News-Record.com

Cigarette users are nothing more than foul smelling druggies with bad breath who lack will power, common sense, and personal discipline -- there is little difference between NC tobacco farmers and Latin American growers of the plant (coca) from which cocaine is derived - both cater to human weaknesses and make significant contributions to ill health and early deaths - cigarette sellers and marketers are actually nothing more than drug pushers - every time I see someone using one of those personal portable oxygen tanks with the little plastic tubes running up their nose I approach them ever so quietly and politely and ask them if they have a cigarette I can bum - having a smoking section in a public building makes about as much sense as having a urinating section in a swimming pool.

My wife the most anti smoking person in the world, and a liberal, is 100% against this. She smart enough to know, they are stealing the rights of property owners. Most places are smoke free now!  We do not need government to tell private property owners what to do. Let the owner of the property, decide what he wants to do. By the way Holden, I have two friends on oxygen, neither has ever smoked.    My father family, 12 children, mom and pop all died of cancer none smoked. My brother died at 56 heart attack, did not smoke.  I am not defending smoking, just understand, they are not the cause of everything. Just remember the next right they take may be one of yours! Holden, perfume, causes many allergy suffers trouble, we must stop perfume from public . Cell phone users drive me crazy, should be banned in public.

A urinating section in a swimming pool! Excellent line.

I'm inclined to let people make their own decisions on killing themselves, but let's note the bill is about public places, not private spaces. So it's about more than just personal choices. I've often wondered why workplace-safety laws don't ban smoking in bars and restaurants, which are after all workplaces.

But I do like the way at least some places have evolved without being forced. The first floors of M'Coul's and Natty Greene's are both smoke-free, and that's where I stay when I go there. The smoking bars are upstairs, so it's like having a urinating section downstream in a river.

I kissed the bar when I discovered M'Coul's had a first floor smoke free zone! But if this is about public safety, how are "upstairs" employees protected? Even if one is a smoker, being subject to 4-8 hours a day of second hand smoke by patrons increases risk significantly. But more importantly, no one should have to risk a host of terminal diseases to serve people beer. I mean c'mon!

As my relationship with M'Coul's evolved, I was disappointed to discover that all their events take place upstairs. So me and my non-smoking second class citizenry stayed downstairs. But at least I could breathe.

By the way, this idea of public safety isn't revolutionary. California enacted laws that prohibited smoking in enclosed spaces 20 - yes - 20 years ago.

Cities all across the country have had prohibited smoking in all indoor public places from San Francisco to New York. And let's not be sissys. If New Yorkers can live without smoking in bars, so can folks in Greensboro. It's the neighborly thing to do after all. I wouldn't spit in your face, why would you smoke in mine?

In any case, the worst that would happen to you is you'd be humiliated. I could, on the other hand, die.

I prefer Steve Martin's response:

"Do you mind if I smoke?"

"No, do you mind if I fart?"

having a smoking section in a public building makes about as much sense as having a urinating section in a swimming pool. *Holden

That makes about much sense as Al Gore and Sara Palin fighting over a Polar Bear on a 2x2 iceberg on where it should urinate.

No doubt Holden believes the next green target in Public building should be Vending Machines that depense plastic snack containers....

Two things one has to watch out for on this planet is a Drunk that gets Religion and becomes a Zealot to outlaw Grapes and some environmental freak who still believes that Steam Engines cause Smoking Cars on Railroads..........

Monday, February 02, 2009
Change & The "Progressive" Blogosphere: The NC State Bar Is Totally Legally & Morally Wrong, But Since It's Rachel Hunter, And We HATE Her, It's Okay!
The reader has fair warning: This is not a "political" blog in any sense of the word, but I have strong political opinions and tonight they will be front and center (I've been sick for several days and saving it up). You see, I recognized that North Carolina was really a "closet blue state" a very long time ago . . . during the Clinton administration (which it looks like we're about to repeat). Since that time, adminstrations have come and administrations have gone. Promises repeated yet unfulfilled get old. After eleven years in "the village", I want REAL change.

Of course, we're officially an Obamanation now. The parties and balls and that really awful concert on the National Mall (starring all the "left" people) are over. The inaugural speech of a man who fancies himself the reincarnation of Martin Luther King (and isn't), along with that appallingly racist benediction are (sadly) history. The tons of trash (dropped by the supporters of a "green" President) that littered the normally pristine grounds beneath Mr. Lincoln's steely gaze - have been shoveled up for landfills.

