You are on page 1of 3

GRIEVANCE AGAINST JAMES SCOTT SULLIVAN

REGINALD BLANTON 999395


POLUNSKY UNIT 12-FF-84
3872 FM 350 SOUTH
LIVINGSTON
TEXAS 77351
TH
5 OCTOBER 2007.
STATE BAR OF TEXAS
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL
REGIONAL OFFICE
FEDERAL RESERVE BUILDING
126 E NUEVA, SUITE 200
SAN ANTONIO
TEXAS 78204

RE- Grievance against James Scott Sullivan

Dear State Bar of Texas

.
Your Texas Disciplinary rules of Professional conduct and Texas
rules of Disciplinary procedure clearly states that a lawyer has an
obligation to represent the legal interest of their client. More
specifically Point 1, under "Comment: scope of Representation "states
that the "…Client has ultimate authority to determine the objectives
to be served by legal representation within the limits imposed bylaw,
the lawyers professional obligations and the agreed scope of
representation".

However, this is not what happened in my case.


The district court (399th, Bexar county San Antonio) had appointed
James Scott Sullivan to "represent" me during my state habeas corpus
appeal concerning my Death sentence. Over the course of that year
he represented me I sent him numerous letters in which I begged him
to investigate issues of my concern my "interest" and to include these
issues in my state habeas corpus brief, yet I was ignored. And though
I'm a "comprehending and responsible adult" (point 3 under Rule
1.03 of the Texas Disciplinary rules…) Mr Sullivan never articulated
why all my concerns were so absurd that they deserved to go
unaddressed. However one particular issue (claim 15 of the
enclosure) Mr Sullivan agreed to address to my trial court during our
evidentiary hearing, yet by the time the evidentiary hearing was
brought to a close, he had not done what he agreed to earlier.

Ultimately Mr Sullivan utterly neglected a legal matter entrusted to


him (rule 1.01 competent and Diligent representation (B)(1)) under
sub section "C in Rule 1.01 "Neglect, signifies inattentiveness
involving a conscious disregard for the responsibilities awed to the
client. Because of Mr Sullivans "neglect" I very well may be killed by
the state of Texas, as all the claims I urged, begged him to preserve
for future review, by filing them in my state habeas corpus, have
been procedurally barred by the federal court, (the appellate court
that follows the state habeas corpus stage) as a result of Mr Sullivans
"malfeasance" (wrongdoing or misconduct).

My court appointed Federal attorney John Carroll (my present


attorney) tried to plea to the Federal court to hear these neglected
claims. We argued to the Federal court, since when I realized Mr
Sullivan wasn't going to represent my legal interest I immediately
wrote the appointing court (399th district court, San Antonio Tx) after
the state Habeas corpus evidentiary hearing diligently seeking t have
my legal interest which Mr Sullivan ignored, preserved/entertained,
representations wrong doing.

To the contrary the Federal court Judge not only refused to hold a
hearing to determine if there was indeed "cause" (reasons beyond my
control) for my neglected legal concerns absense in the state habeas
corpus brief Mr Sullivan filed in my name, but he also procedurally
barred these claims.

For the record, when I attempted to notify the district court Judge,
Juanita Vasquez Gardner (399th) in writing, of Mr Sullivans
dereliction of duty, they also ignored me, and I know the court
received the certified mailing because the package was signed for by
an agent of the court.

Enclosed for your convenience is a copy of what my Federal


Attorney filed in my Federal writ concerning claims Mr Sullivan
neglected. I would like to draw your attention to pages 123-126 there
of.

PAGES 123-141

http://www.scribd.com/doc/1085439/PAGES-123-TO-141

In closing because of Mr Sullivans neglect lack of diligent


representation and Malfeasance I have been placed in a
compromising position, one of deadly proportions, At the state
Habeas appellate stage Im not guaranteed "effective assistance of
counsel" but merely "representation" which partially means I can
only communicate with the court through my "representation".
However, what is the client to do when his interest are not being
represented? Reach out to the court himself? I am caught in a legal
catch 22.

My Federal attorney John Carroll and I are asking the 5th Circuit
court where my appeal is pending, to grant us a COA (which gives
me permission to appeal what the Federal court procedurally barred)
in hopes that they will recognize Scott Sullivan tied my hands and
silenced me, denying me my due-process rights.
Please accept this as a righteous grievance.
Sincerely
Reginald Blanton
Enclosure
J. SCOTT SULLIVAN
7800 IH 10 WEST
SUITE 519
SAN ANTONIO
TEXAS 78230
Bar NO. 19483350