08-3187 Volume Appendix15.pdf - Medical Supply Chain
08-3187 Volume Appendix15.pdf - Medical Supply Chain 08-3187 Volume Appendix15.pdf - Medical Supply Chain
for such disclosure or for any failure to provide notice of such disclosure to the person who is subject of such disclosure or any other person identified in the disclosure.” 601. The Act specifies that financial institutions are to report" any possible violation of law or regulation." Congress did not intend the Act's safe harbor to give banks blanket immunity for malicious, willful criminal and civil violations of law. 602. Importantly, the Act requires there to be a "possible" violation of law-"possible" being the operative word-before a financial institution can claim protection of the statute. 603. The Defendants knew there was no possible violation and that the USA PATRIOT Act know your customer provision did not apply to the subject escrow accounts. 604. US Bank and US Bancorp did not file a report of a "possible violation" of the law but rather acted maliciously and willfully in an attempt to have Medical Supply deprived of high level banking services including international wire fund transactions on information the defendants knew to be false. 605. Said activities aforementioned by Defendants were done in concert and in secret with the intention to injure Plaintiff all the while knowing that the lack of candor and disclosure of the true acts and activities by Defendants would give Defendants an economic advantage over Plaintiff. Defendants were engaged in concealed fraudulent conduct. 606. Said malicious suspicious activity reporting against Medical Supply and its founder Samuel Lipari was done with the purpose of restricting the availability of and access to hospital supplies and resulted in impairment and potential impairment of medical diagnosis, treatment and care, along with physical injury, and constituted a threat to public health and safety 607. Said activities were intended by Defendants to cause injury to Plaintiff by and through intentional misrepresentations to third parties concerning Plaintiff. 608. Said activities did directly and proximately cause injury to Plaintiff. 609. Said activities were and are unjustified. 610. Plaintiff is entitled to recover their actual damages in the amount of in excess of $500,000,000.00 for their actions resulting in the loss of trust accounts, and actual damages in the amount of in excess of $500,000,000.00 for their actions resulting in the loss of the lease sale together with the costs of suit, and attorney fees. 113 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Neoforma Volume XV 5765
611. Defendants’ actions were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive. 612. Plaintiff is also entitled to recover punitive damages in an amount in excess of $10,000.00. TOLLING OF APPLICABLE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS 613. Plaintiff could not have reasonably discovered its injuries, or that its injuries were wrongfully caused, until January 21st, 2005, when Shughart Thomson & Kilroy’s former managing partner testified under oath in the Kansas Attorney Disciplinary Prosecution of the plaintiff’s counsel. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands: (1) That Defendants, their agents and servants, be enjoined during the pungency of this action and permanently from their activities in unreasonable restraint of trade or commerce and in monopolizing, attempting to monopolize, or combining or conspiring to monopolize. (2) That Defendants be required to pay to Plaintiff such damages as Plaintiff has sustained in consequence of Defendants’ activities in unreasonable restraint of trade or commerce and in monopolizing, attempting to monopolize, or combing or conspiring to monopolize, in the amount of approximately $500,000,000.00, multiplied by three for total damages of approximately $1,500,000,000.00 for the conduct related to the refusal to provide trust accounts and approximately $500,000,000.00, multiplied by three for total damages of approximately $1,500,000,000.00 for the conduct related to preventing Medical Supply from selling the office building lease to General Electric Transportation Co. for a total of approximately $3,000,000,000.00. (3) That Defendants be required to pay to Plaintiff such damages as Plaintiff has sustained in consequence of Defendants’ activities in tortuous interference with contract or business expectancy and/or in prima facie tort, in the amount of approximately $1,000,000.00, together with punitive or exemplary damages for the same, in an amount in excess of $10,000.00. (4) Medical Supply Chain, Inc. seeks damages for the injury of its business associates and stakeholders, including Blue Springs, Missouri, loss of good will and the injury of the 2000 hospitals loosing money due to high supply costs under Mid Atl. Telecom, Inc. v. Long Distance Servs., Inc., 18 F.3d 260, 263 (4th Cir.1994)’s interpretation of standing on a RICO statutes having a common antitrust basis. 114 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Neoforma Volume XV 5766
- 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
- 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: 598. The USA PATRIOT Act reaffirmed
- Page 193 and 194: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TH
- Page 195 and 196: admitted was incorrect about the US
- Page 197 and 198: government need only prove that the
- Page 199 and 200: Accordingly, one who opts into or p
- Page 201 and 202: other elements of the Section 1962(
- Page 203 and 204: y circumstantial evidence and the l
- Page 205 and 206: dealers or potential dealers. The p
- Page 207 and 208: Kilroy reveal the law firm was the
- Page 209 and 210: US Department Of Justice Post Trial
- Page 211 and 212: of Liggett; Ernest Pepples of B&W;
- Page 213 and 214: Certificate of Service I certify th
- Page 215 and 216: 2. I know first hand the consequenc
- Page 217 and 218: Army officer and an African America
- Page 219 and 220: Social and Rehabilitation Services
- Page 221 and 222: answered the complaint and sent add
- Page 223 and 224: shared. The stress aggravated their
- Page 225 and 226: objective of eliminating liability
- Page 227 and 228: 14 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs.
