-----My AMENED / Revised Complaint sent April 2, 2009----
Part 1: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta - 4808 009302
Part 2: Court of Appeal of Alberta - 0701-0232AC
Part 3: Supreme Court of Canada - 32805
From: Eddie Achtem - edwach@shaw.ca or eachtem@hotmail.com
To: Duncan.L@parl.gc.ca ; HarpeS@parl.gc.ca ; edmonton.goldbar@assembly.ab.ca ; pm@pm.gc.ca ; premier@gov.ab.ca ; ministryofjustice@gov.ab.ca ; info@cjc-ccm.gc.ca
Cc: wc-cdg@justice.gc.ca ; tardic@sen.parl.gc.ca ; mitchg@sen.parl.gc.ca ; fairbj@sen.parl.gc.ca ; brownb@sen.parl.gc.ca ; gautht@sen.parl.gc.ca ; ecmas@ecmas.org
Sent: Monday, April 2, 2009 11:50 PM
Subject:COMPLAINT of the conduct of judges - Part 1/3 Justice Karen Horner
To: Normand Sabourin-CJC, Alison Redford-Justice Minister of AB, Ed Stelmac-Premier of AB, MLA- Hugh MacDonald, PM Stephan Harper, MP Linda Duncan
CC: To: Senators: Tommy Bank, Bert Brown, Joyce Fairbairn, Elaine McCoy, Grant Mitchell, Claudette Tardif, Anne C. Cools, and Ecmas at, www.ecmas.org
Dear Sir/Madame,
Re: Justice Karen Horner - Trial Judge for Trial May 17, 2007
1.----I want to make it clear to Mr. Sabourin. My "COMPLAINTs" are about Justice Horner's conduct as a judge at Trial on May 17, 2007. My complaint "IS NOT" about the "Reasons of Judgement of Justice Karen Horner, that was filed July 13, 2007, then amended October 22, 2007. This not about a decision Justice Horner made at Trial either. Justice Horner was the only one at Trial that had access to the Pre-trial transcript and she had 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 Practice Note 5 – Family Law Pre-trial Conferences (Exhibit #1)
2.----Medical Exhibits documenting me having me having MS-Multiple Sclerosis and my "problem with memory function and recent recall" were produced into the action many times long before Pre-trial. Justice Horner was served my Trial Exhibit Binder prior to Trial containing medical history of myself having MS documenting my "problem with memory function and recent recall (Exhibit 2K). Furthermore, medical society does not have a cure for MS, and MS never leaves anyone once having it. Since Justice Horner failed to become well versed with all of the Pre-trail material and failure to be well verse with Trial Parameters about "The Agreement Concerning Exhibit, this lead to her failure to accommodate me for having MS resulting in a "problem with memory function and recent recall (Exhibit 2K)." Thus depriving me of Sections 6(1), 6(2), 28(1), and 28(2) of the Canada Evidence Act C-5. Justice Horner failed to make sure that I was not honored the respect of "An Act Respecting Witnesses and Evidence."
3.----First I will take you through the Pre-trial Transcript portion of what the Parameters were at Trial as per the "Agreement Concerning Exhibits." I will express as to why Justice Horner not being well versed with Pre-trail material and parameters caused me to become deliberately unfairly ambushed, and I will explain from the Evidence how Justice Horner conducted a Trail with undue care and attention. Then after, I will proceed with my complaint of the conduct of the 3 judges from the Court of Appeal of Alberta in a different Complaint called Part 2. My Part 2 complaint will be made after I get a responce to my Part 1 Complaint. The 3-judge appeal panel; Justices - Carole Conrad, Peter Martin, and Alexander Park. Just to reiterate, this is a complaint about the poor or incompetent conduct of judges while judging my case. This "NOT" a complaint about the judgments and this is "NOT" a complaint about decision judges made in court either. These complaints are about the "judges neglectful conduct" that lead to poor and unfair judgments. CJC cannot expect one to isolate neglectful judicial conduct without expressing what the neglectful judicial conduct lead to. Neglectful judicial conduct yields to justice NOT being served. Many judges fabricate corrupt judgments to protect the integrity of their collegues errors and/or their collegues miscarriage of justice, or to protect their collegues Judicial FRAUD. My Part 3 complaint will be made after I get the response
Justice Horner’s conduct for neglecting Trial Paramers: [Click to view/hear Audio description and transcript of Trial parameters Justice Rawlins set out at Pre-Trial]
4.----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."
