Rachel Lea Hunter For Justice

Its Back! The Ask " Rachel " section was such a success that we have
brought it back. You have another chance to get your questions answered.

Rachel Lea Hunter is committed to an open and honest campaign. Questions
submitted by the campaign will be answered candidly here by " Rachel ". We
will respond as soon as we can and will post our response on this page soon
thereafter!

Please send all "Ask Madame Justice" Questions to:
Rachel's Email
Please be sure to let us know if you want to remain anonymous.

Q:
Rachel

We can still work for a third party, I am sure it is still possible for a third party. We just have to work harder and smarter. Ask Rachel if she would like to be involved in our fight. We have no political affiliations but nearly everyone is a Ron Paul supporter. If she just wants to sign up for our action alerts to watch our progress, she is welcome to that that as well.

JP

www.ncard.info
A:
Dear Jim,

What you say about a third party is true. We need to concentrate efforts there and devote ourselves to not worrying about minor things but on putting this country back on track if we are ever to turn things around.

Dr. Ron Paul is an admirable man and I wish we had more leaders who were like him in Washington, D.C. and in our state. With all due respect, however, he is not the man to lead the third-party movement. And I am dismayed Dr. Paul's remarks about saving the Republican Party. It has degenerated so much that the time has come to kill it, not save it. From its ashes, perhaps a new party can arise. Even if it remains, I think the rule of threes in business applies equally to politics. With two parties, we have a duopoly or shared monopoly. With three parties, the added party will shift allegiances on various issues and will keep the other two parties on their toes. We need someone like Jesse Ventura to head up the third-party. He has stature and vigor.

I know this seems selfish, but Connie and I are focusing on our personal health and our personal lives as we neglected many things during my campaigns for office. I will have to decline your invitation at this time. However, you can add me to your email list.

Rachel Lea Hunter

Q:
Hello, if the constitution, that is affirmed by the public servant, qualifies me as an elector, how can I be denied to cast a ballot in any election, with no amendment to the constitution. Is "voter registration" not some unconstitutional regulation created by actors who never have had any authority granted to do so? Thank you.

Neil Douglas
A:
Dear Mr. Douglas:

Below is an exerpt from Article VI of the North Carolina Constitution. It specifies residency and registration requirements. I do not understand how you can be denied premission to cast a ballot if you are otherwise qualified and meet the residency requirements. Under the law, those convicted of a felony and who are still serving a sentence or who are on probation or parole may be denied the right to vote. A citizen's rights are restored, however, when the sentence or probation/parole is completed under NC General Statutes 13-1 and 13-2. The same is true under 42 U.S.C. 1973 et seq.; the federal laws discuss voting. The federal Constitution does not say much on voting except for the 21st Amendment that grants women the right to vote.

Rachel Lea Hunter

Section 1. Who may vote. Every person born in the United States and every person who has been naturalized, 18 years of age, and possessing the qualifications set out in this Article, shall be entitled to vote at any election by the people of the State, except as herein otherwise provided.

Sec. 2. Qualifications of voter.

(1) Residence period for State elections. Any person who has resided in the State of North Carolina for one year and in the precinct, ward, or other election district for 30 days next preceding an election, and possesses the other qualifications set out in this Article, shall be entitled to vote at any election held in this State. Removal from one precinct, ward, or other election district to another in this State shall not operate to deprive any person of the right to vote in the precinct, ward, or other election district from which that person has removed until 30 days after the removal.

(2) Residence period for presidential elections. The General Assembly may reduce the time of residence for persons voting in presidential elections. A person made eligible by reason of a reduction in time of residence shall possess the other qualifications set out in this Article, shall only be entitled to vote for President and Vice President of the United States or for electors for President and Vice President, and shall not thereby become eligible to hold office in this State.

(3) Disqualification of felon. No person adjudged guilty of a felony against this State or the United States, or adjudged guilty of a felony in another state that also would be a felony if it had been committed in this State, shall be permitted to vote unless that person shall be first restored to the rights of citizenship in the manner prescribed by law.

Sec. 3. Registration.

Every person offering to vote shall be at the time legally registered as a voter as herein prescribed and in the manner provided by law. The General Assembly shall enact general laws governing the registration of voters.

Sec. 4. Qualification for registration.

Every person presenting himself for registration shall be able to read and write any section of the Constitution in the English language.

§ 13-1. Restoration of citizenship.

Any person convicted of a crime, whereby the rights of citizenship are forfeited, shall have such rights automatically restored upon the occurrence of any one of the following conditions:

(1) The unconditional discharge of an inmate by the State Department of Correction or the North Carolina Department of Correction, of a probationer by the State Department of Correction, or of a parolee by the Department of Correction; or of a defendant under a suspended sentence by the court.

(2) The unconditional pardon of the offender.

(3) The satisfaction by the offender of all conditions of a conditional pardon.

(4) With regard to any person convicted of a crime against the United States, the unconditional discharge of such person by the agency of the United States having jurisdiction of such person, the unconditional pardon of such person or the satisfaction by such person of a conditional pardon.

(5) With regard to any person convicted of a crime in another state, the unconditional discharge of such person by the agency of that state having jurisdiction of such person, the unconditional pardon of such person or the satisfaction by such person of a conditional pardon.

§ 13-2. Issuance and filing of certificate or order of restoration.

(a) The agency, department, or court having jurisdiction over the inmate, probationer, parolee or defendant at the time his rights of citizenship are restored under the provisions of G.S. 13-1(1) shall immediately issue a certificate or order in duplicate evidencing the offender's unconditional discharge and specifying the restoration of his rights of citizenship.

The original of such certificate or order shall be promptly transmitted to the clerk of the General Court of Justice in the county where the official record of the case from which the conviction arose is filed. The clerk shall then file the certificate or order without charge with the official record of the case.

(b) In the case of a person convicted of a crime against another state or the United States, whose rights to citizenship have been restored according to G.S. 13-1, the following provisions shall apply:

(1) It shall be the duty of the clerk of the court in the county where such person resides, upon a showing by such person or his representative that the conditions of G.S. 13-1 have been met, to issue the certificate evidencing the offender's unconditional discharge and specifying the restoration of his rights of citizenship. For purposes of this subsection, the fulfillment of the conditions of G.S. 13-1 shall be considered met upon the presentation to the clerk of any paper writing from the agency of any other state or of the United States which had jurisdiction over such person, which shows that the conditions of G.S. 13-1 have been met.

(2) The certificate described in subdivision (b)(1) shall be filed by the clerk of the General Court of Justice in the county in which such person resides.

The provisions of this subsection apply equally to conditional and unconditional pardons by the governor of any other state or by the President of the United States, as well as unconditional discharges by the agency of another state or of the United States having jurisdiction over said person.

Q:
Ms. Hunter

I have always thought that the judicial races and district attorney races should be independent in fact as well as in theory. While I love politics as much as anyone, I am extremely uncomfortable with the idea of partisan judges and district attorneys. I wonder if it would be better to go with an appointment process as it is done in some other states, and with the federal courts. I go back and forth in my thoughts on that. Would you share your ideas?

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors
Linda
A:
Linda,

I have written on this before in more depth in an article posted on my website; I will therefore be brief. In short, I am opposed to appointing judges or any officials despite the faults of our current system. In a perfect world where all men and women are angels, appointing may have its merits. We are not in a perfect world and men are not angels. Quick reasons why I am opposed:

1. Who gets to appoint? Usually, its the bar association. How are they accountable to the voters?

The appointment of Mike Nifong, along with some of Governor Easley's other fine[Sarcasm] appointments, are an example of the kinds of people who will get appointed.

2. Old boys club - the only people who will ever get appointed are those who suck up to those in power or the committee (bar association) that appoints them.

3. At least with voting, I get to have a voice in who sits on the bench or is in office. With appointment, I have none. So many of our Constitutional rights have been obliterated. This is the only one that we have left.

4. Removal of bad judges/district attorneys - judges are rarely removed unless their conduct becomes egregious. If a judge (or district attorney) is merely less than intelligent, however, they remain. At least with voting, the citizens can get rid of them.

Rachel Lea Hunter

Q:
Rachel,

I watched what you went through and grieved. I'm also familiar with John Barbara and was attacked by him (and others) endlessly for nothing more than speaking the truth.

All my life, I've dreamed of running for local office and making changes for the "working class". However, having watched what you've dealt with, I would never consider it. I wouldn't have the strength and couldn't handle it if they attacked my family.

The only real mistake I think you made was using the name Madame Justice witht he knowledge they were looking for anything and everything they could to discredit you. I didn't believe anything I saw until you wanted to have it used on the ballot. It was then that I began to wonder what was true and what wasn't.

You're an excellent writer and I hope this essay makes it's way to all those who were hoodwinked into not voting for you.

Dharma
A:
Dear Dharma,

Thank you for your kind words. I really appreciate it.

Do not let idiots like John Barbara stop you from pursuing your dreams. John Barbara is a grass cutter at a grade school. He is a nobody. He has no power at all unless you give him that power. However, he was instructed by the Republicans to do what he did. He failed and they ended up resorting to other tricks.

Regarding my "nickname" it was just that, a nickname. When I became active on the internet (I was active at an ancient Roman history site) I developed personas, one of which was a character called "Madame Justice." The name was inspired by a female justice on our state supreme court (I lived in Pennsylvania at the time). I played a lawgiver at the history site so this was apt. The name could equally apply to a dominatrix and I had an internet character which used the name when I was in that kind of mood (I do not behave like this in real life; however, one can "role-play" with characters, the way actors do).

I used the nickname in emails after I moved to North Carolina. The name still fits; I ran because I cared about doing real justice which I perceive to be so lacking in our courts and society today. There was never an atempt to mislead anyone and most of the people who know me call be "Madame Justice" as one would use a term of endearment. They know me and what I am and where I stand and that is why I used the nickname. It also gave me a lot of free publicity, although that was not my motivation. The law allowed for it and I did nothing illegal. For those who think its improper, then the law ought to be changed and no one should be allowed to use anything other than their full legal name.

