|
Dear Friends and Voters:
In my last statement I indicated that from time to time I would comment on matters that I see. This is one of those occasions. Prior to the primaries, a neighbor asked for some input regarding the judicial races, as I am more familiar with that area than she and her husband. I was sorry to report to her that our judiciary is in such a sad state that it is more a choice of voting for the lesser of two evils or by voting against a particular person by casting a vote for his or her opponent. The same is true of other non-judicial races.
The following situation is illustrative of what I mean. I recently read a story in the News & Record of Greensboro that was ostensibly how a jurist was taking the “high road.” As I learned from my own campaign, the News & Record is nothing more than an arm of Art Pope, Inc. I wrote during my campaign of how the NC GOP (my latest name for them is Republothugs, as demonstrated by their Tony Soprano-like tactics) is under the domination of Art Pope [http://www.rachelforjustice.com/timehas.html]. Well, the New & Record is also an adjunct. Whenever the Republothugs and Art Pope need a story, the News & Record can be counted on to provide it. Yes, once in awhile they will print something ostensibly derogatory, but by and large they can be counted on to lend assistance. It is no wonder that the paper has declining readership and is for sale. But I digress.
The News & Record’s latest effort, now that the primary is over, is to promote Justice Edmunds over the challenger, Suzanne Reynolds. The piece extols the virtues of the judge and how fair and non-partisan he is. Wait a minute- time for a reality check here! Was not this the very same newspaper columnist that reported on March 26, 2008 that this non-partisan judge appeared at a Republican event in Watauga and stated:
“We're finding it very difficult to be bipartisan and nonpartisan when we're being challenged in a partisan way." And "I'm the one person standing between you and one-party government in North Carolina[.]”
Similar comments were made earlier by another of Justice Edmunds’ Republican compatriots, Judge Douglas McCullough, who was previously convicted of driving while impaired, yet remains allowed to serve on the bench [http://www.rachelforjustice.com/Drunken_Judge.html] For those of who have forgotten, Judge McCullough stated to Haywood County Republicans that the “re-election of N.C. Supreme Court Justice Bob Edmunds is the most "critical political decision” they would have to make as their might be a dispute of the districts are re-drawn. He then insinuated that Justice Edmunds must be re-elected to ensure the Republican majority on the court as he could be counted on to vote the right way. Although Justice Edmunds did not comment and sought to distance himself, he never denounced these remarks or indicated that these comments did not represent his views.
The remainder of the article seeks to extol the fact that those poor judges have to make do with only $250,000.00 in public financing. I have previously wrote [link to Chapter 3 of my book] the evils inherent in the system as we have it. I will not reiterate, but it is blatantly unconstitutional compelled speech as I and other attorneys are forced to contribute to judicial and other candidates whether they represent my views or not. And it is nothing more than a wealth transfer from the citizens of this state to those who are doing quite well and who could fund their own campaigns like other candidates.
And why is it that in judicial race after judicial race, predominantly only former prosecutors run for judicial office? Our courts are loaded with these pro-prosecution jurists who are prompt to deny whatever scrap of Constitutional rights are still left. I documented some of these cases [http://www.rachelforjustice.com/Martin_Slings.html]. Do you really believe that such individuals are going to grant them a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal? Our court systems throughout the United States and North Carolina are filled with numerous individuals who are innocent and convicted anyway based on flimsy evidence, corrupt or shoddy policework and falsified witness statements.
If the good justice was really as non-partisan as he claims that he and other judges are, then the justice and all of the other judicial candidates, Republican and Democrat alike, would do the following to really “not only talk the talk, but walk the walk.” As the races are supposed to be non-partisan in theory, make them non-partisan in fact. Prohibit political parties or other 527s from getting involved and running ads, as the (un)Fairjudges did in my campaign. Stop the whispering campaigns, robo-or phone calls and cheat sheets organized by the party. Stop having partisan party thugs do the “dirty work” while pretending that the candidate is above the fray. Stop the endorsement by the parties. Stop the participation in public financing. Allow someone other than prosecutors, some of whom are little better than Nazis when it comes to Constitutional rights, to run. And have the candidates list themselves as “independent” and allow them to campaign fairly on their merits.
