June 11, 2018
TO: The Honorable Attorney General Ken Paxton
FROM: The Honorable Citizen Ed Heimlich
Dear Attorney General,
REQUEST FOR PERFORMANCE OF
DUTIES AS SUPERVISING LAWYER
The points I will make in this letter:
- The Office of the Attorney General (OAG) is prohibiting by law from giving legal advice to Texas Legislators about matters in the course of executing their official duties. § 402.045, TX Gov. Code, as referenced by you through Steve Pier. Confirmation of your knowledge.
- The OAG does, however, have a duty of candor to the members of the Texas Legislature. It is an ethical obligation as well as a legal obligation for which failure to provide is a criminal offense in Texas. Rule 3.03, Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. As an Attorney this is law that subjects you, as a public servant, to criminal penalties for Official Oppression. See § 81.072 TX Gov. Code and § 39.02 TX Penal Code.
- Thus the Law requires the OAG provide Texas Legislators with legal information even if it is unpleasant. Or, in other words, contrary to a position previously taken by the OAG. And that candor requires the OAG provide legal information that reveals the truth that an appeal by the OAG of a Final Judgment was a misrepresentation of Law and the memorandum opinion that was the result, although favorable to the State, is void, a legal nullity, and invalid.
- The US Supreme Court finding in a 7-1 opinion on the case titled Nelson v. Colorado found a statute similar to the Texas statute, as applied by the memorandum opinion, to be an unconstitutional scheme. It deprives people of their right to equal protection of the law.
WHY THIS LETTER IS NECESSARY
Steve Pier, speaking on behalf of Ken Paxton as Attorney General, acknowledged, by reference, the Law that makes it illegal for the OAG to give legal advice to members of the legislature. But in the same letter says the OAG HAS been doing so, and WILL do so when they ask!!
Your Director of Governmental Relations for your Office of the Attorney General has admitted Attorneys in the Office of the Attorney General, under your supervision, are guilty of Official Oppression, a criminal offense under Texas Law, and Obstruction of Justice under Federal Law.
I don’t want to take any action on this without providing you with an opportunity to remedy the situation. I understand you have over 4,000 attorneys under your supervision and you are also engaged in a political campaign. I sincerely wish you well on your campaign for re-election as our Attorney General. But more importantly, I wish you well with the criminal proceedings you have, in your personal capacity, been subjected to. Unfortunately I have first hand experience with such an ordeal. It is a burden none can fully comprehend if they have not lived it. I pray that you will have justice.
By Justice I mean the classical, proper, definition of the term. It means fairness. It means the prosecutors assigned to your case respect your constitutional rights, your right to the protection of the Law (Liberty) and seek truth rather than a courtroom win. It means you have an objective, unbiased, and Judge who will administer the law with courage and fairness. And, if it comes to it, a Jury that will honor your right to a presumption of innocence and honor your right to equal protection of the law. This is Justice that I was deprived of in Harris Count, Texas in 1993 through 1999.
Justice also means that your Right to Remedy is honored if it is a case where a Licensed Professional, employed in a position of public trust under the title of Prosecutor, should choose to disregard their duty to know the law and chose to misrepresent the facts to ask a grand jury to indict you without probable cause. If so then the ancient law of our Magna Carta, the Law of our Texas Constitution, and the supreme Law of the Land, as well as the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitled you to Remedy for your injuries and damages.
You, as an Attorney, know that Remedy is due from the Respondeat Superior, otherwise known as the employing entity, in whose name that prosecutor was acting. The artificial entity, the instrument we The People of Texas have created, known as The State of Texas will then be indebted to you as it is to me. You also know that your ability to secure a judgment for your injuries will depend upon the honor of those with whom the powers of government have been entrusted by the sovereign people of Texas. I pray that you will not encounter the dishonor and unlawful obstruction I have had to endure.
What I am sharing with you is not legal advice. But that does not mean it is simply my personal opinion. It is legal information that I have a god-given right to know. It is legal information that I as a fellow human am free to share with you.
