NO. 2002-42081

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

RESPONDENT’S FIRST AMENDED MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE JAMES R. FRY  

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT  

            COMES NOW, John WorldPeace, Respondent in the above styled and numbered cause, and files this RESPONDENT’S FIRST AMENDED MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE JAMES R. FRY and would show the Court the following:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.   QUESTION REGARDING JURISDICTION TO HEAR RECUSAL…………………...2

II.  INCORPORTION OF LETTERS FROM WORLDPEACE TO JUDGE FRY

INTO THIS MOTION FOR RECUSAL……………………………………………………….2

III.  CORE ALLEGATIONS THAT JAMES R. FRY IS

BIASED AND PREDISPOSED IN THIS LAWSUIT…………………………………………2

            SUMMARY………………………………………………………………………………4

IV.  FACTS THAT INDICATE THAT JUDGE FRY IS BIASED AND PREDISPOSED AGAINST WORLDPEACE IN THIS LAWSUIT…………………………………………….4

I.  QUESTION REGARDING JURISDICTION TO HEAR RECUSAL

            WorldPeace is not sure from looking at the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure whether this recusal needs to be referred to the Administrative Judge in the Second Administrative Judicial Region including Harris County per Rule 18a(c) TRCP or whether it needs to go to the Supreme Court of Texas per Rule 3.02 Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. 

Rule 3.02 does not specifically speak to a motion for recusal due to facts discovered sixty days after Respondent is served with notice of the trial judge’s appointment by the Supreme Court in a disciplinary action.  Rule 3.02 does indicate a prohibition against judges residing in the same Administrative Judicial Region as the Respondent being assigned to the disciplinary petition.

WorldPeace believes that since Judge Fry determined not to recuse himself, this matter will need to be sent by the Harris County Clerk to the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas and a judge must be appointed by the Supreme Court to hear WorldPeace’s Motion to Recuse Judge Fry. 

The Administrative Judge, Olen Underwood, of the Second Administrative Region, resides in the same Administrative Judicial Region as WorldPeace and further Judge Underwood only has jurisdiction to appoint a judge from within his Administrative Region and therefore has no jurisdiction per Rule 3.02 TRDP to assign himself or any other judge to the underlying lawsuit.

WorldPeace has filed an Objection to Judge Underwood Presiding over the Recusal and filed an Application for Writ of Prohibition/Mandamus with the Supreme Court on this issue. 

WorldPeace does not waive his position, rights, or argument.

II.  INCORPORTION OF LETTERS FROM WORLDPEACE TO JUDGE FRY

INTO THIS MOTION FOR RECUSAL

In hopes That Judge Fry would not require a recusal hearing

WorldPeace would show the court that he sent two letters to Judge Fry on August 29, 2003 .  Those letters are incorporated into this pleading as Exhibit “R” and Exhibit “S”.

III.  CORE ALLEGATIONS THAT JAMES R. FRY IS

BIASED AND PREDISPOSED IN THIS LAWSUIT

The three primary reasons that WorldPeace believes that Judge Fry is biased and predisposed against WorldPeace in this matter are as follows.

1)  Judge Fry is a Democrat and WorldPeace ran for governor in the 2002 Democratic Primary and conducted a vicious campaign stating that the Democratic Primary was racially focused and biased against WorldPeace who is White.  WorldPeace has a web page regarding the Democratic Party’s tactics in the governor’s race which is still posted on the internet at www.johnworldpeace.com.  (Exhibit “P”)

WorldPeace’s predictions that the greed and corruption in the Democratic Party was going to destroy the Democratic Party in Texas came true.  WorldPeace believes that Judge Fry found WorldPeace’s web page objectionable and particularly did not like the fact that WorldPeace, after the Democratic Primary, changed parties and is now running as a Republican for Mayor of Houston.

2)  WorldPeace would show the court that he used to be a member of the Masonic Lodge but withdrew his membership in 1988 (as he did from all organizations of which he was a member) after changing his name to John WorldPeace.  WorldPeace alleges that Judge Fry is a Mason and views WorldPeace’s withdrawal from Masonary as a rejection of Masonry.  (Exhibit “Y”)

3) WorldPeace would show the court that after the most recent Judgment for Disbarment ( August 27, 2003 ) was signed, (Exhibit “L”) WorldPeace on October 5, 2003 , discovered that Judge Fry had received an accolade from the Texas Legislature.  (Exhibit “T”)  That accolade stated that Judge Fry was an elder of the Presbyterian Church. 

