The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to issue a Writ of Prohibition/Mandamus against a district judge under Section 22.002(a) of the Government Code and Article V. Section 3 of The Texas Constitution.

Is it an abuse of discretion for Judge Fry to have refused to recuse himself as presiding judge in the underlying disciplinary petition?

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THIS COURT:

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On April 9, 2003 , the Commission for Lawyer Discipline filed a Motion to Sever WorldPeace’s counterclaim for religious and political discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Record “1”)

On April 10, 2003, WorldPeace filed a Plea to the Jurisdiction (Record “8”) predicated on the fact that the Mr. Molleston, attorney for the Commission, added five additional grievances to the underlying disciplinary petition contrary to Rule 3.01 TRDP which mandates that once an attorney makes a Rule 2.14 TRDP election to proceed with a trial de novo in the district court, the Commission MUST file a disciplinary petition with the Clerk of the Supreme Court. (See Cause No. 03-0990 pending in this court)

On April 14, 2003 , at the pretrial hearing Mr. Molleston stated that in the six years that he had been with the State Bar he had on several occasions violated Rule 3.01 TRDP. (Record “15”)

On April 23, 2003 , Judge Fry signed his first Judgment for Disbarment against WorldPeace. (Record “22”) No other orders were signed. It was impossible to tell if Judge Fry was entering a Rule 301 TRCP final judgment on the Disciplinary Rules that Judge Fry had severed in pretrial (Record “19”) or if he was trying to pour out all of WorldPeace’s counterclaims and Third Party Claims with a “mother hubbard” clause. Out of an abundance of caution, WorldPeace filed Motions for a New Trial and a Motion to Modify the court’s Judgment for Disbarment. (Record “46”)

On June 23, 2003 , at the hearing on WorldPeace’s post judgment motions, Judge Fry set aside his April 23, 2003 , Judgment for Disbarment. (Record “54”) One of the central issues pled by WorldPeace in his post trial motion was the fact that it is an abuse of discretion to sever WorldPeace’s Rule 97a TRCP compulsory counter claims as Judge Fry had done in pre trial. (Record 360)

On June 24, 2003 , WorldPeace wrote a letter to Mr. Molleston demanding to know the cases in which he had violated Rule 3.01 TRDP because there are none in the case law. (Record “55”) Mr. Molleston on the same day wrote back and refused to produce said cases. (Record “56”)

On June 25, 2003 , WorldPeace filed a Motion to Compel Molleston to produce said cases. (Record “57”) Judge Fry refused to set the Motion for a hearing. Further, on November 7, 2003 , in the hearings regarding WorldPeace’s post trial motions, Judge Fry wrongly ruled that discovery had been closed and he was not going to hear WorldPeace’s Motion to Compel. (Record “319”)

Mr. Molleston lied to the court at the time of pre-trial. Judge Fry continues to refuse to have a hearing on WorldPeace’s Motion. WorldPeace filed an Application for Writ of Mandamus to force Judge Fry to perform his ministerial duties. (See Cause No 03-1082 pending in this court)

On July 21, 2003, in his Response to Mr. Molleston’s Second Motion for No Evidence Summary Judgment, (Record “60”) WorldPeace complained that Judge Fry had not severed the lawsuit in accordance with his pretrial ruling of April 14, 2003, and that there was no way to know which cause number was the proper cause number to file pleadings. (Record “86”) Per the local rules of Harris County , when a case is severed per Rule 41 TRCP, it must be assigned a new cause number using the underlying case number with the addition of a letter suffix. Judge Fry refused to make any kind of a severance ruling until August 27, 2003 , (Record “107”) four and a half months after his severance ruling in pretrial on April 14, 2002 .

On August 5, 2003 , WorldPeace filed a Motion for a Severance Order and Request for Hearing (Record “96”) which Judge Fry refused to hear.

