HOME
ABOUT RACHEL
ASK RACHEL
NEO-CON HATE MAIL DEPT.
DONATE
EVENTS
SUPPORTERS
NEWS ARCHIVES
GOP COMPLAINTS
CAMPAIGN MATERIAL
BOOK REVIEWS
INTERNSHIPS
REGISTER TO VOTE
PHOTO GALLERY
CONTACT


Republican Party Leadership Complaint Department

For those who remember Dana Carvey's "Church Lady" character on Saturday Night Live, we have our own "Church Ladies" here. Incidentally, these people may be male, but they aptly fit the character. From now on, I have created a special section on my website where such messages will be aired. My responses are below. If you have a complaint, please scroll down and fill out the form!


Complaint #25

16 Oct 2006

Rachel,

That's not very encouraging. What had you heard about MTBE? I don't understand your statement about 'solving one problem', what problem was MTBE going to solve?

I somehow found myself on your mailing list so I thought I'd mention this to you. I thought perhaps you'd have some direction on how to work this issue.

I don't see removing gasoline happening anytime soon. Therefore, it makes sense that ethical policies be followed regarding it's use in the public. It is our largest toxic factor.

What are the issues you are working or passionate about.

Roger


Roger,

MTBE was an additive to gasoline. It was designed to be added to reduce air pollution and emissions from cars. It has caused other problems, i.e., pollution of the ground and groundwater. It solved one problem, ie, reduction in air pollution, and created another, ground/groundwater pollution. Geeze … you criticize me, but you don't even know this much?

Anyway, I am running for a judicial seat, not a legislative seat. I know about MTBE, which is more than most candidates, including the judicial ones. I know that it is bad stuff and its use ought to be stopped. But it is not my signature issue and most likely will not come before our state Supreme Court.

As to what to do about it, talk to Congress and the EPA. In fact, I thought the EPA was taking some steps to reduce/eliminate it because of the groundwater/ground contamination problem. Congress people who are up for election might be more amenable if the EPA proves intractable. They will do the bidding of the lobbyists, but right now they want your vote. So make your voice heard. Talk to your state legislators as well. If enough people voice a concern, something might get done. Things are not done overnight and it may take awhile. The key is continuing to fight back and make your message heard to people who will listen.

As for the issues that I care about and that are relevant, you evidently have not read much at my website. In a nutshell, it all boils down to the same issue - justice or the lack of it. I want to do something about it and return our courts to places of justice, not injustice. I am so disgusted by what I see in our courts and this is my way to do something about it.

Cordially,

Rachel


Complaint #24

06 Oct 2006

Subject: Re: Rachel Launches The Largest Blog Ad Program

Stop Sending Me Messages! I am sick to death of seeing you in my emails. You have made a serious mistake thinking that your overwhelming barrage of emails is going to gain votes. It has had the opposite effect. I wouldn't vote for you now if my life depended on it.

STOP SENDING YOUR JUNK TO ME NOW! I am a loyal Republican but you are only concerned with your self. Get the message yet? Enough!

David Gholston


Dear Mr. Gholston:

I do not know how you got on my lawfully acquired lists. Regardless, I am down to the last few weeks of the campaign and I have no intention of spending precious time scouring email lists to remove you. You are another self-reliant Republican who is either intellectually-challenged or so dependent on others to do for you what you can do for yourself. At the end of each message there is an unsubscribe button. Have some one who cares assist you in locating it.

However, I have been informed that some web browsers may not permit you to do so. If that is the case, then simply have someone assist you in finding the key on your computer marked . That way, you can simply remove the offensive messages from penetrating the fog that permeates your gray matter and you can remain blissfully ignorant of the world around you. I guess Bill Maher's comedy sketch on founding "Neo-Connections" for lovelorn delusional neo-conservatives was not so-far fetched after all. You seem to be a prime example.

Take comfort that the campaign will soon be over and you will receive no more messages after the election from myself or other candidates.

Cordially,

Rachel Lea Hunter


Complaint #23

27 Sep 2006

From: Robert Carr

To: Rachel Lea Hunter for Supreme Court

Re: More GOP Mud-Slinging From Justice Martin

Rachel

After reading all of your newsletters, I'm not sure if I can vote for you. I'm a Republican and if I were in your court, I think that you would hold that against me. If you're going to be in politics, you need a thick skin. I like some of the things you say, but you seem to hold grudges. God forgave me for my sins. Seems like you need to do a little forgiving.


Mr. Carr:

You are sadly mistaken. My quarrel has been with those in leadership at the NC GOP, not with individual citizens who might be happen to be registered as Republicans.

In all of the cases that I have handled, never once has a person’s political party affiliation arose. Never once did I recommend a decision or handle an appeal based on a litigant’s party affiliation. I used to be registered as a Republican. Did that stop me from seeing that a defendant’s constitutional rights were enforced? No. And it will not happen now that the situation is reversed.

You can vote for whomever you wish. Given your political affiliation, I never expected that someone like you would actually use his brain cells and think, really think, about what he was voting for.

I know there is a tendency often in politics to “smear” one’s opponent. My opponent and the legal and political establishment has sought to do that to me. However, I have not sought to play politics and do that. My opponent is running on his record and his record is fair game. Voters are entitled to know how he has ruled in cases in which he participated. Voters are entitled to know while that while the judge says he will not comment about me, his own actions are directly contradictory to that. Voters are entitled to know that the judge recently attended a banquet held by the Christian Coalition and that he courts their vote because he is one of them. Your voting decision will not change these facts.

If this is what you want on our court, a hypocrite and member of the religious right, then cast your vote for him because you seem to think that if your case came before him you will get decent treatment because you are both Republicans. I pray that you never find yourself in this position because you won’t. And when you see the ugliness and unfairness that is in the system you will wish that you had cast your vote differently.

Cordially,

Rachel


Complaint #22

27 July 2006

Bar complaint:

The North Carolina State Bar
Grievance Committee
Barbara ("Bonnie") B. Weyher, Chair
2o8 Fayetteville St. (276oi)
Post Office Box 25go8
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone (gig) 828-g62o
Fax: (gig) 834 -8156
Web: www.ncbar.com

July 13, 2006

Ms. Rachel L. Hunter
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 2247
Durham, NC 27702

LETTER OF NOTICE

RE: Grievance received from: Steven D. Hedges
Our file number: 0660584

Dear Ms. Hunter:

This is to advise that a grievance alleging misconduct on your part as an attorney was received in this office from the above-named individual and that the Chair of the Grievance Committee has authorized this notice to you. To assist you in preparing a response to this letter, I am enclosing the "Substance of the Grievance". It is not a pleading of any sort but is simply a summary of what appears to be the basis of the grievance. Under 27 N.C. Admin. Code, Chapter 1, Subchapter B, Rule .0112(c) of the Discipline and Disability Rules of The North Carolina State Bar, you are required to respond to this letter within 15 days of its receipt. Such response must be a full and fair disclosure of all of the facts and circumstances pertaining to your alleged misconduct. If you fail to respond within 15 days, the Chairman of the Grievance Committee may proceed under Rule .0112(f) of the rules. Under Rule .0112(d), a copy of your response may be provided to the complaining party unless you object thereto in writing. Please note your objection in your written response to the grievance.

IF YOU WISH TO DISCUSS THIS MATTER, PLEASE CONTACT FERN GUNN SIMI

Please give this matter your immediate attention.

