08-3187 Volume Appendix15.pdf - Medical Supply Chain
08-3187 Volume Appendix15.pdf - Medical Supply Chain 08-3187 Volume Appendix15.pdf - Medical Supply Chain
attempted extortion by the respondent’s magistrate and misuse of the District of Kansas Clerk’s office by the respondent’s staff: “28. When …[Magistrate]… returned to Kansas City, events still seemed to be set against Mr. Bolden’s cause. The notice that the record on appeal was complete was erroneously given to the Tenth Circuit, though the mistake was clear from the appearance docket that two transcripts that had been ordered still were not part of the record. The appeals clerk for Kansas District court would not correct the record, Bolden made a motion to correct the record, which was not addressed by …[Magistrate]…. See Atch. 10 29. Bolden’s motion for an extension of time was sent to both the Tenth Circuit and the Kansas District Court. However it did not appear on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals appearance docket. Bolden’s counsel called the Tenth Circuit and a deputy clerk identified as Kathy stated that it had been received two days before but it was still not docketed. After the call Kathy reentered on the docket that Bolden’s brief was due January 26th. See Atch. 11 30. On the same day, counsel called the Kansas District Court appeals clerk who stated she was working on the letter correcting the date the record was complete. However, this letter did not appear on the docket the 25th or even the 26th. Bolden’s counsel was forced to work without sleep to file an incomplete appellate brief on the 26th emailing the brief to the court and counsel for the City and turning in the briefs and appendixes to US Postal Delivery service for the Tenth Circuit and the City of Topeka. See Atch. 12 31. Both the Kansas District Court correction of the record on appeal and the Tenth Circuit docketing of the motion for extension occurred after the brief and appendix was received, giving the appearance to an impartial observer that the events were coordinated to manufacture an ethics violation for Bolden’s counsel after the failure of previous attempts.” See Exb. 13, Exb 13 Atch 10, Exb 13 Atch 12 and Exb 13 Atch 13. II. Memorandum in Support The standard of proof to be applied in this inquiry is that of clear and convincing evidence. In re Rome, 218 Kan. 198, Syl. p 9, 542 P.2d 676 (1975). The petitioner’s complaint provided clear and convincing evidence that the ministerial act of the respondent withholding notice of the order accelerating the 22 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Neoforma Volume XV 5717
due date for a response to the defendants’ second motion for Rule 12 Dismissal violated the Judicial Ethics Cannons. The additional information regarding the highly unusual decisions of the respondent in the preceding litigation provides reason to infer that withholding notice of an order that is likely to result in the loss of the fundamental and substantial property rights the petitioner has been in court seeking to recover for more than six years was done out of an impermissible bias under the ethics cannons. The order signed by the Hon. Robert H. Henry, Chief Circuit Judge states that the petitioner is complaining about the respondents rulings and therefore the complaint is frivolous. This is a misrepresentation of the petitioner’s complaint and reproduces the results the petitioner receives from the respondent and upon appeal. This is simply straw man fraud, the complaint described the respondent’s ministerial act of preventing the petitioner from receiving notice of an order that if neglected would have caused him to lose the property of all his remaining claims. “Having erected this straw man, the appellants then shred it…”Limone v. Condon, 372 F.3d 39 at 46 (1st Cir., 2004). “Courts must be equally careful, however, not to permit a defendant to hijack the plaintiff's complaint and recharacterize its allegations so as to minimize his or her liability.” Limone id., 372 F.3d 39 at 46. judiciary. A. Respondent’s Judicial Misconduct The respondent has failed to uphold the integrity and independence of the 23 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Neoforma Volume XV 5718
- 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 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: made by the respondent that would h
- 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
- Page 181 and 182: Case 2:05-cv-02299-CM-GLR Document
- Page 183 and 184: Case 2:05-cv-02299-CM-GLR Document
- 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
due date for a response to the defendants’ second motion for Rule 12 Dismissal<br />
violated the Judicial Ethics Cannons. The additional information regarding the<br />
highly unusual decisions of the respondent in the preceding litigation provides<br />
reason to infer that withholding notice of an order that is likely to result in the loss<br />
of the fundamental and substantial property rights the petitioner has been in court<br />
seeking to recover for more than six years was done out of an impermissible bias<br />
under the ethics cannons.<br />
The order signed by the Hon. Robert H. Henry, Chief Circuit Judge states<br />
that the petitioner is complaining about the respondents rulings and therefore the<br />
complaint is frivolous. This is a misrepresentation of the petitioner’s complaint<br />
and reproduces the results the petitioner receives from the respondent and upon<br />
appeal. This is simply straw man fraud, the complaint described the respondent’s<br />
ministerial act of preventing the petitioner from receiving notice of an order that if<br />
neglected would have caused him to lose the property of all his remaining claims.<br />
“Having erected this straw man, the appellants then shred it…”Limone v. Condon, 372<br />
F.3d 39 at 46 (1st Cir., 2004). “Courts must be equally careful, however, not to permit a<br />
defendant to hijack the plaintiff's complaint and recharacterize its allegations so as to<br />
minimize his or her liability.” Limone id., 372 F.3d 39 at 46.<br />
judiciary.<br />
A. Respondent’s Judicial Misconduct<br />
The respondent has failed to uphold the integrity and independence of the<br />
23<br />
<strong>08</strong>-<strong>3187</strong> <strong>Medical</strong> <strong>Supply</strong> <strong>Chain</strong> vs. Neoforma <strong>Volume</strong> XV 5718
Change language