On August 27, 2003 , Judge Fry signed a second Judgment for Disbarment. (Record “109”)

WorldPeace did not discover Judge Fry’s relationship with the Presbyterian Church until WorldPeace happened to find a Texas Legislature accolade on the internet on August 29, 2003 . (Record “127”) On August 29, 2003 , WorldPeace wrote two letters to Judge Fry regarding Judge Fry recusing himself. (Record “116,121”)

On September 26, 2003 , WorldPeace filed a Motion for New Trial and Motion to Vacate the August 27, 2003 , Judgment for Disbarment. (Record “128, 191”)

On October 7, 2003 , WorldPeace filed a Motion to Recuse Judge Fry

(Record “232”) based on the fact that Judge Fry was motivated to rule adversely to WorldPeace because of WorldPeace’s attack on the Democratic Party when WorldPeace ran for governor of Texas in 2001 and 2002, the fact that WorldPeace had demitted from the Masonic Lodge of which Judge Fry is a member, and the fact that WorldPeace has two major lawsuits against the Presbyterian Church; one on behalf of WorldPeace mother. Judge Fry is an elder in the Presbyterian Church.

On October 23, 2003 , Judge Underwood, Judge of the 2d Administrative Judicial Region denied WorldPeace Motion to Recuse Judge Fry. (Record “261”)

On November 7, 2003, Judge Fry denied WorldPeace’s Motion for New Trial, (Record “322”) Motion for JNOV, (Record “325”) Motion regarding the rehearing of the Commission’s No Evidence Summary Judgment (Record “324”) which Judge Fry had granted as well as WorldPeace’s Motion to Vacate, Clarify or Modify the court’s Judgment for Disbarment. (Record “323”)

The Commission did not respond to any of WorldPeace’s motions which were extensive.

The Commission’s No Evidence Summary Judgment which Judge Fry granted did not plead the elements of WorldPeace’s causes of action as is required by Rule 166a(i) TRCP. (Record “60”) In addition, the Commisison did not even address WorldPeace’s counterclaims regarding violations of his right against self incrimination nor WorldPeace’s cause of action for injunctive relief. The Commission also tried to submit a prohibited general demurrer which is not allowed by Rule 71 TRCP. (See Cause No. 03-1023 pending in this court)

To make matters more complicated, Judge Fry stated in his August 27, 2003 , Judgment for Disbarment that he was granting the Commission Motion for Severance regarding WorldPeace’s counterclaims against Lang and Apodaca. (Record “109”)The problem is that the Commission never pled to sever Lang and Apodaca but pled to sever WorldPeace’s constitutional counterclaims for political (free speech) and religious discrimination and WorldPeace cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Record “1”) (See Cause No. 03-1049 pending in this court)

To make matters even more complicated, Mr. Molleston pled for a severance of these issues meaning Rule 41 TRCP but cited Rule 174(b) TRCP which has to do with separate trials in one lawsuit. (Record “2”) (See Cause No. 03-1049 pending in this court)

On August 27, 2003 , Judge Fry also signed an Order of Severance where he granted the Commission’s Motion for Severance and also severed Lang and Apodaca which is exactly what he orally ruled at pretrial. (Record “18”) Lang and Apodaca were severed sua sponte by Judge Fry after he denied Lang’s motion to dismiss. It had nothing to do with the Commission’s Motion for Severance.

In his August 27, 2003 , Judgment for Disbarment, Judge Fry incorporated his Order for Severance (Record “107”) and his Order granting the Commission’s No Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment. (Record “108”) The net effect is that Judge Fry’s Judgment for Disbarment is disjunctive and impossible to understand.

The Severance Order granted a Rule 41 TRCP severance of the Commission Motion’s to sever WorldPeace’s counterclaims for religious and political (free speech) discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress but the August 27, 2003 , Judgment for Disbarment said the cournterclaims were the subject of a Rule 174(b) TRCP separate trial. (Record “109”)

Further, the Judgment for Disbarment indicated that the Commission’s Motion to Sever Lang and Apodaca were granted when the Commission never filed a Motion to sever Lang and Apodaca. (Record “1”)

Regardless, on November 7, 2003 , Judge Fry refused to modify or clarify his disjunction August 27, 2003 , orders per WorldPeace motions (Record “323”).

