ISSUES PRESENTED

ISSUE ONE

            Did the Commission for Lawyer Discipline selectively enforce the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure against WorldPeace?  

ISSUE TWO  

            Is the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure unconstitutional per Article 1, Section 3 and Section 3A of the Texas Constitution due to its selective enforcement by the Commission for Lawyer Discipline?  

ISSUE THREE  

            Did Judge Fry abuse his discretion by granting the Commission’s Second Motion for No-evidence Summary Judgment on the issue of religious discrimination when the Commission did not list the elements of religious discrimination of which WorldPeace had no evidence.  

ISSUE FOUR  

            Did Judge Fry abuse his discretion by dismissing WorldPeace’s constitutional issue of religious discrimination which Judge Fry did not adjudicate by way of a “mother hubbard” clause in his August 27, 2003 , Judgment for Disbarment.  

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THIS COURT:

STATEMENT OF FACTS

            On June 13, 2000 , Johnell Collins filed a grievance against WorldPeace.  (Record “4”)

            On June 20, 2000 , WorldPeace filed suit against Collins for his attorney fees. (Record “18”)

            On July 21, 2000 , Collins filed an Original Answer in the 281^st District Court in the WorldPeace v. Collins lawsuit in which she violated Rule 2.15 TRDP regarding confidentiality.  (Record “24”)

            On August 31, 2000 , the grievance investigatory Committee made an offer to WorldPeace for a Public Reprimand in the Collins matter.  (Record “25”)

            On October 21, 2000 , Collins gave an affidavit in the 281^st District Court which further violated Rule 2.15 and she also lied about the events in the investigatory process.  (Record “31”)

            On October 27, 2000 , Collins filed a First Amended Answer and Counterclaim for Declaratory Judgment in the 281^st District Court which further violated Rule 2.15 TRDP. (Record “35”)

            On October 29, 2000, WorldPeace filed a Grievance against McNab Miller for violating Rule 102(c)(d), 3.03(a)(1)(2)(5)(b) and 8.04(a)(3)(12) TDRPC.  (Record “40”)

            On November 8, 2000 , WorldPeace filed a Third Amended Original Petition in the WorldPeace v. Collins lawsuit.  (Record “48”)

            On June 8, 2001 , a year after the Collins grievance was filed, WorldPeace filed an election letter in the Collins complaint. (Record “52”)

            On August 20, 2002 , the Commission filed suit on WorldPeace fourteen months after WorldPeace filed his election on the Collins complaint and twenty-six months after Collins filed her grievance and twenty-six months after WorldPeace sued Collins for her fees. (Record “54”)

            On September 15, 2002 , the Commission filed a Plea to the Jurisdiction of the Commission for Lawyer Discipline of the State Bar of Texas in the WorldPeace v. Collins lawsuit. (Record “60”)

            On November 8, 2002 , the Commission filed a First Amended Disciplinary Petition which added five additional complainants to the underlying disciplinary petition in violation of Rule 3.01 TRCP. (Record “67”)

            On January 6, 2003 , Joe Shields filed a Grievance against WorldPeace for faxing to a number listed on Shield’s pleadings in the Shields v. Peterson lawsuit. (Record “85”)

            On January 6, 2003 , Landmark Chevrolet filed a Grievance against WorldPeace to gain an advantage in the Landmark Chevrolet v. WorldPeace lawsuit.  (Record “98”)

            On January 6, 2003 , Bill Heard Chevrolet filed a Grievance against WorldPeace to gain an advantage in the Bill Heard Chevrolet v. WorldPeace lawsuit.  (Record “110”)

            On February 11, 2003 , Mr. Molleston filed supplemental discovery consists of articles from Houston Chronicle and regarding WorldPeace’s webpage.  (Record “120”)  The purpose of this was to discriminate against WorldPeace for his political and religious views.

