NO. 03-1023


COMPANION TO: 03-978, 03-0990, 03-1022, 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





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.


No attorney in this state who reads Relator’s Application for Writ of Mandamus regarding Petitioner’s Second Motion for No Evidence Summary Judgment is going to deny that the Commission for Lawyer Discipline did not list the elements of the various causes of action for which the Commission alleges that Relator had no evidence.  This listing of elements is a MUST mandate of Rule 166a(I) TRCP. 

            In addition, the Commission did not even list all of Relator’s unadjudicated causes of action.  And the Commission pled the elements of a 42 USCA Section 1983 cause of action that was not even pled by Relator.

            It is undeniable that Judge Fry granted the Commission’s Motion for No Evidence Summary Judgment on Relator’s causes of action for which no elements were listed contrary to Rule 166a(i) TRCP and then incorporated that Summary Judgment into the Judgment for Disbarment and therefore undeniably sua sponte dismissed Relator’s causes of action that had not been adjudicated.

            It is wrong for this court to issue a denial of Relator Application for Writ of Mandamus when the court knows that Judge Fry has defacto disbarred Relator by refusing to Clarify, Modify or Vacate his August 27, 2003 , Judgment for Disbarment.

            With all due respect, this court appointed Judge Fry and it appears that either Judge Fry is incompetent or corrupt or both.  This court should address the abuses of discretion of Judge Fry.

            By refusing to involve itself with such blatant abuses of discretion by Judge Fry, this court becomes a party to his bad acts.  There is no way this court can justify turning a deaf ear to Relator’s pleas for justice.

            This court well knows that per Relator’s various Applications for Writs of Mandamus presently before this court that by refusing to consider those Applications it will take Relator a year to get an opinion from the Court of Appeals and in the mean time due to the dictates of Rule 3.14 TRDP, there will be a defacto disbarment of Relator.

            This is just another example of how the TRDP are enforced against the Respondent attorney and not against the Commission for Lawyer Discipline.   It is just another example of the unconstitutional nature of the disciplinary process that undeniably denies a Respondent attorney’s constitutional rights against self incrimination, due process and equal protection.  

            The TRDP is defective on its face and corrupt in its application.  If this court is not going to enforce the MUST dictates of the TRDP then it should be honest enough to delete them from the TRDP.

            Every decision made by this court regarding the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure which this court promulgated and every decision by this court regarding the clear mandates of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure which ignore the mandates of both statutes is a demeaning of the entire disciplinary process and places a question in every attorney’s mind as to the real justice in the disciplinary process.  For every attorney who studies this matter, his or her conclusion will be that the disciplinary system is unjust and designed to simply allow the Commission to arbitrarily chose an attorney or two per month to feed to the public as evidence that the Commission disciplines attorneys.

            This is all done to assuage the reality that within a legitimate attorney malpractice suit attorneys are insulated from liability by way of the virtually insurmountable thresholds of “a suit within a suit” and “but for the attorney’s negligence” the client would have been successful in his or her lawsuit. 

            This court could not reconcile the threshold in an attorney malpractice lawsuit and the threshold in a disciplinary petition and until Relator presented his various Applications for Writs of Mandamus.  Now this court must resolve the incongruence.  This obvious inconsistency in the law must now be resolved.  This court must now bring these thresholds into an understandable harmony.

            This court is not only the ultimate authority on the attorney disciplinary process but this court is also the promulgator of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.  If this court is not willing to rule in accordance with it own TRDP and in line with the TRCP as incorporated into the TRDP, then the entire disciplinary process becomes suspect and little more than an Inquisition heavily stacked against the attorney. 

            If the Commission cannot achieve a judgment in its favor by strictly following the TRDP and the TRCP, then this court should not endorse clearly prejudicial rulings from a judge like James R. Fry who has undeniably skewed his ruling in favor of the Commission and contrary to the rule of law set down by this court in the TRDP.

            Lastly, when it is clear that Judge Fry has abused his discretion, it is questionable why this court has decided not to even ask for a response from Judge Fry.  The reason seems to be that Judge Fry’s abuses are unsupportable and a response would force this court to acknowledge those abuses immediately as opposed to supporting an interim defacto disbarment of Relator.

            Judge Fry’s granting of a No Evidence Summary Judgment on causes of action not pled by the commission is an undeniable abuse of discretion and Relator’s Applicant for Writ of Mandamus should be granted.


            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 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 substituted 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 four 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 the 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.      


            WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, WorldPeace prays this court to rehear his Application for Writ of Mandamus and for such other and further relief in law or in equity as this court deems 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 29, 2003 , by fax and to the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas on December 29, 2003 , via EXPRESS MAIL.  

John WorldPeace  


            Opposing counsel opposes RELATOR’S MOTION FOR REHEARING.  


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              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