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

Dear Chief Justice Rose,

Thank you. It appears you, and/or Justice Pemberton, did contact Steve Roddy in the Office of the AG.
I finally got word on my request the AG approve the payment of the Final Judgment I secured in 2005.
It came about 2 hours after I wrote to you.

After I spoke to Justice Pemberton a couple of times - at his campaign fund raiser and a Republican event - and with much prayer, I found the ability to forgive him. But forgiveness only means to avoid the temptation to retaliate.
The attached was distributed to many during the 2009 legislative session in an attempt to have Justice Pemberton impeached.

I have since made an effort to avoid doing any harm to his reputation. Even though he destroyed mine, I have turned the other cheek. I do not know Bob Pemberton, 2015. I only know that the Bob Pemberton of 2008 was lacking in objectivity and held a disdain for any who were victims of malfeasance by State Actors or pro se. My ability to be objective about the people and the events life presents has expanded exponentially with over time. Bob Pemberton today may be more objective than Bob Pemberton 2015. He may even be willing to acknowledge his memorandum opinion of 2008 is invalid.

I know he was cleverly deceptive in 2008. Maybe without a conscious awareness of it.

As we discussed yesterday and previously, the courts in Texas do not have jurisdiction to reverse, in a civil case, a finding of actual innocence in a criminal case previously adjudicated to finality. Pemberton's memorandum opinion of 2008 simply concluded that the legislature did not grant permission to sue to those whose "relief from conviction" came on direct appeal rather than later by means of a Writ. To be correct an extraordinary writ because a direct appeal is, essentially, a writ. But he hid this from most who would read his memorandum opinion by including it only by reference to his opinion in the Young case. You were not with the Court then but you will quickly see it when you review the statute he was interpreting. Here is a link to Chapter 103, Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code of 2001, to which my case was confined by the Mandate of the Third Court of Appeals in 2003.

You confirmed in our prior discussion this fact. The Heimlich opinion of 2003 relied on by Young in the appeal on his case could have been changed for Young, and cases that followed. But Pemberton's ruling in Young, 2008, could not properly be used to reverse Heimlich 2003, by applying his opinion in Young to it.

As you confirmed in a recorded conversation the 3rd Court of Appeals, in 2008, did not have jurisdiction to reverse the 14th Court of Appeals acquittal of 1999, the Court of Criminal Appeals refusal to review the acquittal in 1999, or the 3rd Court of Appeals mandate of 2003 that found the State liable and permission to sue from the legislature.

But by including a misrepresentation of both facts of public record, and of the law, and using a lot of legal terms that even some who have been to law school are not familiar with, he gave the impression he was ruling on a criminal case and finding me guilty.

I just want you to know that if I put the attached on my website, along with other revelations of his extreme bias, his lack of objectivity, his lack of judicial temperament, along with your recording proving his memorandum opinion void ab initio and a legal nullity. And if all of this should become national and international news through the efforts of the State of California and it's boosters - it will not be for the purpose of retaliation.

It will be because Justice Pemberton apparently feels it is necessary for the cause of Liberty and Justice. He wants the world to know what was done to me by those who wage a war against our Constitutions, our Laws, and our people, from under the cover of a position of public trust. They hide as prosecutors and in the office of the attorney general. They have allies who hide in the Judiciary.

It may be that most of these warriors do so unintentionally. They are incapable of being objective or are incompetent. Those who do so intentionally are lacking in wisdom. If they were wise they would know that their disregard for the rights of others is a disregard for their own. By diminishing the rights of others they diminish their own and of those whom they love. They, or their children, may some day need the protection of those rights.

Maybe he has a guilty conscience. Maybe he does not realize he is seeking the destruction of his own career.

For more see and and
Faithfully in Freedoms Cause and Service, in Christ's name, I AM, Ed Heimlich,