ORIGINAL
FILED IN
RECEIVED IN
The Crurt of Appeals IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR The Court ofAppeals
Sixth District
THE SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT Sixth District
JAN 2 8 20.15 TEXARKANA, TEXAS
MAN 2 8 2015
Texarkana,Texas
arkana, Text
Debra Autrey, Clerk Texarkana, Texas
Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
CAROL PASELK
Appellant §
§ Case No. 06-14-00047-CV
vs. §
§
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, §
PRECINCT 1, YVONNE KING §
§
Appellee §
APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR REHEARING
TO THE HONORABLE SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS COMES NOW,
Appellant, Carol Paselk, in the interest of justice and fairness, brines her "Motion For
Rehearing," and humbly asks this Honorable Court to reconsider their Opinion in the
matter of the Petition For Certiorari and the necessity to vacate the already null and void
"Order Awarding Possession of Seized Horses" (hereinafter the "Order") issued by
Justice of The Peace, Precinct 1, Yvonne King, in violation ofAppellant Carol Paselk's
Constitutionally protected and guaranteed rights. In support hereof, Appellant shows the
following:
Appellant's Motion For Rehearing pg 1 of 25 pages
»
1. Rather than "re-state" and "re-write" all the violations committed against
Appellant Paselk's Constitutionally protected and guaranteed rights, and re-
include all the EXHIBITS already provided to this Court, Appellant hereby
incorporates the following items into this Motion For Rehearing, the same as if set
forth verbatim herein:
1. Petition For Writ of Certiorari (C.R. pgs. 5-60)
2. Motion To Vacate Void Order (C.R. pgs. 111-130)
3. Supplement of Brand New Case Law (C.R. pgs. 135-146)
4. Appellant's Amended Brief, filed in this case.
5. Appellant's Reply Brief
6. Challenge To Constitutionality of State Statute, filed in this case.
7. All other documents Appellant has filed in this Appeal, Case No. 06-14-
00047-CV
2. All of the arguments, citations of law, and exhibits contained in the above
mentioned documents are considered to be incorporated into the language of this
Motion For Rehearing, as if mentioned for each item listed herein.
Appellant's Motion For Rehearing pg 2 of25 pages
3. Appellant's Brief in this case was sent to the Court on August 29, 2014.
4. Appellant's Amended Brief in this case was sent to the Court on September 9,
2014.
5. Appellant has filed this Appeal, to appeal the denial of her Petition For Writ of
Certiorari by the Hopkins County Court (C.R. pg. 5), and denial of her Motion To
Vacate Void Order Issued By The Justice Court (C.R. pg. Ill) seeking relief from
the already null and void "Order" issued by the justice court. (C.R. pg. 55)
6. Article 14, Section 1 of the Texas Constitution, and Texas Govt. Code 601.005
require all Appellate Court Judges to file a sworn, notarized Oath of Office Form
2204 with the Secretary of State, before taking the oral oath, and before taking
office. The Oath of Office is a declaration made by the Appellate Judge that he or
she will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United
States, and of the state of Texas. The actual language of oath contains the
following:
IN THE NAME AND BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF
TEXAS, I, . do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I wiE
faithfully execute the duties of the office of
or the State of Texas, and will to the best of my ability preserve,
protect and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States,
and of this State, so help me God.
Signature of Officer
[bold and underline emphasis added.] (See EXHIBIT No. 1)
Appellant's Motion For Rehearing pg 3 of25 pages
7. Since the Judges of this Court have all sworn an oath to "preserve, protect, and
defend the Constitution and laws of the United States, and of this State" they are
obligated by the Taxpayers to do exactly that. Paselk is a taxpayer whom the
Judges of this Court have sworn to protect.
8. The Constitution of the United States was created to protect the citizens from
infringement upon their rights by the "government".
9. Article 6, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution is known as the Supremacy
Clause, which establishes the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and
treaties as "the supreme law of the land."
