February 17, 2004  

To:  All the professors of law in Texas  

Re:  John WorldPeace vs. The Commission for Lawyer Discipline
(the attorney disciplinary process in
Texas )  


1) My name is John WorldPeace.  I graduated from the University of Houston law school in 1984 and was licensed to practice law in Texas in 1985.   

2) In 1993, Dawn Miller, the now Chief Disciplinary Counsel for the Commission for Lawyer Discipline filed a disciplinary petition against me in which the complaints were past the four year statute of limitations.  The case was dismissed with prejudice but it remains in the public record and amounts to a permanent public reprimand.  I did not proceed against Dawn Miller for her malicious acts because I had moved to Colorado just before the petition was filed and I did not want to prosecute a lawsuit one thousand miles away in Texas .  I did tell Dawn Miller that if she ever processed another grievance against me, that I would close down the attorney disciplinary process in Texas.

3)  Four years ago, in June 2000, I sued a client for a $10,000 fee per our retainer contract.  The client filed a grievance and the grievance was processed by Dawn Miller.  I began to the lay the foundation to shut down the grievance process. 

In August 2002, a disciplinary petition was filed against me with the Clerk of the Supreme Court per Rule 3.01 Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.  On November 8, 2002 , five additional grievances were added without filing them with the Clerk of the Supreme Court in violation of the “must” provisions of Rule 3.01 TRDP.  

In April 2003, a Judgment for Disbarment was signed and set aside in June 2003.  In August 2003, a second Judgment for Disbarment was signed.  On November 7, 2003 , my Motions to Modify, Motions for New Trial and so on were denied.  On November 10, 2003 , I filed the first of twelve Applications for Writs of Mandamus with the Supreme Court of Texas.  (Mandamus was appropriate because Judgments for Disbarment cannot be superseded or stayed on appeal per Rule 3.14 Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.)  

The applications were first filed in the Supreme Court because the Supreme Court promulgated the TRDP and appointed Judge Fry per Rule 3.02 TRDP to preside over the underlying trial.  Also, the TRDP had to be renewed by January 1, 2004 , or it would lapse per the Texas Sunset Law.   

So I filed twelve Applications Writs of Mandamus which included about forty issues that were all questions of law and which were evidence of the defects in the TRDP.  (example:  If attorneys in Texas assert their rights against self incrimination in the grievance process, they can be disbarred.)  

The Supreme Court, over time, refused to hear all twelve applications.  To date, rehearings have been filed on eleven of the applications.  The twelfth will be filed on February 23, 2004.   

One of the applications has now been refiled in the 14th Court of Appeals and three others that have been refused rehearing by the Supreme Court will be filed before February 20, 2004 .  The Fourteenth Court of Appeals has refused to hear the first application which has to do with the fact that the Commission for Lawyer Discipline did not file the additional five grievances with the Clerk of the Supreme Court.  

4)  The problem in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals is that all the mandamus issues will be heard on appeal and the court must write an opinion.  So the problem for the Fourteenth Court is if it refuses to hear an Application for Writ of Mandamus which includes an issue which the court later in its opinion rules on in my favor, the net effect would have been an intentional defacto disbarment of me.  

5)  The internet is rapidly changing the world in the specific sense that a court can no longer act in a semi-closed environment that prevents a defendant from calling attention to the injustices of the court’s ruling.  I set up a web page at http://www.johnworldpeace.net/indexsb.htm for the purpose of communicating with the members of the State Bar and other interested parties and have recorded virtually all the pleadings that relate to my disbarment.  

In addition, I have to date faxed over half the attorneys in the state pointing them to my web page.  Now that the Supreme Court has refused to hear my applications which undeniably show the defects in the TRDP which the Supreme Court promulgated and last month readopted, I have moved to the next level which is to contact all the professors of law in Texas .  I ask that you consider using my web site as an instructional tool regarding ethics while at the same time providing your students with a first hand look at how the legal system works in practice as opposed to how it should work in theory.  

The following are some issues that I think will greatly enhance your students’ legal educational experience.  

a) Can laws that are clear and not subject to interpretation, be manipulated by the courts?  

b) Is it good law for the Supreme Court or the Appeals Court in Texas to be allowed to refuse to hear an Application for Writ of Mandamus without comment?  

c) Should Texas follow all the other states and repeal the right of an attorney to have a trial in the district court in a disciplinary matter as opposed to an administrative hearing?  If it is determined that the grievance process is subject to manipulation, what rights would a respondent attorney have in an administrative hearing?  

d)  Are the issues that I have raised on appeal and on mandamus legitimate issues?  Remember the TRDP is only eleven years old and there have only been about forty cases put on the books and so the law has not been thoroughly tested.  

e) Is the internet a legitimate tool to bring light on a pending issue in the courts so that the justices must consider the effect of how their rulings will be viewed by the public at large. (In this case by all the 67,000 plus attorneys in Texas .)  And will there be more justice when justice is truly more public?   

f) Is the TRDP arbitrary?  Can the TRDP be manipulated?  Is the TRDP in existence simply to throw a few attorneys to the public each month to reduce the negative opinions of the public about attorney discipline in specific and attorney in general?  

g) How does one interface the legal malpractice law in Texas which requires a Plaintiff to prove a “suit within a suit” and then prove that “but for” the negligence of the attorney the Plaintiff would have won his case but under the TRDP all a client has to do is to file a grievance and the Commission does not have to prove a suit within a suit.  (Further, an expert witness is required in a legal malpractice case to prove the standard of care of a “reasonably prudent attorney” but not to prove the standard of care of a “reasonably prudent and competent attorney” under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct as they are incorporated into the TRDP.)  

h) How can the attorney disciplinary system in Texas be improved?  

6)  I would ask you to take a look at my web site, which is being updated weekly, and consider assigning projects regarding my site and legal ethics in general in order to satisfy the academic requirements to teach ethics in each course of study.  I believe that my web page will eventually cover almost every question one could have about the attorney grievance process in Texas .  

But further, I think, a review of my web page will show your students how the courts work in general such that questions will be asked as to whether the judicial system has significant flaws that must be remedied.  There are definitely questions regarding the TRDP in that the Commission for Lawyer Discipline has immunity from their bad acts under the TRDP.  This alone makes the system subject to arbitrary corruption and manipulation.  

7)  What has always concerned me about the judicial system is that the Constitution of the United States was manipulated to allow slavery and segregation (not to mention the denial of the right to vote for women) which is against the core intent of that Constitution to mandate equality and justice.  

I think there are enough practical and theoretical issues in my lawsuit with the Commission for Lawyer Discipline to consider using it as a part of your discussions of the law in general and legal ethics in specific.

Very sincerely,

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