To AG April 5, 2018

April 5, 2018


TO: Attorney General of Texas, Ken Paxton

C/O Steve Pier, Director, Governmental Relations Division Office of Attorney General

via Email:


FROM: Citizen of Texas, and of the United States of America; Ed Heimlich


Request for Resolution of our Conflict


Dear Honorable Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas


This is a complaint against your office that requires your attention in this election year. It is my hope that your attention to this matter will result in a resolution that will bring to an end the conflict between myself and your office. I want our conflict resolved in preparation for the legislative session that begins in January, 2019. I have already presented legislative measures to our Legislators in preparation.


There is no need for a conflict between us. The duty that you, and all in your Office of the Attorney General share, is to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and Laws of the United States and of this State”. Although I am not paid for this duty my sole objective in this matter is the same. I’m dedicated to preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution and Laws of the United States and of this States. This requires ferreting out those opposed to our Constitutions and Laws who utilize positions of public trust in the state agency known as the Office of the Attorney General as a cover for their war against our Constitutions and Laws. As you, and I, are of the same purpose there is no cause for a conflict. My desire is to assist you in your efforts to comply with your Oath of Office.


As you know; each session the Legislature passes a bill titled for the payment of miscellaneous claims and judgments. As you also know, and as is obvious from the title, a judgment is not required for the payment of a claim. A claim can be valid even if a Judgment has been deemed invalid due to an interpretation of statutory law on the question of whether or not the Legislature granted a party permission to bring a suit against the State.


Whether or not the Legislature chooses to pay the claim is, to use the words of your Office in a letter from your Director of Governmental Relations Division, not a matter of law, but a policy choice, and is theirs alone to make.


I assert I have a valid Final Judgment for which payment is due from the public treasury. Attorneys in your agency, acting in your name, have used a Memorandum Opinion to influence the legislature and defeat my legislative measure for payment. They assert the Final Judgment is not valid because of the memorandum opinion. I have attempted to resolve this conflict by securing passage of a legislative measure because whether or not the legislature chooses to pay my “claim”, for property loss and injuries, is their choice. This ‘claim’ is supported by a legal document of public record titled ‘Final Judgment’. That document was the result of a legal process, governed by the laws of evidence, to ascertain my property loss and injuries. Whether or not the legislature chooses to pay that claim , is not a matter of law, but a policy choice, and is theirs alone to make.


In correspondence to come I will share more background and analysis. This will include citing the case of Nelson v. Colorado, April 19, 2017. This ruling of the United States Supreme Court came too late to be of help in the last session. But will resolve our conflict in the upcoming session.



Respectfully, Ed Heimlich, Citizen of the United States and of Texas