10. Appellant has clearly, concisely, and with established case law shown this Court
that the "Order" which is the subject of this case, is issued in complete violation
of this Appellant's Constitutionally protected and guaranteed rights. The main
violations of this Appellant's Constitutionally protected rights, spelled out at
length in the items incorporated into this Motion For Rehearing in point No. 1
above, include, but are not limited to:
1. The Warrant For Animal Seizure is an outlawed "general warrant"
prohibited, and in violation ofAppellant's protected rights, by the 4th
Appellant's Motion For Rehearing pg 4 of25 pages
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as well as Article 1, Section 9 of the
Texas Constitution, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Chapter 18, and
Texas Health & Safety Code 821.022(a). This Court has failed to address
this serious issue.
2. No Veterinarian was on-site at the time of the seizure to professionally
evaluate ANY horse and establish its condition BEFORE it was taken from
Appellant's property, thus NO chain of custody of the evidence (horses) was
established, and therefore NO admissible evidence can be established, in
violation ofAppellant's Constitutionally protected and guaranteed rights
under the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments. This Court has failed to address
this serious issue.
3. The horses were immediately removed from Hopkins County by private
citizens who had no court order authorizing their removal and no court
order specifying the manner in which the animals were to be kept, all in
violation of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure § 18.10 and § 18.11, which
violates Paselk's protected and guaranteed rights under the 4th, 5th, and 14th
Amendments. This Court has failed to address this serious issue.
4. Private citizens, who have no "official" capacity or authority, and who have
ONLY obtained permission to operate "tax-free" and operating under the
Appellant's Motion For Rehearing pg 5 of 25 pages
guise of animal welfare, conducted unwarranted, unauthorized searches and
seizures of blood and fecal samples in violation of Paselk's 4th amendment
protections and violation of right to privacy protections of the 9th and 10th
amendments. This Court has failed to address this serious issue.
5. Photos of horses found six days AFTER they were removed from Paselk's
farm show horses in good condition were taken, nullifying the "Order" and
nullifying the allegation that these horses had been cruelly treated. In fact,
the photos document that they were intentionally housed by their so called
"rescuers" in conditions to cause them to become injured. This Court has
failed to address this serious issue.
6. Appellant was provided NO proper notice of which particular animal was to
be the subject of the "hearing" held in layman non-lawyer Justice of the
Peace Yvonne King's court, in violation of Paselk's protected and
guaranteed rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments. The only notice
Paselk received was stated, "to determine whether THE animal has been
cruelly treated." NO Thoroughbred breed horses were listed on the Warrant
or on the Application, yet supposedly King considered each and every
Thoroughbred horse taken from Appellant's farm, obviously without notice
proper notice to Paselk. NO geldings were listed on the Application or the
Appellant's Motion For Rehearing pg 6 of 25 pages
Warrant, yet supposedly Kind considered the two geldings which were
taken from Paselk's farm, obviously without proper notice to Paselk. Any
reasonably minded person can NOT tell which particular horse was to be
the subject of the hearing held in King's court, based on the ONLY notice of
this hearing found on the face of the Warrant, especially when horses in
good condition were wrongfully included in the "Order", in direct violation
of Texas Health & Safety Code § 821.023(g), and in violation of Paselk's
Constitutionally protected and guaranteed rights under the 5th and 14th
Amendments. This Court has failed to address this serious issue.
7. No reasonably minded person can possibly know WHICH animal was to be
the subject of the hearing, as noticed on the face of the Warrant, especially
when animals in good condition were taken from Paselk's farm, and not
returned in compliance with THSC § 821.023(g). This Court has failed to
address this serious issue.
8. There is NO way to justify the "Order" as it was written to take 57 horses
from Paselk, which includes horses in good condition, in the face of the
following:
1. The fact that there was NO professional Veterinarian on-site to
provide professional evaluation of the condition of any horse
Appellant's Motion For Rehearing pg 7 of 25 pages
before it was removed from the farm. Without this professional
evaluation BEFORE their removal, there is no way for the State to
PROVE that the condition of the horses was not intentionally
altered AFTER they were removed. In fact, photos taken 6 days
AFTER the horses were taken clearly show the intention to
intentionally alter the condition of at least 12 stallions.