            On February 25, 2003 , Mark Sanders, attorney for Bill Heard Chevrolet and Landmark Chevrolet, made a statement in his deposition of WorldPeace regarding the fact that as a Jew he was offended by WorldPeace’s comparison of Ariel Sharon to Adolf Hitler. (Record “131”)

            On March 14, 2003 , WorldPeace filed a Notice of Filing Regarding Manipulation by Robert Mapes, Dawn Miller, J.G. MOlleston and Leigh Arneman of the Grievance Process by sending eight of twelve grievances to the Levine committee. (Record “133”)

            On April 10, 2003 , WorldPeace filed Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion for Consolidation Plea to the Jurisdiction based on the fact that the Commission for Lawyer Discipline violated Rule 3.01 TRDP.  (Record “145”)

            On April 14, 2003 , Pre-trial was held in the 269^th District Court on Commission v. WorldPeace and Mr. Molleston said he had violated Rule 3.01 TRDP on several occasions. (Record “152”)

            On June 24, 2003 , WorldPeace wrote a letter to Molleston regarding Rule 3.01 TRDP and demanding the cases in which Mr. Molleston had violated Rule 3.01. (Record “153”)

            On June 24, 2003 , Molleston responding to WorldPeace’s letter regarded Rule 3.01 TRDP refusing to produce the Rule 3.01 TRDP violation cases.        (Record “154”)

            On June 25, 2003 , WorldPeace filed WorldPeace’s Motion to Compel J.G. Molleston to Produce Documents per Rule 3.01 TRDP. (Record “155”)  Which Judge Fry refused to hear. (Record “326”)

            On June 26, 2003 , WorldPeace filed a grievance against J.G. Molleston. (Record “158”)  Which the State Bar refused to process.

            On July 1, 2003 , the Commission filed Petitioner’s Second Motion for No-evidence Summary Judgment.  Which did not list the elements of which WorldPeace had no evidence. (Record “174-176”)

            On July 21, 2003 , WorldPeace filed Defendant’s Seventh Amended Original Answer and Counterclaims and Third Party Claims. (Record “195”) which added a cause of action for injunctive relief for the violation of WorldPeace’s constitutional rights. (Record “255”)

            On July 29, 2003 , a Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release was signed in the 270^th District Court regarding Bill Heard Chevrolet and Landmark Chevrolet v. WorldPeace (Record “259”) in which Bill Heard Chevrolet and Landmark Chevrolet, Plaintiffs, paid WorldPeace, Defendant, $13,000 to settle and which proved the grievance they filed was frivolous. (Record “98,110”)

            On August 13, 2003 , WorldPeace filed WorldPeace’s Supplemental Third Party Petition adding a cause of action for declaratory judgment with regards to the unconstitutional sections of the TRDP. (Record “267”)

            On August 27, 2003 , Judge Fry signed and entered a Judgment of Disbarment. (Record “269”)

            On August 27, 2003 , Judge Fry signed and entered an Order Granting Petitioner’s Second Motion for No-evidence Summary Judgment. (Record “276”) which did not list the elements of which WorldPeace had no evidence regarding the constitutional issues.

            On October 31, 2003 , WorldPeace filed Respondent’s Motion for Rehearing on Petitioner’s Motion for No-evidence Summary Judgment as to Rule 13 Sanctions. (Record “277”)

            On November 6, 2003 , WorldPeace filed WorldPeace’s Third Amended Motion to Vacate, Modify and Clarify Judgment of Disbarment of August 27, 2003 . (Record “280”)

            On November 7, 2003 , Judge Fry signed and entered an Order on Respondent’s Motion for Rehearing on Petitioner’s Second Motion for No-evidence Summary Judgment.  The Motion was denied. (Record “322”)

            On November 7, 2003 , Judge Fry signed and entered an Order on WorldPeace’s Second Motion to Vacate or Modify Judgment of Disbarment of August 27, 2003 .  The Motion was denied. (Record “323”)

            On November 7, 2003 , a Post Trial Hearing was held in the 269^th District Court on Commission v. WorldPeace.  (Record “324”)

REQUIREMENTS FOR MANDAMUS

1)  There is no remedy on appeal because per Rule 3.14 Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure (Appendix) a Judgment for Disbarment cannot be superseded or stayed.  

2)  Judge Fry’s actions in the underlying disciplinary petition as presiding judge are a clear abuse of discretion. 

3)  The Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct affect over 67,000 attorneys in Texas and so WorldPeace’s Application for Writ of Mandamus regarding the underlying disciplinary petition is important to the jurisprudence of the state.  This Application for Writ of Mandamus involves the construction or validity of statutes.  It also involves the constitutionality of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure in regards to its violation of Article 1, Section 3 and Section 3A of the Texas Constitution regarding equal protection.

ISSUE ONE

            Did the Commission for Lawyer Discipline selectively enforce the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure against WorldPeace?  

