08-3187 Volume Appendix15.pdf - Medical Supply Chain

Appearance Docket of the subject litigation.
7. The petitioner avoided the effect of being deprived of notice and the
respondent and the judicial council are able to readily verify the petitioner’s
justifiable fear on the first page of the response to the dismissal:
“The plaintiff is also aware of this court’s disposition toward him and his
claims embodied by the court’s January 24th, 2008 decision to over rule the
Magistrate Judge’s case management schedule and require this answer by
February 2, 2008.
An impartial observer could find that the issuance of a minute order
changing the schedule without accompanying documentation could prejudice
a pro se defendant excluded from the electronic case management system.
The plaintiff has no doubt as to what would have been in store for his
claims or his future ability to enter the hospital supply market and compete
against US Bancorp’s co-conspirator Novation LLC had he not made the
deadline.”
Petitioner’s Response to Second Dismissal, Exb. 5
B. Respondent’s Retaliatory Obstruction of Rule 60(b) Proceedings
8. On March 28, 2008 following the March 18 letter transmitting the
Judicial Council order dismissing the judicial ethics complaint, the respondent
struck the petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion and ordered the petitioner to show
cause in an electronic filing of a Word Perfect Document the respondent
entitled “Lipari sanctions.” See Exb. 6 .
5
08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Neoforma Volume XV 5700