaulted in the witness box? Are you going continue to permit Rhonda Sails (Ms. Achtem) to get away with her 1^st two sanctioned offences purported in at Trial in Medicine Hat and her 3^rd sanctioned offence purported at appellant's court in Calgary?

e) Because of the sanctioned breaches of the functus officio doctrine and separations powers principal, does that not apply to the Achtem v Achtem case? If not why not?

f) Do you feel that it is best that Ms. Achtem going free of NOT being informed that what she did do at Trial for rigging a premeditated supreme 2^nd Bundle of Documents, that was sanctioned by Justice Horner, and do you feel Justice Horner did the right thing by directing Ms. Achtem to breach the Canada Evidence Act.

Argument

[134] As I have stated if I did to get half of my Medicine Hat home it would have yielded a 60|40 percent split of matrimonial in Ms. Achtem's favour. But, 6.8| 93.2 or 65|35 is NOT 50|50 from a divorce with ZERO $0.00 exemption. All my numbers to calculate for figures. Using that $45,500.00 figure for the deposit the Achtem's put down on the Medicine Hat home as variable you divide that by 2, then it will show a 65|35 percent split in Ms. Achtem's favour. If this was the case then that is what the parties would have received in Ms. Achtem favour. Getting 35% is a better alternative, and would be better than only the 6.8 percent I have already received.

[135] Although, what is done is done. I am a suffering victim of sanction illegal cross-examination, fraud, and for false pretence that no Judge has yet sanctioned. Do not become involved in sanctioning crime (period). This is abusive of the Trial Judge for slamming me into being illegally cross-examined for sanctioning premeditate offences. I do not want to continue to be held as a prisoner in my own country for loosing my passport, because I cannot pay the over arrears for child support, and it is unfair that I shall have to continue to have pay $223 plus a $25 late fee every month. It is impossible, and I have lost my passport drivers, and car because of it. I want my passport and drivers licence back. Remedy for being victimized in the witness box, resulting in a lopsided 93.2|6.8 percent split of matrimonial in Rhonda Achtem's favour. From a divorce with zero exemptions. For how I was mistreated in Medicine Hat, where everyone knows everyone and in particular all those from the public sector and Ms. Achtem being one all know each other. Therefore, for the treatment I received I want a change of venue to Calgary.

Conclusion

[136] My wonderful 2^nd child, is my 2^nd younger daughter and her mother is my 2^nd wife. My 2nd child is in an Early Childhood Development English Program, and she has honours. She is 4 years old and already doing grade 3 math She is fluent in English and Spanish She is fantastic! Her teacher said she is fantastic. She loves school and she is asking about what school is she going to go to when she comes back to Calgary. She would like to meet her older sister and play together, and she talks about it all the time. She wants to be in her half-sisters life my 1^st child who's custody is dominated by Rhonda Achtem. And no I am not required to have supervised access because I have a loving marriage with my 2^nd wife. My 2^nd child returns to Canada with her mother in 3 weeks. She is yearning more and more as she grows to be with her sister. Always asking, “daddy when do I get to meet my sister?”

[137] More so I want Rhonda Rose Achtem to be sorry for what she did to me was wrong, premeditating the witness box assault, making me suffer the victimization, I do Not want judges to harbour a fraudster and I should NOT be pushed off. I want Ms. Achtem to face Justice and to be punished to the extend of the law. I would be best for anyone to regret such an act. Getting an apology would be best. Getting my share of matrimonial would be best. However my belief is an apology must not be forced, because that to me would not be a genuine apology because it does come strait from the Heart. I feel she owes me an apology but I do not want it unless she truly regrets, and it does it herself. And I feel she needs to apologies to our daughter my 1^st child. It would be nice to just know that a judge has shaken his or her finger at Ms. Achtem. And if she ever did find it in her heart that her beguiling me at Trial was wrong and if she ever did apologies and stopped parental alienating. Then this would be the best for our daughter my 1^st child and my 2^nd child too. It would be a dream come true. Then when it comes to writing a victim impact statement, It would be best to be able write something positive about Ms. Achtem, that I have spent more time with my 1^st child, and for my 1^st child and my 2^nd child meet and be in each others lives. This would be wonderful because they are sisters.

SWORN at the city of Calgary, )in the province of Alberta, this 3rd day of October 2011. 

by, Edward Darren Achtem

Expected time to hear from the Police and Chief Justices is expected before November 24, 2011.
Listen to Call from "Christine' of Chief Justice Witmann's office.