APPLICANT’S MEMORANDUM OF ARGUMENT
PART I – STATEMENT OF FACTS
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.
2#-----The Court of Appeals of Alberta’s Memorandum of Judgment, Judges made up things that were not even there or ever existed. Things were there that were not in Mr. Achtem’s appeal material. They came up with a preposterous Judgement stating things not from Mr. Achtem’s Factum, or his appeal books. They ignored Mr. Achtem putting before them issues revolving around Civil Practice Note 5. It’s plain and simple, Mrs. Rhonda Sails’s (Achtem) fresh exhibits were alright to use at Trial, and BUT ONLY IF she had served 7 days before Pre-trial, instead of a DELIBERATE AMBUSH at Trial. See (Exhibit #2, page 49), Appellant’s Factum.
3#-----See Ms. Achtem’s Exhibit M to R (page 123 to 129) entered at Trial. See transcript (Exhibit #3), page 117 to 125, Ms. Achtem’s cross-examining Mr. Achtem over Exhibits M to R. Compare this to the proper answers to Exhibits M to O (Exhibit 4a, 4b, & 4c). Justice Horner was provided medical information Exhibit 2K, providing the Courts with information of Mr. Achtem short-term memory recall problems. Justice Horner failed to accommodate for Mr. Achtem’s short-term memory loss, instead she and Ms. Achtem assault Mr. Achtem with it. They failed to provide him with time to digest Exhibits to understand with clarity. They attacked him for his known memory loss. People with memory problems deserve to be accommodated at Court instead of having it used against them.
4#-----2nd paragraph/3rd sentence of the 3-Judge Appeal panel’s Judgement is wrong. Because the Judgement states, "Mr. Achtem alleges he was denied a fair trial because he was unable to call an employee of the bank who dealt with the mortgage that was to be placed on the house purchased by the parties when they moved from Calgary to Red Cliff." Mr. Achtem did not allege that he could not call an employee of the bank. They did call each other many times during all mortgage approval periods. Mr. Achtem called Kimberly Smithman from ATB Financial. Mr. Achtem did have conversations with her prior to moving from Calgary to Red Cliff. Mr. Achtem DID CALL THE BANK EMPLOYEE. The ATB financial Internal Documents would verify that the 3-judge Appeal panel did not do a satisfactory read of Mr. Achtem's appeal material.
5#-----2nd paragraph/6th sentence of the 3-Judge Appeal panel’s Judgement is wrong. Because it states "... and she denied the Statement." Kimberly Smithman explained to Mr. Achtem that during mortgage application for their Red Cliff home, that Mrs. Achtem called them some time ago and provided them with information, that she is separating? How could Mr. Achtem not know to confront Mrs. Achtem about what she said to ATB Financial about her separating from the marriage? Mr. Achtem did phone his wife and she DID NOT DENY telling ATB financial that the Achtem's were separating. Mr. Achtem confronted Mrs. Achtem about this and she did admit it. The client contact log notes from the ATB internal documents would verify this.
6#-----Justice Rawlins and Justice Horner did not want Mr. Achtem having the ATB internal documents as evidence to cross-examination Ms. Achtem over this. Justice Rawlins's Pre-trial to Ms. Achtem was a prelude to an ambush Mr, Achtem. Apparently Justice Rawlins’s instructions were not clear enough for Ms. Achtem to understand the Agreement Concerning Exhibits. Mr. Achtem agues too, that Justice Horner did not have a clear understanding of the Achtem v. Achtem case Trial parameters.
7#-----Justice Rawlins, Justice Horner were sure in the hell not going to let Mr. Achtem have a document where Kimberly Smithman logged. That she had conversations with the Achtem’s days before the separation date. The ATB Internal document would reveal to the Court that the Achtem’s would be living together in the Medicine Hat home, and that the Achtem’s were still insisting they would not be separating.
