PART II – STATEMENT OF THE QUESTIONS IN ISSUE

Monday, August 25, 2008

PART II – STATEMENT OF THE QUESTIONS IN ISSUE

1#-----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.” See Trial transcript (Exhibit #12), Page 184, line 4 to 18, which shows with clarity that Ms. Achtem did have a pension and a savings bond.Mr. Achtem is arguing that he was hindered by the ambush, and thus was unable to conduct himself properly at Trial. Mr. Achtem would also like the Supreme Court of Canada to make acknowledgement that Mr. Achtem never had an RRSP. Mr. Achtem questions; Why did Justice Horner establish that Mr. Achtem had an RRSP?


2#-----As per paragraph 5 from Part I, Statement of Facts, please provide Mr. Achtem answers to the following; how could Mr. Achtem not talk to, not have called, or not have had conversations with Kimberly Smithman the bank employee, when he did in fact have conversations with her? How could Mr. Achtem not know to confront Mrs. Achtem about what she said to ATB Financial about her separating from the marriage?


3#-----Exhibit Tab 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 Tab 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?


4#-----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.” See Trial transcript (Exhibit #12), Page 184, line 4 to 18, which shows with clarity that Ms. Achtem did have a pension and a savings bond.Mr. Achtem is arguing that he was hindered by the ambush, and thus was unable to conduct himself properly at Trial. Mr. Achtem would also like the Supreme Court of Canada to make acknowledgement that Mr. Achtem never had an RRSP. Mr. Achtem questions; Why did Justice Horner establish that Mr. Achtem had an RRSP?


5#-----Why should Mr. Achtem NOT get any of the funds in Ms. Achtem’s bank account (Exhibit Tab 2J), savings bond (Exhibit Tab 2J), RRSP (Exhibit Tab 2J) 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 Tab 2B1), credit card debt(Exhibit Tab 2G2)? 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 Tab 2A1 entered into evidence at Trial, but not properly supported with other exhibits from Mr. Achtem’s blue exhibit binder.


7#-----In response to what is reiterated in paragraphs 42# through to 47# of this application in Part I. 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 view 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 it into his arguments at Trial. Mr. Achtem questions, why should Mr. Achtem have to pay Virgil Sails’s rent?


9#-----Exhibit Tab 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 Tab 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?9# Mr. Achtem’s observation is, that Justice Horner did not do any math. Mr. Achtem argues that she did no math. What math did Justice Horner base her decision on? Because It sure was not base on the math Mr. Achtem calcualated in his Exhibit Tab 2A1.