And Lincoln's ghost has retreated back to his-old-White-House-office-converted-to-a-bedroom . . . in order to watch Oprah jump triumphantly on the mattress of the bed poor Willie died on (I'm sure Her Eternal-And-Always-Milking-It-Heftiness will dedicate an entire episode of the show to the life-affirming experience).

I wonder. Did anyone present to an Emergency Department in hyperglycemic coma from watching giggly/flirty Katie Couric interview Obama? Because I was getting really nauseated and dizzy before I turned the TV off.

On that thought, and not-exactly-basking in the afterglow of Obamaoneness, I wonder if maybe, just maybe, the free-falling-free-press will consider objectively reporting the news . . . now that our long national nightmare (the one that the MSM spent two years virtually ignoring . . . in order to get Bush out and Obama in) resumes under a new President's stewardship? After all, Obama says anything is possible.

And (cue glassy-eyed, albeit tear-streaked stare) . . . I . . . believe . . . everything . . . he says.

Resistance . . . is . . . futile.

Release the enemy combatants! Pay for those abortions overseas! Fund even more entitlements (socializing medicine is for the children)! Pass a stimulus bill that, in terms of actually shoring up small businesses and creating jobs for the middle & lower classes, is the most expensive fraud ever perpetuated on the American people (I can just picture my poor Blogfather's head spinning at his keyboard).

I digress. Like Joe, I need to focus on what I focus on - and try to keep it local. And so I shall.

So today, we are going to focus on the Constitutional rights of the "wrong people" (that would be ordinary hard-working/tax-paying/middle-class citizens as opposed to enemy combatants and illegal aliens) . . . under Democratic administrations in North Carolina (in this case, Hunt/Easley/Perdue). We're going to look at things that are going on right now . . . things that could be STOPPED . . . broken systems of legal and medical oversight that could be FIXED . . . as opposed to impotently and high-mindedly re-examining stories that have had their day, not to mention plenty of print space in the local newspapers

It's fine to learn from history. But sometimes you have the opportunity - and the responsibility - to change it.

On January 8th, I blogged on the North Carolina State Bar's latest attack on Rachel Lea Hunter, the Durham lawyer and former NC Supreme Court candidate that the GSO blogosphere loves to hate. Although I've never met her in person, and we're not always on the same page politically, I feel a strong bond of friendship with Rachel . . . and her husband, Connie. To coin someone else's words, she has shown great "physical courage" and "perseverance" in the face of extreme adversity and hostility.

A few days afterwards, I posted some follow-up thoughts as I mused on the REAL state of the state for women in North Carolina. For in all "reality", Bev Perdue's "historic" election presents no good reason for this particular professional woman to celebrate.

Meanwhile, I'm still mulling over the irony and ideological hypocrisy (not to mention the deliberate, methodical cruelty) displayed on a daily basis at Edward Cone's WordUp. You see, I have a hard time reconciling the "civic concern" of those who believe that the terrorists and war criminals at Gitmo MUST be afforded due process . . . along with every right & privilege the United States legal system can afford . . . yet Dr. Mary Johnson, a more-than-competent local physician (at least, in the latest group-pummel, they finally conceded that) . . . and former public servant deeply wronged by a corrupt medico-legal system right under their stuck-up noses . . . is "delusional" and SOL.

Makes perfect sense to me.

It's been my observation and experience (crawl back under the bed, Roch) that the "progressive" types who get all emotional when they talk about "change" and "reality-based" leadership, and transparency and accountability and the importance of free speech only really mean it when you're agreeing with them . . . or if your particular situation fits their agenda.

And they can get pretty ugly when you don't agree with them. In fact, I simply cannot believe my luck that alcohol-guzzling, Dave's-Mountain hating, Hillary-loving (translation, we disagree . . . fundamentally . . . on everything) "TruBlu" showed up at Cone's to perfectly demonstrate how just a little partisanship, ignorance and vindictiveness can go a very long way:

Seriously, has the NC medical board considered looking into someone who is this unstable still seeing patients? I mean really, anyone who can use the word "ethics" concerning our new President after the last eight years has more than a mental problem.

