Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 11

PUBLIC NOTICE OF

WRONGFUL CONVICTION OF CHADRICK BLAKE PATE CAUSE NUMBER


A-08-5080-4CR FROM THE 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT ARANSAS
COUNTY, TEXAS 2008.

AND AFFIDAVIT OF NEMA BARDIN

My name is Nema Bardin. I am over the age of eighteen, of sound mind, capable of
making this affidavit and personally acquainted with the facts herein stated:

I am the Mother of Chadrick B Pate who was tried in a joint trial with Christopher Hall
after he was jointly indicted with Christopher Hall, Michael Underwood, Kevin Tanton
and Anthony Ray. We hired John Gilmore to represent Chad at trial because we believed
that he would represent Chad aggressively against the false charges made against him
and use the full force of the law to see that he was acquitted. We were wrong. We asked
John to file a Motion for Severance because we knew that Chad would be prejudiced if
he were to be tried with the others who we learned were all gang members. John filed
the Motion for Severance within about one month of Chad being indicted with the
others. Chad and Christopher Hall plead NOT GUILTY and demanded a Jury Trial. The
others took plea deals to testify against Chad and Hall, and plead Guilty to Aggravated
Assault. The indictment alleged Murder under count One Penal Code 19.02,
and Aggravated Assault Penal Code 22.02 and Organized Criminal Activity under
count two, Penal code 71.02.

We continually asked John Gilmore when the Severance would be granted, and he
finally told us a few days before the trial that the Court would not Grant the Motion for
Severance. He lied. We found out after Chad was convicted for Murder, after his Appeal
and after his Initial Habeas Corpus Application that John not only lied to us about the
Court refusing to Grant the Severance, but we discovered that Judge Joel Johnson had
Severed the Co defendant's trial from Chad's on 10/23/08 , only 10 days from Chad's
scheduled Jury Trial for 11/3/08. We also discovered that Officer's of the Court had
made false entries onto Chad's Docket Sheet, that John would have had to know about,
and that Motions, Orders and Hearings were concealed from Chad by John Gilmore and
other officers of the court. We discovered that the Prosecution had Motioned Judge
Johnson to Carry Chad's trial forward with the co defendant Hall, but that Judge
Johnson had denied their Motion. Chad did not know about the Severance or Judge
Johnson's Order denying the State's Motion to Carry Chad's trial forward with the co
defendant. We did not know that Officer's of the Court had made false entries onto
Chad's docket sheet showing that he had filed a Motion for Continuance, and made
false entries showing his trial date reset from 11/03/08 to 1/5/09 the same date that
Hall's trial had been reset. We did not know that Officer's of the court that included the
Prosecution, had lied to the Court at a ex parte hearing on 11/25/08 misrepresenting to
the court that Hall's trial had not been severed from Chad's and that Chad did not have a
motion for continuance in his file. We found out that the Court, or officer's of the court
filed a fraudulent and incomplete record of proceedings in Chad's Record deceiving the
trial court, 13th Court of Appeals and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. The
Hearings, Motions and Orders that the Officer's of the Court concealed from Chad
prevented him from filing claims in the Appeals Courts, that he would have filed had he
known about the hearing, motions and orders.

We did not know that in order for the State to introduce elements of an offense from a
different Statute than the elements and Statute listed and alleged in the indictment that
The State must first make a Motion to amend the indictment, and the Court must
approve, and if the court approved that Chad had to be given Notice and an opportunity
to respond. Articles 28.10 and 28.11. The State did not Motion the Court to amend the
indictment. The State instead simply introduced elements from Texas Penal code 7.01
and 7.02 at the Jury Trial. The elements alleged in the indictment are from Texas Penal
Code 19.02, not 7.01 and 7.02.

We did not know that the Grand Jury Indictment and Court's Jury Charge only allowed
for Chad's Acquittal. The Prosecution never attempted to prove that Chad was Guilty of
Murder pursuant to Penal Code 19.02, as alleged in the Grand Jury Indictment,
they only attempted but did not prove Chad's Guilt under Texas Penal Codes 7.01 and
7.02 , that are not alleged in the indictment.