2. In his official eyewitness report, Sgt. Tanner Crump states: "I do
not feel that the horses are in need of immediate care or removal
from the owner", (C.R. pg. 44) Crump further stated, "Not all of
the horses were poor...Most of the horses that were poor were
older horses and it is expected that they would not look as good as
horses that were younger."(C.R. pg. 44)
3. Testimony of State's witness Melanie DeAeth; founder and
president of True Blue Animal Rescue (R.R., State v. Paselk,
CR0926723 & CR0926724, Vol. 3 of 6, pg., lines 4-7), when
asked by defense attorney Steve Lilley "How much assistance did
you offer my client?" DeAeth responded, " " I think I got the
board to approve purchasing $200. worth of hay, and then we
approved purchasing 25 wormers." Yet, DeAeth and others had
Appellant's Motion For Rehearing , pg 8 of 25 pages
lied to Hopkins County Sheriff Department they had been
supplying continuing support for Paselk for months, to instigate
the seizure, which they became the sole beneficiaries of.
4. Chief Deputy Ricky Morgan Testified, " She would probably still
have the horses today because she was attempting to feed them"
as his response to learning that the "rescues" were not truthful.
(R.R. State v. Paselk, CR0926723 & CR0926724, Vol. 3 of 6, pg.
285, line 25, and pg. 286, line 1.)(EXfflBIT No. 2) Photos of hay
purchased and fed shown as EXHIBIT No. 1 of Appellant's Reply
Brief, clearly shows that the State's witnesses were lying that they
were withdrawing support from Paselk, when they testified to
only a one time offer of support that was delivered 4 months
before the seizure! DeAeth or none of the other States witnesses
provided any ongoing support for Paselk, this their claims were
simply lies to the court.
5. Photos of Hay and grain in the barn on 05/03/2009 and again on
05/09/2009, along with receipts presented to court, clearly show
that Paselk was providing for the horses at the time they were
seized. (EXHIBITNO. 1 -Appellant's Reply Brief).
Appellant's Motion For Rehearing pg 9 of 25 pages
This Court has failed to address these very serious issues, which very
clearly show that Paselk was not cruelly treating any horses, and which
verify that the "Order" is in fact invalid, and null and void.
9. Paselk has never been given her right to a Trial by Jury, which is
INVIOLATE. This denial of her right to a Trial by Jury affecting this
matter of her property rights, is in complete violation of her
Constitutionally protected right guaranteed by the 5th and 14th Amendments,
and is very succinctly upheld in Granger v. Folk; citing Clayton v. Clayton.
This Court has failed to address this serious issue.
11.This Court attempts to justify their refusal to acknowledge the blatant violations
ofAppellant Paselk's Constitutionally protected and guaranteed rights, by
referring to their upholding of misdemeanor convictions against Paselk,
determined 5 months AFTER this "Order" was issued, even in the face of so many
violations of this Appellant's Constitutionally protected and guaranteed rights, it is
appalling. Not only do those convictions have NOTHING to do with this "Order"
issued 5 months BEFORE any trial against Paselk for allegations of misdemeanor
cruelty to a livestock animal, but IF this "Order" had been properly vacated, as it
should have been at the time it was issued, there would be NO convictions against
this Appellant. With ALL DUE RESPECT and REVERENCE for the honor and
Appellant's Motion For Rehearing pg 10 of 25 pages
sanctity of the long standing institution of this honorable Court ofAppeals, this
Appellant is still compelled to state: for the Judges to attempt to stand on
convictions that ANY Taxpayer can see have been obtained in absolute violation
of numerous of this Appellant's Constitutionally protected and guaranteed rights is
not only a serious affront to the honor of the institution known as the Texas Court
ofAppeals, but it is also a serious affront to the SOLEMN Oath sworn by the
Judges of this Court, and a serious affront to Almighty God, before whom the
Judges of this Court have made their sworn Oath. It is the job of the Judges to
administer Justice, and to preserve, protect, and defend the rights of this Appellant
which are protected and guaranteed by the U.S. The Judges of this honorable
Court have not been hired to seek a way to deny this Appellant the protections and
guarantees she is entitled to under the Constitution of the United States. This
Court has failed to address this serious issue.
12.The Statutory scheme and the manner of its implementation in this case constitute
government action so arbitrary that it violates Plaintiffs protected rights to due
process. The "Order" which is the subject of this case, is illegal and is issued by
arbitrary government action. This Court has failed to address this serious issue.
