### June 02, 2015 Abel Acosta ClerkoftheTexas Court ofCriminalA.ppeals 201 West 14th Street· Austin, Texas 78701 Nema Bardin PO Box 772 Austin, Texas 78767 512-487-0197 email: bardin:nema@yahoo.com**OATE:__!~-±+~-**

### F~LE 

### \N W BY:**--1-1~---** 

## RECEJVED IN COURT OF CRIMINII.L APPEALS 

## JUN 02 

## 2015 

## AbelAcosta,

## Glen,
Re: Amended Emergency Writ ofHabeas Corpus WR-78, 165-02 ChadrickB. Pate**Applicant~** 

### Nema Bardin Petitioner Dear Mr. Acmsta, As you know, I hand delivered a OriginalWrit ofHabeas Corpus appealingfrom a Void Judgment in Cause No. A-08-5080-4cr from the Aransas County District Court36th Judicial DistrictArans;as County Texas JudgeJanna Whately presiding on May 19•b, 2015 You were kind enough to go over the paperworkwith me and after a discussion about it's contents you fltook the Writ for filing. During the discussion ofthe contents I asked you about the time frame fo:r decisions on OriginalWrits filed straight into the Court ofCriminalAppeals with the kinds of Sf!

### rious allegations that I as petitioner had leveled against the 36th District Court Aransas Coumty, Texas. You advised llllle that you were bound by no rules for a time for a decision. With that knowledge I came backto study the rules ofprocedures once again, and based upon that study and my limited**understandin~g** 

### as a layman, I am now filing the above mentioned Amended Original Emergency Writ by also bLand delivering it to the Court for filing. J.am .r.espJ>-.clfm.lly.rJ>.qJJ.e.qing that**J.h~** W.rit**h~** .d.tiliYuro 

### .to**ruJ~** nr**.nw.r~ .JJL\ijji'.j!.~** **..a.~** .AAD.D**..a.~ i.~**  

### possible, understanding that the Justices have the inherent powerto waive any procedural rules in orderto br:ing releifon and emergency basis. Rule 2 ofthe TRAP. I have taken nwte that no action as oftoday at 1 pm. Central Standard time has been taken on the Writfiled on 1\iay 19•b, 2015, in accordance with the Texas. Criminal Court ofAppeals website under case**m~mil.**

### IN THE COURT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02

EX PARTE CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJNO. 01563340**APPLICAI~T** 

### NEMABARDtiN

PETITIONE:R 

## v.**JUDGEJAN~NA** 

### K. WHATELY
AMENDED FROM mE DISTRICT COURT 36THJUDICIALDISTRICT ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR

EMERGENCYAPPLICATION FOR ORIGINALWRIT OFHABEAS CORPUS FILED JUNE 

### 02, 2015IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS WRIT NO. WR-78,165-02


### EX PARTE CHADRIC:K B PATE TDCJ#01563340 APPLICANT
NEMABAJRDIN PETITIONER 

# v. JUDGE**JAm~**A K. WHATELY TRIALJUDGE FROM THE THE DISTRICT COURT 36TH JUDICIALDISTRICT ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR

AMENDED EMERGENCCYAPPLICATION FOR ORIGINALWRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 

### V', SECTION 5 OFTHE TEXAS CONSTITUTIONAMENDMENTS 1, 5, 6 and 14 OFTHE UNfiTED STATES CONSTITUTION TEXAS COMMON LAWAND THE COURTS INHERENTAUTHORITY

TO**THEHOJ'~ORABLE** JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
NOW COMES, Petitioner Nema Bardin on behalfofApplicant Chadrick B. Pate and respectfully submits this .AMENDED Emergency Original Writ Of Habeas Co1Jmspetitioning for relieffrom a Void Judgmemt in Cause No. A-08-5080-4CR ChadrickB. Pate •Trial CourtJudge Janna K. Whately. The Initial Halbeas Corpus presented underArticle 11.07 No. WR-78,165-01 received no "adjudication on the merits " by the Trial Court or by the Court ofCriminalAppeals. The Judgment,, Sentence and Conviction pursuant to The Judgment rendered by the Trial Court 1.and executed byTrial Court Judge Janna K. Whatley in Cause No. A-08-5080-4CR CHAD RICK B. PATE from the 36th Judicial District CourtAransas County is: Void for Violation ofDue Process under the Texas Contstitution and the United States Constitution , and for Fraud onthe Court by the Court.
JURISDICTION The Court ofCriminalA_p_peals has Original Jurisdiction underArticle V, Section Five ofthe Texas Constitmtion, Article 1, 5, 6 and 14 ofthe United States Constitution, Texas Common Law and the Courts Inh.erent Authority. State v. Johnson, 821 S W 2d 609. 612 Tx. Crim.App. 1991 held a court ofcriminal a_p_peals may take action only ifthat action is authorized by constitutional provision, statute, or Con;1mon law, or the power rises from an inherent or implied power. Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103-113 held "To deprive a citizen ofhis only effective remedy would not only be contrary to the rudimemtary demands ofjustice but destructive ofa constitutional_guaranty s_pecifically designed to prevent injustice. Fay v. Noia 372 U.S. 391 Sup. Ct. 1963. TheWrit lies as a traditional civil remedy for the enforcement ofthe right to personal liberty, not as• a stage ofthe state criminalproceedings or as an a_p_peal therefrom.**E~parte** Gimmbonini 117 CAL 573, 49 P 732; VOIDjudgment is Never final and a judgment acquired throULgh violation of "due process oflaw" and Fraud is void and never becomes final. Dubai Petroleum Co. v. Kazi 12 S W 3d 71 76 (Tex. 2000,) A judgmentwill never be considered fintal ifthe court lacked subject matterjurisdiction. Itis well settled law that a legal action by a court withoutjurisdiction is a nullity.his Habeas Corpus is a collateral attack on a voidjudgment A collateral att:ack is any_proceeding to avoid the effect ofa judgmentwhich does not meet all the requirements .(ofa valid direct attack. There is neither a set procedure for a collateral attack nor a statute oflimi1tations. See Glunz, 908 S W 2d at 255: Davis v. Boone, 786 S. W.2d 85,87 (Tex.AppSanAntonio 1990, no wriO. 2

### PROCEDURAL HISTORY Applicant was charged in a two count indictment with Murder Texas Penal Code 19.02 (Count 1) Aggravated AssaultTexas Penal Code 22.02/ Engaging in Organized Criminal Activity (Count 11)

. On February 12, ajury found Applicant guilty ofMurder. On February13, 2009, thejury assessed the maximum pu:nishment, ninety nine (99) years or life confinement in the Texas Department ofJusticeInstitutional Division and a $10,000.00 fine. Applicant filed his notice ofappeal on February 25, 2009. Applicamt then appealed his conviction through court appointed attorney. That Court affirmed the Trial Court'sjudgment on October 7, 2010: Applicant Pro Se Petitioned for Discretionary Review
was refused om May 25,2011. The final mandate issued on June 21,2011. Applicant then filed Habeas Corpus 11.07 through a paid Habeas Attorney Carrie Crisp. Ms. Crisp proved to be imexperienced and refused to presentApplicant's number one Ground for ReliefVoid Judgment for Jack ofJurisdiction. WhenApplicant's Mother found out that Ms. Crisp did not include the Ground he: had his Mother with his Power ofAttorney to amend the Habeas and add the Ground fo·r Void Judgment as his number one (1) ground. There were no hearings or factual findings by th·e trial court and none bythis Court. See WR-78,165-01 in Court Record. Applicant's W1rit was denied without Written Order on 3/6/13. BecauseApplicant is not skilled in the law he did no•t know to Appeal the 3/6/13 decision and thought that his opportunity to file a Federal Habeas Corputs was nearing the deadline. He then filed a Pro Se Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U S C 2254 that court conducted NO evidentiary hearing and denied the Writ with prejudice and no COA Applicant discovered that because his trial courtjudgment was void he filed into the Trial Court Motion to Vaccate Judgment on 12/5/14. After providingthe trial court every opportunity to provide releif, by requesting on at least 3 occasions a decision, when the court had still not ruled or corresponded withApplicant he then withdrew that Motion on 5/18115. There are no other motions 3pending in**thi~s** matter at this time. Applicant is presently in custody of Texas Department ofCriminal Justice System Stiles Unit Beaumont Texas. EMERGENCYRELIEF A.\\\\W:an.tba.\lJ lw!u..**~all'J iw:.w:~awl** **u~** tW!.trial

### '!IW.rt' 'i.**~all'J** tilifaiiWiV'lidJJJJicl,IJlJ!nt since May 5tb, 2008. (more than 7 years) He has proclaimed his innocence from the time he was charged with 14he horrific crime ofmurdering his own best friend. He mourned the death ofhis frktrd itrcr**jttl~** «<Iffirikff'ctititrg ftrrtire Jaffi\.ae**sy~** tt1 lrritrgja:«i\.ae tt1 lrodr/rim crtrd Irk/rest friend. Howe·ver the Officerwho's task itwas to bringjustice toApplicant instead worked diligently to Convict him, they abused all ofApplicant's constitutional due process rights, and committed framd to obtain anillegal and void conviction. Applicant bas gone tbrougb pbyslcal and mental ai:Jmse while imprisoned, suffered racism at the hands ofthe staffand inmates in TDCJ lostthe connection with most ofhis family and all ofhis friends, his son who was 5 years old at the tim«e ofhis incarceration has suffered greatly from his Father's incarceration and needs the guiding and loving wisdom ofhis Fathertoday not later. Applicant is not guilty ofmurdering his friend, anud it is the State ofTexas and officers ofthe Courtwho illegally obtained an illegal Conviction an.d stole his liberty, His liberty is due today not later. It is an affront to the Applicant the Judicary and thevery society that expects that the Judical System will do Justice, thatApplican1t would have to spend one day longer incarcerated under such an intolerable abuse ofpower by tRite Trial Court and Officer's ofthat Court. The cost ofde:fense for his freedom has devastated his finances and that ofhis family. The mental andem..ntianal**s.uffer~**andthe**ln.~s.** nf**hi~ lihe~** **i~** irretp.rahl£.. Tlu!**\}rncedure~** re(\uiredin**an~** legal process to obtainApplicant's liberty is long, and tedious requiring months for the Courts to provide relief toApplicant because ofthe procedures that Courts employ
.. The Petitionerhas (ffl?f'i<kd;{M'JCifin tltt.rA(1{fflcati.m

# mr**E~·** OrigitrBl**H~ C~**  Rffleftkro«g/1 providing the Trial Courts on Records andAffidavits that support a finding ofa Void Judgment acquired through violation ofApplicant's due process rights, through fraud upon the court, and tbrougb tbe offficer"'s oltbe court tamperlngwltb tbe trlal court7government record.'Because there is no effiicient or quick remedy for the reliefthat Applicant deserves, Petitionerrespectfully requests that 1this Court use his inherent authority to waive rules and procedures and provide an immediate de•cision for relief, orin the alternative permit BAILunder a P R bond until the Court can reach a d«ecision on the Petitioner's OriginalApplication for Habeas Corpus relief. Where a voidjudgmenthas been rendered and the record in the cause, orjudgmentroll reflects the vice, then the ccourt has not 

### only the_power but the ducy and even after the expiration ofthe term to ;;et aside such judgment. Harrison v. Whiteny, Tex CrimApp 6 S W 2d 89. MANDATORY RELIEF Reliefunder voidjud_gment Statute is Mandatory, Carterv. Fenner 136 F 3d 1000, 1005 (5th Cir:) 1998. a voidjllldgment decree or order may be vacated at any time on motion ofa party or any person affected thereby. Johnson v, Zerbst 304 U.S,.458 Supreme Court 1938 showing when cour1 4violates Constitutional Rights they losejurisdictionto proceed to trial and the conviction is void.


### EVIDENTARYHEARING Petitioner- request evidentary hearing ifthe Courtcannot determine that reliefis required through the facts presented.
STATEMENT OFTHE CASE A grandjury im Aransas County Texas in the 36th Judicial District ofAransas County indicted Applicant Chatdrick B. Pate in a 2 count indictment under Penal Codes 19.02, 22.02 and 71.02 along with 4**c~o** defendants on June 24, 2008 

### See Ex # 2 

### Indictment. Applicant was the last to be arrested oftthe other co defendants. Applicant was arrested on May 5, 2008 when the Aransas County Sheriff'(Mark Gilliam) illegally had his pre trial supervision (on a separate case ) revoked and had the bondsmanwithdraw his bond. Applicant had violated any pre trial supervision requirement. Thus when the: indictment was presented to him he was already in custody ofthe Aransas County Jail, who cont1rolled all ofhis movements to and from the pre trial court and the trial court .and where he remained mntil he was released into the custody ofthe Texas Department of Criminal Justice in 2009. There isNO Record ofthe Sheriffor Jail Personnel statement ofApplicant's Good Conduct submitted to the Texas Department ofCriminal Justice. Applicant plead NOT GUILTY to all charges. Because the State brought the charges against Applicantjointly in a single indictment ,Applicant had his Defense Attorney John Gilmore file a "Motion for Severance ofDefendant and Offenses" on July 31st 2008. 

### See lEx# 1. At some point 3 ofthe co defendant's took plea deals to testify against Applicant and the only other co defendant (Hall) who plead Not Guilty as well. Applicant's At1tomey John Gilmore came to thejail only twice to visit client althoughApplicant asked numeroms times to see him. BothApplicant and Petitioner asked Mr. Gilmore numerous times about thte Severance, he told bothApplicant and Petitioner only a few days before ajoint 

### 5trial with the other co defendant(Hall) that his Motion for Severance had been denied. (This was not true) However Applicant did not know about this lie, until after the trial was over, after his

### Appeal in the 13th Cour1t ofAppeals had been denied and not until he was proceeding with a State Habeas Corpus pursuamt to Article 11.07. The trial Court and it's officers' held Ex_parte_pre trial hearings inbothA_p_plicant's cause no. A-08 -5080-4CR antd co defendant' Hall's cause no.(s) A-08-5080-2Cr and S-08-5080-2. The trial court and it's officers tampered with the official government documents inApplicants Criminal Trial Court_proceedings in cause no. A-08-5080-4CR and in co defendant Halls Criminal Proceedings tllhat directly affected Applicant's Criminal Proceedings. The trial court and officers ofthe court committed fraud onthe court when they concealed ex parte _proceedings from theA_p_plicant, Jury, Courts ofA_p_peals, Public and the Trial Court itself. AlthoughAppllicant timely and properly filed his Motion for Severance ofDefendant and Offenses at

a pre trial on 

### 7 7/31/08, he never received a formal hearing onhis Motion where the pre trial court ruled onthe rmotion 

### by_granting or denying the motion where a written record with factual findings
were entered onto the record ofthe court and where the proceedings were recorded and made a part of the trial court :record. The trial court and it's officers entered into a scheme to convict**A.~plicant** ofa crime that he did not commit through the manipulation ofthejudiciaryby tampering with government records concealing
ex parte hearin_gs, government documents and through the violations ofApplicant's due process rights. This scheme started first before the_pre trial and trial whenAransas County SheriffMark Gilliam had Applicant's bomd revoked on a separate prior offense for which applicant was on pre trial probation and arrested him f«or a violation ofhis pre trial probation although he had not violated that probation. A_p_plicant was arrested atgun_point at his Mother's home and taken into custody 

### by numerous agents that included tthe Austin police departmentATF and other unknown officer. 6The officer's to1ld Applicant and his Mother that he was being arrested for violation ofprobation due to
a murder that lhe was accused ofbeing involved. Then next whten the State and Grand Jury indicted applicantjointly with the other co defendants and charged him**~vith** the Crime. Then whenApplicant was held in the Aransas Countyjail awaiting trial the Jail employees and detectives/ investi_gators in the case would not allow him to take his le_gal paperwork wi1th him when he was transferred from the Aransas County Jail to anotherjail in Crystal CifJJ. They refused him the right to take his defense records and discovery with him and then they did not keep his records safe when transporting him from onejailto another but rather they took his discovery records and defense notes to the trash where it is believed by the Petitioner and the Applicant that the jailers and the investigators employed the scheme to take his records from a dumpster where they had been deposited by thejailers and they investigators planned to use the information against him or at least to their a.dvantage to help in the conviction ofthe Applicant.