Very truly yours,

Carolin Bakewell
Counsel
CB/sms
Enclosure

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

SUBSTANCE OF GRIEVANCE FILE NUMBER: 06GO584 DATE FILE RECEIVED: May 30, 2006
Ms. Rachel L. Hunter, Mr. Steven D. Hedges
Attorney at Law
Attorney/Respondent's Name Complainant's Name
PO Box 2247 701 Green Valley Road, Suite 100
Durham, NC 27702 Greensboro, NC 27408

SUBSTANCE OF GRIEVANCE

Attorney Steven D. Hedges received e-mail from respondent's judicial candidacy website. On a couple of occasions, Hedges asked respondent to cease sending him e-mails from her website. Hedges asked respondent to remove his name from her e-mail list. Someone from respondent's campaign website wrote him and told him to "Push the unsubscribe button at the bottom of the alert ... and unsubscribe yourself..." Hedges emailed respondent's website and asked that respondent purge Hedges' address from her records and from her mail servers. Someone from respondent's website responded to Hedges by saying "...screw you and your threats... snitch to the Bar or whatever you choose to do ... there is nothing wrong with the system ... push the damn button and stop whining like a little repub cry baby ... or a [sic] establishment judicial suck up . . .MAX . . . " "Madame Justice official mean ass watch dog."

VIOLATIONS OF REVISED RPC INDICATED:

Rule 8.4(d)


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

July 20, 2006

Ms. Fern Gunn Simeon, Esq.
NC State Bar - Grievance Committee
Post Office Box 25908
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5908
Re: Bar Grievance Your File No.: 06G0584

Dear Ms. Simeon:

I am in receipt of Ms. Carolin Bakewell's letter dated July 13, 2006. She advises that another bar complaint has been filed. This time the complainant, Mr. Steven Hedges, objects to the receipt of political electronic mail (email) regarding my political campaign. I take issue with Mr. Hodge's accusations and his attempt to defame me.

Mr. Hedges, in his email contact, accuses me of "piracy," which is a form of larceny. Other judicial candidates, including Judge Duke, running for Chief Justice, and Judge Stephens, running for the Court of Appeals, routinely send political email about their campaign. Has Mr. Hedges complained that they are equally guilty of criminal conduct? Most probably they are not, although I have no knowledge regarding the operation of their campaigns. I believe that they lawfully acquired their lists. My campaign is no different. Lists were purchased in the 2004 campaign and they have been expanded through lawful means. I deny the allegations of criminality which were made in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the same and with malice on the part of Mr. Hedges.

Mr. Hedges also demeans me by suggesting that I am a perennial candidate. To run for office adequately, one must prepare at least two (2) years in advance. 2004 presented an opportunity to prepare for 2006; it was a trial run. I did very well in the 2004 campaign and decided to try again in 2006. If I succeed, I may run whenever re-election occurs, depending on circumstances at that time. If I do not prevail, I have no political ambitions to run for another office. I note that we have a candidate for Congress who has run at least twelve (12) times for various offices. Why is it that I am labeled as a "perennial candidate" and that candidate is not?

Thirdly, Mr. Hedges suggests that political email is SPAM. First, review of the federal SPAM law indicates that political email does not classify as SPAM. More importantly, the Federal Elections Commission met in March of this year and unanimously voted not to regulate political campaigns and others, such as bloggers, regarding political websites and email.

Mr. Hedges also was less than candid with the NC State Bar and has made false statements regarding not only my qualifications but the matter in question here. Does this violate Rule 3.3, the duty of candor towards the tribunal and Rule 4.1, the duty of truthfulness, Rule 8.2, the duty not to make false statements regarding the qualifications of a judge or candidate for judicial office? I will be reviewing these and other provisions and a complaint will be filed if warranted.

Mr. Hedges lack of candor and false statements concern his contact with my campaign. My campaign is conducted, in part, on the internet. I previously explained how email addresses were obtained. As this is a statewide race, there is communication between myself and a large number of voters, both in this state, in the United States and throughout the world. As required by federal law, email of this nature must contain a method to unsubscribe. The political email from my campaign contains this link. In fact, over 2,000 individuals chose to avail themselves of the link and have unsubscribed since 2004.

This GOP lawyer can't find the unsubscribed key
and believes Rachel is a pirate at the State Bar

The unsubscribe link is operative and the service that I use informs me whenever someone has been deleted. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Hedges has never availed himself of this relatively simple means of unsubscribing himself. Usage of the unsubscribe link requires no special skill or technological knowledge and anyone can do it. Certainly someone as educated as Mr. Hedges proclaims to be to clients ought to be able to handle this task.

Mr. Hedges initially contacted the campaign in March of 2006. I note that he utilized a different email address and I cannot locate the one in which he claims he is receiving email. A copy of his email profile is enclosed. My campaign manager abruptly quit in January of 2006. "Max" has graciously agreed to act as advisor to my campaign and he receives email sent to info@rachelforjustice.com. This is not my campaign email address of rachel@rachelforjustice.com. I have not received an email from Mr. Hedges at the rachel@rachelforjustice.com address.

As a fellow attorney, Mr. Hedges could simply have contacted me at my office. Had he done so, he would have received instruction as to how to remove himself. He could have waited for the next email and unsubscribed at that time. He chose not to do and instead initiated a series of email exchanges with "Max."

"Max" initially gave Mr. Hedges instructions as to how to remove himself from the list. Due to the departure of my campaign manager, I and "Max" are sorting through various issues in the campaign. We still have not gone through everything and many things were not done properly by the campaign manager. It was during this period that the campaign received Mr. Hedges' request. Neither "Max" nor I had sufficient time to search through email lists to find the address from Mr. Hedges, which differs from the email address that he communicated from to the campaign. Further, I suffer from an inoperable brain tumor that does not affect my ability to engage in the practice of law at this time and I have been attending to medical matters. Medical issues and the demands of work and the campaign do not afford me the luxury of time to search email lists for non-existent email addresses. Also, we abolished servitude in this country after the civil war. To my knowledge, neither I nor anyone associated with my campaign is a slave to Mr. Hedges. Nor does he employ us. We are not obligated to attend to his personal needs and his behavior is incongruous for one who proclaims to be a Republican.

Regardless, Mr. Hedges was provided with instruction which he again chose not to follow and he continued to make demands and increasingly defamatory statements. At this point, "Max" became exasperated with Mr. Hedges and may have used intemperate language on the last occasion especially given the nature of Mr. Hedges' statements. Enclosed are copies of his emails which show the demanding and defamatory email to info@rachelforjustice.com.

"Max" has been instructed as to appropriate behavior, however, he is not an attorney, is not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and is not subject to discipline by the state bar. Moreover, anyone acquainted with "Max" knows that while he has experience in the political realm, he answers to no one and is his own person.

Other complaints were made by Republicans, including Representative David Almond who voiced complaint with the NC Attorney General's Office as well as Mr. Hedges. In addition, I was the subject of no less than four (4) email alerts from the NC Republican Party attacking me even though I was not running in the primary. No other judicial candidate has received such attention, not even their own candidates. Given the timeframe of this conduct, it appears that Republicans, acting at the behest of the NC Republican Party, have engaged in nothing less than a calculated attempt to harass and intimidate me in the hopes of getting me to drop out of this race, as other Democratic candidates have been forced to do. The strategy and tactics used are similar to that of the Mafia or other criminal enterprises and may give rise to a civil RICO action. It appears that Mr. Hedges, Representative Almond and other Republicans are all co-participants in this scheme. I have enclosed information pertaining to Mr. Hedges' political registration as a Republican. I am a registered Democrat.

Finally, I reiterate my prior position that (1) regulation of lawyer candidates by the state bar violates the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, 5th and 14th Amendments as non-lawyer candidates are not subject to such regulation; and (2) the regulation of political speech by the state bar is impermissible under the U.S. Constitution, 1st and 14th Amendments. The state bar's regulation of individuals who are not attorneys is likewise prohibited and they can exercise their free speech rights.

