08/12/2011 17:37

TO Reginalds supporters 08/09


I have paced my cage as I do before I sit at my desk each day, attempting to establish myself in inner contentment while aligning my thoughts, and all to no avail, at least tonight. (its 11.53;m, yes I love my nights the moon and lack of noise so I can deal with my inner noise) So I told myself that I would vibe with each of you from the place I now am. A Place where I could cry and smile at the same time. All I cant chant, over and over silently is,"God I bow to your divine knowledge, to your divine understanding, "it's a struggle, a struggle to overcome thoughts emotions that strive to silence me, to paralyse me-my struggle is largely an inner struggle to such understanding that I bask in the warm delectable light of that part of me that's One with God. With the universe, with each of you. Im just dealing with a few clouds right now, that have messages Ive yet to decode (laughing) Yet still with as much love I can consciously channel into these words, I embrace each of you, in that silent hug each of you will find a thank you, more powerful than any I could say right now.


I decided to vibe with you from this place im in, not only out of necessity to explain to you what we are trying to do but to get personal with you. Maybe next time some tropical weather will unfold with my words, obviously if you have taken such a position to fight with me, then you are willing to embrace my moods. And for the record, I will try (wish I could use a stronger word (smile) to refrain from using my mood as a weapon against you, ;;; unless (smiling) its to help you along your life's path which has converged with mine, with all this said, lets lace up the combat boots and march into this jungle its warfare.


Back in October 17th 2005 the state bar of Texas received a grievance from me (50100515868) against Scott Sullivan. In this grievance which was initially the letter I sent to my 399th district court judge Juanita Vasquez Gardner, notifying her of Scott Sullivan's dereliction of duty, I break down certain legal issues in each letter I sent to Scott Sullivan (legal issues he ignored) to only demonstrate the legal importance of these issues I was raising. I also explained how everything unfolded between Mr Sullivan and I. And though I never reference the Texas disciplinary rules of professional conduct, anybody in the state bar versed in these ethical rules can draw connections between the ethical rules and what I described in the grievance. However this grievance was classified as an inquiry, (whatever that technically means) and was dismissed. I appealed the dismissal to the state bars board of Disciplinary appeals, but they upheld the dismissal in December 1st 2005.


Here is where Im going with all this, the state bar of Texas is either working in conjunction with the judicial system in railroading me or they were not clear as to what I was alleging, the latter of which I want to believe. When I say "Clear" we have to keep in mind that Im talking about Texas Laws. Technical legal latin and fox holes. In other words theres a strong possibility that the state Bar was looking for me to be "clear as to what specific ethical rule I felt Scott Sullivan violated, Follow me?


I have written another grievance this time specifically pointing out which ethical rules Scott Sullivan violated. The grievance states concisely what the previous grievance stated, im posting the new grievance on my myspace page very soon, so everyone can see exactly how everything Ive said concerning scott sullivans representing me violated Ethical rules, he was suppose to adhere to. The question is how can we get the state bar to hear this second grievance, a second grievance alleging the same violations as the first. A grievance of Clear ethical rule violations.


The state bar grievance procedure offers one opportunity to write a grievance on an attorney, though it doesn't specifically state that you cant file more than one grievance on a single attorney. If the grievance is dismissed you can appeal the dismissal which I did, but that is it, or at least this is the way it was when I initially filed my grievance. Their new brochure explaining State Bars attorney disciplinary system says after your first dismissal you may appeal again, after a second dismissal you may amend your grievance, filing it yet a third time. Though we may exploit this third appeal in that I wasn't afforded it when I initially filed my grievance, this is not my contention.


It is clear that Scott Sullivan violated ethical rules, therefore obviously something has been overlooked. The state Bar of Texas says, "A grievance that does not allege a violation of the ethical rules is classified as an inquiry and then dismissed. However I was alleging violations of ethical rules, I just never stated specifically which ones. (this grievance which I refer to as an "overview" should still be on the operation revelation website You can see for yourself what I mean) further to bring credence to my presumption that the state bar not being "clear" as to which specific ethical rules I felt Scott Sullivan violated, the grievance was classified as an inquiry. Does this inquiry classification mean that I still have a chance to file a grievance alleging violations of ethical rules? Or is it my one grievance shot? I have asked my mama who lives in san Antonio (where the grievance must be files) TO CALL THE GRIEVANCE INFORMATION HELPLINE AT 1-800-932-1900 (toll free) generally explaining my situation to them, proposing these questions to them. I have yet to find out if Mama did this or what the response was. And it has been about a month, I don't know if this administration is throwing away my mail again or if mama who is trustworthy and prompt (always have taken care of my legal requests) has allowed the seriousness of these critical manoeuvres to overwhelm her into in action, scared to fail and in her mind be a part of the reason she lost her son (if the state murders me) I don't know. Anyhow I have asked mama to read the new Grievance without stating who I am, the district court number, the judges name or Scott sullivans, thinking it would persuade whoever she spoke to at the bars grievance office (in san Antonio) to allow the grievance to be filed.


In the event that the state bar says I cant file this grievance, Ive proposed that the citys council woman whos name has evaded me be notified of my legal predicament , reading to her my new grievance and directing her attention to pieces on my myspace page, like my case profile and carepackage, in hopes that she would feel that theres at least something not right about my situation and decide to use her influence to persuade the state bar of Texas (san Antonio branch) to accept my grievance.


Ive also proposed that the American Bar Association who recently called for a moratorium on the death penalty because of the disparity of its application state to state and the inadequate legal representation , be notified of my predicament, emphasizing how Scott Sullivan refused to represent my legal interest and how it has led to many innocent claims, I begged him to file on to be procedurally barred by the courts as well as my predicament with the state bar of Texas concerning my grievance, possibly reading my grievance to them in hopes that it all will persuade them, esp in light of their recent moratorium declaration, to use their influence to encourage/persuade the state bar of Texas to accept my grievance.


This grievance is my focus because if we can get the state bar to agree that Scott Sullivan has violated ethical rules we maybe be able to get them to file a Amiscus Curiae brief ("friend of the court" brief) asking either the 5th circuit or the supreme court whichever court Im in at the time to entertain my procedurally barred claims.


If the ABA or San Antonio officials more so those against the death penalty such as the male that a few years ago ran for the district attorney position) or even those that ran against state Gov/ Rick Perry, such as Kinky Friedman (who stands against the death penalty) cannot be contacted or persuaded to encourage the stat bar of Texas (san Antonio branch) to accept my grievance there is somebody who knows somebody with influence willing to use that influence to get this grievance accepted or at the least can put us in contact with a good attorney familiar with procedural Bars and is willing to help me fight this issue in the 5th Circuit or the supreme court.


It is 4.55am they will be picking up mail in the next 5 minutes so I gotta slide, I do hope I was able to break this technical stuff down into understandable terms, I will be back in touch soon okay. Thank You for having my back, for caring about my life, me and bring a source of inspiration. No telling what I would do without you.


With divine love,

Your comrade and brother

Omari aka Reginald Blanton.