Well, its over, or at least phase I is over. I thought that I would report my perception of my ordeal while it is still fresh in my thoughts. It was much as I expected. In listening to the charges, I kept thinking I had gone, like Alice in Wonderland, through the looking glass. I had entered a bizarre parallel world where everything was topsy-turvy and the rules of evidence did not apply. Let us begin with the bar's presentation of its case.

The first witness was the Chief of Protocol for the North Carolina Supreme Court. As an aside, this state is approximately $3.5 billion in the red. In the spirit of cutting unnecessary fat from the budget, may I humbly suggest to Governor Perdue that she might want to look at elimination of this position? The Court should have a court crier or bailiff of some type, but a chief of protocol? I can see why the US President or the state governor or the US Secretary of State needs a chief of protocol as they entertain foreign dignitaries. But the North Carolina Supreme Court?

Be that as it may, what are the qualifications of this witness? What does one need to get the job? The individual in question only has an associates degree in some field that is irrelevant. It appears that his sole qualification lies in the fact that former Chief Justice I. Beverly Lake knew him and asked him to serve in that capacity, which he has held for the past eight years. Other than this, his experience consisted of double hearsay. Hearsay evidence precludes a witness from stating what others told him or her unless some type of exception applies (none applied here). This witness was permitted to not only state that his predecessor told him about the job but also that his predecessor got his information from the Chief of Protocol of the White House. So we had double hearsay here - chief of protocol testified about his conversations with predecessor and predecessor had a conversation with someone at the White House. However, as I was Through the Looking Glass, the rules of evidence as I knew them obviously did not apply.

This person summed up his testimony with the pronouncement that in his opinion, no one is allowed to use the name of "Madame Justice" other than a female justice on the NC Supreme Court. The NC Chief of Protocol might be surprised to learn how many others are using that name and not in any kind of judicial capacity. The gay male vampire freak in the United Kingdom, the creme de la femme in the United Kingdom (http://madame-justice.blogspot.com) and the female Pakistani prostitute are just a few.

The next two witnesses were both investigators. Both admitted that they had only reviewed the front page banner which rotated a few messages ("Vee" for Victory in '10, etc.). When asked if they had reviewed something like my bio, they both admitted that they had not. One would think that if a prospective voter was actually interested in a candidate, the voter would check out the candidate's bio. However, as the female prosecutor explained, neither the state bar or citizens can be expected to engage in the task of punching the "bio" button to learn about me. This then was the sum of the prosecution's case.

Based on the evidence of these 3 witnesses, the prosecution found me to be a despicable human being, guilty of dishonesty and selfish motive. The prosecution also argued that this is not a name, but a title, which I had no right to assume. Actually, the NC Board of Elections said I could use a title like Mr. or Ms. etc, so I guess the offending word is "Justice." Lots of groups use the term "justice" in their name like the Institute for Justice or the NC Advocates for Justice, just to name a few. And "Madame Justice" can be a name, not a mere title, as the United Kingdom and Pakistani users can attest. However, the prosecution said the voters were misled by my evil scheme and might be misled in the future so I must be stopped! Assuming that I did have this awful plan when I ran in 2006, it did not work. People could vote for me or the other guy; the other guy won. Not sure how the voters were misled then. And how will voters be misled in the future if I am not anywhere on the ballot? I cannot even be written in. None of this makes sense to me, but then I was in Wonderland.

Of course, I tried to present evidence, but I could just as easily have recited the monologue from Shakespeare's Henry the V or stood on my head or spoke in tongues for all the good it did me. The judges were not listening to anything I had to say except for my misstatement of sorts regarding the genesis of my nickname. I indicated that a female Supreme Court justice had served as inspiration for the name. One can be inspired by anything and it was in that sense that I used the word. However, I was actually lampooning her, not seeking to emulate her. I have reviewed opinions by female jurists both in this state and on the United States Supreme Court and they all announce their opinions with the words "opinion by Justice [judge's last name]." All used this formula except the female justice in Pennsylvania who announced her decisions as "opinion by Madame Justice [judge's last name]." She can do what she pleases. However, I used the nickname, not the title, when I became active on the Internet. My usage was akin to that of the United Kingdom users, it was used as a nickname, not as a title. And I never said or even implied that I was a Supreme Court Justice.

