Exhibit #3C

Exhibit #3C

The Proper Responce to Exhibit M

This what Mr. Achtem's responce could have been for Exhibit M if Justice Horner adhered to Civil Practise Note 5 - Family Law Pretrial Conferences.

Wednesday, July 2, 2008

Questions & The Proper Answers verus The Ambushed State of Mind Answers

Ms. Achtem's question on page 116/line 5 to 9; "Okay. My next question pertains to Exhibit "M" which is an e-mail dated March 20th from Ed to Mr. Scholly. On March 20th, via an e-mail, was your return offer that you wanted a 50/50 split right down the middle of all the assets and liabilities, all cash on hand too?"


Mr. Achtem's only correct answer to this should have only been just; "yes"


Ms. Achtem's question page 116/line 45 to 47 and page 117/line 1; "This offer which you made was made close to 3 years after our separation had taken place and after I had assumed all costs incurred regarding the Medicine Hat property, is this correct?"


Mr. Achtem's answer was correct, but he was confused by an ambushed to answer like this; "This is not correct that you assumed all costs. I sent this e-mail, but why should I have to pay for your boyfriend Virgil Sails to live there, therefore he is paying rent to the me. What Virgil Sails pays to me is paid to the home. I pay child support child support for Kayla too. This covers my half of contributions. I would like to say for the record that you have been in arrears for more than $12,000.00 in spousal support which you have been refusing to pay. I do not see why I should have to pay anything more.


Then Justice Horner questions Mr. Achtem, see transcript (Exhibit 3), page 117/line 19 to 24;
"Yes, Miss Achtem's question is this was March 20th of 2006, so it's nearly three years after the separation and you've admitted that you've made no payments toward the Medicine Hat house, but the content of your offer is to request 50 percent of its value, is that right?"


Mr. Achtem's answer was correct, but he was to hindered an ambushed to answer like this; "Yes that is right, and I should not be paying anything because Virgil Sails has been living there paying rent to me. I pay child support too, so I see no reason to be paying anything more. What I have paid is covered by Virgil Sails paying rent and our daughter is cover through Child support. Therefore, I have been making contribution in the form of Virgil Sails paying rent to live in my house. Further more why should Virgil Sails not have to pay rent, Justice Horner?"