WorldPeace has been prosecuting two lawsuits against the Presbyterian Church regarding the corruption within that organization (Cause No. 99-158-P; Estate of Mary Richards Martin, Deceased; In the Probate Court of Dallas County, Texas and Cause No. 2002-20203 Joyce Wolter v. Delgatto et. al., 280^th District Court, Harris County, Texas).  WorldPeace alleges that Judge Fry took personal offense at WorldPeace’s attack on his religious denomination, as evidenced by WorldPeace’s web page (www.presbyterians-r-us.com)  (Exhibit “Z”)

SUMMARY

WorldPeace would show the court that WorldPeace has rejected Judge Fry’s political party, his Masonic affiliation and his religious denomination and that WorldPeace’s attacks upon the Democratic Party and the Presbyterian Church have been vicious as evidenced by WorldPeace’s web pages.  (Exhibit “P” & “Z”)  All these matters began and were being prosecuted before Judge Fry was appointed to hear the underlying disciplinary petition.

Below, WorldPeace would show the court that many of the rulings that Judge Fry has made in the underlying lawsuit are a blantant abuses of discretion and only make sense when considered in light of the above bias and predisposition.

WorldPeace moves to recuse Judge Fry per Rule 18b(2)(a & b) TRCP.

IV.  FACTS THAT INDICATE THAT JUDGE FRY IS BIASED AND PREDISPOSED AGAINST WORLDPEACE IN THIS LAWSUIT  

            1)  WorldPeace would show the court that in the beginning of the underlying lawsuit, WorldPeace objected to the jurisdiction of the court under Rule 3.01 TRDP (Exhibit “RA”).  Eighty (80) days after the Commission filed its Original Disciplinary Petition against WorldPeace, the Commission in violation of Rule 3.01 TRDP added five additional grievances to the original lawsuit which originally included only the Johnell Collins complaint.  (Note:  Per Rule 3.07 TRDP a disciplinary petition must go to trial in 180 days.  So the additional grievances had to go to trial in 100 days, which was a disadvantage to WorldPeace.)  On April 10, 2003 WorldPeace filed a Plea to the Jurisdiction.  (Exhibit “O”)

            In pre-trial, Mr. Molleston, attorney for the Commission, stated to the Judge Fry after being queried, that the Commission has violated Rule 3.01 and added additional grievances to other lawsuits.  (Exhibit “B”)

On June 25, 2003, WorldPeace filed a motion with Judge Fry to require Mr. Molleston to produce any cases that he had regarding adding on additional grievances after a disciplinary petition had already been filed. (Exhibit “E”)  Molleston stated in pretrial that in the six years that he had been with the State Bar he had violated Rule 3.01 on previous occasions but refused to produce any cases.  (Exhibit “B” & “AD” & “AE”)  

Molleston refused to produce any cases or respond to WorldPeace’s motion and Judge Fry refused to compel Molleston to produce any cases because WorldPeace alleges that Judge Fry knew that no such cases exist and to require Molleston to produce these non-existent cases would result in Molleston’s disbarment per Rule 3.03 (1)(4)(5),(b)(c) TDRPC.  (Exhibit “RC”)

There is no “on point” case law on this Rule 3.01 issue.  However, Rule 3.01 is clear, “All disciplinary petitions MUST be filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court.  (Exhibit “RA”)

Since Judge Fry was not appointed to the additional five grievances per Rule 3.02 TRDP his order regarding those grievances is void.  “A judgment is void only when it is apparent that the court rendering the judgment has 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 S.W. 2d 700, 703 ( Tex. 1990)

There are only about sixty disciplinary cases in the case law between May 1992, when the current TRDP became effective, and the present.

Judge Fry overruled WorldPeace’s Plea to the Jurisdiction.