The scheme c:ontinued at the pre trial, the trial and even after the trial during the certification ofthe Judgment Rec:ord into the various Courts ofAppeals. The scheme at pre trial and trial revolved around At?t?licant's Qf'OQerly and timely filed Motion for Severance ofDefendant's and Offenses filed on 7/31/08 whichL was 38 days after the date ofthe Indictment. That same day at an Ex parte (unrecorded by Court Reporter)Announcement proceeding one ofthe Judges granted a Motion for Continuance, ·but did not hear or consider the Motion for Severance. The pre trialjudge evidently continued the Motion for Severance to 9/25/08 a full 55 days later, 55 days that the Applicant would have used to pllan his defense accordingly had the Motion for Severance had a ruling at the time it was filed and presented to the pre trial court. Janna K. Whately the trialjudge had ruled in an Ex parte hearing on thLe Discovery ofall ofotherApplicant's Discovery Motions that had been filed on 5/27.2008 on 7/24/08 which was less than one month after the Motions had been filed. 7Applicant did not appear at the Discovery Proceedings nor did he know about the proceeding. The trial court record will reflect that at a 9/25/08 hearing the Motion for Severance was scheduled for
a hearing, howeverthe Pre trial Judge (Wellborn) continued the Motion to a later date. The later date that he set the Motion to continue is questionable because the Applicant's Criminal Docket Sheet shows that a Announcement date was set for 10/03/08, however there is no Recorded Proceedin,g in the trial court Rec:ord for 10/03/08. There is a fraudulent entry 10/30/08 onto the Applicant's Criminal Docket Sheet 1that shows a Ex parte un recorded proceeding where someone entered DX Motion for Continuance 1there is no entry as to the Severance issue. 8lerk did not •enter the Order to Continue the Severance onto the Record. The Record will reveal that at this 9/25/08 

### pre trial hearing the pre trial Judge set Applicant's Trial date to 11/03/08 which was 3S days away fro1m the 9/25/08 hearing. The trial court record reveals that there was No hearing ever held onApplicant's Motion for Severance Either prior to the trial date of 11/03/08 or after the trial date of 11103/08. The trial court record reveals that 1\P..Plicants; Trial was not held on 11/03/08. The trial court record will reveal no recorded proceedings or written orders ormotions that would have continuedApplicant's trial to a later date than that Court Ordered trial date of 11/03/08. The trial court record will reveal that startin,g on 10/30/08 (3 days before the trial date was scheduled) the Record of Applicant's pre trial and trial were tampered with when fraudulent entries ofMotions, Orders, Reset trial dates and Announcements were entered onto Applicant's Criminal Docket Sheet and onto the Clerk's Record. The trial court record will reveal that even_prior to 10/30/08 the District Clerk failed to enter legitimate Oral and Written Motions and Orders onto theApplicant's Criminal Docket Sheet and the 1 Clerk's Record. The trial courtrecord reveals that co defendant Hall's trial date was also set for 11/03/08 however it also reveals thtat Hall's trial date was continued to 1/5/09 at a pre trial hearing on 10/23/08 and 8continued agaiin to 2/09/09 at a pre trial hearing on 12/22/08. See Ex# 8 110/23/08 Court Reporters Record Volume 4 of 11 page 5 line 16-25 amd page 6line 1-3. Judge Johnson continued Hall's trial date to 115/09 and he reminded Applicant's DefenseAttorney Gilmore, The State, co defendant Hall, co defendant's attorney Stan TUI])in. and the Clerk ofthe Court, that he would be back in November to hearAJJ_plicant's case. Applicant did not appear at this proceeding that took place on 10/23/08 and he did not appear at any pre trial proce•edings other than his Motion to Dismiss during the entire tine from 6/24/08 to 2/9/09. He did not kno·w about any_pre trial hearings, as his attorney told him nothing about them. The Court violated it's own Court Order when the Court failed to hold Applicant's Court Ordered Trial
on 11/03/08
. He did not kno·w that Judge Joel Johnson had Severed his trial. Itwas after the_pre trial hearing on 10/23/08 wh•en Officers ofthe Court accelerated their scheme to keep Applicantjoined for trial by illegally REJOINING him to the trial ofhis co defendant Hall by tampering with government records,

filing fraudullent _proceedings, motions, orders and Reset Trial Dates. Applicant was; tried in a illegaljoint trial withthe co defendant , found guilty and sentenced to 9•9 years or life and a $10.000.00 fine. The Trial Court Judge certified into the Court ofA_p__peals Co·gms Christi, Texas a Fraudulent Judgment Record, that included fraudulent documents, and excluded the fraudulent proceedings that they used to rejoinApplicant's Trial with the co defendant. That same Judgment Record followed Applicant to the 13th Court ofAppeals Cot:tms Christiim where he filed his Appeal_. then this Court when he filed his 11.07 Habeas Cmpusl' and again when he filed his Federal Habeas Corpus into the Southern District Houston, Texas
.. Throughout**tht~** Memorandum that follows you will see through the review ofthe Trial Court Record itselfjust standling alone thatA_p_plicant did not know that Judge Johnson had severed his trial from the
co defendant. You will see the use of fraud, tampering withthe government records ofthe trial and 

### 9the violation 01fApplicant's his due process right to a fair and impartial trial, opportunity to be heard, and notice andl how they were used to deceive him to convince him that his Timely filed "Motion for Severance oflDefendant and Offenses" filed 7/31/08 

### See Ex# 1 had been Denied. The Trial Court Record reveal:s the Fraud, the tampering with the record and the numerous violations ofdue process used to ille_galJ[y ConvictA_p_plicant and to enter a Void Jud_gment a_gainst him. Itwas not just one Jfficer ofthe Court that participated in the fraud but all ofthem. The Trial Court and it's Officer's ofthe Court committed fraud and violated Applicant's right to Due Process under the U.S. Constitution Amendments 1,5, 6, and 14 and Article 1 and 10 ofThe Texas Constitution. 

### See: Ballardv. Hunter204 , U.S. 241, 255 (1907). Palmerv. McMahon, 133 U.S. 660,668 0890) and ICC v. Louisville and Nashville R 227 U.S. 88,93-94 0913). and The Administratiwe ProcedureAct, 5 USC 556(d). and 

### ExparteYoung 418 S. W. 2d 214.223. The trial court and it's officers committed fraud on the court when they set into motion a scheme calculated to interfere with the iudicial system's ability impartially to adiudicate the matter of Applicant's pn;:>perly filed Motion for Severance first and in doing so to influence the trier offact and unfairly hamp•ered the presentation ofApplicant's Defense Motion and his NOT GUILTY claim. Fraud on the c•ourt occurs where it can be demonstrated, clearly and convincingly that a party has

sentiently set iinto motion a scheme calculated to interfere with thejudicial system's ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier offact orunfairly hampering the presentation 

### ofthe opposing party's claim or defense. 

### AOUDE v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d. 1115,1118 (r•t 

### Cir. 1989). It is fraud that denies a losing litigant the opportunity to fully litigate at trial his rights or defenses that could have been asserted. 

### Alexander, 266 S W 2d@ 1001: King Ranch, Inc. v·. Chapman, 118 SW 3d 742,752 (fex. 2003). Each ofthese conditions occurred at the illegal proceedings inApplicant's Cause No. A-08-5080-4CR. 10APPLICANT'S CLAIMS/ GROUNDS FOR RELEIF Claim# 1. The State and iit's officers committed fraud, the crime oftampering with a government record and violatedApplk:ant's Due Process Rights when first they hadApplicant arrested onfraudulent charges, brought the chtarges before the Grand Jury againstApplicant and then when illegallyjoining Applicant to Defendants and Offenses in a 2 count indictment with Count (1) TPC 19.02 Murder and

(Count 2) TP'C Sec. 22.02 Assault/TPC71.02 Engaging in Organized Criminal Activity. Then when they participak::d in a Scheme to convictApplicant ofa Crime that they knew he did not commit., again when they participated in a scheme withjailers to divestApplicant ofhis Discovery Evidence Record, privileged**de~fense** and attorney notes, and again at pre trial when they schemed to maintain a.ioint trial with co d1efendants, then again at a trial where they had nojurisdictionto bring the Applicant before a Jury,mr Bench trial and then enter an illegal voidjudgment against him
.. Claim# 2. The Trial CoUlrt committed Fraud and Fraud upon the Court 

### by the Court, when The Court and it's Officers
. l.Entered into a scheme ofdeliberate misuse ofthejudicial process designed to defeat Applicant's Cbaim ofInnocence by: Disobedience to the Orders ofthe Judiciary, relentless repeated fraudulent act:s ofthe filing offraudulent proceedings, documents, Orders, Motions, and Notices Through Lies., Omissions. Commissions and Concealment. (tampering with government records.) (and)**2..T.aropt'~r.i_og ~rjtb** **ib.e-~.d.miu.t.~.r.ati.n.u .ofJ.u.~_i.c.r:** 

### ib..r.DJ.Jg..b 

### .acis .des..igu.e.d f.o 

### .deg.r.arle

### ib.eJJ.ulic
.. 

### i.BJ 

### sys.t.e.m and lying to fhe Court and to The Tier OfFact. 3. Certifying a Fraudulent Record into the 13th Court ofAppeals, Criminal Court ofAppeals Austin Texas, and the U.S District Court Southern District, Houston Texas Claim#3. The Trial Cmurt violated Applicant's Due Process Rights to a Fair and Impartial Trial, Opportunity ·to Be Heard and Notice when the Trial Court: 111. Disobeyed a Court Order and Failed to holdApplicant's Scheduled Court Ordered Jury Trial Date on 11-J-08. 2. Failed t:o Prosecute 3. Proceeded to a Joint Jury Trial after losing Jurisdiction to Proceed. 4. Violatimg Pre trial and Severance Statutory Procedures Title 1 Chapter 28 Article 28.01Section**1(~)** Se:ction 2, CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE TITLE 1. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CHAPTER 36. THE TRIAL BEFORE THE JURY,Art. 36.09. andArt. 36.10 SEVERANCE ON SEPARATE INDICTMENTS. Texas rules ofCivil Procedure Rule 41**JMJ.S\.TDJJ\TDEJ~/SE.VER4J\TCE.** 5. TRCP 41 , Criminal Justice Standards Part 11 Standard 13.2.1 and Sec. 310 

### 6. Violatimg Rules ofEvidence 614(3) 

### '{:ru\ucm:g 'Utrv\. 'CtJ&:'lWte'l

### C::,·clttc&e D.**'Crf"cep.'S\'2:,~5\.%\ '25dm~ctun** **~-**

Violating Govt. Code Sec. 51.303 (a)(b) 

### (1) and SubsectionD.(c) 7. Violating TCCPTitle 1. Chap. 2 Article 2.01 

### 8". TCCPTitre I Cftapter I Artfcfe T.05 9. Violathng TRAP Rule 34.5 (a), (a)2 Violatung Tx. R. Civ.301 TCCP Title 1. Chapter 28 Section1(5) and Section 2. 10. Tampe.red with the pre trial Court and trial court record Texas Penal Code 37.10

Claim 4. IneffectiveAssistance ofCounsel Applicant receiived IneffectiveAssistance ofCounsel under the 61 h Amendment and Counsel in fact stood as a.n Adversary while as an Officer ofthe Court he Committed Fraud onthe Court. and ViolatedApplicant's right to appear, opportunity to be heard and notice. John GilmoreApplicant's Defense Attorney committed fraud onthe court and violated A_p_plicant's Due Process when he lied to his client, to a_potential

### jury_pool, failed to re_present and defend applicant, participated in a scheme with other officer's ofthe court to rejoin applicant's triatl to that ofthe co defendant, failed to notify applicant about pre trial hearings, a_p_peared at he:arings without a_p_plicant's knowledge , misrepresented a_p_plicant at_pre trial hearings and at trial, concealed Orders ofthe court from applicant failed to secure a hearing and decision <:Jn applicant's Motion for Severance and abandoned applicant's defense and coo_perated wi·th State's attorney to convict and ifhe in fact filed a Motion for Continuance after 1210/23/08 or before the Applicant's scheduled trial date of 11/03/08 or any time after that, he did violate TCCPArticle ll.052 (a) and (d) by sigining a Motion for a continuance that was based on a lie, that he and the officer''s ofthe court perpetrated.
. He was ineffective for abandoning the "Running Exceptions" into a formal Motion in the trial court. And for tampering with government documents
a felony under Texas Statute 37.10 as it was used to defraud the court.



### M:E.MORANDUM IN SUPPORT OFAPPLICANT'S HABEAS CORPUS
FACTS IJN 

### THE TRIAL COURT RECORD THAT SUPPORTAPPLICANT'S CLAIM'S FACT 1. 

### INDICTMENT ·Ex#2 On 6/24/08 an Indictment was filed andApplicant wasjoinedto 4 co-defendants and Offenses, Count (1) Murdeir under Texas Penal Code Section 19.02 First Degree Felony Count (2) AggravatedAssault under Texas Penal Code 22.02 and Organized Criminal Activity unde:r Texas Penal Code 71.02 First Degree Felony. Applicant and one other co defendant were tried in ajointtrial beginning on 2/9/09. The other 3 co defendant's go•t plea deals and testified againstApplicant. 

### APPLICANT'S CLAIM UNDER 1 and 3 The State and :it's officers committed fraud onthe court and violatedApplicant's Due Process Rights to

a fair and impiartial trial with opportunity to be heard and notice, when they illegallyjoinedApplicant to Defendants and Offenses. In order that Applicant could be charged as a party to the crime that he
was indicted for he must have been charged and convicted in another similar crime with the same co defendant ( s). The prosecution knew that he had not been charged or convicted ofany other crime that
was similar to· the crime charged in the indictment or commuted with the defendant (s). State has ccess 

### l3to all criminal files ofapplicant and all defendants. The State brought count 2 against Applicant to convince and confuse both the Grand Jury and the Trial 2ourt Jury thmt Applicant was a party to both counts charged in the Indictment and that he was a gang member when in fact they had no evidence ofgang related offenses or membership to support the char_ge. Witho1ut evidence the char_ge could not be brou_ght. However there was ample evidence that all other co defentdants were members ofa gang. The trial court record points to no evidence that Applicant was a "gang member" with the exception ofa so called gang expert that worked for the D.A Office. The Rules for Joinder ofDefendant's and Offenses are Statutory and it is a violation ofdue process when a courtdoes not follow statutory procedures he losesjurisdiction and is barred from proceeding SEE; TRCP RULE 41. MISJOINDER OR NON-JOINDER OFPARTIES Misjoinder of]parties is not ground for dismissal ofan action. Parties may be dropped or added, or suits filed sepatrately may be consolidated, or actions which have been improperlyjoined may be severed and ea1ch ground ofrecovery improperlyjoined may be docketed as a separate suit between the same parties, by order ofthe court on motion ofany party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action, bef«:>re the time ofsubmission to thejury orto the court iftrial is without ajury, on such terms as arejwst. Any claim against a party may be severed and proceeded with separately. See also: Crin:tinal Justice Standards Part II Standard 13-2.1 and Sec. 310 Joinder of

their participa1tion in similar offense on different dates with a common third defendant the same transaction or series oftransactions test ofrule 8(b) is not satisfied. Applicant timely filed his Motion for Severance ofDefendant's and Offenses on 7/31/08. See Ex #1

The trial Corurt did not hold a hearing and did not provide written factual findings offacts for denying
or granting his Motion for Severance ofDefendant's and Offenses. Applicant was denied Access to the 

### 14Court and had no opportunity to be heard or notice. Because the trial court violated US Constitutional Due Process Rights, Statutory Procedures and Tampered wit1h Trial Court/Governmental Records) The trial court lostjurisdiction to proceed to trial. Johnson v. Zerbst 304 U.S 458 Sup.Ct.1938/: Fay v. Noia 372 U.S. 391 63 S. Ct. 822 9 Led 2d, Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp. 892 F. 2d 1115, 1118(1st Circuit**198~).** Alexander, 266 S.W. 2D@ L001:King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742,752 (Tex. 2003) FACT2. INDICTMENT EX#2 The indictment charges Murder under Texas Penal Code 19.02 Felony Murder The Indictment does not charge Murder under Texas Penal Code 19.02 and Texas Penal Code 7.01, 7.02, or 

### 7 7.03. (which describes "the law ofparties"). The Jury foundApplicant guilty under Count (1) ofthe indictment Murder under Texas Penal Code

19.02 which s:tates: 

### § 19.02 Mlffi:.DER. (a) Inthis section: 1)"Adequate cause" means cause that would commonly produce a degree ofanger, rage, resentment, or terror in a person ofordinary temper, sufficient to render the mind incapable ofcool reflection. (2)"Sudden pa:ssion" means passion directly caused by and arising out ofprovocation by the individual killed or another acting with the person killed which passion arises at the time ofthe offense and is not**s.olel~** the-tesn]t

### offomre.r.1ftavocat.inu.. (b)Aperson commits an offense ifhe: (1) intentionall.y or knowingly causes the death ofan individual; (2) 

### itttetrds M CStY:re**~ ~,** itrj«ry'and

### amtmit.r Bit

### setdear/j'**~** M/nimat1 life that causes the death ofan individual; or (3) commits or attempts to commita felony, other than m:anslaughter, and inthe course ofand in furtherance ofthe commission or attempt, or in immediate**flig~ht** from the commission or attempt, he commits or attempts to commit an ac1 clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death ofan individual. (c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a felony ofthe first degree
.. d)At the punishment stage ofa trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether he caused the death underthe imm1edia:te influence ofsudden passion arising from an adequate cause.