If you want to run for office, then do it. Something I learned is that those in power do not bother to attack if they do not perceive you to be a threat. You can can gauge just how much of a threat and how correct you are by the level of the attacks. I was right on target and both the Republo-thugs and the Establishment Democrats knew it. I was such a threat to their system that they went ballistic and the attacks became ludicrous after awhile.

You do not think you are strong enough. If you go into it, you do have to recognize what is going to happen and be prepared to deal with "whatever comes out of the gates" as Russell Crowe's character Maximus said in "The Gladiator" movie. However, you know yourself and your family best. There are many ways to serve and give to the community and if running for office is not the way, then there may be something else. Get appointed to a board or commission; be active in the PTA. Do whatever suits you. And whatever you do, keep speaking the truth. That is a rare commodity in anyone and especially in our "leaders." People are hungry for real leaders, not the phony politicos or other talking heads on televison.

Rachel Lea Hunter

Q:
Sorry about your loss but a guy named Mark Martin in this NACAR-crazy place is hard to beat. I think you should run against Virginia Foxx in '08. Or, better yet, against Dole. And when you do don't hold back. People think Dole is sharp but let's look at the facts. A) She married Bob...B) She went into the senate as the most highly touted female (aside from Hillary Clinton) in the history of the nation and has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING except play the role of Bush's sad flunky...C) She'll be even older and more botox-icated by then and will be primed for the picking. If you need my help, I'll be glad to campaign for you. You seem like you would make a great candidate. As far as District 6 in Foxx-ville, I would rather have my goldfish representing me in Washington than her. She has actually done less than nothing and now, with the Dems in charge, she might as well just stay in Banner Elk as opposed to wasting her gas money actually driving to DC. This state deserves better than that.

PEACE, Jim McNally
A:
Dear Mr. McNally,

I'm glad that you enjoyed some of the more witty comments. I would agree with you that perhaps I should have run for another office, but I am not a professional politician. I have no interest in being a legislator. I love the law and I have exceptional writing and research talents so the judicial system is best suited to me.

Thank you for your support and encouragement.

Best wishes,

Rachel

Q:
Tue, 14 Nov 2006

Subject: RE: reply to your email

What has happened in this country in the last five years is a disgrace. What is ironic is that the jinogoism is actually in support of the things that are counter to what I have always thought to be the 'American way' (i.e. the things you mentioned regarding habeas corpus and civil liberties). The old line used to be it is better to let 100 guilty people go free than to see a single person wrongly convicted. The new line is closer that bumper sticker 'kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out.' I interviewed Dole earlier this year when I was a reporter for the Salisbury Post. She actually became indignant when I asked her if the Iraq War was worth it. She spouted the same old nonsense about the courage of the troops and the hospitals being built (first of all, who ever heard of starting the reconstruction process while the war was still being fought?) Anyway, what little hope I had for her as a strong leader went right out the window. As for Foxx, I never had any hope for her as a leader. She has no original thoughts in her head and is even too conservative for the old line she thinks she is preserving. I would really consider a run at a legilative job if I were you.

Peace,Jim
A:
Dear Jim,

I have had a few encounters with the Salisbury Post. They seem to have left journalistic integrity out the window long ago and are nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Republicans. It should not be a partisan tool and it would be just as bad if it was a Democratic propaganda organ. The mainstream media has really let America down.

I had my first inkling that something was wrong with Senator Elizabeth Dole when we in North Carolina were “told” that she was going to be our senator in 2002. I thought, don’t we get to vote or have a choice? That was a portent of things to come.

She has been nothing more than a rubber-stamp for the administration. There is no thought to what is best for North Carolina or America, but what is best for the President. And talk about a carpet bagger! She has not been in North Carolina except on presidential junkets and could care less about this place except at election time. I hope that a serious contender will challenge her in 2008, someone who is well-funded and someone who has our interests at heart.

I agree with your sentiments over what America has become. What was left of the Constitution, which ironically people like President Bush and Senator Elizabeth Dole were sworn to uphold, has been abrogated. Anyone can be designated as an enemy combatant, even an American citizen like José Padilla. They can be held in captivity indefinitely, without being charged as habeas corpus is no more. They can be tortured.

The legal maxim about letting one hundred guilty men go free rather than have an innocent man convicted is a joke. Innocent people, wrongfully accused of crimes they did not commit, are convicted every day. Read a work of non-fiction by John Grisham called The Innocent Man. Read about the work of The Innocence Project founded by attorney Barry Scheck who has freed people with DNA evidence. I think we could cut down on a lot of the nonsense by reigning in prosecutors and stopping this prosecution/win at all costs mentality. Prosecutors are supposed to be about doing justice, not winning at all costs so they can use the prosecution as a stepping stone to higher office. This overwhelming injustice in our system is what compelled me to run for judicial office.

As for Virginia Foxx, I am inclined to agree with you. Another rubber stamp. Maybe the Democrats will wake up and support another real challenger for that seat. I am sorry to say that the Democrats have been equally complicit in enabling the Republicans to stay in office. Not all Democrats are that way and there are plenty of good ones out there. I am talking about the NC Democratic state party leadership. They provided immense help to some and absolutely no help to others. Had they provided assistance to Rory Blake or Roger Sharpe, the results might have been different in each place, but its hard to say. Foxx’s and Coble’s districts are mostly Republican.

As I said, I’m taking a breather right now and will weigh my options later. I will have to think how I can best serve, whether its being active behind the scenes and passing the torch to others to run or running myself.

Best wishes,

Rachel

Q:
Fri, 16 Feb 2007

Subject: Running for Vice President?

Rachel,

Would you ever consider running for vice president if you were asked? Congressman Ron Paul has an exploratory committee to determine his running for President. I believe he has a good chance of being elected.

Adding you to his campaign would add so much appeal to the voters. I have emailed a notice to him requesting that he should consider you. To my knowledge, Ron Paul www.ronpaul.org is going to run as a Republican, a true conservative one. I personally think both of you should run as an independent party, and state your beliefs, plans, and visions for this country as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Ray Bowen

A:
Mr. Bowen,

I am flattered and honored by your suggestion, however, I do not think I am really vice-presidential material. On the other hand, when I see the kind of people whom we have serving in office, I cannot help but think that I am at least as qualified as they if not more so. At least I am not corrupt!

I have long admired Dr. Paul, although I am sure that we have some differences of opinion on issues. But then, it would be a boring place if everyone agreed with everyone else. Diversity of thought is important. If asked, I would have to evaluate all of the consequences before making a decision either way.

I agree with you that there is a movement afoot and that ordinary people are ready for a viable and respected third-party, not the fringe groups we have. However, I am not as optimistic as you about Dr. Paul's chances at success. The two major political parties (Republicans and Democrats) are going to fight that movement. And neither party has an interest in allowing Dr. Paul to gain any meaningful traction even if he runs as a Republican. He makes too much sense and cannot be controlled, like me. The powers in charge cannot tolerate that state of affairs.

If allowed, Dr. Paul can at least influence the debate. As of right now, he is the only Republican candidate that I would support.

Rachel

Q:
5 Nov 2006

Subject: important !!!!!

Unless you are running on the Veterans Party ticket, I am not interested. It seems that the longer I have remained a registered voter, the Demacratic and Republican Parties have become more corrupt with each passing year and both seem to be above the laws that govern the rest of us. Neither party wants to really secure our national borders, although they say they do, no real action has been taken in the past 20 years. So you tell me why either of these two Parties should get my vote.

Semper Fi,

Robert N. McGehee
Commandant
Sanford Detachment 1223
Marine Corps League
A:
Dear Commandant McGehee:

There is much truth to what you say and often there is "not a dimes' worth of difference" in the two-parties that control our political system. It is true that I am registered as a Democrat. Realistically, there are no other options and being a member of a third-political party will not lead to my election to office. Third-party candidates or independents just do not win elections.

I understand and share much of your frustration with the current system. Go and visit my website and really read what I have written. Perhaps that will lead you to make up your own mind about me and my opponent.

I know our current system is broke and it is corrupt. You can sit out the election, but that is not really an option. Regardless of whether you abstain or vote for my opponent, know that if my opponent is elected, the system is going to stay the same. Nothing is ever going to change.

I represent a course for a new and different direction. I want to change our system. I don't know if I will succeed, but I am hopeful that if elected, I can slowly steer things towards the right course and that I can be an instrument for change.

Only people like you can make that happen and if you stay home, it won't. And if that does happen, don't complain about the government because you did not do your part to change its course. Voting is a responsibility as well as a right.

As for other candidates, some are tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum. Others are not. I have met some great people who are running and they have not been corrupted yet by the system. Whether they will be or not, no one can know. You will have to make that choice.

Best wishes,

Rachel

Q:
01 Nov 2006

Subject: A Plea for Civility

Ms. Hunter,

Good afternoon. I am a second-year law student at UNC and have been following your campaign with some interest. As an up-and-rising lawyer, it is my responsibility, as it is every citizen's, to participate in the public life of our state and nation.

It is for this reason that your campaign has brought me such dismay. Politics is a dirty business, I know. This is even so when the candidates are not would-be legislators, governors, or presidents, but would-be judges and justices. Large egos, on both sides of the political aisle and no matter the particular nature of the offices sought, often clash mightily. That this occurs is not to say it should occur or that it should be encouraged or countenanced. Rather, it is the duty of each of us to do all in our power to make our pubic life one of honor and integrity and civility, to resist the temptation to demonize and denigrate those whom we oppose.

At this duty, you have failed. I say this not as a personal attack on you. I do not know you personally and am only concerned with your behavior as a candidate for public office and, perhaps more importantly, as a counselor at law seeking a seat on our high court. It is in this capacity that I judge you, as all voters must ultimately judge all candidates.