After Chad lost his Appeal and Initial Habeas Application in the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals, we had to file a Federal Writ pro se, because our finances were ruined from
fighting at the trial. Once the Federal Writ was Dismissed, I decided to see if the co
defendant Christopher Hall who was also convicted of Murder had filed a Federal Writ. I
found that he had filed a Federal Writ and pulled his record of proceedings from the
Federal Website that file's Federal Motions for the Public to view upon purchase. I
purchased Hall's Record and found all of the Hearings Motions and Courts Orders, that
included the transcript where Judge Joel Johnson had severed the joint trials and denied
the Prosecutions Motion to Carry Chad's trial forward. We discovered so much more,
that is identified in the Summary of The Indisputable Facts listed below. Chad is
innocent, and the Jury convicted him upon elements alleged in the indictment under
Texas Penal Code 19.02, without evidence to support their verdict, and the State without
authority or permission from the Court and without Notice to Chad, constructively
amended the Grand Jury Indictment at the trial when they introduced “acts” elements”
not alleged in the Grand Jury indictment, and still even alleging the different elements at
trial the State still could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Chad committed any
of the acts alleged in the indictment or alleged by the Prosecution, because he is not
Guilty of any of them. We have been filing Writs with the Trial Court since discovering
the new facts that the officer's of the court concealed from Chad, The trial court, 13th
Court of Appeals and Texas Court of Criminal appeals. Chad's claims in his Writ
Applications are Actual Innocence, Officer's of the Court violated Texas Penal Code
37.10, Extrinsic Fraud and Fraud on the Court and Jurisdictional Defects (Plenary
Jurisdiction expired at time of trial) and Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. All Writs
filed with the trial court have been dismissed. Chad has been Wrongfully Convicted and
the Trial Court refuses to acknowledge their wrongdoing. Chad has spent more than 10
years in prison for an offense he did not commit.

SUMMARY OF THE INDISPUTABLE FACTS FROM THE TRIAL COURT RECORD

The Grand Jury indictment under which Chad was Convicted alleged “acts” upon which The State of
Texas did not Prosecute Chad.

The Grand Jury Indictment alleged “acts”/elements found in Texas Penal Code 19.02, that must be
proved beyond a reasonable doubt, not “acts”/ elements from Texas Penal Code 7.01 and 7.02.

A Jury found Chad Guilty of Acts alleged in the Grand Jury Indictment under Texas Penal Code 19.02
.
The State without filing a Motion , without permission from the court and without notice to Chad
introduced at Trial “ alleged party participation Penal code 7.01” ” and alleged act's under Penal code
7.02 against Chad.

The Trial Court's Jury Charge charged the Jury that to find Chad Guilty of Murder they must find that
he intentionally or knowingly while acting either alone or with 4 other men caused the death of Aaron
Watson by shooting him with a firearm.

Neither the Indictment or the Court's Charge alleged the elements found in Texas Penal Codes 7.01 or
7.02, and neither the Indictment or the Court's Charge allowed Conviction under the Theory or
Evidence alleged for the first time at and presented to the Jury at the Jury Trial by the State.

The State constructively and without authority amended the Grand Jury Indictment at Trial by alleging
acts from Penal codes 7.01 and 7.02.

Officer's of the Court by their silence and duty to disclose committed fraud upon the court, Chad and
The Public when they allowed Chad's Conviction upon elements not prosecuted, and for which there
was “no evidence”.

Officer's of the Court by their silence, omission and commission with a duty to disclose committed an
extrinsic fraud on Chad and a fraud upon the Trial Court, 13th Court of Appeals and The Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals.
Officer's of the Court continue to practice a fraud upon the courts for failure to disclose or admit
their misconduct and to Void the Judgment once the “fraud” was first brought to their attention in
2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 through the filing of Habeas Corpus Writ Applications with Exhibits from
the Trial Court Records that had been previously concealed from Chad, that reveal the fraud on the
court and the misconduct at trial.

Officer's of the Court brought Chad to an illegal joint jury trial after the Court's Plenary Jurisdiction
had expired, and allowed a Jury to find Chad Guilty of an Offense for which he is Not Guilty.

STATEMENT OF INDISPUTABLE FACTS

An Aransas County Grand Jury jointly indicted Chadrick Blake Pate hereafter (Chad) with Christopher
Hall, Michael Underwood, Kevin Tanton And Anthony Ray on June 24th, 2008 for Count One Murder
under Texas Penal Code 19.02, and Count Two Aggravated Assault and Organized Criminal Activity
Texas Penal Code 22.02 and 71.02. See Chad's Clerk Record page 4 (the Indictment).