On November 19, 2003 , WorldPeace filed a Motion for a Trial Setting on the unadjudicated issues in the underlying disciplinary petition and Judge Fry has refused to respond. (Record “329”)

On November 19, 2003 , WorldPeace filed a second demand for a hearing on his Motion to Compel Mr. Molleston to produce the Rule 3.01 TRDP violations that he had committed. Judge Fry has refused to respond. (Record “337”)

On November 21, 2003 , WorldPeace filed a Demand for Judge Fry to set aside his Interlocutory Judgment for Disbarment and Judge Fry refused to respond. (Record “341”)

On December 4, 2003 , WorldPeace filed a Motion for a scheduling order on the severed “A” lawsuit which included Lang, Apodaca and WorldPeace counterclaims for unconstitutional religious discrimination and intentional infliction of emotion distress. Judge Fry again has refused to respond. (Record “357”)

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. 4) This Application for Writ of Mandamus concerns Judge Fry’s refusal to perform his ministerial duties.

ISSUE ONE

Is it an abuse of discretion for Judge Fry to have and to continue to refuse to recuse himself as presiding judge in the underlying disciplinary petition?

AUTHORITIES: ABUSE OF DISCRETION

“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 may not arbitrarily halt proceedings in a pending case, and mandamus will lie to compel a trial court to hear and rule on motions pending before it.”
In re: Tasby; 40 SW#d 190, 191 (Tex.App.-Texarkana, 2001)

AUTHORITIES – RECUSAL

“We recognize that a post-verdict motion to recuse is proper where, as here, the party seeking recusal claims he did not know the basis for recusal until after the completion of the trial. A judge’s refusal to recuse is viewed on appeal by an abuse of discretion standard. Public policy demands that a judge who tries a case act with absolute impartiality. Judicial decisions rendered under circumstances that suggest bias, prejudice or favoritism undermine the integrity of the courts, breed skepticism and mistrust, and thwart the principles on which the judicial system is based.”
Hoggett v. Brown, 971 S.W. 2d 472, 495 (Tex. App. – Hous (14^th Dist) 1997)

ARGUMENT

I have delayed in filing this Application for Writ of Mandamus in hopes that Judge Fry would respond to the eleven Applications for Writ of Mandamus that I have filed in the last thirty days in this matter. Unfortunately, Judge Fry has not responded at all.

There is more than enough evidence in my various Applications for Writs of Mandamus which are before this court to lead one to the conclusion that Judge Fry abused his discretion by not recusing himself in this matter.

Judges like Judge Fry who have little experience with the grievance process and who obviously do not read the pleading in the lawsuit, who refuse to carry out their ministerial duties to hold hearings and to try all the causes of action in the lawsuit as opposed to attempting to sua sponte dismiss them with a “mother hubbard” clause, and who enter disjunctive orders which they refuse to clarify or modify are an impediment to justice.

JUDGE FRY IS

BIASED AND PREDISPOSED IN THIS LAWSUIT

The three main reasons that WorldPeace believes that Judge Fry is biased and predisposed 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 to the internet at www.johnworldpeace.com.

WorldPeace’s predictions that the 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 ran as a Republican for Mayor of Houston. After setting aside his first Judgment for Disbarment in June 23, 2003, Judge Fry waited until August 27, 2003 to enter a second Judgment for Disbarment. This was two days after WorldPeace filed to run for Mayor of Houston.

2) WorldPeace would show the court that he was a member of the Masonic Lodge but withdrew his membership in 1988 after changing his name to John WorldPeace. WorldPeace would show the court that Judge Fry is a Mason and viewed WorldPeace’s withdrawal from Masonary as an personal affront.