ISSUE TWO  

            Is the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure unconstitutional per Article 1, Section 3 and Section 3A of the Texas Constitution due to its selective enforcement by the Commission for Lawyer Discipline?  

ISSUE THREE  

            Did Judge Fry abuse his discretion by granting the Commission’s Second Motion for No-evidence Summary Judgment on the issue of religious discrimination when the Commission did not list the elements of religious discrimination of which WorldPeace had no evidence.  

ISSUE FOUR  

            Did Judge Fry abuse his discretion by dismissing WorldPeace’s constitutional issue of religious discrimination which Judge Fry did not adjudicate by way of a “mother hubbard” clause in his August 27, 2003 , Judgment for Disbarment.  

AUTHORITIES  

ABUSE OF DISCRETION  

            “A trial court abuses its discretion by (1) acting arbitrarily and unreasonably, without reference to any guiding rules or principles, or (2) misapplying the law to the established facts of the case.  Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W. 2d 238, 241-42 ( Tex. 1985)”

            Appleton v. Appleton , 76 S.W. 3d 78, 86 ( Tex. App.  – Hous. [14^th Dist] 2002)  

“A trial court “abuses its discretion when it reaches a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law.”  Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 700 S.W. 2d 916, 917 (Tex. 1985, orig. proceeding).”

            Crouch v. Gleason, 875 S.W. 2d 738, 739 (Tex. App. – Amarillo 1994)  

“On the other hand, review of a trial court’s determination of the legal principles controlling its ruling is much less deferential.  A trial court has no ‘discretion’ in determining what the law is or applying the law to the facts.   Thus, a clear failure by the trial court to analyze or apply the law correctly will constitute an abuse of discretion and may result in appellate reversal by extraordinary writ…

            Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W. 2d 833, 839-40 (1992) (citations omitted).”

            Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company v. Abascal, 831 S.W. 2d 559, 563 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 1992)  

“A trial court has no ‘discretion’ in determining what the law is or applying the law to the facts.”

            In re:  News America Publishing, Inc., 974 S.W. 2d 97, 106 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 1998)  

“Following its holding in Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W. 2d 833 ( Tex. 1992), the Court noted that “[A] clear failure by the trial court to analyze or apply the law correctly will constitute an abuse of discretion…” 842 S.W. 2d at 271.”

            Trinity Capital Corporation v. Briones, 847 S.W. 324, 326 (Tex. App. – El Paso 1993)       

We find the trial court further erred in severing appellant’s cross action because same is based upon identical facts and issues growing out of and connected with appellee’s cause of action against him.  Such cross action or counterclaim is styled ‘compulsory counterclaims,’ under (a), Rule 97, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.  It is mandatory to file such action in the cause of action set up by the opposing party in order to avoid circuity of action, inconvenience, expense and consumption of the court’s time in trying said cross action in an independent suit.  We deem if it is necessary to file such cross action that it is also imperative to try it in the same cause.  See notes under Rule 97, sec. (a).

We do not find, as contended by appellee, that section (b) under Rule 174, T.R.C.P., is sufficiently broad to grant a trial court authority to sever causes of action relating to the same subject matter, such as the one before this court.

            Judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded for another trial not inconsistent with this opinion.

            Ulmer v. Mackey, 242 SW2d 679, 682 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth, 1951)

AUTHORITIES  

EQUAL PROTECTION  

            “The equality of rights (equal protection) guarantee of article 1, section 3, of the Texas Constitution is designed to prevent any person or class or persons from being singled out as a subject of discriminatory or hostile legislation.  A statute violates the equal protection guarantee if it is either (1) discriminatory on its face or (2) administered in such a way that it discriminates against an individual or a suspect class to which the individual belongs.”

            Nelson v. Clements, 831 S.W. 2d 587, 590 (Tex. App. – Austin, 1992)  

            “The defense of discriminatory enforcement is based on the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under law.  Though the defense originated in the context of criminal prosecutions, the governing principles also apply to civil proceedings involving state agencies.  To establish a claim of discriminatory enforcement, a defendant must first show that he or she has been singled out for prosecution while others similarly situated and committing the same acts have not.  It is not sufficient, however to show that the law has been enforced against some and not others.  The defendant must also show that the government has purposefully discriminated on the bases of such impermissible considerations as race, religion, or the desire to prevent the exercise of constitutional rights”

            State v. Malone Service Co., 829 S.W. 2d 763, 766 ( Tex. 1992)  

            “Texas Supreme Court held that, to establish a claim of discriminatory enforcement, a party must first show he or she has been singled out for prosecution or enforcement of the regulation or ordinance while others similarly situated and committing the same acts have not.  Further, the party must also show the government has purposefully discriminated on the basis of an impermissible consideration such as race, religion, or the desire to prevent the exercise of constitutional rights.”