### Ifthe defendant proves the issu.e in the affirmative 

### by a_pre_ponderance ofthe evidence, the offense is a felony ofthe second degree
.. 15APPLICANT'S Claim UNDER 1,2 and 3 The State and the trial committed fraud and fraud upon the courtwhen afterthe Jury found Applicant Guilty ofCount (1) under Penal Code 19.02 MURDER the trial court did not order an acquittal for the State's failure to prove the elements ofMurder under Penal Code 19.02 Officer's ofthe: Court continually introduced fraudulent evidence onthe "law of_parties" although The indictment does not allege that Applicant committed the murder under Texas Penal Code 7.01,

7.02, or 7.03 im connection with the charge ofmurder under Texas Penal Code 19.02. See Ex# 2 Indictment In ·Cause No. A-08-5080-4CR. The Trial Court and it's officers prepared a fraudulent Charge ofthe Court Document and read aloud "The Charge ofthe Court" then sent the physical paperwork into the Jury Room with the Jurors where they used this charge to help ascertain the facts to convictApplicant ofMurder. The 2harge ofthe Court looks little like what Texas Penal Code 19.02 requires to reach a Guilty verdict. See Ex# 3 Charge ofthe Court in Cause No. A-08-5080-4CR. The trial court and it's officers used this fraudulent " Charge ofthe Court" as part ofa scheme to confuse thejurors and to convictApplicant. The charge ofthe court presented in open court and in document provides : you are instructed that the

law applicable to this case is as follows:
COUNT ONE 

### l. Our lawprovides that a person commits murder ifhe intentionally or knowingly causes the death ofan individual. (it is true that this statement comports with 19.02 2 (b) 

### 1. 

### 2. Aperson acts lmowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result ofhis conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result. (Nowhere under statute 19.02 is this statement found) 16A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge with respect to a result ofhis conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result. (Nowhere under statue 

### 19.02 is this statement found. A "deacdly weapon means a firearm. (Nowhere under statute 

### 19.02 is this statement found. Individual meams a human being. (Nowhere under Statute 

### 19.02 is this statement found. 

### (There is absolutetv nothin,g in number3. that comports with Penal Code 19.02 Murder:) Our laws proviide that a person is criminally responsible as a party to an offense ifthe offense committed by his own conduct , by the conduct ofanother for which he is criminally responsible orby both. A person is cri:minally responsible for an offense committed by the conduct ofanother if, acting with intent to promLote or assist the commission ofthe offense,he solicits encourages, directs aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense. Mere presence alone will not constitute one a party to a crirr1e. 

### FACT3. CAPIAS AND WAIVER OFARRAINGMENT
On 6/25/08 a aCapias was issued underApplicant Chadrick B. 

### Pate's Cause No. A-08-5080-4 CR See Ex# 3 Applicant's CriminalDocket Sheet.

The trial court violated Applicant's Due Process when they issued a capias and confined him under a

fraudulent indictment. The Grand Jw::y would have had to find**~probable** cause tojoinA.P..Plicant in the indictment and because the requirememts tojointhe offenses and defendants are statutory they would have had to determine thatApplicant based on Officer Kirk and Brooks testimony thatApplicant met the criteria under Criminal Justi,ce Standards Part 11 Standard 13-2.1 and Sec. 310 8(b) and they could not. A_p_plicant 17does not have access to the courts files arrest records ofall the co defendant's and his own and therefore canUtot include in the exhibits, butthe trial court has copies. When the courtviolates due process it losesjurisdiction and cannot proceed. Fay v. Noia 372 U.S. 391

63 S. Ct. 822 1 9 Led 2d.
FACT4. WAIVER OFARRAIGNMENT On 6/27/08 Wativer ofarraignment was entered onto Applicant's Criminal Docket Sheet See Ex# 4 A.P..Plicant's Criiminal Docket Sheet. NO CLAIM
Fact 5. PRE TRIAL DATE ANDANNOUNCMENT DATE COURT REPORTER'S RECORD (NONE) On 7/10/08 en1tered ontoApplicant's Criminal Docket Sheet is Ex# 4

Case Set Pre t1rial 7/24/08 Ann. 7/31/08 JT 8/4/08
APPLICANT'S Claim UNDER 3 and 4
IneffectiveAssistance ofCounsel and Violation ofDue Process and Statutory Procedures and Rules Applicant did mot appear at these proceedings and his DefenseAttorney did not notify him or give him notice. Ex parte hearings were held violating due process oflaw. Applicant's due process was violated when he was not allowed to appear, and be heard and notice. There is no re1corded record ofthis proceeding. A court losesjurisdiction when it violates due process and losesjurisdiction. TCCPTitle 1 Chapter 1 General ProvisionsArticle 1.05 Rights of Accused. He shall have the right ofbeing heard by himselfor counsel orboth. Fay v. Noia 372 U.S. 

### J.8391 63 S. Ct. :822 9 Led 2d. Fact3 7/24/08 DISCOVERY RULED ON In Ex parte Hearing COURT REPORTS RECORD (NONE) On 7/24/08 Entered onto Applicant's Criminal Docket Sheet is Discovery Ruled On

APPLICANT'S CLAIM UNDER 2,3, AND 4 Fraud, Ineffective Counsel, and Violation ofDue Process Applicant did not appear at any Hearing on Discovery. The Court violated Applicant's due process right to im_partial fair trial, o_p_portunity to be heard and notice and violation ofstatutory rule
. There is :no recorded record ofthis proceeding. However there are Discovery Orders that Judge 

### Im:ma..Wbat.el y 

## s.i.Pc:Jlt!d. Applicant's**dm~** process was violated, and this proceeding was concealed from him. TCCPTitle 1 Chapter 1 General Provisions Article 1.05 Rights ofAccused. He shall have the right ofbeing heard by hims;elfor counsel orboth.See TCCPTitle 1. Chapter28 Section 

## 0 )5 and Section 2 also
see Fayv. N4oia 372 U.S. 391 63 S. Ct. 822 9 Led 2d ,Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp. 892 F. 2d 1115, L118(r• Circutit 1989). Alexander, 266 S.W. 2D@ 1001:King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742,752 (Tex. 2003). 

### Y:ui4 7/31108 Motion for Continuance Granted I Reset Dates Ex parte Hearing COURT REPORTER'S RECORD (NONE)
On 7/31/08 en1tered onto Applicant's Criminal Docket sheet is Ex#4 Cont. Granted Ann. 9/25/08 J.T. 9/29/08. 19APPLICANT'S CLAIM UNDER 2,3,AND 4 Fraudl Violation ofDue Process and Statutory Procedures and Ineffective Counsel There is no rec:orded record ofthis proceeding. Applicant did not appear at any proceeding on 7/31/08 he did not 

### know that a motion for continuance had been granted orthat anAnnouncement date of

9/25/08 had been set orthat a Jury Trial date of 9/29/08 had been set. The trial court violated Applicant's dute process rights to an impartial fair trial, opportunity to be heard and notice. And violationofstatutory procedure. TCCPTitle 1 Chapter 1 General ProvisionsArticle 1.05 Rights of Accused. He shall have the right ofbeing heard by himselfor counsel or both. TCCPTitle 1 Chapter28 Section (1)5 and Sec. 2. See: Fay v. Noia 372 U.S. 391 63 S. Ct. 822 9 Led 2d , Aomde v. Mobil Oil Corp. 892 F. 2d 1115, 1118(1st Circuit 1989). Alexander, 266 S.W. 2D @ 1001:King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742,752 (Tex. 2003).
Fact 5. 7/31108 Applicant's Motion for Severance ofDefendant's and Offenses It is not Recorded onApplicant's Criminal Docket Sheet EX# 4 Violation ,ofClerk's Duties Rule 25 and 26 and Tamperingwith Trial Court/Governement Document**Al}~&ant.** filed)_

### a_**ti.n:lel~** 

### Mntinn.fut 

### Seveta.n.ee nfDefu.nillm.t.'i and.

### Offeo.cre.'i nn.711110& See Ex# 1 Motion for Severance.
APPLICANT'S CLAIM UNDER 2,3 AND 4 Ineffective Assistance Violations ofDue Process Fraud on the Court District Clerk repeatedly failed to record Motions onto applicant's criminal docket sheet, Counsel did not**o~iect** and Court did not correct. When a court violates due_process it loses jurisdiction and cannot proceed , Fay v. Noia 372 U.S. 391 63 S. Ct. 822 9 Led 2d , Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp. 892 F. 2d 1115, 1118(rt Circuit 1989).Alexander, 266 S.W. 2D@ 1001:KingRanch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 20

### S.W.3d 742,75i2 (Tex. 2003). Fact 6. 9/25/08 2ourt Reporter's Record Volume 2 of9 Announcement Chadrick B.

### Pate A-08-5080-4CR See Ex# 5 Exparte Hearing States Motion for Continuance Applicant's Request for a Decision on his Motion for Severance ofDefendants and Offenses. JudgeWellborn s Reason for Continuing the matter ofthe Motion for Severance to the next Pre Trial Hearing. District ClerkDuties and Reset Dates
On 9/25/08 entered onto Applicant's Criminal Docket sheet is Ex # 4 

### States Motion 1to Continue Granted Reset 1113/08 Jrury 

### Trial 10/03/08Announcement 10/23/08 Pre Trial. APPLICANT'S CLAIM UNDER 2,3 AND 4 Ineffec1tive Counsel. Violation ofDue Process and Statutory Procedures Fraud on the Court by the Court, Tampering with Trial Court/GovernmentDocument

Gilmore and State'sAttorney M. Rodriguez. Applicant did Jnot know about this hearing and did not appear. TCCPTitle 1 Chapter 1 General ProvisionsAnrticle 1.05 Rights ofAccused. He shall have the right ofbeingheard by himselfor counsel or both. See: Mentorv. Caswell (1997) 123 OhioApp. 3d. 256 Defendant was absent for unexplained neasons at time ofsuppression hearing, which proceeded with participation ofcounsel and
co -defendant.. The defendant had a right to be present and denial ofContinuance was abuse of discretion. In Applicant's case he had a right to the Severance and denial ofsame was an abuse of discretion. He had a right to challenge thejudges reasons for not ruling on his Motion for Severance then. He had a right to challenge the State's Motion for Continuance. TCCPTitle 1 Chapter 1 General ProvisionsAnrticle 1.05 Rights ofAccused. He shall have the right ofbeing heard by himselfor 21

### S.W.3d 742,75i2 (Tex. 2003). Fact 6. 9/25/08 2ourt Reporter's Record Volume 2 of9 Announcement Chadrick B.Pate A-08-5080-4CR 

### See Ex# 5 Exparte Hearing States Motion for Continuance Applicant's Request for a Decision on his Motion for Severance ofDefendants and Offenses. JudgeWellborn s Reason for Continuing the matter ofthe Motion for Severance to the next Pre Trial Hearing. District ClerkDuties and Reset Dates
On 9/25/08 entered onto Applicant's Criminal Docket sheet is 

### Ex # 4 States Motion 1to Continue Granted Reset 1113/08 

### JTury Trial 10/03/08 Announcement 10/23/08 Pre Trial. 

### APPLICANT'S CLAIM UNDER 2,3 AND 4 Ineffec1tive Counsel. Violation ofDue Process and Statutory Procedures Fraud on the Court by 

### the Court,Tampering with Trial Court/GovernmentDocument

Gilmore and State'sAttorney M. Rodriguez. Applicant did mot know about this hearing and did not appear. 

### TCCPTitle 1 Chapter 1 General Provisions Am·ticle 1.05 Rights ofAccused. He shall have the right ofbeingheard by himselfor counsel or both. 

### See: Mentorv. Caswell (1997) 123 OhioApp. 3d. 256 Defendant was absent for unexplained neasons at time ofsuppression hearing, which proceeded with participation ofcounsel and
co -defendant.. The defendant had a right to be present and denial ofContinuance was abuse of discretion. InApplicant's case he had a right to the Severance and denial ofsame was an abuse of discretion. He had a right to challenge thejudges reasons for not ruling onhis Motion for Severance then. He had a right to challenge the State's Motion for Continuance. 

### TCCPTitle 1 Chapter 1 General Provisions Am·ticle 1.05 Rights ofAccused. He shall have the right ofbeing heard by himselfor 21counsel or both. Atthis hearing The State filed a Motion for Continuance and Judge Wellborn Granted the MotionAtltorney John Gilmore Applicant's DefenseAttorney requested a Decision onApplicant's Motion for Steverance ofDefendant's and Offenses that had been filed timely on 7/31/08. See Ex #5 

### O!urt**~rt·&~**R2.:1ud

### vlll2. Q.(9**~e~** ll.i.ne 9-2.5. awl**~e** 4**l.i.ne~ l-~**  Judge Wellbona continued the Matter ofthe Severance stating that the reason was that he was waiting to find out ifhce was going to need to appoint the Co defendant Christopher Hall a new attorney. 

### See Ex#S 

### page 3 lines 13-18. Judge Wellborn gave no valid reason to continue the matter ofthe Severance. 

### AlibnngbJJ.Idg-e W cllhru:o _had 

### cfl.IJ1i.ru.Jed ibeMatter

### .ofthe 

### .Sever.ance ibeDistrict ('Jerk did

### .nnt. enter the Order to Continue the matter ofthe Severance onto the applicant's criminal docket sheet or the trial court record (tampering with a trial court document) but Judge Wellborn DID sign and date and Order Granting a Severance that same day. Ex# 

### 6 Order Granting Severance. Judge Wellbonn made no effort that day or any day to reverse the Order Granting the Severance .(Tampering with a trial court record. government document. When ajudge does not follow statutory procedures he 'Violates the defendant's ri_ght to due_process and losesjurisdictionto_proceed. Fay v. 

### Noia 372 U S 391 63 S. Ct. 822. 9 Led 2d. The District CLerk did not first enter the Oral Order ofJudge Wellborn to continue the Matter ofthe Severance ontoA_P..plicant's Criminal Docket Sheet, orthe trial court record nor did the Clerk enter the

did the clerk nnake any notation onthe record ofthis order, instead the District Clerk kept the Order in Applicant's fiLe, and later filed the Order into the Applicant's Judgment Record (tampered with the trial court .gowemment record and certified it as an Overruled Motion onthe Severance and then certified it into The 13 1 h Court ofAppeals Corpus Christi, Texas then later told Applicant's Habeas Investigator Stacey Deville 

### See Ex # 

### 7 Deville's Affidavit, that the Granted Order wasjust a piece 22of paper in theApplicant's file. The District Clerk committed fraud 

### upon the court forpurposeful failing to complete the duties ofthe office and connmitted the crime oftampering with the trial court/government record
.. The District Clerk with othter officer's ofthe court by this failure illegally disposed of first Judge Wellborn's Oral Order, that ordered the Motion for Severance to be continued to another date, ille_gally dis_posin_g ofthe 3-ranted Orde1r onthe Motion for Severance by retaining it in the file. Then later by illegally disposing ofJudge Joel Johnson's Oral Order severing Co defendant's trial from Applicant's trial date, See Exli 8 Court Re_pcorter's Record Volume 4 of 11_page 5 lines 14-25 and_page 6 lines 1-3.(0ral Order) The failure to enter the proper proceedings onto the applicant's criminal docket sheet and orthe trial court's record ·concealed the Orders ofthe Court from the Court and the Applicant
.

