# ORIGINAL RECEIVED IN The Crurt of Appeals Sixth District JAN 2 8 20.15 arkana, Text FILED IN 

### IN THE COURT OFAPPEALS FOR The Court ofAppeals THE SIXTH COURT OFAPPEALS DISTRICT Sixth District TEXARKANA, TEXAS Texarkana,Texas Debra Autrey, Clerk

CAROL PASELK Appellant

vs. JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, PRECINCT 1, YVONNE KING Appellee § § § § § § § § MAN 2 8 2015 Texarkana, Texas Debra K. Autrey, Clerk

Case No. 06-14-00047-CV

APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR REHEARING

TO THE HONORABLE SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS COMES NOW, Appellant, Carol Paselk, in the interest ofjustice and fairness, brines her "Motion For 

### Rehearing," and humbly asks this Honorable Court to reconsider their Opinion in the matter ofthe Petition For Certiorari and the necessity to vacate the already null and void 

### "Order Awarding Possession ofSeized Horses" (hereinafter the "Order") issued by Justice ofThe 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 of25 pages» 

### 1. Rather than "re-state" and "re-write" all the violations committed against Appellant Paselk's Constitutionally protected and guaranteed rights, and reinclude all the EXHIBITS already provided to this Court, Appellant hereby incorporates the following items into this Motion For Rehearing, the same as ifset forth verbatim herein: 1. Petition For Writ ofCertiorari (C.R. pgs. 5-60) 

### 2. Motion To Vacate Void Order (C.R. pgs. 111-130) 3. Supplement ofBrandNew 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 ofState Statute, filed in this case. 7. All other documents Appellant has filed in this Appeal, Case No. 06-14- 00047-CV 

### 2. All ofthe arguments, citations oflaw, and exhibits contained in the above 

### mentioneddocuments are considered to be incorporated into the language of this Motion For Rehearing, as ifmentioned for each item listed herein. Appellant's Motion ForRehearing pg 2 of25pages

### 3. Appellant's Briefin this case was sent to the Court on August 29, 2014. 4. Appellant's Amended Briefin this case was sent to the Court on September 9, 2014. 

### 5. Appellant has filed this Appeal, to appeal the denial ofher Petition For Writ of Certiorari by the Hopkins County Court (C.R. pg. 5), and denial ofher Motion To 

### Vacate Void Order Issued By The Justice Court (C.R. pg. Ill) seeking relieffrom the already null and void "Order" issued by thejustice court. (C.R. pg. 55) 6. Article 14, Section 1 ofthe Texas Constitution, and Texas Govt. Code 601.005 

### require all Appellate Court Judges to file a sworn, notarized Oath ofOffice Form 

### 2204 with the Secretary ofState, before taking the oral oath, and before taking 

### office. The Oath ofOffice is a declaration made by the Appellate Judge that he or she will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws ofthe United 

### States, and ofthe state ofTexas. The actual language ofoath 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 ofTexas, andwill to the best ofmy ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and laws ofthe United States, and ofthis State, so help me God. 

### Signature ofOfficer [boldandunderline emphasis added.] (See EXHIBIT No. 1) Appellant's Motion For Rehearing pg 3 of25pages7. Since the Judges ofthis Court have all sworn an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws ofthe United States, and ofthis State" they are obligated by the Taxpayers to do exactly that. Paselk is a taxpayer whom the Judges ofthis Court have sworn to protect. 8. The Constitution ofthe United States was created to protect the citizens from infringement upon their rights by the "government". 

### 9. Article 6, Clause 2 ofthe United States Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause, which establishes the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties as "the supreme law ofthe land." 

