The opinion
November 19, 2015
Q2lZ /S-- OD311-CV
77r^l £gi/nP Ca^^hU C-i~CV~/<J~OQ7<SC,
Cnunif Court ftt La^ A/q. I
h-f ThloiS C&vniv } 7eX^3
f/on#rzh/<z ~T°&<£ /, Wpfij
D*VJJD ^f\ETZ$CH X Tti 77/£ OPt/NTY CooRr
f) /./ftO + y n r Lfiw tfori&££ onf
n
fth&ZfiM Lov/NCrs HofiroM, fi
1\ TT
Ap-f>.&!J ^
ApfiP.lxUd -fa Ac Cmtc-h 0£ fifpe,aii -fnc Ac
Third- 2)/strict C?-f /ex^s &+ AvS<t/n , 7ey^
Pro $& fcpjbilUfi'h /DaotloL Kae,+-z.4oh
HOI /7, lit 3^t Rph 13*>
Aorti*7 Te**<> 7V151~
Pro $*- frppdU^ -3W>A/fe. k.0"*ji t/orte,)
LarifL< £<\re /re? **ej Mi n/'s-J-r
7— ——
P.a3*X /tj35'37
Av5t!n,7gx*6 7£7/*/-35'-37
Fc.t S/2~ 311- b7H0
RECEIVED
NOV 1 9 20J5
miRDCOURTOFAPPEALS
'EFFREYaKYIf
(^JT&htAiCter/oist, ? r/o L
6)Ll Of EXCEPTIONS TO fctOXd OM APPEAL P>Y
PETmow FPU vJRiT oF H/i&£/i$ f.ofiPU*
TO THE- HMOKRBLE JUDGES, EN M\Kt x Of ThhF
COuRT OF APPEALS . THI R£> JZlATRic.r OF TEXA <, Z
JLDJnAS MOh/, -yD«v>'rA R&e.tzsck) pro se.x herein and
-pJjr$V6At ±J2 At, 7&X^i. Con s+;+uAUn /Qr-T,c /<L / ; ^€1 -hi'nn
L2> 7/e ^/nV cft^ h^h^A corpus m 4 wnV of ri^Ut
zr
f *nJ
Jflfi// nWC Jj£ Jvjtf^ndedL f Z_A^ 1-e.j i* /nrise*. ^A/i// enter-
Uw.i -to render Ac rz/>> ejh s/aetrsha */yrff effzc+vA I*
L Sill of exception
Th/i wr/ffe/) O-b jtc-tfo/i -fa Az. r-ecorj? o si
aptiZt/ tH good T&iA Tor gyocfc- Cao^e_ /S r»te«t~
i& Correct Ae. r-ticprji ±^ fo/it'/s/n -frtsA*/Z/
accounts of Ae. e.venH of Ae -fritz/*
Lff&b^ai Cv+flfsy 2ul
Si A tre. tS any dhczr^nmn-f fef/tia/ipr
ixlzcLs <x wri'++e/\ ex ^/a^^t/^n. Ms. /Bad.>«.c*
P
Lt?j/K<i fi&rt*/)} fla * &//*€, ^nois/sK a/J£? b^ c?'i/en
/loAct of -f/rtie tntl a/ace, of -Ae ^refff^/ne/i^; /f
anyj of 7*//j w/// r?f £.* £*/ot/&nS /n tPr^cr 7^7
& •bi&cf
y&CT or (Kppr&x/e. of /Vj
0* auzji eofij-en-f^m ~7n£- Se.fif+fL
J)'V/ Crf e%CAPt'Qt\5 -l)<LtormS p*r-t of 7^ -frig/
r-franc>rnf>T„ f\Ct*r&- an appeal.
P^+iftOAer /^ !os+ Jmn cAA'orJLtJL £_
pCfp-Zr- <Tafy $rf 7^-^— ^r&n 1rr/fj- , 7~o_ /naJce.
