03-1069, 03-1070, 03-1079, 03-1082, 03-1084, 03-1117, 03-1139, 04-0234
RELATOR’S SUPPLEMENT TO RELATOR’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
JUDGE FRY’S INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT FOR DISBARMENT
AND DEFACTO DISBARMENT OF WORLDPEACE
RELATOR’S SUPPLEMENT TO RELATOR’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
Filed by: John WorldPeace, Relator
OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
The following is a complete
list of all the parties and the names and addresses of all counsel in the
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
State Bar of
Attorneys for the Commission for Lawyer Discipline
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THIS COURT:
NOW, WorldPeace and files this Supplemental Motion for Rehearing and would respectfully
submit the following.
The underlying August 27, 2003,
Judgment for Disbarment is not a Final Judgment because it is not entitled a
Final Judgment for Disbarment nor anywhere in its body does it state that it is
a Final Judgment for Disbarment. Per
Lehman and its progeny, a Final
Judgment must state with unmistakable clarity that it is a Final Judgment or it
must dispose of all the claims and parties before the court.
301 TRCP provides that there shall be only one final judgment rendered in any
cause except where it is specifically provided by law.
A judgment is final when it disposes of all controverted issues
concerning all parties to the suit. Thus,
any order rendered during a lawsuit which does not dispose of all issues
regarding all parties is, of necessity, interlocutory.
no longer believe that a Mother Hubbard clause in an order or in a judgment
issued without a full trial can be taken to indicate finality.
We therefore hold that in cases in which only one final and appealable
judgment can be rendered, a judgment issued without a conventional trial is
final for purposes of appeal if and only if either it actually disposes of all
claims and parties then before the court, regardless of its language, or it
states with unmistakable clarity that it is a final judgment as to all
claims and all parties.”
v. Har-Con Corp.; 39 S.W. 3d 191, 192-3 (
Lehmann, we held that a judgment is final for purposes of appeal in
circumstances like those of this case “If and only if either it actually
disposes of all claims and parties then before the court, or it states with
unmistakable clarity that it is a final judgment.
Id at 192. We apply this rule
to the present case.
As we held in Lehmann, “Mother Hubbard” language like that contained
in the July 9 summary judgment does not indicate finality.
v. Conwell; 46 S.W. 3d 862, 863-4 (
order or judgment is not final for purposes of appeal unless it actually
disposes of every pending claim and party or unless it clearly and unequivocally
states that it is a finally disposes of all claims and all parties.
An order that does not dispose of all issues and parties is interlocutory
and not appealable absent a severance.
Simply labeling the order “Final Judgment” is not enough; there must
be some clear indication the trial court intended to completely dispose of the
entire case. Furthermore, the
inclusion of a Mother Hubbard clause is no longer determinative of finality.
An appellate court may review the record to determine whether an order
disposes of all claims and parties.
A summary judgment may not be
granted on a ground not presented in a motion for summary
judgment. Further, a summary
judgment cannot be affirmed on grounds not expressly set out in the motion or
response. Because Ritzell’s
amended motion for summary judgment addressing Johathan’s Espeche’s claim
was not properly before the trial court, summary judgment could not be granted
on that claim. Thus, the final
summary judgment does not dispose of all claims.
Because the order appealed from
is not a final, appealable judgment.. we must dismiss the appeal for lack of
Maureen Espeche v. William Ritzell, 65 SW3d 226 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th
A judgment is final if it
either actually disposes of all claims and parties before the court or states
with “unmistakeable clarity” that it is a final judgment.
Thompson v. Beyer, 91 SW3d 902 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2002)
The nonappealable interlocutory order can never become final, a
prerequisite for the enforcement of a judgment.
Willingham v. Hagerty, 553 SW2
137, 140 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1977)
WorldPeace is not disbarred.
The Judgment for Disbarment signed on
The Judgment for Disbarment does not state in the caption nor anywhere in
body that it is a Final Judgment.
In addition, the Commission for Lawyer Discipline admitted in its
Response to WorldPeace’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal for Lack of Jurisdiction (Cause No. 14-04-01339-CV; John WorldPeace v. Commission for Lawyer
Discipline) that the elements of WorldPeace’s cause of action for
injunctive relief were not pled by the Commission for Lawyer Discipline in its
Motion for No-Evidence Summary Judgment and it was not heard by the jury.
Therefore, per the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lehman
and its progeny in the Appellate Courts, the Judgment for Disbarment against
WorldPeace is not a Final Judgment, but is interlocutory, unappealable and
unenforceable because it does not meet either of the two tests under Lehman.
WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, WorldPeace prays this court to rehear his Application for Writ of Mandamus and to rule the underlying Judgment for Disbarment is not a Final Judgment and for such other and further relief in law or in equity as this court may deem 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
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