TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES................................................................................................v

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

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

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

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

ISSUE ONE.........................................................................................................................3

Does Rule 3.01 Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure (TRDP) allow the Commission for Lawyer Discipline to add additional complainants to an existing disciplinary petition without filing those additional complainants as disciplinary petitions with the Clerk of the Supreme Court per Rule 3.01 TRDP?

ISSUE TWO………………………………………………………………………………3

Is it an abuse of discretion for a judge presiding over a disciplinary petition to allow additional complainants to be added to that disciplinary petition when their complaints have not been filed with the Clerk of the Supreme court as disciplinary petitions per Rule 3.01 TRDP.

ISSUE THREE………………………………………………………………………….....3

Does a judge presiding over a disciplinary petition have jurisdiction to hear issues regarding complainants added to a disciplinary petition under Rule 51(a) or Rule 40 TRCP when those additional complainants have not been filed as disciplinary petitions under Rule 3.01 TRDP and the judge has not been appointed by the Supreme Court to preside over those additional complainants per Rule 3.02 TRDP?

ISSUE FOUR……………………………………………………………………………...3

Does the fact that a judge appointed by the Supreme Court to preside over a disciplinary petition give jurisdiction to that judge to hear issues regarding any additional complainants added to the disciplinary petition by the Commission for Lawyer Discipline outside Rule 3.01 and Rule 3.02 TRDP?

ISSUE FIVE………………………………………………………………………………4

Does the Commission for Lawyer Discipline have authority under 3.01 TRDP to file one disciplinary petition with multiple complainants?

ISSUE SIX………………………………………………………………………………...4

Does a judge appointed by the Supreme Court under Rule 3.02 TRDP to hear two or more separately filed disciplinary petitions have authority to consolidate those disciplinary petitions into one lawsuit under the Rule 40, Rule 51(a) or Rule 174 TRCP?

ARGUMENT……………………………………………………………………….……..6

PRAYER..............................................................................................................................8

APPENDIX……………………………………………………………………….……...10

AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN WORLDPEACE…………………………………………….…11

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A. CASES

Browning v. Placke,

698 SW2d 362, 363 (Tex. 1985) ………………………………………………..5, 7

Cook v. Cameron,

733 SW2d 137, 140 (Tex. 1987) ………………………………………………..5, 7

Diaz v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline,

953 SW2d 435, 437 (Tex. App -- Austin, 1997) ……………………………….5, 7

Mapco, Inc v. Forrest,

795 SW2d 700, 703 (Tex. 1990) ………………………………………………..4, 7

Masonite Corp. v. Garcia,

951 SW2d 812, 819 (Tex. App. -- San Antonio, 1997)…………………………4, 7

Weiss v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline,

981 SW2d 8, 14 (Tex.App -- San Antonio, 1998) ……………………………...5, 7

STATUTES

Rule 3.01 Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure…………….3, 4, 6, 7

Rule 3.02 Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure…………….3, 4, 6, 7

Rule 3.14 TEXAS RULES OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE…………………….2

Rule 40 TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE………………………………..4

Rule 51(a) TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE………………………………..8

Rule 174 TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE………………………………..4

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THIS COURT:

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On June 7, 2001 WorldPeace signed an election for a Rule 2.14 TRDP trial de novo on the Collins complaints. (Record “A”)

On May 14, 2002, WorldPeace signed an election for a Rule 2.14 TRDP trial de novo on the Helen Fraser Nash complaints. (Record “B”)

On June 5, 2003, WorldPeace signed an election for a Rule 2.14 TRDP trial de novo on the Penny Jo Reilly (Philip Apodaca) complaints. (Record “C”)

On June 27, 2002, WorldPeace signed an election for a Rule 2.14 TRDP trial de novo on the Darlene Williams complaints. (Record “D”)

On August 20, 2003, The Commission for Lawyer Discipline filed a disciplinary petition with the Clerk of the Supreme Court in the Collins complaint. (Cause # 2002-42081; CLD v. WorldPeace, 269^th District Court) (Record “E”)

On October 3, 2002, WorldPeace signed an election for a Rule 2.14 TRDP trial de novo on the John Lynch complaints. (Record “F”)

On October 28, 2002, WorldPeace signed an election for a Rule 2.14 TRDP trial de novo on the John Lang complaints. (Record “G”)

On November 2002, the Commission for Lawyer Discipline added the Williams, Lynch, Lang, Apodaca and Fraser-Nash complainants to the Collins’ disciplinary petition without filing their complaints as disciplinary petitions with the Clerk of the Supreme Court per Rule 3.01 TRDP. (Record “H”)

On April 10, 2003, WorldPeace filed a Plea to the Jurisdiction complaining that Judge Fry had no jurisdiction to hear the additional five complaints. (Record “I”)

On April 14, 2003, during pre-trial, Judge Fry overruled WorldPeace Plea to the Jurisdicition but did not sign an order.

