![[THE WORLDPEACE SIGN]](wppin.gif)
![[THE WORLDPEACE SIGN]](pinquarter.jpg)
NO.
03-1069
03-1070, 03-1079, 03-1082, 03-1083, 03-1084. 03-1117, 03-1139
SUPREME
COURT
OF
JOHN
WORLDPEACE
______________________________
______________________________________________________________________
COMMISSION FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINE'S
RESPONSE TO WORLDPEACE’S
MOTION TO STAY JUDGMENT FOR DISBARMENT
______________________________________________________________________
Filed by: John WorldPeace, Relator
John WorldPeace
2620 Fountainview,
Tel. 713-784-7618
Fax. 713-784-9063
TBA# 21872800
TO THE HONORABLE
JUSTICES OF THIS COURT
COMES NOW, Relator and files this RELATOR WORLDPEACE’S REPLY TO
COMMISSION FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINE’S RESPONSE TO WORLDPEACE’S MOTION TO STAY
JUDGMENT OF DISBARMENT and would show the court the following:
1) WorldPeace has filed three reply’s to the Commission for Lawyer
Discipline’s response. Two were
filed before WorldPeace received the Commission for Lawyer Discipline’s
responses on
2) a) An Application for Writ of Mandamus is an original proceeding with
its own cause number. There is no
rule in the TRAP which disallows a Motion to stay to be filed under a Mandamus
petition.
b) An Application for Writ of
Mandamus is an original proceeding with its own cause number.
It is irrelevant that WorldPeace also filed the same Motion in his appeal
pending in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals, Harris County, Texas (Cause
No. 14-03-01339-CV; John WorldPeace v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline).
c) No Application for Writ of Mandamus that WorldPeace has filed has been
finally denied on the merits.
A denial to hear an Application for Writ of Mandamus is meaningless.
There is no rule prohibiting WorldPeace from refiling an Application for
Writ of Mandamus in the
Further, Ms. Acevedo failed to
inform the court that the Fourteenth Court of Appeals has also requested the
Commission for Lawyer Discipline to respond to WorldPeace’s Motion to Dismiss
the Appeal for Want of Jurisdiction because the Judgment for Disbarment is
interlocutory. Ms. Acevedo filed a
response.
SUMMARY
There is nothing in the Commission for Lawyer Discipline’s response
that speaks to the core issue of the Motion to Stay: “Can
any court selectively enforce part of the TRDP against a respondent attorney and
not enforce other parts of the TRDP against the Commission for Lawyer
Discipline?” Either the
entire TRDP is valid or it is a farce. If
one section is invalid, then it is up to the appellate courts to so state in a
ruling. Until such a ruling is made
the entire TRDP is valid and to selectively enforce it against the respondent
attorneys and not against the Commission for Lawyer Discipline’s attorneys is
simply unconstitutional because it denies the respondent attorney equal
protection under the law. This is
very basic law.
It is WorldPeace’s position that the TRDP is defective and corrupt in its application by the Commission for Lawyer Discipline. Apparently Ms. Acevedo agrees because she offered not a scintilla of explanation about the selective enforcement of the TRDP. Ms. Acevedo did not even attempt to distinguish Rule 3.01 TRDP and Rule 3.14 TRDP in such a way that Rule 3.01 should not be enforced and that Rule 3.14 should be enforced.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, WorldPeace prays this court to stay the
Respectfully submitted,
John WorldPeace
2620 Fountainview,
Tel. 713-784-7618
Fax. 713-784-9063
TBA 21872800
I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading was
forwarded to opposing counsel on March 8, 2004, by CERTIFIED MAIL (CMRRR # 7002
2410 0004 3246 6195) and to the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas on March 8,
2004, via EXPRESS MAIL (EM # ET574518255US).
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]](wpbanner.gif)
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