Home | Cause | Timeline | Criminal| Civil | Resolution | Final Judgments | Constitutional Right | Links

Here is what all should know. It is what any who have studied banking, or what may also be referred to as commercial paper law, know. It is what any licensed to practice law have a duty to know before prosecuting someone:

The Uniform Commercial Code and Texas Business and Commerce Code, Section 4.403(a), was a valid and enforceable statue in the State of Texas, on the days in question, entitled CUSTOMER’S RIGHT TO STOP PAYMENT, and did read as follows:

A customer may by order to his bank stop payment of any item payable for his account but the order must be received at such time and in such manner as to afford the bank a reasonable opportunity to act on it prior to any action by the bank with respect to the item described in Section 4.303.

Note: There is no requirement the customer provide a reason. A person's reason for performing an act sanctioned by law is not subject to speculation by the government. There must first be an illegal act before speculation is possible about the actors reason for the act.

Additional checking account facts:

In essence a check (properly called a 'draft') is a message to the bank customer's (account holder's) bank, and the person to whom it is entrusted is a messenger. It is a message written from a the owner of a bank account to their bank.

When you receive a paycheck you are given a message from your employer to deliver to your bank. You have not been given 'money', or 'funds', and the paper on which the message is written does not transfer title (ownership) of any money or funds in your employers bank account to you. 

The person that handed the check to another remains the owner of the paper they gave to them for delivery to their bank. The person they give the check to is acting as a messenger to deliver the message from the owner of the piece of paper (the check / draft) to the bank. When you get a check from your employer, or from anyone for any reason, you have not been given money or funds or any property of any kind. You have been given a message to carry to the bank. That message instructs the bank to allow you to withdraw fund (money) from the account of the person that gave you the message and, it is hoped, is the owner of that account.

Why was this not revealed at the criminal trial?

The foregoing are facts of law that the Prosecutor, as a licensed lawyer, and the Judge, as a licensed lawyer, had a duty to know. The defendant (accused) has a right to know the law but no duty to educate the prosecutor & judge. It is also common knowledge to most. And to any of average intelligent that stops to think about the nature of a check. But experience proves that people will let others with title of Prosecutor or Judge do their thinkng for them.

Heimlich exercised his right to compel witnesses for his defense at trial to counter the misunderstanding or misrepresenation of the law presented by the prosecutor. He summoned employees from his bank. Bank employees that he had interacted with on the matter at issue and who could testify to the basics of banking and checking accounts. But they did not show for the trial and the Judge refused to compel their attendance.

Heimlich has a degree in Finance. He mistakenly assumed that jurors understood the basics of a checking account. He believed he had learned these basics in a High School class but maybe it was in the course of earning his bachelors degree in Finance. 

Back to Background