News-Record.com

"I've known Anna Mills (Wagoner) for quite a while now; I have the highest opinion of her," said Robert Holt Edmunds Jr. , who served as U.S. attorney in the Middle District from 1986 through 1993 and is now a state Supreme Court justice.* Mark quoting local boy who made good in the republican establishment system

Strange that you did not get another political view about lawyer Mills?

Anna Mills Wagoner: Hearing Nothing Much About Her Means She's Doing A Good Job

Cone linked an N&R article last night that got my hackles up, but I was too tired and too residually frazzled to comment.

A former (US Attorney General) Gonzalez aide says that our own regional US Attorney, Anna Mills Wagoner was apparently on the Justice Department's so-called "hit list" of US Attorneys to fire. A spokesman said she was "honored to be in such distinguished company".

Given my own experience with Ms. Wagoner, (as a public servant & whistle-blower burned), I must say, I would not have minded too much if she took the career "hit". Maybe then she would have some inkling of how I feel.

I've written her office on multiple occasions . . . about this . . . and gotten the total brush-off.

Apparently Ms. Wagoner does not believe that perjury and contempt and fraud on the part of overpaid "non-profit" hospital administrators abusing public resources to monopolize the local medical landscape is a very big deal.

When I met with an IRS agent last year (only three years after reporting these crimes), I was told that Ms. Mills Wagoner's office was "very conservative" (ironic in lieu of the aide's allegations) and unlikely to pursue a case that did not involve drug dealers or guns or terrorists or big names.

And the "declining to bring charges against Democrats" label certainly fits.

Translation: ordinary people screwed by liars and cheats abusing the public trust are SOL.

So far, after that October 2006 meeting in Greensboro, I seem to be the only one who has heard from the IRS. I'm still getting nasty-grams threatening to "garnish my wages" over six hundred & some dollars that the IRS says I owe from last year. But my accountant (who has written them) says it's the IRS's error and I do not owe our ohsoefficient federal government any money.

The nastygrams really made me mad. After the cluster-screw I got in federal service, I will not just be writing out a check just because some pencil-pushing bully at the IRS got his numbers wrong.

Meanwhile lying Bob Morrison and Steven Eblin continue to sail along unscathed. No sanctions. No fines. No prosecution for lying under Oath about matters relevant to a damages claim.

Of course, Ms. Mills Wagoner really isn't getting any heat over it. The local press has kept its head in the sand. Gotta suck up and get those hospital-owned medical buildings up. Small town values (not to mention state and federal laws) don't matter so much when it comes to "economic development".

This is what really got me: Sayeth Congressman Howard Coble, "I've heard nothing bad about her," said Rep. Howard Coble, a Greensboro Republican. "In fact I've heard nothing much about her at all. That indicates to me she's doing a good job."

Howard has heard from me. I guess (once again) a doctorscrewedtothewall doesn't count.

And I'm sorry, only a politician could believe that "hearing nothing" about a federal prosecutor means that she's doing a good job.

Posted by DR. MARY JOHNSON

Connie:

What I did was go to the last two people to hold that job, a Republican and Democrat, as well as a few other legal scholars (one of who was also a former U.S. Atty. under Reagan) and ask what their informed opinion is.

Dr. Mary may be a wonderful person, but she is neither a former U.S. Attorney nor a lawyer. Her view point when it comes to the legal system in this state seems to be that everything and everyone has wronged her, making her quotes problematic at best.

Mark,

Took some exception with your characterization: "This sweeps central North Carolina's top federal law enforcement officers into the swirl of a national scandal." What exactly is the "scandal"? That the President or his people replaced political appointees or that they handled the process so poorly. Either way, the appointees would have been replaced. Don't drink the kool-aid.....

Bruce:

If this were about a human resources issue, you'd be right.

But if the president and/or his deputies are making decisions about who should wield the prosecutorial powers of the U.S. Government based on their willingness to pursue politically motivated cases, then yes, it's a scandal - no matter which party is doing it.

Mark,

I appreciate your position that whoever is doing it, you feel that it is wrong. However, the District Offices of the U.S. Attorneys cannot give equal weight and time to all cases that could be investigated and prosecuted. Why can't the President replace prosecutors when they will not and do not have the same priorities of the Executive Branch for the limited resources at hand? We're not talking about the President sicing the IRS on someone, we're talking about what areas of the law the Executive Branch wants the resources working on. I still don't see a scandal here.