Case Information
*1 RECEIVED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OCT 192015 STEVEN MICHAEL BACKSTROH 3 IN THE TEXAS ADOIACOоза, Clerk
VS. 3 OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
THE STATE OF TEXAS 3 ALISTIN, TEXAS
CHAPTER 12 MOTION (FRAUD ON THE COURT) PURSUNIT TO TEX. R. CN. PROD. CHAPTER 13
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT:
CONES NON, STEVEN MICHAEL BACKSTROH, PEDIQUVER hereIN, AND WOUld RESPEDSly show this COURt the following:
PEDIQUVER (BACKSTROH) WAS CONVIOtED of OUE COURT OF EUNGIAREY OF FABIIRATION W/INTERTE TO CONTINU INDECENSY W/ MINOR AND OUE COURT OF ADJERVEYated SEXUAL ASSURE/child AND SENTENCED EXCELSEY AND little, IN PRISON, RESPECTIVE. BACKSTROH Tiled AN ACTIVI INVOCENCE WRIL OF THADERS COREAS into the 235 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT. THE TEX. COURT CELM. APP. RECEIVED WRIL AND ANY ANNAYEED DOCUMENTS ON AUGUST 24, 2015 AND Tiled its ORDER ON SEPTEMBER 16, 2015.
With RESPECT to PEDIQUVERS claims, this HONORABLE COURT has been defaulted.
FRAUD.
The COMMON IAN OF PERIOD is deffined as:
*2 1) A false statement of material fact; 2) by sale who knipus or believes it to be false; 3) made with the intent to induce activity by another in Reliance on that statement; 4) action by the other in Reliance on the truthfulness of the statement; and 5) injury to the other Resulting from that Reliance. Abhley Read, Crop, WY Rosele, 89 Fed 430,437 (1996). The Fifth Circuit has defined Read as misrepresentation or misconduct by an opposing party. Luin V. Cans, 2014 u5. Dist. LEXIS 43485.
The injury as to whether a judgement should be set aside for Read upon the court. Powers not so much in terms of whether the alleged read prejudiced the opposing party but more in terms of whether the alleged read harms the integrity of the judiciary process. Compare to theeF. APAs, 232, 25, 264, 645,64 997 (1994); Alexander V. Robertson, 882 Fed 421,424 (1989).
As federal law describes this," One species of Read upon the court occurs when an 'afficer of the court' perpetrates Read affiecting the ability of the court... to, in. partially, judge a case." N RE Interrognetics America, N.E., 926, Fed. 912,916 (1991). "FERand upon the court includes both attempts to convert the integrity of the court and Read by an officer." Id at 916. This "must involve an unGnscionable plan or scheme which is designed to improperly influence the court in its decision." Abate V. Corm, 859 Fed 115,118 (1988).
Borkstein could find no specific legal authority where this Court has previously addressed Read inflicted upon it.
*3
DID ERALID OCCLAR HERE?
Backstrom will break this down with Respect to, the previously addressed common lawтельную. () a false statement of material fact:
Backstrom's actual inrocience went was actually a subsequent writ. TEX R. Cring Hacc. and 11.07 $ 4 (a) Addresses this. Two options exist which allow a subsequent application: () in short, newly discovered evidence or New Supreme Court law; or 2) but for the constitutional error at terial, no, Rational jury would have convicted the defendant. Backstrom filed his actual innocence, wret pursuant to ; Schly V. Delo, 115 3.05 (1995); M. Quigley, Jus V. Rekins, 133 S. 64 1924 (200). The State argued that because Backstrom filed two grounds within his first writ that he also reargued in his subsequent writ he should be denied Relief based on . This is a blaterit misstatement of law.
Moreover, Backstrom's third ground was a perjury claim, proven indisputably, how-. Ever, the state took it upon itself to charide this proven perjury into a "Recontraction" then changed the appropriate Schuptype standard of REVIEN into a HERERRA. type standard. This is a misrepresentation of the material facts. 3) by one who knows or believes it to be false:
An attorney is not allowed to mistate law or misrepresent material facts. See rules of Law. Cond. 3.03-3.08.
*4 The author of the State's Answer is a doctorate of jurisprudence, an officer of the court, and the man responsible for addressing the appeals, into that district. It can be presumed that, at minimum, this attorney is well versed in TEX, Code CRIM, Page A8t 1107 84 (1) (e). Certainly this is not the first actual innocence claim to enter that jurisdiction. It is safe to state that the State knew the law; therefore, knew its argument was erroneous. 3) Made with the intent to induce action by another in Reliance on that statement:
The State very specifically requested that any relief be denied based on this foregoing argument, and the trial court obliged by dornvending a findings based on the States fraudulent misinterpretation of the law. This is unconsciously and a paradigmatic abuse of discretion for a court to base its judersent on an erroneous view of the law. Couter &; Gell Markmaff 0,110 s.c. (1980). Furthermore, all appellate attorneys for the State are manifestly aware of this courts presumption of correctness doctrine. Without a doubt, the State took full advantage of this procedure. 4) action by the other in Reliance on the truthfulness of the statement:
The TEX Court CRIM, Appls did in fact deny relief, with a written order exactly as the State recommended: all based on an erroneous interpretation of the law.
*5 5) injury to the other resulting from that refidence:
Injury cannot be calculated to a much higher degree from an appellate standpoint, than to be erroneously denied relief. Es- pecially giving Dackstrom's innocence which is fully supported by the preponderance of the evidence.
In sum, the entire judicial process is undermined when a state appellate attorney knowingly and intentionally misstates the law and misrepresents the material facts for the sole purpose of denying relief with the full understanding that his fraud will lead the higher court down an un- just good.
For the adversarial process to work properly and justly, arguments must be directed toward the merits of the case, not some official arguments that results in fraud.
In this matter, Dackstrom has demonstrated that the state acted in bad faith that was designed to improperly influence this court to deny him relief.
He would respectfully ask this court to siercise its inherent powers, by suspending its prior judgement in which its enforcement leads to interpretable results.
So prayed this 12th day of October, 2015
*6 Under penalty of perjury, Pettifinger, Preven M. Dackstrom, aversitedall of the facts and statements herein.
Sighted this 15th day of October, 2015,