I did try to get in the affidavits of a few individuals who could have verified that I used the name when I was active at a now defunct ancient history site. However, they only reluctantly admitted part of one affidavit, to which they assigned little or no weight. Remember what I said about the rules of evidence? I thought that affidavits are admissible and in their entirety. The trier of fact is then free to assign whatever weight it wishes to the affidavit. However, this is Wonderland, and the rules of evidence do not apply.

It does not matter. I had a final argument, one which had bearing on the entire proceeding. Regardless of what happens, it will always be my opinion that the NC State Bar has no power to regulate political campaigns at all. They cannot regulate the campaigns of non-lawyer candidates. Why then has it arrogated to itself the power to regulate campaigns of lawyers? More fundamentally, political speech is entitled to the utmost protection under the First Amendment to the US Constitution, as made applicable to the states by the 14th Amendment. Yes, I know the Constitution is "just a god-damned piece of paper" in the immortal words of the former president, but I still believe in it. The First Amendment allows any political candidate, including a judicial candidate, to say what they please. Of course, if a candidate says something defamatory about another candidate, the defamed candidate can bring suit. In like manner, if a candidate makes an inaccurate or false declaration regarding his or her qualifications, his or her opponent can point out misstatements. My opponent was allowed to say all kinds of false things about me, but he never claimed that I misrepresented my qualifications for office. That was because I never did. I never proclaimed to be an NC Supreme Court Justice.

It was up to the voters to decide and evaluate me, not the state bar. As even the panel admitted, they never see a case that raises constitutional questions. The prosecution relied exclusively on cases that ante-dated Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002). I wonder whether any of those involved understood the constitutional principles at stake. If they had, they would have explained why the regulation of political speech here met the strict scrutiny test. They made no attempt to engage in the proper analysis here. So I am left only to appeal in the hope that perhaps real judges can reverse this travesty.

A few other things. While I was involved in these proceedings, the NC Supreme Court decided the lottery case. One justice re-cussed himself, leaving an equally divided panel. One can guess who voted for or against the lottery, but it would be just that, a guess. I can see why they entered a per curium order - no one wanted to give possible opponents a reason for attacking. If someone voted for the lottery, they would be reviled by the NC GOP; if they voted against it, they would be reviled by those on the left. However, justices should not be allowed to hide behind secrecy. If they really had the courage of their convictions, they would not have been afraid to openly declare their decisions. And the citizens have a right to know. We do not have a Star Chamber in this country, not yet.

However, it points out how much further we have fallen into the abyss. A friend of mine said to me, "isn't America worth fighting for?" Yes, it is. However, I am tired of doing all the fighting by myself. Americans have sunk into ignorance and apathy. They do not know and do not care. Why should I stick my neck out only to have, metaphorically speaking, my head chopped off by those who sit at the NC State Bar? They even threatened to keep subjecting me to more bar complaints. They think, albeit incorrectly, that I somehow need to be punished, that I have not learned my lesson, that I am not remorseful. No, I am not. I am sick of petty tyrants dictating to me how I must live my life. I am, as I said at the hearing, soured and disillusioned by what I see in our leaders and others in power. AIG, Bernie Madoff, Jim Black and a whole host of others, both Republican and Democrat, are rife with corruption. The silence of the NC Supreme Court is just a manifestation of it.

The "Vee for Victory" on my website is not about my candidacy for future office. It is about you. I leave you with a quote from the movie, which I have lightly altered: "V[ee]: Good evening, London. Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of every day routine- the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. But in the spirit of commemoration, thereby those important events of the past usually associated with someones death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, a celebration of a nice holiday, I thought we could mark this . . . by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat. There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now [president]. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent. Last night I sought to end that silence. Last night I destroyed the Old Bailey, to remind this country of what it has forgotten [to] remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives. So if you've seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you then I would suggest you allow [this day] to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me . . . .

Rachel Lea Hunter

"I will do my utmost to defend myself. To them, it is just another lawyer. To me, it is my very livelihood that is under assault. You can read the complaint filed by the state bar and my answers Links Here. And I am confident that I ultimately will prevail."

December 31, 2008

Dear Friends and Voters:

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way--in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only."

And so began Charles Dickens' classic, "A Tale of Two Cities." In the novel, Dickens compare England and France. In the book, France suffers terribly under its king and leads inevitably to the French Revolution and reign of Terror. In England the populace also suffer, although the citizens do so in a less bloody-way, as rich and poor alike are subjected to the lawlessness of the highwaymen and the hangman.

