30 likes | 133 Views
2009 ND 148 Sarmed A. Abdullah, M.D., Plaintiff and Appellant v. State of North Dakota, d/b/a University of North Dakota, and Dr. David J. Theige , individually, Defendants and Appellees. TypePad table of contents (http://www.sarmedabdullah.typepad.com) : DISTRICT COURT CASE COMMENTS :
E N D
2009 ND 148 Sarmed A. Abdullah, M.D., Plaintiff and Appellantv.State of North Dakota, d/b/a University of North Dakota, and Dr. David J. Theige, individually, Defendants and Appellees
TypePad table of contents (http://www.sarmedabdullah.typepad.com): DISTRICT COURT CASE COMMENTS : 1. Brief (Sarmed A. Abdullah, M.D., v. State of North Dakota et.al, updated) 2. Referenced legal and ethics rules’ evidence (Mayo Clinic / AMA Manual of Style Guide for Authors and Editors (10th Edition)) 3. Online search (Abdullah highly appreciates the additional online adoption by the journal of Emergency Medicine of Neutral phosphate-induced renal tubular metabolic alkalosis after its acceptance and publication at PubMed) 4.Needed skepticism (Abdullah continues skepticism against the University of North Dakota so called December 01, 2006 hearing panel) 5. Policy (Abdullah rejects the North Dakota panels invitation for fraud and corruption in science-related reports) 6. Public concerns (Abdullah's post in North Dakota Supreme Court on August 24, 2009 in response to the court's denial of hearing, Abdullah's disappointment at the North Dakota newspaper system who refused to publish the add of Abdullah v. State through Abdullah's legal counsel Bormann and Myerchin, LLP ) 7. Close follow up (North Dakota Supreme Court had via their office of the clerk denied the plaintiff correspondence copy of the alleged mandate)
NORTH DAKOTA LICENSE CASE: 1. The letter corrected by Abdullah and dated September 23, 2009 to the North Dakota State Board of Medical Examiners 2. Abdullah rejects the North Dakota panels invitation for fraud and corruption in science-related reports 3. Defendants' simultaneous use of several attorney firms to defend their defenseless claims is blatant 4. North Dakota Investigative Panel-A in its continued motion failed to indicate Abdullah's prompt admission of mail service of the John Olson's 2007 Summons and Complaint 5. Abdullah's Signed and Notarized Motion to Dismiss the John M. Olson proceeding in which Mr. Olson entered representation of the North Dakota State Board of Medical Examiners 6. Mr. John M. Olson's answer dated September 28, 2009 to attorney Clark J. Bormann in response to the letter of September 23, 2009 to the State Board in which Abdullah totally disagrees with Olson's citing of Bland et.al. as a "medical practice" standard