Should you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me at the above telephone or address. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Rachel Lea Hunter

Attorney at Law

RLH/rlh Enclosures


Complaint #21

26 Jun 2006

Subject: Defeat Rachel

Rachel,

After what you said about Vernon Robinson, see www.robinsonforcongress.com and/or www.rushlimbaugh.com . What can we do in Washington State to help defeat your run for Supreme Court. Can you please provide me with the name of your republican opponent so I can send him some money?

Thanks,

Bob Chandler
Moses Lake, Washington USA

Hey all you Bcc: go to www.rachelforjustice.com and let's all work for Vernon


Dear Mr. Chandler:

Typical of the email that I receive from the so-called conservatives/Republicans. I thought conservatives were all about individual rights and making government smaller. Why then do you seek someone else to do what you can do for yourself? You were able to send me an email, so I see no reason why you cannot do your own research and find out for yourself.

Cordially,

Rachel


Complaint #20

Sat, 3 Jun 2006

From: T Cox

Police Officer Says No

Madame Justice? Are you for real? I am a law enforcement officer in Hendersonville, and I have to say you may be in need of a mental examination. No one in the western part of the State supports you, except a few tree huggers in Asheville.

We do not need judges like you. Please. Our jobs are hard enough.

Your rants are so ridiculous, it really is quite funny.

Have a good day.


Dear Mr. Cox.:

I am quite real. But by your comments, which display a decided lack of acumen of most police officers, I wonder if you are a real officer.

I understand fully that the police have a tough job. I understand that there are plenty of bad boys and girls. But what I don't like is police who lie, police who hide evidence, police who violate a person's Constitutional rights. If you are a real officer, are a good cop or a bad cop?

Cordially,

Rachel


Complaint #19

Wed, 14 Jun 2006

RE: Greensboro Editorial Editor Tells Democrat Party Chairman Meek

You exhibit all the characteristics of a nutcase. Perhaps a phych evaluation, with the result published on your website, would clear up many questions. How about it? Do you have a law license? I can't find you listed anywhere. Why "Madame Justice" when you have never been a judge of any kind? If elected, would you write opinions, or just spew irrelevant and meaningless vitroil? How about publishing a brief, memo, law review article, or SOMETHING on your website that tells us about your abilities as a jurist; otherwise, the public (you can't fool all of the people all of the time), and lawyers as well, know nothing about you, other than that you appear to be an irrational screwball.

Tom Cannon


Dear Mr. Cannon:

You question whether I have a law license. Obviously, you have not bothered to check the requirements for office. Had you done so, you would not have posed that question. Is this the kind of attorney you are?

You also have failed to read the statements in which I have explained, ad nauseum, the genesis of the Madame Justice nickname. The name has nothing to do with the office of a judge or justice, although a female jurist served as the inspiration for it. I thought it was a great "screen name" that I could use when I began fooling around on the internet in 1998, long before I ever considered running for office or even lived in this state. I thought the name would be a great name for a costumed crime-fighting character from the comic books or perhaps a dominatrix. I used this name as part of the internet persona that I created. However, the flap over my use of a nickname serves to illustrate that the legislature ought to consider the removal of all nicknames on the ballot and require the use of a full legal name.

If elected, of course I would write opinions that were assigned to me. If elected, I would not comment on any social issues. Judges who are candidates can now comment on issues if they choose to do so pursuant to Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, a decision of the US Supreme Court in 2002. Look it up for yourself.

I do appeals and have written briefs for other attorneys. I even did one with my name and a partner's name on it; we won the appeal. I have done others and for my own reasons, it was decided that my name should not be on the briefs. I don't want the political campaign to interfere with work nor do I want my employer punished because of me. I do not have time to write articles and even if I did, it is difficult to get them published. Most of them are useless fodder, done for the sole purpose of keeping people busy or serving to pad one's resume.

The banking industry controls this state. They and the other attorneys know on which side their bread is buttered. Not bloody likely that very many will vote for me and I have largely written them off except for the few who know me personally and I have received favorable comments from some of them.

You cite the maxim about fooling the people. I cite another, one which is a principle of good writing - know your audience. My audience is the thousands of little people just like me. They deserve to have justice and to have a voice, one that is not controlled by bankers and lawyers, the rich and powerful, the elites. Some of them even know what is really going on in our state and our country and find it deplorable. To them, someone like me is like a breath of fresh air. They are tired of the same old corrupt choices and want real leadership.

My "vitriol" as you call it serves another purpose - to allow everyone to see how I think and write. People can see for themselves whether I have skills or not and can decide if I am capable of writing a judicial opinion. I wrote over 500 of them for the judges for whom I worked over the years; some of them were really good and I saw some of my writings adopted by my state Supreme Court. I would like to put my talents to work for the citizens of this state; whether they want it or not is their choice.

Your assessment of me is unjustified and unwarranted and shows nothing more than your ability to parrot the mantra of those in control. Why doesn't a presumably educated man such as yourself stop being a useful idiot of those in control and really take the time to read and learn about what is going on in our world?

Here, for example, is an article that I read by another lawyer. He says the same things that I have said. I suppose he is insane as well?

Cordially,

Rachel Lea Hunter


The Price of Madness

by Butler Shaffer

Whom the Gods would destroy they first make mad.
~ Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

On 9/11, one of my colleagues and I were watching videotape of the planes hitting the World Trade Center earlier that day. He asked my response to this surreal atrocity. My concern, I replied, was twofold: (1) Americans were now going to have to do some very deep soul-searching to discover why so many people in the world have such an intense hatred for America that they could do this, and (2) I despaired of what the long-term implications of this would be.

The attack was of such horrific dimensions that when I turned on my television that morning - not knowing what had happened - my first reaction was that I was viewing a clip from a forthcoming catastrophe film, complete with amazing special effects. Since some one-third of television "news" consists of Hollywood gossip and movie promotions, there was a sound basis for my response. When I switched to another channel and saw the same ghastliness, I knew that reality was outdoing Irwin Allen.

As we approach the fifth anniversary of this act of horror, my initial concerns have proven themselves valid. To this day, most Americans - be they for or against the invasion of Iraq; be they Democrat or Republican, "conservative" or "liberal" - show no disposition to confront the deeper implications of all this. Depth analysis takes a commitment of moral and intellectual energy, and most of us are more comfortable inquiring into such superficial matters as missing teenagers, spousal murders, or sexual predators.

In the language of "chaos" theory, America - if not all of Western civilization - is in a state of turbulence of such intensity that efforts to restore order by recourse to traditional systems and policies will be to no avail. On the contrary, it is our insistence upon established practices that has led us to our plight; and only a fundamental, creative change in our thinking and behavior can extricate us from the destructive consequences of our prior assumptions. Just as the western segment of the Roman empire was no longer able to sustain itself, so, too, the western franchise of Western civilization is finished, no more capable of rehabilitation than would have been the case with Jeffrey Dahmer. Like a caterpillar, the hope remains that America may be able to metamorphose into something more beautiful; to transcend its limited capabilities.

But upon what could we draw in effecting such a change? There is certainly no way in which a "society" or a "civilization" can transform itself in some collective fashion. Statists - all of whom believe in a top-down, command-and-control model of imposed social order - ignore what ought to be evident to every thinking man and woman: society becomes either peaceful and creative, or warlike and destructive, only as the individuals within it exhibit one or the other set of characteristics. Carl Jung expressed the point as eloquently as any when he observed that "the salvation of the world consists in the salvation of the individual soul." His words predate - but reinforce - what students of "chaos" refer to as the "butterfly effect," i.e., the capacity of even the smallest output of energy to produce infinite results.

The study of history can provide some insights as to the connections that link our thinking, our actions, and the consequences flowing therefrom. But just as the study of chaos informs us that there are too many variables at work upon complex systems to allow for meaningful predictions, the historian's efforts to unravel Ariadne's golden thread makes it difficult to account for past influences upon the present. Still, intelligent minds work to discover patterns that produced either beneficial or destructive ends. What were the conditions that allowed a handful of creative people to produce a Renaissance, the Enlightenment, or the Industrial Revolution? Conversely, what conditions led to wars, genocides, and concentration camps?

