20211115 Letter to Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) Board about the actions of DART Police

Page 1 of 5

November 15, 2021 Edward H. Sebesta 1502 Seevers Ave. Dallas, TX 75216 edwardsebesta@gmail.com Michele Wong Krause Chair Dallas Area Rapid Transit Board 1401 Pacific Ave. Dallas, TX 75202 Dear Ms. Krause: I am writing to you about two incidents in Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) police officers claimed authority based on the false assertion that we were standing on DART real estate property when in fact not only were we not on DART property, but nowhere near DART property. It wasn’t a matter of determining some boundary by the exact amount of feet or knowing the accurate measurements, it simply wasn’t even close.

It maybe that DART police have some authority by some agreement with the city or some ordinance with the City, and if you feel so, please provide the specific ordinance in a manner that it can actually be found in the City of Dallas, Dallas County, or State of Texas codes, with the text of the ordinance or agreement.

However, whether you had or didn’t have authority under some municipal code or agreement, the assertions that were made claiming authority on the basis that the property we were standing on was owned by DART is still a falsehood. I am not a lawyer, but I think you should consider the following points.

1. If an individual police officer made such a claim of DART property ownership knowing it to be false, that officer’s testimony in court that he might have been made in the past should be called into question and to the extent the testimony’s credibility is based on his honesty, it needs to be considered whether if it is still valid, and any convictions depending solely on it should be overturned. I don’t think it is unreasonable to speculate that if someone stated a falsehood in one situation that they might state a falsehood in court.

2. If it was a general known practice of DART police offers to make claims of property ownership knowing them to be false, I would think that the testimony in general that DART police officers might have made in court should be called into question and to the extent its credibility is based on an officer’s honesty, it needs to be considered if it still valid, and any convictions depending solely on it should be overturned.

Page 2 of 5

3. If officers took actions based on a false claim of DART property ownership ordering people or physically interacting with them and that ordering of the person or interaction resulted in a conflict or arrest or other adverse consequence to a citizen, I think restitution needs to be made regardless whether it was due to a misunderstanding on the police officer’s part or based on having knowingly asserted a false claim of authority.

4. If the DART police officers were misinformed about DART property ownership, they should not be held accountable for misinforming others, but they do need to be immediately informed as to where DART property begins and ends, and immediately stop claiming authority based on false claims of DART property ownership.

5. With such a basic error such as knowing whether you were on DART property or not, how accurate or credible is DART police officer testimony regarding the facts in a court case?

6. If the police were misinformed about the property, some investigation needs to be done if their being misinformed was due to incompetence in understanding the extent of DART property ownership by some level of DART management or the DART board, or if the DART police officers were knowingly misinformed. If knowingly misinformed I don’t think that the person or persons who were engaged in knowingly misinforming the police officers should hold a position of public trust. [Note: The Dallas Central Appraisal District (DCAD) has online a marvelous resource where you can find out what property DART owns and what DART doesn’t own. https://www.dallascad.org/] Given that false claims were made, though I have no idea as whether they were intentional or not, I do think the public defenders of the County of Dallas, the Dallas County District Attorney, the Dallas City Attorney should be informed and take appropriate actions where the credibility of an officer’s truthfulness resulted in a conviction if it turns out that these false claims of property ownership were knowingly made and adopt some appropriate policy regarding DART officer police testimony until credibility can be re-established. They should also act on cases where police officer had made false claims of DART property ownership in taking actions against a citizen.

I think also the Dallas City Council should be informed that DART police officers are claiming public property of the City of Dallas as DART property.

In general, the DART police officers should only act in the authority granted them. The fact that property ownership is claimed when it is obviously false suggests that other false claims might be made by a DART police officer of having an authority which are not actually substantiated by municipal code or other law.

Page 3 of 5

Also, I ask you to review what ordinance that DART police officers might act upon that might impinge my 1st Amendment rights under the Texas and United States Constitutions in good faith and take appropriate action.

THE TWO INCIDENTS The two following descriptions use a document enclosed with this letter titled, “DART Police Actions,” dated 11/12/2021 and signed by Edward H. Sebesta.

FIRST INCIDENT On the evening of Tuesday, August 8, 2021, (8/24/2021) we were at the location North of Pacific Avenue and to the West of North Lamar Street on the sidewalk near the red dot shown in the map of Figure A of the enclosed copy of “DART Police Actions,” by Ed Sebesta, (Edward H. Sebesta) given a date of 11/12/2021 when the document was completed.

