Legislative Budget Board Members

July 5, 2018

FROM: Ed Heimlich, a Human Person, a Citizen of the US, a Citizen of Texas

TO: The following parties who should be interested and concerned

My Senator, Judith Zaffirini; C / O Andrew Hendrickson, JD – Legislative Aid; andrew.hendrickson@senate.texas.gov Ph: 463-0121

My Representative, Eddie Rodriguez; C / O Alison Morrison, alisonm.ross@house.texas.gov  Ph: 463-0674

My Legislature, C / O Members of the Legislative Budget Board 

Dan Patrick, Lt Governor & Co-Chair

Darrell Davila, COS 463-0100

Joe Straus, Speaker & Co-Chair 463-1000

Patricia Shipton, COS John Schnautz, JD

Kelly Hancock 463-0109 adam.leggett@senate.texas.govDennis Bonnen 463-0564 Shera.Eichler@house.texas.gov
Joan Huffman 463-0117 Wroe.Jackson@senate.texas.govDrew Darby 463-0331 jason.modglin@house.state.tx.us

Jane Nelson 463-0112 Dave Nelson is now Finance c ommittee Director; Travis.Broussard COS

Oscar Longoria 463-0645 Lee.Loya@house.state.tx.us

Larry Taylor 463-0111 Cari.christman.@senate.texas.gov & Oscar.garza 463-0255

John Zerwas 463-0657 Nelda.Hunter@house.texas.gov

THE STATE OF TEXAS, C / O Office of Attorney General  Ken Paxton,

C / O Steve Pier, Director of Governmental Relations Division

steve.pier@texasattorneygeneral.gov  PH: 463-2057

CC: Former Justices of the Third Court of Appeals,

Kenneth Law, ken.law@whitehawkart.net Jan Patterson, Jan_Patterson@baylor.edu

$1,593,000 Appropriation Required

MY DEAR GOVERNMENT for my Land of Texas

I trust you all enjoyed yesterday’s celebration of the 4th of July in recognition of the Declaration of 1776. A time to reaffirm our commitment to LIBERTY. Obviously there is no Liberty on our Land if our Government is free to violate our Constitutional protections with the taking of our property and the imprisoning of our person with impunity. Liberty demands remedy.

The State of Texas has a debt to me. Payment of this debt requires an appropriation of $1,593,000 for payment to Edmund Heimlich in the upcoming session of our Legislature.

In honor of our Declaration of 1776 – I need to know if this debt is going to be paid; or, do I need to proceed to inform the people of Texas, our Nation, and the world, that Texas is not a land where property or person is safe from unlawful actions of government?

Every competent attorney in our Texas knows that – when a Court of Appeals for the State of Texas certified by a MANDATE my innocence with an acquittal finding that I had been unlawfully imprisoned – the Liability of the State of Texas for Remedy was established and no longer subject to question.

Every competent attorney in our Texas knows that – when a Court of Appeals for the State of Texas certified by a MANDATE – permission to sue the State in a Texas Court has been granted by the Legislature. The only remaining question is the amount of compensation required for the Remedy.

Every competent attorney in Texas knows that only the finding of damages was then subject to appellate review. No Court had subject-matter jurisdiction to review or reverse any prior finding of the Courts. Review of the finding of the amount of damages was waived by the Attorney General. The FINAL JUDGMENT is FINAL and remains a legal obligation of The State of Texas.

Every competent attorney in Texas knows the memorandum opinion that has been utilized to obstruct justice is invalid, void, and a legal nullity. The US Supreme Court ruling in the case of Nelson v. Colorado is an additional nullification of the pretense that has been utilized to obstruct justice.

Unfortunately there are Attorneys, some of whom have secured employment at taxpayer expense, who are incompetent. They believe their job is not to “know” the Law but to “practice” the Law. And that the “practice” of law is a license to misrepresent the facts and misrepresent the law. It is not. To do so is unethical and illegal. If done by an Attorney who is employed as a public servant it is a criminal act under Texas Law as well as an act of treason.

As someone who was a licensed professional in the State of Texas I know that a license eliminates any excuse of incompetence or, in other words, ignorance of the law. To the contrary it imposes strict liability. Ignorance of the law is not a valid excuse nor is the pretense of arguing about ‘interpretation’ about a Right to Remedy that has been in existence in anglo and anglo-american law for over 800 years !!!.



Those who established Law on our Land of Texas in 1836 wisely included these words in their Declaration of Human Rights that later were incorporated in our Texas Constitution as Article 1, our Bill of Rights. What was “shall never be violated under any pretence whatsoever” became “To guard against transgression of the high powers herein delegated”, these Right are “Excepted from the powers of government; forever to remain inviolate”.

Among these is what is now found in Sec. 13 of Art. 1;All courts shall be open, and every person for an injury done him, in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law.” It is also established in International Law (a Treaty) as a Human Right. Titled The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is now a part of the supreme Law of our Land. Section 6 of Article 14 provides: When a person has by final decision been convicted of a criminal offence, and when subsequently his conviction has been reversed, ….. The person who has suffered punishment as a result of such conviction shall be compensated.