£- h>// cf f^CCpjf^nSy -+* iAt C£t&rdL on aanjuA
Bjl (kCt^rrcKiz record ^r napeA ui///
w
/iffsyrfe an acnjrrzte. fX^slcnmersi- crf errors" AnJ}^
B.pLp esffan-f\..)On&T- «j "for rgw'-eW,
•3Cr CDOkJ t)PPD/hlT£<D SHQM Y AT LAW
Ptdj+Unttr—prp je, f.. Uvman *~f- /auj, rr\nvP.<
h>r r„r\ £L±rary &-r La\aJf +o help pm^/Ae &
COrr^ci recorrA or\ an^A^ f)/\ Ctfomcy tf-
/&W j mpy art/cvA^e 7~/e. errorJ /r\*.d<z /n
At record (On /zns>ec/ w/Aouf offe/>c('//?,
7V?e roff/cers of -f-fe cour-t- mucA aer/er
Atn & /^v/n^o &£ A^j vjko jfggJ- Y-Ap^
/nljJ-Ake^ &s p05s/&/<s
pQ5$j 6/y /n fen i^/an ^ / a*dL
f'/Uc^L
JIT. EXCEPTION
C,W1 A^lvn No. TS-CV-H- 2335-9JT
O3) Vol- 1 ) p^je IL, " h(oHce> of flfpfeaf " f\ppm>/eJl
HL-iJ^M^IflRY - Qr$-ie BdrUnx UiaV^ f^nr-t^ t& i**)«l
COrstchcA -be^ggn Trgv^ Cj,x/**-j Cr.VtnK| J^f/^ - In^i^a. fist rCocrc^ CnQ
Jbdij&l Corpus) H*
U&^Oft'VN Lo^Vj4 /-for-hyr? \-<P^^j C&re r1pf«£s Ministry Ay/At \&lo]<*
mJ rJso re prefer o*rJ3*r>y Len/iny /4of-fg?o -fo m^/«, r^tcs o4-
U\)vj>& (lualltbh -ho r.tovr-h *nA >D+*s?Jt Rc-<Lfi±A „
VjWi cM sjj&s ns>t dLone,
57) J S-CM-IH-131S95'} (Tu^e^ y/p/. 1; pa^ zz-
PflrWrfr -koJtft^ HoH-ot) Ordlec-^jL ±a return a\\ A KL)^l&-3
orfldftf-tv wWhlfx W tiU-fS of \)\j£Le-mZt\+ , (T</ly ZSf XQlit
J3) Vol- ?1 py M?/^|l|M3j Zfv\jV\xzt?}*\ vs/ri-Htn -J »(Ue.*»**± of
CaKHtofrir }*y /\)A*«h f r\0f rvleA *r\
M. &%C£PT\0^ (0 /MOTHER CIVIL ACTlCtsJ
Uril.W PlJLLr ...A31D£!L_I0. J?.£.CoR>D £>A._AP.P.EG.U
jC0 Vo h i, Q-£^_12SA L&i±t£ from Striata L^,^ fttpr-h^r,
"f& CUrk. cf: ^-ke C^uof- , J"^-fe< dz^-c $g*/*e . P<-<?olr\crt ftv.
Colvs*. Ma. m^m ^TS- CV-W- 135-&31 cn^loAel,
|L-JJdi>e^ Ut7jn.^2 JTj
SJLpzcrAz, Ci^'\ &cMe>f\ } .^oer&-f^ jusk c•(L/y\&n-r) not
gppeg.lg.cAg fll) ^tf;(^v.vf3 on C{kos<L N*.J$-L\/~I1- 12>S931
jSlfteCg-re o'v'l case,} Va 1•1] acctLS \XCJ" 13 5
J) VoJ> Ji p^j^ ]59 5epergLf-e Civ^f C^se, Hot'te.
Q£ Re5fr»lci-efjL Appg.^1, J^-h'ca. <?£ Au.ce, fl-^cinc* F.Ve,
by n^'hc^ro- \~ovlnc*$ hW"ror\( CAg.nj€flX? arsA. iHggftly
cKan<jec£ by Clerk ^^m <TS-CV-/H- 215231 -fo
J-s-CWh Z33S9?, e-l-CV-W- 00110b **sdL* Mo+Son lh
Vc-ccf^ JZA**.*e.n+- CTS~C\/- JH-Z35~83ll ck\so cUslLsA
fjpr!\ i] ZQ\b \o<>4- jut !<,<&!ttian" not f'nclvdec/
.W:h*A;L> idt,
Jucg/'cfftl hlof'Ce I Ju^enf JS-tv- H~ 2.3SX? >#
S £flgrAfg, O WC/n gQ t
.^epftr^fe. CiV/f Action
J^Q± £4 Appe& /
(tic.bea* Corpus ) ^_
f\\Sol A& " /slof,^ of RestrUjzJL f\.pp±A" finl
n
Az "Jtfoiion to VficcAz C~ucL*<*^
-pf\e. 3avng -f/me.„ vjQ^fji rdzAiZol *
PfiM££
Xtf 4«flA Tft/tA g^rf -for ^oA C^t/ie^ \Da*/1JL
H&t+L^i\; retiHi^op.r pre? <g.} .rt/vk* -rke ^fA/ne^^
mojle, gcg, fri>ft a/nff- rfirr&ct, /^al r€.+!'hln r\zr
MQMtL4, +he C^^c±, correct Ae. Cltrki of
+hfe C.ovr-i, nrsA Correct A<l " record ar\
appeal as. ^r fa rv£ A Is record are. not on
p
ex p p « a J 60a1 un la^-f^J/y aAcAJL'
Pf 7
*S //-/£- /S
AA&^>c!>L* IftLeyt ^sjJy-jAjedifL cpner
7/0) Irjsjy} f\pt I3*>
ft us fin , Tz**,$ 7JLIAJL
(JlMXA* CprQvzy 7*
CERT/f/CftTE cPF SEA^icfL
Or, Ah /ftA <£fiy of Aw*A<?r jlq/S; X A/b^AZ
RgtALsch /nzi/ed one. CQ Co fly r>f A<l* '/fifzaJ
ACC^
(AUls-h^ , A0. fig* /V3&37 £*&/» V7, 7?r/Y- 3S5>7j
"Ay S~/2- 3/7- 07 VO / S/<f)e
I
i£L iJr K* efAsc ti. #* 'Ah* * r
Cn^t^^fvQ *>
ExMK+i*-.®
Justice of the Peace Percinct (5) Five u^Njy
1000 Guadalupe , Room 112 ^APR^
Austin Texas 78701 Fli &Tp-
David Raetzsch , Plaintiff(s)/Counter-Defendant(s)
Vs.
