TO: 03-978, 03-0990, 03-1023, 03-1049, 03-1069,
03-1070, 03-1079, 03-1082, 03-1083, 03-1084. 03-1117, 03-1139
Cause No. 2002-42081; Commission for Lawyers Discipline v. John
WorldPeace, 269th District Court
RELATOR’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
DATE OF DISBARMENT AND PLENARY POWER
RELATOR’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
by: John WorldPeace, Relator
Attorney Pro Se
OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
The following is a complete
list of all the parties and the names and addresses of all counsel in the
Attorney Pro Se
Respondent: Honorable James
Presiding Judge in the
Underlying Disciplinary Petition
(Cause No. 2002-42081; Commission for Lawyer Discipline v. John
WorldPeace, 269th District Court,
Real Parties in Interest and
Parties to the Case. (Petitioner)
for Lawyer Discipline
J. G Molleston
State Bar of
Attorneys for the Commission for Lawyer Discipline
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THIS COURT:
NOW, WorldPeace and files this Motion for Rehearing and would respectfully
submit the following.
IN REGARDS TO THIS SPECIFIC MOTION FOR REHEARING
court promulgated the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure and is about to
renew those rules. Relator’s
Application for Writ of Mandamus exposes an obvious flaw in those rules
regarding the date of disbarment and the enforcement of a Judgment for
Rule 3.14 TRCP clearly states that there will be no supersedeas or stay
of a Judgment for Disbarment. This
Rule does not go into effect until the trial court loses it plenary power at
which time it can no longer modify its judgment.
What Judge Fry has done is effect a defacto
disbarment by undeniably setting a disbarment date which is not enforceable
until he loses his plenary power which could be as much as six months after the
Judgment for Disbarment is entered.
This court promulgated the TRDP and it is the ultimate authority on this
issue. It seems a simple matter for
this court to clarify the TRDP in this area.
It is clearly wrong to allow a judge like Judge Fry who has in numerous
ways abused his discretion in the underlying disciplinary petition to be able to
defacto disbar Relator.
Where is the justice in allowing a judge appointed by this court
to set an unenforceable disbarment date in his Judgement for Disbarment?
As has been shown by Relator, this confusion creates havoc for court
clerks, judges, opposing attorneys clients and other peripheral persons involved
in a lawsuit.
This court cannot say time is of the essence in this matter when the
Commission in this case sat on the disciplinary petition for fourteen months
after Relator made his Rule 2.14 election for a trial de novo.
It is wrong for this court to allow this confusion in the disciplinary
process to continue when the court could easily clarify the TRDP and stop it.
STATEMENT REGARDING ALL OF
RELATOR’S APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF MANDAMUS
BEFORE THIS COURT REGARDING THE UNDERLYING CASE
I have filed twelve applications for writs of mandamus with this court.
Some are in regards to undeniable violations of the law by Judge Fry, the
presiding judge in the underlying disciplinary petition, and others relate to
problem areas of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure that only this court
has the authority to remedy.
I have been de facto disbarred due to the intransigent corruption
of Judge Fry in his undeniable abuses of discretion in the underlying case.
He has granted a no evidence summary judgment that this court knows is
contrary to Rule 166a(i) TRCP (Cause No. 03-1023 pending before this court); his
August 27, 2003, orders are an undeniable statement that he has not read the
underlying pleadings and his Judgment for Disbarment which incorporates his
order granting the Commission’s Motion for No Evidence Summary Judgment and
Order of Severance are undeniably disjunctive and make no sense when read
together (Cause No. 03-1049 pending before this court); he has arrogantly
refused to set my motions in the underlying disciplinary petition for hearings
and refused to proceed to trial on the unadjudicated causes of action (Cause No.
03-1139 pending before this court); and he has refused to even proceed to trial
on the “A” case he severed all of which were per Rule 3.07 TRDP to take
place within 180 days of the Commission’s filing of the disciplinary petition
against me in August 2002, sixteen months ago.
There has been an undeniable manipulation of the grievance hearing
process against me in violation of Rule 2.07 (Cause No. 03-1117 pending before
this court); and there has been an undeniable violation of Rule 3.01 TRDP which
mandates that disciplinary petitions against me must be filed with the Clerk of
the Supreme Court.
