The thread over at Joe's continues . . . and I outline (for those who do not understand) what this woman wants from the North Carolina legal system (as if I haven't said it over and over again here). Sam and "Anthony" appeared to be carrying some of Roch's water. I hope my answer was sufficient.
MeB actually got it right;) Oo-rah MeB! (3/16 Update: The thread at MeB's continues too - but I'll still note the lack of journalists offering their voice at that table).
And "Anthony" (as opposed to Roch - who is hiding behind his curtains on this one) announced that my blog is back up on We101 - and listed on the Greensboro link. It was news to me. But a lot seemed to be going on with We101 last night. I could not get on for the longest time. Brenda was having issues with her feed. P said his link was dancing from city to city.
The wizard must have been busy. And the wizard owes me an apology. Anyone wanna take bets?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Mary, you know that I don't carry anyone's water. I never have, and I have no basis to defend Roch or anyone else over you on this matter.
I do agree with most of Roch's points because I have had many of the same thoughts about your case.
That Roch and I have a similar take on your case is purely coincidental and is not the product of any conversation (I have never discussed your case with him) or favoritism of him over you.
I have never had a problem with you, I have had many well documented problems with Roch. Don't make me your enemy simply for voicing my own independent analysis of your case that doesn't arrive at the same conclusion as you do. Doing that makes you look like anyone who doesn't agree with you on your case is out to get you, and that is simply not true.
Sam, I'm still waiting for Roch to speak for himself. Our We101 Wizard is still hiding behind his curtain.
You're not my enemy. But in this case, you've not helped. You'll forgive me if I go with legal opinions and analysis that offer palatable solutions - instead of ones that would have me just accept the unacceptable and move on along.
I'm going to reiterate here what I said to you in my last comment at Joe's (I get tired of repeating myself):
. . . the POINT of ALL of this is that, as a physician in public service (brought home with state and federal money) . . . and working for a "non-profit" no less, I was treated like garbage on the bottom of an Asheboro mill owner's shoe . . . just for doing my job . . . for saving a life.
When I turned to the regulatory & court systems that were suposed to be my shield and protector (not to mention that of the baby/parents who never should have been endangered by that situation), I was treated like garbage all over again.
It's not something I'm just going to roll over and accept - as you, as Sue, as Roch, as Ed would apparently have me do.
For heaven's sake, if (some of) these people are going to say they're "progressive", they need to BE PROGRESSIVE.
I CAN address perjury through the criminal court system - where the law DOES allow for victims of crime to receive fair financial compensation for the consequences of the crime. Two birds. One stone. And just because prosecuting perjury has not been done aggressively in the past does NOT mean that what I'm asking for is impossible . . . or even unreasonable. There is NO statute of limitations, and I dont' have to file a damned thing in (a corrupt) civil court. All I need is a District Attorney with some sense of ethics and a backbone. This is the legal opinion of other lawyers I've chatted up.
Since I apparently don't have a DA with a sense of ethics or a spine, I've outlined a very good case for WHY the local press and general populace should be paying more attention to the case of a home-grown doctor wronged by a system that DOES NOT WORK.
So while I respect your legal anlaysis, I have to agree with Connie. As sympathetic as you may be, given the defeatist attitude you've expressed here, you're not the guy I'd chose to help move something like this forward. Forgive me, but I'll have to go with another shark in the pool (it's not an "attack", it's a figure of speech).
"You'll forgive me if I go with legal opinions and analysis that offer palatable solutions - instead of ones that would have me just accept the unacceptable and move on along."
If I thought there was a solution, I would tell you. But no lawyer can force the D.A. to prosecute a case, and you can't force the paper to run your story.
So what palatable solutions do you have?
Sam, the best advice I ever got from a lawyer was not to threaten anything - and not to talk about something one plans to do before one does it . . . to just do it.
I'm not here to entertain people. I came to the blogosphere with a story and a mission (i.e. light a fire/heat some seats) because I was led to believe (by a journalist-blogger-king who has since "banned" me) that there were people were here who wanted to change the world . . . and my life experience over the last ten years points to MUCH THAT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED in both my profession and yours.
If you/others in the blogosphere are indeed "sympathetic", well then all I've got to say to you is HELP ME turn up the heat on both the DA and/or the regulatory & oversight systems that would allow two "non-profit" executives to (on top of everything else they did to a doctor just doing her job) put their hands on a Bible, swear a false Oath, negotiate a deal on the lie and TOTALLY GET AWAY WITH IT.
The law says that's not supposed to happen. Yes? And I've got news for you, change does not just happen. You have to fight for it.
Stop wishing me well and help me turn up the heat on the journalists who, for all of their talk about "voices at the table" have methodically and determinedly ignored mine - and what it has to say/reveal about the ugliness lying (no pun intended) just under the surface in our community.
Legally speaking, let's just say that I'm thinking outside the box . . . and when/if I do file something, I expect I'll blog on it.
I look forward to hearing what you think then.
Mary
Sixty Minutes had a show on tonight about Doctor and Hospital mistakes. Dennis Quaid and his wife were talking about the many, many mistakes and how the hospitals try tovover it up. Also, a watch-dog group is monitoring and trying to expose this situation tothe public.
I thought of you and wanted to tell you about it.
I've read about the case, Wayne. It was a nasty mess. Mr Quaid and his wife are very lucky their babies survived.
One of these days, I'd love for JR to expound on why exactly he doesn't consider my case "relevant" to anything.
And anytime those "watchdogs" wanna come on down from New York City, I'm here. Ah, the stories I could tell.
It might be a great idea for you to contact the watchdogs with your story as they may not follow the local blogs.
60 minutes would probably count as HEAT to a local DA...ya think?
Congrats in advance!
I contacted 60 Minutes once - actually trying to reach the correspondant who did a puff piece on the NHSC. Mike Wallace picked up the secretary's phone (I was told he does that for fun - to freak people out) and I about peed in my pants.
He was nice.
But nothing came of it. My experience contradicted the puff.
So I'm not holding my breath.
I've shared my thoughts on the Quaid's experience in today's post on Housecalls.
Post a Comment