13. Section 241 of Title 18 of the US Code is the civil rights conspiracy statute.
Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree together to injure,
Appellant's Motion For Rehearing pg 11 of 25 pages
threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise
or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or
the laws of the Unites States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).
Unlike most conspiracy statutes, Section 241 does not require that one of the
conspirators commit an overt act prior to the conspiracy becoming a crime. The
offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term or the death
penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury,
if any. The actual language of TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 241 states:
"If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or
intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth,
Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right
or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United
States, or because of his having so exercised the same;... They shall
be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or
both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this
section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap,
aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual
abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be
sentenced to death."
Paselk contends that the actions and conduct of those involved in this case borders
on violations of USC Title 18, Section 241. This Court has failed to address this
very serious issue.
14. In making their denial of this Appellant's Petition For Writ of Certiorari, and
ultimately their denial of this Appellant's Motion To Vacate Already Void Order"
Appellant's Motion For Rehearing pg 12 of 25 pages
this Court is holding to a non-jurisdictional Rule - TRCP Rule 579 - rather than to
uphold and defend the Constitutionally protected an guaranteed rights of this
Appellant, which this court has been organized and sustained by the Taxpayers to
protect. The Florida Supreme Court has shown their very deep wisdom and their
loyalty to their duty to their sworn oath to preserve, protect, and defend the
Constitution of the U.S., which is to ultimately to preserve and protect, and defend
the rights of this Appellant protected and guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. In
a case where a Petition For Writ of Certiorari was filed two years after final
judgment, The Florida Supreme Court upheld:
"We are, therefore, confronted with the dilemma as to whether we
ahere stnctiv to the Rule and denv jurisdiction to the petitioner
on the merits, or whether we will waive the Rule and exercise our
constitutional responsibility to take jurisdiction of the case. Where a
rule which is not jurisdictional, but directory only, conflicts with the
justice of the case, it is justice and not the rule which must prevail.
Rules should implement rather than prevent the administration of
justice." Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Mack, 64 So. 2d 304 (Fla. S.Ci.
1952).
This Court has failed to address this serious issue.
15.This Court's denial ofAppellant's Petition For Writ of Certiorari and ultimately
Motion To Vacate Already Void Order, is this Court's denial that TRCP Rule 579
is a "directive" only and is not jurisdictional. Although this Court has the
prerogative to waive the Rule or not, in the face of such blatant violations of
Paselk's Constitutionally protected and guaranteed rights, it becomes quite plain
Appellant's Motion For Rehearing pg 13 of 25 pages
that this Court MUST exercise its constitutional responsibility to take jurisdiction
of this case so that Justice may be administered in this case and the Writ of
Certiorari issued. This Court's denial of Paselk's Petition For Writ of Certiorari
based solely on the procedural directive of TRCP Rule 579 is preventing the true
and correct administration ofjustice, the preservation, protections, and defense of
the Constitution of the United States, and is in complete denial of Paselk's
Constitutionally protected and guaranteed rights. In this case, Justice and NOT
the Rule must prevail. This Court has failed to address this serious issue.
16. It is now this Court's responsibility to consider if they agree with the Florida
Supreme Court that (1) Justice rather than the Rule must prevail, and (2) if they
have the duty and responsibility to exercise their sworn constitutional
responsibility to take jurisdiction of the case, so that Justice may prevail. This
Court has failed to address this serious issue.
17.This Court must must address the issue of whether TRCP Rule 576 must be
upheld, no matter what, in denial of this Court's sworn duty and responsibility to
protect and defend this Appellant's Constitutionally protected and guaranteed
rights. This Court has failed to address this serious issue.
18. The Court fails to consider that an "Order" issued by a layman non-lawyer J.P.
court is NOT "res judicata". You, as a Judge, are a human being who has been
Annellant's Motion For Rehearing oa 14 of 25 Daaes
given the Title and office BY the Trust of your constituents. You have sworn
before Almighty God, that you will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution
of the United States, which means preserving, protecting, and defending the
Constitutionally protected and guaranteed rights of the people whom you serve.
