texas seat belt ticket court document
CAUSE NO. 489326
CITY OF BEDFORD TEXAS ) ( IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT
VS. ) ( JUDGE TIMOTHY J. MURPHY
JACOB OWENS ) ( CITY OF BEDFORD TEXAS
MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE
AND NO COURT COST
JUDICIAL NOTICE: TEXAS PENAL CODE § 39.03. OFFICIAL OPPRESSION (a) A public servant acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows is unlawful;
(2) intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity,
knowing his conduct is unlawful; or
(3) intentionally subjects another to sexual harassment.
(b) For purposes of this section, a public servant acts under color of his office or employment if he acts or purports to act in an official capacity or takes advantage of such actual or purported capacity.
(c) In this section, "sexual harassment" means unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, submission to which is made a term or condition of a person's exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, either explicitly or implicitly.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1217, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 16, § 19.01(34), eff. Aug. 26, 1991. Renumbered from V.T.C.A., Penal Code § 39.02 by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
63C Am.Jur.2d, Public Officers and Employees, §247 “As expressed otherwise, the powers delegated to a public officer are held in trust for the people and are to be exercised in behalf of the government or of all citizens who may need the intervention of the officer.  Furthermore, the view has been expressed that all public officers, within whatever branch and whatever level of government, and whatever be their private vocations, are trustees of the people, and accordingly labor under every disability and prohibition imposed by law upon trustees relative to the making of personal financial gain from a discharge of their trusts.  That is, a public officer occupies a fiduciary relationship to the political entity on whose behalf he or she serves.  and owes a fiduciary duty to the public.  It has been said that the fiduciary responsibilities of a public officer cannot be less than those of a private individual.  Furthermore, it has been stated that any enterprise undertaken by the public official who tends to weaken public confidence and undermine the sense of security for individual rights is against public policy. Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit-and this is one of the meanings that fraud bears [483 U.S. 372] in the statute. See United States v. Dial, 757 F.2d 163, 168 (7th Cir1985) includes the deliberate concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation. A public official is a fiduciary toward the public, including, in the case of a judge, the litigants who appear before him and if he deliberately conceals material information from them, he is guilty of fraud. McNally v United States 483 U.S. 350 (1987)
1. Respondent brings this action to this above styled court denies the allegation of and states this court, its officers, and any actors, agents, employees lack subject matter jurisdiction and personam jurisdiction to enforce any laws by and thru the STATE of TEXAS pursuant to Article 5 section 21 of the TEXAS CONSTITUTION and that the only one that can bring such an action is by and thru county attorneys and or district attorneys.
2. The alleged cause for action states Respondent has allegedly violated the peace and dignity of the STATE of TEXAS, and of which there is no factual sufficiency in the matter at hand and no one was physically and or mentally harmed in the fraudulent allegation.
3. The alleged competent officer is without jurisdiction in this matter and is in direct violation of the STATE of TEXAS TRANSPORTATION CODE: TITLE 701, of which states that only a county sheriff’s deputy is the only one that has statutory authority to bring this action and not an officer of a municipality.
4. Be it also known that Officer T. Christy (badge #1044) committed perjury by signing and or subornation of perjury by signing the alleged citation purporting he witnessed the alleged violation of a state law that he has no jurisdiction to pursuant to beforementioned rules and regulations and arrived later at the scene.
5. Respondents states as follows that the STATE of TEXAS does not even recognize a driver’s license and therefore the forum is acting in a manner consistent with fraud by the court when the STATE of TEXAS does not recognize a driver’s license, and therefore the Respondent refers back to paragraphs (2 & 3) and wonders if this forum is trying to hide a dirty little secret.
This court has held that there is no such license known to Texas Law as a “driver’s license.” Frank John Callas v. State, 167 Tex.Crim 375; 320 S.W.2d 360
We have held that there is no such license as a driver’s license known to our law. Claude D. Campbell v. State, 160 Tex.Crim 627; 274 S.W.2d 401 Information charging the driving of a motor vehicle upon a public highway without a driver’s license charges no offense, as there is no such license as a driver’s license known to the law. Keith Brooks v. State, 158 Tex.Crim 546; 258 S.W.2d 317 There being no such license as a “driver’s” license known to the law, it follows that the information, in charging the driving of a motor vehicle upon a highway without such a license, charges no offense. W. Lee Hassell v The State, 149 Tex.Crim 333; 194 S.W.2d 400
DEMAND FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, Respondent demands the jurist of this court to dismiss this action with prejudice and no court costs.
_____________________ dated this day 12/1/2010