. Fraud is defi1ned as trickery or deceit, intentional misrepresentation concealment or nondisclosure, for the purpos.e,of inducing another inreliance upon it to part with some calculable thing belonging to him or a false representation ofa matter offact by words, conduct orby concealment ofwhat should have been disclosed that deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. (li!mphasis added) In re: E.P. 185 S.W.3d 908 (Tex. App. -Austin 2006). The Clerk ofthe Court has custody ofand shall carefully maintain and arrange the records relating to or lawfully deposited in the clerk's office the clerk shall record the acts and_proceedin_gs ofthe court and enter alljudgr:nents ofthe court under the direction ofthejudge. Govt. Code Sec. 51.303 Duties of the Clerk. In a Post Conviction Letter dated October the 51 h 2012 See Ex# 9 Letterfrom Judge Wellborn { i1n Response to HabeasAttorney Carrie Crisps letter Ex# 10 to him asking for an explanation 

### im Response to Habeas Attorney Carrie Crisps letter Ex# 10 to him asking for an explanation , He explained that he had signed the Order Granting the Motion by Mistake, and that he had meant to sign the Order on The State's Motion for Continuance. Even after he was notified ofthis, he made no effort to issue a Nunc Pro Tunc Orderreversing his 23decision (tampering with a trial court/government record) and by this time the Court ofAppeals had already deniedlApplicant's Appeal. Applicant did not waive his right to appear at pre trial proceedings
. This was an an.nouncement where Applicant's Motion for Severance was a Defense Motion , and any decision on hi:s motion would decide the course ofhis entire trial and direct his defense strate_gy. There
was no reasont that the motion could not have been decided that day. The State's attorney had not made any objection to the Motion for Severance either that day or any day _prior to 9 25/0•8. Applicant filed his motion on 7/31108 and certified a co_py to the States attorney. See Ex # 1 page 2.. Neither Judge 'Wellborn John Gilmore or the State questioned why defendant was not present at the hearing thus the hearing was held Ex

### parte becauseApplicant had a right to be there and to 'be heard
.

. The Manner,i[n which the proceedings were conducted displays a clear deception and fraud. These Officer's ofthe Court committed Fraud upon the Court by the Court. "Fraud Upon the Court" has been definted as that fraud committed b_y an officer ofthe court in an_y attempt to deceive, either b_y commission, by omission,by speech, by silence, by gesture, by innuendo by look, etc. Whenever this fraud is commLitted by any attorney orjudge, it is a "Fraud upon the Court" In Eugene Lee Armentrout**e~t.** al.., Ill. 2D 242 75 Ill Dec 703 457 N.E.2d 1262**(198~):** Re_genold v. by Fol«:l, Inc._, 68 Ill. 2D**41~~,435** 12 Ill Dec. 151.369 N.E. 2D 858 (1977); In re Lamberis, 93 Ill. 2D 222,229, 66 Ill.Dec.623, 443 N.E.2d 549 (1982); Bulloch v. United States k 763 F 2d 1115,1121 (1985); Root Refining Co. ·v. Universal Oil Products Co., 169 F2d 514 (1948). Fraud is defined as trickery or deceit, intentional misrepresentation concealment or nondisclosure, for the purpose oEinducing another in reliance upon it to part with some calculable thing belonging to him
or a false**repn~sentation** ofa matter offact b_y words, conduct or b_y concealment ofwhat should have been disClosed that deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal 24injury.(empha1sis added) In re: E.P. 185 S.W.3d 908 (Tex. App. -Austin 2006) Title 1 Chapt,er28Article 28.01 Pre Trial Section 1. (defendant'spresence is Reguired at anypre trial hearing) 4(5) Motions for continuances either by the State or defendant provided that grounds for continuance n1ot existing or not known at the time may be presented and considered at any tine before the defendant announces ready for trial. Section 2 When a criminal case is set for such_pre trial hearing any such preliminary matters not raised or filed seven days before the hearing will not thereafter be aUowed to be raised or filed, except by permission ofthe court for good cause shown;_providled that the defendant shall have sufficient notice ofsuch hearing to allow him not less than 10 datys in which to raise or file such preliminary matters. The record made at such pre trial hearing the rulings ofthe court and the exceptions and objections thereto shall become a _part ofthe tria.! record ofthe case u_pon it's merits. Texas CR. CodeAnn: 29.02 Article 29.02: By agreement A**~criminal** action may be continued by consent ofthe parties thereto, in open court at any time on a shov.ving ofgood cause, but a continuance may be only for as long as necessary. TCCPTitle 1 'Chapter 1 General ProvisionsArticle 1.05 Ri_ghts ofAccused. He shall have the right ofbeing heardl by himselfor counsel or both. The Trial Court had already lost Jurisdiction over the Applicant and the matter at this 9/25/08 proceeding but continued on with Illegal Proceedings. Fact 7. 10/23/08
Court Reporters Record Volume 3 of9 Chadrick B. Pate A-08-5080-4CR Motion to Dismiss EX# 11 Entered onto Ap_plicant's Criminal Docket sheet is EX#4 10/23/08 Case called for Pre 'trial Conference APPLICANT'S CLAIM UNDER3,AND 4 Ineffective CounselViolation ofStatutory Procedures Judge Joel Johnson presided over this proceeding and those appearing were Applicant (the only pre 25trial proceedimg that he was allowed to appear) Defense Attorney John Gilmore and StatesAttorney M Rod_grigez. This hearing was onApplicant's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment for the Jail and Detectives violation

ofhis 6th Ame1ndment due Process and Violation ofAttorney Client Privilege. Allprisoners were transported to anotherjail in Crystal City due to a Hurricane Warning. and before the State trans:portedApplicant he prepared all ofhis Notes that he had made for his Defense Attorney
on his Defense. He had records on discovery at this point and was able to rebut co defendant's claims. Before leaving for transport thejail told A_p_plicant that he could not take his_paperwork. He told them that it was unlawful for them to not allow him to take his paperwork. The told him to put the paperwork in :a clear plastic bag and label it with his name and the title ofthe papers and then to place it onto_p ofhis bunk. He did so. When he returned, his bag of_pa_perwork was missing. He demanded it back and supp(osedly thejail personnel said they looked but could not find it. Applicant was told by an Honest Jailer that he had seen two ofthe otherjailertake it out to a dumpster and place it there and afterward he s.aw two ofthe Investigators retrieve the ba_g form the DU!llpster. Judge Johnson Denied the Motion to Dismiss without written order, he did not record any factual

findings on th1e record for his Decision to DenyApplicant's Motion. When ajudge does not follow statutory**~proct~dures,** he losesjurisdictionto**~proceed.** Fayv. Noia 372 U.S. 391 63 S. Ct. 822 9 Led 2d. John Gilmore ..:dd not ask Judge Johnson for a Decision onApplicant's Motion for Severance of DefendantandB. Offenses however Judge Johnson told Gilmore thatApplicant's trial date was for 11/03/08 and that he would be the Presiding Judge. See Ex# 11page 33 line 8-21


### Fact 8. 10/23/08 Ex Parte Hearing APPLICANT'S CASE WAS SEVERED COURT REPORTER RECORD VOLUME 4 OF 11 CHRISTOPHER HALLA-08-5080-2CR PRE TRIAL SEE EX# 8 26Entered on Chuistopher Hall's Criminal Docket sheet is Ex# 12 Reset: 115/08**9~.ooam** 12/22/0)8 9.00am 11/25/08 9.00am

APPLICANT'S CLAIM UNDER 2,3 AND 4 FRAUD**01~** THE COURT BYTHE COURT, INEFFECTIVE CONUSEL, VIOLATION OF DUEPROCESSANDSTATUTORYPROCEDURES
At this pre tria] hearing Judge Joel Johnson also presided. Those present were: Christopher Hall, his defense Attorr1ey Stan Turpin, States Attorney Flanigan and Rodrigues and John Gilmore Applicant's DefenseAttonney
..The Applicant did not appear. Stan Turpin co' defendant Christoper Hall's Defense Attorney (he was co defendant's second court appointed atto,rney. The first court appointed attorney was Tamara Cochran who was hired at the CountyAttornLey's office and could no longer represent Hall) asked for a Continuance and Judge Johnson granted the co defendant's Motion to Continue and Reset his Jury Trial Date to 1/5/09, Announcement 12/22/09 and Pre trial11/25/09. See EX# 8 Volume 4 of 11 page 3 line 22-23 page 5 line 1-25. pa.ge 6 line 1-24.

Rigbt.afJer

### JudgeJnhn.c;;ao gr.ante!l ibe**.crultin~e,.**

### _Mr.**G.ilronreApp.licant.~"**

### .affru:oeyMid 

### tn Judge Johnson, Judge I have a co defendant in this matter,and then immediately The StatesAttorney told Judge Johnsona that they would like to carry Applicants case as well. Judge Johnson told John Gilmore that he was hLearin_g A_p_plicant's case when he came back in November. Seepage 5 lines 15-25 and page 

### 6 lines 

### l-6. Judge Johnson had already told Gilmore at the pre trial hearingjustprior to this one that he was coming back inNovember to hearApplicant's case and he had reaffirmed the trial date o•f 11/3/08. John Gilmore abandoned A_pplicant's defense and assisted the State's Attorney in ant attempt to keep the trials ofApplicant and Co defendantjoined. John Gilmore and the State's attorney knew from the beginning thatApplicant had a right to be at these 27hearings and tlhat he had not waived his rights to appear, and they continued to appear atproceedings where his defe1nse andpre trial matters were a

### part oftheproceedings, these officer's ofthe court concealed pro·ceedings from him all together. These officer's ofthe court committed fraud onthe court

and fraud in run effort to keep knowledge ofthese proceedings from theApplicant. "Fraud Uponthe Court" has been defined as that fraud committed 

### by an officer ofthe court in 

### any attem_pt to deceive. either by comnnission, by omission;by speech, by silence, by gesture, by innuendo by look, etc. Whenever this; fraud is committed by any attorney orjudge, it is a "Fraud upon the Court" In Eugene**Le~e** Armentrout et. al.;, Ill. 2D 242 75 Ill Dec 703 457 N.E.2d 1262 (1983): Regenold v. Baby Fold, Inc., 68 Ill. 2D 419,435 12 Ill Dec. 151.369 N.E. 2D 858 (1977); In re Lamberis, 93 Ill. 2D 222,229, 66 Ill.Dec.623, 443 N.E.2d 549 (1982); Bulloch v. United States k 763 F 2d 1115,1121 (1985); Root llRef"ming Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 169 F2d 514 (1948). Clearly Judge .Johnson had severed the cases and the trials ofApplicant and the co defendant when he made it clear

### to the State'sAttorney that Hall's newTrial Date would be 1/5/09 and that he was corning back in Novennber to**~preside** overf\p_plicant's Trial that had been set for 11/3/08. The District Cllerk did not enter Judge Johnson Oral Order that severed the cases onto Applicant's Criminal Docket Sheet or onto the trial court record. Only the Court Reporter's Record Ex#**8~** reflects the Severance. See Article 36.10 TCCP The District Cllerk did not issue a new Cause No. on eitherApplicant's case or co defendant case. (Tampering with a trial court. government document.) There was no need for a hearing to decide which defendant would go to trial first, as Judge Johnson had just setthe co defendant's trial date to 115/09 far ahead ofApplicant's 11/03/08 trial date. The District Clerk committed fraud upon the court for purposeful failing to complete the duties ofthe office. The Di:strict Clerk with other officers ofthe court by this failure illegally disposed ofJudge Joel Johnson's ord(:!r severing Co defendant's trial from Applicant's trial date. The failure to enter the proper 

### 28proceedings cmto the applicant's criminal docket sheet and or the trial court's record concealed the Order ofthe Court from the Court and the Applicant. Fraud is defined as trickery or deceit, intentional misrepresentation concealment or nondisclosure, for the purpose ofinducing another in reliance upon it to part with so,me calculable thing belonging to him or a false representation ofa matter offact by words, conduet or 

### by concealment ofwhat should have been disclosed that deceives or is intended to deceive anoth1er so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.(emphasis added) In re: E.P. 185 S.W.3d 908 (1fex. App. -Austin 2006). The Clerk ofthe Court has custody ofand shall carefully maintain and arrange the records relating to or lawfully depo:sited in the clerk's office the clerk shall record the acts and proceedings ofthe court and enter alljudgnnents ofthe court under the direction ofthejudge. Govt. Code Sec. 51.303 Duties of the Clerk. Although Judge Joel Johnson did not hold a statutorily required hearing and enter factual fmdings on the record, andl a Written Order GrantingorDenyingAt?t?licaht's Motion for Severance, he did sever the trial ofAp]plicant and the co defendant by his Oral Orders
.. When ajudge does not follow statutory requirements ]he losesjurisdiction and cannot proceed. Fay v. Noia 372 U.S. 391 63 S. Ct. 822 9 Led 

### 2d, Aoude v. lltvlobil Oil Corp. 892 F. 2d 1115, 1118(1st Circuit 1989). Alexander, 266 S.W. 2D 

### @ 001:King v.**~lanch,** Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742,752 (Tex.2003)**.F..a.cl_9~** 10/30/08**"f·Rh\~l~Y0L£~H** £Xlli\R1:£**l}ROC££n~VQ'b £~H£TRt:,n**  0AH'0**J\l?l}"Ll£h~H''b C~l1.~~h"L**  DOCKET SHEET 

### SEE EX# 4 CCOURT REPORTER'S RECORD ON 10/30/08 PROCEEDJNGS (NONE)
Entered onto Applicant's Criminal Docket Sheet is Ex # 4 Defendants MliJtion for Continuance Reset 1/5/09 Jmry Trial 12/22/0& Announcement 2/9/09 Jury Trial 29

### APPLICANT'S CLAIM UNDER 2, 3 AND 4 Fraud on tthe CourtViolation ofDue Process and Statutory Procedures Ineffective Counsel Applicant did mot appear or know about any proceedings for 10/30/08 Ifthese proceedings did occur then they were: in fact EXPARTE proceedings and unrecorded by a Court Reporter. Applicant's attorney did not advise him ofanyt>roceedings and did not tell him about any continuance. Ifdefense attonery John Gilmore did in fact file a motion for continuance (and there is no record ofone being filed) the he vi,olated TCCPArticle 1.052 (a)(d) which is contempt ofcourt. There were no scheduled proceedings for 10/30/08. 

### TCCPTitle 1 Chapter 1 General Provisions Article 1.05 Rights of Accused. He shall have the right ofbeing heard by himselfor counsel or both. Applicant was not notified ofany proceedings for 10/30/08 either by his Attorney orthe Court. Applicant was not before the court for adjudication the court had already lost jurisdiction. 

### Mapco Inc. Forrest, 795 S:. 

### W. 2d 700, 703 (Tx. 1990). These fraudulent proceedings are not recorded by a Court Reporter and are not in the Court's Records. The trial court was withoutjurisdictionto proceed that _parties may have agreed to it are immaterial. The verbal, written or illegally disposed oforder, that appeared to allowthe court to proceed was in violation ofthe 

### 1st amendment to the Constitution. 

### NearMinneso•ta ex rei. Olson, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S. Ct. 625, 75 L.Ed, 1357 (1931), Shelly v. Karmer, 334 U.S. 1. 

### 68 S. Ct. 836 92 L. Ed 1161**(194~).** Jnce a court orders per trial orders the court cannot disregard it's own orders. 

### Dennis v. Haden, 867 S. W. 2d 48,51 Tex. App.(1933). A court'sjurisdiction at the beginning oftrial may be lost in the court ofthe_proceedi.n_gs due to com_plete the court as the 14th amendment reguires. Ifthe U.S. Constitution amendments mre not complied with the court losesjurisdictionto proceed. 

### Johnson v. Zerbst 304 U.S
..**4.SJ!~** Ct.t'lYl. The District Cl_erk entered fraudulent proceedings onto the Applicant's Criminal Docket Sheet and perhaps onto other Court Records that have been concealed from him. The District Clerk committed fraud onthe c1ourt and the Applicant. The District Clerk committed fraud upon the court for purposeful faillure to complete the duties ofthe office. The District Clerk with other officers ofthe court by this failure illegally disposed ofJudge Joel Johnson's order severing Co defendant's trial from 30Applicant's triial date. The failure to enter the proper proceedings onto the applicant's criminal docket sheet and orfue trial court's record concealed the Order ofthe Court from the Court and the Applicant. Fraud is defin·ed as trickery or deceit, intentional misrepresentation concealment or nondisclosure, for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some calculable thing belonging to him
or a false re..Presentation ofa matter offact 

### by words, conduct or 

### by concealment ofwhat should have been disclosed that deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon itto his legal

injury.(emphatsis added) In re: E.P. 185 S.W.3d 908 (Tex. App. -Austin 2006) The Clerk ofthe Court has custody ofand shall carefully maintain and arrange the records relating to 01 lawfully depo:sited in the clerk's office the clerk shall record the acts and proceedings ofthe court and enter alljudgnnents ofthe court under the direction ofthejudge. Govt. Code Sec. 51.303 Duties of the Clerk. Fact 10. 11/03/08 Sclheduled Trial Date for Applicant Chadrick B. Pate in Cause A-08-5080-4CR Court Reporters Record 11103/08 Trial Proceedings (None) Courts Violation ofit's Court Ordered 

### Tr.lalDat.e 0-£ 

### U/1/Q& In.

### Cause. NcL

### A-08.-508.0-4CRCbad.J:U:k..B Pat.e R£.Q.nrters. R£.cnrdVnbun.£.1 of9 Ex# 5 APPL1CrL¥T'S**CLAR~l** VNDER2,3, 

### rL¥»4 Fraud on the Court by the Court, Ineffective Counsel Violation ofDue Process and Statutory Procedure and Rules. The court did not provide a court orderedjurytrial for the applicant on 11/03/08 and stated no reason for failing to do so and_gave applicant NO notice. Applicant's Attorney_provided no reason or notice, and there is no Recorded Record ofany Proceeding that effected a change inApplicant Court Ordered

Trial Date. There are no Written or Oral Orders that would indicate a change in Applicant's 11/03/08 scheduled and Court Ordered Trial Date. A court'sj·urisdiction at the beginning oftrial may be lost in the court ofthe proceedings due to 31complete tlhe court as the 

### 141 h amendment requires. Ifthe U.S. Constitution amendments are not COII\Plied withthe court losesjurisdictiontoproceed. Johnson Zerbst 304 U.S. 458 Sup. Ct. 1938. There are no legitimate court proceedings that overrules or voids Applicant's Court Date. The court had 1nojurisdictionto proceed to ajointtrial or a separate trial ofApplicant orto hold any other**~proceedi.n_gs** other than Acguittal. The trial court was without jurisdictionto**~proceed** thatparties may have agreed to it are immaterial. The verbal, written or illegally disposed oforder, that appeared to allowthe court to proceed was in violation ofthe 1st amendment to the Constitution. Nearv. Minnesota ex_ rei. Olson. 283 U.S. 697. 51 S. Ct. 625. 75 L.Ed. 1357 (1931). Shelly v. Karmer. 334**~** . . . "

... . ., . U.S. 