8#-----3rd paragraph/3rd sentence of the 3-Judge Appeal panel’s Judgement is wrong. Because it states, "Mr. Achtem also submits he was denied a fair trial because he was taken by surprise by documents adduced at trial, including e-mails sent by him which his wife used to cross-examine." (Exhibit M to R) e-mails, and how Mr. Achtem could have answered to Ms. Achtem cross-examination if Justice Horner and Ms. Achtem had respected the Trial parameters.
9#-----Justice Rawlins at Pre-trial gave a description of what documents to bring. See the transcript page 31 line 21 of the transcript – (Exhibit #6a), "All we care about is the numbers" Page 34, line 46 and 47 of the transcript – (Exhibit #6b) Justice Rawlins stated. "All your disclosure should be there." Page 35, line 1 to 4 of the transcript – (Exhibit #6c), Justice Rawlins instructed to the parties, "I guess whatever documentation you have, to trace funds is what you’re going to need to show the trial judge. Okay Trace the funds from however many houses you all bought and where it all went. Okay?" Justice Rawlins gave Exhibit instructions, and moments later both parties acknowledged and Pre-trial ended. (Exhibit #6d) Page 37, line 20 to 30, Mr. Achtem states, “The bottom line is it’s the numbers, it’s based on the numbers” Then Justice Rawlins replies, “Yes.” Then Justice Rawlins looks at Ms. Achtem and questions, “Okay are we done then? We’re finished?” Then Ms. Achtem replies, “Yes, Your Honour.”
10#----The 3-judge Appeal panel had stated that the e-mails/exhibits were adduced at Trial. How did they come to this when e-mails entered in as exhibits cannot be adduced? Furthermore Ms. Achtem's exhibits M to R could not be adduced because they were never "properly produced into the action", pursuant to Alberta Rule of Court 158.5(1)(e) – [Exhibit #7]
11#----Mrs. Sails (Achtem) wrote a letter to the Court of Appeal on September 12, 2007 which shows that Rhonda Achtem had no clarity on what the Trial parameters were regarding the "Agreement Concerning Exhibits". From the way Ms. Achtem expressed in her letter, it looks like she thought that she could bring anything, even if it is outside the Trial parameters - (Exhibit #5). Ms. Achtem was only supposed to bring documents to trace matrimonial figures, numbers, and where it went.
12#----Paragraph 4, 1st sentences of the 3-Judge Appeal panel’s Judgement is wrong. Because it states, "We have read the material submitted and we find no basis for appellate intervention." The 3 Judge Appeal panel did not read my Appeal material, or they just
Skimmed through it, or they refused or were just too lazy to read to a full comprehension. If the Appeal Judges would have read the Appeal material to full 100% comprehension then this would not be written and for what more is written in the next few paragraphs.
13#----Paragraph 4, sentence 2 of the 3-Judge Appeal panel’s Judgement is right! "Both parties had access to all of the Pre-trail procedures available..." But Mrs. Achtem’s fresh exhibits M to R were outside of parameters and her exhibits were never properly produced into the action, and Ms. Achtem did not provide any indication of exhibits being outside Trial parameters set at Pre-trial. Justice Horner failed to Adjourn Trial once it was realized that these new exhibits confused Mr. Achtem.
14#----Mr. Achtem stated at Trail while being cross-examined by Ms. Achtem. See transcript Page 123, line 1,2, & 3 (Exhibit #3), "Yeah, you should have submitted this to me you know, like even a couple days ahead of time and it's not submitted to me." Mr. Achtem argues that this should have not gone over looked and Trial should have been Adjourned at this moment, but at this moment Justice Horner appeared distracted.
15#----Ms. Achtem’s Exhibits were NOT the same as the Exhibits she served prior to Pre-trial. See (Exhibit #8), Ms. Achtem’s Concise Letter Pre-trial Conference in lieu of a Pre-trial Summary.
16#----When looking through Ms. Achtem's cross-examination from the Trial transcript pages 109 to 125 (Exhibit 3). If anyone was to read it would know that Mr. Achtem was suddenly served new Exhibits then instantly marched into the witness box for a malicious cross-examination. At that point both Mr. Achtem and Justice Horner were not made aware that Mrs. Achtem had just served fresh new exhibits that were e-mails outside the parameters and they did not track or trace the funds and homes the Achtem's bought and where it all went.