Chad and Christopher Hall plead Not Guilty and demanded a Jury Trial. Underwood. Tanton and Ray
took plea deals, plead Guilty to Aggravated Assault and testified at Jury Trial as accomplice witness(s)
against Chad and Christopher Hall.

Chad hired John Gilmore as his Defense Attorney, and Christopher Hall was appointed Counsel Tamara
Cochran, and after Ms. Cochran took a job with the County, the Court appointed Stan Turpin as Hall's
Counsel. Judge Janna Whatley was both a pre trial Judge and the Trial Judge. Judge Michael Wellborn
and Judge Joel Johnson were pre trial Judges. Other Officer's of the Court were Pam Heard Clerk of the
Court and Staff, and representing the State were Patrick Flannigan, Retha Cable, and Marcellino
Rodriquez.

For reasons not known or stated in the trial record, Chad and Hall's pre trial proceedings were
conducted separately, though they were ostensibly co defendant's in the same case each by
law of Constitutional Magnitude, entitled to Notice and Service of hearings, motions and
court orders entered in their case. Consequently , Chad was not provided with Notice of
Motions and Orders filed in Hall's proceedings and Hall was not provided Notice of
Motions and Orders filed in Chad's proceedings. Chad did not appear at Hall's
Proceedings and Hall did not appear at Chad's proceedings. Officer's of the court know
that Service and Notice of Motions and Orders are mandatory, as is the appearance of
defendant's in pre trial proceedings in a criminal case.

Chad discovered after Conviction, Appeal and Initial Habeas Corpus and Federal Habeas Corpus, that
Officer's of the Court did not Serve him Notice of Hall's Motions filed pre trial, Orders made pre trial
or of Hearings held pre trial. Chad discovered that Officer's of the Court had intentionally and
knowingly with a duty to disclose withheld pre trial hearings, motions and orders from him and the
court, made false entries onto Pate's record of proceedings, and misrepresented material facts to the pre
trial court.

Chad filed a Motion for Severance of Defendants on 7/31/08 and a Motion for Continuance that same
date. Although the Record is Void of a Hearing held on 7/31/08 for Chad, The Record does show that
Judge Janna Whately did sign an Order Granting the Continuance but did not hold hearing on or sign
an Order on the Motion for Severance. See Chad's Clerk Record pages . (Motion for
Severance, Motion for Continuance and Order Granting Motion for Continuance)

Although the Record is Void of a Hearing on Orders Setting Chad's trial for 9/29/08 Announcement for
9/25/08, nonetheless there is a Docket entry setting trial and announcement for those dates See Docket
Entry showing same. Chad's Clerk Record page 94 (Docket Sheet)

On 9/25/08 at a hearing that Chad was not Served Notice and where his appearance was mandatory,
Judge Michael Wellborn set Chad's Jury Trial for 11/03/08 and in a separate Hearing for Hall on the
same date set Hall's trial jointly with Chad's for 11/03/08. Judge Wellborn also signed an Order
Granting Chad's Motion for Severance that was not changed by nunc pro tunc order, and at the same
time Judge Wellborn refused to hear Chad's Motion on his Severance and Continued the Severance
Hearing to 10/3/08. Reporter's Record 2 of 9, Reporter's Record 3 of 11, Chad's Clerk's Record pages
94 Docket Sheet showing Jury Trial Date 11/3/08 and Announcement Date 10/3/08 and page showing
Order Granting Motion for Severance. Chad was not given Notice of the Orders of Judge Wellborn and
did not know that the Severance Motion had been Granted and continued at the same time.

Office's of the Court violated Judge Wellborn's Order Continuing his Motion for Severance to
10/3/08,and his Order Granting his Motion for Severance. No hearing was conducted on 10/3/08. No
Motion for Continuance appears in the Record.