### 1. 68 S.**f!~t.** 836 92 L. Ed 1161 (1948). Once a court orders per trial orders the court cannot disregard it's ownorders. Dennis v. Haden, 867 S. W. 2d 48,51 Tex. App.(l933). See: Fa_y v. No•ia 372 U.S. 391 63 S. Ct. 822 9 Led 2d , Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp. 892 F. 2d 1115,

742,752 (Tex. 2003). 

### F"K\.ot11. 11/25/08
CO DEFENDANT CHRISTOPHER HALL PRE TRIAL HEARINGA-08-5080-2CR COURT REPORTER RECORD VOLUME 5 OF 

### 11 EX# 13 FRAUDULENT EX PARTE DISCUSSIONS OF APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR SEVERANCEAND TRIAL DATES.
APPLICANT'S CLAIM UNDER 2,3, AND 4**Ineffective~** Counsel, Fraud on the Court by the Court, Violation ofDue Process a Statutory Procedures and Rules Judge MichaeL Wellborn presided over this pre trial hearing with co defendant Hall appearing with his Defense Atton:1ey Stan Turpin and State'sAttorney M. Rodrigues. Applicant Chadrick Pate did not appear nor did his DefenseAttorney John Gilmore. Applicant was not 

### 32before the cou.rt for adjudication the court had already lostjurisdiction, and these proceedings were ex parte proceedings. Mapco Inc. v. Forrest, 795 S. W. 2d 700, 703 (Tx. 1990). At this proceeding Judge Wellborn, Stan Turpin and M. Rodrigues discussed Applicant's pre trial motions and t1rial date when he was not present or represented. The Court had already lost iurisdiction
overApplicant and the Subject Matter, and committed fraud on the court by the court in having thes(; discussions that would make it appear that Applicant was still in thejurisdiction ofthe court. A court's jurisdiction at the beginning oftrial may be lost in the court ofthe proceedings due to complete the court as the 14} 1 h amendment requires. Ifthe U.S. Constitution amendments are not complied with the court losesjuri[sdiction to proceed. Johnson v. Zerbst 304 U.S. 458 Sup. Ct. 1938. There are no legitimate court proceedings that overrules orvoids Applicant's Court Date. The court had 1nojurisdictionto proceed to ajointtrial or a separate trial ofApplicant orto hold any other proceediings other thanAcquittal. The trial court was withoutjurisdictionto proceed that parties may have agreed to it are immaterial. The verbal, written or illegally disposed oforder, that appeared to allow the court to proceed was in violation ofthe 

### 1st amendment to the Constitution. Nearv. Minnesota ex: rei. Olson, 283 U.S. 697,51 S. Ct. 625, 75 L.Ed, 1357 (1931), Shelly v. Karmer, 334 U.S. 1. 68 S. t!Ct. 836 92 L. Ed 1161 (1948). Once a court orders per trial orders the court cannot disregard it's own orders. Dennis v. Haden, 867 S. W. 2d 48,51 Tex. App.(1933). SEE Reportf!rs Record Vol 5 of 11 page 4 lines 1-13. Judge Wellborn ask when Pates trial date is scheduled Stan Turpen answers Right now on January the 51h. Judge 'Wellborn responds Okay well both cases on the same trial docket at this time? M. Rodriguez**re~10onds** Yes_._your Honor. Judge Wellborn responds**Ok~y** well its kind ofhard to 

### try them
on the same ti:me ifit's not on the same docket. Mr. Turpen responds I understand Judge. Judge Wellborn responds Minor technicality. Then a 

### Deputy Clerk responds And also Mr. Gilmore is not**Sl.!P~posed** to be here on the 5th. He will be 33on vacation til the 9'h See page 6 lines 2-7. Stan Turpin : Judge, what I would like to do on that is leave it in the filejust in case we need it because I did talk to Mr. Gilmore. Gilmore says he didn't see any reason to sever unless his client told him otherwise , but I haven't talked back with him to know that, and I dom't think he has a motion on file. At the time oflthis discussion**~p~plicant's** trial date had already been severed from that ofthe co defendant Christopher Hall and the Trail Court refused to proceed to trial. Applicant was not before the court for adjudication the court had already lostjurisdiction. Mapco Inc. v. Forrest, 795 S. W. 2d 700, 703 (Tx. 1990). The trial court and it's officers had already begun entering and concealing fraudulent proceedings, motions. Orders, and trial dates onto Applicant's Criminal Docket Sheet. This discussion among officers ofthe court without appearance ofApplicant and his Attorney is fraud and a violatiom ofApplicant's due process right to be present, opportunity to be heardand notice. This is a manipulation ofthejudiciary and concealment ofproceedings from Applicant.

JOHNSON 

### '1. ZERBST 304 U.S. 458 Sup. Ct. 1938 and Fay v. Noia 372 U.S. 391 63 S. Ct. 822 9 Ledl 2d , Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp. 892 F. 2d 1115, 1118(rt Circuit 1989). Alexander, 266 S.W. 2D@ 1001:KingRanch,Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742,752 (fex. 2003).


### Y.»d

### J2 12/22/08**'tRh\)'L>L£~·H** £-x-9-hl\.1£**"?ROC££'L>"'rl~ffi**£1H£l\£'L>**~1~ "'O~TH.** **.h"?"?Ll'Chl~l'** 'Clih'L>Rl'CK"'0. PATE AND CO DEFENDANT CHRISTOPHER HALL'S CRIMINAL DOCKET SHEETS S"EEEX#·4· AND EX# 12 COURT REPORTER'S RECORD FOR 12/22/08 PROCEEDINGS (NONE) OnApplicant's Criminal Docket Sheet the following fraudulent proceedings are entered. Ex # 4 Continuance Granted Reset 2/9/09 Jury Trial 2/5/09 Announcement 34On Co Defendant Christoper Hall's Criminal Docket Sheet the following fraudulent proceedings are entered. 

### Ex# 12 12/22/08 Contiinuance Granted. Resett to Feb. Trial Docket


### APPLICANT'S CLAIM UNDER 2,3, AND 4 Fraud on tbne Court by the Court, Ineffective Counsel, Violation ofDue Process and Statutory Procedures and Rules. Applicant did mot know about any 12/22/08 proceedings and did not appear at any such proceedings. Applicant was; not told by his attorney or the Court about any proceedings for 12/22/08. Applicant was not before the court for adjudication the court had already lostjurisdictionAND THESE HEARINGS**WEJ~E.** EX**.P.~iRTE.** 

### ."M.spctl**J»e~** "- Ytv".rJ>N,- 795 

### .S.. W.. 2iJ 7Df\. 7ft3fT.L J991l,\- Applicant does not know ifco defendant asked for a continuance or ifhe appeared at any 12/22/08 proceedings, hwwever the Trial Court Record clearly reflects that there was no such**proceeding~** recorded onthte record ofthe court. These illegal e:ntry's onto Applicant's Criminal Docket Sheet were all a part ofthe scheme by officer's ofthe court to' make it appear that the court still had_iurisdiction over the Applicant and the sub.iect

calculated to interfere with thejudicial system's ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly init1uend.ng the trier offact orunfairly hampering the presentation ofthe opposing party's claim or defemse 

### Aoude v. Mobil Oil 

### Corp. 892 F 2d 1115,1118 (1st Cir. 1989). Applicant was not before the court for adjudation the court had already lostjurisdiction. 

### Mapco Inc. v. Forrest, 795 

# s.. W. 2d 700, 703 (Tx. 1990). The Court hadl alreaqy lost jurisdictionfor the violation ofthe A_p_plicant's 14th amendment rights. 

### Johnson v. Ze:rbst 304 U.S. 458 Sup. Ct. 1938. Fact 13.

2/5/09

35FRAUDLENT EXPARTE PROCEEDINGS ENTERED ONTOAPPLICANT'S CRIMINAL DOCKET SHEET 

### SEE EX # 4 COURT REPORTER'S RECORD FOR 2/5/08 UNDERAPPLICANT'S NAME OR CAUSE NUMBER (NONE) The following fraudulent proceedings were entered onto Applicant's Criminal Docket Sheet. 2/5/09 

### All ReadJv (TAMPERING WITHA TRIAL COURT/GOVERNMENT**RECO~)** 

### APPLICANT'S CLAIM UNDER 2,3 AND 4**F~awl** Q.Q.**tb.~**

### Ow.rt**b.~** 

### tb..e O!.urt.,**l~"~ Oluu.~** Vi.lil.atin.o.. Q.(**D~ 1.1~~~~**  awl**Sta.tu.in.~** 

### Procedures and Rules

tier offact. Fr;aud occurs when a party sets into motion a scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial systenns' ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly ham_p,ering the_presentation ofthe o_p_posing_parcy's claim or defense. 

### Aoude v. 

### Mobil Oil Corp. 892 F. :ld 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989). Applicant did not know about any suchproceedings and did not appear at any suchproceedings and
was not told by his attorney orthe Court about any such_proceedings. 

### He did not announce ready. Applicant was not before the court for adjudication the court had already lostjurisdiction. THESE WERE ILLEGALEXPARTE HEARINGS 

### Mapco Inc. v. 

### Forrest, 795 S. W. 2d 700, 703 (Tx. 

### 1990)
Fact 14.

2/5/09 CHRISTOP:HER HALL PRE TRIAL HEARING CAUSE NO. S-08-5080-2 VOLUME 5-A OF 11 

### SEE EX# 14 FRAUDULEJNT EXPARTE PROCEEDINGS CASE NUMBERAND VOLUME NUMBERS WERE ENTERED OJN CO DEFENDANT CHRISTOPHERHALL'S 2/5/09 PRE TRIAL HEARING COURT REPORTERS RECORD. This hearimg with the fraudulent cause number and volume numbers was not entered onto the co defendant'sjudgment roll under the table ofcontents that listed all the other volume numbers and 36

### cause numbers in the trial court recorded proceedings. SEE EX# 15 page 2 ofReporters /record Volume 1-11 MASTER INDEX FACT 15

2/5/09 FRAUDULENT EXPARTE DISCUSSION OF APPLICANT'S DECISION ON PUNISHMENT BETWEEN JUDGE WHATLEYAND DEFENSE ATTORNEY JOHN GILMORE 20NCEALMENT OF FRAUDULENT PROCEEDINGS FROMAPPLICANT, PUBLIC CRIMINAL COURT OFAPPEALS AND THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AND SOUTHERN DIST. COURT HOUSTON TEXAS APPLICANT'S CLAIM UNDER 2,3, AND 4 Fraud and Fraud om the Court, Ineffective Counsel, Violation ofDue Process and Statutory

Procedur,es and Rules And Tamperingwith Trial Court/Government Document/Record Co defendant Christoper Hall's Ex# 16 Indictment, Ex# 12 CriminalDocket Sheet, and all other

. Court Report·er's Records identify Hall's Cause No.A-08-5080-2CR not S-08-5080-2

The Court Reporter's Record show under Christopher Halls Recorded Proceedings Volumes 1-11. these Volumes are listed in the Courts Table ofContents ofthe Co Defendant's Judgment Roll that was submtitted to the 13th 

### Court ofAppeals Corpus Christi Texas Cause No. 2:12-cv-00093. The Court Reporters Record actually contain 12 volumes on Christopher Hall's pre trials. But the 12th Volume is stvled Court Reporters Record Volume 5-A of 11 and instead ofthe proper Cause No. of A-

., ..L
. .a. .a; . 

### -08-5080-2CR it is represented as S-08-5080-2.

See EX# 15 3RD PAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume 1 of 1lll Volume 2 of 11 Volume 3 of 11 Volume 4 of 11 Volume 5 of 111 Volume 6 of 1Jt ·**VnJnnu~** 

### 1 nf111 

### Volume 8 of 11 Volume 9 of 11 '1\'la"tl1M;**1~**

# m11 Volume 11 of

### JU Master Index Pre trial Motions (7/24/08) (there is no CourtReporter's Record on this) Announcement (9/25/08) Pre Trial Hearing (10/23/08) Pre Trial Hearing (11/25/08) Jury Trial VoirDire Proceedings (2/9/09) 

### .Jnry T.riaJ GniliJ.DDD!'nJU

### (.2/..9./R9) 

### Jury Trial Guilt Innocence (2/10/09) Jury Trial Guilt Innocence (2/11/09) 

### 3uTj '\:TWA {;>t.Wi.**\~ \1.~11.~)**  

### Punishment-Sentencing (2/13/09)2/5/09 Court Reporters Record Volume 5-A of 11 was not recorded onto the Table ofContents ofco defendant's Judgment Roll like all the other above listed volumes were, and was not submitted to The 13 1h Court ofAppeals where co defendant filed his

### Appeal.. Judge Whately and Pam Heard the District Clerk submitte:d a fraudulent Judgment Record to the Court ofAppeals (Tampered with trial court/governm.ent document.) This fraudulent Cause No entered onto the Court Reporters Record and 

### frawiu.lmt 'I"O.b
..UlJi!tlJ.l.JXINJ:**1.~ ~-**  

### o.ftbi!**~...br..rol!**

### tbm.tbi!**o.ffiJ~r.·~**

### o.fthe OOJJ.rt.**~id.~£d.l.t~.**t.n**oot~~..al.** proceedings from the court and applicant and influence the tier offact, and deceive any future proceedings he:ld by any other officer's ofthe court. THIS IS TAMPERING WITHA**GO~'ERl,ThlE/.~.{T lXJCU!~lENT**  lFHlCHlSA**CRli~lE.** At this hearing Trial Judge JannaWhately presided and those that appeared were Co defendant Christopher Hall with his Attorney Stan Turpin, State's Attorney Patrick Flanigan, and Applicant's DefenseAttonney John Gilmore. A_p_plicant did not a_p_pear. A_p_plicant was not before the court for adjuration the court had already lostjurisdiction. THIS WAS AJ\;J ILLEGAL EXPARTE PROCEEDING DISCUSSINGAPPLICANT'S TRIALAND CAUSE WITHOUT HIS A_p_pearance MAPCO Inc. v. Forrest, 795 S. W. 2d 700,703 {Tx. 1990). Judge 'Whatley and all the other officer's in appearance schemed to make it appear that Applicant had announced Ready for trial when he was not before the court for adjudication and did no
announce readly for trial this scheme included**ke~ping** the A_p_plicant and the co defendant joined for the trial held em 2/9/09. Officer's ofthe court continued their scheme to defraud the court and the appJicant and 1to influence the tier offact. Fraud occurs when a party sets into motion a scheme calculated to iJnterfere with thejudicial systems' ability inlpartially to aqjudicate a matter by improperly in1fluencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the presentation ofthe opposing party's claim or defemse. Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp. 892 F. 2d 1115, 1118 (rt Cir. 1989). The Court hadl already lostjurisdiction for the violation ofthe A_o._plicant's 14th amendment ri_ghts. JOHNSON V .. ZERBST 304 U.S. 458 Sup. Ct. 1938. The court had nojurisdiction to proceed to a joinJ trial or a separate trial ofApplicant orto hold any otherproceedings other thanAcquittal. The trial**court~** was without jurisdiction to_proceed thatparties may have agreed to it are immaterial. The verbal, w1ritten or illegally disposed oforder, that appeared to allowthe court to proceed was in 38violation ofthe P 1 amendmentto the Constitution. Nearv. Minnesota ex rei. Olson, 283 U.S. 697,51 S. Ct. 625, 7S L.Ed, 1357 (1931), Shelly v. Karmer, 334 U.S. 

