Another 10 years of Obstruction of Justice
The Final Judgment was obtained after a Mandate was rendered by the Court of Appeals. Thus the Final Judgment is, as a matter of law, FINAL. See the Mandate
Mandates and Opinions - the Difference
The higher Courts render Mandates and Opinions. Opinions are, as they are titled, Opinions. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. But an opinion is not a law nor even an Order, even if it comes from the Highest Court in the land! By contrast a Mandate is an Order. Mandates are rendered only after the time allowed for appeal to a higher courts has expired. Therefore; Mandates cannot be reversed. A Final Judgment that follows a Mandate from a higher Court is truly FINAL. No opinion that follows has legal standing. But the law and rules that prohibit Attorneys employed in positions of public trust (in government) from misrepresenting the law are not enforced. Therefore they can and often do misrepresent the law. Whether they do so intentionally is another question.
Judges and Justices in Texas are elected. Apparently due to political concerns they allow Government Attorneys to violate the laws and rules that the people of Texas, and the Attorneys that represent them, are required to comply with. They fear the political power of Government Agencies that employee attorneys, and the attorneys employed therein, more than they do the political power of an uninformed public. Thus friviolous, unlawful, appeals can be filed by Attorneys employed in the government. Judges and Justices will turn a blind eye to acts for which Attorneys in the private sector would be held accountable. Judges and Justices will even enter unlawful opinions to cover for Officials elected to oversee Government Agencies that employe attorneys. It may also be a attempt to help the government save face, to protect it's reputation. But the result for this Citizen has been Justice denied with another 10 years of obstruction.
Timeline
-
2006, January: Unlawful Appeal Filed: In disregard of prior stipulation of their Office someone in Office of AG orders an appeal of the Final Judgment. The Trial Judge finds that another appeal is not permitted by our Constitution, Laws, or Rules. It is an Obstructs of Justice. Heimlich files a motion with the Court of Appeals to get the appeal thrown out. Maybe because he is now pro se (acting without an Attorney) newly elected members to the Court of Appeals refuse to dismiss the appeal.
-
2007. Because the appeal is illegal this Citizen proceeds, with the help of an honorable Texas Representative, in an attempt to secure an appropriation to pay the Final Judgment. But other legislators prevent it when they hear someone from the Office of the Attorney General say that litigation is pending.
-
2008, late: Opinion of a Lone Justice: Almost three (3) years later. This victimized citizen pressures the Court of Appeals to act so that he may be freed from the "pending litigation excuse" for non payment of the valid, Final Judgment. A lone Justice responded with an memorandum opinion. It is just an opinion. It has no real legal authority. And it is written in a manner that is very misleading to those who do not understand legal procedure. In summary the Justice purports to reverse the finding of 'permission to sue the State'.
-
The memorandum opinion does not reverse the finding of Innocence. It has no legal authority to reverse the finding in 1999 of the highest court in Texas for criminal questions in Texas.
-
The memorandum opinion does not reverse the finding of actual innocence found (1) in the first appellate review of the civl case, and (2) as found by the trial courty, and (3) as the phrase 'actual innocence, is defined by our Texas Court of Appeals. See page on definitions of actual innocence.
-
The memorandum opinion does not reverse the finding of property loss.
-
The Office of the Attorney General did not ask for review of the finding of property loss. The Attorney General's appeal is on the same grounds reviewed in prior appeal. The Attorney General asserts the government did not give the people of Texas permission to enter Texas or US Courts when government causes a property loss by violating our Constitutions and Laws and a lone justice agrees in an invalid & illegal opinion.
-
FINAL – not 'overturned'
-
The Finding of Innocence by our Texas Courts stands. It was not 'overturned' and remains FINAL. The Office of the Attorney General does not dispute the FINAL finding of Innocence, nor can it lawfully do so. The Office is duty bound to honor the finding of the Texas Courts.
-
The finding on taking of Private Property stands. It was not 'overturned' and remains FINAL. The Office of the Attorney General does not dispute the FINAL finding of property loss, nor can it lawfully do so. The Office of the Attorney General has forever waived its opportunity to challenge the FINAL finding of the Texas Court on the property loss.
UNDISPUTED
-
Our Texas Courts found this Citizen of Texas to be a victim of unconstitutional and unlawful acts by an over-reaching State government. Attorney General does not, and cannot, dispute this.
-
Our Texas Courts found this Citizen of Texas to have been the victim of an unlawful taking of private property. Attorney General does not, and cannot lawfully, dispute this finding.
-
Therefore It is UNDISPUTED our Texas Courts have found that, as of September 2015, $1,238,586.85 will be due as a legal obligation of the government of Texas ('the State').
The Office of Attorney General, and at least one Justice in our Courts, are of the opinion the Texas Legislature can refuse to honor the legal obligations of the State government. True, but doing so is a violation of the Legislators Oath. It is appropriate for our Legislature to pay this FINAL Judgment and It would not be the best interest of the reputation of our State for our Legislature to abuse it's position of public trust with a refusal to honor the legal obligations it has to the Individual Citizens of Texas.
NO JUDGMENT IS REQUIRED. Some have said Heimlich does not have a valid Final Judgment because of the memorandum opinion. But pursuant to the power and duties granted by the sovereign people of Texas to their Legislature this division of government can, and must, pay any substantiated claim for property unlawfully taken (includes taking by damage or destruction by those who act in the name of the government for our Texas (aka, 'The State'). Thus the 'no judgment' objection fails. The Texas Legislature, in order to be in compliance with their Oath of Office, must respond to the Petition of a Texas Citizen so aggrieved by making an appropriation with direction to the Comptroller for payment of the Final Judgment as a valid Claim.
The Final Judgment, or Claim, this Citizen has upon the government of his Land of Texas, remains valid and payable by the Texas Legislature. The next page shows what the Legislature can now do to address this Injustice and maintain the reputation of the government operating on our Land of Texas.