TABLE OF CONTENTS

IDENTITIES OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL...................................................................ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS...................................................................................................iii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES................................................................................................v

STATEMENT OF THE CASE...........................................................................................vi

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.................................................................................vii

ISSUES PRESENTED.....................................................................................................viii

STATEMENT OF FACTS ……………………………………………………………….1

ISSUE ONE.........................................................................................................................3

Did the trial court abuse its discretion by granting a summary judgment on Respondent’s issues that were not pled in the Commission’s Second Motion for No-evidence Summary Judgment?

ISSUE TWO………………………………………………………………………………3

Did the trial court abuse its discretion by granting the Commission’s Second Motion for No-evidence Summary Judgment on Respondent’s issues for which the Commission did not list any of the elements for which the Commission alleged the Respondent had no evidence as mandated by Rule 166a(i) TRCP?

ARGUMENT……………………………………………………………………….……..5

PRAYER............................................................................................................................11

APPENDIX……………………………………………………………………….……...13

AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN WORLDPEACE…………………………………………….…14

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A. CASES

Appleton v. Appleton ……………………………………………………………………...4

76 S.W. 3d 78, 86 ( Tex. App. – Hous. [14^th Dist] 2002)

City of Beaumont v. Bouillion………………………………………………………….7, 8

896 SW2d 143 ( Tex. 1995)

Crouch v. Gleason…………………………………………………………………………4

875 S.W. 2d 738, 739 (Tex. App. – Amarillo 1994)

Garza v. State of Texas ……………………………………………………………............9

878 S.W. 2d 671, 673-4 (Tex App. – Corpus Christi 1994)

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company v. Abascal……………………………………4

831 S.W. 2d 559, 563 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 1992)

Howell v. Hilton Hotels Corp……………………………………………………………..7

84 S.W. 3d 708, 715 ( Tex. App. – Hous. [1^st Dist.] 2002)

In re: Meador……………………………………………………………………………...4

968 S.W. 2d 346, 353 ( Tex. 1997)

In re: News America Publishing, Inc……………………………………………………..4

974 S.W. 2d 97, 106 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 1998)

Jordan v. Landry’s Seafood Restaurant, Inc. ……………………………………………..7

89 S.W. 3d 737, 741 ( Tex. App. – Hous. [1^st Dist.] 2002)

Lewis v. Skippy’s Mistake Bar…………………………………………………………..10

944 S.W. 2d 1, 1 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 1996)

Miller v. Elliott……………………………………………………………...……………..6

94 S.W. 3d 38, 42 ( Tex. App. – Tyler 2002)

Monroe v. Blackmon……………………………………………………………………...5

946 S.W. 2d 533, 536 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi 1997)

Nueces County v. Ferguson …………………………………………………………….....8

97 SW3d 205 (Tex.App – Corpus Christi, 2003)

O’Bryant v. City of Midland ……………………………………………………………....8

949 SW2d 406 (Tex.App.- Austin, 1997)

Trinity Capital Corporation v. Briones……………………………………………………5

847 S.W. 324, 326 (Tex. App. – El Paso 1993)

STATUTES

Rule 301 Texas Rules of Civil Procedure…………….……………………………6, 8, 10

Rule 3.14 Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure………………………………………..3

Rule 8.04 Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure………………………………………..6

Rule 13 Texas Rules of Civil Procedure………………………………………………….7

Rule 90 Texas Rules of Civil Procedure………………………………………………...10

Rule 166a(i) Texas Rules of Civil Procedure………………………………...3, 5, 6, 7, 11

Did the trial court abuse its discretion by granting a summary judgment on Respondent’s issues that were not pled in the Commission’s Second Motion for No-evidence Summary Judgment?

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THIS COURT:

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On January 16, 2003 , Petitioner filed its SECOND AMENDED DISCIPLINARY PETITION (Record “1”)

On July 1, 2003 , Petitioner filed PETITIONER’S SECOND MOTION FOR NO EVIDENCE SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Record “19”)

On July 21, 2003 , Respondent filed DEFENDANT’S SEVENTH AMENDED ORIGINAL ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD PARTY CLAIMS (Record “53”)

On July 21, 2003 , Respondent filed RESPONDENT’S response to petitioner’s second motion for no evidence summary judgment (Record “117”)

On August 27, 2003 , the Court signed its ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S SECOND MOTION FOR NO EVIDENCE SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Record “127”)

On August 27, 2003 , the Court signed its JUDGMENT FOR DISBARMENT which incorporated the court’s Order for Summary Judgment (Record “128”)

On October 31, 2003 , Respondent filed RESPONDENT’S AMENDED MOTION FOR REHEARING ON PETITIONER’S SECOND MOTION FOR NO EVIDENCE SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Record “135”)

On November 5, 2003 , Respondent filed RESPONDENT’S SHORT HAND RENDITION REGARDING RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO MODIFY, AND PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Record “190”)

On November 6, 2003 , Respondent filed RESPONDENT’S SECOND AMENDED MOTION FOR REHEARING AND RESPONDENT’S SECOND AMENDED RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S SECOND MOTION FOR NO EVIDENCE SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Record “211”)

Petitioner did not file a response to Respondent’s Motion for Rehearing.

