NOTE: THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS SENSITIVE DATA

……………..(Your Address)
……………..
……………..

MOVANT IN PROPER

CAUSE NO. 11-0061-FC1

) IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW

SHAKEEL MUSTAFA (Movant) )
)
AND )
)
Mrs. Asim (Respondent) ) NUMBER ONE
)
)
) WILLIAMSON COUNTY TEXAS
IN THE INTEREST, )
)
SAMEL MUSTAFA AND AARIZ )
)
MUSTAFA

MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

NOW COMES Movant files this Motion for trial de novo by dint of Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b and

Rule 505.3(c), after the County Court abused its discretion when it issued arbitrary orders

regarding the parties’ children custody, control, child support and denial of the opportunity to

appeal its decision.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. Movant, Mr. Shakeel and Respondent, Mrs. Asim were once married but got divorced on

……………………………………. By dint of a court order dated 18th July, 2017, the

Respondent was ordered to furnish the Movant with up-to-date health and well-being
 status concerning their two sons, Sameel and Aariz. The Respondent failed to honor the

said court order thus necessitating the hiring of a private investigator by the Movant. The

Movant hired Mr. Mike Adams as his private investigator to establish and communicate

on the health of the Movant’s eldest son, Sameel.

2. Mr. Adams followed laid down investigative processes and procedure by first notifying

local police department concerning his private operations. During his investigations, Mr.

Adams was able to find that Sameel was being physically assaulted and appeared to be

mentally stressed. Mr. Adams further noted in his reports that Sameel’s step father, Mr.

Asim was a domineering control freak that exposed Sameel to shame. Adams further

noted that Sameel was in an environment where he could not be himself or express

himself. Adams reported that Sameel only responded when his Step father Mr. Asim gave

instructions.

3. Consequently, the Movant filed a modification suit in November 2020, in the interest of

his two sons, Sameel and Aariz. The court heard the suit in 10 th June 2022 and made a

ruling that was not only arbitrary but made errors which Movant shall highlight

hereunder.

COMPLAINTS

4. The following complaints are made in accordance with the provisions of Tex. R. Civ. P.

324

Point of error in the failure to rely on factual evidence.

5. A new trial should be granted since the court would have arrived at a different conclusion

regarding the fitness of Mrs. Asim as the sole physical custodian of the children since Mr.

Asim failed to inform and provide Shakeel on the health of Sameel and Aariz by dint of

court issued order dated 18th July, 2017.

Factual insufficiency of evidence to support its orders.

6. A new trial should be granted as the court did not take cognizance of the fact that the

Respondents never issued a subpoena upon the Movants against Mr. Adams since Mr.

Adams was hired by the Movant. Nonetheless, the court proceeded to take his false

testimony which heavily informed the court’s ruling. The court acted arbitrarily by

ignoring the fact that the Respondent did not serve a subpoena upon the Movant

regarding their intention to use Mr. Adams as their witness. A trial court abuses it

discretion when it acts in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner or when it acts without

reference to any guiding principles. Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108, 109 (Tex.

1990) (per curiam); In re A.B.P., 291 S.W.3d 91, 95 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2009, no pet.)

7. In the case, In Interest of J.N., No. 05-08-01563-CV, (Tex. App. Oct. 20, 2009), the court

stated that, “to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion because the

evidence is insufficient to support its decision, we consider whether the trial court (i) had

sufficient evidence upon which to exercise its discretion and (ii) erred in its exercise of

that discretion. Id.; Vardilos v. Vardilos, 219 S.W.3d 920, 921 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2007,

no pet.). We conduct the applicable sufficiency review with regard to the first question.

A.B.P., 291 S.W.3d at 95; Moroch v. Collins, 174 S.W.3d 849, 857 (Tex. App.-Dallas

2005, pet. denied). We then proceed to determine whether, based on the elicited evidence,

the trial court made a reasonable decision. Moroch, 174 S.W.3d at 857.”
The denial of Movant’s right to due process by the use of false or perjured testimony.

8. A new trial should be granted since the orders by the court were informed by false

witness statements. Mike Adams is on record for expressly stating that he did not conduct

surveillance on Sameel. Adam’s deposition was false and misleading to the court.

Adam’s false testimony regarding his conduction of surveillance on Sameel was

deliberately made and meant to hide facts that would have otherwise disclosed the

unfitness of Mr. and Mrs. Asim as step father and mother respectively, to the children,

Sameel and Aariz. (Find TRANSCRIPT and PDF investigation as EXHIBITS annexed

hereto.

