NO. 03-0990  

COMPANION TO: 03-978, 03-1022, 03-1023, 03-1049, 03-1069, 
03-1070, 03-1079, 03-1082, 03-1083, 03-1084. 03-1117, 03-1139








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



RULE 3.01 and RULE 3.02


                                                                        Filed by: John WorldPeace, Relator  

                                                                        John WorldPeace
2620 Fountainview,
Suite 106   
Houston , Texas 77057
Tel. 713-784-7618
                                                                        Fax. 713-784-9063
TBA# 21872800  

                                                                        Attorney Pro Se


The following is a complete list of all the parties and the names and addresses of all counsel in the underlying lawsuit.  

Relator (Respondent)

John WorldPeace  

John WorldPeace

2620 Fountainview, Suite 106  

Houston , Texas 77057

Tel. 713-784-7618

Fax. 713-784-9063

Attorney Pro Se                     

Respondent: Honorable James R. Fry

Presiding Judge in the Underlying Disciplinary Petition

(Cause No. 2002-42081; Commission for Lawyer Discipline v. John WorldPeace, 269th District Court, Harris County , Texas )

15th Judicial District Court

200 S. Crockett St .

Sherman , Texas 75090

Tel:   903-813-4303 

Fax:  903-813-4304


Real Parties in Interest and Parties to the Case.  (Petitioner)

            Commission for Lawyer Discipline

Dawn Miller

J. G Molleston

State Bar of Texas

1111 Fannin, Suite 1370

Houston , Texas   77002

Tel:  713-759-6931

Fax: 713-752-2158

Attorneys for the Commission for Lawyer Discipline


COMES NOW, WorldPeace and files this Motion for Rehearing and would respectfully submit the following.

            I have filed twelve applications for writs of mandamus with this court.  Some are in regards to undeniable violations of the law by Judge Fry, the presiding judge in the underlying disciplinary petition, and others relate to problem areas of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure that only this court has the authority to remedy.

            I have been de facto disbarred due to the intransigent corruption of Judge Fry in his undeniable abuses of discretion in the underlying case.  He has granted a no evidence summary judgment that this court knows is contrary to Rule 166a(i) TRCP (Cause No. 03-1023 pending before this court); his August 27, 2003, orders are an undeniable statement that he has not read the underlying pleadings and his Judgment for Disbarment which incorporates his order granting the Commission’s Motion for No Evidence Summary Judgment and Order of Severance are undeniably disjunctive and make no sense when read together (Cause No. 03-1049 pending before this court); he has arrogantly refused to set my motions in the underlying disciplinary petition for hearings and refused to proceed to trial on the unadjudicated causes of action (Cause No. 03-1139 pending before this court); and he has refused to even proceed to trial on the “A” case he severed all of which were per Rule 3.07 TRDP to take place within 180 days of the Commission’s filing of the disciplinary petition against me in August 2002, sixteen months ago.

            There has been an undeniable manipulation of the grievance hearing process against me in violation of Rule 2.07 (Cause No. 03-1117 pending before this court); and there has been an undeniable violation of Rule 3.01 TRDP which mandates that disciplinary petitions against me must be filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court.

            It is undeniable that the various sections of the TRDP are selectively enforced against the Respondent attorneys and not at all against the Commission or its attorney and employees.  This court promulgated the TRDP in 1992 and is about to renew them.  There is no doubt that in their application, the TRDP violate the Respondent attorney’s constitutional rights against self-incrimination, equal protection and due process in that there is no enforcement provisions in the TRDP applicable to the Commission.

            In addition, Rule 15.11 of the TRDP attempts to give absolute immunity to the Commission and its attorneys and employees who violate and enforce the TRDP in any selective manner they decide.

            The “must” provisions in various rules of the TRDP (2.07, 2.14, 2.16(c), 3.01, 3.03) are meaningless and the time restraints of Rule 15.07 TRDP are just as meaningless as well as the provisions of Rule 3.07.

            The Commission’s attorneys lie to the court as has Mr. Molleston in the underlying petition (Cause No. 03-1082 pending before this court); and I would pray the court to take judicial notice of Cause No. 14-03-00531-CV; Steven Nelson v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline, Fourteenth Court of Appeals, Harris County Texas in which Jennifer Hasley another attorney for the Commission in Houston undeniably lied to that court in order to achieve substitute service and a default judgment against Steven Nelson.  In addition, Judge Cynthia Kent in the underlying disciplinary petition violated Rule 3.02 by signing a Judgment for Disbarment out of county and then the judge of the 268th District Court, Fort Bend County signed the Judgment for Disbarment against Mr. Nelson in county but without Rule 3.02 authority.