- Page 229 and 230: The Hon. Magistrate Judge James P.
- Page 231 and 232: Bancorp and its investment bank sub
- Page 233 and 234: the earlier ethics complaint as an
- Page 235 and 236: misconduct that can remedy its effe
- Page 237 and 238: Kansas District court would not cor
- Page 239 and 240: he served as a lawyer in the matter
611. Defendants’ actions were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive.<br />
612. Plaintiff is also entitled to recover punitive damages in an amount in excess of $10,000.00.<br />
TOLLING OF APPLICABLE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS<br />
613. Plaintiff could not have reasonably discovered its injuries, or that its injuries were wrongfully<br />
caused, until January 21st, 2005, when Shughart Thomson & Kilroy’s former managing partner testified<br />
under oath in the Kansas Attorney Disciplinary Prosecution of the plaintiff’s counsel.<br />
PRAYER FOR RELIEF<br />
WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands:<br />
(1) That Defendants, their agents and servants, be enjoined during the pungency of this action and<br />
permanently from their activities in unreasonable restraint of trade or commerce and in monopolizing,<br />
attempting to monopolize, or combining or conspiring to monopolize.<br />
(2) That Defendants be required to pay to Plaintiff such damages as Plaintiff has sustained in<br />
consequence of Defendants’ activities in unreasonable restraint of trade or commerce and in<br />
monopolizing, attempting to monopolize, or combing or conspiring to monopolize, in the amount of<br />
approximately $500,000,000.00, multiplied by three for total damages of approximately<br />
$1,500,000,000.00 for the conduct related to the refusal to provide trust accounts and approximately<br />
$500,000,000.00, multiplied by three for total damages of approximately $1,500,000,000.00 for the<br />
conduct related to preventing <strong>Medical</strong> <strong>Supply</strong> from selling the office building lease to General Electric<br />
Transportation Co. for a total of approximately $3,000,000,000.00.<br />
(3) That Defendants be required to pay to Plaintiff such damages as Plaintiff has sustained in<br />
consequence of Defendants’ activities in tortuous interference with contract or business expectancy and/or<br />
in prima facie tort, in the amount of approximately $1,000,000.00, together with punitive or exemplary<br />
damages for the same, in an amount in excess of $10,000.00.<br />
(4) <strong>Medical</strong> <strong>Supply</strong> <strong>Chain</strong>, Inc. seeks damages for the injury of its business associates and<br />
stakeholders, including Blue Springs, Missouri, loss of good will and the injury of the 2000 hospitals<br />
loosing money due to high supply costs under Mid Atl. Telecom, Inc. v. Long Distance Servs., Inc., 18<br />
F.3d 260, 263 (4th Cir.1994)’s interpretation of standing on a RICO statutes having a common antitrust<br />
basis.<br />
114<br />
<strong>08</strong>-<strong>3187</strong> <strong>Medical</strong> <strong>Supply</strong> <strong>Chain</strong> vs. Neoforma <strong>Volume</strong> XV 5766
Change language