* John T. Boyd, Chi ef Jus tice (Ret.) , Seventh Cou rt of Appea ls, s itting by a ss ignment. Tex. Gov ’t CodeAnn. §7 5.002 (a)(1 ) (Vern on Sup p. 200 2). NO. 07-02-0301 -CV IN THE COU RT OF APP EALS FOR THE SEVENT H DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMA RILLO PANE L E NOVEM BER 14, 2002

______________________________

DAN THOMAS, Appellant
v. RANDY BURKH ALTER A ND C. JOH NSON, Appellees

_________________________________ FROM THE COUNT Y COURT AT LAW OF POLK COUNT Y; NO. CV01945; HON. STEPHEN PHILLIPS, PRE SIDING

_______________________________ Before QUINN and REAVIS, JJ., and BOYD, SJ. * Appellant

Dan Tho m as (Thom as) appe als fromthe trial co urt ’s di smi ssa l of his law suit against Randy Burkhalter (B urkhalter) and C. Johnson (Johns on ). Thom as asserts, by w ay of tw

o iss ues , th at 1 ) th e tr ial c our t lac ked j uris dict io n overhis suit because the judgehad failed to take the constitutional oath of office, and 2) “the house bill #1343 , that e nacted into law . . . ‘inmate litigati on’ is void due to it’s [sic] authors a nd2

sponsor[] legislators failure to comply with the prov ision of the Texas C onstitution, Article:16, Section 1, as am ended.” We affir m. Backgr ound On October 27, 2000, prison inmate Thom as filed suit pro se and in f orma pa up er

is alleging that Burkhalte r and Johnson, offi cers employe d by the T exas D epartm ent of Cr iminal Justice, wrongful ly depri ved him of his proper ty, specifi cally “ a lock a nd key. ” Thus, Thomas

sued for negligence, conversion, detinue, replevin, and bailment in the Justiceof the PeaceCourt in Polk County, Texas. The trial court dismissed the petition forf ailing to obtain the State’s perm ission to file suit. Thomas, then, appea led to th e County Court at Law

of Polk County, which w as dismissed by that court b ased on the failure of Thom as’ pleadings to m eet the requirements s et out in §14.001 of the Tex as C ivil Practice and Rem edie s C ode . A m otio n fo r ne w

tria l w as f

ile d by Th omas

wherein he alleg ed t he id ent ical gro und s henow sub m its on a ppe al. Issues One and Two - Pr oof of Oath of Office Through his two issues, Thomas contends that the trial judge had failed to take the various constitutionally required oaths of office and file written proof that sam e were taken with the Secretary of

State. S o too does he allege that the statute upon w hich the trial court relied in dismissing his suit as frivolous, §§14.004 and 14. 006(F) of t he T exas C ivil Practice and Rem edies Code, wa s allegedly void because the legislative mem bers who “authored and spo nso red ” it “failed to take or retake their oaths and file their bribery oath

. . . w ith the Secretary of State in 1995.” Thus, according to Thom as, the trial court did not3

have the capacity to “act as a court” and dism iss the suit. Nor co uld it dismiss the proceeding via authority granted by a void act. We disagree and overrule the issue. Assum ing arguen do that the failure to take the oath of office or “bribery oath” somehow divests both a judge and l egisl ator with power to act, there exists no evidence of record which illustrates that such o aths were nottak en o r fil ed with the S ecretary of State. Nor can the m issing evidence be supplied through our taking “ju dicial notice” of the records of the Secretary of State, asThomas

would have us do. First, authorityprohibits
us from taking judicial notice of the contents of records filed with sister courts w ithout proof of those records. Richards v. Commi

ssion for Lawyer

Dis cipli ne , 35 S.W .3 d 2 43 , 2 51 (T ex. App.–Houston [14 th Dist.] 2000, no pet.). Th us, by analog y, we cannot take judicial notice of thecon ten ts of re cor

ds f iled with a n ad m inis trati ve agency operati ng under a di stinct branch of governm entwithout proof of those records. A nd, Thom as did not provide that proof. Fu rthermore, assuming that the oaths were not fil ed, that does not esta blish tha t theywere not taken. Conceivabl y, the y c ould have be en take n an d no t fil ed. So , even if
we were to judicially notice the contents of the S ecretary’s records and discovered no oaths, the ir

absence doe s no t pr

ovethe y were never take n. A nd, m ost im por tan tly, sim ply failing to f

ile an oat h that has been taken does not depri ve the offici al of hi s authorit y. Sode rman v. State , 915 S.W.2d 605, 611-12 (Tex. App. –Houston [14 th Dis t.] 199 6, w rit ref’d). Finding no evi dence of record to suppo rt Thomas ’ contentions, w e affirm the judgm ent entered below.4 Brian Quinn Justice
Publish.