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
MOTION FOR REHEARING
RULE 41 TRCP SEVERANCE AND RULE 174(b) TRCP
SEPARATE TRIALS ______________________________________________________________________
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 has adopted the revised Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.
WorldPeace Application for Writ of Mandamus is undeniable evidence that
there is confusion created in the law with regards to Rule 3.08 and 15.05 Texas
Rules of Disciplinary Procedure and Rule 174(b), 41, 97(a) Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure and how they interact.
court is the final authority in this matter and it is wrong for this court to
require the Court of Appeals to guess how this court expects these rules to be
This court appointed Judge Fry to hear the underlying case and it is
obvious that Judge Fry does not understand the clear language of Rule 41 and
Rule 174(b) TRCP or he deliberately ignored the clear distinction.
No attorney should not be subjected to guessing the meaning of these two
rules regarding severance.
Further, the reality is that Rule 41 and Rule 174(b) TRCP apply to all
lawsuits in this State and this court should decide whether the word “sever”
has a distinct meaning under these two rules or if it is an ambiguous term to be
carelessly used by any judge in any lawsuit and it is up to the appeals court on
a case by case basis to determine what exactly “sever” means if carelessly
used in a Rule 174(b) ruling.
I have a right to a fair trial and I did not have a fair trial in the
underlying disciplinary petition if Judge Fry and the Commission are allowed to
determine at the end of trial what they meant by the word “sever” at the
beginning of trial. It is
obvious that the Commission is also confused about the term “sever” in that
they used the word “sever” like Judge Fry but in their Motion for Severance
they cited Rule 174(b).
simple ruling from this court that the word “sever” refers to Rule 41 TRCP
and that all motions and orders and judgments that use the term “sever” will
be considered to refer to Rule 41 and not to Rule 174(b) in addition a caveat to
attorneys and judges to use the word “sever” judiciously would undeniably
reduce the confusion that presently exists in the law.
It is wrong for this court to have this matter called to the court’s
attention and this court to refuse to immediately clear it up as opposed to
creating more appeals resulting from the confusion.
It is wrong for this court to leave ambiguity in the TRDP which it
promulgated regarding the integration of the above mentioned rules of the TRDP
The problem with the entire body of the TRDP is that this court only
promulgated the TRDP ten years ago. Since
that time there have been approximately fifty cases entered into the common law
regarding the TRDP. WorldPeace has
read all those cases and the none of those cases have presented the issues that
WorldPeace has placed before this court or if they have presented these issues,
they were presented in a procedurally defective manner which prohibited a ruling
in the appellate process.
knew the disciplinary system was corrupt due to the fact that in 1993 Dawn
Miller arbitrarily filed a disciplinary petition against me that was clearly
outside the statute of limitations and was therefore dismissed.
I also sued attorneys as part of my practice between 1996 and 1998.
In that practice, I also helped the State Bar discipline some attorneys.
Therefore, I understood the system better that the vast majority of
attorneys when this matter began.
Dawn Miller, the Chief Disciplinary Counsel, decided to file a disciplinary
petition against me in 2000 because I sued a client for my fees, I began to
carefully lay the ground work to put an end to the disciplinary system.
Everything that I did from the time the State Bar processed the Collins
grievance in June 2000, was in preparation to place the injustice of the
attorney disciplinary system before this court and I have accomplished that
Now with these very important matters before this court, this court seems
to be in the process of refusing to consider my twelve Applications for Writs of
Mandamus knowing that the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure is defective.
global terms, this court is enforcing the rules that apply to the Respondent
attorneys and not enforcing them against the Commission’s attorneys.
The court should not be so hypocritical and use words like “must” in
the TRDP when the court means “the Commission can do what it wants when it
wants.” That is in fact the
current state of the TRDP rules that use the word “must”.
What makes matters worse is that this court per this mornings posting to
the internet, has adopted the revised TRDP effective
The reality is that the case law in this state is significant with
regards to compulsory counterclaims. The
reality is that one cannot try a disciplinary lawsuit in a vacuum.
The reality is that it makes no sense for an attorney to sue a client
for fees, the client files a grievance against the attorney, the Commission
files a disciplinary petition against the attorney and the attorney is not
allowed to have his suit for fees heard with the disciplinary petition.
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 to rule on the underlying 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