Judge J. Randal Hall Closes Case without Attorney General Olens' input

On June 3, 2016, Judge J. Randal Hall orders case 1:16-cv-00034 closed without Attorney General Sam Olens' input.  

On June 15, 2016, a representative from Sam Olen's office returned my phone call to confirm that their office provided NO INPUT regarding this case.  The representative suggested going through the 11th Circuit, but Michael C. Blocker says that the 11th circuit told him to go through the Federal Habeas process because of the missing trial transcripts and (unlawful) guilty plea.

Judge J. Randal Hall knew that Michael C. Blocker had filed previous habeas petitions over last several years when he granted Michael C. Blocker an opportunity to object to Magistrate Brian K. Epps' Report and Recommendation to deny Michael C. Blocker a hearing.  

In previous filings, Michael C. Blocker was not able to effectively present his defense.  Now, in 2016, he has been properly briefed on court errors surrounding his case, and he is now ready to present his defense:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

AUGUSTA DIVISION

 

CV 116-034

 

MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER BLOCKER,

Petitioner,

 

v.

 

FNU HALL, Warden and

SAM OLENS, Attorney General of the State of Georgia,

Respondents.

-------------------------------------------------------------

OBJECTIONS to MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT

-------------------------------------------------------------

 

COMES NOW Petitioner Blocker with objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation ordered April 18, 2016.

 

BACKGROUND

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b) (1) (B) (ii) circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant.

 

The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation Background statements are inaccurate/incorrect in at least two occurrences.

 

I.             Report states that Petitioner pled guilty to all three charges: burglary, kidnapping, and rape.

II.           Report states that Petitioner filed his first § 2254 petition on April 26, 2012. Blocker v. Danforth CV 112-064

 

The DNA Report from the Georgia Bureau of Investigations only shows an “external” vaginal (burglary) DNA match.  THE DNA Report does NOT show an “internal” vaginal (rape) DNA match.

 

DISCUSSION

Based on the sentencing transcript for case 2007-RCCR-00181, Document no. 1

I, Petitioner Blocker, had been found competent to stand trial, but I was incompetent to plead guilty based on being under the influence of medication.

 

THE COURT: Are you under the influence of any drugs, medicine or alcohol today?

THE DEFENDANT: No, sir. I take medication.

THE COURT:  Beg your pardon?

THE DEFENDANT: I take medication, but I don’t think it influences me.

 

No medical expert was present to confirm competency to plead guilty.

In addition, I never verbally stated that I committed rape nor kidnapping. 

 

MS. WRIGHT (A.D.A.): Judge, the Defendant would need to admit his guilt.  There’s a lot of if I did it in his statement. He would need to admit that he actually committed these crimes in order for the Court to accept his plea.

 

 

The judge then asked did I commit the crime. Again, while under the influence of medication, I assumed that the crime that the judge was referring to was burglary not rape. 

 

THE COURT: But he has pled guilty to the offense. You are pleading guilty to the offense?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: And you admit that after hearing that testimony that you did it; is that correct?

The DEFENDANT: Yes, sir

 

This guilty plea was unlawful due to incompetency to plead guilty and never stating that I raped nor kidnapped anyone.

 

Furthermore, my first § 2254 petition was on December 16, 2010 Blocker v.  Danforth   2010-CV-2368 Lowndes County, Georgia.   Document no. 2

 

In addition, The sentencing transcript, Document no 1, p.10 mentions that a DNA expert from the Georgia Bureau of Investigations was never called during the prior  two days of trial.

 

MS. WRIGHT (A.D.A.): I believe that we do not need to go any further in establishing factual basis, as the Court has heard the evidence and the Court, of course is aware we would be providing a DNA expert from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation crime lab to indicate that there is a match to the defendant or his identical twin.

 

If the DNA expert had been called to the stand then the DNA expert could have explained the “burglary DNA match,” but the report did NOT support a “rape DNA match.”

