08-3187 Volume Appendix15.pdf - Medical Supply Chain
08-3187 Volume Appendix15.pdf - Medical Supply Chain 08-3187 Volume Appendix15.pdf - Medical Supply Chain
espondent’s order deprived of the representation of Bret D. Landrith and by the threats of sanctions constructively deprived of the representation of Dennis Hawver and left unable to find replacement counsel. 25. The respondent had previously failed to address the petitioner’s timely motion for reconsideration in Medical Supply I. 26. The failure of the respondent to take into consideration the petitioner’s reconsiderations resulted in judgments that directly conflicted with controlling US Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit precedents and also repudiated the express language of the Congress in the USA PATRIOT Act creating private rights of action. D. Respondent’s Communications To Defeat Review 27. Patrick Fisher, the former Clerk of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals developed a completely prejudiced view of the merits of the petitioner’s litigation despite no previous communications by the petitioner or his counsel to Mr. Fisher and no known involvement of Mr. Fisher in the hospital supply industry. 28. The petitioner’s former attorney wrote Mr. Fisher a letter attempting to rectify some of the misunderstandings. See Exb. 16. 29. The Tenth Circuit decided not to review the legal basis for the respondent’s Medical Supply I decision and issued an order upholding the respondent even adopting the respondent’s clear error declaration that there was no private right of action under the USA PATRIOT Act and this decision is used in the Missouri 10 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Neoforma Volume XV 5705
State Court and the Western District of Missouri to repeatedly attempt to prejudice the court’s into believing any claim by the petitioner is frivolous. See Exb17. 30. The petitioner in shock answered the Show Cause and circulated it to members of the US Senate Judiciary Committee he had already been in contact with concerning the difficulty of addressing the anticompetitive practices of the Novation LLC cartel (the subject of two preceding US Senate Judiciary Antitrust subcommittee hearings ) See Exb 18. 31. The Tenth Circuit upheld the dismissal violating the Rule 12(b)(6) standard and overtly expressed disbelief of the petitioner’s claims as a basis for the dismissal which the Tenth Circuit has since been over ruled on but materially, the Tenth Circuit adopted the respondent’s view that the claims were not researched when in fact the complaint contained sixteen sources listed in end notes citing to investigative journalism, government and academic support for the petitioner’s claims. See Exb 19. 32. The Tenth Circuit in the person of the Chief Clerk of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the harshest possible sanctions for a frivolous appeal despite even acknowledging the district court and the appellate panel’s error that there were indeed private rights of action under the USA PATRIOT Act but refusing to change its approval of the trial court’s adoption of the defendants straw man fraud that the complaint did not identify other legally separate hospital supply cartel co-conspirators and their agreement which was identified in SEC required filings. See Exb 20. 11 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Neoforma Volume XV 5706
- 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 91 and 92: DJW/bh IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRIC
- Page 93 and 94: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT DISTRICT
- Page 95 and 96: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
- Page 97 and 98: MARK A. OLTHOFF KS # 70339 SHUGHART
- Page 99 and 100: Not Reported in F.Supp.2d Page 2 No
- Page 101 and 102: DJW/bh IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRIC
- Page 103 and 104: 21, 2008. 4 On August 21, 2008, Def
- Page 105 and 106: Here, the parties have submitted se
- Page 107 and 108: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT DISTRICT
- Page 109 and 110: Whereas the trial judge has not rev
- 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: 21. The petitioner had opposed tran
- 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: Case 2:05-cv-02299-CM-GLR Document
State Court and the Western District of Missouri to repeatedly attempt to prejudice<br />
the court’s into believing any claim by the petitioner is frivolous. See Exb17.<br />
30. The petitioner in shock answered the Show Cause and circulated it to<br />
members of the US Senate Judiciary Committee he had already been in contact<br />
with concerning the difficulty of addressing the anticompetitive practices of<br />
the Novation LLC cartel (the subject of two preceding US Senate Judiciary<br />
Antitrust subcommittee hearings ) See Exb 18.<br />
31. The Tenth Circuit upheld the dismissal violating the Rule 12(b)(6) standard<br />
and overtly expressed disbelief of the petitioner’s claims as a basis for the<br />
dismissal which the Tenth Circuit has since been over ruled on but materially, the<br />
Tenth Circuit adopted the respondent’s view that the claims were not researched<br />
when in fact the complaint contained sixteen sources listed in end notes citing to<br />
investigative journalism, government and academic support for the petitioner’s<br />
claims. See Exb 19.<br />
32. The Tenth Circuit in the person of the Chief Clerk of the Tenth Circuit<br />
Court of Appeals ordered the harshest possible sanctions for a frivolous appeal<br />
despite even acknowledging the district court and the appellate panel’s error that<br />
there were indeed private rights of action under the USA PATRIOT Act but<br />
refusing to change its approval of the trial court’s adoption of the defendants straw<br />
man fraud that the complaint did not identify other legally separate hospital supply<br />
cartel co-conspirators and their agreement which was identified in SEC required<br />
filings. See Exb 20.<br />
11<br />
<strong>08</strong>-<strong>3187</strong> <strong>Medical</strong> <strong>Supply</strong> <strong>Chain</strong> vs. Neoforma <strong>Volume</strong> XV 5706
Change language