17#----Mr. Achtem was completely thrown off kilter and confused during Ms. Achtem's cross-examination about these exhibits. Pursuant to Alberta Rule of Court 158.5(1)(e). The email Exhibits were never properly produced into the action. Therefore they could not be adduced and were not within the Pre-set Trail parameters set at Pre-trail. Mr. Achtem feels that Justice Horner failed to make that observation as well and/or she did not read through the Pre-trial transcript thoroughly or to a full comprehension. Justice Horner failed to Adjourn and there was no-way that she wanted Mr. Achtem to have certain ATB Financial Internal documents for Trial
18#----Mr. Achtem was too confused to make a spousal support application at Trial that Ms. Achtem owes him spousal support, and have it applied against her as Justice Horner’s Trial proceeded, on May 17, 2008. Matrimonial and spousal were too inter-twined to separate in a Trial and Mr. Achtem was too confused to argue it too.
19#----Please re-view thoroughly the transcript pages 109 to 125 (Exhibit #3). Justice Horner failed to take notice of what Ms. Achtem’s Exhibits were and she appears to have not fully read the Pre-trial Transcript, which was her duty. She also failed to Adjourn the
Trial. She failed to accommodate Mr. Achtem’s memory incapacity. Mr. Achtem needed more time to view and review, re-view again and again, to digest the material thoroughly, more time to understand the Exhibits M to R. But, Ms. Achtem was the self–represented litigant that had a legal duty as to inform the Court of Exhibits being outside Trial parameters. All humans don’t have long attention spans, but parties are to inform judges when there’s fresh evidence outside Trial parameters that need to be formerly adduced and recognised before the Court. Indeed Ms. Achtem, the self represented litigant, FAILED to do her part in making such a presentation.
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.
24#----Poor memory is notorious to people with MS. In Mr. Achtem’s case he has short-term memory problems. The transcripts would reveal that Mr. Achtem has memory problems when he’s being suddenly being ambushed with e-mail he was not sure until sometime after Trial. Since Mr. Achtem was diagnosed with MS in March 1999, his memory has worsened. See Fresh Exhibit [(Exhibit #12), description on page123 and the Exhibit is stapled to the back cover in a sealed envelope stapled to the back cover], new medical evidence Mr. Achtem applied to Adduce into The Supreme Court of Canada. Included is a recent MRI scan result from The Edmonton Royal Alexander Hospital and a recent doctor’s note showing that Mr. Achtem’s memories not getting any better, see (Exhibit #12, description on page 123). A fresh Exhibit, The MRI scan is medical evidence that Mr. Achtem wanted to adduce into the Court of Appeal of Alberta. The 3-judge Appeal panel did not want to accommodate for Mr. Achtem’s memory incapacity either.
25#----Mr. Achtem’s presenting of exhibits into evidence was not completed. Too much of Mr. Achtem's material evidence was missed. If Ms. Achtem had not ambushed Mr. Achtem with fresh exhibits outside of Trial parameters, is that he would have not been confused and he would have been properly on track at Trial to get all his exhibits entered into evidence. See (Exhibit #9), a copy of Mr. Achtem’s Appeal Book’s – Table of Context, which shows alot of Mr. Achtem’s Exhibits were NOT entered.
26#----Justice Horner’s Judgement yielded an unfair and unreasonable division of matrimonial assets, funds, liabilities, and home equity. Since Mr. Achtem was confused by Ms. Achtem’s ambush he also failed to provide the Court anything respects to the element of spousal support. Mr. Achtem is still missing in excess of $12,000.00 of spousal support which Mrs. Sails (Achtem) still owes him.