On April 14, 2003, at pretrial, J. G. Molleston, attorney for the Commission for Lawyer Discipline stated that he had filed other petitions in violations of Rule 3.01 TRDP. (Record “J”)

On April 23, 2003, Judge Fry signed a Judgment for Disbarment after trying the rule violations regarding the five additional complainants that he allowed to be added to the Collins’ disciplinary petition. (Record “K”)

On June 23, 2003, Judge Fry set side his April 23, 2003, Judgment for Disbarment. (Record “L”)

On June 24, 2003 WorldPeace wrote a letter J.G. Molleston, attorney for the Commission for Lawyer Discipline, asking for lawsuits that he claimed during pre-trial also violated Rule 3.01 TRDP. (Record “M”)

On June 24, 2003, Molleston responded to WorldPeace refusing to produce any Rule 3.01 TRDP violation cases. (Record “N”)

On June 25, 2003 WorldPeace filed a Motion to Compel Molleston to produce those disciplinary petitions that violated Rule 3.01 TRDP. Judge Fry refused to set a hearing on WorldPeace’s motion. (Record “O”)

On August 27, 2003, Judge Fry signed a second Judgment for Disbarment which also included the five additional complaints. (Exhibit “P” & Record “P”)

There is no remedy on appeal because per Rule 3.14 Texas Rules of Disciplinary a Judgment for Disbarment cannot be superseded or stayed (Exhibit “RC” and Record “RC”).

Judge Fry’s actions are a clear abuse of discretion. Disciplinary Petitions affect the 67,000 attorneys in this state and so WorldPeace’s Application for Writ of Prohibition/Mandamus regarding Rule 3.01 and Rule 3.02 is important to the jurisprudence of the state.

ISSUE ONE

ISSUE TWO

ISSUE THREE

ISSUE FOUR

ISSUE FIVE

Does the Commission for Lawyer Discipline have authority under 3.01 TRDP to file one disciplinary petition with multiple complainants?

ISSUE SIX

AUTHORITIES

Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure

Rule 3.01 Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure

If the Respondent timely files an election for trial de novo in accordance with Section 2.14, the Chief Disciplinary Counsel shall file a Disciplinary Petition in the name of the Commission…The Disciplinary Petition must be filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas.

Rule 3.02 Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure

Upon receipt of a Disciplinary Petition, the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas shall docket the same and promptly bring the Petition to the attention of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court shall promptly appoint an active district judge who does not reside in the Administrative Judicial Region in which the Respondent resides to preside in the case.

VOID JUDGMENTS

“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)

RULE 3.01 AND RULE 3.02 TRDP CASE LAW

(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)

ARGUMENT

There is no question but that Dawn Miller, the Chief Disciplinary Counsel for the State Bar, did not follow the clear pronouncements Rules 3.01 TRDP when she added the five additional complainants to the existing Collins disciplinary petition on November 8, 2002. (Record “H”)

Judge Fry had no personal or subject matter jurisdiction from the Supreme Court to hear the additional five complainants because there was no order signed by the Supreme Court vesting him with that authority per Rule 3.02 TRDP.

On April 10, 2003, WorldPeace filed RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND/OR MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION officially bringing this issue to the attention of the Court. (Record “I”)

The Commission for Lawyer Discipline did not deny that it had not followed Rules 3.01 when it added the additional complainants to the lawsuit. The Commission for Lawyer Discipline did not file a written response to WorldPeace Plea to the Jurisdiction (Record “I”) but responded orally during pre-trial.

No case law was cited by the Commission for Lawyer Discipline at pre-trial to support its position that it could add additional complainants to the Collins disciplinary petition contrary to Rule 3.01 TRDP.

During pretrial, J.G. Molleston, attorney for the Commission for Lawyer Discipline stated that the Commission for Lawyer Discipline had often violated Rule 3.01. (Record “J”)

Judge Fry overruled WorldPeace’s Plea to the Jurisdiction and proceeded to trial on the additional five complainants knowing that he had no authority from the Supreme Court to proceed per Rule 3.02 TRDP. The fact that Judge Fry proceeded to try the additional five complainants is evidenced by his April 23, 2003, (Record “K”) and August 27, 2003, (Record “P”) Judgments for Disbarment.

Judge Fry and the Chief Disciplinary Counsel Dawn Miller, usurped the authority of the Supreme Court to WorldPeace’s substantive and procedural detriment with regards to the five additional complainants.

Per Masonite, Mapco, Cook and Browning above, the August 27, 2003, Judgment of Disbarment is void, because Judge Fry had no Rule 3.02 TRDP authority to hear the five additional complainants.

Per Weiss above, additional violations of the TDRPC can be added to a disciplinary petition but there is no authority that allows the addition of complainants to a disciplinary petition.

Weiss references the Diaz case which talks about additional complainants in its dicta. (Diaz like Weiss was also about additional rule violations related to the same complainants and not about additional complainants being added to the existing disciplinary petition.)

But Diaz references the fact that this is only true if the TRCP are not modified by the TRDP as they are in this lawsuit. TRDP 3.01 requires a disciplinary petition to be filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court. TRDP 3.01 does modify the Rule 51(a) TRCP which allows the addition of parties to a lawsuit by amending one's pleadings.

There are no on point cases which address the issue of adding additional complainants to an existing disciplinary petition.

The current TRDP became law in 1992 and there are only about sixty cases in the common law.

SUMMARY

The trial court abused its discretion by hearing the five additional complainants without authority per Rule 3.01 and Rule 3.02 TRDP. Therefore, the Judgment for Disbarment with regards to these five additional complainants should be vacated as being void per the above cited cases; most are which were handed down by the Supreme Court of Texas.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Relator moves this court to declare Judge Fry’s, August 27, 2003, Judgment for Disbarment void as to the additional five grievances and for such other and further relief as this court may deem proper.

Respectfully submitted,

_______________________________
John WorldPeace
2620 Fountain View, 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 October 25, 2003 by fax and to the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas on October 25, 2003 by Express Mail.

John WorldPeace

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

Opposing Counsel opposes the RELATOR’S APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION/MANDAMUS Regarding Rule 3.01 and Rule 3.02 trdp.

____________________________________
John WorldPeace

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

____________________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE
STATE OF TEXAS

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?