How did an America of H.L. Mencken, Mark Twain, Thomas Edison, James J. Hill, Henry David Thoreau, and Anne Hutchinson, manage to become a nation of Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Halliburton, and Condoleezza Rice? How did the spiritual voice of a Ralph Waldo Emerson get replaced by Pat Robertson? What epidemic of pests has eaten away at the timbers of the White House since the days of Thomas Jefferson, producing an infestation of such anti-social insects as the Clintons and the Bushes? How was Tom Paine toppled as the all-time best-selling author by the likes of such scrawlers as Al Franken and Ann Coulter?

How did this erosion of character arise? The shallow-minded among us will be quick to accuse television, Hollywood, rock music, drugs, the "liberal" establishment, a "right-wing conspiracy," or any of a number of equally irrelevant culprits. The reality is that the decay arose from within, not within some amorphous collectivity called "America," but within the minds and souls of individuals who comprise society.

We live in a country ruled by dangerous and foolish people; by sociopaths who are prepared to engage in the planned killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children, for no other purpose than to satisfy their insatiable appetites for power. But what is far worse than this is the fact that we live in a country whose residents either value such traits or, at the very least, are unable - or unwilling - to recognize and condemn them. The ruling class - and its coterie - offers the most specious rationalizations for their practices to a public largely reduced to flag-waving.

It is a dreadful mistake to blame political leaders, the media, or corporate-state structuring for our problems. By default - if not enthusiasm - we have been the authors of our own madness. Our contradictory thinking - unchecked by our inner standards of conduct - allows us to internalize institutionalized insanity as acceptable behavior, turning us into a society of the "normally neurotic." This madness is destroying our sense of what it means to be a human being, including our relationships with other people.

The war in Iraq provides a microcosmic, time-lapse record of the moral collapse of a once decent society. The war itself was grounded in lies, deceit, forged documents, a propagandizing media, and other dishonest tactics; yet few Americans raised any objections. When terrorist "suspects" were rounded up and sent to a concentration camp at Guantanamo, without benefit of any due process - or, worse, to eastern European countries for more sophisticated forms of torture - few people spoke out. When the systematic torture at Abu Ghraib was revealed to the world, there was little more than a few squeaks of protest from Americans. When it became evident that a number of soldiers were murdering helpless men, women, and children in their homes in such places as Haditha, silence was again the response. And when three prisoners at Guantanamo apparently saw their chances for freedom becoming so hopeless that they committed suicide, most Americans scrambled for some rationalization that would ease their minds.

I suspect that more Americans would be critical of the fact that such wrongs were revealed to the public than that they were engaged in by state functionaries. When we think of ourselves in terms of a collective identity, any blemish upon that group becomes a stain upon our own character. Like a parent whose child has embarrassed the family, the focus of attention is to protect the collective image rather than to address the substance of the wrongdoing. What got so many people upset with Bill Clinton was not his sexual peccadilloes, but the fact that his actions had defiled the "oval office." Had he satisfied his urges at a local motel, little criticism would have been made.

But from what basis can criticism of governmental action proceed? Those who support the direction in which the American state is now going - (e.g., Republicans and other conservatives) - will be disinclined to acknowledge the need for any critique. Indeed, they will be quick to charge questioners with "disloyalty," "disrespect for the troops," "partisanship," or even "treason." But those (e.g., Democrats and "liberals") who have misgivings about the war - or its necessary companion, the domestic police-state - have offered little more than limp-wristed criticism of Bush administration policies. They would fine-tune the war, and tinker with some of the details of the Patriot Act and NSA surveillance of people's private lives, but not to any degree that might threaten their opportunistic ambitions at the polls.

No, to make any fundamental challenge to such wholesale political wrongdoing requires a resource that most Americans gladly abandoned long ago: a set of clear and focused transcendent principles. If one is to live a centered life - free of contradictions and paralyzing conflicts - one must have an inner-directed, intuitive sense of behavior that is appropriate for living among others in the world. In my conversations with others, I rarely find people who regard an appeal to a clearly-enunciated philosophic principle as a sufficient answer to a question.

In an age in which a collective mindset is expected to drown out the voice of the individual, philosophic principles have been replaced by public opinion polls. I don't know how often my opinions on some matter have been met by the response "most people don't agree with you." In our Panglossian world, "principles" have become little more than politically-correct slogans; mantras to be splashed across a T-shirt or the bumper of a car.

When people equate "reality" with the "material," and regard the "quantifiable" as the only values to be measured, one should not be surprised to discover the decreasing relevance of moral principles as a factor in decision-making. If you were to ask a man about his 401(k) retirement plan, or the equity in his home, or the mileage he is getting from his BMW, he can give you a detailed accounting of such matters. But moral principles - not having a material substance - he will likely regard as immaterial.

There is a price we will pay for abandoning what the late Joseph Campbell referred to as our "invisible means of support." Richard Weaver reminded us that "ideas have consequences." So, too, does the absence of ideas, as well as the narrow circumscribing of what it is important for us to think about. We live in a dying culture, the demise of which most of us shall not recognize until there is a total collapse of all that we value: our material wealth.

Herman Hesse criticized a journalist who stated, in the years surrounding World War I, that a concern for the inner-focused life was "introverted rubbish." Such a viewpoint would doubtless be shared by most modern Americans, including the war-whooping evangelicals who make a pretense of being religious as they cheer on a war that the founder of their religion would have condemned. As Goethe's Faust should remind us, moral principles can be traded for, but only with consequences that most would fail to calculate in advance.


Complaint #18

Wed, 14 Jun 2006

From: Truper

Subject: Wow.

Wow, are you a complete out-of-your-flippin'-mind asshole, and it's at least heartening to see your own party have the decency to call for all intelligent, thinking people of your dopey state to vote against you. I bet the Republicans are also hard at work trying to expunge any records of your previous membership in their party, too.

And the "Hypocritical" song on your home page? As Lewis Black might say, "Are you fuckin' kidding me?"

Has the Daily Show called to do a tongue-in-cheek interview with you? If they call, please do it. Can't wait to see it.

Dear Truper:

Since you are not in my "dopey state" why should you care? Focus on your own state courts which I am sure are occupied by the same type of individuals that we have here. I doubt that they are pinnacles of intellectualism. I know all too well what lies beneath the black robes and what evils they conceal. What a fool you are if you believe that they are all so respectable and so unlike me.

Your country and your liberties are vanishing daily and you have nothing better to do than sling mud at me, someone who is trying to stop the decline and fight the rampant corruption in our courts and in our society? You really have demonstrated your ignorance of what is really happening and I feel sorry for you. Welcome to the world that you have helped to create! I hope you enjoy it.

Independence day is coming.

As far as the Republican Party is concerned, far from erasing me, they still send me surveys, solicitations and pictures of the President and want me to donate big bucks. Who is the bigger fool? Me for being honest or they? One would think that somebody would have clued them in by now and that they would update their list. I get literature from Democrats as well and they seem to have the same problem. Stupidity seems to be universal, as Frank Zappa once said.

Cordially,

Rachel


Complaint #17

6 June 2006

Rachel,

I read your rant on "the Beast" and several other of your comments. You are a racial bigot who doesn't belong anywhere near a bench, from which you would pervert the justice you are supposed to serve.

You will lose. You deserve to lose. North Carolina will be the better for that loss.

As someone who has practiced a specialized area of civil rights law in the US Supreme Court for almost 40 years, I find it reprehensible that someone with the racial views you espouse is taken seriously by anyone for any judicial position whatsoever.