            2)  WorldPeace would show the court that at the end of trial in the underlying case, Judge Fry on April 23, 2003 , entered a Judgment for Disbarment.  (Exhibit “C”)  The court, during pre-trial, severed the lawsuit into multiple lawsuits.  (Exhibit “A”)  However, contrary to the local rules in Harris County , Judge Fry refused to sign an order severing and renumbering the severed parts. (Exhibit “RD”)  

In pretrial, Judge Fry granted the Commission’s Motion to Sever the case, (Exhibit “U”) in particular WorldPeace’s mandatory constitutional counterclaims and Judge Fry restated that he had severed the mandatory constitutional counterclaims during his final ruling.  (Exhibit “A”) 

The court also severed WorldPeace’s mandatory counterclaims regarding John Lang and Philip Apodaca.  At pre-trial, Judge Fry said that he was only going to try the rule violations and that is what he did. (Ex “A”) 

Due to the inclusion of a “mother hubbard clause”, the first Judgment for Disbarment was a final order which did not reference any other parts of the lawsuit. 

No order reflecting the pretrial severance rulings was signed prior to trial, or at the time the First Judgment for Disbarment was signed.  This created a problem because the First Judgment for Disbarment became a global final judgment as opposed to a final judgment on the Rule violations only. 

            On July, 21, 2003 , in WorldPeace’s Response to the Commissions Second Motion for No-evidence Summary Judgment, WorldPeace complained and objected that no severance order had been signed by the court.  (Exhibit “G”)

            On August 5, 2003 , WorldPeace filed a Motion to have Judge Fry sign a severance order.  (Exhibit “J”)  Without a severance order per the court’s pre and post trial rulings there was no way for WorldPeace to know in which case to file amended pleadings or motions.  Judge Fry refused to set WorldPeace’s Motion for Severance Order for a hearing.

            The common practice of Judge Fry in the lawsuit was to let motions accumulate and then set a hearing to hear all motions filed as of that date.  This was done because Judge Fry did not live near Harris County .

After trial, Judge Fry entered his first Judgment of Disbarment which contained a “mother hubbard clause” which stated that “all relief not expressly granted is hereby denied”.  (Exhibit “C”)

Had WorldPeace not timely filed a Motion to Modify, then all of his counterclaims and untried causes of action that had been severed would have been dismissed by the first Judgment for Disbarment.  Judge Fry refused to sign a severance order but tried to dismiss the balance of the lawsuit with a “Mother Hubbard” clause in the First Judgment for Disbarment.

            3)  On May 22 2003 , WorldPeace filed a Motion to Modify (Exhibit “W”) and on May 23, 2003 , a Motion for New Trial. (Exhibit “V”)  Judge Fry did not rule specifically on WorldPeace’s motions but on June 23, 2003 , after hearing the motions, Judge Fry signed an order setting aside the April 23, 2003 , Judgment for Disbarment.  (Exhibit “D”)  Judge Fry set aside the order as opposed to signing a severance order because per WorldPeace’s Motion to Modify and Motion for New Trial, Judge Fry knew that severing WorldPeace’s mandatory counterclaims was an abuse of discretion and would be reversed by the Appeals Court .  (Exhibit “AB”) 

4)  On August 5, 2003, after the first Judgment for Disbarment was set aside, WorldPeace filed an additional cause of action against Johnell Collins as a mandatory counter claim (Exhibit “I”) and also filed an additional cause of action for a declaratory judgment, on August 13, 2003, (Exhibit “K”) to have the court declare sections of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure to be unconstitutional.

Since Judge Fry refused to sign a severance order, WorldPeace was forced to file these supplemental petitions under the cause number assigned to the case in chief.

5)  WorldPeace would show the court that Judge Fry came into Harris County on August 27, 2003 , unannounced, two days after WorldPeace filed to run for Mayor of Houston , and signed a second Judgment for Disbarment (Exhibit “L”) and for the first time an order for severance of the John Lang and Philip Apodaca mandatory counter claims. (Exhibit “M”)  

Judge Fry did not, in either of the orders that he signed, speak directly to the issue of the Collins’ counter claim filed by WorldPeace nor did Judge Fry speak directly to the issue of WorldPeace’s additional cause of action for a Declaratory Judgment. 

