NO. 03-1083

 

COMPANION TO:  03-978, 03-990, 03-1022, 03-1023, 03-1049

 

IN THE

SUPREME COURT

OF TEXAS

______________________________

IN RE:

JOHN WORLDPEACE

______________________________  

Re:  Cause No. 2002-42081; Commission for Lawyers Discipline v. John WorldPeace, 269th District Court

Harris County , Texas

______________________________________________________________________

RELATOR’S APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

REGARDING

JUDGE FRY’S INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT FOR DISBARMENT

AND DEFACTO DISBARMENT OF WORLDPEACE

______________________________________________________________________  

 

                                                                        Filed by: John WorldPeace, Relator

                                                                        John WorldPeace
                                                                       
2620 Fountainview,
Suite 106                                                                           Houston , Texas 77057
                                                                       
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, Suite 106  

Houston , Texas 77057

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, Harris County , Texas )

15th Judicial District Court

200 S. Crockett St .

Sherman , Texas 75090

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 Texas

1111 Fannin, Suite 1370

Houston , Texas   77002

Tel:  713-759-6931

Fax: 713-752-2158

Attorneys for the Commission for Lawyer Discipline

TABLE OF CONTENTS  

IDENTITIES OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL...................................................................ii  

TABLE OF CONTENTS...................................................................................................iii  

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..............................................................................................iv  

STATEMENT OF THE CASE...........................................................................................vi  

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.................................................................................vii  

ISSUES PRESENTED.....................................................................................................viii  

STATEMENT OF FACTS ……………………………………………………………….1

ISSUE ONE.........................................................................................................................4          
   
         Is it an abuse of discretion for a trial court to use a “mother hubbard” clause to attempt to dismiss issues and parties in a lawsuit that have not been adjudicated contrary to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lehmann?  

ISSUE TWO………………………………………………………………………………4

            Is Judge Fry’s August 27, 2003 , Judgment for Disbarment a Final Judgment per Lehmann?  

ISSUE THREE…………………………………………………………………………….4

            Is it an abuse of discretion for Judge Fry to refuse to vacate or modify his August 27, 2003 , Judgment for Disbarment knowing the judgment is interlocutory and knowing that it has the effect of a defacto disbarment of WorldPeace.

ARGUMENT……………………………………………………………………….……..5  

PRAYER............................................................................................................................15  

APPENDIX……………………………………………………………………….……...17  

AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN WORLDPEACE…………………………………………….…18

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES  

A. CASES  

Appleton v. Appleton ……………………………………………………………………...5

76 S.W. 3d 78, 86 ( Tex. App.  – Hous. [14th Dist] 2002)  

City of Beaumont v. Bouillion…………………………………………………………...12

896 SW2d 143 ( Tex. 1995)  

Garza v. State of Texas …………………………………………………………………..13

878 S.W. 2d 671, 673-4 (Tex App. – Corpus Christi 1994)  

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company v. Abascal……………………………………5

831 S.W. 2d 559, 563 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 1992)  

Howell v. Hilton Hotels Corp……………………………………………………………11

84 S.W. 3d 708, 715 ( Tex. App. – Hous. [1st Dist.] 2002)  

Jordan v. Landry’s Seafood Restaurant, Inc……………………………………………..12

89 S.W. 3d 737, 741 ( Tex. App. – Hous. [1st Dist.] 2002)  

In re:  News America Publishing, Inc……………………………………………………..5

974 S.W. 2d 97, 106 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 1998)  

Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp…………………………………………………………….4,13

39 S.W. 3d 191, 192-3 ( Tex. 2001)  

Lewis v. Skippy’s Mistake Bar…………………………………………………………..14

944 S.W. 2d 1, 1 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 1996)

Miller v. Elliott…………………………………………………………………………...11

94 S.W. 3d 38, 42 ( Tex. App. – Tyler 2002)  

Nueces County v. Ferguson ………………………………………………………….......12

97 SW3d 205 (Tex.App – Corpus Christi, 2003)  

O’Bryant v. City of Midland ……………………………………………………………..12

949 SW2d 406 (Tex.App.- Austin, 1997)  

Trinity Capital Corporation v. Briones……………………………………………………5

847 S.W. 324, 326 (Tex. App. – El Paso 1993)           

STATUTES           

Rule 13  Texas Rules of Civil Procedure………………………………………………...11

Rule 41   Texas Rules of Civil Procedure…………………………………………..6,7,8,15

Rule 90   Texas Rules of Civil Procedure…………………………………………….......14

Rule 166a(i)   Texas Rules of Civil Procedure…………………………………………...11

Rule 174 (b)   Texas Rules of Civil Procedure …………………………………….6,7,8,15

Rule 301   Texas Rules of Civil Procedure………………………………………….9,10,14

Rule 801  Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct…………………………...10

Rule 804  Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct…………………………...10

Chapter 9 & 10   Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code……………………………..11

Rule 3.01  Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure………………………………………..1

Rule 3.02  Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure………………………………………..1

Rule 3.14 Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure………………………………………...4    

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

NATURE OF THE CASE  

The underlying case is a disciplinary petition filed by the Commission for Lawyer Discipline against Relator WorldPeace (Cause No. 2002-42081; Commission for Lawyer Discipline v. John WorldPeace, 269th District Court).