However, as a First Amendment lawyer, I would defend to the death your right to make such comments in public Have a nice day.

John Armor, Esq.
Highlands, NC

Dear Mr. Armor:

Speaking of losers, did you not run in the primary against Republican Charles Taylor and lost?

No, I am not a racist. I saw how Vernon Robinson was treated and insulted. Why he is going back to the very people that did that is beyond me. However, people should be aware of the coward he is.

As John Adams said, “facts are inconvenient things.” They are indeed.

Glad to see that you are unlike your fellow Republicans who trample on the Constitution as just a “god-damned piece of paper” in the words of President Bush.

I too am a Constitutionalist. Unlike you, I do not care about the election results. If I win, fantastic. If I lose, I can say that unlike most of my fellow citizens, I am aware of what is really going on and I did something about it. I tried and I will move on. Perhaps you should learn that lesson instead of railing at others.

Cordially,

Rachel


Complaint #16

6 June 2006

Rachel,

The story on WRAL about Dean Smith caught my attention and brought me to your website. I too saw the picture of you two and the caption "As one loyal Democrat to another, win Rachel win," yet you continue to deny that you said he ever endorsed you. Bottom line: Did he make the statement or did you make it up? It requires only a simple answer. The response on your website makes no mention of the fact that for a time this statement appeared above the picture. Also, since you seem to be such a big fan of his, could you please tell me excatly what he is doing now at UNC, when you say .."hopefully this will clarify things and allow Dean Smith to get back to work at UNC...." This statement appears on your home page. I do assume that since you are such a big fan of his, that you realize he is no longer the coaching at UNC and hasn't been for some time. The best thing you could do for our state is continue to be an entertainment venue, but I would ditch the campaign, MJ. Max would probably be a much more qualified candidate.

Anxiously waiting to be told I can't read,

Chuck Thompson


Dear Mr. Thompson:

First, you can apprise whomever you wish, but know that Max and I are separate individuals. I do not know you and have not corresponded with you.

Regarding the Dean Smith incident, the website was corrected and a clarifying statement was sent out. Have you returned to the website to check?

I do not know what Dean Smith's relationship is to UNC nor do I particularly care. I was in touch with his office and received phone calls from his office and others, thus suggesting that he does have a role at UNC even if not actively coaching.

Do yourself a favor, vote for the other guy and get the government you really deserve.

Cordially,

Rachel


Complaint #15

6 June 2006

From: Sam Craig
To: info@rachelforjustice.com
Subject: RE: Vernon Robinson The Republican 666 Beast

I have no idea what you are talking about when you mention a tumor. I assume that Ms. Hunter has a tumor. If I was aware of it, I had forgotten.

I do not think that having a tumor makes one wacked out, so your attempt to make me feel bad is misplaced. My position was based on the published writings of a political candidate. Actually I would question the sensitivity of your statement. Your position--essentially saying that someone with a tumor must be wacked out--seems to say that Ms. Hunter has a tumor and therefore her mental capacity is being affected by it. Is that correct?

Also, for your enlightenment, it is not "in tack," the correct word is "intact."

Sam B. Craig

Yelton, Farfour, McCartney, Lutz & Craig, P.A.
211 South Washington Street, Shelby, NC 28150
PO Box 1329, Shelby, NC 28151
704-482-7718 fax: 704-482-6747

www.shelbylawyers.com


Dear Mr. Craig:

You mention that you are tired of "my ravings" thus implying I am not quite all there. Yes, I have a brain tumor that is non-cancerous that I had removed last year. The surgeons did not excise portions of the brain itself, only the tumor. Although the tumor has returned, it is along the facial nerve and is not part of the brain itself.

The removal and regrowth does not affect my ability to think or reason or engage in other functions of daily life. I therefore do resent the insinuation, which has become the mantra of the NC GOP and of some in the Democratic Establishment that I am "crazy," "nuts," "insane" or something similar.

Lists of attorneys were purchased several years ago. You were probably on a list that was purchased. If you do not wish to receive the emails, I suggest that you unsubscribe yourself. My official campaign manager quit and it is an involved task to search lists. I do not have either the luxury of time or inclination to remove you therefrom. Each email alert has a link at the end called "manage your subscription" or something similar. Have someone more internet savvy assist you if you cannot do it yourself.

The email, if it had been read correctly, was in two parts. One dealt with Mr. Robinson who is running for a seat in the 13th Congressional district and who is known for his antics in previous campaigns. Obviously, you are not in the district and would not be concerned with that, but there are those who are and take issue with his behavior in this campaign. I have seen firsthand how he was treated by the NC GOP. To see him doing their bidding after they insulted him exhibits cowardly and craven behavior that the voters who are in the district should be aware of in making their decision.

The first portion of the statement relates to what is occurring in our state and country. Today is June 6, 2006 or 6/6/06 as per the calendar. I do not share the belief of some evangelicals or others regarding the Revelation of John, but the statement fit the date and the symbolism.

You are not running a political campaign. Perhaps you would understand if you were. However, if statements from me bother you, unsubscribe and vote for my opponent to keep things the way they are.

Cordially,

Rachel


Complaint #14

Tue, 23 May 2006

Please remove me from your mailing list.

I am a conservative Republican, not someone who supports the liberal, socialist antics of a "progressive Democrat". I salute your efforts at voicing your opinion on various policy and social matters; however, your job as Supreme Court Justice is to not make your personal opinions known, but rather to be fair and judicious in your interpretation of the law. I think all the liberal ads on your website, along with the overt liberal messages promoted in your emails immediately rule you out as a viable candidate for the position. I would reconsider their placement on your site.

Erin J. Karriker


Dear Ms. Karriker:

For a Republican, why is that you ask others to do for you what you can do for yourself? I thought the Republicans stood for self-reliance and non-action by the government?

Since I lost my campaign manager, I do not have the time to remove people. There is a little button at the end of the message called "Manage your Subscription." Since you are having apparent difficulty finding it, get someone who is more literate and computer savvy and remove yourself.

I appreciate your suggestions regarding my campaign but I choose to acquaint the voters with my views about issues and they can decide for themselves.

Cordially,

Rachel


Complaint #13

Wow, for someone who is a person of the law you should have known that making up a quote for someone in order to endorse yourself is not a good thing to do. You could be sued for something like that. I hate politics, on both sides, I'm a registered Republican, but I really don't know what side to vote for these days!

Dear Mr. Reeder:

For your edification, I did not "make up a quote." Had people actually read the statement instead of jumping to conclusions about what they think it said, this would not be an issue. Be that as it may, the website has been revised and a statement was issued yesterday.

It is kind of you to think that I might be sued. However, who would sue? What are the damages?

For someone who claims to have no knowledge of politics, may I suggest that you refrain from voting?

Cordially,

Rachel


Complaint #12
I'm so disappointed that you have decided to take the path you have chosen to make things what I would think would be very discouraging for an honorable person, Paul Newby. If you knew him, you would not say the things you're saying. He is a gentleman who has done nothing wrong. Frankly, I approved of most of your positions on issues, but see your attacks as political opportunism & dirty tricks. Paul would never have broken the law in order to run for office. He did everything he needed to do to ensure that everything was legal & in order. While you were on the internet, Paul travelled the state in a strong grassroots campaign w/a message that appealed to conservatives. Because of his hard work, we knew him long before we heard from you by email. Where did you get my email address?

Yes, you are known now, but at what price to your integrity? You could have run a clean, decent, campaign & done well, if your message was acceptable to the voters, & had a real future in the GOP , but I sincerely doubt you have the credibility for that now. I pray you'll re-think your tactics, apologize to Paul & the grassroots who supported him, & look to the future. It will benefit you & most importantly, our common cause.

