08-3187 Volume Appendix15.pdf - Medical Supply Chain

The respondent has repeatedly violated Canons 1, 2A, 2B, 3A1, 3A2, 3A3,
3A4, 3A6, 3B2, and 3B3 and should be subjected to proceedings under the
Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (28
U.S.C. §§ 332(d)(1), 351 to 364). The seriousness of the violations, the intent of
the respondent, the recurring pattern of improper activity, and the effect of the
improper activity on not only the petitioner, but the defendants and their counsel
and the judicial systems of the Eighth and Tenth Circuits and the states of Kansas
and Missouri warrants action by the Judicial Council Tenth Circuit.
The petitioner, twice by the most improbable chance, was able to learn of
orders by the respondent that if missed would have resulted in the loss of all the
petitioner’s claims. The petitioner was therefore not yet injured by the respondent
in the loss of the fundamental right of access to the court. Maness v. Dist. Court,
Logan County-Northern Div., 495 F.3d 943 at 944-945 (8th Cir., 2007).
Comment to 2A to the federal judicial ethics canons states that the
prohibition against behaving with impropriety or the appearance of impropriety
applies to the professional conduct of a judge.
The then Acting Kansas District Court Clerk may be liable to the petitioner
for non-discretionary duty of providing the petitioner, a pro se litigant notice and
service by mail at the petitioner’s address of record for orders by the respondent:
“Ministerial duties are those of a clerical nature performed in obedience to
mandate without the exercise of judgment and are therefore not immune
from suit. Jackson v. Wilson, [581 S.W.2d 39 (Mo.App.1979) ] at 43, Yelton
v. Becker, 248 S.W.2d 86, 89 (Mo.App.1952).”
24
08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Neoforma Volume XV 5719