Ms. Achtem's question on page 122, line 37 to line 46; "We'll go on to the next exhibit, which is "O". It's an e-mail dated October 3rd. In this e-mail did you not state:"
"I don't want you to have to sell the Medicine Hat home but when that is done your name will be registered as the only Medicine Hat owner and I will be the only Calgary homeowner. This should be so I don't feel gyped."
If I would have not been so confused because of an Rhonda Sails's/(Ms. Achtem) ambush, and if Justice Horner and Rhonda Sails had NOT dodged and neglected Trial parameters. If they repected the Law, pursuant to the Candain the Act that requires judges and all parties to respect this Act. Section 28(1) of the Canada Evidence Act C-5 states that Rhonda Sails/(Ms. Achtem) could have only served her new Exhibits not less than 7 days prior to Trial instead of have them served to me while still in the Witness Box. Then I, could have answered like this instead;
"I find that you have just like the last 2 exhibits M and N you have only read what you have high-lighted in yellow of this exhibit, and having what you have only read from this e-mail for the record is deceiving. I would like to have the entirety of this e-mail read or at least sentences numbers 4 to 8 and not just sentence 6 to 8. Because having only read sentences 6 to 8 will destroy my case. Ms. Achtem you have only read for the record just a small sliver of important information. Yes this is my e-mail and I did state everything on it. This e-mail clearly shows that I was not happy about having put $45,000.00 down on the Medicine Hat home with a 13 year mortgage, and then we only put only less than $34,000.00 down on the Calgary home with a long-term mortgage spanning over 25 years.
"You hood winked me Ms. Achtem. What should have happened is you letting me know prior us to signing the Real Estate Purchase Agreeements that you wanted a separation. Then we could have split all matrimonial 50-50 and not buy these homes together. I feel that the bank would have approved a mortgage for me without you at the time. You could have just done your own thing too. I feel this is unfair that you should get a 95% from me from matrimonial, and me only getting a measly 5%. We both paid the mortage equally for 8 years, and I feel it is only fair that there be a 50-50 split Justice Horner!
"Now I will read sentences 4 to 8 of Ms. Achtem's Exhibit O, an e-mail I sent October 3, 2003: I want the 13 year mortgage and equity you take the lousy 25 year mortgage and equity. We need to get this done before November 23, 2003. I do not want you have to sell our Medicine Hat home. When that is done your name will be registered as the only Medicine Hat owner and I will be the only Calgary home owner. This should be so I don't feel jipped."
When Mr. Achtem answered Justice Horner neglected that fact that Rhonda Sails's/(Ms. Achtem) fresh Exhibits M to R were not within the boundaries of Trial Parameters." Because Rhonda Sails's Exibits do not or trace how ever many homes the parties bought and sold and where the funds all all went (Click here to listen).
I would have been able to answer to Rhonda Sails's/(ms. Achtem) Exibit M to R. Which were indeed my e-mails and I would of had no problem with her using them in her cross-examine, and use for her argument. I would of had no problem only if I would have received them not as an AMBUSH tactic to throw me off kilter. I was not informed at Pre-trial that these exhibits would be used, and they where not listed in Rhonda Sails's/Ms. (Achtem) List of Exhibits served to me 7 days before Pre-Trial. Rhonda Sails's/(Ms. Achtem) Exhibits M to R were never produced into the action prior to Trial. Therfore pursuant to Alberta Rule of Court Rule 158.5(1)(e), Rhonda Sails's/(Ms. Achtem) Exhbits M to R could not be adduced at Trial.
I could have anwered to these Exhibit properly if Trial parameter would have been respected or If I had been given resonable time before Trail before having to answer to Exhibits I knew nothing about. This was because Justice prevented to let me viewing Exhibits which were e-mail I did indeed send. But being served then in the witness box was a tactic of Rhonda Sails/(Ms. Achtem) to AMBUSH ME. An Justice Horner preventing me from viewing them, was her tactic to let me become AMBUSHED with exhibits I knew nothing about. The was a joint tactic of Rhonda Sails/Ms. Achtem to confuse me and throw me off course.
However, if Justice Horner and Rhonda Sails had not ignored the parameters set at Pre-trail. Justice Horner was supposed to adjourned so me, Mr. Achtem could have properly view the new Exhibits, and allow me to prepare for my case. Justice Horner should have also charged Rhonda Sails's (Achtem) costs for my wasted trip out to Medicine Hat. But No! Justice Horner only wanted me to answer to Exhibits I knew nothing about. Justice was involved in the Ambush too. Lets Listen to the ambush delivery again while I was still in the witness box (Click here to listen).