9. Indeed, Mike Adams conducted surveillance upon Sameel and reported through email

how he found Sameel to be raised in unhealthy environment where Adams suspected that

Sameel was likely to be physical assaulted as Adam was able to spot harm and assault

marks on Sameel’s neck.

10. Mr. Adams’ letter to Mrs. Asim, dated Monday, April 18, 2022, expressly states that and

he admits in part that Mrs. Asim’s emails submitted to the Supreme court were found to

be forgeries by two expert analysists. The letter stated in part that, “Mr. Mustafa secured

the expert opinion of two nationally known forensic document examiners. They each

wrote an expert opinion professing that the documents are forgeries. I perform digital

forensics and I have no opinion, but I have seen their written opinions and can confirm

what they wrote.”

11. Mr. Adams admits in his letter dated Monday, April 18, 2022, addressed to Mrs. Asim

that Mr. Mustafa has the best interest of his son Sameel, “Again, I want to mediate
 between you and Mr. Mustafa. He only wants to put all of your past history behind in the

best interest of your son.”

12. If Adams would have positively and truthfully informed the court on Sameel’s

surveillance findings, then the court would have made a contrary ruling regarding the

denial of Shakeel’s request to review and withdraw the order on child support.

13. If Adams would have positively and truthfully informed the court on Sameel’s

surveillance findings, then the court would have made a contrary ruling regarding the

limited time allocated for communication between Shakeel and his children.

14. A new trial should be granted since the knowing use of perjured testimony that is likely

to materially affect the court’s judgment violates the Due Process Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. See Ex parte Castellano, 863

S.W.2d 476, 485 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993).

15. It is the Movant’s assertion that Mr. Adams as the digital forensic expert, gave his

testimony that was essential to the court’s ruling that was adverse to Mr. Shakeel. If the

actual truthful version of events relating to the surveillance of Sameel would have been

made available to the court, then such evidence would have been the single most

damaging factual and irrefutable evidence that would have made Mrs. Asim lose the sole

and exclusive custody over the children.

16. A new trial should be granted since Adam’s false testimony denied the court a chance to

make an objective decision if it had been presented with truthful factual testimony from

Mr. Adams. Moreover, it was Mr. Adam’s false testimony that was the most compelling

element supporting the court’s ruling that favored Mrs. Asim’s claim on child support.
17. If Adams would have positively and truthfully informed the court on Sameel’s

surveillance findings, then the court would have made a contrary ruling regarding the

following:

i) The fitness of Mr. and Mrs. Asim to be Sameel and Aariz’s step parent and

parent.

ii) The amount in child support ordered to be paid by Mr. Shakeel

iii) The ordering of Mr. Shakeel to pay Mrs. Asim’s attorney fees.

iv) The ordering of Mr. Shakeel to pay Mrs. Asim’s appellee lawyer fees in the event

Shakeel opts to appeal the court’s decision.

18. Although the preceding judge did not find the Movant’s modification suit to be frivolous,

the judge nonetheless awarded the Respondent a significant amount of attorney's fees.

Furthermore, the judge abused his discretion by making the Movant’s appeal contingent

to him paying the Respondent’s appellee’s attorney fees.

19. The Respondent’s attorney also committed perjury during the trial by affirmatively

insisting to the court with finality that the Applicant’s attorney Mr. Ilionsky had initially

uploaded and tendered before the court a copy of Applicant’s salary pay-slip. It is on

record that the Applicant’s attorney Mr. Hiller had experienced difficulties in uploading

Mr. Mustafa’s pay-slip via Teams. This technological challenge denied the court the

opportunity to assess Applicant’s financial status which informs the court on how much

money should be paid as child support by Mr. Mustafa. The lie told by Respondent’s

attorney Ms. Heinrich in court during trial misinformed and misdirected the judge into

awarding child support that was out of the Applicant’s reach. See EXHIBIT annexed

hereto.
 PRAYERS

(i) That this Motion be accepted and an order be issued for a new trial.

(ii) An order issued to stay the order regarding payment of Respondent’s attorney fees.

Dated, this …. day of November, 2022.

Respectfully submitted, Shakeel Mustafa

…………………………………………………….(signed) Movant in Proper

 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true copy of the above was served on the Respondent’s attorney on record
or the Respondent herself in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on November
___, 2022.

_____________________________________

Pro Se