THE RIGHT TO KNOW THE LAW
THE DUTY TO KNOW THE LAW
In the era known as the dark ages only the Priests of the Church knew the Bible. With the invention of the printing press and the translation of the Bible by Martin Luther the word of God, a reference for God’s Laws, became available to all. The Priest of the Church felt their position and income threatened. They decreed that it was illegal for any but those titled by the High Priest of the Church to be a Priest to have or even to read the Bible. This was a Law that was contrary to the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God. Eventually, after much suffering and ever lasting harm to the Catholic Church, there effort to force upon the world a Law that was contrary to God’s laws failed. The Church of those faithful to Christ and the Law of the Bible split and has remained divided to this day. Is this what you want for our government and people of Texas? Is this what you want for our government and Nation known as the United States of America?
Every person has a god-given Right to know the law. But those who have a professional license to practice Law have a DUTY to know the law. As someone who had a professional license as a Real Estate Broker I understand what it means to be licensed. All people are free to buy or sell real estate without the requirement of a Real Estate License. But they could not hold themselves out as having the knowledge of a professional and could not charge for their services. What they might share with others was information. It was not advice.
In exchange for the privilege of a license from the State I was allowed to charge a professional fee for my services. But in exchange I surrendered the right to claim ignorance of the law governing my profession. I had a duty to know the law and procedures governing the exchange of real estate. I could not claim ignorance of the law or a misunderstanding of the law as an excuse. This is known as strict liability. Likewise those licensed to practice law, known as Attorneys, cannot – lawfully – claim ignorance the law or an inability to understand the law as their excuse.
Unfortunately I’ve found barratry to be a practice engaged in by some attorneys employed at public expense. Some will feign ignorance of the law or an inability to understand the law to obstruct the due course of justice. They force upon the public they are paid to serve the expense of an unnecessary appeal requiring a Judge to tell the government attorney what the law is. They then try to get then Judge to join them in a obvious perversion of the law in the name of an interpretation of the law. This is unethical, it is dishonorable, it is Obstruction of Justice, and it is a criminal offense in Texas known as Official Oppression. You, and they, all have a duty to know the Law or to forfeit your law license. You, as a public servant lawyer, have a duty to take remedial measures if you find attorneys under your supervision now, or in the past, engaged in barratry and obstruction of justice.
I’m not interested in subjecting my people, the sovereign known as The People of Texas, my fellow tax-payers, and our Public Treasury, to the expense of the litigation, civil and criminal, required to hold the offenders in the OAG or in the Judiciary accountable to the Law. Nor am in interested in seeing you or any others lose their license to practice law. But if they continue in their course of conduct, and refuse to do their duty to provide candor to our Texas Legislators I will do all I can to inform all I can of their incompetence and their lack of honor.
INDICATION OF INTENT TO CONTINUE
TO ENGAGE IN UNEHTICAL AND ILLEGAL
CIVIL AND CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT
On June 5, 2018, I received a letter via email from Steve Pier, your Director of your Governmental Relations Division. I understand that he is not licensed to practice law. But he is speaking as the Attorney General when he talks to others employed in my government. He is bound by the oath of your office to preserve, protect, and defend our Constitutions and Laws. That is a duty that supersedes any obligation he may think he has to you or to others under your supervision in the OAG. Steve Pier is speaking as you, Ken Paxton, and you are thus accountable for what he says as if it came from your own lips. He wrote:
“What OAG is willing to do, is what the agency has been doing all along – namely, providing full and complete information, upon request, to personnel who are authorized to receive legal advice from OAG. This includes members of the legislature when they ask us about OAG matters in the course of executing their official duties.”
In that same letter he points to Law that makes it illegal for the OAG to give legal advice to members of the legislature when asked about executing their official duties. He includes this:
“Sec.402.045. LIMITATION. The attorney general may not give legal advice or a written opinion to a person other than a person named in this subchapter.”
So Steve Pier, speaking on behalf of Ken Paxton as Attorney General, acknowledged, by reference, the Law that makes it illegal for the OAG to give legal advice to members of the legislature. But in the same email says the OAG has been doing so, and will do so again when they ask!!
The entire subchapter is included in the end notes of this letter. It is clear the members of the legislature are not included. Thus the OAG is prohibited from giving legal advice to members of the legislature when they ask about matters in the course of executing their official duties.