27#----See Justice Horner’s Judgement, Page 6, paragraph [21] states, “... Mr. Achtem seeks a distribution to him of 50% of the equity in this asset. Ms. Achtem seeks an unequal distribution of the value of this asset in that she seeks a 100% distribution to herself.” Page 6, paragraph [22] states, “In order to grant the relief requested by Ms. Achtem she must establish that it would not be just and equitable to divide the property equally". Page 6, paragraph [24] states, “The evidence establishes that an oral agreement was made between the parties on or about June, 2003 that:” sub-paragraph 1 states, “the net sale of the proceeds from the matrimonial home would be divided disproportionately between them;” Sub-paragraph 2 states, “that each party would purchase a new home with their share of the proceeds;” Sub-paragraph 3 states, “that in order to assist each other with the purchase of new home they would hold title jointly and apply for mortgage financing together;”
28#----In response to what is reiterated in paragraph 27 of this application above. Mr. Achtem was confused because Ms. Achtem ambushed him. Justice Horner failed to make observation of it and she failed to Adjourn. However Mr. Achtem is arguing because of the ambush, he was too confused to explain any of the facts around how the numbers were or should have been added up and Mr. Achtem failed to enter in alot of his evidence into Trial, because of the ambush. Mr. Achtem’s Exhibit 2A1 (Exhibit 2A1) - Statement of Division of assets since separation was entered, but without supporting exhibits. He was feeling too ambushed by Ms. Achtem to use Exhibit 2A1at Trial Properly in argument too.
29#----Exhibit 2A1 is exactly who got what up until the disposal of the Calgary home. Ms. Achtem even takes some of the proceeds of sale of the Calgary home. Edward did not get anything from the Medicine Hat home, this was not fair. Up until the sale of the Calgary home and we will not include figures Mr. Achtem tallied into what Ms. Achtem received for; “Personal property in Medicine Hat – Furn, elec, appliances, etc....$15,000.00. And we will not tally in a liability Mr. Achtem incurred; “Funds required to close off Hatfax/Quanta Laser fax’s Account with Revenue Canada for (-$8,000.00).
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.
34#----See (Exhibit #11, page 117), page 179, line 18 to 25 on the transcript, Mr. Achtem states in a confused state of mind, “And now we just get, I guess my argument.” Then Justice Horner prompts Mr. Achtem, “In tab 2A1, isn’t that right?” Then Mr. Achtem replies with confusion, “2A1 yeah. So, here’s Ms. Achtem my argument, when you’re ready.” Please view on transcript (Exhibit 11, page 117), page 179, line 38 and 39, Mr Achtem state, “...I got a mental block here in my head.”
35#----See Justice Horner’s Judgement, page 6, paragraph [24] sub-paragraph 5 states, “that each party would retain their respective RRSP’s, investments and bank accounts; and” page 6, paragraph [32] of her Judgement states, “I also find that Mr. Achtem is entitled to a 100% interest in those personal effects which he retained on July 23, 2003 as well as his RRSP’s, investments, bank accounts and cash on hand as the date of separation, that being July 23, 2003.”
36#----See Trial transcript (Exhibit #11, page 122), Page 184, line 4 to 18, which shows clearly that Ms. Achtem did have a pension and a savings bond.
37#----Mr. Achtem never had an RRSP. Mr. Achtem questions, why did Justice Horner establish that Mr. Achtem had an RRSP? The day the Achtem’s separated Mr. Achtem did not have a bank account with funds or cash on hand either, just what the Achtem’s were left over with after the position of the Calgary home. She had an RRSP and a Saving Bond, and bank account with funds. She abandoned Mr. Achtem the day of separation.
38#----Why should Mr. Achtem NOT get any of the funds in Ms. Achtem’s bank account (Exhibit 2J , page 158 to 164), savings bond (Exhibit 2J, page 156), RRSP (Exhibit 2J, page 157) on separation date? With no formal agreement, why should Mr. Achtem not receive any of Ms. Achtem assets on separation date when alls Mr. Achtem had was taxes owing(Exhibit 2B1, page 136 and 137), credit card debt(Exhibit 2G2 - E88 & E89, see page 143)? And why should Mrs. Achtem Not have to pay for half of Mr. Achtem’s debt on separation date? This is all outlined in Mr. Achtem’s Exhibit 2A1 entered into evidence at Trial, but not properly supported with other exhibits.