3) WorldPeace would show that after Judge Fry’s most recent Judgment for Disbarment (August 27, 2003) was signed, WorldPeace discovered that Judge Fry had received an accolade from the Texas Legislature. (Record “127”) 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 (see www.presbyterians-r-us.com) and WorldPeace alleges that Judge Fry took a personal affront to WorldPeace’s attack on his religious denomination.

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.

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

PROBLEMS WITH THE AUGUST 27, 2003, JUDGMENT FOR DISBARMENT AGAINST WORLDPEACE

1) In his August 27, 2003, Judgment for Disbarment, Judge Fry stated that he severed WorldPeace’s mandatory counterclaims against John Lang and Phillip Apodaca based on a motion filed by the Commission. (Record “109”) The truth is that these counterclaims were severed after the Judge denied Lang’s Motion to Dismiss and then sua sponte severed WorldPeace’s mandatory counterclaims against Lang and Apodaca. (Record “18”)

2) Judge Fry indicates his August 27, 2003, Judgment for Disbarment that in pre-trial he had ruled that there would be separate trials on WorldPeace’s counterclaims. The attached transcription of that pretrial ruling shows that Judge Fry severed those causes of action. (Record “18”) There was never an indication in pre-trial that there would be separate trials.

In pretrial, Judge Fry only used the word sever which WorldPeace understood to mean Rule 41 TRCP (See Cause No. 03-1049 pending in this court.) Yet per his August 27, 2003, Judgment for Disbarment, Judge Fry indicated that when he used the word “sever” regarding Lang and Apodaca in pretrial he meant Rule 41 TRCP but when he used “sever” with regards to WorldPeace constitutional claims, sever meant Rule 174 (b) separate trials. This is nonsense.

WorldPeace would show the court that sever meant sever until WorldPeace filed his Motion for New Trial and Motion to Modify Judge Fry’s April 23, 2003, Judgment for Disbarment which Judge Fry set aside on June 23, 2003. When WorldPeace filed these two motions, Judge Fry realized that he would be reversed due to his severance of WorldPeace’s Rule 97a TRCP compulsory counterclaims. (Record “359”)

In order to avoid reversal, Judge Fry stated in his August 27, 2003, Judgment for Disbarment that he did not sever WorldPeace constitutional counterclaims but had ruled that there would be a Rule 174(b) separate trails. The reporter’s record (Record “18”) shows this to be untrue.

WorldPeace has a right to expect Judge Fry to understand the nuances of the law in regards to a word like “sever”.

WorldPeace would have tried the lawsuit differently had he understood that sever did not mean Rule 41 TRCP severance. (See Cause No. 03-1049 pending in this Court)

3) Further, during the course of the trial on the Rule Violations, WorldPeace created a 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 the court had in fact determined to have separate trials. Judge Fry did not stop WorldPeace from creating his Bill of Exception by reminding WorldPeace that there would be a separate as opposed to a severed trials on those Bill of Exception issues.

4) In addition, Judge Fry knew that WorldPeace had added two supplemental petitions to the lawsuit after the Judge vacated his April 23, 2003, Judgment for Disbarment; said supplements were dated August 5, 2003 (Adding Declaratory Judgment)(Record 368) and August 13, 2003 (Adding a counterclaim against Complainant Collins) (Record 373), more than seven days prior to the Judge’s Judgment for Disbarment on August 27, 2003.

Judge Fry added a “mother hubbard” clause to his August 27, 2003, Judgment for Disbarment for the purpose of attempting to dismiss WorldPeace’s supplemental causes of action. (Record “115”)

5) Judge Fry incorporates his August 27, 2003, severance order (Record “107”) into his Judgment for Disbarment. (Record “109”) The severance order severs WorldPeace counterclaims for religious and political discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress into an “A” case. But in the Judgment for Disbarment these claims were Rule 174(b) separate trials.