All is not doom and gloom, however. Yes, economic times are getting worse. The oil companies have stopped giving us lame “Blues Brothers” excuses (they just raise the gas prices with impunity now). Food prices have also risen. Foreclosures are rampant and property values are down between 20%-40% in some areas of the country. Locally, those in government appear to have their heads firmly inserted in their rectums and are oblivious to all of this as they continue to speak of tax increases. There will soon be nothing left to tax as the bulk of the citizens just cannot afford any more. People, more than ever, are crying out for leadership.
But there is one bright spot. I am encouraged that there are more and more people joining the fight or becoming candidates themselves. Slowly, the masses are waking up and realizing that neither the Republican or the Democratic parties are the answer. They are part of the problem. If we are ever to surmount our many obstacles, we need to forget about the partisan bickering and come together on the really important issues, like ending the War in Iraq, preventing King George from invading another Muslim country before he leaves office and, of course, the domestic economy. People disillusioned with the poor choices of candidates which we are given are starting to coalesce behind the idea of forming a third party, one headed by someone of stature. I am heartened by the fact that Jesse Ventura has come out of retirement and is ready to get back in the fight. Maybe he is the one to lead this movement; maybe it is someone else. I will be watching, but until that happens, I’ll be voting “none of the above” come November.
Rachel Lea Hunter
State Supreme Court Justice Takes The High Road
Compliments to the Greater Guilford Republican Forum for hosting N.C. Supreme Court Justice Bob Edmunds at its luncheon Wednesday.
Edmunds, a Greensboro resident, is running for re-election.
Edmunds has an easygoing manner and clearly was comfortable with this group. He spoke mostly about campaign issues, but definitely not in the way a candidate for a political office would talk. Anyone in the audience who wanted to hear some Republican red-meat rhetoric didn't get it from Edmunds. During a Q&A period, the justice passed on opportunities to go after those liberal, activist judges that a lot of conservatives just know are wrecking our courts.
Not that he's seen in his 10 years on the bench, Edmunds said.
"It's not a political philosophy that drives what we do," he said of the North Carolina appellate courts. "It's devotion to the rule of law. The more I see of the game from the inside, the more impressed I am with the people who do the job the way it should be done."
North Carolina's judiciary is nonpartisan, Edmunds reminded the Republicans. That said, he noted that the parties are involved. His opponent announced her candidacy at a Democratic Party event, he said.
That's Wake Forest law professor Suzanne Reynolds, who disavowed partisan politics in an interview with me a couple of months ago, but Edmunds is right -- the parties choose sides on a partisan basis.
(And Reynolds wasn't invited to appear at Wednesday's luncheon.)
Edmunds said he doesn't discriminate when it comes to meeting voters: "I've been to Democratic events. If I'm invited and I can make it, I'll show up."
Judicial candidates can't afford to turn down opportunities to get before crowds. Those, like Edmunds and Reynolds, who are participating in public campaign financing have only about $250,000 to work with. Does that sound like plenty? "It doesn't pay for a single mailing to all the voters of this state," Edmunds said.
The judges count on voters seeing the voter's guide put out by the State Board of Elections, hope that the media will pay attention to their races and also rely on word-of-mouth endorsements, largely from lawyers.
"In my race, I am delighted if people ask lawyers because I think I win that race," Edmunds said.
His experience includes work in Guilford County as an assistant district attorney, then an assistant U.S. attorney. He was U.S. attorney for this district from 1986 to 1992, then practiced law privately until his election to the N.C. Court of Appeals in 1998. Two years later, he was elected to an eight-year term on the U.S. Supreme Court. In my observation, he's been part of a centrist majority made up of Republicans and Democrats during that time. Edmunds invited listeners to read his opinions, which are available on his Web site.
His earlier elections were partisan. Now all judicial contests are nonpartisan. The change, plus the shift to public financing, present challenges. Ideally, the courts will become a little more insulated from partisan politics and special-interest influence. But systemic changes can only work if the judges and judicial candidates themselves respect the initent behind them and resist the temptation to plunge into the hot-button political issues -- no matter what anybody else does.
"I think we judicial candidates can't be a part of a race to the bottom. ... People expect us to be fair," Edmunds said.
Edmunds did his part to elevate the discussion Wednesday. Let's hope all our judicial races can be conducted on a high plane this year.