After a few more jabs from the Coneheads (the mob grows when they smell blood), "Tru" came back and kept right on kicking. Indeed, if I knew who he/she was, I'd have a claim for libel (as I explained in the thread).

Of course, I've had one or two of those before and let it go (the topic of a whole nuther post soon to come - and I'll be naming names). I've always let it go.

But like the empty promises, it's getting real old. I'm supposed to turn the other cheek when "Tru" lobs stuff like this:

I have heard nothing but what a good doctor the one on this blog USED to be.

The "Coning continued". Clearly enjoying being the newest member of the mob (who found his/her musings quite "reasonable"), "Tru" offered the opinion that, apart from the duties the Medical Board already doesn't do well, they should function as physician thought police:

I do think the medical board should look into any physician who makes the derogatory remarks about other health care providers in this town.

The thing is, the Medical Board did look into it - because I asked them to. Alas, they cut and ran.

Of course, all of "Tru's" opinions about me are based in first-hand knowlege or fact:

"I have never read Dr. Johnson’s blog and don’t need to".

I get it. Silly me! Patients can have and express (false) opinions (even about a health care provider they've never seen). A doctor (who also happens to have been a patient surgically mauled at the hospital she's criticizing) telling the truth must be muzzled.

Actually, after all the vitriol "Tru" spewed (of course, doing it anonymously really demonstrates the courage of one's convictions), I should be saying, "Thank You!" It presents a perfect set-up for this post.

For as we move into week three of "change", just how far partisanship, ignorance, and vindictiveness can go in the great state of North Carolina is perfectly demonstrated by the press's radio silence on the case of the State Bar vs. Rachel Lea Hunter.

(This is going to hurt, Coneheads. Be careful of the change you wish for . . . you might just have to step up.)

No matter what you may think of Rachel Lea Hunter or her political notions, what the North Carolina State Bar is trying to do to her (i.e. strip her of her law license, destroy her professional reputation, and impede her ability to make a living) is totally legally & morally wrong . . . a perfect example of the same kind of good-ole-boy "we're-so-totally-in-the-wrong-but-you-can't-touch-us-because-you're-not-right-people" bovine excrement that drove an Asheboro Pediatrician who "didn't fit in" from her hometown eleven years ago.

The State Bar's action is a blatant, purely politically-motivated attack on free speech and property rights that flies in the face of the 1st, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution (and to prove that I'm an equal-opportunity Independent, let me state unequivocally that the Constitution is NOT just "a goddamned piece of paper").

As Rachel's battle with the Bar pertains to the basic rights that are supposed to afforded to every U.S. citizen, let's review the Amendments linked above (for the Coneheads, I'll try to keep it simple and not use too many words):

Amendment Number One: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment Number Two: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment Number Six: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Now, anticipating a word-parsing point that a quick-to-pounce "fact-checker" might make (that would be like Roch before he talks to Spag), Amendments 5 and 6 refer to criminal prosecutions. The fact-checker would say that I am a "wack-job" or "delusional" or "unstable" because "batshit crazy" (alas, we cannot prosecute Cone) Rachel is technically not accused of a crime (like say, this actual Connecticut judge was).

However (from the Wikipedia summary), Fifth Amendment protections apply wherever and whenever an individual is compelled to testify. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the right against self-incrimination applies whether the witness is in Federal or state court (see Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964)), and whether the proceeding itself is criminal or civil (see McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34 (1924)).

Moreover, once it is granted, Rachel's law license (like my medical license - the one TruBlu would have taken away for thinking ill of other medical professionals in Asheboro) is a protected property right. Without it, we cannot make a living. To take it away should require proof of something really, really bad - i.e. just cause after due process.

And so, Amendments 5 & 6 flow very naturally into Amendment 14 (more specific to the responsibility of North Carolina in this situation):

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And that where it becomes crystal clear (to anyone actually paying attention) that the NC State Bar's under-the-radar, slime-covered "disciplinary action" is the modern-day equivalent of a Salem Witch Hunt . . . a Star Chamber . . . down-home, good-old-boy, Southern-fried-style.