OTHER 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. The Commission outside of Rule 3.01 TRDP added five additional grievances to the original lawsuit regarding Johnell Collins. (See Cause No. 03-0990 denied without comment)

In pre-trial, Mr. Molleston, attorney for the Commission, stated to Judge Fry after being queried, that the Commission has violated Rule 3.01 TRDP and added additional grievances to other lawsuits in the six years he had worked for the State Bar.

WorldPeace filed a motion with the court to require Mr. Molleston to produce any cases that he had regarding adding on additional grievances after a lawsuit had already been filed. (Record “55”) This relates to WorldPeace’s constitutional claims. Mr. Molleston refused to produce any cases (Record “56”) and Judge Fry refused to compel Molleston to produce any cases because WorldPeace alleges the judge knows no such cases exist.

2) WorldPeace would show the court that Judge Fry came into Harris County on August 27, 2003, unannounced and signed a second Judgment for Disbarment and for the first time an order for severance of the John Lang and Philip Apodaca mandatory counter claims. The court did not, in any of the orders that it signed, speak to the issue of the Collins’ counterclaim (Record “373” filed by WorldPeace on August 5, 2003, nor did the court speak to the issue of WorldPeace’s additional cause of action for a declaratory judgment. (Record “368”) Therefore, 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.

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

3) 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 TRDP, it is way beyond the 180 day limit mandated to try the Commission’s disciplinary petition. No further trials have been set in this matter. There is not a final judgment per Rule 301 TRCP.

4) It was wrong to make WorldPeace guess what Judge Fry was doing with regards to severing the lawsuit until four months after pretrial. WorldPeace brought the severance issue up in his April Motion for New Trial and April Motion to Modify (Record “46”) and again in his Response to the Commission’s Second Motion for No Evidence Summary Judgment (Record “86”) and again in his July Motion for Severance Order on August 5, 2003. (Record “96”)

WorldPeace alleges that Judge Fry was trying to manipulate the post judgment motions so that he would not have to retry the underlying lawsuit.

Even after he finally entered an Order of Severance on August 27, 2003, it was still disjunctive in the way it was incorporated into Judge Fry’s Judgment for Disbarment. After this was pointed out to Judge Fry in WorldPeace’s Motion for New Trial and Motion to Modify the Judgment, Judge Fry still refused to clarify his undeniably disjunctive orders. (Record 323)

5) Judge Fry has refused to have or respond to the following motions filed by WorldPeace: a) November 19, 2003, Motion for Trial setting on the unadjudicated issues. (Record “329”) b) WorldPeace’s Motion for hearing on WorldPeace Motion to Compel, (Record “337”) c) WorldPeace demand for Judge Fry to set aside his interlocutory August 27, 2003, Judgment for Disbarment (Record “341”) and d) WorldPeace’s Motion for trial setting on the “A” case. (Record “357”)

6) Judge Fry signed a Judgment for Disbarment effective October 15, 2003, (Record “111”) knowing that he could not enforce it until his plenary power expired. (Record “327”) This had the undeniable effect of a de facto disbarment of WorldPeace.

7) Judge Fry granted restitution to Complainants Lang, Apodaca and Fraser-Nash in his August 27, 2003, Judgment for Disbarment knowing that there was no issue submitted to the jury regarding Rule 1.14 TDRPC. (Record “28”) (See Cause No. 03-1070 pending in this Court)

8) Judge Fry went forward with the Collins matter regarding restitution knowing that it was barred by res judicata (See Cause No. 03-1084 pending in this Court)

9) Judge Fry granted summary judgment on issues which he knew were not pled by the Commission in its Second Motion for No Evidence Summary Judgment and on issues where the Commission did not list the elements for which there was no evidence as mandated by Rule 166(a)(i). (See Cause No. 03-1023 pending in this Court)

SUMMARY

It is undeniable that Judge Fry has refused to perform his ministerial duty to hear motions and try the underlying lawsuit. It is undeniable that Judge Fry orders of August 27, 2003, Judgment for Disbarment, Order of Severance and Order on the Commission’s Summary Judgment are disjunctive and do not make sense when read together and yet Judge Fry refused to clarify or modify the Judgment for Disbarment.