Judge Fry did indirectly reference the two supplemental petitions in his order granting the Commission’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Exhibit “N”)  However, and this is pivotal, those supplemental petitions against Collins and for declaratory judgment could have been filed in the new “A” lawsuit against Lang and Apodaca and so they could not be dismissed by Judge Fry simply because they were not filed seven days before the Commission’s Motion for No-evidence Summary Judgment which was set on July 28, 2003, by submission.  There was no such deadline on the “A” case. 

So even if Judge Fry refused to consider the supplemental petitions with the Commission’s Motion for Summary Judgment, he cannot refuse to consider them in the “A” case or he could sever them into another lawsuit.  The problem is that the August 27, 2003 , Judgment for Disbarment did not specifically say what was being done with the two supplemental petitions.  Are they part of the “A” case or to be part of another severed lawsuit?

Judge Fry did not sign an order severing the constitutional counterclaims or WorldPeace’s cause of action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress as he ruled in pre-trial.

Consequently, Judge Fry has still not entered a final order in this case because all of the parties and causes of action have not been disposed of per Rule 3.01, TRCP. (Exhibit “RE”)  

The Judgment for Disbarment of August 27, 2003 , is therefore interlocutory, unappealable and unenforceable.

Further, Judge Fry included in his August 27, 2003 , Judgment for Disbarment a reference to the Commission’s Motion for No-evidence Summary Judgment which Judge Fry granted.

The Summary Judgment order did not have a “mother hubbard clause”.  (Exhibit “N”)

The problem with the Commission’s Motion for No-evidence Summary Judgment was that the Commission did not designate the elements of WorldPeace’s cause of action for Injunctive Relief (Exhibit “AJ”) as mandated by Rule 166a(i) TRCP.  (Exhibit “RF”)

Judge Fry and the Commission have a habit of ignoring the statutory law.  Rule 3.01 TRDP (Exhibit “RA”) and Rule 166a(i) TRCP (Exhibit “RF”) use the word “MUST”.  In regards to both rules, Judge Fry ruled that “MUST” means optional.

The case law is clear, the movant MUST state the elements of which there is no evidence in a No-evidence Motion for Summary Judgment.  (Exhibit “AH” & “RF”)  The Commission did not do this and yet Judge Fry granted the Summary Judgment any way.  (Exhibit “N”)

            6)  WorldPeace would show the court that it has been over a year since the State Bar of Texas filed suit against WorldPeace.  Per Rule 3.07 of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure (Exhibit “RB”) it is way beyond the 180 day limit mandated to try the lawsuit.  No further trials have been set in this matter.  There is not a final judgment per Rule 3.01 TRCP concerning all issues and it has been six months beyond the deadline that the court had to try the underlying case.

            7)  Judge Fry knew, per WorldPeace’s May 23, 2003 , Motion for New Trial (Exhibit “V”) and WorldPeace’s May 22, 2003 , Motion to Modify (Exhibit “W”), that it is an abuse of discretion to sever mandatory counter claims in a civil lawsuit.  (Exhibit “AB”)  Judge Fry knows that he did exactly that. 

Judge Fry knows that the underlying lawsuit must be retried.  But, Judge Fry has determined that he is not going to retry the case but instead intends to disbar WorldPeace arbitrarily by manipulating the facts and law by stating he ruled on having Rule 174 TRCP (Exhibit “RG”) separate trial as opposed to severing the case in chief into separate lawsuits.

            However, in Mathis v. Bill de la Garza, 778 S.W. 2d 105 (Tex. App. – Texarkana 1989) (Exhibit “S”) the court encountered a similar question regarding severance and separate trials.  Judge Fry stated over and over he was severing the constitutional counterclaims and he signed a final order and that included nothing but the Rule violations.

8)  Judge Fry signed a Judgment for Disbarment on April 23, 2003 , (Exhibit “C”) and set it aside on June 23, 2003 .  (Exhibit “D”)  Judge Fry then waited until August 27, 2003 , two months later, to sneak into Harris County unannounced and sign his August 27, 2003 , Judgment for Disbarment. 