On November 7, 2003 , the Court signed its Order On Respondent’s Motion for Rehearing on Petitioner’s Second Motion for No Evidence Summary Judgment denying Respondent’s Motion (Record “263”)

REQUIREMENTS FOR MANDAMUS

1) There is no remedy on appeal because per Rule 3.14 Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure (Appendix) a Judgment for Disbarment cannot be superseded or stayed.

2) Judge Fry’s actions in the underlying disciplinary petition as presiding judge are a clear abuse of discretion.

3) The Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct affect over 67,000 attorneys in Texas and so WorldPeace’s Application for Writ of Mandamus regarding the underlying disciplinary petition is important to the jurisprudence of the state.

ISSUE ONE

Did the trial court abuse its discretion by granting a summary judgment on Respondent’s issues that were not pled in the Commission’s Second Motion for No-evidence Summary Judgment?

ISSUE TWO

AUTHORITIES

ABUSE OF DISCRETION

“A trial court abuses its discretion by (1) acting arbitrarily and unreasonably, without reference to any guiding rules or principles, or (2) misapplying the law to the established facts of the case. Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W. 2d 238, 241-42 ( Tex. 1985)”
Appleton v. Appleton , 76 S.W. 3d 78, 86 ( Tex. App. – Hous. [14^th Dist] 2002)

“A trial court “abuses its discretion when it reaches a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law.” Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 700 S.W. 2d 916, 917 (Tex. 1985, orig. proceeding).”
Crouch v. Gleason, 875 S.W. 2d 738, 739 (Tex. App. – Amarillo 1994)

“On the other hand, review of a trial court’s determination of the legal principles controlling its ruling is much less deferential. A trial court has no ‘discretion’ in determining what the law is or applying the law to the facts.   Thus, a clear failure by the trial court to analyze or apply the law correctly will constitute an abuse of discretion and may result in appellate reversal by extraordinary writ…
            Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W. 2d 833, 839-40 (1992) (citations omitted).”
            Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company v. Abascal, 831 S.W. 2d 559, 563 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 1992)

“A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts in an unreasonable or arbitrary manner or, stated differently, when it acts without any reference to guiding rules or principles. See Beaumont Bank, N.A. v. Buller, 806 S.W. 2d 233, 226 ( Tex. 1991); Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W. 2d 238, 241-42 ( Tex. 1985)’
In re: Meador, 968 S.W. 2d 346, 353 ( Tex. 1997)

“A trial court has no ‘discretion’ in determining what the law is or applying the law to the facts.”
In re: News America Publishing, Inc., 974 S.W. 2d 97, 106 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 1998)

“Aside from the “clear abuse of discretion” threshold set forth in Walker , supra, the supreme court has also stated that mandamus will lie to correct a “gross” abuse of discretion by the trial court. State v. Sewell, 487 S.W. 2d 713, 718 ( Tex. 1972). “The relator must establish, under the facts of the case, that the facts and law permit the trial court to make but one decision.” Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 700 S.W. 2d 916, 917 ( Tex. 1985). Put differently: “[A] clear abuse of discretion, when utilized as the basis for an original mandamus proceeding, refers to the unique situation wherein the lower court, exercising a ‘discretionary’ authority, has but one viable course to follow and one legitimate way to decide the question presented, but instead issues a contrary ruling.” Cessna Aircraft Co. v. Kirk, 702 S.W. 2d 321, 323 (Tex. App. – Eastland 1986, orig. proceeding).”
Monroe v. Blackmon, 946 S.W. 2d 533, 536 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi 1997)

“Following its holding in Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W. 2d 833 ( Tex. 1992), the Court noted that “[A] clear failure by the trial court to analyze or apply the law correctly will constitute an abuse of discretion…” 842 S.W. 2d at 271.”
Trinity Capital Corporation v. Briones, 847 S.W. 324, 326 ( Tex. App. – El Paso 1993)

ARGUMENT

SUMMARY

The trial court abused its discretion by granting the Commission for Lawyer Discipline’s Second Motion for No-evidence Summary Judgment which did not list all the issues pled in Respondent’s Seventh Amended Answer and Counterclaims and Third Party Claims and did not list the elements of Respondent’s constitutional issues which it alleged that Respondent had no evidence as mandated by Rule 166a(i) TRCP.