            Neither Judge Kent nor Judge Fry has any incentive to abide by the TRDP because the court seems to have no intention of enforcing the TRDP against the Commission or the Judges it appoints per Rule 3.02 TRDP.  It is undeniable that J G Molleston and Jennifer Hasley have no compunction about lying to whatever court they are in due to their alleged absolute immunity per Rule 15.11 TRDP.

            This court seems to be determined to methodically deny each of my applications for writs of mandamus in that it has already denied three and per this writing has requested no responses from the Commission with regard to the remaining eight per Rule 58.2(b) TRAP.

            This court is the ultimate authority with regards to the TRDP in this state.  The TRDP is unconstitutional in its selective application to whatever attorneys the corrupt attorneys at the Commission decide to pursue and selective application of the rules to the Respondent attorney but not the Commission for Lawyer Discipline. 

It is virtually impossible for me to understand how this court can ignore all the evidence that I have placed before it regarding the TRDP.  My applications for writs of mandamus if denied will be refiled in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals where the underlying appeal has been assigned (Cause No. 01-03-00555-CV); and eventually if necessary the Fourteenth Court of Appeals will have to write an opinion on each and every one of my mandamus issues per Rule 47.1 TRAP; unless “must” no longer means “must” in the TRAP. 

At the time the opinion is issued, I feel there will be a question as to why this court refused to rule on my mandamuses.  Questions will be asked by the membership of the State Bar about the justice of the entire grievance process.

            I have drafted a Section 1983 Federal lawsuit and will notice all the parties named in Cause No. 03-1117 pending before this court before filing it.  It is unfortunate that I must proceed in federal court due to my serious doubts about my ability to get a fair trial within this state.

            It is possible that the Commission is going to file contempt charges on me in an attempt to enforce Judge Fry’s undeniable interlocutory Judgment for Disbarment of August 27, 2003 which is having the effect of a de facto disbarment on me.  If that happens, I am prepared to go to jail.  I will have a writ of habeas corpus prepared which I will file in this court as soon as I am taken into custody and then in the Federal Court if necessary. 

            If that writ of habeas corpus is denied, I think that there are going to be serious credibility issues raised by the membership of the bar with regards to the judiciary of this state and that will be very unfortunate for everyone.

            In regards to this specific motion for rehearing, I believe this court should either strictly interpret Rule 3.01 TRDP or simply strike the “must” language contained in it.  And if that “must” language is struck, then this court should strike all the “must” language in the balance of the TRDP and while it is about this task go ahead and strike the must language of Rule 166a(i) TRCP as being inapplicable to the Commission for Lawyer Discipline. (Cause No. 03-1023 pending before this court)

            The buck stops with this court.  Either this court will enforce the TRDP or it should strike the TRDP.  For the court from this point on to promulgate the TRDP that this court does not intend to enforce is dishonest and unjust to every attorney in this state who must wonder what does the TRDP really mean and why would this court promulgate rules that are meaningless in their application.

            Sooner or later this court will have to deal with the arbitrariness of the TRDP in general and my mandamus issues in specific. 

            The membership of the State Bar will eventually revolt against the arbitrariness of the TRDP as they begin to realize that the TRDP is little more than a corrupt set of rules designed to arbitrarily throw a dozen or so lawyers to the citizens of Texas each year under the guise of monitoring the rogues of our profession.

            Certainly there is a need for some kind of procedure to monitor the membership of the Bar but to set high barriers for legal malpractice in this state and no barriers for disciplinary actions is just wrong.  Attorneys in this state should not be held to such extremes.  It appears that the public is being denied a level playing field in the legal malpractice arena and a great advantage in the disciplinary process.  No attorney in this state can safely sue a deadbeat client for fees.

            But what every attorney will at some point come to realize is that the TRDP is set up to reserve attorney discipline for the Commission and to keep it out of the hands of the citizens of this state and in that process disbar attorneys by fiat as opposed to the rule of law.

            In the end, legal services will be further restricted and the public will be the losers as attorney fees continue to increase in order for attorneys to cover the costs of protecting themselves from the Commission for Lawyer Discipline.

            If I am a minority of one, the truth is still the truth.


            WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, WorldPeace prays this court to grant his Application for Writ of Mandamus 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


            I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading was forwarded to opposing counsel and Judge Fry on December 17, 2003 , by fax and to the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas on December 17, 2003 , via EXPRESS MAIL.  

                                                                                                                                                                   John WorldPeace

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