To the 397th District Court: Comes Laney Eugene FREKCH, AMPIEANT in the news-numbered 6 stylist matices, Fills the Follonies objections to the Court Memorandum: and Adopted 'findies of fact' 6 Conclusions of law. Said objections nee as to this: Findies of Fact I. AMPIant. Did N of Meal Guily on MARCH 15, 2011, as the Court STATES. (findies of fact, No.1, Pacc 1.) To the Contarey, AMPIant Mead Guily (6)

*3

Articants objections Ex Parte Paitich, No. 061552 -A Pace Tio

Findings of Fact

1. (cont'd) months and one year later; on September 5, 212. (The Couers' Register of Actions.)
2. Articant objects to the Couers' findings that "Christophe k. Woodward provided a credible artidwit,' (findin No. 5, Menorandum) simply acceptible Woodwards version of facts without verification or alluiness. Articant the no uncertainty to other arbitral evidence. Woodward's affidavit contains less, as to: a. Woodward claims he spent "considerable time discussing the case ... both in person and in writing," and that's simply untrue. Woodward never wrote to Articant, and

*4 AMPIican's Objections EX PARE PIRSICH, No. 061552 -A Pace Three a. (cont'd) he only visited with AMPIican on two occasions, for short sessions, as dail Records will show; b. Woodward states we went over the discovery provided by the state and that he made it clear the evidence would be sufficient to find Me guilty. That would be a lie. though hisant fails to mention it, dashcan video supports AMPIican's version of the facts, and Chais Woodward said since my statements to Police were prior to my MREANDA WARNING, only my wife's statement or testining would be used against me;

*5 Articonts Objections ex marte phe mich, Mo. 06552 -A Pace Four c. Woodward said were it Not for Co-determont testimony wled to T. treial and "kich thine thudir' ass: He suid but because of co-determont testimony, I didn't have a chance; well d. Woodward only came To see, on reies he made for Federal Court. 3. Woodward did Not advise Articont that his cuilty plea would be used against hin in Federal Court (Findings, No. 7). Although Woodward is an ex-coy, a bome researcher, and current Practinice experienced in Federal Court; And deals daily with such federal matters. He regularey sees the Feds Act we cases such as this.

*6 Aefficients Objections Ex Parte Prepich, No. 061552 - A Pace Five 3. (contid) To say he would never waren a client that the Fals would/ould use his Gully Plea If he had some knowledge that AN investigation was ansourte' is Ludeceous and defies logic. Woodward was Paide $5,{000}^{\text{th}}$ To REPRESENT Aeplicant, and that means defendine his inter- ests. It's cEnzy that Aeplicant was indebted by the Fals only the Ee Morths later and seasoned Juerists pretended to be surprized. 4. The Courts Finting of No evidence of a Federal investigation, bears No relevance As to whither one actually existed. A child Could see, N OU, that O BViously such AN investigation W A S onsourg. APElicant has

*7 APPIEANT'S DEJECTIONS Ex. Parte Minich, Mo. 061552 -A Pace Sick 4. (coord) United opportunities To move up his claims consecutive the Federal invest- isation, due to his incarceration 5. Prentited a little more time, and a limited amount of discussed, Ambient could move with documentation his relevant claims. 6. Ambient objects to the Court's resolution of disputed facts in favor of trial controls version, as they were - and are - in conflict with Ambient's Phadings and Affiduality, and is not supported by Any evidence. 7. To the extent that the district Court found the Woodward was aware... (Findings of fact, No. 10) "Mr. Woodward knew... (Findings... No. II), evidence known to Mr. Woodward Throgh

*8 Applicants' objections Ex parte French, No. 061552 -A Pace seven 7. (cont'd) discovery', (findings, No.12) and "based on the evidence known to Mr. Ws. dward from his investigation." (Findings, No.13) and that "The train extremely did not misstate the law or the facts." (Findings, No.14) the Record contains no evidence supporting these assumptions. Aside from Ws. dward, our unsupported articavits only Applicants' Presences in the fassender side of the care conroborded the anticipated co-determin 8. Applicant affects to the Conat's adoption of the police record(s). Applicant has said that the dash can video (available on dize) re- lates the Police Report(s) as to Applicant's statements and the Roadside search.

*9 Medicanit Objections Ex Parte Friedrich, No. 061552 - A Pace EIGHT 9. Medicant Objections to the Conrti determin- ation that the 15 - 18 , 8 month Federal sen- tence that resulted from Ambuants ciuily Plea in this case is a Collateral Consequence. 10. Medicant objections to the district Conrti in- mediate addition of the States Version of the facts only two days after submission (on March 31, 2015) Robbins Medicant of anly operatunity to present Rebuttal evidence. 11. Medicant Received the Conrti Memorandum on April 13, 2015, eleven (ii) days after entry of the Conrti Order. 12. Larrey E. Friedrich, declare unthar Penalty of Anjiny that the foretrims is True. In Rusk G. on June 13, 2015. Adey B. Reich, LARRY Frerich, as 9020 Henderson, The Pass.