I do not presume to know by first-hand knowledge the truth or falsity of your many allegations against Justice Martin. I do know, however, that the manner in which you accuse him is improper. Invective, suggestion, name-calling, insinuation, scare tactics, and personal attacks are wrong, especially from someone who seeks a seat on our state's highest court.

My experience with Justice Martin is limited. I know him only from the time spent this fall in an appellate advocacy class he teaches at Carolina Law. My interaction with him leads me to conclude that he is a hard-working, decent man who has no ideological axe to grind and who takes seriously his work as a justice on the state supreme court. He conducts himself as a gentleman who recognizes that our public life has become too abrasive and is in need of a shift in the opposite direction. Justice Martin, in short, is a fine candidate for another eight-year term on the court, even if I would not agree with him on every legal and political issue to come before the justices.(I should note that I am a liberal independent, lest you think I am merely speaking out of a sense of political or party loyalty.)

My plea to you is for behavior similar to that of Justice Martin's. I do not ask you to curtail your campaigning. I do not ask you to be silent. And I do not ask you to cover over the differences between you and Justice Martin. I merely ask for civility and decency, for the sake of the court, the law, and the state.

My best wishes to you during this final week of campaigning.

Sincerely,

Michael Roessler
Chapel Hill, N.C.

A:
Dear Mr. Michael

By your own admission, you know only what you see in school. You are sadly mistaken in your assessment.

Justice Martin uses misinformation about me in his campaign materials and his website. He is the one to initiate this type of conduct. He uses the NC GOP on his behalf while he "appears" to be above the fray. I requested that he stop or at least distance himself from the attacks. He chose not to do that. Instead, they have escalated.

I have been called more filthy names than you can imagine. Everything from my physical appearance to my mental state has been attacked. My ability to ever practice law again in this state has been completely and totally destroyed.

If that was not bad enough, operatives have harassed me and members of my family. There have been attempts at public gatherings that were designed to intimidate me to drop out of the campaign. When that proved ineffective, a criminal investigation has been launched against members of my family for the crime of merely trying to vote in this election. Coupled with that, they have even launched the police to engage in traffic stops and cited me and members of my family for tickets for various offenses. Frivolous complaints have been filed with the disciplinary board, other candidates and other authorities as well.

All of this Justice Martin could easily have avoided by publicly distancing himself from the actions of the NC GOP and its hit-men. He chose to embrace, encourage and enable this conduct instead. And I found questionable campaign transfers by him. He gave $14,000 to a namesake in one month. Does this not even bother you a little? Many people outside looked at it and it bothered them. They said something is rotten here and yet no one in authority seems even the least bit interested to investigate. Real wrongdoing has been discovered and this gets covered up. So in answer to you, no I will not stop until after the election.

Think what you want. I am sorry to so disillusion one so young, but after this election, I will never again engage in politics as I am so soured on our political process which is nothing more than a sham for the oligarchy that controls our country and state. I have seen how broken and corrupt it is and I do not want to be a part of it any longer.

Cordially,

Rachel

Dear Concerned Voter:

I just finished watching you on Open Forum, and had a few questions related to that, as well as general questions from your website:

1. You criticize and condemn people for their "personal attacks" against you, and said they have no place in a campaign. I find it odd that you are so against personal attacks as you have lodged many of them, calling Vernon Robinson a "slave", calling your opponent Justice "Goebbels" Martin, talking about the GOP "Mafia." If they have no place in campaigns, why are you engaging in them with such gusto and zeal? I agree with you, they have no place in a campaign, but you don't win any points by complaining about them while doing it yourself. Hypocrisy has no place in campaigns either, or how are your attacks different?

Personal attacks on me have been made, ranging from trying to get me fired, to stating that I am "fat", "ugly" "insane" etc. Personal attacks have been made on members of my family and an attempt is underway to prosecute a family member.

I have not called Mr. Robinson a slave. I criticized his behavior only. I have not made disparaging remarks about his personal appearance, mental status etc.

I call the NC GOP-Mafia what I call them because that is how they conduct themselves, like organized crime. They hire operatives to threaten and intimidate myself and members of my family when we have appeared at public meetings. They have filed frivolous complaints to other candidates and authorities. If the real Mafia engaged in this type of behavior, you would label it criminal. Threats and harassment leveled at me and my family aimed at depriving myself of the right to run as a candidate or to stop members of my family from voting are crimes.

Regarding Justice Martin, I referenced that Goebbels' was a proponent of "the big lie" theory in which a lie is repeated so often that people believe it to be the truth. How would you characterize the behavior of someone who knows and has met you and truthful information about you but deliberately continues to misstate the truth or publish the falsehoods? I merely stated he was evidently an adherent of this theory. The Republican Party is running questionable ads in Tennessee against Harold Ford. I have been attacked unmercilessly. Why do you not condemn this behavior and only my conduct?

I have not started this conduct but I have the right to defend myself against the attacks and conduct of others. With regard to Mr. Robinson, I heard his misstatements about Brad Miller on the radio and as I know Mr. Robinson personally, I criticized his behavior.

2. You directly commented about your thoughts on comparative vs. contributory negligence. First, your example was flawed - if the other driver was drunk, that would be willful or wanton and contribute would not bar that claim? Are you a lawyer? Where do you get the idea that voluntary intoxication bars a contributory negligence claim? I gave that example, but we can change the facts slightly. How about make the defendant merele negligent by speeding or accidentally running a red light? My larger point is that we are a contributory negligence state, one of the states that are in the minority. This state should join the majority of states that have adopted a comparative fault analysis.

Secondly, are there not rules against judicial candidates talking about cases/issues that may come before them?

I explained that Republican Party of Minnesota v. White changed the rules. Judicial candidates have the same free speech rights enjoyed by other citizens. However, when judicial candidates do speak out, there is a possibility that the judge will have to rescue his or herself. I did not indicate how I would decide the issue. The caller asked about archaic laws and I pointed to this as an example. The question was answered two years ago at my website.

Also, should judges make law, or interpret law? Judicial activists are on the right or the left. Judges should respect the separation of powers and let legislatures pass laws. However, it is up to the judges to interpret and apply the law consistent with established rules of construction. You are confusing statutory law with the common law. Common law is judge-made law. It is a rule for deciding cases. Negligence and other torts or contract principles are an example. If judge-made law was wrongly decided or no longer consistent it ought to be overruled by the courts. Examples have been the Dread Scot case. Nobody today would accept the concept of slavery, yet this case provided that slaves were property and could be owned.

You seemed to imply that you would look for a case to apply comparative negligence - wouldn't that be making law?> I pointed to an example. I have not considered the question or the arguments for retaining or replacing contributory negligence with a comparative fault system.

Isn't it the role of the legislature to do that? Is this common law or statutory law? If common law, it is acceptable for judges to rule on it. In some states, the legislature has done just that. Perhaps our legislature should spend less time on the "booze cruise" or engaging in tactics to ram the lottery through and decide the issue.

3. You repeatedly call yourself a "Democrat," (though 2 years ago when running against a Democrat you called yourself the only true Republican in the race), yet you also say that you are "A Real Constitutionalist." In addition, you have repeatedly praised Justice Brady, who is not exactly liberal. Are you really a liberal and a Democrat, or are you just saying that to try and win this election?

I was a registered Republican until I was hounded and driven out of the party. Democrats have welcomed me for the most part. There are many kinds of Democrats, some are pro-life, gun-loving, conservative and Christian. As to why I have spoken of Justice Brady with praise, I have reviewed the Court's decisions and I find that for the most part, he is the only individual who has stood up for our Constitutional rights. I disagree with him about other issues. After trying different things, I decided I do not like party labels and I do not want to be labeled. Like most people, I have ideas about different issues and am "liberal" on some and "conservative" on others. I settled on Constitutionalist as I believe it ought to be upheld. The federal Constitution sets a floor - it was ended to be a limitation on the federal government and to leave all other powers to the states. What Justice(s) do you most admire on the U.S. Supreme Court? Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, etc., call themselves "Real Constitutionalists" and they are not liberal.

None of the current justices.

Where do you really stand? See above.

4. Whenever anyone brings up your lack of judicial experience, you always point to the fact that 2 other Justices didn't have trial experience prior to election. Given that many people think that judicial experience is a great idea for a Justice, and probably didn't support those candidates either, can you give an explanation that doesn't boil down to "I have as much qualifications as others" for why you are qualified? I point to the examples we have for a reason . We have had the opportunity now to evaluate those judges. If someone voted against them, judge how they have performed. Would you quarrel with the fact that Justice Brady appears to be a good justice?

I am tired of hearing about so-called judicial experience in the trial court. It is not needed at all for appellate work. All that is required is an ability to research and write. I have seen few trial judges who are really good writers or researchers. And I have seen bad law clerks and judges who tolerate that. You are entitled to hold a contrary view, but I have worked for judges and done the job. I know what is required and what is necessary and what is not.

5. You mentioned Gay Marriage and Gay Rights. Currently North Carolina Courts have interpreted our statutes and equal protection provisions of state law and our Constitution as not applying to sexual orientation. Do you believe that sexual orientation is a choice, or something people are born with, and should it be considered akin to race and therefore homosexuals offered equal protection under our laws, or should individuals and businesses be allowed to discriminate based upon sexual orientation? Our legislature has not addressed this issue, so it is likely that the Supreme Court will be the first to address this issue.

Why does it have to be nature or nurture? Why can't it be both? Why are you afraid of homosexuals? Why should they not be treated the same as other human beings? Did we not go through this issue already with the issue of race? Discrimination can be a good thing when dealing with tastes in food or clothes or home furnishings, but the government should treat similarly situated people alike. That is all I am suggesting. I am not stating that in all cases a homosexual wins or loses. Each case must be decided on its facts. Private individuals can do what they want, but they can't act in concert to deprive people of their constitutional rights.

6. Years ago, the Court of Appeals attempted to abolish "heart-balm" torts in the case of Cannon v. Miller. In a 1 paragraph opinion, the Supreme Court slapped them down, and reinstated the torts. Since then, the applicability of these torts has increased, what do you think about Alienation of Affection and Criminal Conversation?