OAG HAS DUTY TO PROVIDE LEGAL INFORMATION,
BUT IS PROHIBITED FROM PROVIDING LEGAL ADVICE
However, the OAG has a duty to provide our Legislators with legal information. Yes, there is a distinction. Here is how it is explained on findlaw on the internet:
Unlike legal information – such as information posted on a street sign – legal advice proposes a specific course of action a client should take. For instance, it’s the difference between telling someone what to do (legal advice) as opposed to how to do it (legal information).
OAG DUTY OF CANDOR TO LEGISLATORS
AND REQUIRED REMEDIAL MEASURES
This brings us back to my letter of April 15, 2018. In that letter I asked the You, and the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) as a law firm you supervise, to comply with your legal obligation to provide candor to the tribunal known as the Texas Legislature. Pursuant to Texas Government Code § 81.072 the Disciplinary Code of Professional Conduct is Law relating to your office of employment as a public servant, as well as to all others acting under your management and supervision in our Office of the Attorney General. That makes any refusal by you, or any other in your office, to provide candor to our Texas Legislators a crime of Official Oppression under § 39.02 TX Penal Code.
Allow me to direct your attention to Rule 3.03 (a) (4). (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: (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. Prior to the Final Judgment the tribunal with jurisdiction over my claim on the State of Texas for my injuries and damages was the Third Court of Appeals. The tribunal that now has jurisdiction over my claim is the
Texas Legislature. You have a duty to disclose to the Legislature the holding of the United States Supreme Court in Nelson v. Colorado.
Allow me to direct your attention to Rule 3.03 (c) The duties stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) continue until remedial legal measures are no longer reasonably possible. Justice is the payment of what is due me as a matter of law. It requires an appropriation by our Texas Legislature for the payment of your client’s (The State of Texas) legal obligation to me. As you know the memorandum opinion on which the OAG has relied to obstruct justice is the result of false statements of material fact and law to the prior tribunal known as the Texas Third Court of Appeals.
Now look to Rule 3.03 (b) If a lawyer has offered material evidence and comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall 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. Now that you know of these false statements you, as both the Supervising Attorney responsible for the Attorneys that made the false statements, as as the person with authority to speak as “the client” have a duty to take reasonable remedial measure. That includes disclosure of the true facts to the now controlling tribunal, our Texas Legislature.
Two remedial legal measures are possible. (1) Inclusion of the Final Judgment that is, as matter of fact and law a FINAL judgment, in the miscellaneous claims and judgments act is a remedial legal measure. (2) Another remedial legal measure is to do your duty to provide our Texas Legislature with disclosure of the true facts. That is; inform our Legislators the OAG’s appeal of the Final Judgment was a false statement of law. The Office of the Attorney General had a duty to know the Appellate Court did not have jurisdiction to review what had already been reviewed and had become the Law of the Case once a mandate was filed by the Chief Justice of the Third Court of Appeals.
LAWFULLY ENFORCING MY RIGHT TO
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW
The due course of justice in this State requires the Texas Legislature make an appropriation for the payment of my valid claim for payment of the Legal Obligation the State of Texas has to me.
Federal Laws regarding Obstruction of Justice, both Civil and Criminal, began with the Act of 1866 titled;
An act to protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights
and furnish the means of their vindication,
It’s purpose was, as written in plain language of common meaning, to protect ALL persons, regardless of race or class. The cause for this act of congress was the type of conspiracy between those in the Executive divisions of State government and those in the Judicial divisions of State government seen in the unlawful appeal of a FINAL Judgment by the OAG and the memorandum opinion of Robert Pemberton that followed. Now codified as 42 USC 1985 (2)
(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;
I am again, as I did last session, attempting to enforce my Right to Remedy. A Right that is protected by the supreme Law of the Land, our US Constitution. It is also protected by our Texas Constitution as excepted from the powers of government, forever to remain inviolate. As you campaigned as a Constitutional Conservative, and have taken an Oath of Office to preserve, protect, and defend our Constitutions I expect you to conserve my Constitutional Right to Remedy.