After seeing everything in the documents listed in the first point of this Motion
For Rehearing (point No. 1 above), there are four questions that not only this
Appellant, but the Taxpayers of Texas believe you MUST answer:
1. "What reason can you now give that will justify you NOT granting
Appellant Paselk's Petition For Writ of Certiorari, in the face of all the
clearly demonstrated, evidenced, and upheld violations of Paselk's
Constitutionally protected and guaranteed rights?"
2. "Do you REALLY believe that a layman, non-lawyer Justice of the Peace,
such as Yvonne King, who has only two years of college education, has the
education, training in Constitutional law, and lawful right to "Order" an
entire herd of horses simply be given to private citizens, (who possess no
authority other than permission to operate tax-free), without providing the
inviolate right to a trial by jury, in a court proceeding lasting only a few
hours, and including horses in good condition in that "Order", in direct
violation of the protections codified by the Legislature found in Texas
Appellant's Motion For Rehearing pg 15 of 25 pages
Health & Safety Code § 821.023(g)?"
3. "What reason can you now give that will justify NOT vacating the "Order"
which includes taking horses in good condition, in direct violation of the
protections codified by the Legislature found in Texas Health & Safety
Code § 821.023(g)?"
4. The "Order" gives the entire herd of horses to private citizens operating
"tax-free". The State, nor the Taxpayers of this State, have received NO
benefit from the "Order" which simply gives an entire herd of horses to
private citizens, who have used these horses for their own gain. How does
this Court justify NOT vacating the "Order" when this "Order" has NOT
benefited the State or the Taxpayers of this State in any way?"
This Court has failed to address these very serious issues, for which Paselk and
the Taxpayers of the State of Texas are waiting an answer.
19. This Court has NOT provided any answer to this Appellant's Challenge to the
Constitutionality of State Statute, which can not be denied, in the face of such
serious violations of Constitutionally protected and guaranteed rights as have been
perpetrated against Paselk. This Court has a sworn duty, responsibility, and
obligation to the Taxpayers and before Almighty God to provide answers to the
very real and very serious questions presented by the Challenge to the
Appellant's Motion For Rehearing pg 16 of 25 pages
Constitutionality of State Statute filed in this case, which focuses on the
Constitutionality of THSC 821. This Court has failed to address this serious
issue.
20. The Court attempts to justify their denial of Paselk's Petition For Writ of
Certiorari by stating in footnote No. 2 on page 2 of the "Opinion" ... "we upheld
both convictions"... yet this Court does NOT address the fact that the convictions
were obtained in violation of Paselk's Constitutionally protected rights 5 months
AFTER the "Order", which is the subject of this case, was issued. The
misdemeanor convictions themselves are a violation of historically held "human
rights" and were obtained in violation of Paselk's Constitutionally protected and
guaranteed rights. The misdemeanor convictions violate Paselk's
Constitutionally protected rights and must be set aside. The misdemeanor
convictions are a violation of Paselk's Constitutionally protected property and
liberty rights. The Court is obligated to look at this "Order" without any
reference to the misdemeanor convictions 5 months AFTER the "Order" was
issued. The issuance of the "Order" was a violation of Paselk's Constitutionally
protected and guaranteed rights, as well as in violation of Texas Health & Safety
Code 821.023(g), 5 months BEFORE any judgment of conviction was issued.
21 .This Court has failed to address the fact that horses in good condition were
Appellant's Motion For Rehearing pg 17 of25 pages
wrongfully taken from Paselk in violation of the protections of Texas Health &
Safety Code 821.023(g). The Court has never addressed this very serious issue,
which has already been determined by the Court in Gracia v. State (footnote 1),
where the Court held that animals not found to have been cruelly treated were
returned to the owners. This Court has the duty, and responsibilty to uphold their
sworn oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the US, and also
the Constitution and laws of the State of Texas. Texas Health & Safety Code
821.023(g) very clearly states, "The The court SHALL order the animal returned
to the owner if the court does not find that the animal's owner has cruelly treated
the an\ma\ ."[capitals, bold, and underline emphasis added] The word SHALL is
not arbitrary, and can NOT be ignored. The Legislature very clearly made its
intent known by using the word SHALL. King failed to adhere to the directive of
SHALL ORDER, and wrongfully included horses in good condition in the
"Order". As such, the "Order" is invalid, null and void, and must be immediately
vacated! This Court has failed to address this very serious issue.