Since the Court has chosen not to act, perhaps the legislature will act. However, the court may change composition, so perhaps the issue will arise in the future. I do not want to have to rescue myself and will not render an opinion .

7. Many statutes allow for the prevailing party to recover "costs." Unfortunately, the Court of Appeals is all over the place on what costs are allowable, issuing contradictory opinions on deposition costs, and other costs, with 1 panel saying they are allowed, and another panel saying they are not allowed (while looking at the same statutes, and in opinions issued on the same day). What costs do you think should be allowed?

I do not want to have to rescue myself and decline to offer an opinion. However, this illustrates the need for a conflict mechanism in the Court of Appeals so that inconsistencies of this kind will not arise. Failing that, our Supreme Court publishes less and less. This is one area where the state Supreme Court ought to render an opinion in the right case and provide definitive guidance to the Court of Appeals.

8. In January, your husband posted to a website that you were "contemplating a race for chief justice in 2006 so she can be the boss of the candidate who defeated her." Why are you really running? Is it really for this petty of a reason?

I already put this forth on my website. I am tired of our courts being places of injustice.

9. On that same website, your husband, Connie Mack, Jr., posted the following about your candidacy: "As to the Martin race, you know very well that I am somewhat favoring the other women candidate. As you predicted, it is already getting nasty with Judge Martin keeping quite about the attempted mugging that is taking place with those suppose republicans and democrats who like the judge. I believe Judge Manning found out about this group of republicans and democrats who did not exist in his last race. Now if I were the power behind the judicial think tank and sneaky enough. Here is what I would do to help Judge Martin. I would find a democrat women with a last name above H and of another race to really screw things up. However if that is the game plan, than what if the candidate apposing Judge Martin, suddenly has a name change at the last minute and a very well known professional sports star of the other race supports her, not counting a professional movie star of the patriot religious right coming off the bench in the 4 the quarter to seal it. Do you really think the expense of the elite thinking can top the name ID of a super model with this team being put on the floor for the final four?" My question is this: do you really think the voters of North Carolina are going to vote for you simply because you share a name with a supermodel? And, if you really think voters are that stupid, don't you think running against a candidate who shares a name with one of the most popular NASCAR drivers works against you? I know you will say "my husband is his own man" but seriously - he seems to claim that you consider this race to be a joke. Why should I take you seriously if your husband doesn't?

I am a registered voter in North Carolina who is NOT a fan of Justice Martin, and would love to see him off the Court. However, I have concerns about voting for you, for the reasons noted above. Please let me know why I should vote for you (and encourage my friends and colleagues to do so) rather than vote for Martin, or more likely, simply not vote in this race since both candidates seem distasteful?

Connie Mack Berry's comments are his own. Ask him to interpret what he meant. There are several Rachel Hunters, some fictional and some not. I am myself, not someone else and certainly not a supermodel. I have put out enough about myself and why I am running. You and your friends will have to decide whether you want to vote for the lesser of two evils or whether you can vote for either of us in good conscience.

Thanks,

Concerned NC Voter.

Q:
26 Oct 2006

Subject: Issues Questions

Rachel,

Are you liberal or Conservative?

Where do you stand on Illegal Immigration?

Morris' immigration reform plan include:

* Require businesses that do work for the state to verify a workers' immigration status

* Create stronger penalties for those caught making fake IDs

* Require the courts to verify the citizenship of any individual appearing in a state court

* Prohibit legal state residents from being bumped off public housing lists by illegals

* Require identification in order to receive state and local services

* Stiff punitive penalties for knowingly hiring illegal workers

* Prohibit illegal aliens from obtaining driver licenses by significantly tightening regulations

* Withhold funding to cities that participate in the sanctuary policy for illegal immigrants. The practice of sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants has allowed violent criminals to enter the country and commit crimes within in the United States. Morris believes that her common sense approach will stop North Carolina from acting like a magnet for illegal aliens.

How do you respond?

Darlene Hiatt
Concerned voter

A:
Are you liberal or Conservative?* Darlene

Neither. I am a Constitutionalist if you must put a label on it. *

Rachel

Where do you stand on Illegal Immigration?* Darlene

The poverty in Mexico is astonishing and it is no wonder that people are willing to risk all to make a better life for themselves and their families, even if it means gaining access by other than normal means. However, Thomas Jefferson recognized that if 50 million Americans went to France to live it would wreak havoc with the French country. It is no different today. The influx of millions of foreign citizens are causing havoc with the US.

What to do? There is not an easy answer. Building a wall is not a sensible means to address the real problem. The resources could be better spent, but even the wall is an illusion. The project has not been funded and will not take place. Other suggestions outlined below might be of small benefit in the short term. However, it ignores the fact that most people are not drawn to the US by the lure of entitlement benefits but by the desire for a better life.

Most of the wealth in Mexico is concentrated in the hands of a few while the many remain in abject poverty. All humans cannot live in one place on earth, whether that country is Mexico, the US, China or some other country. We, as a society, and those of other countries need to change society to make sure that all countries are decent places to live in and that mass emigration of they type we are seeing will not occur. I do not foresee that this will happen, even in the long term. Until it does, doing what are legislators are doing is akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It gives the impression of doing something, but in reality will do nothing.

Best Wishes

Rache Lea Hunter

Q:
24 Oct 2006

Subject: Election

To Ms. Rachel Lea Hunter,

May this reach you in peace of mind and health of body. My name is Robert Colon. I turned 18 this year, and can vote. When it comes to voting, isn't it very good to remember all the members of society and that which is most important? It might be correct to say that some of the most, if not the most, important issues are life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In our present day, can it be said that life or liberty or the pursuit of happiness or a combination of any of these is threatened for some, such as the elderly and the unborn? Perhaps it most certainly can.

Abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, assisted suicide, the denial of the freedom of institutions and doctors to refrain from actions they hold as immoral, the denial of the natural institution of marriage as the union of one woman and one man, cloning, and other things can harm. This does not mean that I am saying we should condemn those and show no love for those who participate in these. But, can we support anything that destroys life and violates human dignity? Please inform me on your views of and the action you would take on these issues. Thank you and may God bless you.

Robert Colon

A: Dear Mr. Colon,

Have you been to my website and read some of my comments about the handicapped, the unborn and the elderly? Personally, I think it is a disgrace the way America treats these citizens. I long for the day when all children will be welcomed into society and all people, regardless of age or physical challenges, will be treated with dignity and respect. Unfortunately, we are not there yet, not by a longshot.

As a judge, it is our duty to follow the law. Right now, the law regarding abortion has been determined by our US Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. If it is overturned, the matter will fall to the states. This is a legislative issue, not really a judicial one and I do not think that the issue should be left up to 7 people to decide how the rest of us ought to live. That is why we have legislators and they are uniquely suited to debate this very emotional issue. Failing that, perhaps it ought to be put as a referendum on the ballot.

All of the other things you discuss may or may not come before the court. I cannot promise how I would rule in any given situation as it will depend on the facts of the case, the law of this state, possibly the law of other states or the law of the US Supreme Court. I do not want to have to recuse myself in such a case. All I can promise is that the advocates and parties from all sides are entitled to a fair and impartial hearing.

As a general rule of thumb, however, I would err on the side of life, whether we are talking about the things you mentioned or talking about the death penalty.

I hope this answers your questions.

Best wishes,

Rachel

Q:
Ms.Hunter,

Can you please tell me where do you stand on illegal immigration??

Sincerely,

Marie
A:
Dear Ms. Hernandez,

I do not know if illegal immigration issues will come before our Supreme Court directly, although the issues might arise tangentially.

I have thought long and hard about this problem and there are no easy answers. It seems to escape our politicians is that building a wall is not the answer. Nor is a guest-worker program.

Most of the people that come here do not come for welfare or other benefits. They are paid extremely low wages in their areas. In Mexico, for example, the bulk of the wealth is held by a select few, while the masses live at or near poverty, in cardboard shacks, with no running water. I have been there and have seen some of the abject poverty. It is enough to break your heart. The Mexican government and those who have wealth there have a vested interest in keeping the system going. They can send poor people here and can continue to keep the wealth for themselves.

If you were in such a country and you could double your salary, even illegally, would you not escape from such a life for your and your family's benefit? Of course you would. And I can understand why the prospect of a better life in America drives such folks to pay "coyotes" to help them get here or to come here by other illegal means.

I can also understand the problems that unbridled immigration causes, whether it's with the hospitals, schools, crimes or social services. As Thomas Jefferson commented, if millions of Americans were transplanted suddenly to France, it would wreak havoc with their governmental system, as the immigration is causing problems in our own system.

What to do? It would be great if instead of building a wall, we directed our efforts and those of foreign countries to make all places attractive to live so that we would not have a mass exodus to any one particular place. There are billions of people and we cannot all occupy China, the USA, Mexico or any other place. Unfortunately, our leaders do not seem interested in truly making the world a better place for ALL of us to live. They are more concerned with providing cheap labor or doing what will benefit them to hang onto power.

I do not like the idea of wasting money to build a wall or the other solutions that some proposed of throwing them out. Yes, some may have criminal backgrounds and I can understand the need for some type of procedure to have an orderly admission. The system we have is clearly broke.

I hope this gives you a better understanding of my position. I am not vehemently opposed to immigrants, but I do understand the legitimate concerns caused by an overwhelming influx. I think we all ought to be able to live and work where we are happiest.

Best wishes,

Rachel

Q:
20 Oct 2006

Subject: Candidate Profile for Lumina News

Hi,

The Lumina News in Wrightsville Beach would like to run profiles of the candidates for the November election. We need a brief bio and a response to three questions. Also, if you could send us a photo by email, we'd like to include that as well. If we need to find another way to get a photo, let me know. Please reply as soon as possible and by Tuesday morning, Oct. 24 at the latest.

