08-3187 Volume Appendix15.pdf - Medical Supply Chain

Head v. Platte County, Mo., 749 P.2d 6 at 12, 242 Kan. 442 (Kan., 1988).
However such liability cannot make the petitioner whole and it is clear that she did
not even know the petitioner or have any reason to keep him from competing with
Novation LLC in the national market for hospital supplies. She was either directed
to deviate from a policy of the court that the petitioner has observed repeatedly
that she follows vigorously or otherwise improperly communicated to about the
ongoing litigation. See Akbarnia v. Deming, 845 F.Supp. 788 at 789-790 (D. Kan.,
1994)
Since staff of the Clerk of the Kansas District court do not read pleadings
they receive from parties or the court for the purpose of exercising discretion, her
prejudice if any has come from the respondent and the law clerk’s or magistrate’s
in this case over which the respondent is responsible for under the judicial canons.
Smith v. State, 264 Kan. 348, 955 P.2d 1293 at 1301(Kan., 1998).
The Judicial Conference’s comment on Canon 3A(4) states:
“Canon 3A(4). The proscription against communications concerning a proceeding
includes communications from lawyers, law teachers, and other persons who are
not participants in the proceeding, except to the limited extent permitted. It does
not preclude a judge from consulting with other judges, or with court personnel
whose function is to aid the judge in carrying out adjudicative responsibilities. A
judge should make reasonable efforts to ensure that this provision is not
violated through law clerks or other staff court personnel.” [Emphasis added]
The acting Clerk of the Kansas District Court no doubt capably did what she
was caused to do by the respondent or his staff. However the respondent has still
committed judicial misconduct. The Proposed Revised Code dated 02/29/08
contains a comment to Canon 3B(2) that states:
25
08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Neoforma Volume XV 5720