AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH

State of Texas) 4 as
) cilicet

Wichita County)

" Indeed, no more than (affidavit) is necessary to make the
prima facie case."United States v. Kis,658 F.2nd 526,536

(7th Cir-1981): cert denied,50 U.S. L.W.2169,S.Ct.March
22, 1982.

That 1,Joe Saucedo,a living-breathing man,being first duly sworn,depose and
say and declare by my signature that the following facts are true,correct
and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

That,for Resolving a Matter it must be expressed.

That, Truth is expressed in the Affidavit form.

That,an Unrebutted Affidavit stands as thruth in commerce.

That,an Unrebutted Affidavit becomes the judgement in Commerce.

That,a truth Affidavit,under Commercial Law can only be satisfied by a Re-
buttal about the truth Affidavit,by payment,by argreement by resolution by

a jury according by the rules for Common Law.

That, this is a Rebuttal Affidavit to the Affidavit of Thomas A. Radosevich's
the State's Original Answer Filed October 24,2013 by Eva Flores, Respondant 's
Proposed Findings of Fact and Order February 27, 2015.

That,Thomas A. Radosevich failed to rebut the allegations that Joe Saucedo
was a habitual offender.

That ,Joe Saucedo never held any prior convictions within the ten year time
limit that could be used against him for enchancement purposes.

That, Joe Saucedo never possessed a firearm.

That, the claim of Joe Saucedo used a deadly weapon to wit;a firearm was never
proved.

That,when a conviction is over ten years old it can not be used for enchance-
ment purposes.

That Thomas A. Radosevich,in his Affidavit of trial Counsel dated 12-09-13,
admitted that he did not create a paper file,in which a paper file inthe
instant case would have help establish and prove facts before the jury -This

was a part of failing to prepare for trial-
That ,Thomas A Radosevich,inthe last paragraph of the first page of Affidavit

of Trial Counsel,stated he failed to move to dismiss any portion of the in-
dictment when it appeared Joe Saucedo would not accept any plea bargains
Thomas A, Radosevich had a duty to try and have all charges dismissed on

behalf of his client ,yet he-
jot 3


ATC-060 (Rev. 7)
Attachment 2

: NOTICE
OFFENDER NOTARY PUBLIC SERVICE

Under both Federal law (28 U.S.C § 1746) and State law (V.T.C.A. Civil Practice & Remedies
Code, §132.001-132.003), offenders incarcerated in Texas may use an unsworn declaration under
penalty of perjury in place of a written declaration, verification, certification, oath, or affidavit

sworn before a Notary Public.

Ina request for Notary Public service, each offender must explain why an Unsworn Declaration is
insufficient before Notary Public service will be provided.

PemprEereerrererrrrrrrtrtertrrrt criti tril torrie geese eels

An example of an unsworn declaration pursuant to State law is as follows:

"My name is __Joe = oa Seuicedo my date of birth is_1-6-69 >
(First) (Middle) (Last)

and my inmate identifying number, is __41402138 . Lam presently incarcerated in
LALA red Unit in Towa Park 1

~ (Corrections unit name) (City)

Wichita ‘Texas, 76367 . I declare under penalty of

(County) (State) (Zip Code)

perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on the _1St__day of April 20, 5D Svececahs (pa "

C ” (Offender Signature)

FEE OEE GOES HEB OIE OSE GSES ISDE DSSS HEE IGE BSE SE IIE TOE a IRE aE

An example of an unsworn declaration pursuant to Federal law is as follows:

(insert offender name and TDCJ number), being
(insert TDCJ unit name), in

County, Texas, declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true

presently incarcerated in

and correct.

Executed on the day of. , 20. .
(Offender Signature)

Pere nerarrrrrrrrerrrrrrrererrrrrttr rer Dron tS Dt sae esas hide eles

NOTICE
NOTARY PUBLIC SERVICE DENIAL

Regarding your request for Notary Public service, insufficient justification was provided

necessitating Notary Public service. However, you may proceed with an Unsworn Declaration.

NLA ee
(Date)

(Signature - Notary)



Upon the Court reversing this case for a hearing and point out to the Court
the true meaning of a firearm and a geadly weapon,the court must then re-
lease the Applicant from his unlawful confinement,because the jury was not
aware of the law and it's interpretations, therefore, the Applicant relies
upon the integrity of the 232nd Court that it is in error and have the App-
licant unlawfully confined.(See Attached Affidavit).

