08-3187 Volume Appendix15.pdf - Medical Supply Chain

were parties to the action at the time the order was made and over whom the
court had a complete absence of jurisdiction. See Exb 8.
14. The respondent’s order is harshly critical of the petitioner and his former
counsel expressing a complete disbelief of the petitioner’s claims and related
sworn affidavit as the basis for the dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) even though
there had been no discovery in any of the petitioner’s cases and no basis to
question the petitioner’s factual averments except ex parte communications
with defense counsel. See Exb 8.
15. The order sanctions the petitioner for bringing subsequent claims that
were not precluded under the transactional approach to res judicata that is the
controlling law of this circuit and are materially identical to controlling US
Supreme Court antitrust cases determining similar claims were not precluded.
16. When the respondent realized his order dismissing the petitioner’s now
dissolved Missouri corporation and sanctioning the petitioner made the
petitioner a party in the action, the respondent attempted to refute the change he
had created in a second order but ended up confirming the petitioner was
ultimately liable. See Exb. 9.
17. The reason the petitioner was being treated with open bias and prejudice
by the respondent in his orders and the verifiable reason the federal claims were
dismissed (even though the required elements were clearly and concisely pled
with supporting factual averments at exactly where the complaint’s table of
contents indicated ) is because the petitioner had subsequent conduct claims
7
08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Neoforma Volume XV 5702