But Dickens could just as easily have compared our own King George to Barack Obama. One is currently president, the other is the president elect. One is white, the other black. The former has led us into the abyss of financial ruin; the latter it is hoped will lead us out. However different they appear on the surface, they do not seem to be all that much different underneath. Like the kings of England and France, neither knows how to solve the problems facing their realms except to print more paper money and spend it.

Obama was swept into office because of a yearning on the part of the American people for "hope" and "change." In fairness to Obama, he has not yet taken office and we may hope that by some miracle things will change. However, the practical pragmatist in me knows that they will not. Even of Obama had the best of intentions, King George has left behind one h*ll of a mess for his successor to clean up. Few could even hope to succeed in this situation and people's affection for Obama will quickly fade when he proves that he is not up to the task. Moreover, his appointments have proven to be most disappointing and most telling about what kind of person he really is. There are over 300 million souls in America (more if you count the illegal aliens) and all that can be found is Clintonistas and Washington insiders? Here is a link to a column by Jeremy Scahill where he analyzes just some of the picks thus far.

Forget their much vaunted experience and having learned from their mistakes. Among this group are the pro-war neo-cons, both left and right, AIPAC/Israel supporters and former members of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Suffice it to say that this is NOT the hope and change that we sought and voted for.

National politics aside there is not much stirring on the home front. I have not written in awhile as my significant other has endured multiple surgeries, including a very bad reaction to medication during the second surgery. Hopefully, he is at last back on the road to recovery. Thanks to all for their good wishes for his health.

The big news is that "they're b-a-a-ck." And no, its not the poltergeists. Its those fine folks at the NC State Bar. Full of themselves after the Mike Nifong show trial, they are just brimming with hubris.

The State Bar has chosen yet again to set its sights on me. What could I have possibly done to arouse their attention? There are two things that will get one disbarred - sleeping with one's clients or taking a client's money. Messing with one's trust account is a close third; sloppy bookkeeping can sometimes be excused as long as one does not take client's money. However, none of these are at issue. I have been far too busy working and attending to my partner.

It has to do with my 2006 campaign for office. 2006? Don't they know you lost? Apparently, the NC State Bar has been bunking in an Afghanistan cave. Hello! The election is over! Even if some poor soul was deceived into thinking I was a judge, I did not win and the judiciary is safe from me.

So what is this really about? Ostensibly, its about my use of the nickname, "Madame Justice," which by the way, has nothing to do with a female member of the court. It is used must in the same way as things like the "Institute for Justice" or the "NC Advocates for Justice." Nobody stops these organizations from using the generic word "justice" even though we refer to the judges on our highest court as "justice."

With record foreclosures and people losing their jobs, with our country bankrupt, municipalities and this state facing a serious financial shortfall, one would think that these people would have more significant problems to worry about. And where were they when George Bush trashed the Constitution (he referred to it as a god-damned piece of paper)? When Alberto Gonzales and George Bush said it was ok to torture? Or lock people up indefinitely? Or wiretap and spy on us? Not a single word. How about when Mike Nifong was using the Duke non-rape case to get elected? Did the NC State Bar seek to interfere in his campaign? No way. So why did they seek to interfere in mine and have continued to do so?

This is all about politics. You see, the legal establishment, which controls the NC State Bar, is afraid. Very afraid. They are laboring under the misconception that I might run again. In fact, they accuse me of running in 2008, even though I was not a candidate for any office on the ballot. To make sure I NEVER EVER again run for office, not even for school board, they are out to take away my law license. People in this state should be outraged over this blatant misuse of public resources and unbridled abuse of power.

I will do my utmost to defend myself. To them, it is just another lawyer. To me, it is my very livelihood that is under assault. You can read the complaint filed by the state bar and my answers Links Here. And I am confident that I ultimately will prevail.

We know not what roads the New Year will lead us on. Will we come out of this crisis or will things get worse? Will we rid ourselves of the corrupt and high handed bureaucrats and greedy Wall Street financiers? Will a meaningful third party emerge and be led by someone like Jesse Ventura to fill the void? I know not what is in store. However, like Dickens' Farmer and Woodman, we will work silently and unceasingly to pave the way for a better tomorrow.

Happy New Year to all!

Rachel Lea Hunter