THE RESPONDENT

The Respondent is Judge James R. Fry, in his capacity as presiding judge, appointed by the Supreme Court to preside over the underlying disciplinary petition.

RELIEF SOUGHT BY RELATOR

            WorldPeace prays the court to mandamus Judge Fry to vacate or modify his August 27, 2003 , Judgment for Disbarment because it is not a final judgment per Lehmann.  There are issues that have not been adjudicated but have been arbitrarily dismissed by way of Judge Fry’s use of a “mother hubbard” clause which was severely restricted by the Supreme Court in Lehmann.

REGARDING FILING IN THE SUPREME COURT

RELATOR’S APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS was not first filed in the appeals court because jurisdiction over disciplinary petitions is with the Supreme Court per Rule 3.01 and Rule 3.02 Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to issue a Writ of Prohibition/Mandamus against a district judge under Section 22.002(a) of the Government Code and Article V. Section 3 of The Texas Constitution.   

ISSUES PRESENTED

ISSUE ONE

            Is it an abuse of discretion for a trial court to use a “mother hubbard” clause to attempt to dismiss issues and parties in a lawsuit that have not been adjudicated contrary to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lehmann?  

ISSUE TWO  

            Is Judge Fry’s August 27, 2003 , Judgment for Disbarment a Final Judgment per Lehmann?  

ISSUE THREE  

            Is it an abuse of discretion for Judge Fry to refuse to vacate or modify his August 27, 2003 , Judgment for Disbarment knowing the judgment is interlocutory and knowing that it has the effect of a defacto disbarment of WorldPeace. 

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THIS COURT:

STATEMENT OF FACTS

            On August 20, 2002 , the Commission filed a disciplinary petition against John WorldPeace. (Record “1”)

            On November 8, 2002 , the Commission added five additional grievances to the underlying lawsuit outside Rule 3.01 and 3.02 TRDP which mandates the disciplinary petitions being filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court. (Record “7”)

            On April 14, 2003 , in pretrial, the trial court severed all issues into three lawsuits: 1) WorldPeace’s counterclaim against Lang and Apodaca 2) WorldPeace’s constitutional counterclaim 3) the TDRPC Rule violations which were then tried to a jury. (Record “46”)

            On April 23, 2003 , Judge Fry signed a Judgment for Disbarment against WorldPeace which appeared to be final due to the inclusion of a “mother hubbard” clause.

            On June 23, 2003 , Judge Fry set aside his April 23, 2003 , Judgment for Disbarment.

            Only July 1, 2003 , the Commission filed its Second Motion for No-Evidence Summary Judgment. (Record “57”)

            Only July 21, 2003, WorldPeace filed a Response to the Commission’s Second Motion for No-Evidence Summary Judgment complaining that the court had not signed a severance order per the local rules and therefore there was no way for WorldPeace to know what cause number included the Summary Judgment issues. (Record “147”)

            Also on July 21, 2003 , seven days prior to the submission date for the Commission’s Second Motion for No-evidence Summary Judgment, WorldPeace filed his Seventh Amended Answer and Counterclaim and Third party Claims adding a cause of action for Injunctive Relief. (Record “83”)

            On August 5, 2003 , WorldPeace added a counterclaim against Johnell Collins in the only cause number (2002-42081) which existed, because the trial court after four months continued to refuse to sign a severance order.  (Record “157”)

            On August 5, 2003 , WorldPeace also filed a Motion for a Severance Order which Judge Fry refused to hear. (Record “162”)

            On August 13, 2003 , WorldPeace added a supplemental petition for declaratory judgment again under the only cause number that existed. (Record “173”)

            Finally, on August 27, 2003 , Judge Fry signed an Order for Severance (Record “182”) and an Order (Record “183”) granting the Commission’s Second Motion for No-evidence Summary Judgment and a Judgment for Disbarment. (Record “175”)

            The orders when viewed together are disjunctive and conflictive.