But hey, who's cares? It's only Rachel. Like the "delusional but nevertheless a good physician" Dr. Mary Johnson, Ms. Hunter is not a good progressive North Carolina Democrat. She does not drink the Kool-aid. Besides, His Supreme Blogging Eminence, Edward Cone, long ago pronounced the lady who survived a brain tumor, "Batshit Crazy" . . . not worthy of anyone's concern, attention or advocacy.

Nevermind that, without benefit of a money-spewing political machine, somewhere around 600,000 North Carolinians voted for Rachel when she last ran for Supreme Court.

For the layperson not familiar with the case, here is the crux of what is going on - in America - in 2009: A former candidate for the NC Supreme Court finds herself targeted for total professional destruction by a state-sponsored regulatory body . . . on a beyond silly, trumped-up charge (i.e. her online moniker, "Madame Justice", misleads visitors to her website) . . . because the boys at the NC State Bar simply cannot have her running for office in 2010. She must be stopped.

And not just stopped. Humiliated. Crushed. Destroyed. Unable to support herself in her chosen profession.

Now if I were a "tech journalist" (indeed, if I were ANY kind of journalist), one thing would stand out . . . especially in "Blogsboro". You see, from a citizen-journalist standpoint, the really beautiful thing is that Rachel is allowing us to follow this action in real time. She is not running or hiding in shame. She is doing what I would love to someday see a doctor do on the web with a malpractice action (what the mighty Flea got burned for doing anonymously) . . . or what I am contemplating doing soon, if/when I can finally bring myself to sue the government & medical regulatory bodies that did not, IN ANY WAY, defend or protect the duties they require.

Rachel has posted the Bar's complaint and the discovery give & take on her website.

It's fascinating, disturbing stuff. And as my case speaks volumes about the sad/sorry state of medicine, Rachel's situation could not be more relevant to the disturbing political climate of our day.

So where, I ask you, are the big state newspapers (in Raleigh and Charlotte and Greensboro)? Where is the enlightened, inclusive and oh-so-progressive North Carolina blogosphere?

Well, you see, the John Robinsons and Ed Cones and Roch Smiths (I know, I've left some of you out) of this world HATE Rachel (just like they HATE me). They want her gone. They think the Bar should get a bright shiny medal for its creativity. Right and wrong do not matter.

They hate Rachel's husband, wacky-like-a-fox Connie, too. Make no mistake, this is a two-for-one wink & nod.

But not so fast. Rachel is represented by this guy (pro bono - because right and wrong do matter to him) . . . aka, the "Big Bopper". And all I have to say, is woe, Woe, WOE be unto the "Sonny Crockett" impersonators at North Carolina State Bar (don't bother to take the link down, Mr. Oten, full-color hard copies have been made).

Pertaining to all those pesky Constitutional rights outlined above, let's look at the Bar's responses to Rachel's interogatories.

Question 1: Identify any and all judicial candidates subjected to investigation by the NC State Bar druing the pendancy or aftermath of their campaigns.

I dunno. But this seems like a very reasonable question to me. It would give us ("we-the-people" that the Bar is supposedly trying to protect from Rachel) a fairly good idea of the Bar's impartiality . . . i.e. is it doling out discipline equally or has Rachel has been singled out?

The information requested is certainly not "confidential" (this particular state-sponsored dodge really sticks in my craw because it has all of the shades of my case for perjury against Randolph Hospital administrators . . . as the information in IRS 990's is NOT confidential). You see, the Bar posts filings in disciplinary hearings/actions/orders/preliminary injunctions on its website. Ergo, how hard can it be for the Bar to research and answer this question?

But the State Bar thinks this question is "overbroad" and unduly "burdensome".

You've got to wonder (and it's actually kind of scary). How many judicial candidates has the Bar actually disciplined? And why?

As our dear local champion of justice-for-all, Roch Smith, Jr., would ask (if the Coneheads didn't hate Rachel & Connie), what is the State Bar hiding?

Question 2: Identify any employess of the NC State Bar who use or have used Internet aliases or personas on any website.

The NC State Bar is prosecuting Rachel for adopting/using the "misleading" Internet alias "Madame Justice". So again, this is a reasonable question in terms of equitable distribution of legal discipline. Have they gone after anyone else for doing the same thing?

Yet the Bar (once again) sidesteps the question. It's unduly burdensome . . . "not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissable evidence."

