.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
Actual
Innocence
Restitution
Links
NEW: A TALK W/ Chief Justice
Honor Quest is a companion website to
restore our Constitution
Visit
Honor Quest
Dear Chief Justice Rose,
Thank you. It appears you, and/or Justice Pemberton, did
contact Steve Roddy in the Office of the AG.
I finally got word on my request the AG approve the payment of the Final
Judgment I secured in 2005.
It came about 2 hours after I wrote to you. After I spoke to Justice Pemberton a couple of times - at his
campaign fund raiser and a Republican event - and with much prayer, I
found the ability to forgive him. But forgiveness only means to avoid
the temptation to retaliate.
The attached was distributed to many during the 2009 legislative session
in an attempt to have Justice Pemberton impeached.
SEE MY DNA, with PROOF OF MISREPRESENTATION OF
FACTS & LAW BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON
I have since made an effort to avoid doing any harm to his reputation.
Even though he destroyed mine, I have turned the other cheek.
I do not know Bob Pemberton, 2015. I only know that the Bob Pemberton of
2008 was lacking in objectivity and held a disdain for any who were
victims of malfeasance by State Actors or pro
se.
My ability to be objective about the people and the events life presents
has expanded exponentially with over time.
Bob Pemberton today may be more objective than Bob Pemberton 2015. He
may even be willing to acknowledge his memorandum opinion of 2008 is
invalid. I know he was cleverly deceptive in 2008. Maybe without a conscious
awareness of it.
As we discussed yesterday and previously, the courts in
Texas do not have jurisdiction to reverse, in a civil case, a finding of
actual innocence in a criminal case previously adjudicated to finality. Pemberton's
memorandum opinion of 2008 simply concluded that the legislature did not
grant permission to sue to those whose "relief from conviction" came on
direct appeal rather than later by means of a Writ. To be correct an
extraordinary writ because a direct appeal is, essentially, a writ.
But he hid this from most who would read his memorandum opinion by
including it only by reference to his opinion in the
Young case. You were not
with the Court then but you will quickly see it when you review the
statute he was interpreting. Here is a link to
Chapter 103, Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code of 2001, to which my case was
confined by the Mandate of the Third Court of Appeals in 2003.
You confirmed in our prior discussion this fact. The Heimlich opinion of 2003 relied on by Young
in the appeal on his case could have
been changed for Young, and cases that followed. But Pemberton's ruling in
Young, 2008, could not properly be used to reverse Heimlich 2003, by
applying his opinion in Young to it.
As you confirmed in a recorded conversation the 3rd Court of Appeals, in
2008, did not have jurisdiction to reverse the 14th Court of Appeals
acquittal of 1999, the Court of Criminal Appeals refusal to review the
acquittal in 1999, or the 3rd Court of Appeals mandate of 2003 that
found the State liable and permission to sue from the legislature.
But by including a misrepresentation of both facts of public record, and
of the law, and using a lot of legal terms that even some who have been
to law school are not familiar with, he gave the impression he was
ruling on a criminal case and finding me guilty.
I just want you to know that if I put the attached on my website, along
with other revelations of his extreme bias, his lack of objectivity, his
lack of judicial temperament, along with your recording proving his
memorandum opinion void ab initio and a legal nullity. And if all of
this should become national and international news through the efforts
of the State of California and it's boosters - it will not be for the
purpose of retaliation. It will be because Justice Pemberton apparently feels it is necessary
for the cause of Liberty and Justice. He wants the world to know what
was done to me by those who wage a war against our Constitutions, our
Laws, and our people, from under the cover of a position of public
trust. They hide as prosecutors and in the office of the attorney
general. They have allies who hide in the Judiciary.
It may be that most
of these warriors do so unintentionally. They are incapable of being objective or are
incompetent. Those who do so intentionally are lacking in wisdom. If
they were wise they would know that their disregard for the rights of
others is a disregard for their own. By diminishing the rights of others
they diminish their own and of those whom they love. They, or their
children, may some day need the protection of those rights.
Maybe he has a guilty conscience. Maybe he does not realize he is
seeking the destruction of his own career.
For more see
www.informed.org and
www.honorquest.org and
www.honorquest.net
Faithfully in Freedoms Cause and Service, in Christ's name, I AM, Ed
Heimlich,
Honor Quest is a companion website to
restore our Constitution
Visit
Honor Quest