![[THE WORLDPEACE SIGN]](wppin.gif)
![[THE WORLDPEACE SIGN]](pinquarter.jpg)
NO.
03-1023
COMPANION
TO: 03-978, 03-0990, 03-1022, 03-1049, 03-1069,
03-1070, 03-1079, 03-1082, 03-1083, 03-1084. 03-1117, 03-1139
IN
THE
SUPREME
COURT
OF
JOHN
WORLDPEACE
______________________________
______________________________________________________________________
REGARDING
PETITIONER’S SECOND MOTION FOR
NO-EVIDENCE SUMMARY JUDGMENT
______________________________________________________________________
Filed
by: John WorldPeace, Relator
John WorldPeace
2620 Fountainview,
Tel. 713-784-7618
Fax. 713-784-9063
TBA# 21872800
Attorney Pro Se
IDENTITY
OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
The following is a complete
list of all the parties and the names and addresses of all counsel in the
underlying lawsuit.
Relator (Respondent)
John WorldPeace
John WorldPeace
2620 Fountainview,
Tel. 713-784-7618
Fax. 713-784-9063
Attorney Pro Se
Respondent: Honorable James
R. Fry
Presiding Judge in the
Underlying Disciplinary Petition
(Cause No. 2002-42081; Commission for Lawyer Discipline v. John
WorldPeace, 269th District Court,
15th Judicial
District Court
Tel:
903-813-4303
Fax:
903-813-4304
Real Parties in Interest and
Parties to the Case. (Petitioner)
Commission
for Lawyer Discipline
Dawn Miller
J. G Molleston
State Bar of
1111 Fannin,
Tel:
713-759-6931
Fax: 713-752-2158
Attorneys for the Commission for Lawyer Discipline
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THIS COURT:
COMES
NOW, WorldPeace and files this Motion for Rehearing and would respectfully
submit the following.
IN REGARDS TO THIS SPECIFIC MOTION FOR REHEARING
No
attorney in this state who reads Relator’s Application for Writ of Mandamus
regarding Petitioner’s Second Motion for No Evidence Summary Judgment is going
to deny that the Commission for Lawyer Discipline did not list the elements of
the various causes of action for which the Commission alleges that Relator had
no evidence. This listing of
elements is a MUST mandate of Rule 166a(I) TRCP.
In addition, the Commission did not even list all of Relator’s
unadjudicated causes of action. And
the Commission pled the elements of a 42 USCA Section 1983 cause of action that
was not even pled by Relator.
It is undeniable that Judge Fry granted the Commission’s Motion for No
Evidence Summary Judgment on Relator’s causes of action for which no elements
were listed contrary to Rule 166a(i) TRCP and then incorporated that Summary
Judgment into the Judgment for Disbarment and therefore undeniably sua
sponte dismissed Relator’s causes of action that had not been adjudicated.
It is wrong for this court to issue a denial of Relator Application for
Writ of Mandamus when the court knows that Judge Fry has defacto
disbarred Relator by refusing to Clarify, Modify or Vacate his
With all due respect, this court appointed Judge Fry and it appears that
either Judge Fry is incompetent or corrupt or both.
This court should address the abuses of discretion of Judge Fry.
By refusing to involve itself with such blatant abuses of discretion by
Judge Fry, this court becomes a party to his bad acts.
There is no way this court can justify turning a deaf ear to Relator’s
pleas for justice.
This court well knows that per Relator’s various Applications for Writs
of Mandamus presently before this court that by refusing to consider those
Applications it will take Relator a year to get an opinion from the Court of
Appeals and in the mean time due to the dictates of Rule 3.14 TRDP, there will
be a defacto disbarment of Relator.
This is just another example of how the TRDP are enforced against the
Respondent attorney and not against the Commission for Lawyer Discipline.
It is just another example of the unconstitutional nature of the
disciplinary process that undeniably denies a Respondent attorney’s
constitutional rights against self incrimination, due process and equal
protection.
The TRDP is defective on its face and corrupt in its application.
If this court is not going to enforce the MUST dictates of the TRDP then
it should be honest enough to delete them from the TRDP.
Every decision made by this court regarding the Texas Rules of
Disciplinary Procedure which this court promulgated and every decision by this
court regarding the clear mandates of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure which
ignore the mandates of both statutes is a demeaning of the entire disciplinary
process and places a question in every attorney’s mind as to the real justice
in the disciplinary process. For
every attorney who studies this matter, his or her conclusion will be that the
disciplinary system is unjust and designed to simply allow the Commission to
arbitrarily chose an attorney or two per month to feed to the public as evidence
that the Commission disciplines attorneys.
This is all done to assuage the reality that within a legitimate attorney
malpractice suit attorneys are insulated from liability by way of the virtually
insurmountable thresholds of “a suit within a suit” and “but for the
attorney’s negligence” the client would have been successful in his or her
lawsuit.
This court could not reconcile the threshold in an attorney malpractice
lawsuit and the threshold in a disciplinary petition and until Relator presented
his various Applications for Writs of Mandamus.
Now this court must resolve the incongruence.
This obvious inconsistency in the law must now be resolved.
This court must now bring these thresholds into an understandable
harmony.
This court is not only the ultimate authority on the attorney
disciplinary process but this court is also the promulgator of the Texas Rules
of Disciplinary Procedure. If this
court is not willing to rule in accordance with it own TRDP and in line with the
TRCP as incorporated into the TRDP, then the entire disciplinary process becomes
suspect and little more than an Inquisition heavily stacked against the
attorney.
If the Commission cannot achieve a judgment in its favor by strictly
following the TRDP and the TRCP, then this court should not endorse clearly
prejudicial rulings from a judge like James R. Fry who has undeniably skewed his
ruling in favor of the Commission and contrary to the rule of law set down by
this court in the TRDP.
Lastly, when it is clear that Judge Fry has abused his discretion, it is
questionable why this court has decided not to even ask for a response from
Judge Fry. The reason seems to be
that Judge Fry’s abuses are unsupportable and a response would force this
court to acknowledge those abuses immediately as opposed to supporting an
interim defacto disbarment of Relator.
Judge Fry’s granting of a No Evidence Summary Judgment on causes of
action not pled by the commission is an undeniable abuse of discretion and
Relator’s Applicant for Writ of Mandamus should be granted.
GLOBAL
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
District Court,
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.
It
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.
I
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
Disbarment of
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.
PRAYER
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.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________________
John WorldPeace
2620 Fountainview,
Tel. 713-784-7618
Fax. 713-784-9063
TBA No. 21872800
I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading was
forwarded to opposing counsel and Judge Fry on
John WorldPeace
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
Opposing counsel opposes RELATOR’S MOTION FOR REHEARING.
John WorldPeace
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 BANNER]](wpbanner.gif)
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