Oh really? The NC State Bar staff attorney prosecuting Rachel's case is Brian Oten. Online, he is known as "Sonny Crockett". And, speaking as your average ignorant Internet layperson searching in vain for competent/impartial law enforcement in North Carolina, I must say that Mr. Oten is misleading viewers, because there is CLEARLY no resemblance.

The only thing missing in that shot is a pair of ladies panties on his head.

I wonder if anyone dropping by "The Law of Videogames" thinks he's a cop? And what about copyright infringement?

So say it with me now. HYPOCRISY. DOUBLE STANDARD.

Rachel's interrogatories move on along to ask variations of the same question (in no particular order): To whom has the State Bar been talking to (and plotting with) to deprive Rachel Lea Hunter of her law license? Has the Bar communicated with the chairpersons/other agents of the NC Republican or Democratic Parties? Has the Bar communicated with any other judicial candidates? What about the NC State Board of Elections . . . or the Administrative Office of the Courts?

Now again, as an (apparently misguided) layperson looking in on a legal/disciplinary proceeding . . . expecting to see transparency and accountability and due process and fair play (especially given the wave of "change" that has reportedly swept through Raleigh and Washington) . . . these seem to me to be very reasonable questions.

In other words, who put the Bar up to this?

In each instance, the NC State Bar takes the equivalent of the Fifth. Something called "attorney-client" work product is cited.

But again, the question begs, WHO IS THE "CLIENT"?

The NC State Bar, after all, represents you and me. But some yous & mes have more political clout than others . . . and don't have the courage or sense of accountability to put a name behind an accusation - just like a lot of "TruBlus" on the blogs.

That's why Question (8) bears the closet look of all: Identify all individuals who have filed complaints regarding use of the term "Madame Justice" on the Defendant's website www.rachelforjustice.com, or who claim to have been misled by use of the term "Madame Justice" on the defendant's website www.rachelforjustice.com.

Once again, Mr. Oten ("Sonny Crockett" to you and me) and the NC State Bar itself takes the Fifth. The information is "confidential".

And even if it wasn't "confidential", the answer Mr. Oten provides to the question is "none" .

So. Not only does Rachel not have the basic Constitutional right to confront her accusers . . .

. . . THERE AREN'T ANY!?!

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE FRICKING KIDDING ME!?!

HOW IS RACHEL HUNTER SUPPOSED TO HAVE ANY REASONABLE CHANCE OF DEFENDING HERSELF?

Of course, maybe the point is the N.C. State Bar does not want to give her a reasonable chance. They want her to "just go away".

Let's move one to the Bar's response to Rachel's request for the production of documents . . . specifically request number 3 (remember that Rachel is simply asking to see any documentation that might be presented against her at the hearing - which is her fundamental right).

Produce the authority relied upon by the NC State Bar to support its reference to the term"Madame Justice" as an exclusive reference to members of the judiciary.

The Bar provides a copy of the N.C. Constitution - without any specific references.

Well, okay. That's not an overly broad response. And I guess Rachel is supposed to read their "batshit crazy" minds. While I do concede that the State Bar has the jurisdiction and authority to discipline lawyers for unethical behavior, I've looked and looked, yet I cannot find anything in our Constitution that specifically states that "Madame Justice" is a term that refers exclusively to a female justice - or that it's unethical for Rachel to use it as an online moniker.

While the reader is munching on that, he/she want to pause for a moment and meet the gay vampire freaks, poetic prostitutes, british creme de la femmes, thoroughbred horses, and sci-fi movie afficianados who have used the moniker or term, "Madame Justice" online.

All it took was a two-second Google search. And it was not unduly burdensome at all.

Call me "delusional", but I don't think any of them are lady judges.

Once, again, in terms of basic Constitutional rights, lets look at request 6 as well: Produce all data, studies or reports compiled by the N.C. State Bar, regarding the deception of the voters by the Defendant's website, www.rachelforjustice.com.

The Bar states that there are no "non-privileged" documents that respond to the request.

And I am sorry. That is just UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The N.C. Bar wants to deprive Rachel Hunter of her law license - a protected property right - without affording her the right to the "voters" (if there are any) making the accusation.

I am sorry. A voter's right to privacy . . . or the right to privilege . . . ENDS with the accusation to third parties that might deprive Rachel of her ability to make a living.

In America, you have the fundamental right to face your accuser. For the "TruBlu's" of this world, that means the law says you don't get to fling monkey-poo in public without CSI examining the poo.