It is interesting that Judge Fry would wait until two days after WorldPeace officially filed to run for Mayor of Houston as a Republican to sign his August 27, 2003 , Judgment for Disbarment when he signed an order setting aside the first Judgment for Disbarment two months prior.  WorldPeace alleges that Judge Fry’s timing was deliberate.

            9)  Judge Fry tried to manipulate his second Judgment for Disbarment around the fact that it was an abuse of discretion to sever the mandatory counterclaims.  By saying he had made a Rule 174 TRCP (Exhibit “RG”) decision which is contrary to the record.  (Exhibit “S”)

            10)  Judge Fry abused his discretion by refusing to hear WorldPeace’s August 5, 2003, Motion for Sever Order (Exhibit “J”) to which the Commission filed no answer or WorldPeace’s Motion to Compel Production of other Rule 3.01 TRDP violations by the Commission (Exhibit “E”) to which Molleston filed no answer. 

Both of these motions are relevant to the case in chief.  Also, since there is at this time an “A” case, those motions must be set for hearings.

To refuse to set a hearing is an abuse of discretion.  (Exhibit “AK”)

11) In the second Judgment for Disbarment dated August 27, 2003 , (Exhibit “L”) Judge Fry stated that he severed WorldPeace’s mandatory counterclaims against John Lang and Phillip Appodaca upon a motion from the Commission.  The truth is that these counterclaims were severed after the Judge denied Lang’s Motion to Dismiss and Judge Fry sua sponte severed the mandatory counterclaims.  (Exhibit “A”)

12) Judge Fry indicates in the August 27, 2003 , Judgment for Disbarment (Exhibit “L”) that in pre trial he had ruled that there would be Rule 174 TRCP (Exhibit “RG”) separate trials on WorldPeace’s counterclaims.  The attached transcription of that pretrial ruling shows that Judge Fry severed the causes of action.  (Exhibit “A”)  There was never an indication by Judge Fry that there would be separate trials.  Also, in rendering his final judgment, Judge Fry at the end of the sanctions hearing repeated that he had severed the mandatory constitutional counterclaims.  (Exhibit “A”)

The determination to sever WorldPeace’s mandatory counterclaims came in pretrial after the Commission withdrew its Motion for Severance (Exhibit “U”) of WorldPeace’s counterclaims and then reasserted its Motion.  (Exhibit “A”)

13)  Further, during the course of the trial on the Rule Violations, WorldPeace created a Bill of Exception (WorldPeace prays the Court to take judicial notice of that Bill of Exception) having to do with his mandatory Constitutional counterclaim regarding religious discrimination by the Commission.  There would have been no reason for that Bill of Exception if Judge Fry had in fact determined to have Rule 174 TRCP separate trials as opposed to separate lawsuits by severing the case in chief per the local rules.  Judge Fry did not stop WorldPeace from creating his Bill of Exception by reminding WorldPeace that there would be separate trials as opposed to a severed lawsuits.

Further, Judge Fry would have us believe that when he used the word sever with regards to Lang and Apodaca he meant separate lawsuits, but when he used sever, regarding WorldPeace’s mandatory counterclaims, he meant separate trials within one lawsuit. 

14) In addition, Judge Fry knew that WorldPeace had added two supplemental petitions to the lawsuit after Judge Fry vacated his April 23, 2003, Judgment for Disbarment on June 23, 2003; said supplements were dated August 5, 2003 (Adding  a Collin’s counterclaim) (Exhibit “I”) and August 13, 2003 (Adding a Delcaratory Judgment), (Exhibit “K”) more than seven days prior to the second Judgment for Disbarment on August 27, 2003.

As it stands, the supplemental cause of action of August 5, 2003 , and August 13, 2003 , can be part of the Lang and Apodaca severed lawsuit.  Until the severance issue is resolved, there is no way to know how the Final Judgment will look.  But regardless, the supplemental petitions have not been adjudicated and therefore the second Judgment for Disbarment is interlocutory.  Judge Fry must rule specifically as to what will happen to these two causes of action.

