Attorney at Law
2620 Fountain View, Suite 106
Houston, Texas 77057
Tel. 713-784-7618 Fax. 713-784-9063
Honorable Olen Underwood
301 N. Main Street, Suite 201
Conroe, Texas 77301 via fax at: 936-538-8167
No.: 2002-42081; Commission for
Lawyer Discipline vs. John WorldPeace; In the 269th Judicial District
Court of Harris County, Texas
To the Honorable Judge Underwood,
To the Honorable Judge Underwood,
1) WORLDPEACE’S OBJECTION TO ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE UNDERWOOD PRESIDING OVER WORLDPEACE’S MOTION TO RECUSE, JUDGE FRY IN THE UNDERLYING LAWSUIT
Objection was mailed to you by CMRRR Friday morning, October 13, 2003.
thrust of my objection is that only the Supreme Court of Texas can assign a
judge to a disciplinary action or assign a judge to hear a recusal of an
assigned judge. It seems the intent
of Rule 3.02 TRDP is to prevent any judge in the Administrative Judicial Region
in which the Respondent attorney resides from presiding over the lawsuit.
2) The following motions
need to be heard:
2003: WORLDPEACE’S MOTION TO
COMPEL J.G. MOLLESTON TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS (Regarding Rule 3.01 TRDP)
WorldPeace alleges that Judge Fry had no authority to hear five of the
six grievances in the underlying case because they were added ten weeks after
the original disciplinary petition was filed without filing them with the Clerk
of the Supreme Court of Texas per Rule 3.01 TRDP.
Mr. Molleston, attorney for the Commission for Lawyer Discipline,
admitted that he did not follow Rule 3.01 TRDP regarding the additional
grievances but that the Commission had done it before.
WorldPeace challenged Molleston to produce any such cases which he has
refused to do because no such cases exist and Mr. Molleston is subject to being
disbarred for lying to the court. There
are no appealed disciplinary cases in the last twelve years (TRDP was effective
1991) that are on point and no matching fact patterns.
Therefore, the only relevant cases would be cases tried in the state of
Texas but not appealed. Only Mr.
Molleston could find these cases and he has refused to do so.
Judge Fry’s Judgment for Disbarment regarding these five additional
grievances is void for want of jurisdiction.
Further, the first grievance was tried to conclusion two months before
trial began in the underlying case. Therefore,
the first grievance was bared by res
judicata. WorldPeace added the
Commission to the prior case but the Court dismissed the Commission from that
lawsuit and Judge Fry severed all mandatory counterclaims which is an abuse of
2003: WORLDPEACE’S MOTION FOR
ORDER OF SEVERANCE AND REQUEST FOR HEARING
26, 2003: WORLDPEACE’S SECOND
AMENDED MOTION TO VACATE OR MODIFY JUDGMENT OF DISBARMENT OF AUGUST 27, 2003
26, 2003: WORLDPEACE’S THIRD
AMENDED MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL AND MOTION FOR JNOV REGARDING THE COURT’S AUGUST
27, 2003, JUDGMENT FOR DISBARMENT
FOR REHEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (NOT FILED YET)
3) In addition there is
a severed case to be heard in the underlying case and there needs to be a
scheduling order on that matter. That’s
assuming Judge Fry’s, August 27, 2003, Judgment for Disbarment is not set
aside or modified which I allege it must. The
August 27, 2003, Judgment for Disbarment is interlocutory.
J.G. Molleston, Attorney at Law
via fax at: 713-752-2158
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