![[THE WORLDPEACE SIGN]](wppin.gif)
![[THE WORLDPEACE SIGN]](pinquarter.jpg)
NO. 2002-42081
COMMISSION FOR
LAWYER
§ IN THE DISTRICT COURT
DISCIPLINE
§
§
V. §
§
JOHN WORLDPEACE § 269TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
RESPONDENT’S
RESPONSE TO
PETITIONER’S
SECOND MOTION FOR NO EVIDENCE SUMMARY JUDGMENT
COMES NOW, WorldPeace and files this
RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S SECOND MOTION FOR NO
EVIDENCE SUMMARY JUDGMENT and would show the court the followings.
FACTS
In pretrial, the court severed the Respondent, WorldPeace’s mandatory counter claims against Apodaca and Lang. The court also severed WorldPeace’s mandatory constitutional counter claims against Dawn Miller and J. G. Molleston. The court made no comment specifically about WorldPeace’s mandatory counter claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court did however state that it was going to try only the TDRPC Rule violations.
The trial court did not sign a formal order severing the case but the court did in fact try only the Rule violations. Since the court did not sign a formal order severing the case, the local rules were not followed in that each of the severed cases were not assigned a new case number.
ARGUMENT
– IMPROPER SEVERANCE
PROCEDURAL
ERROR
Petitioner’s Motion for No Evidence Summary Judgment is void because it references a case that is in limbo. According to the court’s pre trial verbal order of severance, cause no. 2002-42081, was tried. There was no severance order signed by the court and therefore, per the local rules, there was no new case numbers assigned to the severed cases. Therefore, the summary judgment filed by Petitioner does not relate to any specific cause no. other than the one that has been tried in part.
WorldPeace has a right to amend his pleadings without leave of court seven days prior to trial per Rule 63 TRCP. WorldPeace has amended his Answer and Counter Claim but since there is no case number assigned, WorldPeace was forced to file his Seventh amended petition under the only cause number that presently exist in this matter.
If this matter had been properly severed per the local rules, WorldPeace would have been able to properly sever his Response and Mandatory Counter Claims and file them under the proper severed case no.
WorldPeace would show the court that before this matter can proceed any further the court must properly sever the lawsuit per the local rules where each severed part becomes a separate case with a separate cause number. Without this proper severance, all orders in this lawsuit remain interlocutory and not subject to appeal.
WorldPeace would show that the court cannot consider summary judgments after the case in chief has been tried.
In a word, and with all due respect, the court did not familiarize itself with the local rules and the court in this and in several other areas relied upon the State Bar attorneys to properly guide the court.
WorldPeace would show the court that his counter claims against the State Bar have to do with the arbitrary application of the law to disciplinary cases. There is no question but Dawn Miller filed suit on WorldPeace after the statute of limitations ran ten years ago. There is no question but that the State Bar violated Rules 3.01, 3.02 and 3.03 in adding the additional complaints to this lawsuit. There is no question but that this lawsuit was improperly severed.
There is no question that the State Bar attorneys are either incompetent or malicious and should be disbarred.
ARGUMENT
– IMPROPER SEVERANCE
MANDATORY COUNTER CLAIMS
The case law is significant in relation to mandatory counter claims. To sever a mandatory counter claim is an abuse of discretion. (See WorldPeace Motion to Modify Judgment of Disbarment for the relevant case law.)
Further, mandatory counter claims must be tried with the case in chief.
If this court severs the mandatory counter claims by order per the local rules, it will be an abuse of discretion.
ARGUMENT
– RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S
MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
No where in his Answer and Counter Claim did WorldPeace allege damages for the violation of his constitutional rights.
WorldPeace stated that the only solution to these violations was to disband the grievance process and allow individuals to sue attorneys directly under TDRPC causes of action. That plea was a plea for injunctive relief and injunctive relief can be awarded in constitutional causes of action.
“Jones
is not inconsistent with our holding today to the extent Jones is understood as
approving suits for injunctive relief.”
City of
“In
Bouillion, the
O’Bryant
v. City of
“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.”