G
>
Executed on this 1 day of April _ 12015

Respectfully submitted

Saucedo Jr.
Allred Unit #1402138
2101 FM 369 North
Iowa Park, Texas 76367

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I,Joe Saucedo, Jr.,do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the
Applicant's Reply To The State's Proposed Finding of Fact,Conclusion of
Law,And Order,has been forward to the U.S.mail,postage prepaid, first class,
to the Court of Criminal Appeals, Sharon Keller,Presiding Judge, Supreme
Court Bldg,201 w. 14th St.P-O.box 12308 Capitol Station,Austin Texas 78711-
2308,on this the 1 aay of April,2015.

CLL,
foe Saucedo Jr.


held a conflict of interest in the case when Joe Saucedo refused to accept the
State's and Court's offer.Joe Saucedo has a right to not accept or to make any
pleas,yet the court failed to inform Joe Saucedo of these rights.They only wa-
nted Joe Saucedo to give them unlawful subject-matter jurisdiction without Joe
Saucedo being aware of the fraud committed with the Defense Counsel ,State
Representative Eva Flores,and the Judge of said Court.

That, Thomas A,Radosevich had a duty to present the law on deadly weapons and ~
what it means to be a deadly: Weapons.

That ,Thomas A Radosevich had a duty to present the law on firearm and what it
mean to be a firearm.

That,at no time during the trial did Thomas A,Radosevich present the meaning
of a firearm to the jury as outlined in Texas Penal Code ANNOTATED §4€ .01(3)
(VERNON 2003).

That Failure of Thomas A Radosevich,as counsel for Joe Saucedo to file motion
for investigator deprived Joe Saucedo to present the following:(1)The com-
plaint Humberto Arias, (2)Humberto Arias was an Illegal immigrant,and was mak-
king a deal with the State to continue to live inthe United States: if he'd
testify against Joe Saucedo.(3)Humberto Arias had stole the car he claimed
belonged to his friend Julio Fraga's Mother.In which could have been used to
show Humberto lack of credibility of his truthfulness, (4).Whether Samuel
Martinez was driving a car or truck because in the Court of Appeals"opinion
they stated Samuel Martinez was placing something in the back of his truck.
(5)An expert on firearms and whether a BB gun was + deadly weapon or could

be used as a deadly weapon (6)The owner of the house where the BB gun was
claimed to have been found could have provided a statement as to whether or
not their kids or grand kids owned or left the gun in the yard or under the
house - -

That,Thomas A.Radosevich and L Celeste Carter conspired to convict Jom
Saucedo of Aggravated Robbery.

That,the alleged charge of Aggravated Robbery has not-been cer

ified by the
State Supreme Court as being constitutional before being implemented in this
case.

That, the Thomas A,Radosevich nor Eva Flores can say how the jury would have
viewed an investigator's or expert's testimony and what their opinion would

have been on firearm oc:daadly-weapons

2 of 3


: 63,08 -o

APRIL = 7, 2015

Court of Criminal Appeals
Sharon Keller-Presiding Judge
Supreme Court Bldg

201 W. 14th St.

P.C.Box 12308

Capitol Station

Austin, Texas 78711-2308

RE: Reply To The State's Proposed Findings of Fact,Conclusion of Law,

And Order/Affidavit of Rebuttal

Cause No. 1045480-A
Dear_Sharon Keller,

Enclosed, please find the original Applicnt's Reply To The State's
Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law,And Order and a affidavit of
Rebuttal.Please file and bring to the attention of this Court.

It is not clear as to whether the 232nd Judicial District Court of Harris
County,Texas has forwarded the Writ Application:Flease. file this‘withi~-the
Writ Application's response from the Court and make

back to me stamped as filed in the enclosed self-addresses envelope.

Your assistance will be greatly appreciated in this matter.

VED IN ‘oe Saucedo, Jr.

Cel CALS Allred Unit #1402138

COURT QF CRIMINAL APPI 2101 FM 369 North
APR 06 2015 Iowa Park, Texas 76367

Abe! Acosta, Clerk


That,the Respondant's proposed Findings of Facts and Order dated February
27,2015,contained false information and information in regards to an Atto-~
rney by the name of Greene, throughout pages (5)&(6)under Conclusion and Law
That,Eva Flores can not under the penalty of perjury produce any document or

statement or even an affidavit from the Attorney Greene labled

in the Respondent's proposed Findings of Fact and Order Febr-
uary 27, 2015.

That ,the trial Court in it's determining findings used false facts and all-

egations, in reegards to Attorney Greene and the Applicant not showing any
ineffectiveness of Attorney Greene. Attorney Greene do not exist in this
case.