39#----On separation date Mr. Achtem did receive a significant amount which was the remainder of the proceeds of the sale of the Red Cliff home less the $45,000.00 that the Achtem’s used as a deposit to purchase the Medicine Hat home. The remaining $35,937.09 Mr. Achtem use as a mostly as deposit because the Achtem’s had to fulfill their commitment to purchase the Calgary home. Mr. Achtem was not aware his separation until within 24 to 48 hours of separation.
40#----When the Achtem’s agreed to purchase both the Medicine Hat home and Calgary home Mr. Achtem had no knowledge of an upcoming surprise separation. However, Mr. Achtem used the remaining portion of Proceeds of sale of the Red Cliff Home, $31,875.00 to Purchase the Calgary home. So therefore there was $4112.09 in funds left afterwards. Which Mr. Achtem used to juggle between his business bank account (Exhibit 2H1, page 146 to 147), Mr. Achtem’s personal bank account (Exhibit 2G1, page 138 to 142), Mr. Achtem’s TD Visa (Exhibit 2G2, page 143 to 145), the Achtem’s joint ATB saving account (Exhibit 2I1, page 152 to 154), to pay some of his arrears owing and to live on. But when you view what Mr. Achtem had in each of these accounts after completing the purchase of the Calgary home on August 8, 2003, these bank accounts will show that Mr. Achtem was in a financial struggle, and will show that he had no money before separation, and he had no money in his accounts after taking possession of the Calgary home.
41#----The Achtem’s also borrowed $8000.00 from Jim Markley because the Achtem’s had to satisfy one of ATB conditions to purchase the Calgary property which was to pay off $8000.00 dollars in their joint ATB MasterCard. So Jim Markley was paid back most of his $8000.00 from the proceeds of the sale of the Calgary home too.
42#----See Justice Horner’s Judgement - page 7, paragraph [30] states, “Further, Mr. Achtem candidly admits he has never made any financial or other contribution to the Medicine Hat home. In fact he has only attended the residence for purposes of exercising his access to their child. This non contribution is another factor to consider under section 8(c) of the M.P.A.”
43#----Mr. Achtem has plenty of reasons for not contributing, for starters please see (Exhibit #10, page 108) Trial transcript from page 94, line 25 to 40. Justice Horner questions Mr. Achtem in the witness box, “Okay, and how about the mortgage payments on the Medicine Hat property.” Mr. Achtem answers, “The mortgage?” Justice Rawlins questions Mr. Achtem, “Who made those?” Mr. Achtem answers, “Who paid those?” Then Justice Horner acknowledges the question, “Yes.” Then Mr. Achtem Answers, “Well, there’s no - - well, I had to actually - - well, I guess - - her and her boyfriend has been paying them.”
44#----In response to what is reiterated in paragraphs 42# and 43# of this application above. Mr. Achtem is arguing that Mr. Achtem has been contributing towards this in the form of Virgil Sails living in the Medicine Hat Property as a renter. It was Mr. Achtem plan for
Trial to bring this into evidence and argue this in his argument. Mr. Achtem was too confused to even cross-exam Ms. Achtem as planned. He was also confused and terrified over exhibits he has not viewed in over 2.5 years. Mr. Achtem was too confused to bring the facts about Virgil Sails living in his house. Mr. Achtem was too confused to bring this into his arguments at Trial. Mr. Achtem questions, why should Mr. Achtem have to pay Virgil Sails’s rent?
45#----Based on Mr. Achtem’s Exhibit 2A1 used at Trial. Mr. Achtem argues that Justice Horner’s Judgement was unreasonable. The Court of Appeals of Alberta, Calgary’s Judgement supported Justice Horner’s Judgement as reasonable. Mr. Achtem is now arguing that the Court of Appeals Judgement is from things that never were there or ever existed. Mr. Achtem argues that that Court of Appeals avoided Mr. Achtem putting the terms of Pursuant Civil Practise Note 5 – Family Law as outlined the Appellant’s Factum. Mr. Achtem argues that the Court of Appeals 3 judge panel that Judged his Appeal should have their reading comprehension skill levels tested.
