NO. 2002-42081

COMMISSION FOR LAWYER                 §          IN THE DISTRICT COURT
DISCIPLINE                                                 §
                                                                        §
V.                                                                    §          HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
                                                                        §
JOHN WORLDPEACE                                §          269TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

WORLDPEACE'S BRIEF OF RULE 3.01, 3.02, AND 3.03 TRDP
REGARDING JURISDICTION

 TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT

             COMES NOW, WorldPeace and files this WORLDPEACE'S BRIEF OF RULE 3.01, 3.02, AND 3.03 TRDP REGARDING JURISDICTION and would show the court the following:

            WorldPeace would show the court that unless a court has personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, or jurisdiction to enter a particular judgment, any order that the court issues is void per the following case law.

            WorldPeace would show the court that the only way that a judge can acquire jurisdiction over a disciplinary action is if the Commission for Lawyer Discipline files a petition per Rule 3.01 of TRDP with the clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas.

            WorldPeace would show the court that Rule 3.03 TRDP states that a copy of the Supreme Court's appointing order must be sent to the Chief Disciplinary Counsel.  Without this appointing order, that can only come from the Supreme Court, there is no jurisdiction for a judge to acquire jurisdiction over an attorney or a disciplinary action. 

            When the Commission for Lawyer Discipline added five additional complaints on November 8, 2002, to the already existing petition that was filed on August 20, 2002, against WorldPeace, the arbitrary adding of those five additional complaints did not invest this court with personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, nor jurisdiction to enter a judgment against WorldPeace.

            There is nothing in the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure that gives the Commission for Lawyer Discipline or a judge the authority to usurp the Supreme Court's sole jurisdiction to appoint a judge to hear a disciplinary petition after it is filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court as is mandated by Rule 3.01 TRDP.  There is no authority in the TRDP for the Commission for Lawyer Discipline to file additional disciplinary petitions anywhere but with the Clerk of the Supreme Court.

            Only in the case of the Supreme Court appointing the same judge to hear all actions and complaints would the judge have the authority to consolidate separate lawsuits without filing a motion with the Clerk or the Supreme Court.  There is nothing in the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure that speaks to the consolidation of lawsuits when two different judges have been appointed.

AUTHORITIES

            “A judgment is void only when it is apparent that the court rendering the judgment had no jurisdiction of the parties, no jurisdiction of the subject matter, no jurisdiction to enter the judgment, or no capacity to act as a court.”  Mapco, Inc. v. Forrest, 795 SW2d 700, 703 (Tex. 1990)

Masonite Corp. v. Garcia, 951 SW2d 812, 819 (Tex. App. San Antonio, 1997)

            We further explained it was only a trial court judgment rendered without “jurisdictional power” in the sense of lack of subject matter jurisdiction that could be set aside by the trial court at any time.

            A judgment is void only when it is apparent that the court rendering the judgment had no jurisdiction of the parties, no jurisdiction of the subject matter, no jurisdiction to enter the judgment, or no capacity to act as a court.

            Mapco, Inc v. Forrest, 795 SW2d 700, 703 (Tex. 1990)

            A judgment is void only when it is apparent that the court rendering the judgment “had no jurisdiction of the parties, no jurisdiction of the subject matter, no jurisdiction to enter the judgment, or no capacity to act as a court.”  Browning v. Placke, 698 SW2d 362,363.

            Cook v. Cameron, 733 SW2d 137, 140 (Tex. 1987)

            And a judgment is void only when it is shown that the court had no jurisdiction of the parties or property, no jurisdiction of the subject matter, no jurisdiction to enter the particular judgment or no capacity to act as a court.

            Browning v. Placke, 698 SW2d 362, 363 (Tex. 1985)

            (1) As previously noted, the Rules provide that it "is the Complaint" that is heard in the trial at district court.  See id. at 2.14.  We also take note of the fact that the Rules define "Complaint" to include not only that which appears on the face of the written matters received by the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel, but also that which arises upon screening or preliminary investigation of the written matters received. Id. at 1.06(F).  We conclude that the allegations in the petition of the Commission for Lawyer Discipline may include both allegations that are a part of the original complaint as well as those that appear during the preliminary investigation of those matters.  We note that one Court of Appeals has held that in such a suit the commission for Lawyer Discipline may bring as many claims in the district court proceeding as it might have against the attorney.  See Diaz v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline, 953 S.W.2d 435, 437 (Tex.App.--Austin 1997, no writ.  We believe, however, that the allegations that the commission may bring in district court are limited in the manner as described here.  In any event, all of the complaints brought by the commission for Lawyer Discipline in this case were either part of the original complaint or appeared during the preliminary investigation of that complaint.

            Weiss v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline, 981 SW2d 8, 14 (Tex.App-SanAntonio, 1998)

            The case was governed by part III of the Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.  The various provisions in Part III make it quite clear that district court proceedings thereunder are original and independent proceedings.  They are not proceedings in which the court is called upon to review an action taken in the administrative proceedings that were interrupted by the lawyer's removal of the case to district court.  In such court proceedings, "the Texas Rules of Civil procedure apply" save as they may be varied by the Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.

Tex.R. Disciplinary P.3.08(b).  In ordinary civil suits in district court, a plaintiff may join as independent claims "as many claims...as he may have against an opposing party." 

Tex. Rule Civ. P.51(a).  Nothing in the Rules of Disciplinary Procedure purports to vary

Rule 51(a).

            Diaz v. CLD, 953 SW2d 435, 437 (Tex. App-Austin, 1997)

            Subject matter jurisdiction is never presumed and cannot be waived.
            Tex. Ass'n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W. 2d 440, 443-44 (Tex. 1993)

PRAYER

            WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, WorldPeace prays this court to vacate its Judgment of Disbarment dated April 23, 2003, and for such other and further relief at law or in equity as this court may deem proper.                                                                       

                                                                          Respectfully submitted,

                                                                        __________________________________
                                                                        John WorldPeace
                                                                        TBA No. 21872800
                                                                        2620 Fountain View, Suite 106
                                                                        Houston, Texas   77057
                                                                        Tel:  713-784-7618
                                                                        Fax:  713-784-9063 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

            I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading was forwarded to opposing counsel on June 20, 2003.

                                                                         ______________________________
                                                                         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

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