I am lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, my Constitutional Right to Remedy through the Texas Legislature. Those under your supervision have conspired for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, and defeating this due course of justice in this State with legal advice they have no authority to give. It is also legal advice that is, apparently, a misrepresentation of the Law and facts regarding my claim. Proof of this is the unlawful denial of my open records request under the excuse of attorney client privilege when the law makes clear there is no attorney client relationship between the Office of the Attorney General and members of our Legislature or their staff.
The intent is obvious, as is the harm. The State of Texas has a legal obligation to pay it’s debt to me. A debt established when the fourteenth court of appeals reversed the unlawful conviction I had been subjected to with an order of acquittal or, in layman’s terms, a finding of actual innocence. The amount of that debt, that legal obligation, was established by a Final Judgment by due course of law in a Court of The State of Texas. The amount now due per that Final Judgment is $1,593,000. I am unquestionably harmed by the refusal to pay this judgment debt by the debtor with the ability to pay.
Candor requires the OAG inform our legislators the Final Judgment is a legal obligation of the State of Texas. If he will not then our OAG has a legal obligation to inform our Legislature of it’s duty pursuant to our US Supreme Court’s finding in Nelson v. Colorado, as well as other law that secures my Right to Remedy as a right protected by law, to pass a legislative measure and make an appropriation for the payment of the Final Judgment. If the OAG will not inform them of their duty then the OAG must inform our legislators and staff of their power granted to them by The People of Texas under the Texas Constitution to do so. This is not legal advice but legal information that your duty of candor to our Texas Legislature requires as a matter of Law.
Please provide me with a letter, from you and addressed to our Texas Legislature. It should include information to the effect of the foregoing for presentation, by me as well as by you through your Director of Governmental Relations Steve Pier, to our Legislators. We should be presenting them with the same letter providing the accurate information they need. This should save them the trouble of calling on you and your office. It will thwart attempts by any in your office to obstruct justice. I’m sure you have many other duties that require your time and attention. This will save you the trouble of repeating yourself. I look forward to your response.
Attached is (1) The mandate of 1999 that established actual innocence an adjudicated fact no longer subject to review, as well as the liability of the State, and (2) The mandate of 2003 that established subject-matter matter jurisdiction for the court as an adjudicated fact no longer subject to review, and (3) The Final Judgment that was, as evidenced by the mandates, in all respects FINAL!
Ed Heimlich, endowed by my creator with inherent and inalienable Rights our Constitutions and Laws were created to protect, I AM a Citizen of Texas
Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct:
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.
(c) The duties stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) continue until remedial legal measures are no longer reasonably possible.
Texas Government Code Chapter 402. Attorney General
SUBCHAPTER C. OPINIONS
Sec. 402.042. QUESTIONS OF PUBLIC INTEREST AND OFFICIAL DUTIES. (a) On request of a person listed in Subsection (b), the attorney general shall issue a written opinion on a question affecting the public interest or concerning the official duties of the requesting person.
(b) An opinion may be requested by:
- the governor;
- the head of a department of state government;
- a head or board of a penal institution;
- a head or board of an eleemosynary institution;
- the head of a state board;
- a regent or trustee of a state educational institution;
- a committee of a house of the legislature;
- a county auditor authorized by law; or
- the chairman of the governing board of a river authority.
(c) A request for an opinion must be in writing and sent by certified or registered mail, with return receipt requested, addressed to the office of the attorney general in Austin, or electronically to an electronic mail address designated by the attorney general for the purpose of receiving requests for opinions under this section. The attorney general shall:
(1) acknowledge receipt of the request not later than the 15th day after the date that it is received; and
(2) issue the opinion not later than the 180th day after the date that it is received, unless before that deadline the attorney general notifies the requesting person in writing that the opinion will be delayed or not rendered and states the reasons for the delay or refusal.
(d) The attorney general and the requesting person by written agreement may waive the provisions of Subsections (a) and (c) if the waiver does not substantially prejudice any person’s legal rights.
NOTE: the forgoing was to make the both the request and the opinion public records. To make them available to all. Transparency and open government.
Sec. 402.043. QUESTIONS RELATING TO ACTIONS IN WHICH THE STATE IS INTERESTED. The attorney general shall advise a district or county attorney of this state, on the attorney’s request, in the prosecution or defense of an action in which the state is interested before a district or inferior court if the requesting attorney has investigated the question involved and submitted a brief to the attorney general.