So when it comes to Rachel Hunter, the N.C. State Bar needs to put up or shut up.

Of course, it can't put up something that is not there.

Now, this is where Rachel Lea Hunter's battle becomes Dr. Mary Johnson's battle (translation: it's not all about me). The State Bar's discovery responses so far have a lot of parallels with the sorry state of medical regulation in this state . . . as well as bad-faith medical peer review . . . and what I went through as a physician-in-public-service employed by a "non-profit" hospital (in this "right-to-work" state).

You see, as it stands now (and as my stint in Asheboro demonstrates), any disgruntled jerk off the street can hurl a nasty in a doctor's direction . . . no matter how ludicrous or malicious or patently false . . . and that doctor's life can be destroyed . . . without any real scrutiny . . . without any opportunity for the doctor to face or challenge his/her accusers. The "customer" is always right - even when they are dead wrong.

And incredibly, in this era of doctor shortages . . . with a public clammering for and accountability & transparency, nobody gives a damn.

With that in mind, I am going to be re-telling my story on this blog on Friday. It's going to be the whole story of what happened over an approximately three week period in January & February 1998. And this time, in honor of our anonymous "TruBlu", I will naming the names of the people who libeled me and walked away unscathed.

They walked away unscathed, because, in the spirit of professional commraderie and/or honoring the privilege they waved, I let them. Instead, I focused on the actions Randolph Hospital took based upon their word . . . in pursuit of the hospital's own agenda (i.e. get rid of the trouble-making bitch who wouldn't just look the other way) . . . without exercising due diligence or due process (don't you just love those legal terms?) . . . because I thought that the system ("might", if you will) would ultimately work for right.

It hasn't.

The right honorable Rachel Lea Hunter (more right and more honorable than any judge I know of), fighting off another bunch of bullies & goons, inspires me to keep fighting.

And/so before I sign off on this post, in the spirit of "change", I have a message for Governor Bev Perdue, N.C. Attorney General Roy Cooper and U.S. Attorney General-to-be (God Help Us) Eric Holder:

Fourteen years ago, as a young/naive/idealistic Pediatrician, I came home to Asheboro . . . laboring under agreements with both North Carolina and the Feds to repay my medical school loans for service. When I made the decision to come home, it was for keeps. I did my job - the way it was supposed to be done. I worked hard. I took good care of patients. I played by every rule. I took the extra call and covered a lot of butts and rescued a number of bad situations. And the agreements I made with the Feds said that my future was mine to decide - NOT Randolph Hospital's.

When done wrong, I exhausted every channel of redress . . . every chain of command . . . every jurisdiction . . . while those charged with oversight turned a deaf/disinterested ear. Hell, I've even been in the blogosphere four years . . . trying to get the press to pay attention . . . and for my trouble have only been spat upon by people who have NO IDEA what it means to actually stand up and fight for something . . .

. . . people like "TruBlu", who see no irony in the fact that they don't know what "cretin" means . . . people like Ed Cone and his ilk, who opine (in lieu of what we've established about how damaging an anonymous complaint can be) that threat-spewing "Tru" is "reasonable" . . . "progressive" types who revel in eviscerating someone's wounded, bleeding psyche as some kind of sick, warped entertainment.

I know people like "Tru" all too well. As long as their paycheck gets signed . . . as long as they are happy . . . as long as their kid is taken care of . . . well, the rest of the world can rot. That's what's wrong with this &^%$#@ country now.

Well, no more. I got crapped on by the state of North Carolina over and over again . . . by NC & USDHHS . . . by the Medical Board . . . by the State Bar . . . by the local DA . . . by the NC & US Attorneys General. These regulatory bodies that are charged to protect us (patient/doctor/client) offered no protection or haven. They did not have my back. They blew off written agreements. They ignored ethical canons and postition statements . . . as well as codes of professional conduct. They've utterly failed to enforce the law.

Corruption and apathy permeate our systems of medical oversight and justice. Someone has to stand and say, ENOUGH! IT IS NOT OKAY!

The really, really sad thing is that the very same thing could happen to a young doctor in public service tomorrow, and that young doctor would find themselve mired in the very same quicksand I did . . . because in eleven years, NOTHING has been done to fix the holes I fell through

And you see, I think that's "relevant".