Mr. Molleston has based his entire Motion for No Evidence Summary Judgment on a damages cause of action. There was no such demand and therefore the Commission’s motion is irrelevant. Molleston states in Section B that the only award is one for damages and ignores the equity remedies that are allowed for constitutional violations of individual rights.
Mr.
Molleston did not plead that there was no evidence of the elements of a cause
of action for injunctive relief.
In regards to WorldPeace’s Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress cause of action, the court did not determine whether it was to be tried as a case by itself or to be tried with the constitutional issues or the Apodaca or the Lang counter claims. Therefore, it is not a proper subject for summary judgment at this time under the original case number.
` WorldPeace has a right to know which causes of action are grouped together and which are not. Since there is no order by the court on this issue per the local rules, the Intentional Infliction cause of action is not properly before this court.
NO
STATEMENT BY THE COMMISSION AS TO WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS
In its motion for no evidence summary judgment, the Commission did not state the necessary elements for a cause of action for a violation of ones due process rights, violation of ones religious freedom rights, violation of ones equal protection rights, violations of ones right against self incrimination.
Therefore, the Commission has not satisfied the requirements of Rule 166a(i) in its pleading regarding stating the elements to which there is no evidence.
The Commission has tried to rename the facts alleged by WorldPeace in his counter petition as elements. Facts are not elements. Facts support elements. Mr. Molleston is required to list the elements of each constitutional cause of action and plead that there is no evidence to support those elements. Mr. Molleston has not pled a single element that relates to either due process, equal protection, self incrimination or religious freedom. All he has done is to controvert with unsworn testimony the facts alleged by WorldPeace.
Mr. Molleston seems to be saying that whatever the elements are, I controvert all the facts alleged by WorldPeace. Consequently, Mr. Molleston’s Motion for No Evidence Summary Judgment is defective because it is not consistent with the requirements of Rule 166a(i).
Out of an abundance of caution, WorldPeace has attached a sworn affidavit that supports the facts alleged in his Seventh Amended Answer and Counter Claim.
Mr.
Molleston did not plead that there was no evidence of the elements of a cause
of action for injunctive relief.
WORLDPEACE’S
AMENDED PETITION
Due to the confusion regarding the severance of this lawsuit, WorldPeace has submitted a bare bones Seventh Amended Petition which adds a specific plea for injunctive relief. WorldPeace cannot properly sever his Answer and Counter Claim because there is no severance of the case into different cases per the local rules. Therefore, for now, the entire case must be plead under one cause of action. When the severance order is signed, WorldPeace will properly sever his answer and mandatory counter claims.
SUMMARY
WorldPeace would show the court that the State Bar attorneys are incompetent to try any lawsuit, that they have lied to the court, that they have refused to abide by the Rules of Disciplinary Procedure and the Rules of Civil Procedure, they have obstructed discovery, they have submitted a clearly wrong Judgment for Disbarment, and they have violated numerous TDRPC Rules for which they should be individually disbarred.
This is in addition to the underlying violations of WorldPeace constitutional rights by the State Bar attorneys in the pre-litigation grievance process.
As further evidence, WorldPeace would submit the defective Rule 166a(i) Motion for No Evidence Summary Judgment filed by the Commission.
PRAYER
Wherefore, premises considered, WorldPeace prays this court to deny the Commission’s Motion for No Evidence Summary Judgment and for such other and further relief at law or in equity as this court deems 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
John
WorldPeace
NO. 2002-42081
COMMISSION FOR
LAWYER
§ IN THE DISTRICT COURT
DISCIPLINE
§
§
V. §
§
JOHN WORLDPEACE § 269TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN
WORLDPEACE
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared John WorldPeace, who being by me first duly sworn, on his oath did depose and state as follows:
WorldPeace created a Bill of
Exception at trial which proved that the State Bar was manipulating the
committees which investigated the grievances against him because the majority
of the grievances went to the same committee.
Further, Alan Levine, a member of that committee is Jewish and was
offended by WorldPeace’s statements regarding his article on Ariel Sharon on
his web page.
Further, in the Nash grievance
video, Levine was heard to say that she could go out the door and hire any
number of legitimate attorneys. The
reference is that WorldPeace is not a legitimate attorney and shows an
additional bias against WorldPeace that was known by the State Bar. This is a fact question for the jury.