The Summary Judgment was then incorporated in the trial court’s August 27, 2003 , Judgment for Disbarment along with a “mother hubbard” clause to create what Judge Fry alleges to be a final Rule 3.01 TRCP judgment. WorldPeace moves the court to mandamus Judge Fry to vacate or modify his August 27, 2003 , Order granting the Commission’s Motion for No-evidence Summary Judgment.

A. Issues not addressed by the

No-evidence Summary Judgment

The following issues in RESPONDENT’S Seventh Amended Original Answer and Third Party Claims (Record “53”) were not addressed in the Commission’s Second Amended Motion for No Evidence Summary Judgment (Record “19”) nor were they tried to the jury.

1. WorldPeace’s defense regarding a “suit within a suit”. (Record “64”)

2. WorldPeace’s Constitutional counterclaim for violations of his Constitutional rights against self incrimination. (Under the heading regarding Rule 801 and 804 TDRPC). (Record “65”)

3. WorldPeace’s affirmative defense of res judicata regarding Johnell Collins and the Commission. (Record “4, 66”)

4. WorldPeace defense and Constitution counterclaim regarding multiple complainants in one disciplinary petition. (Record “67”)

Since the above issues were not adjudicated, the August 27, 2003, Judgment for Disbarment, which incorporated the trial court’s order granting the Commission’s Summary Judgment, is interlocutory per Rule 301 TRCP.

B. ISSUES FOR WHICH THE NO-EVIDENCE SUMMARY JUDGMENT LISTED NO ELEMENTS

TRCP Rule 166a(i) states, to wit: After adequate time for discovery, a party without presenting summary judgment evidence may move for summary judgment on the ground that there is no evidence of one or more essential elements of a claim or defense on which an adverse party would have the burden of proof at trial. The motion must state the elements as to which there is no evidence. The court must grant the motion unless the respondent produces summary judgment evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact.

“The motion must be specific in alleging a lack of evidence on an essential element of a cause of action, but need not specifically attack the evidentiary components that may prove an element of the cause of action.”
Miller v. Elliott, 94 S.W. 3d 38, 42 ( Tex. App. – Tyler 2002)

“After adequate time for discovery and without presenting summary judgment evidence, a party is permitted by rule of civil procedure 166a(i) to move for summary judgment on the ground that no evidence supports one or more essential specified elements of an adverse party’s claim or defense on which the adverse party would have the burden of proof at trial.”
Howell v. Hilton Hotels Corp, 84 S.W. 3d 708, 715 ( Tex. App. – Hous. [1^st Dist.] 2002)

“The motion for summary judgment may not be general, but must state the elements on which there is no evidence”
Jordan v. Landry’s Seafood Restaurant, Inc., 89 S.W. 3d 737, 741 ( Tex. App. – Hous. [1^st Dist.] 2002)

The ELEMENTS of the following issues in WorldPeace’s Seventh Amended Original Answer and Counterclaim (Record “53”) that were pled in the Commission’s Second Motion for No-Evidence Summary Judgment (Record “19”) were not specifically listed as mandated by Rule 166a(i). (No elements)

1. WorldPeace’s equal protection rights. (Religious Discrimination) (Record “25”)

2. WorldPeace’s issue regarding awarding attorney fees to the Commission and WorldPeace’s counterclaim for attorneys fees. (Record “26”)

3. Violations of WorldPeace Constitutional due process rights. (Record “30”)

4. WorldPeace issue regarding unconstitutional range of punishment. (Record “31”)

5. WorldPeace’s Constitutional counterclaims regarding oppressive, arbitrary, and capricious nature of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. (Record “32”)

6. WorldPeace’s counterclaims for Rule 13 TRCP and Chapter 9 & 10 TCP & RC violations (The Commission did not list all the elements in Chapter 9 & 10). (Record “6”) Rule Chapter 10.001(1) was not pled. (Record “229”)

It was an abuse of discretion for the court to grant a summary judgment on these issues where the Commission did not follow the mandatory (MUST) dictates of Rule 166a(i) TRCP and specifically list the ELEMENTS of the issues which the Commission claims WorldPeace had no evidence.

Since the ELEMENTS of these issues were not specifically identified by the Commission in its Second Amended Motion for No-Evidence Summary Judgment, they could not be adjudicated and the August 27, 2003, Judgment for Disbarment, which incorporates the trial court’s order granting the Commission’s Second Motion for No-evidence Summary Judgment, is interlocutory per Rule 301 TRCP.

C. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF – ISSUE NOT PLED

“Jones is not inconsistent with our holding today to the extent Jones is understood as approving suits for injunctive relief.”
City of Beaumont v. Bouillion, 896 SW2d 143 ( Tex. 1995)

“In Bouillion, the Texas Supreme Court held that the Texas Constitution does not create a private right of action for money damages, but that this rule does not preclude plaintiffs from seeking “equitable” relief for violations of their constitutional rights.”
O’Bryant v. City of Midland , 949 SW2d 406 (Tex.App.- Austin, 1997)

“However, suits brought pursuant to constitutional provisions are limited to equitable relief and do not allow a claim for monetary damages except to the extent specifically enunciated in the constitutional provision.”
Nueces County v. Ferguson , 97 SW3d 205 (Tex.App – Corpus Christi, 2003)

WorldPeace’s Seventh Amended Original Answer and Counterclaim and Third Party Claims (Record “53”) timely filed seven days prior to the date of the Commission’s submission date of July 28, 2003, for its Second Amended Motion for No-Evidence Summary Judgment, added a cause of action for injunctive relief (Record “113”) that was not pled in the Commission’s Second Amended Motion for No-Evidence Summary Judgment. (Record “19”)

Because the injunction issue was not pled in the Commission’s Second Amended Motion for No-Evidence Summary Judgment, it was not adjudicated and the August 27, 2003, Judgment for Disbarment which incorporated the trial court’s order granting the Commission’s Second Motion for No-evidence Summary Judgment is interlocutory per Rule 301 TRCP.

D. 42 USCA § 1983 – NOT PLED BY RESPONDENT

WorldPeace never pled for damages related to his Constitutional issues but pled only for injunctive relief. (Record “113”) The Commission’s pleading that WorldPeace had no evidence of the elements of 42 U.S. Code § 1983 is totally irrelevant.

E. COMMISSION’S GENERAL DEMURER

Summary judgment should not be based on a pleading deficiency such as whether a cause of action has been sufficiently pled. Massey v. Armco Steel Co., 652 S.W. 2d 932, 934 ( Tex. 1983); Texas Dep’t of Corrections v. Herring, 513 S.W. 2d 6, 10 ( Tex. 1974). A plaintiff should be allowed to amend an insufficient pleading to cure the defect. Herring, 513 S.W. 2d at 10. Special exceptions are used to challenge the sufficiency of a pleading. Tex. R. Civ. P. 91. Amendment is a matter of right under special exception practices. Estate of Bourland v. Hanes, 526 S.W. 2d 156, 159 (Tex. Civ. App. – Corpus Christi 1975, writ ref’d n.r.e.). The right to replead should not be circumvented by a motion for summary judgment on the pleadings.
Garza v. State of Texas , 878 S.W. 2d 671, 673-4 (Tex App. – Corpus Christi 1994)

In general, it is improper to grant a summary judgment on a deficient pleading’s failure to state a cause of action when the deficiency can be attacked through a special exception. Texas Dep’t of Corrections v. Herring, 513 S.W. 2d 6, 9-10 ( Tex. 1974). To grant summary judgment on that ground would revive the general demurrer discarded by rule 90 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 10; see also In re B.I.V., 870 S.W. 2d 12, 13 ( Tex. 1994). Before a court may grant a “no cause of action” summary judgment, the nonmovant must be given adequate opportunity to plead a viable cause of action. Pietila v. Crites, 851 S. W. 2d 185, 186 n. 2 ( Tex. 1993); Massey v. Armco Steel Co., 652 S.W. 2d 932, 934 ( Tex. 1983).
Lewis v. Skippy’s Mistake Bar, 944 S.W. 2d 1, 1 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 1996)

The Commission entered a general demurrer when it wrongly stated in its Second Amended Motion for No-evidence Summary Judgment that the only cause of action for Constitutional violations that Respondent WorldPeace had was provided by 42 USCA § 1983. (Record “25, 31, 35”)

Texas does not have a general demurrer due to Rule 90 TRCP and therefore the Commission was required to file a motion for special exceptions before WorldPeace’s Constitutional issues or any other non TDRPC Rule issues (which were tried) could be dismissed by summary judgment.