### 1. 68 S. Ct. 836 92 L. Ed 1161**(194~).** Once a court orders per trial orders the court cannot disregard it's own orders. Dennis v. Haden, 867 S. W. 2d 48,511 Tex. App.(1933). At this pre trialL hearing Judge Janna Whately did not call Applicant's Name or Cause Number, she did not call co defendant Hall's name or cause number. However at the very beginning ofthe proceedings Flanigan anno,unced Ready on Hall see Ex#l4 page 3lines 3-5. Flanigan never announced ready on Pate, and Johm Gilmore never announced Ready on Pate. After some dis:cussions on Hall's pre trial motions, Stan Turpin finally announced ready as well. See Ex# 14 f?'age 31ines 8-13. Judge Whately's only question to John Gilmore was Who is doing Punishment and Gilmore's response
was I think we are going to Jury on that. See Ex# 14 page 9lines 16-25 and page 10 lines 1-4. The court had no iurisdiction overApplicant orthe Subiect Matter at this time, the court had already lostjurisdiction for violating Applicant's 14th amendment to a fair and impartial trial, opportunity to be heard, and nottice. Johnson v. Zerbst 304 U.S. 458 Sup. Ct. 1938.
FACT 16. 2/9/09.The Illegal Trial ofApplicant FRAUDULElNT PROCEEDINGS OF JOINT JURY TRIAL OF APPLICANT CHADRICK B. PATE AND CO DEFENDANT CHRISTOPHER HALL In Spite of 

### a Court Order by Judge Joel Johnson given by Oral Order on 11/25/08 that Severed the Trials ofA_pjJlicant and Co defendant Hall and in s_pite ofa Pending Motion for Severance in the_pre trial court, Judge Whately and Officer's ofthe Court simply set about
jurisdiction o·ver the Applicant and the subject matter and then tried him in an illegal proceeding that they submtitted as a fair and impartial Jury trial. 39Be(ore the triall started on 

### 2/9/09 at the Voire Dire proceeding 

### See Ex# 17 Court ReporterRecord Volume 4 of9) page 102 lines 5-25
. Applicant's Wlother was entering the Court room and was stopped at the door and told that she could not come in for the trial. She went to the District Clerk's Office and asked to see a Judge The clerk asked her why and she told her that she was not bein_g allowed to_go inside the court room. Clerk went to announce her to the Judge, when she came back she told her that the Judge told her to go back down there and she would be allowed to go in. She went inside and was told to stand onthe back wall because there was no seating for her. At the Voire D:ire a potential Juror Ms. Voss kept asking John Gilmore (Applicant's Attorney)

about why bothApplicant and Co defendant were at the same trial. Gilmore finally gave her an
answer. See 

### E:x# 17 CourtReporters Record Volume 4 

### of9 

### Chadrick B. 

### Pate page 102 lines 5-25. He said we are: being forced to do it this way okay. We don't want to.Ms.Voss was not picked for the jurytrial. After the Voire: Dire Proceedings the JuryTrial_proceeded, and before it did ,Applicants Mother was ;;tanding outside the Court Room Doors in the LobbyArea when a woman who did not identify herself and who was unknown to his Mother stated loudly. I am invoking "The Rule" Applicant's Mother Asked first. Wlho the woman was and she identified herselfas Assistant DistrictAttorney and then Applicant's Mother asked what rule she was talking about and the woman's response was you cannot
come into the court room during the trial unless you are called to testify. 

### See Texas Rules of Evidence Inv,oking Rule 614 Under this rule at the request ofa_party the court shall order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony ofother witnesses and it may make the order ofit's

. own 1110tion. This·rule does not authorize exclusion of(3) a person whose presence is shown by at _paey to be ess:ential to the _presentation ofthe_party's cause. The Court violated Applicant's right to be heard and not:iice. 40There is no on the record request from any party to exclude Applicant's Mother
.Applicant was not given an**o~p~portunity** to be heard to challenge the Rule and topresent his case that his Mother should not be excluded under Rule 614 (3). There is no record that Applicant was given and opportunity to be heard or notice. Applicant's Mother was not called to testify. It was the State that subpoena her to testizy. Applicant was brought to the trial in Leg Restraints. There is no Court Order ordering him to wear Leg Restraints and. no hearing on the matter. Someone in the audience stated out loud.( that person was a witness for the State who obviously was sitting in the court room) He is in jail I can see his Leg Restraints. See Ex# 18 Trial Transcript page 259,260 and 261 and Ex# 19 Applicant Affidavit. The court must make independent determination that restraints arejustified and must state its reason on 1the record. See Deck ckv. Missouri 544 U.S. 622 (2007). Defense Atton:1ey John Gilmore, Co Defendant'sAttorney Stan Turpin, and the State'sAttorney

stayed silent as to thejustification ofLeg Restraints onApplicant violating Applicant's Due Process rights and corrunitting fraud onthe court. DefenseAtton:1ey motioned for a severance numerous times at trial, to which Judge Whately simply overruled and held no hearing, and made no on the record factual findings for her reasons to deny the
s.everance. See Ex# 20 TrialTranscript Reporters Record Volume 6 of9pa_ge 22111-25. Judge Whately allowed the State to bring in the statement ofa co defendant that was not testifying that Applicant 1could not confront. She simply told the Jurors to disregard the statement. At the sentenci.ng andpunishmentproceedings John Gilmore did not call one Witness onApplicant's behalf, and he: did not tell Applicant's family that they could testify for him until about an hour before the proceedings. Applicant's Best Friend and Sister had already left the proceedings for the day and Applicant's Mrother could not reach them. Applicant would not allow his Mother to testizy because she
was still in sho1ck and devastated from the Jury having found a Guilty Verdict against her oldest child 41and only son. APPLICANT'S CLAIM UNDER 2,3. AND 4 Every single: event at the 2/9/09joint trial ofApplicant was Fraud upon the Court and a violation of**A4?-?11.c:IDJ~'s. Ri<~,b1.** t.11 

### UlJ£.**l?tQI'.£.~~** lJ.Dili'.J:

### OOtb. tbi!.**'(eya~**Cmtstit.ut.iroJ.::.u:IJi tbi!.

### TJ. 

### S..**O!t~Bfit.JJtjn.TJ** •. THE EVENTSAFTERTHE TRIALAND CERTIFICATION OFAPPLICANT'S JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATIONTO THE 13TH COURT OFAPPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
FACT 17 FRAUDULENT RECORDS IN CERTIFICATION-OF APPLICANT'S JUDGMENT ROLL TO THE l3TH COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI TEXAS , CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEALS, AUSTIN, TEXAS AND THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON TEXAS Applicant's Claim under2,3, and 4 6/24/09 FRAUDULENT RECORDS IN CERTIFICATION OF APPLICANT'S JUDGMENT ROLL TO THE 13TH COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI TEXAS On June 24th 2009 The District Clerk Pam Heard and Presiding Judge Janna K.Whately certified Judgment Records to the 13th Court ofAppeals Cotpus Christi,. Texas
. Judge Whatley certified See EX# 24 Judgre Whately's Certification the proceedings that were held, instruments and other papers that were filedl in cause A-08-5080-4 CR ChadrickB Pate.See EX# 14 INDEX CHAD RICK B. PATEA-08-51080-4CR _page 1 under last entry on the_page showing Order on Motion for Severance. See Ex

### # 6 . This is the same Order that Judge Wellborn called a Mistake and said that it had not been officiially filed. See Ex# 9. It is also the same Order that the District Clerk Pam Heard said had not bteen filed and was just a_piece of_pa_per in the file. See Ex# 7. Yet Judge Whately says it was a p1roceeding that was held and it was filed into Cause No. A-08-5080-4CR. The District Clerks Office (Pam Heard's Office ) also certified that the Order was a proceeding that was held and filed in Cause No. A-08-5080-4CR. See Ex# 23 District ClerkPam Heard's

### Certification. By submitting the Order on the Motion for Severance Judge Whately and Pam Heard committed Fraud on the Court and Tampered with a Trial Court/Government Document
..**Th~** Index (Judgment Record inA-08-5080-4CR) that Judge Whately and Pam Heard submitted to the Court ofAppe:als is not only fraudulent for listing the Order on the Motion for Severance as a _proceedin_g that was held and filed into Cause No. A-08-5080-4CR Chadrick B. Pate. Itis also fraudlulent because the Index does not list all ofthe Fraudulent Proceedings that the Court entered and re.corded as held and filed in Cause No. A -08-5080-4CR onApplicant's Criminal 

### Docket Sheet See 

### Ex# 4. The illegal Proceedings that Judge Whately and Pam Heard did not certifiy to the Court o:fAppeals, are the Proceedings that were used to make it appear that Applicant had been legally rejoine:d to the Co defendant for ajoint trial after they refused to hold the Court Ordered Trial for A_p_plicant (on 11/3/08. These events stijJulate a tampering ofgovernment documents. The listed Proceedings had to be Concealed from the Court ofAppeals otherwise the Fraud committed against the Applicant :and The Court ofAppeals, Criminal Court of Appeals and the Federal Court would have been rev<ealed andA_P._plicant's conviction would have been Overturned long ago. The Judgment for Chadrick B. Pate Cause No. A-08-5080-4CR does not conform to statutory rules. 

### See: Trap Rule 34.5 (a) states Contents Unless the parties designate the filings in the appellate record by agreement under rule 34.2 the record must incclude copies ofthe following:Trap Rule 34.5 (a) (2) Indictment or Information. Any Special P'lea or Defense Motion that was presented to the court and OVERRULED Any Written \Vaiver, any written stipulation and in case in which a plea ofguilty or nolo contendre any· documents entered for the plea. The Motion fo:r Severance is a Defense Motion pursuant to 34.5 (a) (2) however it was not overruled. The Order GrantingApplicant's Severance dated 9/25/08 EX#6 is the Order that Judge Wellborn said that he signed by mistake and the same order that The District Clerk had calledjust a piece ofpaper in 42the Applicant"s file. And the Court Index Judgment does not include all ofthe Fraudulent Proceedings entered onA.PlPlicant's Criminal Docket sheet. Also see: Tx. R. Civ. 301 Judgment ofthe court shall conform to the Pleadings nature ofcase proved and the verdict ifany and shall be so framed as to give party all reliefin which he is entitled either in law or eguity
. Judge Whately and the District Clerk violatedApplicant's Due Process right to a fair and impartial Appeals Proce:ss, to be heard and notice and committed fraud on the Court, the l3 1 h Court ofAppeals, The Court ofCriminalAppeals_,. Austin and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District ofTexas_,. Houston Division where the fraudulent record was entered to conceal the Trial Court's fraud on the court by the court. And to be certain the Appeals Process would be denied. "Fraud is defilned as trickery or deceit, intentional misrepresentation, concealment, or nondisclosure, for the purpos.e ofinducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him, or a**false~** representation ofa matter offact by words, conduct orby concealment ofwhat should have been dis.closed that deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act**~pon** it to his legal injury," ((emphasis added) In re E.P ., 185 S.W. 3D 908 (Tex. App.-Austin 2006) FACT 18 The District Clerk's Responsibility to report fraudulent documents See Govt COllie Sec. 51.303.Duties ofthe Clerk (a)The clerk ofa district court has custody ofand ;hall carefully' maintain and arrange the records relating to or lawfully deposited in the clerk's office. (b) the clerk ofa district court shall ((1) record the acts and proceedings ofthe court (2) enter alljudgr.nents ofthe court under the direction ofthejudge. also see Govt.. Code Title 2 Subtitle D. Chap. 51 Section 51.901 Subsection

### J. showing: It is the duty ofthe Di:strict clerk ifthe clerk has reasonable basis to believe in good faith that a fraudulent document or instrument has been previously filed orrecorded or offered or 43submitted for :filing or for filing and recording is fraudulent, the clerk shall:(l) ifthe document is
a_pm:portedjudgment or other documentpurporting to memorialize or evidence an act, an order, a directive, orprocess ofa purported court, provide written notice ofthe filing, recording

, or submissiom for filing or for filing and recording to the stated or last known address ofthe person a_gainst whom the_pm:portedjud_gment, act, order, directive, or_process is rendered; Applicant's Claim Under 2 and 3**"£~awl** Q.Q.tbJ!.**T~tat**O!.urt,awl**CQ.JJ.:rt~** Q.(**A.~l~** The District Cl_erk did not provide notice to Applicant of Fraudulent Judgment, Criminal Docket Shee1

Court Order orIndex Sheet that their office certified to the 

### 13 1h Court ofAppeals. The District Clerk did not l)rovidle notice ofthe PUfl)orted Motions for Continuances._ PUfl)orted Orders on Continuances,_ Purported Coart Ordered Reset Dates, PurportedAnnouncements (that do not exists in the Court Records,)**onl~v** on the Applicant's Criminal Docket Sheet. The District Clerk tampered with the Record in the Applicant's Criminal Trial. The District Clerk and Court should have had a reasonable basis to believe in good faith that the above mentioned documents were fraudulent. 1. Becaus:e the clerk's office is the party that discovered with the court that the Order Granting Applicant's M otion was a mistake but yet allowed it to be certified to the 

### 13th Court ofAppeals Corpus Christi, Texas 2. Because the clerk's office has custody of and shall carefully maintain and arrange the records relating to or lawfully deposited in he clerk's office. The Clerk recOJrded as filed the above mentioned documents when the clerk's office knew that every proceeding/document, order, reset day, announcement motion and order entered onto the Ap_plicant's Criminal Docket Sheet after the 

### 10/23/08 hearing on his Motion to Dismiss were fraudulent entries. The Clerk's oflice tampered with government documents. The Clerk's office knew that there were no Recorded Proceedin_gs in the Trial Court Record showin_g evidence ofany ofthe entries that the 

### 44Clerks' office 1made onto the Criminal Docket Sheet after the 10/23/08 hearing. The District Clerk and Judge Janna "\!hatley committed fraud and fraud onthe court when they tampered with the government d•ocuments in the Applicant's Criminal Trial Case, submitted a Fraudulent Judgment to the 13 1h Court ofAppeals and failed to Report Fraudulent Records filed and entered into the Trial Court and the l3 1 h Court ofAppeals Co:r:ous Christi. Texas.

Letter fnlllm Judge Wellborn in Response to Letter from Habeas Attorney Carrie Crisp. Ex#9 Without quoting Judge Wellborn, he in essence stated that he was the pre trialjudge at a hearing for a Motion for Severance byAvvlicant on 9/25/08 but that the State req).lested a Motion for Continuances that same day and that bothparties agreed to continue said matter. He said that while he meant to sign
an Order Granting the Motion for Continuances, he instead had signed the Order Granting the Motion for Severance by mistake. He said that there were several orders in the Clerks file and they brought him the**wrong~** Order but that they discovered it quickly and that is why the order was never formally

filed and did not get a file stamp. He went on to explain that normally all Orders received a file stamp when they we:re filed
. He also stated that when someone announced that one or more ofthe parties
were waving there rights to ajury trial that the Motion for Severance became Moot. Judge Wellbo1rn did not explain why the Order Granting the Motion remained in the file or why he did not reverste the action ofsigning the Order. He also did not say who made the announcement and at what proceeding it was announced, or why there was no record on an announcement or factual findings on hi:s reasons for determining the Motion was Moot. See EX# 9 Letter from Judge Michael WeU.born to Carrie Crisp. Facts in The Trial Court Record regarding the claims in Judge Wellborn's letter do not comport with**i~** .cJ.ai..ttt.<::. 45There is no rec:orded proceeding ofany Announcement announcing that one or more ofthe defendant's

were going to waive their rights to ajurytrial. There is no rec:orded t>roceeding where Judge Michael Wellborn rendered the Motion Moot and provided a decision with factual findings on the Record There is no Record.ofnotice ofany such hearing and there is no notice to Applicant ofa decision finding the**M~otion** Moot. There are laws and procedures that must be followed at pre trial and trial. Announcemen:ts are suppose to be made on the record and Notice given. Defense Motioms must be ruled on prior to trial and a hearing had to determine the facts presented in the Motion, a :Decision must be made on the Motion with factually findings that support either the Granting or Denial ofsame and notice provided. When a MotiOJn is presented to thejudge the maker ofthe Motion must also prepare a Order for the Judge to sign and provide said order to thejudge and they go over the Motion and Order together. v [t is not the cle:rk that prepares or presents the Order, it is the Maker ofthe Order. John Gilmore 1told the Apt>licant and his Mother who both inq_uired numerous times that the Motion for

Severance was denied, He told Applicant's Mother this only a few days before trial when she insisted that he find out what was going on with the severance.

46CONCLUSION Because the trial courtproceeded to ajoint jurytrial with the co defendant whenApplicant 2hadrick B. P'ate and the natter were not properly before the court for adjudication, the trial court had nojmrisdiction to enter a Void Judgment, Sentence and Conviction against him and illegally impri son him in the Texas Department ofCriminal Justice System. Because the trial court and it's officers committed fraud on tlie court and tampered with the documents in Applicant's criminal trial court record, the court had nojurisdictionto try applicant at either a separate orjointtrial with the co defendant. All ofthe Facts Presented Both OnThe Record ofthe trial court and Outside the Courts Record and

Supported by 1the Courts records or sworn affidavit verify the Conclusion that Applicant's Judgment**i~** Void
. Becau:se the Conviction was acguired through the Violation ofA_pplicant's Due Process Rights to a fair and impartial trial, opportunity to be heard and Notice, and that Officers ofthe Court committed Framd onthe Court by the Court and tampered with the trial court records in order to obtain
an illegal Comviction ofthe Applicant. Then it is evident that the Judgment is Void. The trial courlt and it's officers misrepresentations to the Court, were deceitful, used trickery concealed facts, were passively silent, prevented a decision on a defense motion presented fraudulent documents, emtered fraudulent proceedings and used deception 

### by commission, 

### by omission,**~y ~peech,**  by silence, and by innuendo to obtain the conviction. The trial court: proceeded to trial when they had nojurisdiction overApplicant or the matter andgained an illegal conviction that illegally imprisoned Applicant, Applicant nor the issue were properly before the court for adjudication. The trial court violated Applicant's Due Process Rights to a impartial and fair trial, opportunity to be heard, and notice through their violations ofA_p_plicant's Due Process, fraud and fraud**~pon** the court that caused the 2ourt to losejjurisdiction to proceed to trial and to enter a Void Judgment, Conviction and Sentence. 