            Maguire Oil Co. v. City of Houston , 69 S.W. 3d 350, 370 ( Tex. App. – Texarkana 2002)

             “The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that all persons similarly situated be treated alike.  To state a claim of selective treatment, however, a plaintiff must establish (1) the person compared with others similarly situated was selectively treated, and (2) the selective treatment was motivated by an intention to discriminate on the basis of impermissible considerations, such as race or religion, to punish or inhibit the exercise of constitutional rights, or by a malicious or bad faith intent to injure the person.”

            Wilkinson v. Dallas/Fort Worth Int’l Airport Board, 54 S.W. 3d 1, 20 ( Tex. App. – Dallas 2001)  

            “The Texas ERA states: “Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin.”  Tex. Const. art. I, § 3A.  Because both the United States Constitution and the Texas Constitutions had due process equal protection guarantees before the Texas ERA was adopted, the supreme court has held that the ERA is “more extensive and provides more specific protection” than those provisions.”

            Low-Income Women of Texas v. Bost, 38 S.W. 3d 689, 697 ( Tex. App. – Austin 2000)  

ARGUMENT

            In 1993, Dawn Miller, presently the Chief Disciplinary Counsel and in 1993 a senior assistant general counsel for the local office of the State Bar in Houston, filed a disciplinary petition against WorldPeace that was beyond the statute of limitations.  The suit was dismissed with prejudice (Record “1”) but it had the effect of an unfounded permanent public reprimand of WorldPeace in the public records of the District Clerk of Harris County, Texas. 

            On June 13, 2000 , Johnell Collins filed a grievance on WorldPeace in an effort to avoiding paying WorldPeace a $10,000 fee she owed to him. (Record “4”) WorldPeace filed suit on June 20, 2003, (Cause No. 2000-31108, WorldPeace v. Collins, 281^st District Court, Harris County, Texas) (Record “18”) because he believed that Collins’ filing of a grievance was an undeniable statement on the part of Collins that she had no intention of paying WorldPeace.

            During the course of that lawsuit, Collins filed a pro se answer on July 21, 2000 .  (Record “24”)  In that pro se answer, Collins intentionally violated Rule 2.15 TRDP regarding the confidentiality of grievances. 

            On October 27, 2000 , MacNab Miller, filed a First Amended Answer and Counterclaim against WorldPeace, and in that document further referenced the grievance against WorldPeace (Record “35”) and Collins filed a supporting affidavit which not only further referenced the grievance but also made false statements about what was going on in the grievance. (Record “31”)

            On October 29, 2000 , WorldPeace filed a grievance against MacNab Miller for violating Rule 2.15 TRDP.  The grievance was denied even though there was an undeniable violation of Rules 102(c)(d), 3.03(a)(1)(2)(5)(b), and 8.04(a)(3)(12) TDRPC by Miller. (Record “40”)

            WorldPeace would show the court that the TRDP is selectively enforced as exhibited by the State Bar’s refusal to process WorldPeace’s grievance against Miller for his undeniable violations of the TDRPC.

            WorldPeace would also show that Rule 2.15 TRDP is discriminatory because there are no repercussions against a non attorney complainant like Collins who violates the Rule.

            Over the next 40 months the State Bar processed eleven more grievances against WorldPeace.  Of the 12 grievances processed prior to trial in the underlying disciplinary petition, eight were assigned to the Levine Panel.  (Record “132”)  This is a violation of Rule 2.07 TRDP (“all committee panels must be randomly selected by the chair”) and is discriminatory against WorldPeace.  There are thirty panels in Houston and six were assigned to Mr. Mapes the senior investigator per his testimony at trial.  The odds of eight of twelve grievances being randomly assigned to one of six panels is astronomical.

            WorldPeace would show the court that the State Bar intended to violate WorldPeace’s constitutional rights regarding his religion and political activism (free speech) because the majority of the grievances were assigned to the Levine Committee. 