Since the Commission did not file for special exceptions, the issues listed in Section A, B and C above could not be adjudicated by summary judgment and therefore the August 27, 2003 , Judgment for Disbarment, which incorporates the court’s order granting the Commission’s Second Motion for No-evidence Summary Judgment, is interlocutory per Rule 301 TRCP. (Appendix “A”)

SUMMARY

Judge Fry incorporated his August 27, 2003 , granting of Petitioners Second Motion for No-evidence Summary Judgment into his August 27, 2003 , Judgment for Disbarment. (Record “19”)

Judge Fry abused his discretion by granting Summary Judgment on Respondent’s counterclaims that were not pled in Petitioner’s Second Motion for No-evidence Summary Judgment.

Judge Fry abused his discretion by granting Summary Judgment on Respondent’s counterclaims which Petitioner pled but did not list the elements per Rule 166a(i) Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Judge Fry abused his discretion by dismissing Respondent’s counterclaims upon Petitioner’s General Demurer in Petitioner’s Second Motion for No-evidence Summary Judgment.

Judge Fry abused his discretion by attempting to use his order granting Petitioner’s Second Motion for No-evidence Summary Judgment as a basis for his August 27, 2003 , Judgment for Disbarment.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Relator moves this court to mandamus Judge Fry to vacate or modify his Order granting the Commission’s Second Motion for No-evidence Summary Judgment and for such other and further relief at law or in equity as this court may deem proper.

Respectfully submitted,

_______________________________
John WorldPeace
2620 Fountain View, Suite 106
Houston , Texas 77057
Tel. 713-784-7618
Fax. 713-784-9063
TBA No. 21872800

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading was forwarded to opposing counsel and Judge Fry on November 10, 2003 , by fax and to the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas on November 10, 2003 , via HAND DELIVERY.

John WorldPeace

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

Opposing Counsel opposes the RELATOR’S APPLICATION.

____________________________________
John WorldPeace

APPENDIX

EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION

A. August 27, 2003 Judgment for Disbarment

B. August 27, 2003 Order Granting Petitioner’s Second Motion for No Evidence Summary Judgment

C. November 7, 2003 Order on Respondent’s Motion for Rehearing on Petitioner’s Second Motion for No Evidence Summary Judgment

Rule 301 Texas Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 3.14 Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure

Rule 8.04 Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure

Rule 13 Texas Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 90 Texas Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 166a(i) Texas Rules of Civil Procedure

NO. ________________

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF TEXAS

______________________________

IN RE:

JOHN WORLDPEACE

______________________________

Re: Cause No. 2002-42081; Commission for Lawyers Discipline v. John WorldPeace, 269^th District Court

Harris County , Texas

______________________________________________________________________

AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN WORLDPEACE, ATTORNEY AT LAW

______________________________________________________________________

STATE OF TEXAS

COUNTY OF HARRIS

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared the affiant, John WorldPeace, who being by me first duly sworn, on his oath stated:

My name is John WorldPeace, I am over 21 years of age, of sound mind, capable of making this affidavit and fully competent to testify to the matters stated herein, have personal knowledge of each of the matters stated herein, and the facts contained in this affidavit are true.

The exhibits in the Appendix and Record attached to RELATOR’S Application for Writ of Mandamus are true and correct copies of the originals.

The transcript of the November 7, 2003 , hearing is a part of my business records, kept in the normal course of business. I recorded the hearing with two tape recorders and had my legal assistant transcribe the tapes and then I listened to the tapes and read the transcript and then edited the transcript. It is a standard practice of mine to record and transcribe parts or all of hearings as needed.”

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on this _______ day of _________________, 2003.

____________________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE
STATE OF TEXAS

C. July 21, 2003 DEFENDANT’S SEVENTH AMENDED ORIGINAL ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD PARTY CLAIMS

D. July 21, 2003 respondent’s response to petitioner’s second motion for no evidence summary judgment

E. August 27, 2003 ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S SECOND MOTION FOR NO EVIDENCE SUMMARY JUDGMENT

G. October 31, 2003 RESPONDENT’S AMENDED MOTION FOR REHEARING ON PETITIONER’S SECOND MOTION FOR NO EVIDENCE SUMMARY JUDGMENT

H. November 5, 2003 RESPONDENT’S SHORT HAND RENDITION REGARDING RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO MODIFY, AND PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I. November 6, 2003 RESPONSENT’S AMENDED MOTION FOR REHEARING AND RESPONDENT’S SECOND AMENDED RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S SECOND MOTION FOR NO EVIDENCE SUMMARY JUDGMENT

J. November 7, 2003 Order On Respondent’s Motion for Rehearing on Petitioner’s Second Motion for No Evidence Summary Judgment

K. November 7, 2003 Transcript of the hearings on RESPONDENT’S Motion for Rehearing on Petitioner’s Second Motion for No Evidence Summary Judgment and MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL and MOTION TO MODIFY

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?