On Dr. Mary Johnson, "Non-profit" Physician Employees And/Or Government Programs, Sexual Discrimination And "Due Process" - Randolph Hospital/Asheboro Style

Debates over at Dr. Guarino's blog have provided me with a whole lot of material over the last few days.  Pertaining to my July 26th Post [Hello Roch. Hello Ed (Cone).  Hello John Robinson. Dr. Mary Johnson Here. Still Standing in the Greensboro, North Carolina Blogosphere as a Living Example of WHY NO ONE SHOULD BLOG], there's a discussion going on over there right now about the "right" of senior Greensboro police officers . . . who sexually-harassed subordinates and were suspended (not fired) for their conduct unbecoming . . . to show up with ambulance-chasers at the Guilford County Courthouse and sue the city into oblivion for their pain and suffering.

Contrasting and comparing how Randolph Hospital executives regarded and rewarded certain physician behaviors back in the day, during the course of the thread, I shared an experience from the "happy times" in Asheboro.

(You'll note that in trying to keep things simple and on-point in subsequent litigation . . . in other words, focused on all the different ways my contracts were breached and I was done DIRTY . . . I did not allege sexual discrimination in the very disperate ways that Dr. Juberg and I were treated.  But make NO mistake.  There were different rules for the good-ole-boys and the hometown girl.)

You see, what Randolph Hospital executives valued MOST had nothing to do with charity or good medicine or duty or the best interests of patients, but instead was all and only about how much MONEY you could make for them.

Moving on along in Joe's discussion, the following is an excerpt from another comment (slightly modified this morning for publication here) that this "crazy woman" (as you comb through the Google caches, Roch I picked that one especially for you), left further on down in the thread . . . it's about the concept of "non-profit" physician employees/Federal public servants and "due process" (in other words, a Constitutional point about what was done to me in Asheboro).

I am replying to a young lady named Karen - who must be learning her debate tactics at the knees of Mr. Smith-Jr. and/or Mr. Martin (as, among other things, she alleges that I cannot complete sentences):

I am, in fact, VERY familiar the with 14th Amendment.  And the 5th.  And the 6th.

And, as I indicated, NONE of them apparently applied to a doctor in state and Federal public service working for a "non-profit" in Asheboro who was fired without a hearing or due process or recourse or review for saving a child's life.

Based on your statements here, I'm supposing you would agree that a physician recruited back to her hometown with taxpayer-dollars to serve-the-under served might have a "property interest" in her job/practice?  Yes?

You might also extrapolate that, as a citizen defrauded of fair restitution for the loss of said property interests by perjury/contempt/fraud in a civil action, might have good reason to be pissed off and want to see the CRIME prosecuted?

Because nobody in government oversight or law enforcement cared in 1998.  They didn't care in 2003, or 2005.  They don't care now (pssst . . . Roch doesn't either but it's a secret).

I hope all of that was "succinct" enough for Mr. Cone.  (One of the hoops I've had to endlessly jump through over the years has been to keep it very short and simple for the local journalists - in the hope I might "hook" one someday.)

Back in the day, being a "valued employee" and "partner" in hometown charitable ventures with Bob Morrison and Steven Eblin was just . . . so . . . you know, after twelve years of BULLSHIT I've endured as they tried to cover it all up and get out on the cheap, I really don't have a word for it.

But I do know (Ed, Roch, Sue, John, etc.), that I just ain't progressive enough to "get over it" or "move on along".

Wait, I DO have a word:  It was THEFT.  Government-sanctioned/sponsored THEFT.  Of a LIFE.

Is that short and succinct enough for you?