08-3187 Volume Appendix15.pdf - Medical Supply Chain

More documents

Recommendations

Info

law of this circuit deprived of jurisdiction on July 11, 2008. See Plaintiff’s Objection to Magistrate’s Order of 08/20/08. The plaintiff has consistently argued that the federal court lacks jurisdiction over his concurrent state court action which was erroneously removed from the State of Missouri 16 th Circuit court on the grounds of diversity and has only the jurisdiction over these claims as pendant state law claims dismissed without prejudice in MSC v. Neoforma, Inc. Case No. 05-2299. However, this court lost jurisdiction over this matter in controversy on July 11, 2008 under controlling precedent of the Tenth Circuit in United States v. Prows, 448 F.3d 1223, 1228 (10th Cir. 2006) (recognizing the general rule that a notice of appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction over substantive claims).” This court erroneously continued to exert jurisdiction but on August 11, 2008 the Tenth Circuit issued an order in MSCI v Neoforma, Inc. Case No. 08-3187 denying dismissal of the appeal. This court’s jurisdiction under Case No. 07-CV-02146-CM-DJW as a removed state court action over 05-2299’s pendant state law claims is impacted by the special rule applicable to exclusive jurisdiction over federal antitrust claims Holmes Financial Associates, Inc. v. Resolution Trust Corp., 33 F.3d 561 (C.A.6 (Tenn.), 1994) and this court will permanently lose jurisdiction 1) under the exclusive federal jurisdiction rule, 2) the reversal of the dismissal of the plaintiff’s federal and pendant claims in 05-2299, and 3) the recognition that the removal never had the required complete diversity of citizenship for 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and must be remanded under 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (c)’s requirement that “If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded”. The appeal concerns whether this is the same matter in controversy as MSCI v. Neoforma et al Case No. 05-2299 and whether substantive claims related to substantive claims still included in this case over the same conduct (aspects of the issues involved in the appeal halting this court under U.S. v. Salzano, 994 F.Supp. 1321 (D. Kan., 1998) ) were lawfully dismissed in light of the US Supreme Court’s overturning of the Tenth Circuit Rule 12(b)(6) standard or practice used by this court in Erickson v. Pardus, No. 06-7317 (U.S. 6/4/2007) (2007). This court’s orders subsequent to the July 11, 2008 Notice of Appeal are “null and void” under Garcia v. Burlington Northern R.R. Co., 818 F.2d 713, 721 (10th Cir.1987). CONCLUSION 2 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Neoforma Volume XV 5683
Whereas the trial judge has not reviewed the plaintiff’s affidavit of prejudice or has not made an order regarding that review, under 28 USC § 144 there are no further proceedings in this court and because this court lost jurisdiction due to the notice of appeal filed on July 11, 2008, the magistrate’s orders are void for want of jurisdiction. Respectfully Submitted, S/ Samuel K. Lipari ____________________ Samuel K. Lipari 297 NE Bayview Lee's Summit, MO 64064 816-365-1306 saml@medicalsupplychain.com Pro se CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify I have sent a copy to the undersigned opposing counsel via electronic filing on 8/22/08. Mark A. Olthoff, Esq., Jay E. Heidrick, Esq. Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, P.C. Twelve Wyandotte Plaza 120 W. 12th Street Kansas City, MO 64105 via email jheidrick@stklaw.com molthoff@stklaw.com ademarea@stklaw.com S/ Samuel K. Lipari ____________________ Samuel K. Lipari 3 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Neoforma Volume XV 5684
Page 1 and 2:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Page 3 and 4:
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Jay E.
Page 5 and 6:
After the instant Motion to Compel
Page 7 and 8:
Thus, under Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(i), Pl
Page 9 and 10:
help focus the discovery efforts of
Page 11 and 12:
With respect to the first requireme
Page 13 and 14:
Defendants, are documents that he (
Page 15 and 16:
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated in Kansas C
Page 17 and 18:
2008 pretrial conference, and an Au
Page 19 and 20:
motive on the part of the movant, r
Page 21 and 22:
Plaintiff’s contention that he ne
Page 23 and 24:
08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Ne
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58: 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Ne
Page 69 and 70: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Page 73 and 74: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT DISTRICT
Page 75 and 76: FILED United States Court of Appeal
Page 79 and 80: plaintiff sanctioned for not produc
Page 81 and 82: Monday, August 18, 2008 9:06 AM Sub
Page 83 and 84: method of communication, that it ma
Page 85 and 86: ********************PRIVATE AND CON
Page 87 and 88: Monday, August 18, 2008 9:55 AM Sub
Page 89 and 90: DJW/bh IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRIC
Page 97 and 98: MARK A. OLTHOFF KS # 70339 SHUGHART
Page 99 and 100: Not Reported in F.Supp.2d Page 2 No
Page 103 and 104: 21, 2008. 4 On August 21, 2008, Def
Page 105 and 106: Here, the parties have submitted se
Page 107: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT DISTRICT
Page 111 and 112: (mh) (Entered: 08/20/2008) 7. The d
Page 113 and 114: that rejected in Glass v. Pfeffer,
Page 115 and 116: Prior Extrajudicial Source Bias The