Here's what we need:

Age:
Residence (city):
Profession:
Education:
Experience:
Family:

What issues do you think are the most important to voters in this race, and what is your stance on those issues?

What do you see as the most important distinction between yourself and your opponents?

In addition to serving the community, why is it important to you personally to be elected to this position?

Please limit your responses to a total of 300 words.

Thanks for your help.

Jules Norwood
Staff Writer
Lumina News http://www.luminanews.com/
910-256-6569 ext. 110

jules@luminanews.com
A:
Age: 45

Residence (city): Cary, NC

Profession: attorney

Education: JD, 1983, BS Chemistry, 1983

Experience: Practiced law for 18 years; 6 years in private practice doing appeals; spent 12 years working for trial and appellate courts; wrote over 500 opinions for judges that I worked for;

Family: no children, a cat (Mr. Mephistopheles) and a dog (Maximus)

What issues do you think are the most important to voters in this race, and what is your stance on those issues?

Our judicial system is broke and our courts have more often become places of injustice. Justice is meted out only to those who can afford it. Some of our laws and rules are archaic, non-existent or if they do exist are less than clear. Our courts need to be modernized. We need to bring back the concept of justice, to revise rules or laws to the extent that it can be done or to provide mechanisms to ensure that constitutional rights are protected.

What do you see as the most important distinction between yourself and your opponents?

I have stood for the enforcement of individuals' rights. I had the first "driving while black case" and determined that evidence should be suppressed where an individual was stopped just because he was African American. I had one of the early DNA cases and determined that a convicted defendant should be given the DNA test that he asked for and it exculpated an innocent man who spent 4 years of his life in jail. I have walked the walk. When given the chance to stand up for the rights of defendants, for fathers or for property owners, my opponent did not do it. I will.

In addition to serving the community, why is it important to you personally To be elected to this position?

Please see my website at www.rachelforjustice.com where I have written about various topics affecting our legal system. This election is important, regardless of political affiliation. It is important to our state and to our country. We as a society have been headed in the wrong direction, from the War in Iraq to issues at home. We have seen the arrogance and corruption, whether in Washington, D.C. or in North Carolina. This election presents a chance for us to do something about it. We can continue or we can try something else. I represent an alternative to the established way of doing things and a new direction.

Rachel Lea Hunter

Q:
Dear Sir or Madam;

We would like to introduce ourselves. We are a group of high school students that print a paper monthly in Western North Carolina. Our goal is to encourage future teen voters as well as their parents and friends to vote. Our audience has been foretold of our project to contact all of the candidates on the ballots and ask the questions they want answered. Everyone is very excited, and therefore we present these questions to you for our paper which is scheduled to print at the end of August. We will identify you and your response. We will also identify all candidates that did not respond or were unwilling to participate. This is an enormous opportunity for you to encourage local voters as well as future voters by participating.

Thank You!
A:
Dear Teens,

Thank you for attempting to educate the voters and getting the word out. Regardless of political party affiliation, this election is important for our state and for our country. You are to be applauded for taking such an interest.

1. Where were you born?

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. I have been coming to North Carolina to work or visit family and friends for over 30 years. I am a Yankee by birth, but a Southerner by choice.

2. Do you think it is right for the state to make choices for women on abortion, or should it be left to the woman? Basically, where do you stand on this issue?

I have stated my position on abortion at my website at www.rachelforjustice.com. Personally, I am a Catholic and I revere life. I welcome the day when the birth of a child is an event to be celebrated. If elected, it would be my job to enforce the laws and right now, Roe v. Wade is the law. It has to be followed, not matter how much I agree or disagree with it personally. If it is overturned, the matter will go to the states. I cannot predict how I would rule, but it would be in accordance with the law, not personal feelings. However, I do not think it is up to me or anyone else to tell someone else that they must live according to my tenets and this issue should be left up to the people, not seven justices.

3. Do you support the 2nd amendment?

Yes. And all of the others among the first 10.

4. How do you support our veterans?

I am not sure what you are asking. Do you mean, do I support the troops? I am against the War in Iraq and believe it is a fiasco as others have stated. We should order the troops to leave immediately. I believe that is supporting the troops-I respect their life and their bodies and want them to come home unharmed and safe.

I also believe that when war to defend oneself become necessary, that the troops should be equipped adequately. They should not be taken advantage of by unscrupulous people and I encounter this frequently. Charging them outrageous interest or failing to fix their interest rates or suspend their obligations while they are deployed is not supporting the troops.

After the troops come home, they are frequently shunted off to receive VA care if they are ill or maimed. I am sorry to say that this care is not the always the best. For people who put their life on the line fous, we as a society, can and should treat them better. And the government has a lot to answer for as in the many cases involving Agent Orange or Gulf War syndrome.

5. Do you believe that homosexual unions or marriages should be legal?

I am a heterosexual. This issue is really a red herring. This is not about marriage, but about benefits, i.e., property rights. There aresolutions to these issues if the legislature wants to address them other than marriage. However, religions are free to define marriage as they wish. The state has become entangled in the marriage business, when this should be a matter of contract between two parties. Either the state can get out of regulating marriage or it can treat all people equally as it is mandated to do by our state and federal constitutions.

6. Do you agree with the war in Iraq? If not, then why?

See my answer in part to number 4. No, I have stated that I am against this war. I am against this war for many reasons. It was unnecessary and unconstitutional as Congress did not declare war as it is supposed to do. We were lied to about the need for war. We declared "Mission Accomplished" but we are still in Iraq. We have not improved the lives of the citizens. The country has descended into civil war between the Kurds, Sunnis and Shias. It is wrong to impose our western culture and values on people with a mentality in the middle ages who do not share or want these values. We have created more terrorists by our tactics and presence.

7. If you were to vote on NAFTA or CAFTA, would you be for or against these issues?

I would have voted against them. These bills have destroyed what was left of American manufacturing. Textiles and furniture are now gone. Labor and manufacturing is now outsourced to third-world places or China where labor is cheap and products are subsidized by the government.

8. What are your thoughts on the safety of our schools, and how do you plan to contribute to a better environment?

We need to re-think our whole educational system. Kids today may know facts or what to think, but not how to think. Teach them to think and they can make their own decisions.

Some of the school shootings are by disgruntled citizens or children. They feel alienated by society and they do these awful things. We need to find a better way of doing things to break the cycle. Break the cycle and the violence will end.

As for our environment, I believe in wise use. Our Earth is rich in resources for us to use. But we need to understand that all living things have needs, although some are greater than others. We need to understand that we cannot go on building endless landfills or polluting the environment as that environment sustains us. There are things we can do to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but our current government has no interest in doing that. We could reduce our dependence on energy by equipping homes in sunny areas wi solar panels and by selling excess energy to the power company. These are just some options. We need to have a dialogue about all options and choose what is best, not just what is good for a corporation's profit margin.

9. If you were to name one thing that motivated you daily, what would it be?

God.

Q:
9 Oct 2006

Re: MTBE

Rachel,

MTBE made rather large publicity when 60 minutes did a 40 minute spot on it, highlighting the Santa Monica public water system that was poisoned with the gasoline additive and resulted in closing of their public water system.

MTBE is an ether, a high octane molecule that the oil industry learned to spike gasoline with. They make big money with it by using it to boost octane rating in otherwise questionable gasoline. They can put refinery waste in gasoline as a result, basically disposing of their waste in our gasoline tanks. Nice idea if you don't have to breath the air.

MTBE is such a bad idea that they decided to pass a law that it remains in our gasoline. This made it harder for ethical refineries to do the right thing and compete against this policy. As a result, refineries went broke and were bought up and thus the consolidation of the oil industry which is one of the reasons we have spiking oil prices.

The state of Alaska waged war against MTBE in 1992, the year it was implemented in their state. They won, banned the chemical in 1993, finding it was getting into the blood of citizens, possibly causing issues with their health.

They were also concerned with the aldehydes (chemicals such as formaldehyde, acetyl aldehyde) that are emitted from exhaust of burning MTBE. The oil industry and EPA know all about the negatives of burning MTBE, they chose to ignore them.

That being said, in 1995, it was implimented in gasoline around the country. I could detect the change in our air quality which prompted me to call the EPA and do my own research into this gasoline policy. I do think that there have been health effects to the public, asthma, anxiety and other issues that are not well documented and hard to trace to air quality but that is largely due to our ignorance of the facts.

The state of Alaska did a health study on it's population leading to the banning of this chemical. I only wish we in the 49 states could get the same protection. I'd really like to know whether the air I breath is tainted with this or other undetected chemicals, a direct result of the oil industry exchanging bad air for profit. This is about bad policy. Gasoline can be a more friendly chemical when it's refined with the proper controls.

Unocal oil company won a large settlement, saying that their patents on formulations of gasoline were used without paying them royalties. If they can win, I'd like to think the public can win, as we pay for 'clean' gasoline formulations that are not really 'clean' gasoline formulations. In addition, I did some random gasoline testing and every sample I tested violated the Clean Air Act amendment of 1990. Therefore, I'd also be curious if there is a legal remedy for health effects generated from gasoline that does not meet 'clean air act' specifications.

Sincerely, Roger

reference unocal sues for royalties - Google Search

A:
Dear Roger,

Yes, I had heard about MTBE. This illustrates what happens at times. We think we are solving one problem and we create another just as bad.

I don't know what the solution is. We need to find another way and get off our dependence on oil. If we can send a man to space, we can find a way to have clean cars and to not pollute the environment with chemicals like MTBE that will ultimately come back to harm us.

Best wishes,

Rachel

Q:
10 Oct 2006

Re: On the Campaign Trail Toward Victory With Max

Your emails are always enjoyable. I especially liked your take on the four cases you reviewed a few weeks ago. Up until now, you had my vote. Now I'm not so sure. From your most recent email:

"What has been happening in Carteret is that real estate developers come in from elsewhere. They apply for permission to put up a development. Permission has been granted by the Republican-controlled commissioners, without any thought to its impact on the community."