### 47

### Johnson v. Zenrbst 304 US 458 Sup Ct , Fay v. Noia 372 US 391 (1963) Mapco Inc.

## v: Forrest, 795 S W 2d 700.703 (Tx. 1990) See Armstrongv. Obucino 300 III 140,143 (192ll), Bracey v. Warden US Supreme Court No 96-6133 (June 9th 1997) ExparteYoun;g 418 S. W. 2d 214.223(Tx. Crim.App. 1977. Fraud may consist ofboth active misrepresentation and_passive silence. Vela v. Marywood L



### 7 S. 

### W. 3d 

### ?rso, review denied with per curiam opinion 53 S

### W 3d 684 rehearing ofpetition for review denierll (Tex App. Austin 2000). "Fraud Upon tlhe Court" has been defined as that fraud committed by an officer ofthe court in any attempt to dec:eive, either by commission, by omission,by speech, by silence, by gesture, by innuendo by look, etc. \Vhenever this fraud is committed by any attorney orjudge, it is a "fraud upon the Court" In Eugene**Le~e** 

### Armentrout et. al., Ill. 2D 242 75 Ill Dec 703 457 N.E.2d 1262 (1983): Regenold v. Baby Fold, Inc., 68 Ill. 2D 419,435 12 Ill Dec. 151.369 N.E. 2D 858 (1977) ; In re Lamberis, 93 Ill. 2D 222,229, 646 Ill. Dec.623, 443 N.E.2d 549 (1982); Bulloch v. United States k 763 F 2d 1115,1121

(1985); Root ]!Refining Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 169 F2d 514 (1948) Fraud occurs when a party sets into motion a scheme calculated to interfere with thejudicial system's ability impartially to adiudicate a matter by improperly influencingthe trier offact or unfairly hampering the: .presentation ofthe opposing party's claim or defense. AOUDE v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d. 111.5,1118 (1st Cir. 1989). lt is fraud that denies a losinglitigant the opportunity to fully litigate at trial his rights or defenses that could have been asserted. Alexander, 266 S W 2d@ 1001: King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S W 3d 742,752 (Tex. 2003). In Fay v. Noia the court observed: Criminal proceedings s'o fundamentally defective as to make imprisonment pursuant to them constitutionally intolerable should not be allowed to obscure the basic continuity in the conception ofthe Writ as remedy for su!ch imprisonment. 48

### PRAYER Whereforte Petitioner Prays that the Courtgrant ChadrickB. Pate relieffrom which he is entitled in tlltis proceeding, that includes an Immediate Emergency Decision, an Orderfor his

Immediate Release from Incarceration, OrderVacating and Dismissing theVoid Judgment, Sentence, and Conviction, an OrderRemoving/Expunging the Conviction from all Judaical and Government Records,And an Orderthat Sanctions the Trial Court and it's Officers ofthe Court for the Fratud and due process violations inflicted upon Applicant ChadrickB Pate. And any otherrelief that is available to him.



### 49:·.:·: . ...: ..: :' ' ·.**·~** i.'..'
.. ;. :



### IN THE COURT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

WRITNO. WR-78, 165-02

EX PARTE CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJNO. 01563340 APPLICANT NEMABARDtiN

PETITIONER 

# v. JUDGE**JAN~NA** 

### K. WHATELY FROMTHE DISTRICT COURT 36THJUDICIALDISTRICT ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR

EMERGENCYMOTION FORRELEIF REQUEST FORIMMEDIATE BAILDECISIONAND IMMEDIATE RELEIF**PURSUA!~T** 

### TOTHE UNDERLYING ORIGINALEMERGENCY WRITFORHABEAS CORPUS WR-78.165-02

COVER SHEET 

## RECEIVED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

## JUN 02 

## 2015 AbelAcosta,Clerk

### INTHE COURT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS WRITNO. WR-78, 165-02

EX PARTE CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJNO. 01563340**APPLICAr~T** 

### NEMABARDHN

YETJTJO.NE'B 

## v.**JUDGEJAN~NAK.** 

### WHATELY FROMTHE DISTRICT COURT 36THJUDICIAL DISTRICT ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR

EMERGENCYMOTION FORRELEIF REQUESTFORIMMEDIATE BAILDECISIONAND IMMEDIATE RELEIF PURSUAr'U TO THE UNDERLYING ORIGINALEMERGENCY WRITFORHABEAS CORPUS

TOTHE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: NOW COME$,**Petition~r** NemaBardin on behalfofA_p_plicant Chadrick B. Pate and respectfully mbmits this Emergency Motion for Reliefpursuant to and onthe Original Writ ofHabeas Corpus filed in this Court on May, 19th, 2015 .ANDAmended Emergency Original Writ ofHabeas Corpus filed
onthis date Jume 02_. 2015 seeking relieffrom Cause No. A-08-5080-4CR a**Voi~** Judgment. Sentence and Conviction ordered in the 36th Judicial District Trial CourtAransas, County Texas, and certified by Trial Judge Janna K. Whately. Because the Trial Court Judgment in Cause No: A-08-5080- 4CR is Void fo.r lack ofJurisdiction, Fraud on the Court, and Tanwering with a Trial Court Government Record then tl:lls Motion also pertains to relieffrom Cause No. WR-78.-165-01 The Intial Writ of Habeas Corpus filed into this Court on or about 6/21/2011 and was denied on 3/6/2013 without 

### 1written order by Judge Cochran, and from Cause No. 13-09--00112CR affirmed 10/27/2010 from the Thirteenth Dis;trict Court ofAp_peals.

inA-08-5080-4CR. Chadrick B. Pate.



### JURISDICTION Because this Motion flows from the filing ofPetitioner's Original Writ ofHabeas Corpus it has jurisdiction for the same reasons it has Jurisdiction overthe Original Writ filed onthe 19th day ofMay 2015 andArr.11.ended Writ filed onthis date June 02:. 2015pursuantto Article V Section 5 ofthe Texas Constitution amdAmendments 1, 5,6 and 14 ofthe U.S. Constitution
. 

### See ExparteThompson 273

S. W. 3d 177, 181 (fex. Crim.App.2008) showing this courtto have generaljurisdiction over Original Habeas Corpus See Tex Const. Article V

STATEMENT OFTHE CASE Petitioner Nem.a Bardin filed an Original Writ ofHabeas Corpus in this Court onMay 19th, 2015, and then filed an amendedWrit onJune 02, 2015 by hand delivering it and speaking personally with

### Mr. Abel Acosta Clerk for the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals. Petitioner asked to speak with

### Mr. Acosta in order to exp·lain that the Writ beingfiled was not a 11.07 Writ and therefore not a Second or

· Successive Pe·tition under 11.07. Petitioner explained the nature ofthe Writ and why it was being filed

as an OriginaL Writ under this Courts inherent power and jurisdictionto provide the reliefrequested. Mr. Acostatoo'k the Document after reviewing some ofthe paperwork with Petitioner and stated that he would file it. OnMay 22nd, 2015 after checking her mail box, Petitioner found that there was no notification fr•om the Court providing notice thatthe Documents had been filed. Because Petitioner's address is local she called

### Mr. Acosta to inq_uire about the filing ofthe documents. He stated that she should have re•ceived a post card. A conversation regarding the filing and docketing and the rules and 

### 2.procedures that are required onthe kind ofWrit that Petitioner filed left Petitioner confused. Because Petitioner was told that there were no deadlines for the Court to make a decision onthe Writ that she had filed, and because she was told that the Case No. for the Writ that she filed was the same as the Initial Writ thatApplicant Pate had filed withthe exception ofthe last two digits, Petitioner was in a quandary, and decided that she had better study the Trap rules more thoroughly. Petitioner checked he1 mail again onJMay 23, 2015 andthe Post Cardhad still not arrived at her downtown P 0 Box 772 Austin, Texas
.. After reviewing the Trap Rules, Petitioner felt thatthere should be a req_uirement on the time frame for a decision onthe Serious Matter ofa Writ that challenged the Judgment ofthe Trial Court as beingVoid for Lack ofJurisdiction. Petitioner filed anAmended Emergency Writ ofHabeas Corpus on this date June 02, 2015 hand delivered to the Clerk and has at the same time filed this Emergency M·otion for Releifalso hand delivered on June 02, 2015 to the Clerk. Itis not Petitioner's intent to overide this Court with endless Petitions/Motions, it is only her intent to follow the**pro~cedures (~though**  as a layman they are incredibly confusingto her) she does not w.ant the Writ to be denied for failure to follow the rules or procedures. Applicant lost his liberty because the trial court purposely failed to follow the rules and the procedures required ofthem. Petitioner·does not q_uestion that 

### Mr. Acosta is not following the rules. She is sure that he is, but because she has no idea which rules that are being followed then she has determined it best to file this "Motion for Emergency Relief', with the hope that the Original Writ ofHabeas Corpus will not be denied for her failure in misunderstandingthe Trap Rules and Procedures/Protocols that the Clerk's Office uses to see that these kinds ofWrits are filed andjournaled properly and expeditiously.
The Petitioner has filed her Original Writ for Habeas Corpus into the proper Court See Thompson 273 S W 3d 177, 1.81 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Ifwhat Mr. Ac,osta says is true, that the Court has no time limit for a decision onthe Writ, and it could be.years befor·e a decision, then Petitioner and Applicant do not have an adeguate remedy for relief. 3See In re Me Cann 422 S W 3d 201 (fex. 2013) showing:that the remedy is not adequate ifthe remedy is: u:ncertain, tedious, burdensome, slow, inconvenient or, inappropriate, then it is deemed to be ineffective (quoting from Greenwell v. Court ofAppeals for theThirteenth Judicial Dist 159 S. W. 3d 645,648-9 (fex. Crim.App 2005). With this intnind Petitioner respectfully request that this Court take immediate action and grant Applicant Bail on a PersonalRecognizance Bond freeing him from incarceration until which time this Court can reach a decision onthe merits ofthe Petitioner's claims and that immediate action be taken onthis !lvtotion and onthe Odginal Wdt ofHabeas Cowus filed onthe 

### 19th day ofMay 

### 2015. and the Writ filed amending onthis date June 

### 02, 2015
.. More than a 

### (114) days have passed since the filing ofthe Odginal Writ, and Applicant has been**ille~ally** restradned for 7years. Petitioner has supported the Wdt with undeniable proofthat the Trial Court Tampered with the trial court records, violatedApplicant's dght to a fair and impartial trial, lied tojurors held exparte hearings
and manipulat<ed the Judicary in order to obtain an illegal conviction overApplicant. Applicant has' provided the trial courts own records that prove the claims that she has made. Applicant received no fair and impartjal trial, opportunity to be heard and notice at the sham trial. The trial court violated Applicant's U
.. S Constitutional Due Process rights, under the Texas Constitution
.. See Winters v. PresidingJudge ofCriminalDist. Court No. Three ofTarrant County 118 S W 34. IfPetitioner hatS failed to follow any rules or procedures, this Motionnor the Original Writ should bt: denied for suc:h a failure. In JudgeAcala's dissent in the case ofTyrone Casey Sledge citing Ex Parte Graves. 70SW 3d 103-107-(fex. Crim.App 2013) she concluded: that the purpose ofthe

· Habeas Statutte was to limit subsequent writs to regulate the influx ofapplications raising claims that

were only rec:ently cognizable rather thanto limit the traditional common law claim thatthe trial court 4lackedjurisdiction overthe case. She concluded that The legislature may not withhold the right of habeas c01:pusTex. Const. Art. 1, 

### 12 (The Writ ofHabeas Corpus is a Writ ofright and shall never be



### CONCLUSION Petitioncer's filing ofthe OriginalWrit ofHabeas Corpus_presents not only exceptional**circumstancli~s** 

### for which reliefshould be granted, but it should be granted to meet the very ends ofjustice.**Be~cause** the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is the last resort and State .remedy for relief

from a Judwment that is Void for Lack ofJurisdiction, and because to deprive Applicant ofhis only effective State remedy would not only be contrary to the rudimentary demands of justice but destructive**~of**a constitutional guaranty specifically designed to prevent injustice, and because The Writ lies as a traditional civil remedy for the enforcement ofthe right, topersonal liberty , not a stage ofthe statte criminal proceedings or as an appeal therefrom, and because The Court ofCriminal Appeals may take action authorized by constitutional provision, and under common law, and it's inherent and i111plied_power, this Motion for Emer_gency Reliefshould be_granted and The Ori_ginal Writ requesting reliefshould be heard as an emergency and all reliefrequested in the Writ should be granted.

5

### PRAYER Petitioner p•rays that this Honorable Court will hear and grant and issue Order on this Motion for Emergency Re:leif immediately providing for BAIL on a Personal Recognizance Bond and that it issue Order to rule on Petitioner's Original Writ ofHabeas Corpus and grant all reliefrequested there-in and do so within 7 days ofthis filing. Petitioner ]prays that this Honorable Court by granting such requested reliefwill at least see that Applicant's Liberty is restored quickly and unconditionally.



### 6

### Certificate of Compliance Petitionetr has telephoned the District Clerk ofAransas County, The DisctrictAttorney of Aransas Co1lllnty, JudgeJanna K. Whately and the Director ofTDCJ and notified each ofthem that this Eotergency Motion for Reliefwould be filed. Petitioner spoke with a staffmember in each instancce and provided the notification, however Cookie at the Director's office could no1

hearme d1Ue to some kind oftelephone interti ence. Petitioner made every effort to notify.

# ~mrl!~ Petitioner dated**~** 

### / 

## '2-/7-of5



### 7.

### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALSAUSTIN, TEXAS

EXPARTE CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJ 01563340 APPLICANT11REALTOR 

## v. PRESIDING .JUDGE JANNA K. WHATELY FROMTHE DISTRICT COURT 36THJUDICIAL D ISTRICT ARANSASCOUNTYTEXAS CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR

CERTIJFICATE OF SERVICE
I do hereby certify that a true original ofthe above and foregoing Emergency ]Motion for Reliefwas personally hand delivered on the 2"d day ofJune 2015 to The Texas Court ofCriminalAppeals Clerk's Office at 201 W. 14th St

8

### INTHE COURT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02

EXPARTE CHADRICK

### JIB. PATE TDCJ NO. 01563340**APPLICAr~T** 

### FROM THE DISTRICT COURT 36THJUDICIAL DISTRICT ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR NEMA BARDHN

PETITIONEGR 

# v. JUDGE JANJNA K. WHATELY

TABLE OFCONTENTS
LETTERTO CLERK OFCRIMINALAPPEALS ABELACOSTA COVER SHEET AMEN:DED EMERGENCY ORIGINALWRIT OFHABEAS CORPUS (49 PAGES) JURISDICTION PAGE 2 PROCEDURALIDSTORY3 EMERGENCYRELIEFPAGE 4
. STATEMENT OFCASE PAGE 5-10 CLAIMS/GROUNDS FORRELEIFPAGES 11-13 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORTWITH FACTS SUPPORTING CLAIMS/GROUNDS FOR RELIEFPAGES 13-46 CONCLUSION PAGE PAGES 47-48 PRAYER PAGE 49 APPENDIX COVER SHEET APPENDIX PAGE 1 OF2

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (2 PAGES) PETITIONER'S NOTARIZED OATH (1 PAGE) EXHIBIT LIST (2 PAGES) EXHIBITS 1-24 COVER SHEETS THEACTlUAL EXHIBITS CAN BE FOUND IN THE COURTS RECORDS UNDER WR78,165-02 FILED ON 5/19/2015 LIST OFAUTHORITIES

### INTHE COURT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02

EXPARTEG CHADRICKliB. PATE TDCJNO. 01563340**APPLICAr~T** 

### NEMABARDIN**PETITIONF~R** 

## v. JUDGE JANJNA K. WHATELY FROM THE DISTRICT COURT 36THJUDICIALDISTRICT ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR

APPENDIX COVER SHEETIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02

EX PARTE CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJ NO. 01563340**APPLICAI~T** FROM THE DISTRICT COURT 36TH JUDICIALDISTRICT ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR NEMABARD,IN



### .PE.TJTJOJ'Y.F.'R 

# v. JUDGE JAN-NA K. WHATELY

APPENDIX

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (2 PAGES) PETITIONER'S NOTARIZED OATH (1 PAGE) EXHIBIT LIST (2 PAGES) EXHIBITS 1-24 COVER SHEETS THEACTUALEXHIBITS CAN BE FOUND IN THE COURTS RECORDS UNDERWR78,165-02 FILED ON 5/19/2015 LIST OFAUTHORITIES

### INTHE COURT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02

EXPARTE CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJ NO. 01563340**APPLICAI~T** 

### FROM THE DISTRICT COURT 36THJUDICIALDISTRICT ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR NEMA**BARD~**

### IN

PETITIONE:R 

# v.**JUDGEJAN~NAK.** 

### WHATELY

PETITIONER'S INFORMATION NEMA**BA~RDIN** 

### P. 0. 

### Box 7'72 Austin, TeJKas 78767 512-487-0197 cell

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that a true original ofthe above and foregoing A_p_plication ofEmergency Original Habeas Corpus was personally hand delivered on the 2ND day ofJUNE, 2015 to The Texas Co1urt of CriminalAppeals Clerk's Office at 201 W. 14th StreetAustin, Texas 78701 and sent regular mail to: JUDGE JANNAK. WHATELY P.O. BOX 700 SINTON TEXAS 79387-0700 ARANSAS COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK'S OFFICE 301 NORTH LIVE OAK STREET ROCKPORT, TEXAS 78382

PAGE 1 OF2

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
ARANSAS COUNTYDISTRICTATTORNEY 301 NORTH LIVE OAK STREET ROCKPORT, TEXAS 78382

NEMABARDIN PETITIONER

PAGE20F2

### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02

EXPARTEC CHADRICKllB. PATE TDCJ NO. 01563340**APPLICAr~T** 

### NEMABARDHN

PETITIONEGR 

# v. JUDGE JANJNA K. WHATELY

STATE OF' TEXAS, COUNTY OFTRAVIS OATH FROMTHE DISTRICT COURT 36THJUDICIALDISTRICT ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR

I NEMABARDIN BEING DULY SWORN, UNDER OATH SAYS: I AM THE PETITIONER IN TillSAMENDED EMERGENCYORIGINALHABEAS CORPUSACTIONAND KNOW THE CONTENTS OFTHEABOVE APPLICATION FORWRIT OFHABEAS CORPUS AND, ACCORDINGTO MYBELIEF, THE FACTS STATED IN THEAPPLICATIONARE TRUE.

