APPLICANT’S MEMORANDUM OF ARGUMENT

1#-----As per the [Response Part III, page 9, paragraphs 31 to 33]. Mr. Achtem argues that his application [FORM 25A, Ground 1, page 1, paragraph 1] states; “People with short-term memory deficiencies must be accommodated so that they will be treated equally. Judges and parties that have been made aware of a witness’s history of a memory deficiency. Then the witness has to be accommodated so that the truth does not get distorted.” In the next sentence, Mr. Achtem wants to “re-inform the Court that he has MS affecting his short-term memory” So he made an error due to the memory incapacity because Mr. Achtem prepared the Application and this Reply so what Mr. Achtem meant is easy for a Judge to understand what was is meant. What Mr. Achtem meant to write in the next sentence without error was; Persons having had prior brain injuries resulting in short-term memory loss, should not be cross-examined over fresh Exhibits adduced outside Trial parameters.

2#-----Ms. Achtem’s Exhibits M to R used at Trial could not be adduced pursuant to, Alberta Rule of Court 158.5(1)(e). Justice Horner and the 3-judge appeal panel’s judgments are erroneous. Mr. Achtem has outlined this in the [Application Part I – page 21, paragraph 1 to page 24, paragraph 13, and throughout the entirety of the Application].

3#-----The [Application Form 25A, Grounds1, page 1, paragraph 1#] Mr. Achtem states that; “Parties and witnesses should have the right to a satisfactory review of Exhibits.” Everyone is supposed to have that right and no one has the right the right to confuse a witness by an ambush or taken by surprise by Fresh Exhibits that cannot be adduced. Ms. Achtem failed to inform the Court that her Exhibits M to O used at Trial was not within Trial parameters. Justice Horner failed to fulfill her duty to be well versed Trial parameters as Mr. Achtem states in the [Application Part I - page 21, paragraph 1].

4#----- Contrary to the [Response Part III, page 9, paragraphs 31 to 33]. Mr. Achtem’s [Application FORM 25A, Ground 1, page 1, paragraph 1]. goes beyond, issue of public importance and the immediate interest of the parties to the case. This case is of interest to citizens with a brain injury resulting in short-term memory deficiencies. No one deserves to be ambushed whether or not they have brain damage. However, people with memory loss triggered by brain injury are more vulnerable to ambushes.

5#-----In the [Application FORM 25A, Ground 2, page 1, paragraph 2]. This is in the interest of all Citizens or anyone in a Canadian Court Room, because no one deserves to be ambushed what so ever. Meaning Judges have to become well versed with Trial parameters and completely understand them so everyone and Mr. Achtem get a fair Trial. No judge should be able to use Mr. Achtem’s case a case authority to make such an unequal distribution of property. Every Judge has to do the math, some type of calculation or Order it to be done by someone more qualified as to who received what, why, when and how. Something is warped about a lopsided Judgment that yields a 94.5%/5.5% split from a marriage of 14 years, with divorce without exemptions.

6#-----Mr. Achtem argues, to have the Court grant allowance for an Accountant, CMA to do the
math with respect to Mr. Achtem’s case. Mr. Achtem prepared a Notice of Motion to a Judge for an Order for Mr. Achtem to make arrangements have an Accountant, CMA examine Mr. Achtem’s case and let him/her tabulate the percentages. Mr. Achtem indicated his Notice of Motion to state that both Mr. Achtem and Ms. Achtem co-operate fully with the Accountant, CMA. Allow the Accountant’s statement to be adduced into The Supreme Court of Canada for argument. let an Accountant to determine the accuracy of what Mr. Achtem has outlined in his Exhibit 2A1- [Application page 131 to 134] used at Trial used at Trial. Mr. Achtem claims after the sale of the Calgary home, but does not tally in the Medicine Hat home equity. Mr. Achtem argues that Ms. Achtem received more that 65% of matrimonial assets. Then after Justice Horner’s Judgment, the split was lopsided to 94.5/5.5% in Ms Achtem’s favor.

7#-----As per the [Response Part I, page 3 paragraph 5]. Mr. Achtem argues that, the Achtem’s together, decided to sell the former matrimonial home. Then they purchased homes in Medicine Hat as the main matrimonial home, and second Calgary home as an investment property. The upper level of the Calgary home was supposed to be rented out, and the lower level of the home is where Mr. Achtem restarted a Calgary business due to the hot weather and business failure in Medicine Hat. It was Mr. Achtem’s full intention to maintain living with Ms. Achtem and his daughter in the Medicine Hat home and to live and operate a business in the Calgary home from Monday mornings until Fridays every week, while maintaining to live in the Medicine Hat home with his wife and daughter. The logged notes of conversations with the Achtem’s documented, within ATB Internal documents will verify this.

8#-----The Achtem’s had agreed upon living together in Medicine Hat prior to signing the purchase agreements to purchase the Medicine Hat and Calgary homes. It was not until shortly prior to, but less than a week before the sale close of the former matrimonial home, but NOT until after the mortgage approvals Medicine Hat (main matrimonial home) and the Calgary home (investment property) were approved is when Mr. Achtem was informed by Mrs. Achtem that she wanted to separate. The ATB Financial Internal Documents would verify this. The customer contact logged notes of logged conversations, the Achtem’s had with Kimberly Smithman the bank employee prior to the mortgage approvals. This is within “ATB Internal Documents” would verify what the Achtem’s were doing with the Calgary and Medicine Hat homes and who would be living why, when, where and what.

9#-----There was no way Justice Horner wanted Mr. Achtem having documentation from ATB Financial that would verify that the Achtem’s would be living together in the Medicine Hat home. The ATB documents would verify that the it was both Mr. Achtem’s and ATB’s position that there would be no separation.

