INFORMED CITIZENS

Home | Cause | Timeline | Criminal| Civil | Resolution | Documents| Links

STIPULATIONS TO LIABILITY ('Legal Obligation) of the State (government)
by the Attorney General, through his Assistant.

The links below to public records of the oral and written statements of the Attroney General constitute stipulations because;

See Texas Government Code; § 81.072. GENERAL DISCIPLINARY AND DISABILITY PROCEDURES.
(D) Each attorney is subject to the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure and the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct.

Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct (“TDRPC”):

Rule 3.02 Minimizing the Burdens and Delays of Litigation.

In the course of litigation, a lawyer shall not take a position that unreasonably increases the costs or other burdens of the case or that unreasonably delays resolution of the matter.

An Attorney, employed as a Public Servant (“public servant lawyer”) is subject to criminal prosecution for violating the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct (“TDRPC”). The TDRPC is not just a suggestion of ethical conduct. It is statutory law as it is created by direction of our Legislators to our Judicial Division. Our Texas Supreme Court refers to it as “law governing the conduct of attorneys”. Clearly, it is “law relating to the public servant’s office or employment” if a public servant is an Attorney.

If these are not stipulations then the Attorney General, and the Assistant who acted in his name, commited a criminal offense. From the Texas penal code;

§ 39.02. ABUSE OF OFFICIAL CAPACITY. 

(a) A public servant commits an offense if, with intent to obtain a benefit or with intent to harm or defraud another, he intentionally or knowingly:

(1)  violates a law relating to the public servant's office or employment;

(b)  An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a Class A misdemeanor.           

The cost of a trial for the determination of damages is extensive. Expert Witnesses were required. And an Attorney had to be brought in to replace this Citizen who otherwise was able to act pro se. The total harm to this Citizen, the amount to which he was defrauded, is of record in the Final Judgment as $76,139.30

December 2004: Defendant State stipulates to Liability (legal obligation of the State) in response to Plaintiff Citizen's request for Defendant to pay for experts.

May 2005: Defendant State again stipulates to Liability (legal obligation of the State)
and asks for trial on damages.

2005 at Trial Defendant State again stipulates to Liability (legal obligation of the State).

The Assistant AG on the case at that time knew there were no meritorious claims or contentions other than damages. See TDRPC:

Rule 3.01 Meritorious Claims and Contentions 

A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless the lawyer reasonably believes that there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous.

The appeal filed by the AG after the entry of the Final Judgment challenging the waiver of sovereign immunity / permission by statute for this Citizen to file a suit upon the State, is and remains frivolous and the memorandum opinion void and null.

The Authors of the 2001 Act limiting Heimlich's claim to damages allowed by that Act to provide Compensation for Wrongful Imprisonment can be contacted for confirmation that the act intended for Heimlich to have restitution from the State. Contact the Honorable Senator Rodney Ellis and the Honorable Representative Harold Dutton.

Back to Timeline