15)  Judge Fry added a “Mother Hubbard” clause to his August 27, 2003 , Judgment for Disbarment (Exhibit “L”) for the purpose of dismissing WorldPeace’s supplemental causes of action.  As with the first Judgment for Disbarment, had WorldPeace not filed a Motion for New Trial and a Motion to Modify, his counterclaims would have been wiped out by the “mother hubbard clause”.

16)  Judge Fry entered a Judgment for Disbarment in (Exhibit “L”) which he found Disbarment for each rule violation which is contrary to his ruling at trial when he disbarred WorldPeace for having 23 cumulative violations.

17)  WorldPeace would also show the court that the WorldPeace v. Collins matter (Cause No.  2000-31108; WorldPeace v. Collins, 281^st District Court, Harris County , Texas )  had been tried to conclusion prior to the trial of the underlying case.  (Exhibit “AA”)  Therefore, the Collins complaint was bared by res judicata.  But Judge Fry tried it any way. 

WorldPeace would show that the Commission appeared in the Collins lawsuit by filing responses to several motions and filed two motions of its own.  (Exhibit “CA” -- “CI”)

The problem is that the Commission filed a Plea to the Jurisdiction which was never signed.  So the final judgment in WorldPeace v. Collins is a final judgment with regards to the Commission as well as Collins.  (Exhibit “AF” & “AG”)

If the Commission files a motion alleging the Collins Final Judgment is interlocutory, then there is a problem with the fact that WorldPeace claims against Collins will have to be retried in the 269^th because they are mandatory counterclaims like Lang and Apodaca.

In fact, WorldPeace refiled against Collins in his supplemental petition on August 5, 2003 .  (Exhibit “I”)

WorldPeace tried to consolidate the cases in the 281^st District Court and the Commission objected.  (Exhibit “AC”)

The Commission was aware of the res judicata problem and should have intervened in the WorldPeace v. Collins lawsuit and then moved to have Judge Fry replace Judge Bland in the disciplinary petition.  Or the Commission should have moved to consolidate the case in the 281^st District Court with the case in the 269^th District Court.  The Commission refused.  Therefore, the Commission manipulated itself into a res judicata scenario at its own free will.

That being said the real problem is that the Commission was never dismissed from the WorldPeace v. Collins lawsuit and when the final judgment was signed (Exhibit “AA”) it barred the Collins grievance from being tried in this lawsuit.

SUMMARY

            Judge Fry knew he had no jurisdiction over WorldPeace because the Commission did not abide by Rule 3.01 TRDP and he knew Collins was barred by res judicata.  Therefore, the entire lawsuit and every act of Judge Fry was an abuse of discretion.  It cannot be doubted that these rulings were due to Judge Fry’s bias.

PRAYER

            WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, WorldPeace prays the court to recuse Judge Fry from this lawsuit per Rule 18b(2)(a & b) 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 Fountainview, 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 hand delivered to opposing counsel on October 23, 2003 in open court.  