On 10/23/08 at the separate pre trial hearing for Hall, Reporter's Record 4 of 11, Judge Joel Johnson
Severed Hall's Trial from Chad's by Order for Continuance filed by Hall that same date, and reset Hall's
Trial for 1/5/08,. The Prosecution Motioned Judge Johnson to Carry Chad's Jury Trial forward with
Chad, but Judge Johnson Denied the Motion and made clear to Chad's Defense Attorney, The
Prosecution, and to Hall's Defense Counsel that he would be back in November to hear Chad's Trial.
Chad was not given Notice of the Hearing, Motions, or Orders, and the Clerk of the Court did not
Record these in Chad's Record of Proceedings. The Clerk also did not assign a new Cause Number to
Hall, and the Court did not reduce the Orders of the Court to writing. Because Officer's of the Court
Concealed this Hearing, the motions filed and the Orders from Chad and the Court, the committed
extrinsic fraud on Chad and an extrinsic fraud on the trial Court, Appeals Court, and Habeas Court.
Because the Hearing, and Orders were concealed from Pate and not filed in his proceedings, he was
unable to object to the violation of his right to U.S. Constitutional Speedy Trial, and to lack of Service
of Motions, and Orders. Because Officer's of the Court did not include the Motions, Orders, and
Hearing into Chad's Record of Proceedings and intentionally omitted them, this is a violation of Texas
Penal Code 37.10 Tampering with a Government Record.

On 10/30/08 Officer's of the Court made a false entry onto Pate's Docket Sheet showing that he filed a
Motion for Continuance, and made false entry resetting his Jury Trial Date to 1/5/08 with Hall's Jury
Trial Date. Chad's Clerk Record page 95 at 10/30/08 Docket Sheet. Chad did not file a Motion for
Continuance, and the Court did not Order his Jury Trial to be reset to 1/5/08. There is No Motion,
Order , Hearing or Agreement of Parties for a Continuance in the Record. The Officer's who made the
entry knew that there had been no Motion or Order filed. As Motions in a criminal trial must be in
writing and Notice given to all parties, and Hearings on Motions to Continue must be had with all
parties agreeing to the Continuance with a Order signed by a Judge providing reasons for the
Continuance. No entries can be made on the record without written Motions and Orders. Officer's of
the Court violated Texas Penal Code 37.10 when making false entries onto the Record.

Officer's of the Court violated Judge Wellborn's Order setting Chad's Trial for 11/3/08 when his trial
was not conducted on 11/3/08. No Motion, Order, Hearing or Agreement of Parties or Reasons
Continuing the Trial appear in the Record. Officer's of the Court committed extrinsic fraud on Chad
and a fraud on the courts.

On 11/25/08 Reporter's Record 5 of 11, ex parte hearing conducted by Judge Wellborn, The
Prosecution, and Hall's Defense Attorney misrepresented to the Court that Hall's Trial had not been
Severed from Chad's on 10/23//08, and that Chad did not have a Motion for Severance in his file, and
that Chad's Trial date and Hall's were scheduled for the same date. Obviously these officer's of the
court were aware of the false entries made onto Pate's Docket Sheet, and they both knew that Hall's
trial had been severed in the 10/23/08 hearing. Officer's of the Court knew that they were lying to the
court and that neither Chad or his Defense Attorney were in the hearing to defend the lies. Officer's of
the court committed a fraud on the court and extrinsic fraud on Chad and violated Texas Penal code
37.10 for omitting this hearing from Chad's Record of Proceedings.

On 12/22/09 Officer's of the Court made a second false entry onto Chad's Docket Sheet page 95
resetting Jury Trial again to 2/9/08. No Motion, Order, Hearing Agreement or Reason's appear in the
Record. Officer's of the court violated Texas Penal code 37.10 and a fraud on the courts

On 2/5/09 Officer's of the Court made the next false entry showing that Chad had Announced Ready
for Trial page 95 Docket Sheet. Pate did not announce Ready. No Hearing appears in the Record
showing that Pate or his Attorney announced Ready for Trial. Officer's making the entry knew that
there had been no hearing where Chad announced Ready for Trial, and the Prosecution knew that there
had been no hearing where Chad announced Ready for trial or where the Prosecution had announced
Ready on Chad's cause number.

Officer's of the Court filed a Fraudulent and Incomplete Record of Proceedings into the Trial Court,
The 13th Court of Appeals and The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, intending that each of the courts
rely on the Fraudulent Record in there Judgment and Orders Officer's of the Court violated Texas
Penal Code 37.10, fraud on the court and extrinsic fraud on Chad.

Officer's of the Court failed to file RR vol 4 of 11 with Chad's Record of Proceedings showing that
Hall's Trial had been Severed from Chad's and that Judge Johnson had Denied the Prosecutions Motion
to Carry Chad's Jury Trial Forward with Hall's. A Hearing where Chad's appearance was mandatory.

