.auto-style6 { text-align: center; }        INFORMED CITIZENS Home | Cause | Timeline | Criminal| Civil | Resolution | Final Judgments | Constitutional Right | Links 

      Home Cause Background- Testimony - Evidence Timeline Criminal Civil Resolution Final Judgments Constitutional Right   Law Destroyed Actual Innocence Restitution  Links   NEW: A TALK W/ Chief Justice   Honor Quest is a companion website  to restore our Constitution

    Visit Honor Quest    

  

       Address to House to be made with Floor Amendment to HB 3330

 Representatives could come up with something better. But this what I would say;

 Members, I have taken up this case because I believe my oath of office requires I do so. 

 Ed Heimlich proved to the satisfaction of our courts his actual innocence. Not just once but three (3) times. 

 Ed Heimlich proved to the satisfaction of our courts his property loss, his economic damages.

 He secured a final judgment from our Texas Courts in 2005. 

 For the past 10 years he has been unable to collect restitution because of conflicting opinions over whether or not we, the Legislature, gave him permission to enter our courts. In 2003 the 3rd Court of Appeals said we had. Mr. Heimlich then went through the expense of a trial to prove his damages. In 2008 the same Court, the 3rd, reversed the ruling of 2003 to say we, the Legislature, did not give him permission to sue. 

 The record of the facts in this case reveal this man was deprived of the safeguards found in our Texas Bill of Rights. Our Constitution was violated. 

 Members, our bill of rights stands as a stop sign. In this case the State ran several stops signs. This State has a legal and moral obligation to pay for the damage it caused. 

 A judicial opinion to the effect that we closed the court does not relieve the State of it's moral and legal obligation. And the Attorney General has acknowledged that fact. A judicial ruling that we, the Legislature, did not give permission to sue may invalidate a Final Judgment. But the legal and moral obligation for restitution remains. 

 We, as the body that makes law, have the first right to interpret the laws we make. We, as the body that makes law, have the power, and the duty, to over ride an incorrect interpretation of our laws. 

 I believe that if any of you take the time to review our statutory law at issue here you will find the Court of Appeals did not correctly interpret our Law. We have the power, and the duty, to over rule that interpretation to give effect to our Law. 

 We, as the body with the power of the purse, have the Constitutional authority to redress this mans well established grievance. 

 Let this amendment pass. By doing so we will have given him permission to sue. And as the lawsuit has already been had, the Final Judgment will be made valid. 

 Our Attorney General is not opposed to this action. He understands it is within the power granted to this body by our Texas Constitution. 

      Honor Quest is a companion website  to restore our Constitution

    Visit Honor Quest