                                                                        _________________________________                                                                        John WorldPeace

EXHIBITS

A.  April 14, 2003 , pretrial conference and post trial rulings regarding Severance

B.  April 14, 2003 , pretrial conference regarding Rule 3.01 TRDP (Molleston testimony)

C.  April 23, 2003 , Judgment for Disbarment

D.  June 23, 2003 , Order Setting Aside Judgment

E.  June 25, 2003 , WorldPeace’s Motion to Compel J.G. Molleston to Produce Documents

F.  July 1, 2003 , Petitioner’s Second Motion for No-evidence Summary Judgment

G.  July 21, 2003 , Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Second Motion for No-evidence

                              Summary Judgment

H.  July 21, 2003 , Defendant’s Seventh Amended Original Answer and Counterclaims and Third

                             Party Claims

I.  August 5, 2003 , WorldPeace Supplemental Answer and Counterclaim (Collins)

J.  August 5, 2003 , WorldPeace’s Motion for Order of Severance and Request for Hearing

K.  August 13, 2003 , WorldPeace’s Supplemental Third Party Petition (Declaratory Judgment)

L. August 27, 2003 , Judgment of Disbarment

M. August 27, 2003 , Order of Severance (Lang & Apodaca)

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

                                   Judgment

O.  April 10, 2003 , Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion for Consolidation Plea to the

                               Jurisdiction

P.  Copy of index page regarding the 2002 Governor’s race.

Q.  October 22, 2003 , Respondent’s Amended Motion for Rehearing on Petitioner’s Second

                                    Motion for No-Evidence Summary Judgment

R.  August 29, 2003 , WorldPeace letter to Fry – Re:  Recusal

S.  August 29, 2003 , WorldPeace letter to Fry – Re:  Recusal Letter Supplement

T.  May 18, 2001 , accolade from Texas Legislator regarding Judge Fry  (Resolution)

U.  April 9, 2002 , Petitioner’s Motion for Severance and Order

V.  May 23, 2003 , Respondent’s Amended Motion for New Trial and Motion for JNOV

W.  May 23, 2003 , WorldPeace’s First Amended Motion to Vacate or Modify Judgment of

                                Disbarment

X.  ___________________________________________________________________________

Y.  October 10, 2003 , WorldPeace Objection to Administrative Judge Underwood Presiding over

                                    WorldPeace’s Motion to Recuse Judge Fry in the Underlying Lawsuit

Z.  Copy of index page regarding Presbyterian-R-Us webpage

AA.  March 10, 2003 , Amended Take Nothing Judgment and Award of Rule 13 Sanctions

AB.  Severance Abuse of Discretion cases (on mandatory counterclaims)

AC.  September 20, 2002 , Order Denying Motion to Consolidate

AD.  June 24, 2003 , WorldPeace letter to Molleston (Re: Rule 3.01)

AE.  June 24, 2003 , Molleston letter to WorldPeace (Re: Rule 3.01)

AF.  Internet print out on orders in WorldPeace v. Collins

AG.  July 8, 2003 , Letter from Appeals Court on Collins

AH.  Authority for No-evidence Summary Judgment

AI.  Abuse of Discretion – Authorities

AJ.  Permanent Injunction – Authorities

CA.  August 20, 2002 , Original Disciplinary Petition

CB.  August 29, 2003 , Defendant’s Original Answer

CC.  September 16, 2003 , Response to Motion to Dismiss

CD.  September 16, 2003 , Commission for Lawyer Discipline’s Response to Petitioner’s Motion

                                           to Disqualify Dawn Miller

CE.  September 16, 2003 , Commission for Lawyer Discipline’s Response to Petitioner’s Motion

                                          to Show Authority

CF.  September 16, 2003 , Commission for Lawyer Discipline’s Response to Petitioner’s Motion

                                          to Consolidate

CG.  September 6, 2003 , Commission for Lawyer Discipline’s Motion for Protective Order

CH.   September 20, 2003 , Order on Commission for Lawyer Discipline’s Motion for Protective

                                           Order

CI.  September 6, 2003 ,  Plea to the Jurisdiction of The Commission for Lawyer Discipline of the

RA.  Rule 3.01 Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure

RB.  Rule 3.07 Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure

RC.  Rule 3.03 Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct

RD.  Harris County Local Rules regarding Severance

RE.  Rule 3.01 Texas Rules of Civil Procedure

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

RG.  Rule 174 Texas Rules of Civil Procedure

NO. 2002-42081

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

AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN WORLDPEACE

STATE OF TEXAS               §
COUNTY OF HARRIS         §

             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:  

            “My name is John WorldPeace.  I am over the age of eighteen years, have never been convicted of a felony or crime of moral turpitude, and am competent to make this affidavit.  I am duly authorized and qualified to make this affidavit.  I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein, and they are true and correct.  

            I have read the foregoing Motion to Recuse and swear that the facts contained therein are true and are further verified  by the trial record.  

            I cannot get a fair trial before Judge Fry due to his being a Democrat, a Mason, and an elder in the Presbyterian Church.  

            The exhibits attached to the Motion to Recuse are true and correct copies of the originals.  The transcriptions are correct renditions of audio tapes made my WorldPeace during the entire trial.

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

NO. 2002-42081

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

ORDER

On this date, the court considered Defendant’s MOTION TO RECUSAL UNDER RULE 18B(2)(A) TCPRC.  After considering the motion, the Court, GRANTS the motion.

SIGNED on _______________

                                                                                  _____________________________
                                                                                  Presiding Judge

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