Carol Paselk v. Justice of the Peace, Precinct 1, Yvonne King

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.

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.

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.

4 RV MR I,.TT,T,RY Appellant's Motion For Rehearing pg 25 of 25 pages

Footnotes

[21] .This Court has failed to address the fact that horses in good condition were Appellant's Motion For Rehearing pg 17 of25 pages 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