On September 26, 2003 , WorldPeace not believing the August 27, 2003 , Judgment for Disbarment was a final judgment per Lehmann, out of an abundance of caution, filed a Motion for New Trial. (Record “225”)

            On September 26, 2003 , WorldPeace not believing the August 27, 2003 , Judgment for Disbarment was a final judgment per Lehmann out of an abundance of caution, filed a Motion to Modify. (Record “184”)

            On October 17, 2003 , WorldPeace filed a Motion for Rehearing on the Commission’s Second Motion for No-evidence Summary Judgment. (Record “288”)

            On November 5, 2003 , WorldPeace filed WorldPeace’s Third Amended Motion to Vacate or Modify Judgment of Disbarment of August 27, 2003 . (Record “400”)

            On November 5, 2003, WorldPeace filed Respondent WorldPeace’s Fourth Amended Motion for New Trial and Motion for JNOV Regarding the Court’s August 27, 2003 Judgment for Disbarment. (Record “444”)

            On November 7, 2003 , WorldPeace filed Respondent’s Short Hand Rendition Regarding Respondent’s Motion for New Trial, Respondent’s Motion to Modify, and Petitioner’s Summary Judgment. (Record “343”)           

On November 7, 2003 , Judge Fry signed an order offering the Summary Judgment for the Commission. (Record “371”)

            On November 7, 2003 , Judge Fry signed an order denying Respondent WorldPeace’s Third Amended Motion for New Trail and Motion for JNOV Regarding the Court’s August 27, 2003 , Judgment for Disbarment.  (Record “372”)

            On November 7, 2003 , Judge Fry signed an order denying WorldPeace’s Motion for JNOV. (Record “374”)

            On November 7, 2003 , Judge Fry signed an order denying WorldPeace Second Motion to Vacate or Modify Judgment of Disbarment of August 27, 2003 . (Record “373”)

            On November 19, 2003 , WorldPeace filed his Motion (Demand) for Hearing on Respondent WorldPeace’s Motion to Compel Production.

On November 21, 2003 , WorldPeace filed WorldPeace’s Demand for Judge Fry to Set aside his Interlocutory August 27, 2003 , Judgment for Disbarment. 

REQUIREMENTS FOR MANDAMUS

1)  There is no remedy on appeal because per Rule 3.14 Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure (Appendix) a Judgment for Disbarment cannot be superseded or stayed.  

2)  Judge Fry’s actions in the underlying disciplinary petition as presiding judge are a clear abuse of discretion. 

3)  The Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct affect over 67,000 attorneys in Texas and so WorldPeace’s Application for Writ of Mandamus regarding the underlying disciplinary petition is important to the jurisprudence of the state.  There is a conflict between the courts of appeals on what constitutes a final judgment per Rule 301 TRCP and what are the limitations of this court’s ruling in Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.

ISSUE ONE

            Is it an abuse of discretion for a trial court to use a “mother hubbard” clause to attempt to dismiss issues and parties in a lawsuit that have not been adjudicated contrary to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lehmann?  

ISSUE TWO  

            Is Judge Fry’s August 27, 2003 , Judgment for Disbarment a Final Judgment per Lehmann?  

ISSUE THREE  

            Is it an abuse of discretion for Judge Fry to refuse to vacate or modify his August 27, 2003 , Judgment for Disbarment knowing the judgment is interlocutory and knowing that it has the effect of a defacto disbarment of WorldPeace.  

AUTHORITIES       

ABUSE OF DISCRETION  

            “A trial court abuses its discretion by (1) acting arbitrarily and unreasonably, without reference to any guiding rules or principles, or (2) misapplying the law to the established facts of the case.  Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W. 2d 238, 241-42 ( Tex. 1985)”

            Appleton v. Appleton , 76 S.W. 3d 78, 86 ( Tex. App.  – Hous. [14th Dist] 2002)  

“On the other hand, review of a trial court’s determination of the legal principles controlling its ruling is much less deferential.  A trial court has no ‘discretion’ in determining what the law is or applying the law to the facts.   Thus, a clear failure by the trial court to analyze or apply the law correctly will constitute an abuse of discretion and may result in appellate reversal by extraordinary writ…

            Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W. 2d 833, 839-40 (1992) (citations omitted).”

            Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company v. Abascal, 831 S.W. 2d 559, 563 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 1992)  

A trial court has no ‘discretion’ in determining what the law is or applying the law to the facts.”

            In re:  News America Publishing, Inc., 974 S.W. 2d 97, 106 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 1998)  

“Following its holding in Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W. 2d 833 ( Tex. 1992), the Court noted that “[A] clear failure by the trial court to analyze or apply the law correctly will constitute an abuse of discretion…” 842 S.W. 2d at 271.”