So, does this mean that, as a Supreme Court Justice, you will be hostile to the rights of private property owners? People who already developed their own real property now have domain over those property owners who have not yet developed theirs? A deliberately ineffective bureaucracy can use the lack of infrastructure as a reason to expand their power over people?

Can you clarify your stance on property rights?

Randall Stroud

A:
Dear Mr. Stroud,

I would be happy to clarify my stance. It has not changed - I understand property rights. I don't like the fact that the US Supreme Court abrogated private property rights in Kelo v. City of New London and held that municipalities can take away private property to benefit developers because it will increase the tax base. I talked a few weeks ago about the case in North Carolina, Westminster Homes v. Town of Cary, where our state Supreme Court said it was permissible for a municipality to deny homeowners the right just to install gates in a barrier so they could access their property. The effect of this decision is to take a portion of the homeowners' property without giving them anything for it.

I also understand the need for legitimate businesses, like real estate developers, to make a profit. Profit is not evil and all real estate developers are not bad people. However, I do not worship at the altar of the Almighty dollar. With rights come responsibilities, although that is seldom discussed. With profit comes the obligation to recognize that all living things, including other humans, have needs as well.

What has happened in Carteret County is that developers have come in. There has been NO planning. When even mild limits have been proposed, the Republican commissioner has dismissed concerns out of hand and labeled the proponent a "socialist."

This is turning a deaf ear to the legitimate issues that have been raised. Roads cannot handle the increased traffic. With the influx of people comes the increased need for schools. These are expensive items and the citizens, as usual, have to pay for it. Some people have lived there for generations but can no longer afford to do so because of the taxes.

All the people want is an equal voice and the opportunity to be heard. No solution is perfect and not everyone gets what they want all of the time. But people ought to be able to discuss differences in a reasonable tone, without being labeled in derogatory terms, and they ought to be able to arrive at a reasonable solution that benefits all, or at least the bulk of the citizens as well as the real estate developers.

In answer to your question, no, I am not hostile to real estate developers and if they have an issue before the courts, they are entitled to a fair and unbiased consideration, just as other citizens are entitled to the same. What I am against is the unbridled, one-sided way of doing things with no thought or care about consequences. Nor am I hostile to the rights of property owners. Balance and placing the needs of humans over the need for money are the keys.

Hope this answers your question. Some people are "one-issue" voters. If you don't agree with them on their key issue, whether its abortion, gay marriage or something else, they refuse to vote for you. I understand such people, but it is my view that this behavior is ultimately shortsighted. You have to look at the total person and where they stand on a variety of issues to see if they are someone you could vote for. A good way to look at it is to place yourself in the position of the father who was fighting for custody of his child, or a person convicted of a crime, or a property owner. Would the candidate be more or less inclined to listen to what the litigant has to say? You will have to make that choice.

Best wishes,

Rachel

Q:
9 Oct 2006

Subject: Are you on the ballot?

Dear Ms. Hunter,

I looked up Demoratic justices to vote for and I didn't see you on the ballot. Is this a write in campaign?

Thanks

R.Mills

Swansboro,NC
A:
Dear Mr. Mills,

No it is not. Some parties have chosen to list me on their website and some have not. However, I am listed on the actual ballot and that is what counts.

Best wishes,

Rachel

A:
Dear Mr. Austin:

I have received your letter of October 2nd. Congratulations on trying to educate yourself about the candidates. You are to be commended for that. Since you have written, I assume you are not fortunate enough to have a computer. If it is possible, I would encourage you to get access to one, either through a friend or neighbor, or at your public library. Most of the judicial candidates have websites where you can read about the judges. My website is www.rachelforjustice.com. I have a wealth of information there about myself.

You want to know where I stand on the following issues:

1. What do you consider the most important elements of the job of associate justice of the NC Supreme Court?

Most people do not realize what our appellate courts do and I am glad that you asked this question. While I worked at the appellate courts, I found a change in our law that had been missed by one of the other judges on the panel. His clerk confided to me that he had indeed missed the change, which was important. When I brought it to the attention of the judge that I worked for, he asked me, "how is it that you find these things?" I answered, "because I take the time and I look for them."

The ability to research and write is the primary job of the court. I still take the time to look and question. The judges and attorneys that I have worked for over the past 18 years have recognized my skills. I wrote over 500 opinions for the judges that I worked for, some of which ended up being adopted by our state Supreme Court. For the past 6 years, I have been in private practice doing appeals in federal and state courts. I have superior research and writing abilities and I want to put these talents to work for the citizens of this state.

2. What skills are required to perform this job and what skills would you bring to the job? See answer to question 1.

3. Why should I select you over your opponent?

I have written about this extensively at my website. Again, I encourage you to go there where I talked about some cases in which he participated. He has had the chance to stand up for the constitutional rights of the citizens and he has not done so. He thinks it is constitutionally permissible for an individual to wait 6 years for a trial transcript so he can appeal. He thinks it is constitutionally permissible for an individual to wait 4 years in jail just to enter a guilty plea. He thinks it is constitutionally permissible for the state to retroactively increase your income tax even though the state constitution says otherwise. There are more cases like this.

The salient point is that each time the question arises as to whether someone's constitutional rights are violated, my opponent can find no problem. My opponent is supported by the Christian Coalition and its efforts to turn this state into a religious theocracy. My opponent has mysteriously transferred almost $14,000.00 in one month to a young man for "political consulting services" even though he has hired an expert political consultant. This transaction smells - something is rotten about it.

You have to make up your own mind. If religious intolerance, corruption and violations of constitutional rights are what you want, then vote for my opponent. If you are a person of open mind, if you want someone that when confronted with the chance to do something right because it is the right thing to do no matter how unpopular, if you want someone who will stand up for our constitutional rights and the separation of church and state, if you are someone who knows that we can do better and that we need to change course in our society to survive, then consider voting for someone like me.

Best wishes,

Rachel Lea Hunter

Candidate for Associate Justice, Supreme Court

A:
Dear Mr. Wilson:

I have received your letter of September 29th. Congratulations on trying to educate yourself about the candidates. You are to be commended for that. Since you have written, I assume you are not fortunate to have a computer. If it is possible, I would encourage you to get access to one, either through a friend or neighbor, or at your public library. Most of the judicial candidates have websites where you can read about the judges. My website is www.rachelforjustice.com. I have a wealth of information there about myself.

You want to know where I stand on the following issues:

Crime - Its up to legislators to pass laws for our well-being and it is up to judges to uphold the laws if they are constitutional and to strike them down if they are not. This applies equally to civil law as well as criminal.

Of course, no one is pro-crime. If the law is proper and has been transgressed, the convicted individual must face punishment. However, as a society, we need to examine the wisdom of the laws we have passed. We have a prison industry in our state that is devoted to building more prisons and passing more laws to make criminals of us all. We need to have a conversation about whether we should proceed in this direction or whether we need to try something new. We need to look at alternative forms of punishment as it does society and the convicted person no good for the convicted person to be warehoused/institutionalized for long periods of time. There have been too many innocent individuals who have been set free after long periods of incarceration. For this reason, it is time for us to re-examine the death penalty.

Church vs. State - there should be a separation of church and state. I myself am a Catholic, but I do not seek to impose my Catholicism on other Christians, members of other faiths or non-believers. Members of the Christian Coalition, for example, have tried to enforce their religion on everyone else. The courts should not be tools, either of the left or the right, to impose an ideology on anyone. Everyone should be free to personally worship or not as they choose. People of faith can be a part of government and can serve in government, but government should not promote one religion over another. Truth be told, no religion is the correct one.

Workers' rights - We have a corporate culture in this country that is focused on the dollar and making a profit. I understand the need for profit. Profit is not an evil, but it must be tempered by decency and by doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do. Humans should not be subservient to profit. People should not be forced to work in unsafe places or workers should not work for low wages so the CEO, corporation or stockholders can earn profit.

Voters' rights - Would any judge say they are against them? Of course I would be for the promotion of these rights. If these rights are not exercised, they will ultimately be taken away from you. It is incumbent on the candidates to do what they can to be heard and get their message out as I have tried to do. It is equally the responsibility of the voter to educate his or her self. As a society, we can do things to increase voter participation, like making all races non-partisan and letting principles, not party labels or mud-slinging be the rule. We can prohibit the wealth that flows from lobbyists to politicians.

Family values - why is this a concern of government? Religions can define marriage as they wish. If the issue arises, I am biased neither for nor against homosexuals or heterosexuals. However, the state should not be regulating the affairs of two mentally competent consenting adults.

Equal rights - We are entitled to equal protection of the law under our constitution. Why should a homosexual person be treated differently than a heterosexual person in a particular job? Or a woman and a man in the same job? Or an elderly worker who is let go for a younger worker so a corporation can pay the younger employee less money? I would fairly and impartially apply the law to all who come before the court.

Women's Rights - Could you be more specific? There are issues of violence, issues of reproduction and issues of equal pay for equal work, for example. I don't know where to start. All I can say is that I strive to be fair if the issue comes before the court.

A man's right to decide what happens to his unborn child -I long for the day when all children will be wanted and these questions will be moot. What if a woman wants a child and a man does not? Should the man be relieved of a duty to support the child? After all, he helped create it. What if a woman wants to abort a child and a man wants to have it? What right does he have to force her to incubate the child for nine months? It is not that simple. Again, if the case arises before the court, I can only promise to fairly and impartially decide the case based on the law and the evidence as presented by the parties.

Gray rights - are you referring to the rights of senior citizens? See my answer under the question about equal rights.

Drugs - are you referring to the War on Drugs? I do not advocate drug use. But we have many addictions in our society. Gambling, alcohol or tobacco use is all legal, yet we have addictions to all and it also wreaks havoc with lives or even results in death. Yet we only ban drugs. We as a society needs to re-think the War on Drugs, as it is failed to curb drug usage, has resulted in harsh nonsensical laws, more imprisonment and an incentive for individuals to become involved in the drug trade because of the obscene profits. Take the profit away and regulate drug usage the way alcohol and tobacco are regulated and there will be less crime and less drug usage.