 

 

CONCLUSION

Based on inaccurate BACKGROUND information within the April 18, 2016 Magistrate report, the DISCUSSION is MOOT as well as the CONCLUSION is MOOT.   This civil action should be GRANTED.

 

Michael Christopher Blocker

 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on or before May 21, 2016, I mailed/filed the foregoing via USPS to:

 

Attorney General Sam Olens

Office of the Attorney General

40 Capitol Square, SW

 Atlanta, Ga 30334

*end of text of document filed on May 19, 2016

Michael C. Blocker deserves a hearing in a different county.  Richmond County/Augusta, GA is incapable of allowing justice to prevail.  

Despite the "snail mail" of the State Prison System and the additional mailroom delivery challenges, Michael C. Blocker met the deadlines and provided credible instances of prosecutorial misconduct, but Judge J. Randal Hall only cares about covering up for his cronies.

#exonerateMichael

The Peculiar Nature of Carolinas Healthcare System

"Why does administration continue to bring in new people when there are already qualified internal employees perfectly able to do the work?"  -a question from a CHS Registered nurse

When this statement was mentioned to me over three years ago, I thought nothing of it.  Then when I was blatantly overlooked and had this same political action happen to me, the statement echoed over and over in my memory banks.  Sometimes, it takes it "hitting home" for us to realize that there is a problem.

It was the first time that I ever dealt with such immaturity, incompetency, and outright ignorance from a corporate administration.

Now, I can look back and realize that the "fruit did not fall far from the tree."  The CHS tree that is.

The CHS Chief Human Resources Officer was an executive new hire from another hospital system.  Her direct downline all came from the same previous employer.  It would be safe to say that she put her cronies in place to maintain a trustworthy, dedicated team that would watch her back.  Interestingly enough, I believe that this strategy is the same model that other CHS managers began to implement within their own departments.

So managers started hiring best friends from non-healthcare industries, from their residential neighborhood, and  from any other networking connections to build their own personal team of cronies.

Most employees are going to feel cheated by cronyism, but who is going to risk losing their job in an environment known for office politics, workplace aggression, and retaliation.  Most employees just suck it up and try to deal with it.

However, the days are coming when employees who are tired of the injustices are going to start speaking up.

When I was laid off, human resources stated that they wanted a consistent business model between the two nursing homes.  In retrospect, that meant that they could have created more hairdresser positions for both nursing homes, but no, CHS human resources preferred to eliminate all hairdresser positions.

How has that affected customer care at the nursing homes?

1) The beauty shop is closed more than it is open meaning that they have less hours available for residents to receive hair services.
2) Instead of residents having three dedicated "on-staff" hairdressers to choose from; they only have one hairdresser on call as an independent contactor.
3) With the reduction in beauty shop hours,  the nursing home population started changing to more male residents.  Families prefer to have their female loved ones admitted to a facility where they can request a shampoo and hair service as a nice recreational past-time.

So when CHS Human Resources made the hasty decision to eliminate all hairdresser positions, were they even thinking of "Patients First?"  I doubt it.

I also considered another angle, maybe administration questioned whether I was a good fit for the organization?
1) My performance evaluations showed that I was a good fit.
2) My seven years of CHS seniority showed that I was a good fit.
3) My bonus record showed that I was a good fit.
4) My media coverage of their last quarterly Board of Commissioners meeting showed that I was able to fit in.

So the problem has not been with me, it is the lack of training of CHS management.  At the executive levels, management does not interview for positions, they just "re-appointment" each other into different titles and positions.

The lower level management and non-management employees are treated just like "worker bees."  Little to no voice. No career plans. If one does not hire into their ideal position, then an internal transfer is harder to obtain than if one was an external candidate.

Carolinas Healthcare System is so deeply rooted in the Carolinas that everyone in the area either knows someone who
1) works for CHS
2) used to work for CHS,  CMC, Charlotte Memorial Hospital or at least,
3) interviewed for a position within CHS.