            Trinity Capital Corporation v. Briones, 847 S.W. 324, 326 ( Tex. App. – El Paso 1993)    

ARGUMENT  

                On April 14, 2003 , in pre-trial Judge Fry ordered a severance of all the issues in the underlying disciplinary petition (Record “47”) but refused to sign a severance order until August 27, 2003 , four months later. (Record “182”)

            The August 27, 2003, Severance order (Record “187”) granted the Commission Motion to Sever (Record “508”) the religious and political discrimination issues as well as WorldPeace issue for Intentional Infliction of Emotion al Distress.

            The Severance Order also severed the Lang and Apodoca counterclaims which were not pled by the Commission in its Motion for Severance but were severed by Judge Fry after he denied Lang’s attorney’s Motion to Dismiss. (Record “47”)

            In Judge Fry’s August 27, 2003, Judgment for Disbarment, he ordered a Rule 174 (b) separate trial of all the issues except the TDRPC violations as opposed to a Rule 41 TRCP severance per his oral rulings on April 14, 2003.  (Record “47”)

            Unfortunately for Judge Fry, Rule 41 TRCP uses the word sever, Rule 174(b) TRCP does not.

            WorldPeace had no idea that Judge Fry was talking about Rule 174(b) TRCP at pretrial because Judge Fry never mentioned a TRCP Rule number but only used the word sever. (Record “47”)

            On August 27, 2003 , Judge Fry granted the Commission Motion for No-Evidence Summary Judgment.  Within the Commission’s Motion for No-Evidence Summary were the religion and political discrimination issues and the Intentional Infliction issue that Judge Fry had severed along with the Lang and Apodoca counterclaims at pretrial and then officially into the “A” case on August 27, 2003, with his Order of Severance. (Record “182”)

            WorldPeace had complained in his response to the Commission’s Motion for No-Evidence Summary Judgment on July 21, 2003, (Record “147”) and in the Motion for a Severance Order (Record “162”) on August 5, 2003, that it was impossible to know where to file additional pleadings because the trial court refused to sign an order severing the lawsuit per his pre-trial oral rulings.

            At the November 7, 2003 , hearing WorldPeace’s Motion to Vacate, Modify, or Clarify, Judge Fry said he did not sever the Constitutional issues or religious and political discrimination but his order undeniably granted the Commission’s Motion for Severance which included those issues. (Record “508”)

            Sever has to do with Rule 41 TRCP only.  Not Rule 174(b) TRCP.  WorldPeace has a right to expect a District Judge to be judicious in his use of words.  Lawsuits are won and lost on words.  WorldPeace has a right to understand “sever” to mean Rule 41 TRCP and not Rule 174(b) TRCP separate trials in a lawsuit.

            Had Judge Fry not waited four months to sign a severance order, and not refused to have a hearing on WorldPeace’s Motion for a Severance Order, this problem would not exist. (Record “162”)

            On August 13, 2003 , WorldPeace filed a supplemental petition for Declaratory Judgment (Record “173”) but had to file it under the only case number that existed and so stated.  WorldPeace did the same with his supplemental petition against Johnell Collins which was filed on August 5, 2003 . (Record “157”)

            Judge Fry is trying to dismiss WorldPeace’s declaratory judgment issue by saying it was filed after the submission date for the Commission’s Second Motion for Summary Judgment.  Which was July 28, 2003 .

            However, Judge Fry’s Severance Order (Record “182”) created an “A” case which severed the religious and political constitutional issues and the intentional infliction of emotional distress issues into the “A” case per the Commission’s Motion to Sever. 

WorldPeace had the right to file his declaratory judgment in the “A” case.  To date this issue has not been adjudicated or severed or added to the “A” case because Judge Fry refused to Modify or Clarify his three orders of August 27, 2003 . (Record “373”)

            On November 7, 2003 , Judge Fry seemed to say he did not mean severance in his Order of Severance order but meant separate trials.  He seems to be saying that during pretrial, sever meant Rule 41 TRCP regarding Lang and Apodaca but sever meant Rule 174(b) TRCP separate trials in one lawsuit regarding WorldPeace’s religious and political unconstitutional issues.

            The problem is that the severance order granted the Commission’s Motion to Sever and also severed out Lang and Apodaca all into an “A” case.  This is right in line with the April 14, 2003 , pre-trial oral rulings.  (Record “47”)

            Not a single word was said about Rule 174(b) separate trials anywhere in the Commission’s Second Motion to Sever or in the August 27, 2003 , Severance Order. (Record “182”)

            WorldPeace alleges the declaratory judgment issues and the Collins counterclaim have not been adjudicated and even if the court could dismiss them in the primary cause number for being late filed with regards to the Commission’s Motion for No-evidence Summary Judgment, he could not dismiss them in the “A” case he created.  The court seems to be saying that he did not grant the Commission’s Motion to Sever the religious and political (free speech) issues.  Yet Judge Fry granted the Commission’s Motion that said just that.