WorldPeace not only did not get a fair trial on many of his issues, WorldPeace did not even get a trial. The acts of Judge Fry show bias and prejudice and WorldPeace presented three significant reasons for that bias. No one can say that WorldPeace has been treated justly by Judge Fry in the underlying trial. Per Hoggett above, it was an abuse of discretion for Judge Fry not to recuse himself.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, WorldPeace moves this court to mandamus Judge Fry to recuse himself 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 10, 2003, by fax and to the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas on December 10, 2003, via EXPRESS MAIL.

John WorldPeace

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

Opposing Counsel opposes the RELATOR’S APPLICATION FOR MANDAMUS.

____________________________________
John WorldPeace

APPENDIX

EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION

A. August 27, 2003 Judgment for Disbarment

B. August 27, 2003 Order of Severance

C. August 27, 2003 Order Granting Petitioner’s Second Motion for No-evidence Summary Judgment

D. RULES

Rule 3.01 Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure………………………….….1, 2, 12

Rule 2.14 Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure………………………………….…1

Rule 301 Texas Rules of Civil Procedure……………………………………………..1

Rule 97a Texas Rules of Civil Procedure…………………………………………….2

Rule 41 Texas Rules of Civil Procedure…………………………………….5, 10, 11

Rule 174b Texas Rules of Civil Procedure…………………………………….5, 10, 11

Rule 3.14 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 and Record attached to RELATOR’S Application for Writ of Mandamus are true and correct copies of the originals.

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

____________________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE
STATE OF TEXAS

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

G. May 23, 2003 WorldPeace Motion to Modify the April 23, 2003, Judgment of Disbarment

I. June 24, 2003 WorldPeace letter to Molleston regarding compelling complainants

J. June 24, 2003 Molleston letter to WorldPeace regarding
compelling complainants

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

M. July 21, 2003 Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Second Motion for No Evidence Summary Judgment

N. August 5, 2003 WorldPeace Motion for Order of Severance and Request for Hearing

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

U. September 26, 2003 Respondent WorldPeace’s Third Amended Motion for New Trial and Motion for JNOV Regarding the
Court’s August 27, 2003, Judgment for Disbarment

V. September 26, 2003 WorldPeace’s Second Amended Motion to Vacate Or Modify Judgment of Disbarment of August
27, 2003

Y. October 31, 2003 Respondent’s Amended Motion for Rehearing on Petitioner’s Second Motion for No-Evidence Summary Judgment

AB. November 7, 2003 Order on WorldPeace’s Second Amended
Motion to Vacate or Modify Judgment of Disbarment of August 27, 2003

AC. November 7, 2003 Order on Respondent’s Motion for Rehearing
On Petitioner’s Second Motion for No-Evidence Summary Judgment

AE. November 12, 2003 Simpson’s Stacy Crenshaw’s Second Motion for Continuance

AH. November 19, 2003 Motion (Demand) for Hearing on
Respondent's Motion to Compel Production

AI. November 21, 2003 WorldPeace’s Demand for Judge Fry to Set Aside His Interlocutory August 27, 2003 , Judgment for Disbarment

AJ. December 4, 2003 WorldPeace’s Motion for Scheduling Order and Trial Setting

AK. June 19, 2003 Respondent WorldPeace’s Second Amended Motion For New Trial and Motion for JNOV

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?

Hoggett v. Brown

971 S.W. 2d 472, 495 (Tex. App. – Hous (14th Dist) 1997)……………………………7

AUTHORITIES – RECUSAL

ARGUMENT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

971 S.W. 2d 472, 495 (Tex. App. – Hous (14^th Dist) 1997)……………………………7