One of the persons assisting myself with having people holding the Botham Jean Blvd. mock up sign was not feeling well and went to sit on the bench shown in Figure B. At which point a DART Police Officer said that he couldn’t sit on the bench.

I politely asked the DART police officer on what basis was he giving that order. He stated that it was DART property and went to make sweeping claims for all of the side walk South of us to an indeterminate distance some ways down the way and also the other side. I said that I had checked the location on the DCAD maps and it appeared to be public property. His phrase, which he would repeat multiple times, “That is what we were told.” I don’t know if the claim that DART management had told him that they owned the property was something he was making up or not, but it does suggest that it might possibly be a practice of DART management to tell the DART police officers these false claims of property ownership.

Block 218, indicated by Green in Figure A, listed in Figure C and against in Figure D shows clearly where your property is. We were not only not next to it or near it, but across the street and a distance from the street curb.

Further you will note on DCAD that the area indicated by the red dot in Figure A, if you click on it on the DCAD maps, isn’t even a parcel that can be owned. Further there are no boundaries about this area, it is part of the Dallas Public Property encompassing the sidewalks and streets of the City of Dallas. If there is a claim of ownership of property it should be a parcel, and it should have a boundary.

Finally, I doubt that you have any authority on any basis to prevent a person from sitting on the bench shown in Figure B.

Page 4 of 5

SECOND INCIDENT On an afternoon, Sunday, October 12, 2021, (10/12/2021) we were at the Fair Park DART station on the side West of the DART rails with the mock “Botham Jean Blvd.” sign. The DCAD map Figure E shows the parcels and public property of the Fair Park Dart Station. Figure F shows the DCAD boundaries with an arial view of the structures on that property. You can see that the structure on the West side is not on a parcel and also is part of the public streets of Dallas. The East Side Structure is on Fair Park Property, see Figures G & H. Figures G & H show the ownership of Fair Park. DART doesn’t own the property on which the Fair Park Dart Station stands nor any property in the area visible on Maps E & G. At no time did we cross the tracks to get on Fair Park property as indicated in green in Figure G. Yet, an officer came up to us and claimed we were on DART property and we would have to leave with the mock “Botham Jean Blvd.” sign. I decided at this point to pull up the DCAD maps and show him the DCAD map for the Fair Park Station and pointed out that where we were wasn’t DART property. He repeatedly attempted to assert that we were on DART property as opposed to the public property of Parry Avenue with me pointing out that the boundary of the street public property came to the tracks. He seems to have grasped it finally after repeatedly showing him the maps.

Then he started stating they were charged with maintaining the public peace and I stated we weren’t disturbing the public peace and just holding the sign out of the flow of pedestrian traffic. He repeated this several times, and I stated we weren’t disturbing the peace. I resent the slanderous implication that we were disturbing the peace.

Finally, he said that his managers expected us to be gone and he would be in trouble if we weren’t. I suspected that was true, however, I don’t think he considered the implications of such a statement that it is a policy of DART to just exercise police authority capriciously not based on the law or lawful authority but what DART managers might want.

At that point I felt that it was time to leave.

DEMANDS 1. I want DART police officers stop making false claims of property ownership as the basis of their authority as applied against me and my activities. Next time, I will likely video tape it and get a lawyer next time. Or I might just call the Dallas City Police.

Page 5 of 5

2. If you have any claims of authority in the two areas indicated related to the two incidents described, or elsewhere, I would like to be informed in good faith what the basis is and the ordinances or laws on which give the police officer has an authority to give us orders regarding one matter or another.

3. The DART police officers cease to claim some authority applied against our activities without actually having any authority to do so by law or municipal code.

If I feel that there is an abuse of authority in the future, I will be seeking legal help as to what remedies I might obtain.

Sincerely yours,

Edward H. Sebesta CC: DART Board Members: Flora M. Hernandez, Patrick Kennedy, Jon Bertrell Killen, Rodney Schlosser, Dominique P. Torres, Hossana Yemiru, Eliseo Ruiz III, Jonathan R. Kelly, Rick Stopfer, Paul N. Wageman, Gary Stagel, Doug Krbacek, Robert C. Dye, Mark C. Enoch.

Also, Dallas County Chief Public Defender, Lynn Pride Richardson; Dallas County District Attorney, John Creuzot; Dallas City Attorney, Christopher J. Caso.