Our US Constitution gives the purpose of government as "to preserve the
blessings of Liberty and establish Justice".
For twenty (20) years he has humbly asked our government to fulfill it's purpose for being.
The Civil Proceedings - His Quest for Justice.
In this matter it constitutes a Countersuit. Properly, this case
should be titled
The People of Texas (as represented by one of them) Vs. The Government of Texas
The culpability of the government is obvious, is of public record, and has been admitted to by the outcome of the criminal proceedings. The facts cannot be disputed or re-litigated. The government committed theft of his property and, in an attempt to justify it's illegal act it charged him with theft resulting in the taking of additional property from him via damage and destruction in a cover-up attempt that has yet to come to an end.
The adjudicated facts leave no question. The government deprived this Citizen of his Rights secured by our Constitutions. Property loss was incurred as a result.
What is now at issue should be simply a question of amount of Restitution necessary for justice to prevail. However; past Legislative sessions decreed that government, and those though whom it acts, are above the law unless we, the people of Texas, have been granted “permission to sue the State”.
The trial establishing his property loss took a day. The remainder of the battle for Justice following exoneration has been litigation over the question of whether or not the Legislature gave him permission to sue the State.
2000: He petition for redress of his grievance exercising his Right, secured by our Texas Constitution, to have a Court open to him. See Texas Constitution, Article I, Section 13. This is a Right also secured by the First Amendment to the US Constitution securing the Right to Petition the Government for a redress of grievances. In 1776 a Petition for Redress meant a lawsuit brought in a Court to address a grievance. Even today what is filed upon initiation of a lawsuit is titled 'Original Petition'.
2001: The government (aka 'The State'), represented by the Office of the Attorney General, answers his complaint by saying the Court is closed to the people of Texas. The OAG says the Government is the Sovereign (not the people, as in a Democracy or Republic). The AG says people of Texas wronged by violations of our Constitutions and laws must have permission from the Legislature to sue. Without this permission the Courts are closed. The District Court Judge agrees. This Citizen files an appeal.
2003: The government (aka 'The State'), represented by the Court of Appeals (COA, 3rd), renders a partial reversal. First it agrees with the OAG. It says the government can violate our Rights secured by the Bill of Rights, our Constitution, and the Laws of our Legislature, and the Citizen cannot sue for their property loss suffered as a result. However, it says the OAG is wrong and, so too, is the government's District Court Judge for agreeing with the OAG on the question of whether or not the Legislature granted permission for suit in this case. The Court of Appeals finds that the Texas Legislature has given this Citizen permission to enter the Texas Courts to secure a determination of his damages. But not by Constitution, but by statute. The Court of Appeals rules this Citizen has permission through a statute that grants permission to him because his Innocence was Actual in that all relevant facts are known and the Law clearly shows that he committed no crime (did not violate any law). See Opinion of Public Record.
2004: Pursuant to the statute cited by the COA, 3rd, as giving permission to this citizen to sue the State, the trial court has exclusive jurisdiction (authority) to determine Actual Innocence. To comply with this provision of the statute Heimlich files a No Evidence Summary Judgment. The Trial court enters Judgment for the Plaintiff, Heimlich.
2005: The AG representing the government ('The State') now stipulates (makes a recorded declaration in Court) to the government's liability and asks for a trial setting. The AG has admitted, by stipulation, Heimlich has permission to sue the State and, therefore, the State is Liable for his damages. The parties proceed to Trial and, with consent of the Office of the Attorney General, the value of the property taken (private property loss) from this Citizen at the hands of the government (aka, 'the State') is determined. Just as in the case of an eminent domain case. A FINAL Judgment rendered. See Final Judgment.
In the course of the Civil Trial it is proven that the value of the property unlawfully taken from this Citizen, one of the people of Texas, by the government of Texas, the State of Texas, is not less than $660.606, as of October 3, 2005, with post-judgment interest on the debt as set by our Legislature in statutory law at 6.5% per year until the debt is paid.
No "Tort" redress. It should be noted that this Judgment provides for nothing more than restitution for property taken by the government. By "taken" is meant by damage and destruction as well as by more direct means. It means property loss. It provides none of the so-called 'tort' remedies for pain and suffering, emotional distress, and mental anguish, or the public humiliation and public scorn a Citizen endures, and will continue to endure from others for the remainder of his life. Most people have to presume guilt whenever another is accused by the government ('The State') of a crime. Thus there is a stigma attached to any accused of a crime.
It is hard to think of a case that would impose more torture on a person's mind and emotion, thus making monetary compensation for torts appropriate. But the Appellate Court limited the redress this Citizen could obtain to the limits of the 'permission' granted by the Legislature pursuant to the theory that government (not the People) are the Sovereign.
A stipulation is not in open court is not revocable. But Judges often allow government entities and their attorneys to violate the Rules of Court and other Law. They are not held to the same standards as other persons and their counsel, as you will see in the next page titled obstruction.
Next, Part III of a Quest for Liberty & Justice in Texas