Officer's of the Court failed to file RR 5 of 11 showing that The Prosecution, and Hall's Defense
Attorney had lied to the Court about Hall's Trial having been Severed from Chad's and lied about
Chad's Trial being set with Hall's trial date of 1/5/09 and lied about Chad not having a Motion for
Severance in his file. Judge Wellborn knew that Chad had a Motion for Severance in his file, and that
he had refused to hear the Motion on 9/25/08, and that he had also signed an Order Granting the
Motion and had never signed an order reversing the Order. The Prosecution and Hall's Defense attorney
both had to be aware of the false entry made on Chad's Docket Sheet on 10/30/08 showing Motion for
Continuance and Jury trial reset to 1/5/09 because neither of them had received a Motion for
Continuance filed by Chad, and neither had been given Notice of any Order that reset Chad's trial date.
All Officer's of the Court knew that they were in an exparte hearing without Chad or his attorney being
present as they discussed Chad's Motion and trial dates. A hearing where Chad's appearance with his
Counsel was mandatory.

Officer's of the Court failed to file RR 5A of 11 in Chad's Record, showing that Chad was not in the
hearing where Hall announced Ready for Trial and Prosecution announced Ready on Hall but Not on
Pate, and where Judge Janna Whately who knew that Chad was not in appearance asked Chad's
Counsel who would be doing punishment, but was not concerned that Chad was not in a hearing where
his presence was mandatory.

Officer's of the Court failed to file the Motions of Continuance filed by Hall and the Orders Granting
the Motions that show that Chad was not given Service of Notice on the Motions or Orders and that No
Hearing was held on the Motions and pages Orders. Officer's of the Court know that Service of
Notice on Motions and Orders for Continuance is Mandatory and that Hearings are Mandatory with
agreement of all parties with a Judge providing reasons for for Granting or Denying Motions.

Officer's of the court know or should know that it is an offense to make false entries on a court record,
to deceive the court and defendant, to lie to the court, and to conceal court records from a defendant
and the courts, and to hold ex parte proceedings.

It is my belief that the Prosecution set out to convict Chad on an offense for which they had no
evidence, and because they did not have evidence to convict Chad, that they entered into a scheme
with other officer's of the Court to illegally convict Chad, and the way to do that was to keep Chad's
trial joined with the co defendant's so that the evidence against Hall could be used against Chad making
it appear that because he was sitting next to Hall at the defense table then he must be Guilty of the
accusation. Even jurors from voir dire made those kinds of statements.

The Prosecution obtained a Grand Jury Indictment on evidence that would support the charges against
Hall, Underwood, Tanton and Ray, but not Chad. Prosecutor Misconduct

Chad was found Guilty of Count One Murder as alleged in the Indictment, by intentionally or
knowingly causing the death of Aaron Watson by shooting him with a firearm, while acting alone or
together with Christopher Hall, Michael Underwood, Kevin Tanton and Anthony Ray. Chad's Clerk
Record page Verdict Form. The Court's Charge charged the Jury that to find Chad (The Defendant
Chadrick B. Pate ) Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt that they must find that he while acting alone or
together with Hall, Underwood, Tanton and Ray he intentionally or knowingly caused Aaron Watson's
death by shooting him with a firearm.

Without filing a Motion and without permission of the Court violating Articles 28.10 and 28.11,at the
Jury Trial the State constructively amended the indictment and introduced a different theory with
different elements found in Texas Penal Codes 7.01 and 7.02, not Penal Code 19.02 that must be
proved beyond a reasonable doubt that were not alleged in the Grand Jury Indictment. These acts or
ommissions represent P rosecutor Misconduct, fraud on the court and on Chad.

The State's theory from opening statement to closing argument and punishment was that Christopher
Hall while acting alone and together with Chad, Underwood, Tanton and Ray intentionally or
knowingly caused Aaron Watson's death by shooting him with a firearm, and that Underwood, Tanton
and Ray was responsible for Hall's conduct by assisting Hall in the commission of the offense by
assaulting Aaron Watson with Hall, and that Chad was responsible for Hall's conduct by with intent to
promote or assist Hall in the commission of the offense that he committed the affirmative acts of
calling the others to come down from the Houston Texas area to the area of the Murder to help him
murder Aaron Watson, and that he met with the others at 3 women's home where they all planned the
murder, and that Chad rode in the car with them giving them directions to the victim's home but that
before the others went in and killed Aaron Watson, that Chad limped off into the woods and was never
seen afterwards.