Evidence that Justice Horner neglected Trial Parameters, "Agreement Concerning Exhibits," Sections 6(1), 6(2), 28(1), and 28(2) of the CEA c-5:
5.----Since you have viewed the Trial Parameters Norman Sabourin, that I have reiterated in paragraph 4. Please view the Surprise new Exhibits I was ambushed with, by Ms Achtem. Exhibits M, N, O, P-(page 1/2, page 2/2), Q, and R. Please explain to me how the surprise new exhibits Trace the funds from however many houses the parties bought and where it all went? After viewing the new exhibits, Please explain to me how these surprize exhibits could be adduced, if they were never produced into the action prior to Trial? How could they be adduced, if Ms. Achtem did not disclosed to me before or at Pre-trail or before Trail? Ms. Achtem did not inform the court that her new exhibits were not the same as the exhibits in her disclosure at Pre-Trail as per her List of Exhibits (Exhibit #8), served to me before Pre-trial. Please explain to how Ms. Achtem’s new exhibits were within the boundaries of Trial parameters? Do you feel that Justice Horner does not have to respect the Trial Parameters?
6.----View these 2 pages of (Exhibit #3), pages 109 and 110 of the Trial transcript. Please make a careful observation here to get a feeling of how fast I was served Ms. Achtem’s new Exhibits to the time I was served then suddenly having to answer to cross-examination over exhibits I 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).
7. Look at page 109, line 3 to line 2, Ms. Achtem The Defendant states; "Thanks, your honour. May I Present the Exhibits right away to both you and Ed?" Then Justice Horner, The Court gives instructions to Ms. Achtme The Defendant on page 109, line 6 to line 9; "Any exhibits you want to question Mr. Achtem on go ahead and give him a copy and me a copy, that would be correct." ,Then Ms. Achtem The Defendant; questions The Court on page 109, line 10; "I come across?" Then Justice Horner The Court instructs Ms. Achtem The defendant page 109, line 12 to line 16; "You give them to Madam Clerk and she’ll hand them to Mr. Achtem, we’ll mark this as Exhibit 2 right now. Then I was suddenly served with new exhibits I knew nothing about. I The Defendant requested to Justice Horner The Court on page 109, line 23 to line 24; "Yeah, why don’t you give me a few minutes to go through this?" Then Justice Horner The Court did not answer my question she instead side tracks me takes advantage by neglecting my memory function short-term recall problem. She neglects my needs to view the suddenly served new exhibits and instead of answering my request, Justice Horner states a miss direction completely to me on page 109, line 31 to line 34; "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 all of these documents.." Out of my distraction and confusion on line 36 and my failure to object do to the myself having MS resulting in memory function short-term recall problems, I just simply started to speak until Justice Horner interrupted after only getting one word out on page 109, line 36; "Yeah." So I was interrupted by Justice Horner's authority her of "Oath of Office" of being judge to interrupt a method to attacked my memory function and short-term recall problems before I could even get another word out. Then Justice Horner The Court Interruption started to carry on with her stating on page 109, lines 26 up until the time she asks Rhonda Sails/Ms. Achtem if she ready to proceed with cross-examination, but she neglects the fact that I need to view the new Exhibits first. Justice Horner-The Court instructs Rhonda Sails/Ms. Achtem; "Thank you. All right, Miss Achtem, whenever you're ready." [Click to view/hear video description + Audio Transcript of the Ambush Delivery]
8. Then Rhonda Sails/Ms. Achtem proceeds to cross-examanine me over here new exhibits, and within her new exhibits there were exhibits that had to be formerly adduced and Justice Horner's tactic to interrupt to interrupt me lead to Justice Horner neglecting of not knowing or knowing as to whether or not that these new exhibits could be adduced. However Justice Horner conduct was either neglectful or corrupt. For not or avoiding letting the knowledge of this getting into thr record of evidence. I have MS that has caused me brain damage, and it has been medically documented by a doctor tha I have memory function and short-term recall problems. Therefore, Justice Horner negected Sections 6(1) and 6(2) of the Canada Evidence Act C-5. She neglected to Repect me as a witness and neglected as to whether or not that the new Exhibits could be adduced into Evidence or not. The Canada Evidence Act C-5 as it states at the very top of the Act it is, "An Act Respecting Witnesses and Evidence. Justice Horner neglect to respect me and the CEA c-5. Furthermore Justice Horner has also neglected to respect me and Sections 28(1), and 28(2) of the CEA c-5. Futhermore Justice Horner neglected respect Alberta Rule of Court 158.5(1)(e) and me. Amungst many other things Justice Horner state with her Reason's of Judgment that I had and RRSP and I informed her at Trial that I did not have an RRSP. Justice Horner poor conduct lead her to neglect that fact that never had an RRSP, but her judgment states that I did. however this is not a complaint about her judgement. This is a complaint about her conduct of neglect and/or corruption. I do not know if it is corruption but I strongly feel it is...
Click to view a complete listing of exhibits Exhibits M to R, with the proper answers which I could have answered properly if Justice Karen Horner would have protected the integrity of the Canada Evidence Atc C-5 and I, Eddie Achtem the witness that Rhonda Sails ambushed. [Audio transcripts are included]