Posted by Doug Clark on May 22, 2008
Dear Friends and Voters:
Well, the dust has now settled from the frenzied election filing last
week. Judging from the tracking service, many in the Establishment were
all over my website, asking themselves, "will she or won't she?"
and breathing a huge sign of relief that I did not file. Others were
no doubt disappointed by my decision. For those in the Establishment
wing of the beast, its not quite time to uncork the champagne yet. You
have not beaten me. I am NOT vanquished nor have I given up.
Prior to filing, I evaluated running for seats on the Court of Appeals
as well as the Supreme Court. My decision ultimately not to run was
for several reasons. First, most of the seats on the Supreme Court and
Court of Appeals had a female member of the Democratic Party who was
running. This meant that if I got into the race, there be a primary (one
of my rules - never run in a primary if it can be avoided).
Moreover, as the candidates were female, this meant that I would have female
opposition and the female vote would be divided between the two of us.
Neither I nor any Democrat would appeal to the hard-core 28%'ers that
make up the base of what is left of the Grand Old (Pervert) Party.
Hence, by splitting the vote, there was a possibility that the Republican
candidate would survive the primary and proceed to run in the fall.
Yes, I am aware that this is a non-partisan race, but from my prior
experiences, the races became anything but non-partisan. It would be better
if the political parties completely got out of the race, and that goes
for Democrats (remember there (UN)Fair Judges.net from 2006?) as well
as Republicans. But it is not a perfect world and wishing for
political parties to leave the judicial election alone is not going to happen
anytime soon. And I am not going to assist in any way in electing
Republicans who are controlled by the Puppet Master, Art Pope.
There is a more important reason I decided not to run, however. It
touches on my personal life and that of my husband. Some may consider me
selfish for espousing such reasons. Think that if you choose, but
Connie and I sacrificed more than any other candidate in recent memory.
When I ran in 2006, I had other individuals tell me "I wish I had your
courage but I am trying to get my time in with the state/county so I
can get my pension." Not one of them had to endure what Connie and I
did. We laid it on the line financially. Aside from the political
vitriol and the hateful comments by the mainstream media, we had to endure
criminal investigations and being harassed by the police. And we let a
lot of things go, including our health. Minor things were neglected
by me because of the brain tumor. Connie also let things go to his
detriment. Before I ran for office, he had major vascular surgery and was
slow to recover. The campaigns took their toll on Connie. Last year,
he had to have a pacemaker/defibrillator implanted. Now, his arteries
have clogged back up and we are waiting for an appointment with the
vascular surgeon. So for all of these reasons, I have chosen not to run
at this time and will allow other candidates to step up to the plate.
That does not mean that I cannot serve in other ways. I am still going
to comment as time and work permit upon things I see happening, both
on the national forum as well as that in our own state.
Which brings me to the second part of my remarks. I have spoken in the
past of the candidacy of Ron Paul and Congressman Walter Jones.
However, both have done some things of late which have caused me to think.
Both are good men and we need more individuals like this in Washington,
DC. However, Walter Jones has been in Congress for over fourteen
years; Ron Paul for eighteen if you count his first stint from 1976 to
1984. What is wrong with this picture?
I think back to Cincinnatus, the Roman leader who served around 460
B.C. After he served as consul, he retired to his farm. However, Rome
was battling one of the barbarian tribes with whom it was at war and the
Senate declared Cincinnatus to be the Dictator for a six month term.
Cincinnatus yielded to the demands of his country and left the farm and
defeated the barbarian army in a few weeks. He then relinquished the
trappings of government and returned to farming.
Who is like Cincinnatus today? George Washington set the example in
America. He served for two terms and then retired to private life.
According to some reports, he believed it to be a duty, but not an
enjoyable one. Where are the Cincinnatuses and Washingtons today? They are
gone. Public service is no longer about serving the public; it is about
serving oneself. It is about hanging on to that public seat to get a
pension or to get cushy perquisites from lobbyists. However, public
service is just that service. If elected to office, you served your
country or city or state for one or two terms and then you returned home to
let others do their service.
While Ron Paul and Walter Jones are not as bad as some (Jesse Helms,
Strom Thurmond, John McCain and Robert Byrd come to mind), I listened to
a speech by Ron Paul. Ron Paul's speech was not about his candidacy,
but about saving the Republican Party and his Congressional seat.