The only evidence presented by the Prosecution that Chad performed any of these events was the
testimony from the accomplice witness's who had plead Guilty to Aggravated Assault and took plea
deals to testify against Chad and Hall. The State offered no other evidence that Pate performed any of
the acts alleged by the Prosecution. The indictment did not authorize the Prosecution to prosecute
Chad for the theory that they introduced at trial nor did the Charge to the Jury.

The Grand Jury Indictment and the Court's Charge to the Jury authorized Conviction only upon a
finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Chad while acting alone or together with Hall, Underwood,
Tanton and Ray intentionally and knowingly caused the death of Aaron Watson by shooting him with a
firearm.

At no time, either in the Indictment, Court's Charge or during the Jury Trial was the Jury told that they
could find Chad Guilty of Murder if they found beyond a reasonable doubt that Chad with the intent to
promote or assist Hall in the commission of the offense of murder that he called the others to come to
the area, met with them at 3 girls home and planned the murder, rode with them in their car giving them
directions to the victim's home and limped off before the others committed the offense, that then and
only then could they find Chad Guilty of Murder..

The Prosecution, Trial Judge, Pate's Defense Counsel, and co defendant's Defense Counsel, all know or
should have known that there was no evidence upon which to bring a Grand Jury indictment, Prosecute
or Convict Chad for Murder.

To find Chad Guilty of Murder under the States theory presented at trial, the Indictment must have
alleged that Chad acting alone or together with Hall, Underwood, Tanton and Ray intentionally or
knowingly caused the death of Aaron Watson by shooting him with a firearm, (or) that with intent to
assist or promote in the commission of the offense of Murder that he performed some affirmative act
found in Texas Penal Code 7.02. The Court's Charge to the Jury would have had to charge that in
Order to find Defendant Chadrick B. Pate Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt that they must first find
beyond a reasonable doubt that Christopher Hall intentionally or knowingly caused the death of Aaron
Watson by shooting him with a firearm, and they must then find beyond a reasonable doubt that Chad
with intent to promote or assist in the commission of the offense he performed the acts alleged by the
Prosecution and that could be found in Texas Penal Code 7.02.

The jury could not have found Chad Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of Murder as alleged in the
Indictment or of Murder as alleged by the Prosecution at trial, because the Prosecution offered No
Evidence whatsoever that Chad was present at the commission of the offense, or knew about a firearm,
or intentionally or knowingly shot Aaron Watson with a firearm causing his death.

The Jury could not have found Chad Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of Murder by with intent to
promote or assist in the commission of the offense that he called the accomplices to come to the area,
met with them at 3 women's home and planned the murder, then rode with them in their car giving
them directions to the victim's home and then limped off into the woods before the others went inside
and killed Aaron Watson. Neither the Indictment or the Court's Charge allowed a conviction under that
theory and ,The only evidence offered at trial that Chad performed any of these acts was testimony
from the accomplice witness who took plea deals to testify against Chad. Chapter 38 Article 38.14 of
the Texas code of Criminal Procedure states that a conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of
accomplice witness alone, but the testimony must be corroborated by other evidence tending to connect
Chad with the commission of the offense. The testimony of the accomplice witness must be eliminated,
and there must be evidence connecting Chad to the commission of the offense of Murder. There was no
direct or circumstantial evidence that Pate called the accomplices, met with them at 3 women's home
and planned a murder, rode with them in their car and gave directions to the victim's home, or that
Chad was present with the accomplice witness at any time before, during or after the commission of the
offense.

An indictment must allege every element of an offense that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
The indictment did not allege intent to promote or assist in the commission of the offense of murder by
committing some affirmative act found in Texas Penal code 7.02 and did not allege criminal
responsibility for another party to the commission of the offense.. The elements in Texas Penal Code
19.02 must have been alleged along with the elements from Texas Penal Code 7.01 and 7.02. The only
elements alleged were from 19.02 and the record establishes that Chad was not present at the crime
scene with the others and could not have shot Aaron Watson with a firearm. The Jury found Chad
Guilty of an Offense that he should have never been charged with much less Convicted for.