46#----See Justice Horner’s Judgement, page 7 paragraph [28] she states, “I believe that Mr. Achtem’s financial situation had worsened since separation while Ms. Achtem’s financial
situation has improved and Mr. Achtem now finds it convenient to deny the prior oral agreement.”
47#----In response to what is reiterated in paragraph 26# above. Mr. Achtem argues that his financial situation before separation had bottomed out long before separation and his physical situation was deteriorating long before separation. In the year of 2003 Mr. Achtem only made a little more than $5000.00. Between Jan 1, 2003 to October 21, Mr. Achtem’s income was less than $6000. Then in October he gets worse and he cannot work at all due to a crippling MS attack, and awoke the morning of October 21, 2003, and could not walk. Mr. Achtem was unemployable for a while and he did not work again until May 10, 2004, for which Ms. Achtem still owes Mr. Achtem spousal support. Mr. Achtem also argues that, if Ms. Achtem had paid her spousal support Mr. Achtem would not be unprivileged and home ownerless today. The element of spousal support still has to be argued between Mr. Achtem verses the team - Ms. Achtem and a Judge.
48#----Mr. Achtem is arguing that based on his Exhibit 2A1 (Exhibit 2A1), Statement of Division of assets since separation versus everything based on Justice Horner’s Judgement. From All the matrimonial assets and liabilities upon the sale of the Calgary home, Ms. Achtem did get 96.6% and Mr. Achtem only did get 5.5%. That is NOT considering Mr Achtem was not paid any spousal support either. Mr. Achtem is now arguing that if the Courts could go back in time machine to the time before separation date. Mr. Achtem argues what should have happened is that he should have been made aware of the separation and he should have known not signed a purchase contract to buy to homes with Mrs. Achtem. Since they did separated Mr. Achtem Mr. Achtem and Mrs. Achtem should have split the proceeds of the sale 50-50 of the Red Cliff home and went their own ways.
50#----It was not fair to Mr. Achtem to be muscled into acquiring a house in Calgary with smaller deposit of only $31K est. put down with a long-term 25 years mortgage. Then Ms. Achtem gets the Medicine Hat home with a larger deposit of $45,000.00 put down on it with only a short-term 13 year mortgage. Why would it have NOT been fair, for the Achtem’s to have divided the proceeds of the sale of the Red Cliff home 50-50, then take out two 18 year term mortgages instead? Mr. Achtem begs to argue this? Mr. Achtem begs to argue his case before, before a different Judge with a Special Condition that the parties serve upon the other, Exhibits and Pre-trial Summaries at least 2 weeks prior to Pre-trial.
51#----Mr. Achtem needs a Court Order to obtain all the relevant ATB Internal Documents – All logged client contact information documents, to properly counter Justice Horner’s, Reasons of Judgement.
52#----5th paragraph/last sentence of the 3-Judge Appeal panel’s Judgement is wrong. Because it states, “Her decision was reasonable and supported by evidence and that decision is therefore unassailable.” Mr. Achtem’s question is did Justice Horner not do any math as the figure, and number as to who received what from matrimonial since before the marriage ended since from the date of separation? (these are the answers as to who left the marriage with what?)
53#----Well, Mr Achtem’s argument is that his Exhibit 2A1 is a precise statement of who got what since before separation. Except for that there may be one $1600.00 discrepancy that Ms. Achtem may bring up in her response to this application. However, base on Mr. Achtem’s Exhibit 2A1, and adding in the Medicine Hat home equity she received. Ms. Achtem received 94.5 percent of matrimonial assets and Mr. Achtem only did get 5.5 percent. Now why would that it be reasonable for a couple that’s been together for in excess of 14 years for the Husband/Father of the marriage to only get 5.5% and the wife/mother of the marriage gets a huge 94.5% base on the date of separation?