### 10. Appellant has clearly, concisely, and with established case law shown this Court 

### that the "Order" which is the subject ofthis case, is issued in complete violation ofthis Appellant's Constitutionally protected and guaranteed rights. The main violations ofthis 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 violationofAppellant's protected rights, by the 4th Appellant's Motion For Rehearing pg 4 of25pagesAmendment ofthe U.S. Constitution, as well as Article 1, Section 9 ofthe Texas Constitution, Texas Code ofCriminal 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 ofthe seizure to professionally evaluate ANY horse and establish its condition BEFORE it was taken from Appellant's property, thus NO chain ofcustody ofthe evidence (horses) was established, and therefore NO admissible evidence can be established, in 

### violation ofAppellant's Constitutionally protected and guaranteed rights underthe 4th, 5th, and 14thAmendments. 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 ofTexas Code ofCriminal 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 ForRehearing pg 5 of25 pagesguise ofanimal welfare, conducted unwarranted, unauthorized searches and 

### seizures ofblood and fecal samples in violation ofPaselk's 4th amendment protections and violation ofright to privacy protections ofthe 9th and 10th amendments. This Court has failed to address this serious issue. 5. Photos ofhorses 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 ofwhich particular animal was to be the subject ofthe "hearing" held in layman non-lawyer Justice ofthe Peace Yvonne King's court, in violation ofPaselk's protected and 

### guaranteed rights underthe 5th and 14thAmendments. Theonly 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 theApplication, 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 ForRehearing pg 6 of 25 pagesWarrant, 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 ofthe hearing held in King's court, based on the ONLY notice of 

### this hearing found on the face ofthe Warrant, especially when horses in good condition were wrongfully included in the "Order", in direct violation ofTexas Health & Safety Code § 821.023(g), and in violation ofPaselk'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 ofthe hearing, as noticed on the face ofthe 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 tojustify the "Order" as it was written to take 57 horses from Paselk, which includes horses in good condition, in the face ofthe following: 

### 1. The fact that there was NO professional Veterinarian on-site to provide professional evaluation ofthe condition ofany horse Appellant's Motion ForRehearing pg 7 of 25 pagesbefore 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 ofthe horses was not intentionally 

### alteredAFTER they were removed. In fact, photos taken 6 days AFTER the horses were taken clearly show the intention to 

### intentionally alter the condition ofat least 12 stallions. 

### 2. In his officialeyewitness report, Sgt. Tanner Crumpstates: "I do not feel that the horses are in need ofimmediate care or removal 

### from the owner", (C.R. pg. 44) Crump furtherstated, "Not all of the horses were poor...Mostofthe 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. TestimonyofState's witness Melanie DeAeth; founder and 

### president of True BlueAnimal Rescue (R.R., Statev. Paselk, CR0926723 & CR0926724, Vol. 3 of6, 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 ofhay, and then we 

### approved purchasing 25 wormers." Yet, DeAeth and others had Appellant's Motion ForRehearing , pg 8 of 25 pages

### lied to Hopkins County SheriffDepartment 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 MorganTestified, " She wouldprobably 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 of6, pg. 285, line 25, and pg. 286, line 1.)(EXfflBIT No. 2) Photos ofhay 

### purchased and fed shown as EXHIBITNo. 1 ofAppellant's Reply Brief, clearly shows that the State'switnesses were lying that they were withdrawing support from Paselk, when they testified to 

### only a one time offer of support that was delivered4 months before the seizure! DeAeth or none ofthe other States witnesses 

### provided any ongoing support for Paselk, this their claims were simply lies to the court. 

### 5. Photos ofHay 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 ForRehearing pg 9 of 25 pagesThis 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 ofher right to a Trial by Jury affecting this 

### matter ofher property rights, is in complete violation ofher 

### Constitutionally protected right guaranteed bythe5th and 14thAmendments, 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'sConstitutionally protected andguaranteed rights, by referring to their upholding ofmisdemeanor convictions against Paselk, determined 5 months AFTER this "Order" was issued, even in the face ofso 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 ofmisdemeanor 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 ForRehearing pg 10 of 25 pages

### sanctity ofthe long standing institution ofthis 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 ofnumerous ofthis Appellant's Constitutionally protected and guaranteed rights is not only a serious affront to the honor ofthe institution known as the Texas Court 

### ofAppeals, but it is also a serious affront to the SOLEMN Oath sworn by the 

### Judges ofthis Court, and a serious affronttoAlmighty God, before whom the Judges ofthis Court have made their sworn Oath. It is the job ofthe Judges to administer Justice, and to preserve, protect, and defend the rights ofthis Appellant 

### which are protected and guaranteed by the U.S. The Judges ofthis 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 ofthe United States. This Court has failed to address this serious issue. 

