CORRUPT NC REPUBLICAN 08 JUDICIAL
DREAM TEAM LED BY DRUNKEN JUDGE

November 3, 2007

* Blames DWI on Mother-In-Law
* DWI Judge Doug walks to Judical Chambers from Atlantic Beach to Raleigh while on probation until April 08
* DWI Republicn Judge swears to make NC districts all Republican in 2010

By Greensboro N&R Editorial Editor Doug Clark

"Campaigns are already under way for 2008 North Carolina judicial elections. These contests are nonpartisan, but they're still political. Too political. In this state, judicial candidates are allowed to engage in political activities but within limits spelled out in the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Its very important Canon 1 says: "A judge should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary." Canon 3 A. (6) states: "A judge should abstain from public comment about the merits of a pending proceeding in any state or federal court dealing with a case or controversy arising in North Carolina or addressing North Carolina law ..."

Douglas McCullough is a judge on the N.C. Court of Appeals and an announced candidate for re-election in 2008. He's a Republican, as he makes clear when speaking to Republican audiences. One such occasion was Oct. 20 at Lake Junaluska in Haywood County. A video at McCullough's campaign Web site captures his remarks. He describes himself and two other candidates -- Supreme Court Justice Bob Edmunds and Court of Appeals Judge John Tyson, also Republicans -- as EMT, a team needed to rescue the judiciary. No problem with that. Then he says Edmunds' re-election is especially important because of legislative redistricting, recounting how Democratic gerrymandering has kept Republicans in the minority in the state House of Representatives. After the next redistricting in 2011, a challenge is sure to go to the Supreme Court, McCullough says, strongly implying that Republicans will get a better deal if Edmunds is on the bench. I believe McCullough's statements were improper, violating the spirit if not the letter of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Of course, there isn't yet a redistricting case before the courts. The next redistricting hasn't happened yet. But McCullough himself says there almost certainly will be such a case. While it's not technically a "pending" case at this time, it's a case that reasonably can be anticipated. I'd say, then, that this judge should have abstained from public comments about the merits of the case. I understand that McCullough said nothing about the legal merits of a potential future redistricting case. His concern had to do with the political merits.

Hence the suggestion that the Republican Party will get a better deal from Republican judges. (It follows that the corollary would apply: the Democratic Party will get a better deal from Democratic judges.) Sadly, that still may be true in North Carolina. But it ought not be. As the code says, judges should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary. They should apply the law with impartiality. Running without party affiliation should free them from allegiance to partisan interests. Voters should expect that, even demand it. They shouldn't want to elect judges with a predetermined disposition in political cases, criminal cases or any other kind of cases. I wasn't impressed by Judge McCullough's partisan remarks to Haywood County Republicans, and I hope that fair-minded voters will have the same reaction. Update, Nov. 2: The video has been removed from Judge McCullough's campaign Web site, but it has been posted here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-B8oANSdh9c Doug Clark.

See DWI Judge Doug Rap sheet below

Judge DWI Plea Carteret - 4/3/2007 A North Carolina Appeals Court judge has pleaded guilty to DWI charges in Carteret County. Judge John Douglas McCullough must pay a fine, perform community service, and lose driving privileges for a year as part of his sentence. McCullough blew a .12 in a breathalyzer test back in October. A spokesman for Judicial Standards says McCullough faces no formal charges related to his standing as an Appeals Court judge.