            WorldPeace would show the court that there is no way to reconcile the Severance Order and the Judgment for Disbarment and the order granting the Commission’s Motion for No-Evidence Summary Judgment.

            WorldPeace would show the court that Judge Fry on November 7, 2003 , refused to even consider rewriting his orders to make sense.

THE COMMISSION’S SECOND AMENDED MOTION FOR

NO-EVIDENCE Summary Judgment  

            To add more problems, the Summary Judgment did not address all the issues or specify the elements of the majority of issues it challenged per Rule 166a(i) TRCP.

The court’s order granting the Commission’s Motion for Summary Judgment did not contain a “mother hubbard” clause.  Therefore, all issues and parties in DEFENDAN’T SEVENTH AMENDED ORIGINAL ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM AND THIRD PARTY CLAIMS not specifically addressed in the Commission’s Second Amended Motion for No-evidence Summary Judgment and not tried (only the rule violations were tried) were not adjudicated and the August 27, 2003, Judgment for Disbarment is therefore interlocutory because it is therefore, not a final judgment per Rule 301 TRCP or per Lehmann.

A.  Issues not addressed by the

No-evidence Summary Judgment  

The following issues in DEFENDANT’S SEVENTH AMENDED ORIGINAL ANSWER AND THIRD PARTY CLAIMS were not addressed in the Commission’s Second Amended Motion for No Evidence Summary Judgment nor were they tried to the jury nor were they severed into the “A” case.

            1.  WorldPeace’s defense regarding a “suit within a suit”. (Record “94”)

            2.  WorldPeace’s Constitutional counterclaim for violations of his Constitutional rights against self incrimination.  (Under the heading regarding Rule 801 and 804 TDRPC) (Record “95”)

            3.  WorldPeace’s affirmative defense of Res Judicata regarding Johnell Collins and the Commission. (Record “86 & 96”)

            4.  WorldPeace defense and Constitution counterclaim regarding multiple complainants in one disciplinary petition.

            Since the above issues were not adjudicated, the August 27, 2003 , Judgment for Disbarment, is interlocutory per Rule 301 TRCP.

B.  ISSUES FOR WHICH THE NO-EVIDENCE SUMMARY JUDGMENT LISTED NO ELEMENTS  

The ELEMENTS of the following issues in WorldPeace’s Seventh Amended Original Answer and Counterclaim that were listed in the Commission’s Second Amended Motion for No-Evidence Summary Judgment were not specifically listed as mandated by Rule 166a(i).  (No elements)

1.  WorldPeace’s equal protection rights.  (Record “88”)

2.  WorldPeace’s issue regarding awarding attorney fees to the Commission (Record “90”) and WorldPeace’s counterclaim for attorneys fees. (Record “91”)

3. Violations of WorldPeace Constitutional due process rights (Record “91”)

4.  WorldPeace issue regarding unconstitutional range of punishment (Record “92”)

5.  WorldPeace’s Constitutional counterclaims regarding oppressive, arbitrary, and capricious nature of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. (Record “92”)

5.  WorldPeace’s counterclaims for Rule 13 TRCP and Chapter 9 & 10 TCP & RC violations (The Commission did not list all the elements in Chapter 9 & 10). (Record “88”)

            It was an abuse of discretion for the court to grant a summary judgment on these issues where the Commission did not follow the mandatory (MUST) dictates of Rule 166a(i) TRCP and specifically list the ELEMENTS of the issues which the Commission claims WorldPeace had no evidence.        

            Since the ELEMENTS of these issues were not specifically identified by the Commission in its Second Amended Motion for No-Evidence Summary Judgment, they could not be adjudicated and the August 27, 2003, Judgment for Disbarment is interlocutory per Rule 301 TRCP.  Judge Fry tried to dismiss these causes of action with a “mother hubbard” clause.

TRCP Rule 166a(i) states, to wit: After adequate time for discovery, a party without presenting summary judgment evidence may move for summary judgment on the ground that there is no evidence of one or more essential elements of a claim or defense on which an adverse party would have the burden of proof at trial.  The motion must state the elements as to which there is no evidence.  The court must grant the motion unless the respondent produces summary judgment evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact.  

            The motion must be specific in alleging a lack of evidence on an essential element of a cause of action, but need not specifically attack the evidentiary components that may prove an element of the cause of action.”