            On March 14, 2003 , WorldPeace filed a Notice of Filing regarding Manipulation by Mr. Mapes of the grievance committee assigned to investigate the complaint against WorldPeace. (Record “133”)  Judge Fry was on notice about WorldPeace’s religious discrimination claims.   

            Further, Mr. Molleston, attorney for the Commission, filed in the underlying case documents that were totally irrelevant to any of the underlying grievances but show that his intent was to discriminate against WorldPeace for his political activism (free speech) and his religious beliefs. (Record “120”)

            On April 14, 2003 , WorldPeace filed a Plea to the Jurisdiction regarding the fact that the Commission has added five grievances to the underlying petition without filing them with the Clerk of the Supreme Court. (Record “145”)

            In pre-trial, Mr. Molleston lied to the court and stated that in the six years that he had been at the State Bar that he had violated Rule 3.01 on several occasions. (Record “152”)

            On June 24, 2003 , WorldPeace wrote a letter demanding those cases from Molleston (Record “153”) and on the same day Molleston sent a letter back to WorldPeace refusing.  (Record “154”) On June 25, 2003 , WorldPeace filed a motion to compel production of those cases (Record “155”) and Judge Fry refused to hear the motion.  (Record “326”)

            WorldPeace filed a grievance on Molleston for lying to the court and for violating Rules 3.01, 3.02, 4.06, 1.06(Q)(4), 8.04(a)(3), 8.04(a)(4), 3.03, 3.03(a)(1), 5.08(a) of the TDRPC.  The grievance was denied. (Record “158”)

            In addition, WorldPeace would show the court that the Joe Shields grievance against WorldPeace was one of the most frivolous of all grievances processed by Mr. Mapes.  Joe Shields was pro se in Cause Number 784998, Joe Shields v. Peterson, County Civil Court at Law # 1, Harris County , Texas .  Joe Shields’ in his pleadings referenced two fax numbers. (Record “85”)

            WorldPeace in the course of the lawsuit faxed to the numbers on those pleadings.

            WorldPeace would show the court that not only did Mr. Mapes process frivolous grievances he also made sure the majority of those grievances would be investigated by the Levine panel.  (Record “132”)

            Mr. Mapes classified this grievance as a complaint and assigned it to the Levine committee where he knew “just cause” would be found. 

            At the investigatory hearing regarding the Fraser-Nash grievance, Mr. Levine said to Ms. Fraser-Nash at the end of the hearing that “she could walk out the door and down the street and find any number of legitimate attorneys.”  This remark is undeniable evidence of Mr. Levine’s prejudice.  Eight of the twelve complaints against WorldPeace were assigned by Mr. Mapes to the Levine committee.

            Further, Mr. Sanders who hired D Craig Landin, attorney at law and a Fort Bend County Municipal Judge, to file the grievance against WorldPeace on behalf of the Landmark and Bill Heard Chevrolet stated to WorldPeace in WorldPeace’s deposition that he, as a Jew, found WorldPeace remarks on his web page comparing Ariel Sharon to Hilter to be offensive.  (Record “133”)

            WorldPeace would show that Mr. Sanders, Mr. Levine, Leigh Arneman, Brian Schaffer and Vicky Rudel are Jewish and all were involved in the grievances filed against WorldPeace.  WorldPeace is not positive about the religion of D. Craig Landin, J.G. Molleston, Mr. Mapes or Dawn Miller.

            There is little doubt in WorldPeace mind that the source of the manipulation of the grievance process against WorldPeace has to do with his religious views.

WorldPeace would show the court that Zionist politics are linked to Christian beliefs and that a discussion about Ariel Sharon is not one of pure politics but one that incorporates the Jewish belief that they have a God given right to the Holy Land .  This belief is supported by many Christian Fundamentalist who believe that the second coming of Jesus will take place in Jerusalem .

            WorldPeace would show the court that he has an extensive web page regarding politics and religion and it is very difficult to segregate the two in the case of Israel .

            Other than WorldPeace’s religious and political beliefs there is no reason for Mr. Mapes to conspire with others to manipulate frivolous grievances, like that of Joe Shields, to the Levine panel for the purpose of disbarring WorldPeace.

