"Madame Justice" 2nd Answer To The State Bar

RACHEL LEA HUNTER
ATTORNEY AT LAW
901 MADISON AVENUE
CARY, NORTH CAROLINA 27513-4348

May 16, 2006

Ms. Fern Gunn Simeon, Esq.
NC State Bar - Grievance Committee
Post Office Box 25908
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5908

Re: Bar Grievance

Your File No.: 06G2073

Dear Ms. Simeon:

I am in receipt of your letter dated May 4, 2006. You ask for further information as follows:

1. Information regarding the 2004 website: The 2004 site was www.rachelforcourt.com. It is now defunct, although much of the information is now at my site at www.rachelforjustice.com. I have succeeded in locating a page from the old site; it is enclosed for your review. Perhaps the servers still possess the information. Unlikely that they will release it without a subpoena or court order. Will the state bar pay for the requisite costs or subpoena the information itself?

2. Allegations regarding the state elections board: Your question suggests that I should convict myself by answering. I disagree with the decision of the state election board's decision. After I filed, the state elections board promised that it would issue a decision on Tuesday. It issued the decision on Monday, the day that the complaint was filed. The timing of events suggests that the decision was made and it was done without review of the record or hearing any evidence. I chose not to appeal the decision, not because I thought it was correct, but because I felt that the elections board had more important matters before it (the Jim Black hearing) and because I did not want to cause the taxpayers any unnecessary expense. Witnesses from Pennsylvania and elsewhere were willing to testify on my behalf. Will the state bar pay their costs of transportation and lodging if it wishes to hear from them?

3. The state bar wants to know whether I have ever used the name when not running and in what context. I have already advised you that I used the name when I became active on the internet as a "screen name" or in emails or possibly chat rooms in 1998. I question whether individuals with whom I spoke have retained the information after this length of time. If the information exists, it is stored on servers. Again, I ask whether the state bar pay for the requisite costs or subpoena the information itself?

Ms. Fern Gunn Simeon, Esq., NC State Bar - Grievance Committee

Page 2

May 16, 2006

4. Allegation that conduct violates the Rules of Professional Conduct and Code of Judicial Conduct: I deny that I have "intentionally and knowingly misrepresented my identity and qualifications for office." For the record, the state bar has chosen not to enforce the following:

A. In 2004, a candidate ran for judicial office and knowingly violated the federal Hatch Act. However, the bar could not find any evidence despite being supplied with the same. Is this not a knowing and intentional violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Rules of Professional Conduct?

B. In both the 2004 campaign and this one, judicial candidates and justices allow the NC Republican Party or those acting at their behest to publicly insult me, my qualifications, my mental capacity and my employer. We have a principal at law that a conspirator is guilty of acts committed in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy. We also punish accomplices for the acts committed by principals. Why are these candidates or sitting justices allowed to get the benefit of these attacks and not distance themselves from them and in essence do indirectly what they cannot do directly? Is this not a knowing and intentional violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Rules of Professional Conduct?

C. In both the 2004 campaign and this one, I was advised that Supreme Court Justices cannot have signs along the highway. In 2004, myself and one other candidate, Justice Parker honored the law. In this campaign, I noted that candidates again violated the law during the primaries. Is this not a knowing and intentional violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Rules of Professional Conduct?

D. The state bar is concerned with my ethical violations because it theoretically could mislead someone, and yet an attorney is permitted to solicit clients by using paid Hollywood actors in his television commercials. Is this not a knowing and intentional violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct?

The above all present serious violations of the law and judicial code or professional rules and yet the state bar chooses to ignore this conduct while going after my behavior on the theory that it might theoretically mislead someone. I will not tell the state bar how to do its job, but its time would be better spent going after true violations of law rather than manufactured grievances that are politically motivated.

Ms. Fern Gunn Simeon, Esq., NC State Bar - Grievance Committee

Page 3

May 16, 2006

Judging from the questions, it appears that you have not reviewed the information that was sent. Since you have not reviewed the information that I submitted, I will summarize the concurrence of the opinion in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S 765 (2002). Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia held "[t]he Minnesota Supreme Court's canon of judicial conduct prohibiting candidates for judicial election from announcing their views on disputed legal and political issues violates the First Amendment." In his concurrence, Justice Kennedy stated "[e]ven the undoubted interest of the State in the excellence of its judiciary does not allow it to restrain candidate speech by reason of its content. Minnesota's attempt to regulate campaign speech is impermissible."

The United States Supreme Court's articulation of the law could not be more clear. It is a violation of the First Amendment and impermissible to regulate political speech by an attorney who is also a candidate. The state bar could not regulate the conduct of a private citizen who, for example, had a nickname of "Senator" and who ran for the senate but was never a senator. Likewise, the state bar cannot regulate my conduct simply because I am an attorney and running for a judicial office.

The charges filed against me were that I had somehow misrepresented my position to prospective clients. I have stated that no client has been misled and that if any confusion or a mistake does arise, it is quickly corrected. Nor have any prospective voters been misled. While certain members of the public may not always be the most intelligent, they do know when they are being taken advantage of. They are intelligent enough to vote for me, if they have a mind to vote for me, not because of any alleged nickname or because they think I am a judge or because they might get special treatment, but because they know me to be an honest person who will do the best I can and who will look out for their interests rather than my own.

Sincerely,

Rachel Lea Hunter

Attorney at Law

RLH/rlh

Enclosures

RETURN TO NEWS RELEASE PAGE