NEMABARDIN PETITIONER
SUBSCRI:JIIJED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME JUNE 02, 2015.

NOTARY PUBLIC-,



### IN THE COURT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02

EXPARTE CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJNO. 01563340 APPLICAr'lT FROM THE DISTRICT COURT 36TH JUDICIALDISTRICT ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR NEMABARDHN

PETITIONE:R 

# v.**JUDGEJAN~NAK.** 

### WHATELY

COVER SHEET

### ~~ibl-\- 

## Lt.s.T

### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02

EX PARTE CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJ NO. 01563340 APPLICAr'JT NEMA**BARD~**

### IN

PETITIONE:R 

## v. JUDGE JAN:NA K. WHATELY
AMENDED EXHIBITLIST FROM THE DISTRICT COURT 36THJUDICIALDISTRICT ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR

Ex # 1 Motiom ofDefendant ChadrickPate for Severance ofDefendant's Ex # 2 Indiclltment Ex # 3**Char~ge** 

### ofthe Court Ex # 4 Criminal Docket Sheet ofApplicant ChadrickB. Pate Ex # 5 9/25/01

### 8 Reporters Record Volume 2 of9 ChadrickPat€ Ex # 6 Order on Motion for Severance ChadrickPate 9/25/08 Ex # 7 Affidavit ofStacy Deville (On statement from Pam Heard on Mistake ofSeverance Order page :1 

### paragraph 3 Ex # 8 10/23Jf08 Reporters Record Volume 4 of 11 Pre trial hearing Christopher HallA-08-5080- 2CR Ex# 9**Judge~** 

### Wellborn's letterto Carrie CrispApplicant's HabeasAttorney F.x#J

### 0 Ca.r.dte C..ri.\(l**~to** .Jndg.e W.cllhn.r.n 

### Ex#**1110/23/«~8** 

### Reporter's Record Volume 3 of9 ChadrickPate Motion to Dismiss A-08-5080- 4CR**E~#**\1. 

### CT\m\Tat\**~1;\ ~** **C'r..Tfi\~** \\'lN.**h.~Y,.I!RlUb-'lCR.** 

### Ex# 13 11/25.108 Reporters Record Volume 5 of 11 pretrial hearing ChristopherHallA-08-5080- 2CR Ex#' !4" Zt5!UI'1 

### Reporters Record**~ofume** S'A 

### offf 

### pre trfafflearfng 

### S'-08'-5\J8\J-:Z Ex# 15 MasterIndex ChristopherHall CourtReporters Record Volume 1 of 11 page 2 Ex# 16 Indic:tment ChristopherHallA-08-5080-2CR Ex# 17 2/9/09 Reporters Record Volume 4 of9 page 102 line 9-25 ChadrickPateA-08-5080- 4CR Ex# 18 Reporters Record Volume of pages 259 lines 1-25 Page 1 of2

### EXHffiiTLIST CONTINUED Ex# 19 Affidavit ofApplicant ChadrickPate on Leg Restraints Ex# 20 Repo,rters Record Volume 6 of9 page 221 lines 1-25 ChadrickPate Ex# 21 Inde1c: ofEvents certified to Court ofAppeals ChadrickPate Ex# 22 Judgmllent FrontPage ChadrickPateA-08-5080-4CR Ex# 23 District Clerk Certification to the Court ofAppeals Ex# 24 Judge Whately'S certification to the Court ofAppeals ofall proceedings.

Page 2 of2

### IN THE COURT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02

EXPARTE CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJNO. 01563340**APPLICAr~T** 

### NEMA**BARD~**

### IN

PETITIONE:R 

# v. JUDGE**JAN~NA** 

### K. WHATELY

COVER SHEET FROM THE DISTRICT COURT 36THJUDICIAL DISTRICT ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR

### INTHE COURT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02

EX

### PARTE CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJ NO. 01563340**APPLICAJ'~T** 

### NEMABARD»>N

PETITIONE:R 

# v. JUDGE JANNA K. 

### WHATELY

COVER SHEET EXHIBIT 1 FROM THE DISTRICT COURT 36THJUDICIALDISTRICT ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR

MOTION OFDEFENDANT CHADRICK PATE FOR SEVERANCE OFDEFENDANT'S

### IN THE COURT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02

EX

### PARTE CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJNO. 01563340 APPLICAI'JT NEMABARDHN

PETITIONE:R 

# v. JUDGE JANNAK. WHATELY

COVER SHEET EXIDBIT 2 INDICTMENT FROMTHE DISTRICT COURT 36THJUDICIALDISTRICT ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR

### IN THE COURT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02

EXPARTE CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJ NO. 01563340 APPLICAr'lT NEMABARDJIN

PETITIONE:R 

## v. JUDGE**JAN~NA** 

### K. WHATELY

COVER SHEET EXHffiiT 3 FROM THE DISTRICT COURT 36TH JUDICIALDISTRICT ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR

CHARGE OFTHE COURT

### IN THE COURT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS WRITNO. WR-78, 165-02

EX PARTE CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJNO. 01563340 APPLICAI'IT NEMABARDIN

PETITIONE:R 

## v. JUDGE**JAN~NA** 

### K. WHATELY

COVER SHEET EXIDBIT 4 FROM THE DISTRICT COURT 36THJUDICIALDISTRICT ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR

CRIMINALDOCKET SHEETAPPLICANT CHADRICK B. PATE

### IN THE COURT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02

EX PARTE CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJNO. 01563340**APPLICA!~T** 

### NEMABARDHN

PETITIONE:R 

# v. JUDGEJAN:NAK. WHATELY

COVER SHEET EXHIBIT 5 FROM THE DISTRICT COURT 36TH JUDICIALDISTRICT ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR

9/:25/08 REPORTERS RECORD VOLUME 2 OF9 CHADRICKB. PATE

### IN THE COURT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02

EXPARTE CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJ NO. 01563340 APPLICAI'lT NEMABARDniN

PETITIONE:R 

# v. JUDGE**JAN~NA** 

### K. WHATELY

COVER SHEET EXHIBIT 6 FROMTHE DISTRICT COURT 36TH JUDICIALDISTRICT ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR

ORDER ON MOTION FOR SEVERANCE 9/25/08

### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02

EXPARTE CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJNO. 01563340**APPLICAr~T** 

### NEMABARJ)IN

PETITIONE:R 

# v. JUDGE JAN:NA K. WHATELY

COVER SHEET EXHIBIT 7 FROMTHE DISTRICT COURT 36TH JUDICIALDISTRICT ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR

AFFIDAVIT STACEY DEVILLE DISTRICT CLERKPAM HEARD'S STATEMENTABOUT THE MOTION OF SEVERANCE ORDER SIGNED BYJUDGE MICHAELWELLBORN 9/25/08

### IN THE COURT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02

EX PARTE CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJ NO. 01563340 APPLICAr'lT NEMABARD,IN

PETITIONE:R 

## v.**JUDGEJAN~NAK.** 

### WHATELY

COVER SHEET EXHIBIT 8 FROMTHE DISTRICT COURT 36TH JUDICIALDISTRICT ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR

10/23/08 REPORTERS RECORD VOLUME 4 OF 11 PRE TRIALHEARING CHRISTOPHER HALLA-08-5080-2CR

### IN THE COURT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02

EX PARTE CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJNO. 01563340**APPLICAI~T** 

### NEMABARD»IN

YJ!.TJTJO.NE'R 

# v.**JUDGEJAN~NAK.** 

### WHATELY

COVER SHEET EXHIBIT 9 FROMTHE DISTRICT COURT 36THJUDICIALDISTRICT ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR

JUDGE WEILLBORN'S LETTERTO CARRIE CRISPAPPLICANT'S HABEAS ATTORNEY

### INTHE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS WRIT 

### NO. WR-78, 165-02

EX PARTE CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJ NO. 01563340**APPLICAf~T** 

### NEMA**BARD~**

### IN

PETITIONE:R 

## v. JUDGE**JAN~NA** 

### K. WHATELY

COVER SHEET EXHIBIT 10 FROM THE DISTRICT COURT 36TH JUDICIALDISTRICT ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR

CARRIE CRISPLETTERTO JUDGE WELLBORN

### IN THE COURT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02

EX PARTEe CHADRICKlB. PATE TDCJ NO. 01563340**APPLICM~T** 

### NEMA BARD»IN

PETITIONEGR 

# v. JUDGE JANNAK. WHATELY

COVER SHEET EXHIBIT 11 FROMTHE DISTRICT COURT 36THJUDICIALDISTRICT ARANSAS**COUNT~** 

### TEXAS CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR

10/23/08 REPORTERS RECORD VOLUME 3 OF 9 CHADRICK PATE MOTION TO DISMISS A-08-5080-4CR

### INTHE COURT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02

EX PARTE CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJNO. 01563340**APPLICAI~T** 

### NEMABARDPIN

PETITIONE:R 

## v., JUDGE JAN:NA K. WHATELY

COVER SHEET EXHIDIT 12 FROM THE DISTRICT COURT 36THJUDICIALDISTRICT ARANSAS COUNTY, TExAS CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR

CRIMINALDOCKET SHEET CHRISTOPHERHALLA-08-5080-2CR

### IN THE COURT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02

EXPARTE CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJ NO. 01563340**APPLICAr~T** 

### NEMABARDPIN

J>.F.TJTJO.NE:R 

# v. JUDGE JAN:NA K. WHATELY

COVER SHEET EXHffiiT 13 FROMTHE DISTRICT COURT 36THJUDICIAL DISTRICT ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR

11/25/08 REPORTERS RECORD VOLUME 5 OF 11 PRE TRIALHEARING CHRISTOPHER HALLA-08-5080-2CR

### IN THE COURT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02

EX PARTE CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJ NO. 01563340**APPLICAI~T** 

### NEMABARD»IN

PETITIONE:R 

# v. JUDGE JAN-NA K. WHATELY

COVER SHEET EXHIBIT 14 FROMTHE DISTRICT COURT 36TH JUDICIALDISTRICT ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR

Z/5/09 REPORTERS RECORD VOLUME 5-A OF 11 PRE TRIALHEARING CHRISTOPHER HALLS-08-5080-2

### IN THE COURT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02

EXPARTE CHADRICK JIB. 

### PATE TDCJ NO. 01563340**APPLICAr~T** 

### NEMA BARDHN**PETITIONE~R** 

# v. JUDGE JANJNA K. WHATELY

COVER SHEET EXHIBIT 15 FROM THE DISTRICT COURT 36THJUDICIALDISTRICT ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR

MAS'TER INDEX CHRISTOPERHALLREPORTERS RECORD 1-11 PAGE 2

IN THE COURT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

### WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02

EX PARTE CHADRICK

## :B. PATE TDCJNO. 01563340**APPLICAI~T** 

### NEMABARDIN

PETITIONE:R 

## v. JUDGE JANNAK. 

### WHATELY

COVER SHEET EXIDBIT 16 FROM THE DISTRICT COURT 36THJUDICIAL DISTRICT ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR

INDICTMENT CHRISTOEHER HALLA-08-5080-2CR

### IN THE COURT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02

EX

### PARTE CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJNO. 01563340**APPLICAt~T** 

### NEMABARD,IN

PETJTJONE:B 

# v. JUDGEJAN:NAK. WHATELY

COVER SHEET EXillBIT#17 FROMTHE DISTRICT COURT 36THJUDICIALDISTRICT ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR

2/9/09 REPORTERS RECORD VOLUME 4 OF 9 PAGE 102 LINE 9-25 CHADRICK PATE A-08-5080-4CF

### IN THE COURT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02

EX PARTE CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJNO. 01563340**APPLICAr~T** 

### NEMABARDIN

PETITIONE:R 

## v.**JUDGEJAN~NAK.** 

### WHATELY

COVER SHEET EXHIBIT 18 FROM THE DISTRICT COURT 36TH JUDICIALDISTRICT ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR**REPORTER~S** 

### RECORD VOLUME CHADRICK B PATE LEG RESTRAINTS PAGE 259 LINE 1-25

### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02

EX PARTE CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJ NO. 01563340**APPLICAr~T** 

### NEMABARDHN

.P.E.TJTJO.NE'R 

## v. JUDGE**JAN~NA** 

### K. WHATELY

COVER SHEET EXHIBIT 19 FROM THE DISTRICT COURT 36THJUDICIAL DISTRICT ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR

AFFIDAVIT OF CHADRICKPATE (LEG RESTRAINTS)

### IN THE COURT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02

EXPARTE CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJ NO. 01563340**APPLICAr~T** 

### NEMABARD,IN

Y.E.TJTJO.NE'Jl 

# v. JUDGEJAN.NAK. WHATELY

COVER SHEET EXHIBIT 20 FROM THE DISTRICT COURT 36THJUDICIALDISTRICT ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR

REPOR']fERS RECORD VOLUME 6 OF 9 PAGE 221 LINES 1-25 CHADRICKPATE

### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02

EX PARTE CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJ NO. 01563340 APPLICANT NEMABARDniN

.PETJTJONKR 

# v. JUDGE JAN:NA K. WHATELY

COVER SHEET EXHIBIT 21 FROMTHE DISTRICT COURT 36THJUDICIAL DISTRICT ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR

INDEX OF" EVENTS CERTIFIED TO THE OURT OFAPPEALS CHADRICKPATE A-08- 5080-4CR

### IN THE COURT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02


### EX PARTE CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJNO. 01563340**APPLICAi~T** 

### NEMABARDIN

YETJTJONE'B 

# v. JUDGE JAN.NA K. WHATELY FROM THE DISTRICT COURT 36THJUDICIALDISTRICT
· ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS

CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR

COVER SHEET

EXHIBIT 22 JUDGMENT FRONTPAGE CHADRICK PATE A-08-5080-4CR

### IN THE COURT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02

EXPARTEC CHADRICKJIB. PATE TDCJ NO. 01563340**APPLICAr~T** 

### NEMABARDHN

PETITIONEGR 

## v. JUDGE JANJNA K. WHATELY

COVER SHEET EXHIBIT 23 FROM THE DISTRICT COURT 36THJUDICIAL DISTRICT ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS**CAU~E** 

### NO. A-08-5080-4CR

DISTRICT CLERK CERTIFICATION TO THE COURT OFAPPEALS CHADRICK PATE A-08-5080-4CR

### IN THE COURT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02

EX PARTE CHADRICKJIB. PATE TDCJNO. 01563340**APPLICAr~T** 

### NEMABARDIN

PETITIONEGR 

# v. JUDGE JANJNA K. WHATELY

COVER SHEET EXHIBIT 24 FROM THE DISTRICT COURT 36THJUDICIALDISTRICT ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR**JUDGE~** 

### WHATELY'S CERTIFICATION TOTHE COURT OFAPPEALS OFALL PROCEEDINGS