It is undeniable that the various sections of the TRDP are selectively
enforced against the Respondent attorneys and not at all against the Commission
or its attorney and employees. This
court promulgated the TRDP in 1992 and is about to renew them.
There is no doubt that in their application, the TRDP violate the
Respondent attorney’s constitutional rights against self-incrimination, equal
protection and due process in that there is no enforcement provisions in the
TRDP applicable to the Commission.
In addition, Rule 15.11 of the TRDP attempts to give absolute immunity to
the Commission and its attorneys and employees who violate and enforce the TRDP
in any selective manner they decide.
The “must” provisions in various rules of the TRDP (2.07, 2.14,
2.16(c), 3.01, 3.03) are meaningless and the time restraints of Rule 15.07 TRDP
are just as meaningless as the provisions of Rule 3.07.
The Commission’s attorneys lie to the court as has Mr. Molleston in the
underlying petition (Cause No. 03-1082 pending before this court); and I would
pray the court to take judicial notice of Cause
No. 14-03-00531-CV; Steven Nelson v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline,
Fourteenth Court of Appeals, Harris County Texas in which Jennifer Hasley
another attorney for the Commission in Houston undeniably lied to that court in
order to achieve substituted service and a default judgment against Steven
Nelson. In addition, Judge Cynthia
Kent in the underlying disciplinary petition violated Rule 3.02 by signing a
Judgment for Disbarment out of county and then the judge of the 268th
Neither Judge Kent nor Judge Fry has any incentive to abide by the TRDP
because the court seems to have no intention of enforcing the TRDP against the
Commission or the Judges it appoints per Rule 3.02 TRDP.
It is undeniable that J G Molleston and Jennifer Hasley have no
compunction about lying to whatever court they are in due to their alleged
absolute immunity per Rule 15.11 TRDP.
This court seems to be determined to methodically deny each of my
applications for writs of mandamus in that it has already denied four and per
this writing has requested no responses from the Commission with regard to the
remaining eight per Rule 58.2(b) TRAP.
This court is the ultimate authority with regards to the TRDP in this
state. The TRDP is unconstitutional
in its selective application to whatever attorneys the corrupt attorneys at the
Commission decide to pursue and the selective application of the rules to the
Respondent attorney but not the Commission for Lawyer Discipline.
is virtually impossible for me to understand how this court can ignore all the
evidence that I have placed before it regarding the TRDP.
My applications for writs of mandamus if denied will be refiled in the
Fourteenth Court of Appeals where the underlying appeal has been assigned (Cause
No. 01-03-00555-CV); and eventually if necessary the Fourteenth Court of Appeals
will have to write an opinion on each and every one of my mandamus issues per
Rule 47.1 TRAP; unless “must” no longer means “must” in the TRAP.
At the time the opinion is issued, I feel there will be a question as to why this court refused to rule on my mandamuses. Questions will be asked by the membership of the State Bar about the justice of the entire grievance process.
have drafted a Section 1983 Federal lawsuit and will notice all the parties
named in Cause No. 03-1117 pending before this court before filing it.
It is unfortunate that I must proceed in federal court due to my serious
doubts about my ability to get a fair trial within this state.
It is possible that the Commission is going to file contempt charges on
me in an attempt to enforce Judge Fry’s undeniable interlocutory Judgment for
If that writ of habeas corpus
is denied, I think that there are going to be serious credibility issues raised
by the membership of the bar with regards to the judiciary of this state and
that will be very unfortunate for everyone.
WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, WorldPeace prays this court to rehear his Application for Writ of Mandamus and for such other and further relief in law or in equity as this court deems proper.
TBA No. 21872800
I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading was
forwarded to opposing counsel and Judge Fry on
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
Opposing counsel opposes RELATOR’S MOTION FOR REHEARING.
How can we manifest peace on earth if we do not include everyone (all races, all nations, all religions, both sexes) in our vision of Peace?
The WorldPeace Insignia : Explanation
To order a WorldPeace Insignia lapel pin, go to: Order
To the John WorldPeace Galleries Page
To the WorldPeace Peace Page