Saving the party? People ought to drive a stake through its heart like a
vampire as they should for the Democratic Party. This country was not
founded on political parties and had none at the outset. Parties must
be done away with. People should run, not parties.
I also came across a news story about Walter Jones and how he was
having big names from Washington, guys like Newt Gingrich, appear at a
fundraiser. Having a Washington insider host a fundraiser for you is akin
to breaking bread with the Devil. And he promised he would term limit
himself! Some term limits.
What do these events have in common? It is about hanging onto that
seat, hanging on to the little bit of power and not giving someone else a
chance. It is about power and control, those twin children of the
beast.
All of this has left me somewhat depressed and less than optimistic
about the future of our country. If even good men can succumb to the
demons of power and control, what can the rest of us hope for? What are we
to do?
Like any lawyer, I have gone through a list of possible options.
Understand, I am not advocating for any violence, but I am listing it as a
possible option. The options are, in no particular order, as follows:
1. The "nuclear" option - this is hitting "re-set" button on
the Constitution, i.e., the Second Amendment. If government does not
respect the First and other Amendments, we can overthrow the
government. Certainly, our government does not respect our rights. We have
torture, we can be detained indefinitely, the government can send out
"national security" letters and see what books we are checking out of
the library, they can do "black bag" searches and seizures under the
misnamed "Patriot" Act, and they can spy on our phone
conversations, just to name a few things. Its way past time for treason and
impeachment trials and there seem to be few other options left.
Unfortunately, we have puny weaponry compared to that of Blackwater and the
government. We will be annihilated if we try a full frontal assault of this
type.
2. The "ostrich" option - This option involves doing what most
sheeple are doing. Nothing. They figured out long ago that the
situation is hopeless. They have tuned out to politics and do not even bother
to vote. They are more into Britney Spears' latest love interest,
this season's contestants on Survivor or American Idol or watching
Dancing With the Stars. They figure that what they do not know will not
hurt them and even if they knew, there is nothing much they could do
about it anyway. Left with this option, we will degenerate into becoming
slaves of one kind or another.
3. Civil disobedience option, à la Mahatma Gandhi - This one might
work, but it means that an awful lot of people in the millions have to be
involved. A "million man march" on Washington, D.C. will not cut
it. We need marches all across the United States. At different times;
unscheduled and unpredictable.
4. The form a new party option - I know, I know, I do not like
political parties, period. This party will be different. This party does
not have a plank. It does not believe in much except returning to
honest and good government. It is about returning the power and control
back to the governed, not the corporate interests and their vulture-like
lobbyists, picking on the dying American carcass for a few crumbs of
flesh. It will not be easy, but nothing ever worth having is. The party
needs to be full of people, not neutralizers and crazies, like the
Libertarian Party. It needs to take the best ideas of the Democratic and
Republican Parties and jettison the rest.
But how we will we get started? Something about the Ron Paul campaign
sparked a thought. His campaign was wildly popular, although it did
not translate into votes. It was not about him, although he was the
catalyst. It was about the message. It was decentralized. As a result,
people were doing their own thing without any direction from the
campaign. There were no handlers, schedulers and packaging. There was just
ordinary people doing extraordinary things. And they proved that they
could raise money. Big money and it was not from lobbyists. The Barack
Obama phenomenon is part of it too. Obama has tapped into the same
American desire for change, for something new, from someone who is not a
Washington insider.
So, what can you do? Now that Ron Paul is, for the most part, out of
the presidential picture, allow his "revolution" to be the base of
the third-party. Continue with the meet-ups and the other ideas, not in
support of his candidacy, but to promote the ideas that he talked
about. Raise the funds. Get on the ballot where possible and find people
to run for office, not just warm bodies to fill a slot who have no
chance of winning. Keep confronting the minions of the beast. Let them
know that we are out here. We are change and if we pull together, we can
give the beast a run for its money. Now lets get to work!
RACHEL LEA HUNTER
Paid for by Rachel Lea Hunter for Supreme Court
Suite 332 | NW 1251 Maynard Road | Cary , North Carolina 27513
Ph. 877-893-3713 | Fax 877-893-3713
|