Today is the fourth anniversary of my Father's death. Perhaps my most vivid memory of Pops is of him standing "guard" across Fayetteville street the spring before he died . . . a lone "redneck" figure in his railroad hat, boots and Big Ben jacket (someone that the Country-Club types & Ed Cones of this world would sneer & spit at) . . . silently watching his daughter stage a humiliating lone protest against the third-rate administrators of the two-bit Bandaid station that did her wrong. Daddy stayed until I was done that evening. No one . . . not the hospital . . . not reporters . . . not the police . . . were going to mess with his little girl.

He did not live to see justice done for his daughter.

Today is also the eleventh anniversay of the day my life in my own hometown went to hell . . . when all my dreams . . . and all of my parents' dreams for me . . . were dashed against a White Wall of small-town hypocrisy and greed. I cannot be at my Mother's side this week (where I should be) as she buries her best friend . . . because two overpaid, amoral, lying/sexist cretins have thus far been untouchable . . . shielded by people who say that ethics and small-town values matter.

So this is my message for Beverly Perdue and Roy Cooper and Garland Yates and all of the not-so-honorable members of Randolph Hospital's Board of Directors and the new U.S. Attorney General:

The administrators of a "non-profit" hospital do NOT get a free pass to lie, cheat, steal, and destroy. Not only do they not get to lie to the IRS, they don't get to lie to citizens. I do not give a rat's tail who they are or who they know. Moreover, it is the government's job to protect and defend the duties it requires. And/so, if the Governor of North Carolina and USDHHS and the IRS do not very quickly put their "great" lawyers to work on the case of Dr. Mary Johnson and Randolph Hospital . . . in a fashion that finally vindicates and restores Dr. Johnson . . . if the new "team" does not immediately buckle down to legislatively plug the holes in a medicolegal system that clearly does not work to protect anyone but the well-connected guilty (aka, the "right people"), then the Governor of North Carolina and her Attorney General (not to mention the U.S.

Attorney General) can expect the ugliest, nastist, broadest-reaching lawsuit that Dr. Mary Johnson can file.

Perjury, with no statute of limitations, makes it possible. These lies are forever.

One way or another, there will be "change".

2/3/09 Author's Note: This post was "tweaked" this morning. And yes, Rachel. I actually did research. Imagine that;)
Posted by Dr. Mary Johnson at 7:21 PM 0 comments Links to

Sorry Mark, but this is a major big time story to come.......It will get out! I promise you..

I don’t understand why people, smoker or not, aren’t outraged by the bill. It will ban smoking in all public places and restaurants. For me, I’m not outraged because I want to be able to smoke in a restaurant, I’m outraged because it’s the government telling private business owners what they can do in their own establishments. People will make arguments about how its a health issue, or a health insurance rate issue, but that’s all a smoke screen. (No pun intended.) There are a lot more dangerous public health risks than smoking: industrial waste, air pollution, carbon emissions, and American diet just to name a few. What about alcohol? It can be deadly, and banning it in the early 20th century was disastrous. What about insurance rates? There’s a HUGE list of things that are a detriment to insurance costs, but those things like sky diving, or motorcycling aren’t being banned. Cars kill thousands of people a year. The smoking ban simply put, is an agenda by cigarette haters.

If I own a bar, and I allow smoking, and you don’t like cigarette smoke, YOU DON’T HAVE TO COME TO MY BAR. Just like, if you don’t like scuba diving with sharks, then pick a different diving company. As a private business owner, I should have the right to decide what goes on in my establishment as long as it’s legal. Cigarettes are legal. What if the government decided that all alcohol would be banned in public places because of drunk driving concerns? Would you support that? I bet a bunch of you beer drinking cigarette haters out there would be pretty pissed. But that’s different right? Alcohol’s a controlled substance just like tobacco, and the government has the legal authority to ban it in public just like cigarettes. It doesn’t mean that it should.

In the end, it’s about the right to do what you please in your privately owned business. You don’t like going to bars that allows smoking? Then don’t go. Tired of your insurance rates going up? You better look into everything that causes that. (Including the broken health system itself.) Don’t want to get cancer from smoking? Don’t smoke and don’t hang out with smokers. No one’s making you go to smoky bars, so don’t make bars get rid of smokers.