22.In their Opinion, the Court makes many statements for which there has never been
any "evidence" presented. This Court has failed to address this serious issue.
23.This Court states, "After the hearing, King determined that Paselk had cruelly
treated fifty-seven horses, divested her of ownership of the animals, and ordered
Appellant's Motion For Rehearing pg18 of25 pages
them to be given to the True Blue Animal Rescue and the Bluebonnet Equine
Rescue Service. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 821.023(d), (e) (West
2010). First of all, King has NEVER produced any documentation to show that
she in fact considered each and every animal as being cruelly treated. According
to Tex. Health & Safety Code 821.023(g), and as upheld in Gracia v. State, King
has NEVER produced any documentation to show that each and every horse was
found to have been cruelly treated, in what manner the horse was found to have
been cruelly treated, and what evidence and documentation prove that the
particular horse was cruelly treated. King is obligated to issue an Order to return
animals that were in good condition, according to Texas Health & Safety Code
821.023(g). Photos of horses found at the Bartley Auction & Stockyard six days
AFTER being removed from Paselk's farm show horses in good condition were
taken from Appellant Paselk's farm.
1. In his official eyewitness report, Sgt. Tanner Crump states: "I do not feel
that the horses are in need of immediate care or removal from the owner",
(C.R. pg. 44) Crump further stated, "Not all of the horses were poor...Most
of the horses that were poor were older horses and it is expected that they
would not look as good as horses that were younger."(C.R. pg. 44)
2. Testimony of State's witness Melanie DeAeth; founder and president of
True Blue Animal Rescue (R.R., State v. Paselk, CR0926723 &
Appellant'sMotion For Rehearing pg 19 of 25 pages
CR0926724, Vol. 3 of 6, pg., lines 4-7), when asked by defense attorney
Steve Lilley "How much assistance did you offer my client?" DeAeth
responded, " " I think I got the board to approve purchasing $200. worth of
hay, and then we approved purchasing 25 wormers." Yet, DeAeth and
others had lied to Hopkins County Sheriff Department they had been
supplying continuing support for Paselk for months, to instigate the seizure,
which they became the sole beneficiaries of.
3. Chief Deputy Ricky Morgan Testified, " She would probably still have the
horses today because she was attempting to feed them" as his response to
learning that the "rescues" were not truthful. (EXHIBIT No. 2) Photos of
hay purchased and fed shown as EXHIBIT No. 1 ofAppellant's Reply
Brief, clearly shows that the State's witnesses were lying that they were
withdrawing support from Paselk, when they testified to only a one time
offer of support that was delivered 4 months before the seizure!
4. All of these items show that King could NOT find all 57 horses to have
been cruelly treated, therefore according to Tex. Health & Safety Code
821.023(g) King was obligated to order horses returned to Appellant. The
"Order" is NOT valid because it takes horses in good condition from
Appellant Paselk, in violation of the protections of THSC 821.023(g), and
this Court has the duty, and responsibility according to their Sworn Oath
Appellant's Motion For Rehearing pg 20 of 25 pages
before the Taxpayers of this State and before Almighty God, to so state.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, Appellant Paselk humbly prays that this honorable Court will
grant her Motion For Rehearing, Petition For Writ of Certiorari, and her Motion To
Vacate Void Order, and immediately vacate the already null and void "Order Awarding
Possession of Seized Horses" issued May 20, 2009, by Justice of The Peace, Precinct 1,
Yvonne King, which wrongfully includes the taking of horses in good condition, which
directly violates the protections codified by the Legislature in Texas Health & Safety
Code 821.023(g). The fact that horses in good condition were wrongfully included in
the "Order" in violation of Texas Health & Safety Code 821.023(g), has nothing to do
with misdemeanor convictions against Paselk issued 5 months later. The violations of
Order according to THSC 821.023(g), along with the complete violation of Paselk's
Constitutionally protected and guaranteed rights are what this Court must concern itself
with in this case. This Court is obligated to vacate the "Order" based on the fact that
horses in good condition were wrongfully included in the "Order", in direct violation of
the protections codified by the Legislature in THSC 821.023(g), and upheld by this
Court in Gracia v. State (footnote 1). Appellant also requests this Court order such
other and further relief, at law or in equity, to which Appellant is justly entitled.