Best Wishes.

Rachel Lea Hunter

Q:
29 Sep 2006

From: Richard XXXXX

Subject:I need help with fraud in Canada

Dear Rachel,

My name is Richard XXXXXX from Van Nuys, CA. A company called Silver Capital Management has scammed me out of $17,000 and I do not have the funds to pay back my bank. Kindly let me explain.

I was contacted by a company nemed Zy Pharmaceuticals of China to act as a collector of debts since they were having problems with clients in the North American market paying their bills. I would receive a percentage for assisting them receive from their clients.

The first client was Silver Capital Management of Ontario, Canada (I believe.) I contact a Dr. Murphy Gordon who wrote:

Dear Sir.

We wish to acknowledge the receipt of your mail and respond thus; That your Equity account Bank coordinate and payment file have been forwarded to our Canadian office to effect the wire transfer,you are therefore required to immediately contact the undersign for the wire transfer.

Name: Timothy Han (Head of Operation)
Company; Silverhill Hill Capital Management
Telephone: 1-514-568-7332.

We remain most obliged

Yours faithfully,

FOR; SILVERHILL CAPITAL MANAGEMENT

Dr Murphy Gordon

I then contacted Mr. Timothy Han who agreed to transfer $17,000.00 into my bank account. Once I received payment, I would be instructed where to send for Zy Pharmaceuticals.

I did receive payment and was pressured, by Mr. Han to send to U-Land Enterprises in Toronto, Canada. Immediately upon payment to U-Land Enterprises, the original $17,000.00 was withdrawn from my bank because Silver Capital Management had sent a bogus wire to my bank (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.)

I contacted Mr. Timothy Han who acted as though he knew the original wire transfer was bogus. He said he could not send another wire to correct until I received the monies back from U-Land Enterprises. I contacted my bank to get a recall. They have continued to say that U-Land Enterprises will not authorize the recall because it is not with their bank. My bank says it is.

However, the problem lies with Silver Capital Management because they sent the original bogus and fraudulent wire to begin with and will not correct their deceit. I am now responsible for $17,000.00 to pay back to my bank and do not have this kind of money. My account has been suspended and I am broke. I cannot pay my bills and need help. Are you able to assist?

I feel as if this is total fraud and conspiracy between Silver Capital Management and U-Land Enterprises. Zy Pharmaceuticals will not assist either because they want a tracer number from my bank who has continued to say a tracer is not needed if they know where the money is and have given me a copy of the recall notice to U-Land Enterprises. What should I do? $17,000.00 is a lot of money.

Regards,

Richard
Van Nuys, CA 91406
A:
Dear Mr. Richard XXXXX,

I am very sorry to learn of your predicament. The facts sound very much like one of the variants of the "Nigerian" scam that goes around. It does not have anything to do with Nigeria necessarily. In the variation you described, you are contacted by a foreigner who promises to deliver you a check or a wire transfer in this case. The check/wire is bogus.

Do not rely on your bank to tell you the truth. Often, banks cannot detect that checks or wires are false. At worst, they will lie to you as did Bank of America in a recent California case involving a young man who was also scammed and arrested. In that case, Bank of America has refused to compensate the young man for his legal expenses incurred to clear his name. Specifically, Bank of America relies on a California law which shields it from liability. I am not licensed in California and can only relate what I have heard about the case, but if this is true, it is doubtful that your bank would have any liability either.

In the scam, you deposit or receive the fake funds and then send real money back to someone else. By the time your bank learns of the fraud, the real criminals are long gone with the money and your bank then comes looking at you. I don't mean to discourage you, but forget about locating the criminals as it is unlikely that they will be found and if they are found, it is doubtful that they will have your money.

Banks need to come up with a better method of preventing fraud of this type. However, there is a corporate culture that makes it easier for the criminals to engage in this conduct. Perhaps if enough individuals can get together and have a class action, maybe something will be done. It is not right and it is not fair and little people are being hurt by the banks' conduct in acting as an enabler for this type of crime.

Meanwhile, there is the problem of returning the funds to your bank. You are right, $17,000.00 is a great deal of money to anyone. Here are some things you can do:

(1) Report the crime to the US Secret Service; the closest field office to you appears to be in Los Angeles. Their phone number is 213-894-4830. Here is the website and you can check for a closer office: http://www.secretservice.gov/field_offices.shtml

(2) Report these activities to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; their website is: http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca. Depending on how you were initially contacted, you might be directed back to a US agency.

(3) You do not have $17,000.00 to pay back at once. Schedule a meeting with your branch bank manager and see what can be worked out regarding a payment plan with the bank so that you can repay the debt over time.

(4) Failing all else, what do you want to do? File bankruptcy? This may be an option if the bank will not budge and if you have other debts. Use this only as an option of last resort.

Again, I am sorry that you were taken in by this scam. I have dealt with others. The best thing that you and others can do is avoid any transaction involving foreigners because of the Nigerian scams. Typical red flags are the kind of solicitation or "too good to be true" type of offer that you received. If in doubt, have the transaction reviewed by someone else, even an attorney.

Best wishes,

Rachel

Q:
September 27, 2006

Subject: ED Cone asks MJ

Rachel:

I don't recall saying he should talk to the media. Not really my issue. I've been more concerned with the longterm pattern of inappropriate and erratic behavior. The death threat thing doesn't look so great, either.

Hearing you, a candidate for the State Supreme Court, explain away Connie's conviction like a jailhouse lawyer is not an encouraging sign.

I would like to hear more info about Connie being "the man behind the 'Contract with America' and Newt Gingrich's 'Republican Revolution.'" Big claims, those.

Posted by: Ed Cone | Sep 27, 2006 at 07:14 AM
A:
Mr. Cone:

I do not waste my time reading your hypocritical blog. However, the statements from your blog were brought to my attention and I read them, so I know about the comments made by you, Doug Clark and John Hood.

As I stated, what was done is done. Its not my responsibility to prove Connie's innocence. Since you are so convinced of the accuracy of the story and want to hear more about Newt Gingrich, why don't you see the country and travel to Georgia and Florida to get at the real facts of the cases and really learn who Connie is? You won't, of course, as you are too lazy and even if you did, you will not present a balanced picture because of your own pre-conceived notions. Its much easier just to cast aspersions.

Connie articulated the stories in greater detail to me, including the ones about Newt Gingrich, the Republican Revolution and Jesse Ventura. After hearing his depiction of real events, I am convinced that the charges were politically motivated by his enemies and that Connie did not commit the crimes to which he entered nolo pleas which were done for his own reasons. But why are incidents of 10 or 20 years ago relevant in any way? Is Connie on the ballot? What office is he running for?

What erratic behavior are you referring to? You still don't get it, do you? You can't see why things were done as they were done and you and the other "journalists" have unwittingly helped in the process. I have told you all along to just shut up and ignore me. Instead, you have given me tons of free publicity and boosted my name identification. Thanks.

As for the death threats, there is an individual with a psychopathic obsession with me residing in Cary. An attempt was made to intimidate Connie by "The Fixer." And other very ugly things have been said which I will not repeat, including threats to get me. After going through my surgeries, I do not fear death. However, I take sensible precautions as anyone would do if they were in my position.

You yourself said to me, "I hope people have not lost their humanity and decency." However, you are among those who made derogatory comments about me. You have shown yourself to be a phony and a hypocrite. You are a card-carrying member of the neo-con beast I talked so much about. Now others see that.

Rachel Lea Hunter

Q:
Spriingdale Baptist Church
4309 Auburn-Knightdale Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27610

The Honorable Rachel Lea Hunter

A candiate information booklet is being created to provide information regarding you and your candidacy. We would thoroughly appreciate your participation.

Sincerely,

Reverend Danial Sanders

A:
Dear Reverend Danial Sanders

I had surgery to remove a non-cancerous brain tumor last year. Unfortunately, the surgery left my face paralyzed and I had to have a second surgery to implant a weight in my eye so it will close. The tumor recurred and I underwent radiation. None of this affected me cognitively, but that is the reason for my appearance.

I grew up with the law and began early attending my father’s trials, talking with his clients and working in his law office. I graduated from law school in the top third of my class and have been practicing for almost 18 years. I spent 12 years working for the trial and appellate courts. The judges’ names are on the opinions, but the words and ideas are mine; I was blessed that they recognized my writing talent and permitted me to write. For the past 6 years, I have been engaged in private practice doing federal and state appeals in all areas of the law.

While I worked for the courts, I wrote over 500 opinions. It is a rarity, but I have a very broad base of knowledge in many areas. I know how judges think and act. I have reviewed numerous trial transcripts. I have the skills, knowledge and qualification to do the work and I want to put my talents to use for the citizens of this state.

Our state is facing great challenges. Our judicial system requires better funding and modernization to handle its ever-increasing caseload. Some of our laws and rules are archaic or non-existent and they must be changed to ensure that constitutional rights are accorded to all litigants. We need to bring the courts to the people and make them more visible. Above all, we need to restore the concept of justice for all. I have articulated in greater detail why I am seeking office at my website at www.rachelforjustice.com.

Thank you.

Rachel Lea Hunter

Q:
13 Sep 2006

Re: "Justice" Martin Slings Republican Mud

Dear Rachel Lea Hunter: I know you are busy but I would like to reveal to you how badly my parents were treated by the courts here in Georgia. Briefly, my father signed a so-called will one year after he had had a major stroke in 1997 and was left with dementia. This 1998 document looks to be a forgery. It left out his wife of 50+ years totally. Two previous wills of his left everything to her. On the face of the new so-called "will", he had writen in pencil: "what interest does this leave to my wife?" The court has denied an exam of the signature (ink analysis) which would not have cost the court anything nor delayed anything. The judge just denied it and left everything as is. My thinking is that this is obstructive in nature and ignores a probable forgery. So, as a result, estate taxes had to be paid since his wife was left out of this will. Sorry to bother you but where do I go from here??? Your input will be very much appreciated!!!