### 12.The Statutory scheme and the manner ofits implementation in this case constitute government action so arbitrary that it violates Plaintiffs protected rights to due process. The "Order" which is the subject ofthis 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 ofthe 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 ForRehearing pg 11 of 25 pages

### threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment ofany right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws ofthe Unites States, (or because ofhis/her having exercised the same). 

### Unlike most conspiracystatutes, Section241 does not requirethat oneofthe 

### conspirators commit an overt act prior to the conspiracy becoming acrime. The offense ispunishable by arange ofimprisonment up to a life term or thedeath penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and theresulting injury, ifany. The actual language ofTITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 241 states: "Iftwo 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 ofany right 

### orprivilege secured to him by the Constitution orlaws of theUnited States, or because ofhis having so exercised the same;... They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and ifdeath results from the acts committed in violation ofthis 

### section or ifsuch acts include kidnapping or an attemptto kidnap, 

### aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commitaggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or 

### imprisoned for any term ofyears or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death." Paselk contends that the actions and conduct ofthose involved in this case borders 

### on violations ofUSC Title 18, Section 241. This Court has failed to address this very serious issue. 

### 14. In making their denial ofthis Appellant's Petition For WritofCertiorari, and ultimately their denial ofthis Appellant's Motion ToVacate AlreadyVoid Order" Appellant's Motion ForRehearing pg 12 of 25 pages

### this Court is holding to a non-jurisdictional Rule - TRCP Rule 579 - ratherthan to 

### uphold and defend the Constitutionally protected an guaranteed rights ofthis 

### 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 ofthe U.S., which is to ultimately to preserve and protect, and defend 

### the rights ofthis Appellant protected and guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. In a case where a Petition For Writ ofCertiorari 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 denvjurisdiction to the petitioner on the merits, or whether we will waive the Rule and exercise our constitutional responsibility to takejurisdiction ofthe case. Where a rule which is not jurisdictional, but directory only, conflicts with the 

### justice ofthe case, it isjustice and not the rule which must prevail. 

### Rules should implement rather than prevent the administration of justice." Atlantic Coast LineR. 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 ofCertiorari and ultimately Motion To VacateAlready Void Order, is this Court's denial that TRCP Rule 579 

### is a "directive" only and is notjurisdictional. Although this Court has the prerogative to waive the Rule or not, in the face ofsuch blatant violations of Paselk's Constitutionally protected and guaranteed rights, it becomes quite plain Appellant's Motion ForRehearing pg 13 of 25 pagesthat this CourtMUST exercise its constitutional responsibility to takejurisdiction ofthis case so that Justice may be administered in this case and the Writ of Certiorari issued. This Court's denial ofPaselk's Petition For Writ ofCertiorari based solely on the procedural directive ofTRCP Rule 579 is preventing the true 

### and correct administration of justice, the preservation, protections, and defense of the Constitution ofthe United States, and is in complete denial ofPaselk'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 ifthey agree with the Florida 

### Supreme Court that (1) Justice rather than the Rule must prevail, and (2) ifthey have the duty and responsibility to exercise their sworn constitutional responsibility to takejurisdiction ofthe case, so that Justice may prevail. This Court has failed to address this serious issue.

17.This Court must must address the issue ofwhether TRCP Rule 576 must be upheld, no matter what, in denial ofthis 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 considerthat an "Order" issued by a layman non-lawyer J.P. 