Judy Keener , grassroots GOP
keeners@hotmail.com

Dear Ms. Keener:
I am not personally acquainted with you . Nor, to my recollection, have we been properly introduced. I have not given you permission to use my Christian name. Perhaps you could use a lesson from Miss Manners.

Frankly, I am puzzled by a letter of this nature post-campaign. Maybe you have been in a coma or are of limited intellect? We had an election on Election Day.

Had you checked any available news source, you would realize that your candidate actually won, albeit not by the margins that he had hoped.

Maybe you are on another mission. I was curious as to whether there would be any sign of intelligent life in our Republican Party leadership and wondered if someone there would take note of my success and send out an olive branch for the future. Perhaps you are tasked as its emissary? You have made demands and threats, but no real peace offerings, so its hard to tell. Here are my responses to your email.

1.<I'm so disappointed> No, you are not . Your hypocrisy shines forth like a beacon.
2. <that you have decided to take the path you have chosen> And what path would that be, madam, and who are you to judge whether I am on the right path or the wrong?
3.<to make things what I would think would be very discouraging for an honorable person, Paul Newby.> This sentence is unintelligible as written, but at last we get to the nub of the problem. I presume that by the comment, you are complaining on behalf of Mr. Newby about his alleged violation of the Hatch Act. Rather than waste your time spewing vitriol at me, I suggest you go and spend a minute or two at www.osc.gov. You would then have an opportunity to educate yourself about the Hatch Act. The Office of Special Counsel (OSC) is a part of our federal government charged with enforcing the act. The OSC takes violations seriously and even has prosecuted federal employees who send emails with political cartoons.

As a member of the bar and as a candidate, I take these violations seriously too. We have someone who may have violated the very law that he was sworn to uphold and who will soon be seated on our state's highest court. It is an affront to the law, the office sought and the dignity of the court. It is an insult to the citizens of this state. I felt it was important to bring this matter to the attention of the voting public, as neither the Republican Party leadership nor any of the candidates did so.
4. <If you knew him, you would not say the things you 're saying.> What things would that be? I know what I said. I stand by my comments about the OSC investigation and the alleged violation of the Hatch Act. Moreover, I have heard Mr. Newby's comments from his own mouth. He spoke before the Republican Executive Committee, before defense attorneys at a convention in Greensboro and at a candidate event in Morehead City . I also talked with various other candidates in Morehead City , and quoted one of those individuals. The candidate whom I quoted is on the opposite side of the aisle politically, but he was correct. I think it is scary that a federal prosecutor boasts about putting business owners out of business, depriving individuals of their day in court, locking people up, taking someone's personal property and enforcing his religion in place of genuine legal reasoning. He is not someone who will be impartial and unbiased, in my humble opinion.
5. <He is a gentleman who has done nothing wrong.> Oh really? Then why has he not produced a letter from the OSC which purportedly clears him of any violation of the Hatch Act? If he is innocent, it would be very simple for him to produce the letter and issue a statement. Perhaps he is saving it for the hearing before the Merit Board? Better yet, he could have avoided this whole mess by resigning his job. I have known honorable state and federal employees or prosecutors who have always resigned their job before running for office because they know the law and want to incur no problems.
6. <Frankly, I approved of most of your positions on issues> Good for you !
7. <but see your attacks as political opportunism & dirty tricks.> I think that you have mistaken me for the Republican Party leadership. It is they who have engaged in dirty tricks from the beginning by sending out their Church ladies and Psycho Dave to attack me and they have continued to do so. It is they who dug up "dirt" on me at the last minute and gave it to the media.
8. <Paul would never have broken the law in order to run for office.> And how do you know that? Its up to the OSC to decide whether he broke the law or not . Are you a member of the OSC? Or maybe you are an attorney? If not , I suggest you engage your little gray matter and do some research before you waste your time and energy. I have done my own research and, based on the information that I have learned, I am compelled to conclude that the actions taken were either deliberate or the product of negligence. See also my answer to number 5 about other similarly situated employees who run for office.
9. <He did everything he needed to do to ensure that everything was legal & in order.> See my answer to number 5 and 8.
10. <While you were on the internet, Paul traveled the state in a strong grassroots campaign w/a message that appealed to conservatives.> The last time that I checked, Ms. Keener, you were not on my campaign staff or at my place of employment. You thus have no knowledge of what I have done or where I have been. How do you know that I was on the internet? My campaign was largely run on the internet. That simply does not mean that I was at a computer terminal 24/7. For several weeks, I traveled across this state. I spoke with Republican groups, concerned citizens and college students and faculty. I asked these groups whether they had been visited by any candidates, including Mr. Newby. They told me he was not there. Where was he? Not sticking up for our college students and faculty. He could not even answer simple questions asked by a Duke law school student. I did. And I was in contact with many others. Obviously, many found my message appealing or they would not have voted for me.
11. <Because of his hard work, we knew him long before we heard from you by email.> So what? This is a rehash of an old argument that I heard before. Mr. Newby declared his candidacy, therefore no one else needed to apply. I was involved in another campaign before this time. I only made up my mind after the July primary when I had time to study the races. Also, Justice Orr did not resign his seat until the end of July. On the date on which I declared my candidacy, at least six others had also registered, four of whom declared their candidacy on the same day as me. There were no signs up at the State Elections Board barring me or anyone else from entry in this race. That is why we have primaries and elections.
12. <Where did you get my email address?> My campaign purchased email addresses of various groups from legitimate sources. Evidently, yours was on the list. If you don't want to be on the list, look on the page for the "unsubscribe" button. If that is too taxing, then notify my campaign manager to take you off the list.
13. <Yes, you are known now,> Yes, I certainly am, thanks to my and my campaign staff's efforts and hard work during this campaign. Thanks also go to my Rangers.
14. <but at whice price to your integrity?> As Ronald Reagan once said, "there you go again." What on earth are you talking about? I am one of the few candidates in any race that actually displayed any integrity and stuck to my principles. I was always open and honest with the public. I can't be bought because I self-financed my campaign. I wish that I could say the same of others.
15. < You could have run a clean, decent campaign and done well> And how many political campaigns have you successfully run such that it would warrant me to take your advice? I did run a clean and decent campaign and I did very well. Mr. Newby knew about what was going on behind the scenes by the Republican Party leadership. At no time did he ever put a stop to the attacks. Nor did he seek to distance himself from them or make a statement that it was wrong. As he abetted these thugs, you should direct your comments to him, not me.
16. <if your message was acceptable to the voters> Oh it was! Just look at the number of votes that I received.
17. <& had a real future in the GOP> No, not with such fine leaders as Art Pope, Ferrell Blount and Bill Peaslee at the helm. Here is the olive branch perhaps? I behave like a nice little girl and tell everybody how very sorry I am that I did the unthinkable act of actually running for office when it wasn't my turn and by further demonstrating that I almost beat 2 political party machines because it will help the pitiful Republican Party leadership that lost 5 house seats, all but 2 of the state judicial races, and virtually all but 1 Council of State seats (although there are 2 races that are still too close to call).