Barbara Lovings Horton , Loving Care Homes Ministries , Inc.,
Defendant(s)/Counter-Plaintiff(s)
Cause no.J5-CV-14-235831
MOTION TO VACATE JUDGEMENT
Pursuant to the Applicable Texas Rules of Civil Procedure the
defendant/counter Plaintiff respectfully files this motion to vacate
judgement entered by the Justice of the Peace Percinct (5)five
Honorable Judge Herb Evans because defendant/counter Plaintiff
was not adequately given timely notice of the date that the
judgement was entered and therefore judgement was not only
entered without the presence of the defendant/counter Plaintiff
but also judgement was entered without allowing the defendant
/counter Plaintiff to present evidence in her defense in violation of
the Due Process Clause for money property rights such as under
the Fourteenth Amendment. ft*s
In support thereof the defendant/counter plaintiff states the
following grounds for relief, in particular ;
STATUTES OF LIMITATION
Pursuant to the Applicable Texas Rules of Civil Procedures the
defendant / counter Plaintiff Barbara Lovings has thirty days (30)
from the date that judgement was entered to file a motion to
vacate.
In this particular case the judgement was entered on March 3 ,
2015 by the Justice of the Peace (5) Fifth Percinct Honorable
Judge Herb Evans.
Defendant / Counter Plaintiff filed her motion to vacate judgement
on March 31 , 2015 which was well before the time limitation
statutes deadline.
BASIS OF MOTION TO VACATE JUDGEMENT
In the first stages of this civil case styled cause no.J5-CV-14-
233595 , the Justice of the Peace Percinct (5) Five Honorable Herb
Evens awarded the Plaintiff Barbara Lovings $2818.67 dollars in
delinquent room and board rental fees which was to be paid by the
defendant David Raetzsch.
The Honorable Herb Evans also ordered for the Plaintiff Barbara
Lovings to return property iteams such as clotheing , tooth paste ,
bible , ext... to the defendant David Raetzsch.
The Plaintiff Barbara Lovings then instructed her staff members
from Loving Care Homes to take the defendants David Raetzschs'
property to be delivered to the receptionist at the apartment
complex building were the defendant David Raetzsch lived.
Thereafter the receptionist called the defendant David Raetzsch to
pick up his property from the front desk of the apartment complex
building where the defendant resided.
The receptionist has stated to the plaintiff Barbara Lovings that
the defendant did pick up his property from the receptionist front
desk of the apartment complex where the defendats resides.
WITTNESS TESTIMONY
The plaintiff has attached affidavits from her staff members of
Loving Care Homes stating that they did in fact leave the
defendant David Reatzsch property at the receptionist front desk
of the apartment complex where the defendant David Raeztsch
resided.
The plaintiff Barbara Lovings has the intentions , with the trial
courts permission , to present witness testimony from her staff
members named Jeanette Govea Tucker and Joe Credeur stating
that they did in fact leave the defendant David Reatzsch property
at the receptionist front desk of the apartment complex where the
defendant David Raeztsch resided.
The receptionist Oscar Cortez can provide testimony to the court
stating that the defendant David Raetzsch did pickup his property
from the front desk in which is material to the plaintiffs defense
that she did give the defendant his property within ten business
days as ordered by the court.
The plaintiff has attached affidavit's from the receptionist of the
apartment complex building where the defendant David Raeztsch
resides which states that the defendant did pick up his property
from the front desk where it was left by plaintiffs staff members.
