1#-----Mr. Achtem is arguing, that Justice Horner’s Judgement is erroneous. Because Ms. Achtem takes 94.5% of all the matrimonial assets and Mr. Achtem only get 5.5%. Mr. Achtem’s argument is Justice Horner was the only one at Trial that had access to the Pre-trial transcript, and she has a duty to be well versed with it. Justice Horner failed to fulfil her duties as a Judge by neglecting the Trial parameters pursuant to Civil Practise Note 5 – Family Law Pre-trial Conferences. [(Exhibit #1, page 41), a Filed copy of Civil Practise Note 5, Family Law, from Mr. Achtem’s Pre-trial Summary]. Not like the Memorandum of Judgement from the Court of Appeal of Alberta, Calgary which is a Fraud.
20#----Mr. Achtem was confused by a sudden presentation of Exhibits and then a march to the witness box. The Exhibits were not within the Trial parameters. Ms. Achtem failed to inform the Court that her exhibits were not within the parameters, ande her exhibits COULD NOT be adduced at Trial. If Mr. Achtem had been made aware, he would have entered further exhibits as well. Mr. Achtem had to undergo cross-examination over Exhibits he had no understanding of e-mails he had not seen in over 2.5 years. It was not until after Trial did Mr. Achtem become aware of of these e-mails to be bona fide e-mails sent by him.
21#----As a result of Justice Horner’s Judgement. Ms. Achtem received funds from the proceeds of sale of the Calgary home which was factored into Mr. Achtem’s Exhibit tab 2A1, but what both parties received from the Calgary home has Ms. Achtem received a home with a substantially higher deposit and a shorter 13 year term mortgage on separation day was not factored into Exhibit 2A1. Mr. Achtem only walks away with credit card debt and debt with Canada Revenue Agency. Then Ms. Achtem walks away with all cash on hand, leaving Mr. Achtem in a critical state of financial destitution without providing the essentials of life. Mr. Achtem’s wife left him because of his deteriorating condition caused by MS.
22#----Mr. Achtem was in a much worse state then of just being unemployed, at the time of separation. Mr. Achtem owned and operated a failing company that had no financial resources. The company was barrelling into bankruptcy. Mr. Achtem was left abandoned with a money pit of a fixer upper investment home. Ms. Achtem drove Mr. Achtem into poverty after separation day, July 23, 2003. Mr. Achtem was left abandoned in a destitute financial state/situation. Mrs. Achtem left him in a deteriorating physical condition because of MS attacks. Mrs. Achtem refused to pay her lawful husband spousal support, and she was refusing to provide her husband the bare necessities of life. Not even 3 months after separation Mr. Achtem was left abandoned in an even greater financial disadvantage by Mrs. Achtem. Not even 3 months later. Mr. Achtem relapsed with a severe MS attack which rendered him unemployable and disabled for more than 5 months, from October 21, 2003 to until about sometime in March 2004. Mr. Achtem became employed again May 10, 2004.
23#----[See (Exhibit 2K) Mr. Achtem’s Medical information from the Appellant’s Appeal Books.] Mr. Achtem claims that his long-term memory is well intact, but his short-term memory has worsened since before he was first diagnosed with MS, it has been medically documented ever since 1999. The Courts have been informed of this and Ms. Achtem knew this as well. Both Justice Horner and Ms. Achtem at Trial failed to accommodate for Mr. Achtem’s memory incapacities. Instead they used it to assault Mr. Achtem. There is no cure for MS. MS can affect brain memory, how one feels, and thinks. Mr. Achtem has to have all information put into his long-term memory, as he is unable to rely on his short-term memory.
30#----After the sale of the Calgary home Ms. Achtem did take $25,466.58 in assets which is cash. But since whatever equity Ms. Achtem received in the Medicine Hat home we will now include that. So that will bring what Ms. Achtem received up to $70,466.58 and she incurred one liability of (-$2,000.00) which was credit card debt. Then Mr. Achtem $18,167.51 in assets (cash), and he incurred (-14,416.39) of liabilities. Therefore Ms. Achtem gets a total of $68,466.58 and Mr. Achtem only gets $3,751.12. So Ms. Achtem takes 94.5% of all the matrimonial assets and Mr. Achtem only get 5.5% of all assets by the time Justice Horner has divided matrimonial assets. Mr. Achtem’s argument here is that Justice Horner’s division was not equitable. This is also not considering Rhonda still has to pay spousal support.
31#----Mr. Achtem was confused by the ambush and thus failed to enter any supporting Exhibits to support his Exhibit 2A1 Statement of Division since the separation. This was entered into evidence before the ambush when Mr. Achtem was the first to be questioned by the Court in the witness box at the beginning of Trial. See (Exhibit #10) transcript page 99, line 30 to 39. Justice Horner questioned Mr. Achtem, “You and Miss – you received what and Miss Achtem received what?” Mr. Achtem replies, “Well, it shows that I received, if you look on the very first page, Exhibit 2A1 on the statement of division of assets since separation.” Then Justice Horner states, “Okay.” Then Mr. Achtem replies, “If you show – it shows all the assets, liabilities –“Then Justice Horn cuts Mr. Achtem off and states, “no, I’m just going by this statement of accounts here.” Then Mr. Achtem directs Justice to the proper statement again because she was looking at the wrong document again. See (Exhibit #10, page 115) Trial transcript page 101, line 17 to 25, Justice Horner states, “Sorry I’m at tab 2A2 and I say – it says a statement of assets, liabilities and exemptions.” Then Mr. Achtem replies, “No, it’s actually tab 2A1.”
32#----After it became ambush time, then view the first 2 page of Exhibit 3 (page 59 & 60), page 109 and page 110, Trial transcript. Please make careful observation here to get a feeling for sense of the time of how fast Mr. Achtem was served Ms. Achtem’s Exhibits to the time Mr. Achtem was marched to the witness box having to answer to exhibits he knew nothing about starting from the bottom of page 109, line 45 of the transcript in states in bold type; “*EXHIBIT 2 – Bundle of documents, “A” to “R”” Then look at the top of page 110 of the transcript, it states in bold type, “*The Defendant cross-examines the witness” See (Exhibit #3, page 109 & 110). After a complete observation, but not without having read the entirety of this application a few times first; What is your feeling to, how long did it take Ms. Achtem to ambush Mr. Achtem? How many minutes do you feel it took? And how much review time did Mr. Achtem get before being questioned about e-mail he sent over 2.5 years ago and he had not seen them in over 2.5 years?
33#----Mr. Achtem’s intention was to enter all the supporting documents to this Exhibit 2A1, page 131. After Mr. Achtem was questioned by the Court. He was then ambushed. Therefore, he became confused and this caused him to fail to enter alot of his exhibits to support his Exhibit 2A1 - Statement of Division of assets since separation. Mr. Achtem was questioned by the Court. Please view the Trial transcript (Exhibit 11, pages 108 to 122) page 179 to 184. It is too much to reiterate alot here. This reveals that, Mr. Achtem’s had great difficulty getting out his argument which is based his exhibit 2A1. brought up in the middle of page 179 shows that Mr. Achtem was confused. But it was too late for him already because he forgot to enter too many exhibits early, and Justice Horner was not going to let him to enter anything as he had planned. Mr. Achtem argues that if he had not been terrified about the exhibits Ms. Achtem ambushed him with. He would have entered the Exhibits.