That, EvacFlorésy!.: ,in the State's Original Answer filed October 24,2013,
attached a document titled,"Offender Information Search",with the name of
smith,assigned to Goree Unit.The Court used this as accurate information.
That, Eva:Florés:
regards to sufficiency of the eviderice.Joe Saucedo raised "No Evidence",

r,for the State,alleged allegation in her response in

There is a difference between "No Evidence"and Sufficiency of Evidence".
That ,Eva Flores,raised sufficiency of the evidence knowingly the trial court
would not review the facts Joe Saucedo presented and would take the side of
the State.

That, the State failed to meet it's burden of proving Joe Saucedo committed
any offense.

That, the Stake failed to prove that a BB gun was a firearm or deadly wea-
pon.

That, this Affidavit if not rebutted point for point by any man representative
of the State of Texas at any level,in anv manner,at any time within (7) days
upon reciept, these facts stand as true inthe public record.

Further Affiant Saith not.

Done this. _ 1 eay.of April, 2015.

J&e Saucedo Allred Unit #1402138
Allred Unit

2101 FM 369 North

Iowa Park, Texas 76367



IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS

EX PARTE § IN THE 232 DISTICT COURT
JOE SAUCEDO, JR § OF
Appli it
Pplican § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
§

APPLICANT'S REPLY TO THE STATE"S PROPOSED FINDINGS
OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER

Having reviewed the State's Proposed Bindings of:Fact;Gonclusion,of Law! «:.;
The Applicant finding that the Findings of Facts Conclusions of Law, And
Order was in error, and did not pertain to the Applicant's case in which
is very important for the Court of Criminal Appeals to consider this reply
into evidence and investigate every fact listed in regards to error and due
process violations the State committed.
The Applicant will point out facts only in regards to the unauthorized, unlaw-
ful and unconstitutional sentence the Applicant recieved in this case.(See
Attached Affidavit of Rebuttal).

First, the Applicant will establish before this Court that he raise ineff-
ective Assistance of Counsel, and in the State's Proposed Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law and Order, the Representative for the State,Eva Flores,
made allegations of the Attorney asd Defense for the Applicant as being some-
one by the name of Greene, and stated that Greene provided effective assis-
tance of counsel to the Applicant, when in fact, Attorney Greene do not
exist.(See State's Proposed Findings of Fact,Conclusions of Law, and Order
at pages (5)(6). Dated Febmary. 27, 2015.

The Court can not make an adequate and impartial findings of facts and con-
clusions through by erroneously and misleading information on behalf of
the State.(See Attached Affidavit of Rebuttal). Also, the Court must note
that the State'ss Original Answer filed October .24, 2013.the State's answer
was all.int: regards to some Black male offender by the name of James Smith,Jdr.
#01673290.(See the last page of the State's Original Answer.(See Attached
Affidavit of Rebuttal).


There were no reasons for the Applicant to present any argument in regards
to Attorney Greene's actions falling outside of prevailing professional norms
due to the fact attorney Greene do not exist and the State can produce no
evidence to support or establish that the Applicant was represented by Att-
orney Greene.

Second,the State's Proposed Finding of Fact,Conclusions of Law, and Order,
made allegations that the Applicant raised the Ground of Insufficient Evide-
nce when in fact the Applicant raised the ground of "No Evidence".There is

a difference between, "Insufficient Evidence" and "No Evidence".(See Attached
Affidavit of Rebuttal). The State's Representative Eva Flores is filing

false allegations to mislead the Court into giving a ruling thats not auth-
orized, lawful or unconstutitional.(See Attached Affidavit of Rebuttal).
Third, the Applicant has Rebutted the State's false and misleading allegations
throughby his Affidavit of Rebuttal,in which rebutted the State's allegations
and the allegations of the Defense Attorney,Thomas Radosevich, of him stat-
ing he did not see no need to create a paper file,when in fact every Attorney
must create a paper file in order to adequately represent his client(See
Attached Affidavit of Rebuttal).

Fourth, and last of the Applicant's reply to the State's Proposed Findings

of Fact,Conclusions of Law,And Order, the Applicant Request this court to
hold a hearing on whether the Judicial District Court has misconstrued the
Statute of Texas Penal Code 46.01(3),It states that a (firearm) is;[A]ny
device designed,made,or adapted to expel a projectile through a barrel by
using the energy generated by an explosion or burning substance or any device
ready convertible to that use."

The BB gun mentioned in the trial,nor the States responsehas been found to
be a firearm,nor a deadly weapon,This Court has set rules,standards and
guidelines the Judicial District Courts must abide by in the State of Texas,
that the Court must operate under in order to lawfully convict anyone.When
the evidence raised by the State [do not] prove or meet the State's burden of

proff as here, the Case must be reversed.