TO: 03-978, 03-0990, 03-1022, 03-1023, 03-1049,
03-1069, 03-1070, 03-1079, 03-1082, 03-1083, 03-1084. 03-1117
RELATOR’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
RECUSAL OF RESPONDENT
RELATOR’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
by: John WorldPeace, Relator
Attorney Pro Se
OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
The following is a complete
list of all the parties and the names and addresses of all counsel in the
Attorney Pro Se
Respondent: Honorable James
Presiding Judge in the
Underlying Disciplinary Petition
(Cause No. 2002-42081; Commission for Lawyer Discipline v. John
WorldPeace, 269th District Court,
Real Parties in Interest and
Parties to the Case. (Petitioner)
for Lawyer Discipline
J. G Molleston
State Bar of
Attorneys for the Commission for Lawyer Discipline
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THIS COURT:
NOW, WorldPeace and files this Motion for Rehearing and would respectfully
submit the following.
IN REGARDS TO THIS SPECIFIC MOTION FOR REHEARING
This court promulgated the
Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure in 1992 and adopted the modifications to
those rules on
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, especially attorney malpractice 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 a
Draconian 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
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 denied 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. If
the abuses foisted on me by Judge Fry do not merit his recusal then Rule 18(a)
and (b) TRCP need to be repealed.
STATEMENT REGARDING ALL OF
RELATOR’S APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF MANDAMUS
BEFORE THIS COURT REGARDING THE UNDERLYING CASE
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 three months after the severance, 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, seventeen 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
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,
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
motions for rehearings have now been filed on all 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.
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 and motions for rehearing if denied
will be refiled in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals (as has Cause
# 03-0990) 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
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.
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
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.
TBA No. 21872800
I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading was
forwarded to opposing counsel and Judge Fry on
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
Opposing counsel opposes RELATOR’S MOTION FOR REHEARING.
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 Insignia : Explanation
To order a WorldPeace Insignia lapel pin, go to: Order
To the John WorldPeace Galleries Page
To the WorldPeace Peace Page