Appellant Paselk further requests that this honorable Court will review all ofAppellant's
Appellant's Motion For Rehearing pg 21 of 25 pages
submissions to the Justice Court and the County Court requesting vacating of this
"Order" if this Court feels it needs more indepth information.
Respectfully Submitted,
Carol Paselk
Pro Se Appellant
P.O. Box'l284
Emory, Texas 75440
(940)435-3210
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to TRAP Rule 9.4(i)(3), in making this Certificate of Compliance, I am
relying on the word count provided by the Libre Office 4.2.5.2 computer software used
to prepare this document. In compliance with TRAP Rule 9.4(i)(2)(B), according to the
Libre Office word-count function, this Appellant's Motion To Vacate Void Order
contains 4,937 words. In compliance with TRAP 9.4(e), the typeface used in this
Motion is no smaller than 14-point, except for footnotes, whibji are no smaller than 12-
point.
Carol Paselk. Pro Se Appellant
P.O. Box 1284
Emory, Texas 75440
Appellant's Motion For Rehearing pg 22 of 25 pages
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing "Motion For Appellant's
Amended Brief has been sent by first class USPS mail to Justice of The Peace, Precinct
1, Yvonne King, 128 MairvStseet, Suite K, Sulphur Springs, TX 75482, on the
(>^dav of ^H^*—<-4oi5.
Carol Paselk, Pro Se Appellant
P.O.Box 1284
Emory, Texas 75440
Appellant's Motion For Rehearing pg 23 of 25 pages
EXHIBIT No. I
Form ?::04 Rev. 10/1011 This space reserved for office
use
Submit ro:
SECRETARY OF STATE
Government Filings Section
P O Box 12887
Austin, TX 78711-28S7
512-463-6334 OATH OF OFFICE
Filing Fee: None
TN THE NAME AND BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS,
I, , do solemnly swear (oraffirm), thatI willfaithfully
execute the duties of the office of of
the State of Texas, and will to the best of ray abilitypreserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws
of the United States and of this State, so help me God.
Signatureof Officer
State of
County of
Sworn to and subscribed before me
this day of 20
(seal)
SignatureofNotary Public or Other Officer
Administering Oath
Printed or Typed Name
Print Reset
Form 2204
Appellant's Motion For Rehearing pg 24 of 25 pages
EXHIBIT No. 2
285
STATE VS. PASELK - VOLUME 3 OF 6 - 10/27/09
week's time.
2 A. Weil, at that particular time when Sergeant
3 Crump went out there, he didn't now of any history of
4 Ms. Paselk. He kind of felt sorry for her, and from
5 what she was telling him, he was going to give her
6 time to -- he saw feed. He saw wormer. He didn't
7 y.nav anything about the rescue group's prior dealings
8 with her, and she just wasn't doing anything. I mean,
9 the day we went out to serve the seizure papers, the
10 feed was still there, and the wormer was still there
n in the bucket, and she hadn't even attempted to do
12 anything. So after Lieutenant Turner and I had
13 discussed it, we just kind of took it upon our own to
14 go see Ms. Rabe and get the seizure papers because the
15 horses would be starved to death.
16 Q. And on the flip side of that, if what she
17 had told Mr. Crump compared to what we knew of the
18 rescue groups and their involvement had been true, if
19 they were still going to work with her, if there was
20 going to continue to be a supply of food or wormer, if
21 what she had told Mr. Crump he wrongly or rightly
22 believed, if that were true, would you have a
23 different opinion?
24 A. I would have. She would probably still have
25 the horses today because she was attempting to feed
KSYLA B. rcott. ecu, DPP (21i( 531-9-121
2 S 6
STATE VS. PASELK - VOLUME 3 OF 6 - 10/27/09
1 thera.
2 MS. RABE: I will pass Che witneoe.
3
4 RV MR I,.TT,T,RY
Appellant's Motion For Rehearing pg 25 of 25 pages