(Affidavits are attached as exhibit (A)(B)(C) and incorporated by
referenece).
For this reason it is necessary for the court to enter an order for
the receptionist Oscar Cortez of the apartment complex where the
defendant David Reaztsch resides, to be subpoenaed to appear in
person to provide testimony to the court because the receptionist
testimony is material to the plaintiffs defense inthat it proves that
the defendant did pick up his property from front desk where
plaintiffs staff members had left property to be picked up by
defendant.
The address of the receptionist Oscar Cortez place of employment
is located at Spring Terrace Apartments 7101 N.IH-35 Austin
Texas 78752.
PLAINTIFFS BAD MORAL TURPITUDE
The defendant David Raetzsch filed an additional suit entitleing
himself as plaintiff styled cause no.J5-CV-235831 where he alleges
that the previous plaintiff is now defendant Barbara Lovings
because she never delivered his property to receptionist of
apartment complex bulding where the plaintiff David Raetzsch
resides as ordered by the court which can be contradicted by the
defendant Barbara Lovings witness testimony from her staff
members and the receptionist ofthe apartment complex building
where the plaintiff David Raetzsch resides.
This means that the plaintiff David Raetzsch lied to the court by
stating that Barbara Lovings never returned his property as
previously ordered by the court when in fact the receptionist can
testify by affidavit and in person that the plaintiff did in fact pick
up his property from the front desk where Barbara Lovings staff
members had left the property for the plaintiff David Raeztsch to
pick up.
This means that the plaintiff David Raetzsch is in criminal
contempt of court by penalty of perjury or lieing to the court to
obtain a favorable judgement to reduce the money judgement that
was already rendered against him by the trial court.
The plaintiff David Raetzsch cause of action styled cause no. J5-
CV-235831 has cause needless delay in the civil case in attempt to
reduce the amount of money that he has to pay for delinquent
rental room and board fees that he never paid to defendant
Barbara Lovings.
Not to withstand the fact that although defendant Barbara
Lovings had previously notified the same court in the same case
number that she was never at the address designated for her place
of business because she was always attending to her residents at
her different facility throughout Austin Texas in which was so
that the defendant Barbara Lovings could make sure that the trail
court knew that any further notice or judgements in the case
should be sent to defendant Barbara Lovings P.O. Box address
where she always pickup mail however the plaintiff David
Raeztsch intentionally and knowingly mislead the court to believe
that it was necessary to serve defendant Barbara Lovings with
notice of the trail date of new case at her place of business where
she very seldomly went to check on mail article arrivals at her
designated place of business because the plaintiff David Raetzsch
knew that the defendant Barbara Lovings would never go to check
on mail notice oftrial date in time to appear at the court hearing
that resulted in the judgement complained of.
Plaintiff David Raetzsch did this to ensure that the trial court
would enter a default judgement in the case against defendant
Barbara Lovings for failing to appear before the court, otherwise
if the defendant would have been able to present her side of the
story , the trial court would have learned that the plaintiff was in
criminal contempt of court by lieing to the court in order to reduce
the money judgement that the trial court had previously imposed
on plaintiff.
DEFENDANTS PLEA FOR NEW TRIAL
The plaintiff David Raeztsch is in criminal contempt of court
which is grounds for a new trial so as to allow the defendant
Barbara Lovings to recover from a due process property rights
violation under the Fourteenth Amendment.
CONCLUSSION AND PRAYER
Wherefore Primises Considered in conformance with the
prerequisites settforth herein the defendant/counter plaintiff
prays that the trial court vacate judgement for the purpose of
granting a new trial to allow the defendant/counter plaintiff to be
able to present witness testimony and documentiary evidence in
her defense to recover upon a due process violation of money
property rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United
States Constitution.
The defendant / counter plaintiff Barbara Lovings prays for
general relief.
Respectfully Submitted,
Barbara Lovings Horton , pro se defendant
Pursuant to Penalty of Perjury (28 U.S.C & 1746) the defendant
Barbara Lovings Horton states , declares , and certifies that the
foregoing notice of restricted appeal is true and correct.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Pursuant to Penalty of Perjury (28 U.S.C. & 1746) the defendant
Barbara Lovings hereby states , declares , and certifies that true
and correct copies of the foregoing restricted appeal was sent to
the following party of interest settforth below , in particular ;
(i) David Raetzsch place ofresidence is designated at Spring
Terrace Apartments 7101 N.IH-35 Austin Texas 78752.
?:f Q>
~2.
r*
H ^
p
-4*
r o
r
n
Q
TO
7r~
o'
4-
ID
nJ "NI ~0
•• s
i
hi
k ?
la
ui 1
NI