            Miller v. Elliott, 94 S.W. 3d 38, 42 ( Tex. App. – Tyler 2002)  

            After adequate time for discovery and without presenting summary judgment evidence, a party is permitted by rule of civil procedure 166a(i) to move for summary judgment on the ground that no evidence supports one or more essential specified elements of an adverse party’s claim or defense on which the adverse party would have the burden of proof at trial.”

            Howell v. Hilton Hotels Corp, 84 S.W. 3d 708, 715 ( Tex. App. – Hous. [1st Dist.] 2002)  

            The motion for summary judgment may not be general, but must state the elements on which there is no evidence

            Jordan v. Landry’s Seafood Restaurant, Inc., 89 S.W. 3d 737, 741 ( Tex. App. – Hous. [1st Dist.] 2002)  

C.  INJUNCTIVE RELIEF – ISSUE NOT PLED

WORLDPEACE’S SEVENTH AMENDED ORIGINAL ANSWER AND COUNTERLAIM AND THIRD PARTY CLAIMS (Record “83”) timely filed seven days prior to the date of the Commission’s submission date of July 28, 2003, for its Second Amended Motion for No-Evidence Summary Judgment, added a cause of action for injunctive relief (Record “143”) that was not pled in the Commission’s Second Amended Motion for No-Evidence Summary Judgment.

Because the injunction issue was not pled in the Commission’s Second Amended Motion for No-Evidence Summary Judgment, it was not adjudicated and the August 27, 2003, Judgment for Disbarment is interlocutory per Rule 301 TRCP.

“Jones is not inconsistent with our holding today to the extent Jones is understood as approving suits for injunctive relief.”

            City of Beaumont v. Bouillion, 896 SW2d 143 ( Tex. 1995)  

            “In Bouillion, the Texas Supreme Court held that the Texas Constitution does not create a private right of action for money damages, but that this rule does not preclude plaintiffs from seeking “equitable” relief for violations of their constitutional rights.”

            O’Bryant v. City of Midland , 949 SW2d 406 (Tex.App.- Austin, 1997)  

            “However, suits brought pursuant to constitutional provisions are limited to equitable relief and do not allow a claim for monetary damages except to the extent specifically enunciated in the constitutional provision.”

            Nueces County v. Ferguson , 97 SW3d 205 (Tex.App – Corpus Christi, 2003)  

“We 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.”

Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.; 39 S.W. 3d 191, 192-3 ( Tex. 2001)

D.  42 USCA § 1983 – NOT PLED BY RESPONDENT

WorldPeace never pled for damages related to his Constitutional issues but pled only for injunctive relief.  42 US Code § 1983 is irrelevant.

E.  COMMISSION’S GENERAL DEMURER

The Commission entered a general demurrer when it wrongly stated in its Second Amended Motion for No-evidence Summary Judgment that the only cause of action for Constitutional violations that Respondent WorldPeace had was provided by 42 USCA § 1983.  (See Page 7, last sentence in the Commission’s Second Amended Motion for No-evidence Summary Judgment)

Summary judgment should not be based on a pleading deficiency such as whether a cause of action has been sufficiently pled.  Massey v. Armco Steel Co., 652 S.W. 2d 932, 934 ( Tex. 1983); Texas Dep’t of Corrections v. Herring, 513 S.W. 2d 6, 10 ( Tex. 1974).  A plaintiff should be allowed to amend an insufficient pleading to cure the defect.  Herring, 513 S.W. 2d at 10.  Special exceptions are used to challenge the sufficiency of a pleading.  Tex. R. Civ. P. 91.  Amendment is a matter of right under special exception practices.  Estate of Bourland v. Hanes, 526 S.W. 2d 156, 159 (Tex. Civ. App. – Corpus Christi 1975, writ ref’d n.r.e.).  The right to replead should not be circumvented by a motion for summary judgment on the pleadings.

            Garza v. State of Texas , 878 S.W. 2d 671, 673-4 (Tex App. – Corpus Christi 1994).

            In general, it is improper to grant a summary judgment on a deficient pleading’s failure to state a cause of action when the deficiency can be attacked through a special exception.  Texas Dep’t of Corrections v. Herring, 513 S.W. 2d 6, 9-10 ( Tex. 1974).  To grant summary judgment on that ground would revive the general demurrer discarded by rule 90 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 10; see also In re B.I.V., 870 S.W. 2d 12, 13 ( Tex. 1994).  Before a court may grant a “no cause of action” summary judgment, the nonmovant must be given adequate opportunity to plead a viable cause of action.  Pietila v. Crites, 851 S. W. 2d 185, 186 n. 2 ( Tex. 1993); Massey v. Armco Steel Co., 652 S.W. 2d 932, 934 ( Tex. 1983).