Sincerely,

James A. Ehlers in Atlanta
A:
Dear Mr. Ehlers:

My first advice to your mother is to get an attorney.

In many states, there is something called an "elective share" that is awarded to a decedent's spouse. That means that no matter what the will says, the surviving spouse cannot be disinherited. However, these rights must usually be asserted within a time period after death or the issuance of letters to the personal representative.

I have researched the Georgia Probate Code. Unfortunately, there is no elective share in Georgia except for spouses who are under the age of 18 years, which is not your case. What to do?

Your mother could file something called a "caveat." That is a fancy Latin term. What it really means is that it is a formal objection to the will. The caveat would be filed to the will that purportedly left your mother out and which contained the penciled in handwriting. The judge is under no obligation to order anything for you. He or she is not being mean. The court is much like an arbiter or an umpire. He or she has to be fair to all sides. It is up to you to present evidence so the judge can render a decision, not the responsibility of the judge to do your homework for you. If you want to "play ball" in the judge's ballpark, then you have to play by the judge's rules. It may not seem fair, but that is the system we have. However, I would agree with you that too often our courts become places of injustice rather than justice.

If you wish to challenge the penciled handwriting, it will be up to your mother to hire a handwriting expert or other writing analyst to render an opinion. This evidence will have to be given to the court and the personal representative. Often, if the personal representative wants to avoid an expensive lawsuit for the estate, so he or she will enter into a family settlement agreement.

But your mother has to file the caveat first. The caveat can also contend that at the time your father made his will, which was after his stroke, he was suffering from dementia and did not know what he was doing. Your mother will have to present evidence or testimony from his doctors opining that his stroke and dementia prohibited him from knowing what he was doing, what he owned or that his wife would be the logical beneficiary of his estate.

In addition, see who benefits from the will as it stands. Where does the money and property go? If it goes to an outsider rather than your mother, ask yourself why would they get the money? Did they stand in a position to control your father and did they somehow induce him to make a will leaving your mother out? You say that the 1998 will was a forgery. That too can be the basis of a caveat. If successful, the caveat will knock out the will that was made after the stroke and the assets will pass as if your father either had no will or as per his prior will.

Another possibility is that perhaps the evidence will show that the last will was valid but that the penciled handwriting shows that the disinheritance was accidental rather than intentional. If it can be shown that your father really meant to include your mother they will allow her to receive part of his estate.

Where does this case stand procedurally? Was a caveat ever filed? Can it still be filed? Can objections to the judge's decision be raised? If so, can the judge's decision be appealed now or at time of the final confirmation of the estate?

That is why I recommend that your mother seek an attorney specializing in probate litigation. You can search the yellow pages, but a more effective method might be to talk to the court clerks to see who they would recommend if they needed a lawyer to handle estate litigation. Another idea is to ask the local bar association if they maintain a list of referral attorneys for this type of work. This is a specialized area of the law and you need someone who is familiar with the rules and procedures of probate court. Do not go to attorneys who do mostly other types of cases.

Lastly, I don't mean to pry, but what kind of an estate are we dealing with here? Are there significant assets? If so, then they are worth spending the money to fight for. If there is not much in the estate, ask whether it will be cost effective for your mother to spend money litigating this case and hiring handwriting or medical experts if she will not get very much out of it anyway. I do not want to sugarcoat this. Most people do not realize that litigation can be very costly. If money is not an object for your mother, then, by all means, proceed.

Best Wishes

Rachel

Q:
13 Sep 2006

RE: "Justice" Martin Slings Republican Mud

"What this case makes clear to me is that there is no real mechanism in North Carolina to ensure a timely preparation of a criminal defendant's trial transcript. This case illustrates the need for a change. If elected, I will work for the adoption of rules providing for a mechanism to resolve this matter so that this does not happen again."

Maybe you can work on the budget too, so that there are enough court reporters to do the work. I had a civil matter in state trial court which we waited over six months for a transcript of a hearing so that we could move to have certification of a class action reconsidered. The wait was so long because the court reporter was in a capital murder trial and then had to do the transcript for that for the appeal before she could get back to us. (I later wished we had paid a private court reporter to do it, but when there is an official court reporter you don't think you'll need to, and for all I know, the court might not allow an additional reporter if there is already an official reporter.) I believe that giving priority to the capital matter was correct -- and that the priority was according to a rule of that court.

I am not familiar with all of the particulars of the 6-year transcript problem, but I do know that judges are loath to say that court reporters are at fault.

Stacey Bailey
A:
Dear Stacy,

I share your frustration, but I can see why a capital murder case was given priority. I can understand why judges are loathe to criticize as well. They have to work with these people on a daily basis. Usually reporters or other personnel do their jobs and are unfairly criticized. In Berryman, there is simply no explanation of the reason for the delay. My point is not to point fingers and lay blame. Regardless of fault, there is a problem and it needs to be fixed.

You are correct that the problem lies in part in funding. Our state is growing and that is a good thing, but with more people come more legal problems, whether it is crime, divorce, auto accidents, death or worker's compensation. All of this places a demand on a system which has not been funded adequately by the legislature due to partisan disputes. While that has changed recently with the appointment of Chief Justice Parker, the budget increase is akin to temporarily fixing a pothole with cheap asphalt. The problem is going to recur unless we take steps to really address the issue.

There is no mechanism to prevent the abuse of the kind that occurred in Berryman or even in a civil case. And there should be. We could have an appellate and district & superior court procedural rule that says, for example, that transcripts can be delivered 60 days after they are ordered. The reporter can ask for an extension of time for 30 days. If still not produced, the court may impose sanctions, including reduction in cost for each day of delay, reassignment from other duties until the transcript is completed and so on. Judges should be free to re-assign other personnel to reporting duties if a reporter cannot complete a transcript due to death or illness. And why not encourage parties to seek reporting from private reporters if the court reporter is not available?

Best wishes,

Rachel

Q:
5 Sep 2006

Re: Editorial Editor Jumps Rachel's
Bodyguard And Her Handicapped Supporters

Wow,

Well, coverage is coverage.

BTW-is you husband a friend of Gibson's??

Chris Campbell
A:
Dear Mr. Campbell,

In answer to your question, the answer is yes. He became acquainted with Mr. Gibson and got a bit part in "The Patriot" done by Mr. Gibson around 2000 or so. I can reference you to the scene where Major Jean Villeneuve and Mr. Gibson's character, Benjamin Martin, are about to enter a tavern to enlist recruits. The next scene depicts people signing up for the militia. Mr. Berry offers his slave as he is too old to fight.

Mr. Berry also got a bit part in the movie, "We Were Soldiers" which featured Mr. Gibson playing the part of Lt. Colonel Hal Moore. However, the movie was released after 9/11/2001 and unfortunately Mr. Berry's speaking part did not survive the editing process.

Publicity, even if unflattering, has a purpose. If nothing else to show who the people doing the attacking are. It only serves to illustrate what I said about the beast and its desire for power and control. The beast cannot let me win. If I win, why there might be others like me and if they win, the beast will lose control. You can judge for yourself how frightened the beast is. Mr. Clark let it out of the bag. The beast is so terrified that it will lose power and control that it will attempt to change the election laws in this state if I win. Contemplate that and it will tell you how far down the wrong path that we have come and why our society needs to change if it ever hopes to succeed.

Best wishes,

Called 2 Action Questionnaire

This is a questionnaire from a group called Called 2 Action. For those who might be familiar, I have already received emails from members of this group informing me how their family has been here since the Revolutionary War and attacking my ancestry and making other equally disparaging remarks. Comments such as these display the arrogance, elitism, religious intolerance, bigotry and desire to create a religions theocracy of their own by some members of this group. Voters can judge for themselves, but here are my responses to their questionnaire.
Q:
Do you believe state governments should have the right to limit abortions? Yes or No.
A:
I have set forth my position on my website. Please review my website at www.rachelforjustice.com to see what I have written in greater detail. The state supreme court has no authority to overturn Roe v. Wade. As long as Roe remains the law it must be enforced, regardless of my personal thoughts on the decision. If it is overturned, this is a matter for the states to decide whether abortion should be allowed. I am a Catholic, however.
Q:
Do you believe America has its foundation in Judeo-Christian ideals? Yes or No.
A:
It is a misconception to say that America was founded on Judeo-Christian ideals. Rather, it is more appropriate to state that America was founded on the principles inspired by God and the ideals espoused and articulated by Jesus Christ as a way of forming our government and of our way of life and that these teachings were meant to encompass all people in America and not enshrine a particular view or religion.

This is exemplified by the writings of Thomas Jefferson, for example. He was the author of the Declaration of Independence and one of our founding fathers and had this to say on religion:

"a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion [i.e., Jesus Christ], before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State."

Thomas Jefferson also said "[m]illions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined, and imprisoned, yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites."

And finally, Thomas Jefferson stated in regard to a proposed Virginia Act for Religious Freedom, "[w]here the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, 'Jesus Christ...the holy author of our religion,' which was rejected. 'By a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination."

The point of these quotes and other writings of Jefferson or other founders is not that these men were hostile to the Christian faith. They were not. However, they had recent experience with religious civil wars between Catholics and Protestants in England and they wanted to avoid the cruelties that had been perpetrated on the innocent populace for nothing more than their particular belief in one religion over another. They also strove to create a government for all the people regardless of their religious beliefs, regardless of whether they were a Jew, Catholic, Hindu, Christian or Muslim.
Q:
Do you believe that judicial activism is a problem facing our nation? Yes or No.
A:
Please review my website at www.rachelforjustice.com to see what I have written in greater detail. In short, words should be given their plain meaning and judges are not free to impose their own agendas or whims on the law. Judges are not legislators. I am opposed to judicial activism whether it comes from the right or the left and I respect the separation of powers.
Q:
Do you believe in a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution that gives deference to the written word over cultural changes? Yes or N