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

Three (3) minute oral testimony given April 13, 2015
to Senate Finance Committee on SB 1280

I am Ed Heimlich. I've come to request inclusion of my claim in SB 1280. This is me and the business I build 22 years ago. I have a Bachelors Degree in Finance but had my business and my career destroyed by unlawful acts of the State. (show business)

Easter reminds us that anyone can become the victim of the misguided passions of a jury. Human nature is much the same today as it was then. What happened to Jesus could happen today, and to you.

People resist truth that makes them uncomfortable. To believe a prosecutor and judge would ignore our Constitution and your Law is uncomfortable to accept, even if obvious. My actual innocence was, and remains, obvious. The action taken against me was so absurd and cruel it is hard for some to accept because that means it could happen to anyone. To even the longest serving Governor of our State. Or worse, to them. But denial only gives a false sense of comfort and security. Your best protection from the same spirit of injustice is to accept the truth. Only then can you guard against it and take measures to save others from it.

The finding of actual innocence in a criminal case cannot be reversed in a civil case. See Section 5 of Article 5 of our Texas Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure, Art. 4.04. Acquittal is synonymous with innocence. Reversal of a conviction for legal insufficiency of the evidence is synonymous with a finding of actual innocence. That is; pursuant to our Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Our Constitution and your law says their determination is final in all criminal matters.

We are here today because of a Civil case. Not a criminal case. The 3rd Court of Appeals reviewed my Civil Case in 2003. This was after the State had been given summary judgment on it's claim of sovereign immunity. The 3rd reversed that judgment but confined my case to your act of 2001. They said that because of my actual innocence you, our Legislators, in the act of 2001, gave me permission to sue the State and found the State liable for my damages.

The State waived it's right to then take that ruling to the Texas Supreme Court. Your waiver of State Sovereignty from suit and liability was established and again my actual innocence affirmed. The Attorney General asked for a trial to determine damages. After I was subjected to the expense of experts witnesses I secured a Final Judgment.

It appeared my long suffering had finally come to an end. That was 10 years ago. The problem since has been a nonsubstantive change in the words utilized in the act of 2001. The name of the Honorable Senator Whitmire is on this change. I pray that he will confirm for all of us that the change was nonsubstantive. It did not close the court to me. I have submitted documents that include the Bill analysis showing the wording of the bill as introduced and the words after the change by senate committee substitute.

Most compensation from the act of 2001 went to victims of circumstance. The State did nothing wrong. In my case the record reveals violations of our Constitution and laws so brazen they are frightening to accept. My claim is for rightful restitution, for the destruction of my business and career, as well compassionate compensation for wrongful imprisonment.

Please see for more and review what I submitted today. May I answer your questions?

Senator Royce West then asked a question about the opinion of 2008.  That opinion is seen in the timeline and referred to in my written testimony but not in my oral due to the time limitation.

Answer: Yes, the only thing that opinion said was that you, our Legisaltors, had not given me permission to sue the State. This opinion is based on an attempt to make a distinction out of the language of Whitmire's substitute in 2001. It was a change in language that Senator Whitmire can confirm was not meant to make any difference. It is an error you, our Legisaltors, as our Law Makers, can correct by including my Judgment in SB 1280.

I also said it was an illegal opinion in response to an illegal appeal because it it contradicts the opinion from the review of the same court in 2003.

I then added; It is not easy for me to come here. I am not paid to be here. Every session since 2001 I have come to submit myself to your judgment. I will continue to do so because I am as committed to preserving, protecting and defending our Constitution and your laws as are those who are paid to do so.

4 One page Documents submitted at the beginning of my oral testimony & Reference

For reference here is the relevant portions of our Constitution and my pending request to the Attorney General.

Texas Constitution

Sec. 5. JURISDICTION OF COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS; TERMS OF COURT; CLERK. (a) The Court of Criminal Appeals shall have final appellate jurisdiction coextensive with the limits of the state, and its determinations shall be final, in all criminal cases of whatever grade, with such exceptions and under such regulations as may be provided in this Constitution or as prescribed by law.

Sec. 3. JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT; WRITS; CLERK. (a) The Supreme Court shall exercise the judicial power of the state except as otherwise provided in this Constitution. Its jurisdiction shall be co-extensive with the limits of the State and its determinations shall be final except in criminal law matters. Its appellate jurisdiction shall be final and shall extend to all cases except in criminal law matters and as otherwise provided in this Constitution or by law.


Revealed by the Foregoing

The 2008 opinion is not on a criminal case. It is a civil case. The 3rd Court of Appeals, on review of a Civil Case, could not pass judgment on guilt or innocence, actual or otherwise because:

  1. It is a civil case; and,

  2. to do so would be to over-rule a final determination by the 14th Court of Appeals and the Court of Criminal Appeals. Our Constitution does not allow this.

As a matter of Law the 3rd Court of Appeals did not have jurisdiction, the authority, the power in 2008, to rule on my guilt or innocence, actual or otherwise, and the Office of the Attorney General did not have lawful authority to even ask any Court in any Civil case to do so. But the OAG did in the trial court and the trier of fact found my innocence to be actual. This was the third (3rd) time my innocence was ruled Actual as the 3rd Court of Appeals had effectively ruled the same in 2003.

The outcome reported by Lexis was that my case was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. That legal speak means our Legislators did not grant me permission to enter our Courts to petition for redress of my grievances. But in this case the question of subject-matter jurisdiction had already been settled by review of the civil case in 2003 and the Attorney General waived the right to take that ruling to the Texas Supreme Court.

The Attorney General as the Attorney for the State bound by our Constitutions, our Laws, and the Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct has the power to advise our Legislators the appeal of the Final Judgment and the memorandum opinion of 2008 lacked jurisdiction. The opinion of 2008 is a legal nullity and non binding on the Legislature. The Legislature has the power and discretion to pay the Final Judgment.

We respectfully request the Attorney General advise the Legislature that it is, in his opinion, in the best interest of the good name of our State that this Judgment be paid in full this session.