As further proof that the State of Texas was aware that they were concealing the Separate pre trial
hearings, motions and orders of Christopher Hall from Chad and all of the Courts, is the State of
Texas Response to Chad's Initial Writ of Habeas Corpus.

In the State's Response to Claim # One (Applicant was denied due process and a fair trial when he was
tried with the co defendant). Instead of the State acknowledging that the Hearing and Judge Johnson's
Orders had been concealed from the court and Chad, and that the trials had been severed by Judge Joel
Johnson on 10/23/08, and that the State's Motion to Continue Chad's trial forward with the co defendnat
had been denied by Judge Johnson, The State chose to instead circumvent that truth, and instead
responded that the Order signed by a different Judge, (Judge Michael Wellborn) was signed by mistake.
They did not acknowledge that the Order was filed in the record of proceedings as a certified
proceeding and that no Nunc Pro Tunc Order had ever been issued to reverse the signed order.

The State had the opportunity to correct the record and respond honestly to the claim, but chose to
continue to conceal the truth, and the fraud perpetrated upon Chad and the courts. Instead of
acknowledging that Chad had been tried in the joint trial after the trials had been severed, and that they
had concealed the Record to prove that the trials had been severed, they responded to the claim that
Judge Wellborn had signed the Order Granting the Motion by mistake.

The State knew that Judge Wellborn had refused to rule on Chad's Motion for Severance at the 9/25/08
RR 2 of 9 and had reset the hearing for 10/3/08. They knew that there had been no hearing conducted
on 10/3/08. They knew that at the 10/23/08 hearing held in Christopher Hall's Cause #A-08-5080-4CR
that Judge Joel Johnson had Severed Christopher Hall's Jury Trial from Chad's, and Denied the State's
Motion to Carry Chad's trial forward with Christopher Hall. The State also knew that Chad had filed
only one Motion for Continuance back on 7/31/08, and that Chad did not file a Motion for Continuance
after Judge Joel Johnson had ordered the trials severed, therefore they knew that some Officer of the
Court had made false entries on Chad”s Docket Sheet on 10/30/08 showing that he filed a Motion to
Continue and the Jury Trial was reset from 11/3/08 to 1/5/09 with Hall's. The State knew that they had
received NO Notice of any Motion for Continuance and No Notice of any Order continuing Chad's
Trial forward to 1/5/09, yet at the 11/25/08 RR 5 of 11 Hearing they misrepresented to the Court that
Christopher Hall 's trial had not been Severed from Chad's and that the Trials were scheduled jointly for
the same date on 1/5/09. The State knew that it was Christopher Hall who had continued to Motion for
Continuance after the trials had been severed, not Chad. Thus the State was aware at the time that Chad
filed his initial Writ of Habeas Corpus that Christopher Hall's Proceedings were not included in Chads
Record of Proceedings that had been certified to the Trial Court, 13th Court of Appeals and Texas Court
of Criminal Appeals, and had been concealed from Chad.

The State knew that the trial court, 13th Court of Appeals and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals was
operating on a false record of proceedings when they ruled on Chad's Appeal and Habeas applications,
and that Chad had been prevented from filing all of the claims for relief that would have been available
to him had the hearings, motions and orders from Christopher Hall's separate proceedings not been
concealed from him. The State of Texas and the Officer's of the 36th District Court Aransas County
Texas, involved in Chad's Cause A-08-5080-4CR and Christopher Hall's Cause A-08-5080-2CR
continue to violate Texas Penal Code 37.10 and to commit fraud on the Trial Court, 13th Court of
appeals, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, by their continued silence, and lack of
acknowledgment to Chad's Writ Applications requesting relief from the illegal Judgment of Conviction
and Sentence. The State's Duty is to Do Justice not Convict an Innocent Man, and then leave him to
rot in Prison after his innocence has been proven and after the Misconduct of the State has been shown
and proven by documentary evidence from the Convicting Court's own Records.

STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF TRAVIS

My Name is Nema Bardin and I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE
FOREGOING FACTS SET OUT IN THIS AFFIDAVIT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE IS IN
MY BELEIF TRUE.

SIGNED ON THIS___ DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018

________________________.
NEMA BARDIN

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME by the said Nema Bardin on this the ____ of
November, 2018.

_____________________.
NOTARY PUBLIC