NO. 03-1084  

COMPANION TO: 03-978, 03-0990, 03-1022, 03-1023, 03-1049, 
03-1069, 03-1070, 03-1079, 03-1082, 03-1083, 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.


            This  court promulgated the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure in 1992 and adopted the modifications to those rules on January 1, 2004 .  This court, per the TRDP, also appoints the judges who hear the disciplinary petitions filed under the TRDP. 

The Applications for Writs of Mandamus that Relator has filed with regards to the underlying lawsuit are undeniably relevant to the TRDP and the TDRPC and the TRCP which together affect all the attorneys in this state and their relationship with the citizens of this state.

            When this court promulgates rules, which through the practicing attorneys in this state impact every citizen in this state, and then this court refuses to enforce those rules, clarify those rules, modify or vacate those rules and refuses to even consider challenges and questions about those rules and thus forces the inferior appellate courts in this state to intuit what this court intended in the promulgation of the TRDP, then this court does an injustice to the attorneys and citizens of this state in that it promotes chaos and confusion in the legal system and injustice prevails as this court, with all due respect, plays games and tests the appellate courts to see if they can guess what this court is thinking and how this court will resolve these issues.

            This court has an obligation to strictly enforce, modify, clarify or vacate the rules that this court promulgates.  To avoid direct and legitimate questions or to delay speaking to these issues is to some degree an abdication of this court’s mandates as the highest court in the state. 

            Per the fact patterns of Relator’s Applications of Writs of Mandamus, it is obvious that there is some confusion about the TRDP and its integration with the common law and the statutory laws of this state and the TRCP in specific. 

            The truth is that the TRDP is defective with regards to trials de novo in disciplinary petitions filed by the Commission for Lawyer discipline.  The truth is that the TRDP violates the Respondent attorney’s rights of due process and rights against self incrimination.  In addition, as applied by this court to the attorneys who are employed by the Commission, the TRDP also violates the Respondent attorney’s right to equal protection of the laws in that the TRDP is enforced against the Respondent attorneys and not enforced against the Commission for Lawyers discipline, its attorneys and its agents and its employees. 

            When there is no accountability due to absolute immunity in the enforcement of the TRDP by the Commission, then, due to human nature, there is always abuse because “absolute power corrupts”.

            When this court refuses to consider challenges and questions regarding the TRDP which this court promulgated and which without question affect the quality of legal services in this state as well as the rights of attorneys and clients in this state and when the application of the TRDP looks more like an Inquisition as opposed to blind justice on which this democracy was founded, this court has an obligation to strictly enforce, clarify, modify or vacate the defective rules of TRDP as opposed to fostering the continued arbitrary application of the TRDP such that attorneys in this state are afraid to even sue their clients for fees for fear that the Commission for Lawyer Discipline will file a disciplinary petition against them. 

            When the attorneys for the Commission are allowed to process a grievance, as they did in my case, for my faxing to a pro se litigant pleadings in a live case at the number listed by the pro se litigant on his pleading, then the Commission for Lawyer Discipline is running amuck to the detriment of everyone.

            A corrupt TRDP and/or the corrupt application of the TRDP due to the absolute immunity of the Commission for Lawyer Discipline under the TRDP is not justice.  It is a fascade of justice that is simply the arbitrary discipline of attorneys to placate the citizenry who are for the most part deny the legal services due to outrageous fees; due in part to attorneys greed and in part to fear of being disciplined in a pro bono engagement especially in the family courts where abuse and violence to women and children goes unadjudicated everyday due to the inability of potential litigants to pay for legal fees.

            The TRDP empowers the attorneys for the Commission for Lawyer Disciplline to act as little more than vigilantes.

            If I remember correctly, Judge Wainwright once told me that the first obligation of the courts is to do justice.  Well the TRDP does not do justice.  It does not do justice on its face and it does not do justice in its application by the Commission for Lawyer Discipline.

            This court promulgated the TRDP.  The buck stops in this court.  With all due respect, either strictly enforce all the rules of the TRDP, clarify them, modify them or vacate them but to ignore and deny the injustices of the TRDP due to the burden of admitting that the rules are defective and that there are judges appointed by this court to hear these disciplinary petitions who are corrupt or undeniably incompetent demeans the legal system and reduces the respect that the entire membership of the State Bar have for all the judges and justices in this state.

            This court by virtue of being the highest court in the land can ignore the Applications for Writs of Mandamus that I have filed but in so doing this court should not believe that the attorneys in this state are not taking notice of this court’s refusal to do justice.

            That being said, I respectfully ask this court to hear Relator’s Application for Writ of Mandamus.


            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 and continues to refuse 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.  (Cause No. 03-0990 pending before this 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 with few modifications renewed them as of January 1, 2004 .  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’s attorneys who violate any section of the TRDP they please.

            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.  There is no provision for accountability for the bad acts of the Commission, its attorneys, or its employees.

            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 are the provisions of Rule 3.07 TRDP.  The TRDP is truly a farce.

            The Commission’s attorneys lie to the court as has Mr. Molleston in the underlying disciplinary 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 that same 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 this 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 eleven and per this writing has requested no responses from the Commission with regard to the one remaining 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 in addition to the selective application of the rules to the Respondent attorney but not to the Commission for Lawyer Discipline.  Not to mention the fact that the gate keeper of classifying a grievance as a complaint or an inquiry is a non-attorney.

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 either. 

At the time the Fourteenth Court of Appeals issues an opinion, 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 this state.


            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 20, 2003 , by fax and to the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas on January 20, 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