### court is NOT "resjudicata". You, as a Judge, are a human being who has been

Annellant's Motion For Rehearing oa 14 of25 Daaesgiven the Title and office BY the Trust ofyour constituents. You have sworn before Almighty God, that you will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution 

### ofthe United States, which means preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitutionally protected and guaranteed rights ofthe people whom you serve. After seeing everything in the documents listed in the first point ofthis Motion For Rehearing (point No. 1 above), there are four questions that not only this 

### Appellant, but the Taxpayers ofTexas believe you MUST answer: 1. "What reason can you now give that willjustify you NOT granting 

### Appellant Paselk's Petition For Writ ofCertiorari, in the face ofall the clearly demonstrated, evidenced, and upheld violations ofPaselk's 

### Constitutionally protected and guaranteed rights?" 2. "Do you REALLY believe that a layman, non-lawyer Justice ofthe Peace, such as Yvonne King, who has only two years ofcollege education, has the education, training in Constitutional law, and lawful right to "Order" an entire herd ofhorses 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 courtproceeding lasting only a few hours, and including horses in good condition in that "Order", in direct violation ofthe protections codified by the Legislature found in Texas Appellant's Motion ForRehearing pg 15 of 25 pagesHealth & Safety Code § 821.023(g)?" 3. "What reason can you now give that willjustify NOT vacating the "Order" 

### which includes taking horses in good condition, in direct violation ofthe protections codified by the Legislature found in Texas Health & Safety Code § 821.023(g)?" 

### 4. The "Order" gives the entire herd ofhorses to private citizens operating "tax-free". The State, nor the Taxpayers ofthis State, have received NO benefit from the "Order" which simply gives an entire herd ofhorses to 

### private citizens, who have used these horses for their own gain. How does this Courtjustify NOT vacating the "Order" when this "Order" has NOT benefited the State or the Taxpayers ofthis State in any way?" This Court has failed to address these very serious issues, for which Paselk and the Taxpayers ofthe State ofTexas are waiting an answer. 19. This Court has NOT provided any answer to this Appellant's Challenge to the Constitutionality ofState Statute, which can not be denied, in the face ofsuch serious violations ofConstitutionally protected and guaranteed rights as have been perpetrated against Paselk. This Court has a sworn duty, responsibility, and 

### obligation to the Taxpayers and beforeAlmighty 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 of25 pagesConstitutionality ofState Statute filed in this case, which focuses on the Constitutionality ofTHSC 821. This Court has failed to address this serious

issue. 20. The Court attempts tojustify their denial ofPaselk's Petition ForWrit of 

### Certiorari by stating in footnote No. 2 on page 2 ofthe "Opinion" ... "we upheld both convictions"... yet this Court does NOT address the fact that the convictions 

### were obtained in violation ofPaselk's Constitutionally protected rights 5 months AFTER the "Order", which is the subject ofthis case, was issued. The 

### misdemeanor convictions themselves are a violation ofhistorically held "human rights" and were obtained in violation ofPaselk'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 ofPaselk'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 ofthe "Order" was a violation ofPaselk's Constitutionally 

### protected and guaranteed rights, as well as in violation ofTexas Health & Safety Code 821.023(g), 5 months BEFORE anyjudgment ofconviction was issued. 

### 21 .This Court has failed to address the fact that horses in good condition were Appellant's Motion ForRehearing pg 17 of25pages

### wrongfully taken from Paselk in violation ofthe protections ofTexas 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 ofthe US, and also 

### the Constitution and laws ofthe State ofTexas. Texas Health & Safety Code 821.023(g) very clearly states, "The The court SHALL order the animal returned 

### to the owner ifthe 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 ofownership ofthe animals, and ordered Appellant's Motion For Rehearing pg18 of25pages

### 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 ofall, 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 Graciav. State, King 

### has NEVER produced any documentation to show that each and every horse was found to have been cruelly treated, in what mannerthe 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 ofhorses 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 ofimmediate care or removal from the owner", 

### (C.R. pg. 44) Crump further stated, "Not all ofthe horses were poor...Most ofthe 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 ofState's witness Melanie DeAeth; founder and president of True Blue Animal Rescue (R.R., State v. Paselk, CR0926723 & Appellant'sMotion For Rehearing pg 19 of25 pagesCR0926724, Vol. 3 of6, pg., lines 4-7), when asked by defense attorney Steve Lilley "How much assistance did you offer my client?" DeAeth 