Page 117 and 118: molthoff@stklaw.com ademarea@stklaw
Page 119 and 120: supplies. Similarly, the defendant
Page 121 and 122: JUDICIAL COUNCIL THE TENTH CIRCUIT
Page 123 and 124: the respondent ordered dismissal of
Page 125 and 126: Appearance Docket of the subject li
Page 127 and 128: were parties to the action at the t
Page 129 and 130: 21. The petitioner had opposed tran
Page 131 and 132: State Court and the Western Distric
Page 133 and 134: dismissed, contradicting controllin
Page 135 and 136: (1) Respondent’s Effect On Litiga
Page 137 and 138: enter the market where Missouri doc
Page 139 and 140: 58. Through the petitioner’s lobb
Page 141 and 142: made by the respondent that would h
Page 143 and 144: due date for a response to the defe
Page 145 and 146: Head v. Platte County, Mo., 749 P.2
Page 147 and 148: this court, we must call attention
Page 149 and 150: petitioner’s appeal or to other t
Page 151 and 152: adopted their poorly concealed fals
Page 153 and 154: without independent review resultin
Page 155 and 156: The action has the petitioner’s m
Page 157 and 158: Date: February, 1 st 2008 Office of
Page 159 and 160:
permitted the repeated outcomes her
Page 161 and 162:
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE TENTH CIRCU
Page 163 and 164:
Council. As set out in the miscondu
Page 165 and 166:
SUMMARY OF DEADLINES AND SETTINGS E
Page 167 and 168:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TH
Page 169 and 170:
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT The plaintiff
Page 171 and 172:
law); Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. B
Page 173 and 174:
generating source of the power (to
Page 175 and 176:
Judge Carlos Murguia’s prior deci
Page 177 and 178:
Case 2:05-cv-02299-CM-GLR Document
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
enter the market. The Defendants ta
Page 187 and 188:
(1) the attendance of a witness or
Page 189 and 190:
598. The USA PATRIOT Act reaffirmed
Page 191 and 192:
611. Defendants’ actions were wil
Page 193 and 194:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TH
Page 195 and 196:
admitted was incorrect about the US
Page 197 and 198:
government need only prove that the
Page 199 and 200:
Accordingly, one who opts into or p
Page 201 and 202:
other elements of the Section 1962(
Page 203 and 204:
y circumstantial evidence and the l
Page 205 and 206:
dealers or potential dealers. The p
Page 207 and 208:
Kilroy reveal the law firm was the
Page 209 and 210:
US Department Of Justice Post Trial
Page 211 and 212:
of Liggett; Ernest Pepples of B&W;
Page 213 and 214:
Certificate of Service I certify th
Page 215 and 216:
2. I know first hand the consequenc
Page 217 and 218:
Army officer and an African America
Page 219 and 220:
Social and Rehabilitation Services
Page 221 and 222:
answered the complaint and sent add
Page 223 and 224:
shared. The stress aggravated their
Page 225 and 226:
objective of eliminating liability
Page 227 and 228:
14 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs.
Page 229 and 230:
The Hon. Magistrate Judge James P.
Page 231 and 232:
Bancorp and its investment bank sub
Page 233 and 234:
the earlier ethics complaint as an
Page 235 and 236:
misconduct that can remedy its effe
Page 237 and 238:
Kansas District court would not cor
Page 239 and 240:
he served as a lawyer in the matter
Page 241 and 242:
Attorney James P. O'Hara Named U.S.
Page 243 and 244:
Kansas City, MO. -- January 26, 200
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Exb 13 Atch 3 08-3187 Medical Suppl
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
19 In contrast, as a practical matt
Page 257 and 258:
02-3443 Medical Supply Chain v. US
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 321 and 322:
Page 323 and 324:
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Page 329 and 330:
Page 331 and 332:
Page 333 and 334:
Page 335 and 336:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Page 337 and 338:
Dated this 24th day of October, 200
Page 339 and 340:
lack of health insurance and the co
Page 341 and 342:
Washington, DC 20004-1206 John K. P
Page 343 and 344:
United States Court of Appeals for
Page 345 and 346:
“Defendant's second allegation is
Page 347 and 348:
3. The defendants were not parties
Page 349 and 350:
tie-in sales and other means of exp
Page 351 and 352:
judicata grounds. The court noted,
Page 353 and 354:
Id pg. 328. d. Identity of claims U
Page 355 and 356:
Heard v. Board of Pub. Util. of Kan
Page 357 and 358:
The hospital supply competitors VHA
Page 359 and 360:
56 states: “By 8/21/04 The NY Tim
Page 361 and 362:
506 (2002); Crawford-El v. Britton,
Page 363 and 364:
The burden to state a claim for int
Page 365 and 366:
502 states: “Defendants through t
Page 367 and 368:
the conspiracy, agreed to commit pr
Page 369 and 370:
enterprise." Mason Tenders District
Page 371 and 372:
“Section 315 of the Patriot Act a
Page 373 and 374:
saml@medicalsupplychain.com Pro se
Page 375 and 376:
!"#$%&"'()&$*'+,$&-(%'()!('()&.'/01
Page 377 and 378:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILE
Page 379 and 380:
in ensuring that the claims he brin
Page 381 and 382:
supplies which included the threat
Page 383 and 384:
Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law
Page 385 and 386:
Certificate of Service I certify I
Page 387 and 388:
! "#!$%&!'()&*+,-(&)#!).!%&*&/0!1&*
Page 389 and 390:
###################################
Page 391 and 392:
Page 393 and 394:
Page 395 and 396:
Page 397 and 398:
show all

08-3187 Volume Appendix15.pdf - Medical Supply Chain

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?