            Lewis v. Skippy’s Mistake Bar, 944 S.W. 2d 1, 1 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 1996)

            Texas does not have a general demurrer due to Rule 90 TRCP and therefore the Commission was required to file a motion for special exceptions before WorldPeace’s Constitutional issues or any other non TDRPC Rule issues (which were tried) could be dismissed by summary judgment.

            Since the Commission did not file for special exceptions, the issues listed in Section A, B and C above were not adjudicated and therefore the August 27, 2003 , Judgment for Disbarment is interlocutory per Rule 301 TRCP regarding one final judgment.

            Judge Fry by his language in the November 7, 2003, hearing where he said WorldPeace would appeal is an indication that Judge Fry  considered his Judgment for Disbarment to be final.  The Judgment for disbarment is not final per Rule 301 TRCP because it does not adjudicate all of WorldPeace’s causes of action and defenses.

            The intent of Judge Fry is a defacto disbarment of WorldPeace by signing a Judgment for Disbarment and claiming it is a Rule 301 TRCP final judgment when it is interlocutory.

SUMMARY

            The August 27, 2003 , Judgment for Disbarment is not a final judgment per Rule 301 TRCP or per Lehmann.

            There is no question but that WorldPeace’s constitutional issues, his injunctive relief issue and declaratory judgment issues were never adjudicated.  There is no question but that the Commission did not specify elements of most of WorldPeace’s causes of action that had no evidentiary support.

            There is no question but that Judge Fry’s August 27, 2003 , orders do not support each other.  The Judgment for Disbarment speaks of a Rule 174(b) TRCP separate trial in one lawsuit and Judge Fry never said this in pre-trial.  Judge Fry only talked about severance (Rule 41 TRCP) at pre-trial.

            The problem is that it is an abuse of discretion to sever compulsory counterclaims and it is reversible.  The Lang and Apodaca cases should not have been severed. 

            Judge Fry refused to modify his August 27, 2003 , orders to make sense.

            It is an abuse of discretion to defacto disbar WorldPeace by refusing to modify or vacate Judge Fry’s Judgment for Disbarment which he knows is interlocutory but is preventing WorldPeace from practicing law.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Relator moves this court to mandamus Judge Fry to vacate or modify his Judgment for Disbarment of August 27, 2003 , and for such other and further relief at law or in equity as this court may deem proper.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

_______________________________
John WorldPeace
2620 Fountainview,
Suite 106
Houston , Texas 77057
Tel. 713-784-7618
Fax. 713-784-9063
TBA No. 21872800
 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

            I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading was forwarded to opposing counsel and Judge Fry on November 24, 2003 , by fax and to the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas on November 24, 2003 , via HAND DELIVERY.

                                                                                                                                                            
John WorldPeace  

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE  

            Opposing Counsel opposes the RELATOR’S APPLICATION FOR MANDAMUS.  

____________________________________
                                                                        John WorldPeace  

APPENDIX  

EXHIBIT LIST  

EXHIBIT       DESCRIPTION

A.  August 27, 2003              Judgment for Disbarment  

B.  August 27, 2003              Order Granting Petitioner’s Second Motion for No Evidence Summary Judgment  

C.  August 27, 2003              Order of Severance  

D.  November 7, 2003         Order on WorldPeace’s Second Amended Motion to Vacate or Modify Judgment of Disbarment of August 27, 2003  

E.  November 7, 2003          Order on WorldPeace’s Third Amended Motion for New Trial  

F.  November 7, 2003          Order on WorldPeace’s Motion for JNOV  

G.  November 7, 2003         Order on Respondent’s Motion for Rehearing on Petitioner’s Second Motion for No Evidence Summary Judgment  

Rule 3.14  Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure

Rule 13  Texas Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 41  Texas Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 174(b)  Texas Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 301  Texas Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 166a(i)  Texas Rules of Civil Procedure

Chapter 9 & 10 Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code

 

NO. 03-1083

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF TEXAS

______________________________

 

IN RE:

JOHN WORLDPEACE

______________________________

 

Re:  Cause No. 2002-42081; Commission for Lawyers Discipline v. John WorldPeace, 269th District Court

Harris County , Texas

______________________________________________________________________

 

AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN WORLDPEACE, ATTORNEY AT LAW

______________________________________________________________________

STATE OF TEXAS

COUNTY OF HARRIS  

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared the affiant, John WorldPeace, who being by me first duly sworn, on his oath stated:  

My name is John WorldPeace, I am over 21 years of age, of sound mind, capable of making this affidavit and fully competent to testify to the matters stated herein, have personal knowledge of each of the matters stated herein, and the facts contained in this affidavit are true.           

The exhibits in the Appendix attached to RELATOR’S Application for Writ of Mandamus are true and correct copies of the originals.  

