NO. 03-1049

 COMPANION TO: 03-978, 03-0990, 03-1022, 03-1023, 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


SEPARATE TRIALS ______________________________________________________________________


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.


This court has adopted the revised Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.  WorldPeace Application for Writ of Mandamus is undeniable evidence that there is confusion created in the law with regards to Rule 3.08 and 15.05 Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure and Rule 174(b), 41, 97(a) Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and how they interact.

This court is the final authority in this matter and it is wrong for this court to require the Court of Appeals to guess how this court expects these rules to be integrated. 

            This court appointed Judge Fry to hear the underlying case and it is obvious that Judge Fry does not understand the clear language of Rule 41 and Rule 174(b) TRCP or he deliberately ignored the clear distinction.  No attorney should not be subjected to guessing the meaning of these two rules regarding severance. 

            Further, the reality is that Rule 41 and Rule 174(b) TRCP apply to all lawsuits in this State and this court should decide whether the word “sever” has a distinct meaning under these two rules or if it is an ambiguous term to be carelessly used by any judge in any lawsuit and it is up to the appeals court on a case by case basis to determine what exactly “sever” means if carelessly used in a Rule 174(b) ruling.

            I have a right to a fair trial and I did not have a fair trial in the underlying disciplinary petition if Judge Fry and the Commission are allowed to determine at the end of trial what they meant by the word “sever” at the beginning of trial.  It is obvious that the Commission is also confused about the term “sever” in that they used the word “sever” like Judge Fry but in their Motion for Severance they cited Rule 174(b).

A simple ruling from this court that the word “sever” refers to Rule 41 TRCP and that all motions and orders and judgments that use the term “sever” will be considered to refer to Rule 41 and not to Rule 174(b) in addition a caveat to attorneys and judges to use the word “sever” judiciously would undeniably reduce the confusion that presently exists in the law.

            It is wrong for this court to have this matter called to the court’s attention and this court to refuse to immediately clear it up as opposed to creating more appeals resulting from the confusion.

            It is wrong for this court to leave ambiguity in the TRDP which it promulgated regarding the integration of the above mentioned rules of the TRDP and TRCP.

            The problem with the entire body of the TRDP is that this court only promulgated the TRDP ten years ago.  Since that time there have been approximately fifty cases entered into the common law regarding the TRDP.  WorldPeace has read all those cases and the none of those cases have presented the issues that WorldPeace has placed before this court or if they have presented these issues, they were presented in a procedurally defective manner which prohibited a ruling in the appellate process.

I knew the disciplinary system was corrupt due to the fact that in 1993 Dawn Miller arbitrarily filed a disciplinary petition against me that was clearly outside the statute of limitations and was therefore dismissed.   I also sued attorneys as part of my practice between 1996 and 1998.  In that practice, I also helped the State Bar discipline some attorneys.  Therefore, I understood the system better that the vast majority of attorneys when this matter began. 

When Dawn Miller, the Chief Disciplinary Counsel, decided to file a disciplinary petition against me in 2000 because I sued a client for my fees, I began to carefully lay the ground work to put an end to the disciplinary system.  Everything that I did from the time the State Bar processed the Collins grievance in June 2000, was in preparation to place the injustice of the attorney disciplinary system before this court and I have accomplished that task.

            Now with these very important matters before this court, this court seems to be in the process of refusing to consider my twelve Applications for Writs of Mandamus knowing that the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure is defective.

In global terms, this court is enforcing the rules that apply to the Respondent attorneys and not enforcing them against the Commission’s attorneys.  The court should not be so hypocritical and use words like “must” in the TRDP when the court means “the Commission can do what it wants when it wants.”  That is in fact the current state of the TRDP rules that use the word “must”.

            What makes matters worse is that this court per this mornings posting to the internet, has adopted the revised TRDP effective January 1, 2004 .  There is a problem with this court refusing to consider the Applications for Writs of Mandamus that I have placed before it which undeniably show the defects in the TRDP and then to simultaneously adopt the revised rules without clarifying those rules within the TRDP. 

            The reality is that the case law in this state is significant with regards to compulsory counterclaims.  The reality is that one cannot try a disciplinary lawsuit in a vacuum.   The reality is that it makes no sense for an attorney to sue a client for fees, the client files a grievance against the attorney, the Commission files a disciplinary petition against the attorney and the attorney is not allowed to have his suit for fees heard with the disciplinary petition.


            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 to rule on the underlying 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 January 5, 2003 , by fax and to the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas on January 5, 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