Best Blues Brothers Republican excuses for DWI Judge Doug this year

" In contrast, consider Doug McCullough. I don't know him personally, but my understanding is that he made the mistake of giving his mother-in-law a one-block ride home after a family gathering at which he had consumed one or two beers too many. As a result, he lost his drivers license for a year. Yes, he was wrong. But I will still vote for him reguardless of his Drunken State" *Blew NC unknown Republican supporter for DWI Judge

You can catch DWI Judge Doug missing video at source below. It appears that the DWI Doug was unware that the Net collects everything that stupid Republicans do. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-B8oANSdh9c

Latest Update for DWI Judge Doug

And then there is "DWI Doug." I discussed in a piece during my campaign how Judge J. Douglas McCullough was stopped and charged with driving while impaired and speeding. "DWI Doug" attended an event in Haywood County recently, although he has removed it from his website. No wonder. While there, he stated that there was a Republican Judicial team and implied that the citizens need to keep a majority of Republican justices on the state Supreme Court because there will be yet another re-districting battle on 2010. Let me see-is not this supposed to be a non-partisan race? Are not judges supposed to be impartial, neutral arbiters and not signaling how they will rule in a particular case? And here is Doug promising that we need Republican justices and they will vote the right way on a case, nudge, nudge, wink wink.

Why is this not a violation of the Judicial Canons of Ethics? Oh, that's right. Silly me. These were written by Doug's good friend who is running for office. The NC State Bar would never be interested in investigating that, especially when they are so busy investigating me. Why, I am a real threat because in the last campaign, I used a nickname. Speaking of the bar, they found that there was no probable cause to find that I had violated the Judicial Canons by not taking down the nickname.

As a final note, there was some wrangling by the NC Medical Board over the death penalty for prisoners. I am glad that the US Supreme Court granted a stay to the defendant in Mississippi. I agree with the comments made By Dr. Mary Johnson in the Raleigh paper that individual doctors ought to decide for themselves whether or not they should witness such executions. But for me, the choice is now clear. I said in the past that we ought to reserve the death penalty for exceptional cases. In other words, it should be legal but rare. No more. I recently read a book that changed my views on that. John Grisham released a book called "The Innocent Man." Most people are thinking fiction like "The Pelican Brief" or "The Firm." I am not here to promote John Grisham's books, but this book is no work of fiction. It is an eye-opener for anyone who says they are for the death penalty and all but the very hard-hearted will be pro-death penalty after reading this book.

This is a true story of justice in Ada, Oklahoma. Although the book discusses several individuals, the main character is Ron Williamson. He started life as an aspiring baseball player, but mental illness set in. He was the town crazy and not liked, mostly because his mental illness was out of control. We have always put to death the town crazies in America, people who are a different color, people who are outside society, people who are different. Faced with a horrible murder, the police could not be bothered with doing real investigative work and pinned it on Ron Williamson, the town crazy, and a friend, Dennis Fritz, who just happened to know Ron. Predictably, the pair were convicted and their convictions upheld by the courts. But their story does not end there. Ron was only five (5) days away from execution. Five days!

A federal judge with intellect and his equally smart staff issued a reprieve and granted Ron's habeas corpus petition. After that, Barry Scheck had gotten involved and through DNA testing, it was shown that Ron and Dennis were innocent of the crimes and that the murder was committed by another individual.

How can a case go through the police and court system and have the convictions upheld on direct appeal? In reading the book, one learns of the tactics used by the police. And then there is the district attorney. People think of Michael Nifong's antics, but the district attorney in Ron Williamson's case is just as bad, if not worse. In an odd twist of fate, he is suing both John Grisham and Dennis Fritz for defamation. Dennis also has written a book about his ordeal. This from a man who has wrongfully convicted not just one, but several individuals. For the years he has taken from these men, he should humbly beg their apology, not sue. However, he is just as unrepentant as Michael Nifong and I can only hope that he meets with the same fate.

How can this happen in America? It can and it does. The jails are full of guys like Ron and Dennis and the others talked about in the book. There are police who gather flimsy evidence in an effort to solve heinous crimes. There are less than stellar judges and justices and their law clerks. And there are bad district attorneys who want to get publicity or use the office of the prosecutor as a stepping stone to higher office.

As long as we have police and prosecutors and judges like this, we can never be certain whether the man or woman that we put to death is guilty or innocent. When such time comes where humans are perfect and we can know with certainty that those who are convicted are truly guilty, I might reconsider my position. Until that day arrives, we should put an end to the death penalty.

Rachel Lea Hunter