And what do I get in return if I don't? More attacks from the Church Ladies? Or if I'm contrite and can hang in there for 20 years, maybe they will give me a crumb from the table? Tell your masters who sent you to deal with me directly if they have a real offer to convey. Otherwise, I'm tempted to utter some very unladylike remarks about that you and that horse you rode in on.
18. <but I sincerely doubt you have the credibility for that now.> Point to one misstatement in this campaign which allegedly refutes my credibility about anything. We are back to moralizing again. You are unfit to judge the credibility of anyone given your gross misstatements and mischaracterizations of me.
19. <I pray> There! Evidence beyond a doubt that this is a Church Lady. I pray too, by the way.
20. < you 'll rethink your tactics> Again, how many political campaigns have you run?
21. <apologize to Paul> I will do no such thing. I have nothing to apologize for. It is he who should personally apologize to me for the attacks which even now continue. No judicial candidate has ever had to endure personal venom of this sort. We used to have Canons of Ethics which prohibited a candidate or others from making such statements on his behalf. Mr. Newby simply could have ignored my candidacy and instructed the Republican Party leadership to do likewise. He chose, either intentionally or because of his own ignorance, not to abide by the rules and had others do indirectly what he could not do directly.
22. <& the grassroots who supported him> See my answer to 21. I apologize to no one about this campaign.
23. <& look to the future.> I am doing that even as we speak!
24. <It will benefit you > I certainly hope so!
25. <& most importantly, our common cause.> Aha! Looking out for your own self-interest, eh? Our common cause, Ms. Keener, is to elect good and principled people to office. People who share the values and beliefs in limited government. People who are sworn to uphold the law and the Constitution. People who will not make up the law or force their views on those who may not think and act as we do. People who will fairly and impartially apply the law, with justice for all and malice toward none. You have backed a candidate who is not such a person.

 


Complaint #11
I think your ego is getting a bit too tight a grip on your brain


Bill Carraway
seeds1@mindspring.com


Dear Mr. Carraway:

What were those election results in the 4th Congressional District again? Here they are

DEM: David Price

217,441

REP: Todd A. Batchelor

121,717

UNA: Maximilian Longley (Write-In)

76

I had more votes than both candidates combined, no state funding AND no political party support, by the way.
You boasted how the Wake County and other Republicans in the district would turn out. Is 36% the best that you can do in the district? The percentage in Wake Count is roughly the same in this and the 2002 election too, even though the last Republican candidate had far less money and support than the current choice. Some 4th District Chair you are. Why should I take political advice from the likes of you, given your pathetic track record?
One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, yet expecting a different result.   It's you who do not have a grip on reality, not me.   You opened up the email drafted and sent by my campaign staff 23 times.  23 times!  Why are you and Psycho Dave so obsessed with me?   Normal individuals have asked that question of me.

I have one possible answer.  I heard it through the grapevine that the Republican Party Leadership looked at the election results and were in a tizzy.  Their candidate was beaten in several counties by me.  The Republican Party Leadership can't control me.  And they are horrified that I just might make it the next time.  Thus, the attacks continue, because that's all that they know how to do.

A real political professional would have studied the election results and would have told the Republican Party Leadership to make nice with me, as I would be an asset to the party and have proven not only that I am an effective campaigner, but a proven vote getter.

Instead, the Republican mouthpiece laments the lack of Republican success in this state and questions the dearth of good Republican candidates while it has one here under its very nose.  Its no wonder that the Republicans cannot get good candidates, when others see that the Republican Party Leadership keeps sending out idiotic thugs like you, Psycho Dave and others who continue to act under the delusion that their tactics, if kept up, are going to dissuade me to just go away and stop interfering with the Republican Party.

I haven't.  I am not planning on it.  And on the theory that if you announce first, the seat is yours (an argument raised in the last election), I am announcing that I am going to run again.   Tell that to your masters.

Ms. Hunter

Complaint #10
Hello All:
There is a lot going on and if only I had the time to do it all. We have the same old shenanigans in the General Assembly, only worse. We lost the Pope, a truly great man. Hope VanDorp whooped her opponent in the reelection bid for Beaufort County Chair . Spring has finally sprung in North Carolina . And it is convention time in the state.

So let's get started. Read More...

Bill Carraway
seeds1@mindspring.com

Its nice that Mr. Bill decried Pope John Paul's illness and ultimate death. I, too, am a Catholic and echo many of the sentiments about the pope.

However, Mr. Bill then calls me “nuts” even though he claims that he does not want to “pick on” a person who is ill. Is such conduct an example of “compassionate conservatism”?

I had heard that Mr. Bill has been re-elected as the chairman of the 4th Congressional District. Given the dismal results of the last election, one would hope to get some new leadership. However, most people have real lives and interests to attend to and politics is not among them. And it is relatively easy to get elected as chairman. All one need do is show up at the meetings with the other four or five regulars.

I also have heard that Mr. Bill wants to run for the very seat that he chairs. Is his mission to keep out other qualified candidates and save the seat for

himself? If so, then it is Mr. Bill who is delusional as he lacks the necessary leadership qualities to serve in Congress let alone to run against an entrenched and apparently well-liked incumbent. Yet Mr. Bill calls me nuts. What a hypocrite.

One definition of insanity is banging your head against a wall and expecting some result other than a huge headache. The non-existent COPAM and their sycophants like Mr. Bill keep attacking because its all that they know how to do. They attack anyone that gets in their way in their quest for power. They attack anyone that is not a member of their elite little club. They attack anyone who does not meet their definition of purity. I say “Nuts!” to you. And keep banging your heads against the wall.


Complaint #9

You are aware that you ran STATEWIDE, so OF COURSE you would get more votes than candidates running in a single district congressional campaign. Do you not get simple math? You had the whole state and they had 1/13th of the state. How could you EVER be a judge when you are that stupid?

Allison Moriarty


Dear Ms. Moriarty:

The chosen candidate was to have received assistance, endorsements and funding, but did as poorly as a previous candidate in 2002, who, like myself, had no funding and no name recognition. When local talk show hosts joke on the radio about a candidate's absence, I do not view that as a sign of a campaign's success, but someone as intelligent as yourself must know otherwise. Or perhaps you have taken the course in NC Republican new math and politics?

Where were all the Republicans that turned out to support their candidate?

What did the 4th District Chair do? Why have a district chairman if little or nothing is done? Why should I listen to his political advice when I saw no evidence that it had worked?

Better yet, why are people like you and he still engaged in personal attacks?


Complaint #8

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/index.html
Might all Republicans stop with their racing to worry over burning a piece
of cloth for a moment here, and seriously consider what the symbol actually means and stands for? Or have all conveniently forgotten that the higher crimes committed is not that of actually burning a piece of cloth, but the act of sending to hell all that symbol represented?

Pay attention for gosh sakes and wake up! So busy giving such attention and care on something that matters not, as far too many Republicans are tossing the baby out with the bath water?

It?s a national travesty and one where the Constitution is being burned right in our faces and FEW of you are batting an eyelash! Republicans, of all groups of people, conservatives should be smarter than this and I would

expect there to be more of a roar for WHAT THE SYMBOL MEANS, and highly protecting THAT, rather than empty legislation that ignores what indeed is burning up in this nation and nearly gone.

Cynthia Wilkinson


Dear Ms. Wilkinson:

I read the news story that you sent. For those who have not done so, its an eminent domain case. The Court ruled that land of homeowners can be taken by government and given to private developers because it allegedly will improve the tax base and lead to better economic development.

This is a very dangerous case and bodes ill for those across the country. It means that we no longer respect private property rights. It will mean that any time a wealthy individual or corporation wants land, they can go to
a municipality and have the land taken by eminent domain.

This is not the only violation of rights. People have been arguing over whether to close the prison at Guantanamo or "Gitmo". This argument distracts attention from the real issue. I am by no means soft on crime. If someone violates the law, they should be punished. But are we to hold people indefinitely? Oh, but they are not Americans. Anyone remember Jose Padilla? He is an American that was locked up and held indefinitely. Oh,but they are bad guys. As Benjamin Franklin said, "those who would give up a little liberty for safety deserve neither." And if they are bad guys, then charge them with war crimes or criminal offenses. Instead, the government has just locked them up.

Other liberties have been violated as well - just look at all those cameras they have installed at intersections and elsewhere. Try getting a drivers' license without giving your Social Security number. We are living in a sophisticated police state and don't know it.

Meanwhile, our government keeps us distracted over flag-burning. I would not burn our flag, but there are those who want to protest what our government is doing. They can dissent in other ways, but a picture is worth a thousand words. What better way than to demonstrate contempt by burning the flag? Again, I'm not advocating doing it. I am just saying that I
understand it.

