Our US Constitution gives the purpose of government as "to preserve the
blessings of Liberty and establish Justice".
For twenty (20) years he has asked our government to fulfill is purpose for being.
The Criminal Proceedings timeline - The Quest for Liberty
Properly, the case
should be titled:
The Government vs. The People of Texas, with Heimlich standing as of the people of Texas
(a Criminal Prosecution is a lawsuit brought by the government, against one of the people of Texas)
1993: The government of Texas ('The State'), acting through the Harris County District Attorney, unlawfully takes property from the bank account of Heimlich, a Citizen of Texas. It was an unlawful taking because there was no probable cause. Heimlich is the victim of theft. But he is the one that is charged with theft. See Background Facts.
For the following 2 years and 4 months the State deprives him of his Constitutional Right to a speedy trial. Monthly he is subjected to attempts by the State to bully him into a guilty plea.
1995: Finally given a trial. Heimlich is subjected to additional deprivations of Due Process of Law. He is wrongfully & unlawfully imprisoned by the government (aka 'The State').
Due Process of Law mandates the government (acting through a person known as a Judge) provide the people, of which the defendant is one, when subjected to a criminal prosecution, with a process, governed by law mandating what that process is to include, to give what is due. i.e.; a fair trial. Among what is due is the protection of the Law. Our Constitutional Law mandates (1) a choice of representation by self, counsel, or both; and, (2) compulsory witnesses for the defense of the accused. Both were denied. Additional violations of laws of our Constitution and of our Legislators, by both Judge and Prosecutor, were committed to secure a 'win' for the government, and a 'loss' for our Constitution, a 'loss' for the Rule of Law.
1999: The government ('The State') admits that what it did was unlawful as well as wrong. This admission comes from the Court of Appeals in the form of a Mandate following submission for review by the highest court in on our Land of Texas for review of criminal cases.
Heimlich's Guilt or Innocence is now not subject to review by any other Court in the Land of Texas. Pursuant to our Texas Constitution; The Court of Criminal Appeals is the Court in Texas with the final say on Guilt or Innocence.
In our land of Texas we have two high Courts. One with jurisdiction over criminal case and another with jurisdiction over civil cases. Our Texas Constitution confines each to their respective jurisdictions for these determinations:
Criminal Courts, with the Court of Criminal Appeals with final say, in the determination of guilt or innocence.
Civil Courts, with the Supreme Court with final say in the determination of who is liable, and who is not.
After an Appellate Court, exercising jurisdiction in a criminal case, makes a determination of innocence or actual innocence, a later Appellate Court, exercising jurisdiction in a civil case, cannot rule on the guilt or innocence, actual or otherwise. As Courts with equal standing one cannot overrule the other. Only a higher court can overrule the determination of a lower court.
When the same matter becomes a civil case the jurisdiction of that court, and for review by a higher court, is confined by our Texas Constitution to a determination of liability. The government (the State) is either liable, or it is not. Attorneys who say otherwise are misrepresenting the law and, therefore, are committing a violation of the Code of Professional Conduct. A code they are subject to by requesting and accepting a license to practice law. Our duel court system, Criminal and Civil, and their respective jurisdictions, is elementary knowledge for any Attorney. Any with a license to practice law knows this and has a DUTY to know. A license does not confer knowledge. A license is to prevent the holder of the license from claiming ignorance as an excuse.
Because there was never any missing or disputed facts, Heimlich's Actual Innocence, pursuant to the common meaning of the phrase, was obvious from the start is now an adjudicated fact as well. His Actual Innocence, pursuant to the definition of the phrase established by our US Supreme Court and Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, has also been established as an adjudicated fact. ("adjudicated" means Fact established by Final Judgment, Ruling, on the Fact by a duly authorized Court acting within competent and legal jurisdiction (authority). See link to Actual Innocence.
Heimlich's Actual Innocence has been established in the criminal proceedings and cannot (lawfully) be reversed in the civil proceedings as a means of excusing the violations of our Constitution previously committed by the State, and to deprive him of his God-given right to restitution.
It's now obvious Heimlich was the victim of a theft and other crimes by those acting in the name of government for Texas ('The State'), as well as the victim of civil violations of constitutional and statutory law. Opinion and Judgment of Innocence
The refusal of the government to prosecutor it's actors for their crimes does not mean Heimlich is not a victim. Pursuant to the definition of the word 'victim', created by Texas Statute, he is a victim of crime committed by those who committed their crimes under the color of law, under the pretense of exercising an authority not granted to them by the Constitution & Laws of Texas.
For 21 years other government actors have attempted to cover up for the crimes committed by prior government actors by blaming the victim. As you will see in the next page; they have diverted attention away from the malfeasance, and continued malfeasance, of the government through it's actors by trying to re-prosecute the victim.