If CHS Human Resources were competent, they would stop paying their outside attorneys to handle employee cases that should have never happened.  If the employee has five or more years of seniority and a new manager,  more than likely the new manager is not a good fit if toxic employee relations are reported.  The CHS organization is huge enough that employee transfers should not be that complicated.  The interviews should be forced allowing more networking, but the hiring decisions should not be forced.  If someone is inline for the position, then the position should not be posted.  The position should be filled with the employee who has been waiting for the position.  If they prove not to be a good fit, then their performance evaluation will eventually reflect the deficiencies and appropriate action will be taken if the performance requirements are never met.  Employees need opportunities.  It raises employee morale.

Carolinas Healthcare System should give internal employees more opportunities even if it means a learning curve to conquer.  I have seen management hire their cronies who had a huge learning curve because they had no healthcare industry background;yet, the patience given by fellow cronies is unbelievable.

I respect preferential treatment when you have two equally qualified candidates interviewing for the same job, but the preferential treatment that I have witnessed within Carolinas Healthcare System was blatant cronyism.

In concluding this article, the Charlotte Observer maintains that the quarterly CHS Board of Commissioners meeting is open to the public, but what does that really mean?

The "public" can consist of
1) people who have had a lien placed on their property by CHS;
2) people who have been dissatisfied with their care at a CHS facility;
3) former employees with grievances with CHS; and
4) every one else.

I will assure you that having personally attended one of such Board of Commissioners meetings; they do not want any disruption.  If their "watch personnel" get an inclination of disruptive behavior, I really believe that "public" entry will be denied.

My grievance with Carolinas Healthcare System

So I completed seven years of employment with Charlotte Mecklenburg Hospital Authority d/b/a Carolinas Healthcare System with overall successful and exceptional performances.

So how did it come to a Court case filing?  Nepotism? Cronyism? A little of both? or just an incompetent Human Resources staff?  You decide.

My case on July 26, 2013 was dismissed without prejudice in order for both parties to re-group and allow me to re-file within the next year.  CHS wanted the case dismissed with prejudice, and they filed their motion to dismiss at 8:59am (an hour and one minute before the start of our small claims case.)

Questions came up about my failure to file with the North Carolina Department of Labor (NCDL).  It is my understanding that the NCDL is designed to help employees get their job back.  According to CHS, they had completely eliminated all employee hairdresser positions.  So there was no job available to get back.  In addition, by February 2013, both managers that I had filed EEOC complaints against were separated from CHS.  I believe that these terminations were considered "corrective action" on behalf of CHS.  So I did not see a benefit in filing with NCDL.

I tried to work out a settlement out of court with CHS, but they have been unwilling to compromise.

As of August 2013, CHS and I still have not agreed to any type of settlement of my grievances of retaliation and  unfair treatment.

I found my case to be handled recklessly by CHS Human Resources and its attorneys.

Even others in management have questions about the competency of CHS Human Resources staff.  According to my research,  Human Resources purpose is to retain good employees and recruit good employees.  CHS has had a high turnover amongst its employees for years, and based on some opinions as shown above, third party recruiters supply better candidates than internal CHS recruiters.

 Some people may think that I am expecting a handout, but I have proof that I was willing to work for pay.

My 20+ transfer applications were not forwarded to hiring managers for consideration nor was I granted any interviews within the last two years of my employment not even from my direct upline.  My complaints to Human Resources were ignored.  I wonder if they were just hoping that I would just go away empty-handed?

Well, according to my understanding, I was laid off, but we did not agree on the layoff terms.  So I do not know if that means that I was just involuntarily terminated?  However, I received an exit interview survey to complete as if I voluntarily resigned.   I am confused.  Human Resources seem to be confused.  Which makes me question why CHS does not have a corporate compliance department that can provide a "check and balance" over the Human Resources administration without reporting up to the Chief Human Resources officer which has been a conflict of interest.

Articles such as this one seems to be the only way for "my side of my story" to be heard because North Carolina is an "at-will employment" state.  That means the employment laws favor the employer not the employee.

I hope my story helps others to make sound decisions about working in North Carolina.