Further, as a Bill of Exception,
WorldPeace proved that his grievance for an undeniable violation by McNab
Miller of the confidentiality rule was dismissed by the State Bar.
Further, Collins admitted violating
the confidentiality rule at trial is not an attorney and so there is not remedy
against Collins for the violation and yet WorldPeace can be disbarred for the
same. This is a violation of WorldPeace
rights of equal protection.
WorldPeace would also show the
court that he filed a grievance on J. G. Molleston for lying to this court
about adding other complaints to an existing lawsuit and not filing them with
the Clerk of the Supreme Court and other
undeniable TDRPC violations and the complaint was dismissed by the State Bar
because Molleston works for the State Bar.
There is no question but that the
State Bar attorneys violated Rule 3.01 of the TRDP by not filing the additional
five complaints added to this lawsuit with the clerk of the Supreme Court. This violated WorldPeace rights to due
process.
It is a fact that Dawn Miller,
attorney for the State Bar in this lawsuit, filed suit against WorldPeace ten
years ago after the statute of limitations had run. There is evidence that Dawn Miller’s actions
against WorldPeace in the grievance process such as violating Rule 3.01 TRDP is
the same as her violation of the statute of limitations ten years ago.
It is a fact that the grievance
filed by John Lynch was frivolous in that he never paid WorldPeace to take his
case and the jury did not find against WorldPeace.
There is no question but that
WorldPeace was disbarred for invoking his rights against self incrimination
under the
There is no question but that
WorldPeace was offered private and public reprimands in the Apodaca, Lynch and
Collins grievances and when WorldPeace refused those offers suit was filed
against WorldPeace which was a substantive public reprimand. Therefore, the offers were coercive and
unconstitutional violation of WorldPeace due process rights.
There is evidence that the Rule
violations for which the court signed a Judgment for Disbarment stated that
WorldPeace was disbarred for each violation of the Rules. This punishment was arbitrary and abusive:
not considering the fact that the court did not find that in its judgment
against WorldPeace at trial but it was added by Molleston.
There was evidence at trial that
the State Bar did not incur any attorney fees outside its staff attorneys who
were not hired to specifically proceed against WorldPeace and therefore no
attorney fees were incurred by the State Bar.
Further, J G Molleston further testified that he is paid $27 per hour by
the State Bar which is less than the $150 pled by Molleston as attorney fees
which is a violation of the TDRPC in that Molleston lied to the court.
There is evidence that the State
Bar did not put on expert testimony to prove what a reasonably prudent attorney
would have done.
There is evidence that the
grievance process is arbitrary and the case law in this state indicates that an
attorney has no due process rights in the grievance process prior to the State
Bar filing suit and yet an attorney does have due process rights if he elects
an evidentiary hearing as opposed to a trial de novo. The grievance process either affords due
process rights or it does not. It is a
violation of WorldPeace due process rights when the grievance process is
subject to due process or not depending on WorldPeace election regarding a
trial de novo or evidential hearing after the fact that an investigatory
hearing has taken place. In other words,
rights exist or do not exist retroactively.
There is evidence that the State
Bar prosecuted WorldPeace on the Colllins matter when the matter was barred by
res judicata.
There is evidence that the State
Bar sued for damages on behalf of WorldPeace ex-clients and these clients were
awarded restitution when there were no trust monies proved to be owed to any
complainant except Collins.
There is a violation of WorldPeace
constitutional rights in that a non attorney is determining whether or not a
grievance should be dismissed or classified as a complaint by way of the
testimony of Robert Mapes at trial.
My rights to religious freedom, my
rights against self-incrimination, my rights to due process and equal
protection under the law have been violated as evidenced by the above facts which
are all supported by the trial record.
There is more than a scintilla of
evidence on each of these violations.
There is no question but that Dawn Miller has a pattern and practice of violating the law in filing suit against WorldPeace. She violated the statute of limitations and now she has violated Rule 3.01 of the TRDP.
John WorldPeace
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on this ____ day of _________, 2003.
NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE
STATE OF
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