The transcript of the November 7, 2003 , hearing is a part of my business records, kept in the normal course of business.  I recorded the hearing with two tape recorders and had my legal assistant transcribe the tapes and then I listened to the tapes and read the transcript and then edited the transcript.  It is a standard practice of mine to record and transcribe parts or all of hearings as needed.”  

Further affiant sayeth not.”  

__________________________________
                                                                        John WorldPeace  

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on this _______ day of _________________, 2003.  

____________________________________
                                                                        NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE 
                                                                        STATE OF
TEXAS

RECORD  

A.  August 20, 2002               ORIGINAL DISCIPLINARY PETITION (Commission v. WorldPeace)  

B.  November 8, 2002           COMMISSIONER’S FIRST AMENDED DISCIPLINARY PETITION adding five Complainants  

C.  January 16, 2003              COMMISSION’S SECOND AMENDED DISCIPLINARY PETITION  

D.  April 14, 2003                  Reporter’s Record from Pre-trial Regarding Severance  

E.  April 23, 2003                  JUDGMENT FOR DISBARMENT  

F.  July 23, 2003                    ORDER SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENT FOR DISBARMENT  

G.  July 1, 2003                      PETITIONER’S SECOND MOTION FOR NO-EVIDENCE SUMMARY JUDGMENT  

H.  July 21, 2003                    WORLDPEACE’S SEVENTH AMENDED ORIGINAL ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD PARTY CLAIMS  

I.  July 21, 2003                     RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO PETITONER’S SECOND MOTION FOR NO-EVIDENCE SUMMARY JUDGMENT  

J.  August 5, 2003                  WORLDPEACE’S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM REGARDS TO COLLINS  

K.  August 5, 2003                 WORLDPEACE’S MOTION FOR ORDER OF SEVERANCE AND REQUEST FOR HEARING  

L.  August 13, 2003               WORLDPEACE’S SUPPLEMENTAL THIRD PARTY PETITION  

M.  August 27, 2003              JUDGMENT FOR DISBARMENT  

N.  August 27, 2003               ORDER OF SEVERANCE  

O.  August 27, 2003               ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR NO-EVIDENCE SUMMARY JUDGMENT  

P.  September 26, 2003         WORLDPEACE’S SECOND AMENDED MOTION TO VACATE OR MODIFY JUDGMENT OF DISBARMENT OF AUGUST 27, 2003                                                            

Q.  September 26, 2003       RESPONDENT WORLDPEACE’S THIRD AMENDED MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL AND MOTION FOR JNOV REGARDING THE COURT’S AUGUST 27, 2003, JUDGMENT FOR DISBARMENT  

R.  October 31, 2003             RESPONDENT’S AMENDED MOTION FOR REHEARING ON PETITIONER’S SECOND MOTION FOR NO EVIDENCE SUMMARY JUDGMENT  

S.  November 5, 2003            RESPONDENT’S SHORT HAND RENDITION REGARDING RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO MODIFY, AND PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT  

T.  November 7, 2003            ORDER ON RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING ON PETITIONER’S SECOND MOTION FOR NO EVIDENCE SUMMARY JUDGMENT  

U.  November 7, 2003           ORDER ON WORLDPEACE’S THIRD AMENDED MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL  

V.  November 7, 2003           ORDER ON WORLDPEACE’S SECOND AMENDED MOTION TO VACATE OR MODIFY JUDGMENT OF DISBARMENT OF          AUGUST 27, 2003  

W.  November 7, 2003          ORDER ON WORLDPEACE’S MOTION FOR JNOV

 X.  November 7, 2003           Transcript from Hearing on Motions  

Y.  November 19, 2003         MOTION (DEMAND) FOR HEARING ON RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION  

Z.  November 21, 2003         WORLDPEACE’S DEMAND FOR JUDGE FRY TO SET ASIDE HIS INTERLOCUTORY AUGUST 27, 2003 , JUDGMENT FOR DISBARMENT  

AA.  November 5, 2003         RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO VACATE, MODIFY, OR CLARIFY THE COURT’S ORDER OF SEVERANCE DATED AUGUST 27, 2003  

AB.  November 5, 2003        RESPONDENT WORLDPEACE’S FOURTH AMENDED MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL AND MOTION FOR JNOV REGARDING THE COURT’S AUGUST 27, 2003, JUDGMENT FOR DISBARMENT  

AC.  April 9, 20003              PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR SEVERANCE  

AD. November 7, 2003         WorldPeace’s Transcript of November 7, 2003 Hearing

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]
The WorldPeace Banner

[THE WORLDPEACE SIGN][THE WORLDPEACE SIGN]

 

 

 

 

 



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