### responded, " " I think I gotthe board to approve purchasing $200. worth of hay, and then we approved purchasing 25 wormers." Yet, DeAeth and others had lied to Hopkins County SheriffDepartment they had been supplying continuing support for Paselk for months, to instigate the seizure, which they became the sole beneficiaries of. 3. ChiefDeputy 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 ofsupport that was delivered 4 months before the seizure! 4. All ofthese 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 ittakes horses in good condition from 

### Appellant Paselk, in violation ofthe protections ofTHSC 821.023(g), and this Court has the duty, and responsibility according to their Sworn Oath Appellant's Motion ForRehearing pg 20 of 25 pagesbefore the Taxpayers ofthis 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 ForWrit ofCertiorari, and her Motion To 

### Vacate Void Order, and immediately vacate the already null and void "OrderAwarding Possession ofSeized Horses" issued May 20, 2009, by Justice ofThe Peace, Precinct 1, Yvonne King, which wrongfully includes the taking ofhorses 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 ofTexas 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 ofPaselk'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 whichAppellant isjustly entitled. Appellant Paselk further requests that this honorable Court will review all ofAppellant's Appellant's Motion ForRehearing pg 21 of 25 pagessubmissions to the Justice Court and the County Court requesting vacating ofthis "Order" ifthis 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 ofCompliance, 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.

Appellant's Motion For Rehearing Carol Paselk. Pro Se Appellant P.O. Box 1284 Emory, Texas 75440 pg 22 of25 pagesCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing "Motion ForAppellant's Amended Brief has been sent by first class USPS mail to Justice ofThe Peace, Precinct 1, Yvonne King, 128 MairvStseet, Suite K, Sulphur Springs, TX 75482, on the



# (>^davof ^H^*—<-4oi5.

Appellant's Motion For Rehearing 

### Carol Paselk, Pro Se Appellant P.O.Box 1284 Emory, Texas 75440

pg 23 of25 pagesForm ?::04 Rev. 10/1011 Submit ro: SECRETARY OF STATE Government Filings Section P O Box 12887 Austin, TX 78711-28S7 512-463-6334 Filing Fee: None EXHIBIT No. I

OATH OF OFFICE This space reserved for office

use

TN THE NAME AND BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, I, , dosolemnly swear (oraffirm), thatI willfaithfully execute the duties ofthe office of of the State of Texas,and will to the bestofray abilitypreserve, protect, and defend theConstitutionand laws ofthe United States and ofthis State, so help me God.

State of County of Sworn to and subscribed before me this (seal)

Form 2204 Appellant's Motion For Rehearing Signatureof Officer

day of 20 SignatureofNotary Publicor OtherOfficer Administering Oath Printed or Typed Name Print Reset

pg 24 of25 pages2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

n 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 EXHIBIT No. 2

STATE VS. PASELK - VOLUME 3 OF 6 - 10/27/09 285

week's time. A. Weil, at that particular time when Sergeant Crump went out there, he didn't now of any history of Ms. Paselk. He kind of felt sorry for her, and from what she was telling him, he was going to give her time to -- he saw feed. He saw wormer. He didn't y.nav anything about the rescue group's prior dealings with her, and she just wasn't doing anything. I mean, the day we went out to serve the seizure papers, the feed was still there, and the wormer was still there in the bucket, and she hadn't even attempted to do anything. So after Lieutenant Turner and I had discussed it, we just kind of took it upon our own to go see Ms. Rabe and get the seizure papers because the horses would be starved to death. Q. And on the flip side of that, if what she had told Mr. Crump compared to what we knew of the rescue groups and their involvement had been true, if they were still going to work with her, if there was going to continue to be a supply of food or wormer, if what she had told Mr. Crump he wrongly or rightly believed, if that were true, would you have a different opinion? A. I would have. She would probably still have the horses today because she was attempting to feed

KSYLA B. rcott. ecu, DPP (21i( 531-9-121

1 2 3 4 STATE VS. PASELK - VOLUME 3 OF 6 - 10/27/09 2 S 6

thera.

RV MR MS. RABE: I will pass Che witneoe.

I,.TT,T,RY

Appellant's Motion For Rehearing pg 25 of25 pages