10#----As per the [Response, page 3, paragraph 5]. Mr. Achtem argues that since Ms. Achtem states that Mr. Achtem said she is his worst enemy, based on Mr. Achtem’s Exhibit 2A1 used at Trial [See Application - Exhibit 2A1 - page 132 to 134]. Why would Mr. Achtem have an oral agreement to let Ms. Achtem have 94.5% of all the matrimonial equity and he walks away with only a measly 5.5%, and walk away in a destitute financial state. Mr. Achtem wants to clarify with the Court that he only made $5,514.00 in 2003. Further to this as Mr. Achtem has outlined in his [Application Part I – page 32, paragraph 38 to, page 32 and 33, paragraph 41]. This was not equitable. This is unfair that Mr. Achtem to walk away on separation date with only a measly 5.5%. Mr. Achtem was in no position to walk away like this. Married couples that get divorced without exemptions are entitled to a 50%/50% split of all matrimonial assets. Justice Horner’s Judgment robbed Mr. Achtem and his second family, to give to Ms. Achtem

11#----Mr. Achtem was in no position to walk away with only 5.5% of matrimonial equity, and he argues that his financial position based on what Justice Horner stated in her Judgment on, page 7 paragraph 28 - [Application - Page 18, paragraph 28]. Mr. Achtem argues that he was abandoned in deteriorating physical condition and an impoverished state on the after the day of separation.

12#----Ms. Achtem refused to pay Mr. Achtem spousal support after separation and even 3 months later when MS – Multiple Sclerosis rendered him unable to work, unemployable and disabled. See doctors letters [Application - Exhibit 2K, page 168 to 169 and page171 to 172]. Mr. Achtem became disabled with only 5.5% of matrimonial equity. Mr. Achtem did not recover from his MS attack until March 2004 and he did not work again until becoming employed on May 10, 2004.

13#----Kayla is the child of the marriage. Justice Horner’s judgment made it impossible for Mr. Achtem, Kayla’s step-mother, and Katherine Achtem (Kayla’s half-sister) to be in Kayla’s life. Justice Horner’s Judgment left Mr. Achtem financially incapable to pay for a bilateral assessment, and this has imposed upon the livelihoods of Mr. Achtem and his second family. Justice Horner’s judgment was not in the best interest of the child.

14#----As per the Defendant’s Part II, Statement of the Questions in Issue. Ms. Achtem speculates that she does not know how Justice Horner on how Mr. Achtem had an RRSP. Mr. Achtem argues that Justice Horner did indeed states this in her Judgment that Mr. Achtem had RRSPs and Investment. Mr. Achtem argues that her belief does not counter what is outlined in the [Application, page 37, paragraph 1#].

15#----Based on Justice Horner’s Judgment and [Application - Exhibit 2A1, page 131 to 134]. This yielded a Ms. Achtem whopping 94.5%/5.5% split in her favor. This is outlined in the, [Application - page 28, paragraph 5 to page 29, paragraph 29].

16#----As per the [Response Part II page 7, paragraph 29]. Mr. Achtem has outline this in the[Application Part I – page 33, paragraph 43 to 44]. Due to the fact that Vergil Sails lives in the Medicine Hat matrimonial home, why should he not have to pay rent? Mr. Achtem does not approve of him getting to live in the house for free. Furthermore, It was Mr. Achtem’s plan to cross-examine Ms. Achtem about this, but since Ms. Achtem ambushed Mr. Achtem he was too confused to cross-examine Ms. Achtem about this and he was too confused to bring this up in his argument at Trial.

17#----As per the [Response Part III – page 34 Mr. Achtem argued that he does not memory capacity to stand Trial while he get’s throw off kilter by a clever ambush. Ms. Achtem always knew of Mr. Achtem brain injury and she knew how to use it to assault him. She has known him and lived with him for over 14 years. Mr. Achtem argument that Ms. Achtem that deliberately use Mr. Achtem’s brain injury against him. Ms. Achtem failed to inform the Court and Mr. Achtem at the onset of Trial that she had Fresh exhibits not within Trail parameters. Mr. Achtem has outlined this in the [Application Part I – page 23, paragraph 9#]. Re-view throughout the Application again then before carrying on with the last paragraph. Please accommodate for the fact that Mr. Achtem is mentally changed due to the fact that he has MS attacking his brain from time to time effecting his memory for which medical doctors cannot explain how and why MS exists. All they do know is that it exists and the medical community has not found a cure for MS. Please accommodate Mr. Achtem’s short-term memory deficiency, unlike the lower Courts.

18#----As per the [Response Part III – page 9, paragraph 35] Mr. Achtem argues that he did request for a few minutes to go through Ms. Achtem’s new exhibits, but Justice Horner attached his memory and did not allow it. See the Trial transcript, [Application Exhibit 3 page 59, line 3 to page 60, line 5. On page 59 line 23 to 24, Mr. Achtem states right immediately after just being served the Ms. Achtem’s Fresh Exhibits;“Yeah, why don’t you give me a few minutes to go through this?” Then on page 59, line 26 and 27, Justice Horner replies; “You’ll have some opportunity. Like your evidence is finished, she’s just asking you a question. She’ll give you an opportunity – she may not direct you to all of these documents. Mr. Achtem argues that He was Suddenly Served fresh exhibits, then suddenly marched to the witness box having to answer to exhibits he was prevented by Justice Horner to a first view and review. Further to this re-review the entire Application, then decide dismissed or Granted. However, I will never give up!



X______________________________
Signature of Applicant,
Edward D. Achtem