            Judge Fry in the underlying case refused to adjudicate WorldPeace cause of action for Declaratory Judgment declaring various sections of the TRDP as unconstitutional.

            Judge Fry granted a no-evidence summary judgment (Record “276”) on the issues of Political (free speech) and Religious activism and discrimination when the State Bar did not list the elements of these causes of action contrary to the dictates of Rule 166(a)(i) TRCP. (Record “174-176”)  The elements of religious discrimination are delineated in State v. Mahoe above.

            Judge Fry attempted to dismiss WorldPeace constitutional causes of action by way of a “mother hubbard” clause in his Judgment for Disbarment. (Record “275”)

            WorldPeace would show the court that there was a Bill of Exception made by WorldPeace at trial regarding the manipulation of the grievance process by Mr. Mapes and the State Bar.  WorldPeace also filed a Notice of Filing Regarding Manipulation by Robert Mapes, Dawn Miller, J.G. Molleston and Leigh Arnemant of the Grievance Process within the lawsuit.  (Record “133”)  Judge Fry was well aware of this but determined that he would not adjudicate WorldPeace’s constitutional claims regarding religious discrimination and the unconstitutionality of the TRDP.  Judge Fry abused his discretion.

SUMMARY

            There is no doubt that frivolous grievances against WorldPeace were processed by Mr. Mapes and sent to the Levine committee for the purpose of manipulating “just cause” findings against WorldPeace.

            Mr. Levine is biased toward WorldPeace and the source of that bias seems to be based on his objection to WorldPeace comparing Ariel Sharon to Adolf Hitler.

            Mr. Molleston filed documents in response to discovery that had nothing to do with the underlying case.  They were simply to discriminate and ridicule WorldPeace for his political and religious views.  If Mr. Molleston did not intend to use those documents at trial he would not have produced them in response to WorldPeace’s request for discovery.

            The Commission for Lawyer Discipline was determined to disbar WorldPeace for his political and religious views and manipulated the TRDP to accomplish this goal.

            The TRDP do not provide for any sanctions against nay of the Commission personnel for any violation of the TRDP.

            Nothing in the TRDP is enforceable.  Yet the TRDP allows the Commission for Lawyer Discipline to pursue or not pursue attorneys at will.

            The State Bar is selective in its enforcement of the TRDP and selective as to who it determines to disbar.

            The TRDP is unconstitutional in its arbitrariness and in its violation of the equal protection rights guarantee by the Texas Constitution.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Relator moves this court to mandamus Judge Fry to vacate his August 27, 2003, Judgment for Disbarment and prays Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure be ruled unconstitutional and for such other and further relief at law or in equity as this court may deem proper.

Respectfully submitted,

_______________________________
John WorldPeace
2620 Fountainview, 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 December 3, 2003 , by fax and to the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas on December 3, 2003 , via EXPRESS MAIL.  

                                                                                                                                                            
John WorldPeace  

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE  

            Opposing Counsel opposes the RELATOR’S APPLICATION FOR MANDAMUS.

____________________________________
                                                                        John WorldPeace  

APPENDIX  

EXHIBIT LIST

EXHIBIT       DESCRIPTION  

A.  August 27, 2003              Judgment for Disbarment  

Rule 2.07  Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure

Rule 2.15  Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure

Rule 3.01  Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure

NO. ________________

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF TEXAS

______________________________

 IN RE:

JOHN WORLDPEACE

______________________________

 Re:  Cause No. 2002-42081; Commission for Lawyers Discipline v. John WorldPeace, 269^th District Court 
Harris County , Texas

______________________________________________________________________

AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN WORLDPEACE, ATTORNEY AT LAW

______________________________________________________________________

STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF HARRIS  

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared the affiant, John WorldPeace, who being by me first duly sworn, on his oath stated:  

My name is John WorldPeace, I am over 21 years of age, of sound mind, capable of making this affidavit and fully competent to testify to the matters stated herein, have personal knowledge of each of the matters stated herein, and the facts contained in this affidavit are true.           

The exhibits in the Appendix attached to RELATOR’S Application for Writ of Mandamus are true and correct copies of the originals.  

The transcripts of the November 7, 2003 , and April 14, 2003 , hearings are a part of my business records, kept in the normal course of business.  I recorded the hearing with two tape recorders and had my legal assistant transcribe the tapes and then I listened to the tapes and read the transcript and then edited the transcript.  It is a standard practice of mine to record and transcribe parts or all of hearings as needed.”  