I agree that there are more important issues that the people need to be aware of and this is one of them. Thank you for bringing this very important issue to attention. A government that does not respect property rights will lead to tyranny if we don't wake up and stop these people.


Complaint #7

You obviously are a typical lawyer trying to moan and complain about things you are not accurately informed or cannot figure out how to control..... Typical of all lawyers. Such as you are not welcome nor do you belong in the Republican party as far as I am concerned. Grow up and get a life. Or maybe get a job with pretty boy John Edwards!

William M. Johnston
Cary , North Carolina


Dear Mr. Johnston:

I do not want to be in a Republican party inhabited by such as you.  It is you who are misinformed and you who need to grow up and get a life. If elected, I will serve.  If not, I will move on.  But you will stay where you are ... a mind-numbed robot who knows better than to question those in charge.

Rachel


Complaint #6

Dear Rachel Hunter,
     

I guess I should ask you, are you still in the Republican Party or  are you an independent now? IF you are truly independent - of the  neoconservative 'fascists' or 'Nazis', so-called - then I, for one,
 would support you (given that you don't mimic some of the crap the  current Bush federal court nominees espouse). Also,  I suggest you  read a bit about the PNAC. Learn a little bit. Get informed.

 I looked at your site a bit more closely and I guess you really  aren't all that independent of the extreme right wingnut views so  characteristic of others of your ilk. Too bad. And all that legal
 education gone to waste, too.

Perhaps there is some justifiable irony in the Bush Nazis attacking a  fellow Republican Nazi. You guys always were good at eating your own.

 So I can only wish you ill, politically speaking. Though I am glad  you are feeling healthier, physically.

Sincerely,
Dr. Richard Welser
Clinical Psychologist
Morganton , NC   


Dear Dr. Welser:

Technically, I am still a registered as a Republican.  However, I vote
my conscience and have voted for Democrats and others, not based on
party affiliation, but because I believed them to be the best choice. I just have not gotten around yet to changing my party registration, but I will do it before the next primary, I can assure you.  The Republicans do eat their own.

I am independent of the neo-cons.  PNAC - the Project for the New
American Century, headed up by the chief neocon, William Kristol?  Who wants American world domination?  As a candidate for judge, I had
confined my remarks to local politics up till now.  I confess I had not
heard of PNAC before, but I am not and was never a neo-con.  Their
agenda is not mine.  As our founding fathers said, seek trade with
other countries, but beware of foreign entanglements.

I believe in deciding cases on their merits, by the law and evidence at
hand and, if new pronouncements are necessary, narrowly.  I have no
agenda other than improving the law.  I would not "bash" any particular
person or group.  Nothing radical or extremist to the right or the left for that matter.  It is not up to me to force my particular views on litigants or to legislate from the bench if the legislature has not seen fit to do so.  In a nutshell, that is my judicial philosophy.  If its something you can vote for, consider me.  If not, so far only the Republicans have annointed their chosen candidate.  But we are a long way off and the voters will decide my fate.

Thank you for your good wishes for my recovery.

Best wishes,

Rachel


Complaint #5

You lost my vote with your "Nazi" remark... The comparison is dispicable and so are you.

Donna Remini
dremini@ec.rr.com



Dear Ms. Remini:

The next time you attack, learn how to spell. The word is “despicable.”

While you are entitled to your opinion and I would defend your right to express it, what I find truly despicable are the efforts to silence myself and others for expressing our views.

I never had your vote to begin with, so it is no loss. Many share my views. The election is next year and we will see who is right.

Best wishes,

Rachel


Complaint #4

Rachel ~ I am sorry, but your bigotry against Republicans just lost you my support.

I am fighting for an impartial system of justice that leaves the law-making to the legislature, by striving to enforce the accountability of judges to their sworn Oath of Office. I have viewed you as a non-partisan advocate for fair government struggling against political pressure and those that would destroy your reputation unfairly.
However, I am a Republican, and you have just slammed Republicans, generally. If you can be so bigoted as to criticize a policital party generally, and not recognize that there are bad apples in every basket, then you do not deserve to head the Supreme Court of NC protecting the liberties and property rights of all citizens in NC. Sorry, but you just lost my vote.

Please take me off your mailing list.

Carol Bennett, "Bennett for Senate" (2002, 2004)



Dear Ms. Bennett:

If you had read carefully, I did not attack all Republicans. I took issue with the local party's leadership, or lack thereof, and the administration in Washington .

As for the local party, there really is not a party in North Carolina , just a faction that is in control. I have given them every chance to change.
The last straw came while I was in the hospital. And last week, the idiots twisted my words and tried to get me fired. You can disagree with me on the issues, but no one should be personally attacked while they are in the hospital.

That is basic decency and I have had enough abuse at their hands.

If you proclaim to be a Republican, then I never had your vote to begin with, so it is no loss. The voters will decide, not you. If they vote no, I'll move on. We will remove you from our mailing list.

Best wishes,

Rachel


Complaint #3

For the Up teem times, get me off your Goddamned distribution list!!

Jesse Torres

torres1144@aol.com


Dear Mr. Torres:

I need not resort to your level of profanity.   I have not been notified to
remove you.   Since you are incapable or unwilling to unsubscribe yourself,
I am are more than delighted to honor your request.

Best wishes,

Rachel


Complaint #2

You are an idiot Hunter, stop sending me this garbage.

Jack Scherer

Dear Mr. Scherer:

One could say many things about your intellectual capacity or lack thereof,
but I would prefer to let you demonstrate that for yourself as you are so
capable of doing.  I will take the liberty of unsubscribing you.   Live in
what's left of your little myopic world.  When it comes crashing down, we
will then know who which of us is the true idiot.

Rachel


Complaint #1

Take me off your email list and do not send me any more of your drivel, you
crying baby!!

LBlues


Dear LBlues:

You are entitled to your opinion of me, but it is not shared by me and by
many people.  That much was evidenced by the candlelight vigil I attended
for Ms. Sheehan.  The supporters far outnumbered the detractors.
If you do not want to listen to "drivel" from me, I will remove your name
from the list.  However, burying your head in the sand and silencing me will
not stop others from proclaiming the same message.

The message was heard.  The message is growing.   The message has a face
now.  The message will not stop until it has reached the ears and eyes of
our leaders in Washington , D.C.   And the message will continue.  Our leaders
will be forced to hear the message whether they like it or not.  And if
they, like you, refuse to listen to the message, the leaders will not be
returned to office.

Best wishes,

Rachel


Complaint #1a

31 Oct 2006

Subject: Disgrace

Rachel:

You are a disgrace to XXXXX, XXXXX,XXXXX, XXXXXX, & XXXXX. You are an even bigger disgrace and an embarrassment to XXXXXXXXXX. I will let XXX and XXX know the awful way you conduct yourself calling people Nazis and other outrageous statements. We at XXXXXXXXXXXX work to keep high moral standards and your campaign crosses the line. If you want to run for Justice fine but your tactics and lies are embarrassing and unbecoming of a reputable attorney.

Bill Carraway

4 th District GOP Chairperson of North Carolina

and a confirmed coward.



Mr. Carraway,

I thought you were challenging David Price in this election? Or did you realize that you would lose too badly so you found another warm body to be the fall guy?

When will you fools realize that I left the NC GOP party and I am never going to switch back absent radical change? I really do not care what you or anyone else thinks of me.

You are a disgrace to the human species. However, it will all be over next week.

Sincerely,

Rachel Lea Hunter


Paid for by Rachel Lea Hunter for Supreme Court
Suite 332 | NW 1251 Maynard Road | Cary , North Carolina 27513
Ph. 877-893-3713 | Fax 877-893-3713