Article VI of our United States Constitution provides: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution


Our US & Texas Constitutions

The 4th of July makes for a good time to remind all of our rights the US Constitution intended to secure to each of us. Often overlooked are those Rights deemed so essential by the authors of our Constitution, Hamilton and Madison, that they were placed in Article 1. They came before the Bill of Rights was added.

Among these is the protection against Ex Post Facto laws.

Here are Hamilton’s exact words from Federalist Paper #84:

The creation of crimes after the commission of the fact, or, in other words, the subjecting of men to punishment for things which, when they were done, were breaches of no law, and the practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny.

Both our longest serving Governor, Rick Perry, and myself were victims of a disregard for this protection by those who have a sworn duty to know better. The State cannot (legally) make it a crime to use your legal right to veto after you’ve used it. Likewise the State cannot (legally) make it a crime to use your legal right to ask your bank to withhold payment on a check.  But those who act in the name of the State did so and, to date, with absolute impunity.

Another is the prohibition against impairing the obligation of contracts. Contracts are absolutely essential for commerce to flourish. As noted by the Court that reversed the conviction I suffered – I was acting within the boundaries of a legal contract. The person the State assisted in breaching the contract was not. I was the victim but the State chose to aid and abet the perpetrator in the theft of my money and the destruction of my business along with irreparable harm to my reputation. These violations cannot be left unaddressed.

See The Constitution of the United States of America; Article 1

Section. 10.

No State shall … pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

By allowing those who prosecute Laws in the name of The State of Texas to impose ex post facto laws the Texas Legislature has ‘passed’ their exclusive power to make law to those in the Executive Division who act as the hands of the State.

Through the publication of my story the WORLD, and the rest of our Nation, will learn how lawless the State of Texas has become. Once they do the flow of investments into Texas will be reversed as will the immigration of those with skills essential for our economy. The economic impact could easily be 100 times the amount due me.

I can hire an Attorney to say we already know is true and is the Law. I can hire a public relations firm to make my story as well known as the separation of families at the border. But I’d prefer to not go public with my story. I have first hand knowledge of how many people presume guilt whenever someone is charged the State with the commission of a crime. The documentary film will require a lot of work.

Some even presume guilt after you have been found innocent! Look it up. An ‘acquittal’ is a declaration of innocence. If you did not violate any law how can your innocence be anything other than actual? If the State cannot prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt then what is left? Unreasonable doubt? Only the ignorant, those willing to lie, or those suffering from a bias that blinds them to reason can say my innocence is anything other than actual. Are you going to tell the world that in Texas unreasonable doubt about actual innocence is how individuals are judged?

I’m now 63. The damage to the reputation of the State of Texas, and it’s public officials, will be substantial. What I might suffer from the publicity will be insignificant and pale in comparison to the damage to their reputation. Rather that suffer I will profit from the movie.

I trust that all of you will get together and do the right thing. I expect to hear from you within a week to 10 days.

Best Regards, Ed Heimlich 512-779-0234



The  following information is mandated by the Law that is binding on the Attorney General, and all of his assistants, as lawyers, and those of the Legislative Counsel or employed elsewhere in our government.

Rule 3.03 Candor Toward the Tribunal

(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

(1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal;

(2) fail to disclose a fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act;

(4) fail to disclose to the tribunal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or

(5) offer or use evidence that the lawyer knows to be false.

(b) If a lawyer has offered material evidence and comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall [no discretion] make a good faith effort to persuade the client to authorize the lawyer to correct or withdraw the false evidence. If such efforts are unsuccessful, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including disclosure of the true facts.

  1. The duties stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) continue until remedial legal measures are no longer reasonably possible.

Ken Paxton, as supervising lawyer, has a duty to inform the tribunal, known as the Texas Legislature, of the misrepresentations of law and misrepresentations of fact made by those in the office of the AG prior to his assumption of the position.

Ken Paxton, as supervising lawyer, also has a duty to inform our Legislators of the assistance of the lawyers in the Office of the Attorney General in the criminal and fraudulent act of Robert Pemberton as a Judge in the Third Court of Appeals.

Texas Penal Code:


(a) A public servant commits an offense if, with intent to obtain a benefit or with intent to harm or defraud another, he intentionally or knowingly:

(1) violates a law relating to the public servant’s office or employment;

(b) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a Class A misdemeanor.

Texas Government Code:


(d) Each attorney is subject to the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure and the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct.

See also Federal Law:

Title 42 USC § 1986. Action for neglect to prevent;

Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action;

Title 42 USC Sec. 1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights

(2) Obstructing justice;

or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws;

In Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000), the Supreme Court recognized an equal protection claim based on a “class of one.” [Taken from Opinion released by the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, November 5, 2007, No. 06-50305, Dr. Stotter v. UTSA, Bailey & Johnson]

(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges

If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire ….on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or

Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws;

or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.

The Supreme Court later clarified that if the deprivation was authorized by the state and the state had an opportunity to provide some type of pre-deprivation remedy, failure to do so implicates the due process clause. Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 127-30 (1990). [Taken from Opinion released by the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, November 5, 2007, No. 06-50305, Dr. Stotter v. UTSA, Bailey & Johnson]