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

RECORD  

DATE                                     DESCRIPTION

A.  August 19, 1994               ORDER OF DISMISSAL in State Bar of Texas v.                                                 WorldPeace  

B.  June 13, 2000                   Collins Grievance against WorldPeace  

C.  June 20, 2000                   WorldPeace v. Collins lawsuit  

D.  July 21, 2000                   Collins Original Answer in the 281^st  

E.  August 31, 2000               Collins Offer from the Committee for Public Reprimand  

F.  October 21, 2000             Affidavit of Johnell Collins in the 281^st  

G.  October 27, 2000             FIRST AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM                                                  FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT in the 281^st  

H.  October 29, 2000             WorldPeace Grievance against McNab Miller  

I.  November 8, 2000             WorldPeace’s THIRD AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION  

J.  June 8, 2001                      Collins Election Letter  

K.  August 20, 2002               ORIGINAL DISCIPLINARY PETITION  

L  September 15, 2002         PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION                                                 FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINE OF THE STATE BAR OF                                                 TEXAS  

M.  November 8, 2002          FIRST AMENDED DISCIPLINARY PETITION  

N.  January 6, 2003                Shields Grievance against WorldPeace  

O.  January 6, 2003                Landmark Chevrolet Grievance against WorldPeace  

P.  January 6, 2003                 Bill Heard Chevrolet Grievance against WorldPeace  

Q.  February 11, 2003            Articles from Houston Chronicle regarding Web Page, etc.  

R.  February 25, 2003            Sanders statement regarding Ariel Sharon  

S.  March 12, 2003                Chart of Committee Members in Grievances against                                                 WorldPeace  

T.  March 14, 2003               NOTICE OF FILING REGARDING MANIPULATION BY                                                 ROBERT MAPES, DAWN MILLER, J.G. MOLLESTON                                                 AND LEIGH ARNEMAN OF THE GRIEVANCE                                                 PROCESS  

U.  April 10, 2003                  RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND/OR                                                 MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION PLEA TO THE                                                 JURISDICTION  

V.  April 14, 2003                  Transcript of Molleston Statements  

W.  June 24, 2003                  WorldPeace letter to Molleston  

X.  June 24, 2003                   Molleston letter to WorldPeace  

Y.  June 25, 2003                   WORLDPEACE’S MOTION TO COMPEL J.G.                                                 MOLLESTON TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS  

Z.  June 26, 2003                   WorldPeace Grievance against J.G. Molleston  

AA.  July 1, 2003                   PETITIONER’S SECOND MOTION FOR NO-EVIDENCE                                                 SUMMARY JUDGMENT  

AB.  July 21, 2003                 DEFENDANT’S SEVENTH AMENDED ORIGINAL                                                 ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD PARTY                                                 CLAIMS  

AC.  July 29, 2003                 CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND                                                 RELEASE in the 270^th District Court regarding Bill Heard                                                 Chevrolet and Landmark Chevrolet v. John WorldPeace

AD.  August 13, 2003            WORLDPEACE’S SUPPLEMENTAL THIRD PARTY                                                 PETITION  

AE.  August 27, 2003             JUDGMENT OF DISBARMENT  

AF.  August 27, 2003             ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S SECOND MOTION                                                  FOR NO EVIDENCE SUMMARY JUDGMENT  

AG.  October 31, 2003          RESPONDENT’S AMENDED MOTION FOR                                                 REHEARING ON PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR                                                                                 NO- EVIDENCE SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO RULE 13                                                 SANCTIONS  

AH.  November 6, 2003        WORLDPEACE’S THIRD AMENDED MOTION TO                                                 VACATE, MODIFY AND CLARIFY JUDGMENT OF                                                 DISBARMENT OF AUGUST 27, 2003  

AI.  November 7, 2003          ORDER ON RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR                                                 REHEARING ON PETITIONER’S SECOND MOTION                                                 FOR NO-EVIDENCE SUMMARY JUDGMENT  

AJ.  November 7, 2003          ORDER ON WORLDPEACE’S SECOND AMENDED                                                  MOTION TO VACATE OR MODIFY JUDGMENT OF                                                  DISBARMENT OF AUGUST 27, 2003  

AK.  November 7, 2003        Transcript on Post Trial Hearing Proceedings

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