Rhonda Sails/(Ms. Achtem) questions; "We’ll go on to Exhibit Q, an e-mail dated November 29th, 3003. In this e-mail, did you not stated:
"Now I’m going to want far more than 9,000 you pig."

I did not answer to this question regarding Exhibit Q properly because Justice Karen Horner and Rhonda Sails ambushed me with Fresh new Exhibits M to R, I knew nothing about. Exhibits M to R could not be adduced into Trial pursuant to Alberta Rule of Court 158.5(1)(e). Both Justice Karen Horner and Rhonda Sails's did not respect An Act Respecting witnesses and Evidence, and myself as a witness., pursuant to the fact that states that Rhonda Sails could not serve her new Exhibit not less than 7 days prior to Trial or inform me of her intentions to use them at Trial. As the Canada Evidence Act C-5 in Sections 28(1) and 28(2) of the Canada Evidence Act C-5.

Justice Horner failed to fulfil her duties as judge by letting herself and Rhonda Sails ambushed with fresh new exhibits that could have only been served to me 7 days before Trial. If Justice Karen Horner had respected my rights, the Law, and the Rules of Alberta Court. Then I could have answered much differently, if I though knowledge of the e-mail Exhibits that I was being cross-examined on. The correct proper answer is;

"I find that you have just like the last 4 exhibits M, N, O, and P you have only read the yellow high-lighted portions of this exhibits, and having what you have only read from these e-mail Exhibits for the record appears deceiving. I would like to have the entirety of this e-mail read. Ms. Achtem you have only read for the record just a small sliver of important information. Yes this is my e-mail and therefore I did state everything on it. So now I will read for the record all of this e-mail Exhibit P. Then I will answer the question."

This is I, Mr. Achtem reading the e-mail Rhonda Sails’s/Ms. Achtem) Exhibit P;

"Medicine Hat home opening balance on principle: 84,000.00. Calgary home opening balance: 95,625.00. The Medicine Hat home will gain $15,944.00 more in equity from mortgage payments. The Calgary home will have had to pay 6,047.38 more in interest. The Medicine Hat home had a deposit + 1600 for tax and legal fees: $46,600.00 Then I, receive the cheque to conclude the Calgary home deal: $35,900.00. That’s a difference of 10,700.00 I think you are not going the (to) like what I want to work out a deal after considering the precise figures. You’re fuckin nuts! Should we just let the lawyer take us for a ride and comence divorce divorce action and matrimonial property action. I have that’s the way to go because now I’m gonna want far more than $9000.00 you pig. Here is what I want firm (from) the (to) conclude a deal: $16,345.72 cough it up very soon or let\’ both loose far more through legal fees at court you fuckin fool. You are going to have to sell the Medicine Hat home. If you fuckin well don’t you fuckin bitch! That’s a firm fair offer still giving you the better end of the stick. I could still ask for more. That’s the only way I’ll not go to court and fuckin well cost us big bucks. I’ll then pay your Visa and the joint MasterCard and you pay you for half of the Red Cliff taxes you’d paid. Fuck-off!"

This is I Mr. Achtem answering the question if I only had been not AMBUSHED;

"Ms. Achtem, yes this is my e-mail, and it’s proposal I made to you. A proposal that you did not except. All I was seeking was a fair 50/50 slpit of matrimonial, and offering to pay the Red Cliff home taxes as well paying your Visa and our joint MasterCard. Once again for the record This was a fair offer I made you Ms. Achtem. A fair offer you did not accept."

Now, compare the answer to how I answered at Trial.