The Bar's contention is that Rachel attempted to "mislead" voters as to her credentials.
Never mind that there was an "About Rachel" tab on sidebar of her website (which inandofitself disproves the notion she intended to mislead anyone) . . . never mind that "Madame Justice" is a nickname she's used amongst friends and on various "ancient" websites for years . . . never mind a host of other things we've discussed before.
The Bar's self-serving theory, of course, is that the average North Carolina voter is stupid, gullible and unsophisticated.
Come to think of it, the Bar might not be too far off base. After all, a whole lot of someones DID vote for John Edwards and Mike Sleazely (among others) . . . as much as no one wants to admit it now.
On the other hand, I don't see the Bar moving to take any action against ex-Governor Sleazely or his greedy gopher, Ruffin Poole, or John-the-beautiful-ego-monster Edwards.
They've rested on the laurels of their after-the-fact pounding of Mike Nifong for far too long.
The Bar didn't bat an eyelash when I reported the big bad lawyers (supposedly "experts" on "non-profits") from a big bad Greensboro law firm for blatantly suborning perjury . . . or my own attorney for gross negligence (missing the perjury . . . and telling me that punitive damages were not taxable).
But the public needs to be protected from Rachel Hunter because she used a nickname on a blog?
I mean, really. WHAT THE HELL???
Let me state (one more time) the obvious: In a series of shameful/blatantly un-Constitutional maneuvers (fed by totally bogus accusations made by anonymous complainants), the disciplinary arm of the North Carolina State Bar was turned into a political weapon-of-asinine-retaliation.
Oral arguments on Rachel's appeal of the Bar's action were heard on the 27th . . . before judges McGee, Beasley and Steelman.
One can only hope that these real judges are not stupid or gullible or unsophisticated as to the ways of the Internet . . . that they can see the absurdity in all of this . . . and that they tell the Bar to grow up and play fair.
The legal eagles that are supposed to protect We-The-People have much bigger fish to catch and fry.
2/1 Update: Rachel Hunter contacted me to make two factual corrections to this post (one is noted in a change of the title of this post).
Her appeal is before the N.C. Court of Appeals, and is being heard before judges, not justices.
I shouldn't elevate them above their station.
3 comments:
While I understand the situation and feel for Ms. Hunter the moniker was used beyond just her website and blog. What makes it questionable in some peoples eyes is that the use of such a moniker did in fact give a false impression of her qualifications. Many voters don't look at the sidebar if they visit a site for just quick information or if it is sent to them by someone else and thus a situation for confusion exists. Did she do such with the intention of misleading the voters? No, I certainly do not think so but it still creates the impression to the uninformed, as most voters are, that she was or had been in the position of judge. That is where the problem lies.
I remember when her hubby used the term on the N&R blogs on several occasions and he was called on it to show where she had "earned" such a title by actually being n the position of judge. Unfortunately his response was less than it should have been.
I certainly hope that the justices hearing the testimony will see it for what it was.
I appreciate your comment, P. But let's delve a little bit deeper into that argument.
"Some people". Would that include the people that jeered and sneered and called a woman with a brain tumor "batshit crazy"? I think sometimes you need to consider the source.
I certainly do not condone with all of Connie's hijinks - nor am I sympatico with all of Rachel's rhetoric. But hijinks and rhetorhic are protected speech as long as they do no harm.
For "some people", it was not good enough not to vote for Rachel . . . or discourage others from voting for her. They had to crucify her (and her hubby). That's what "some people" filing an anonymous compliant with the Bar was all about.
And, P, you just said it yourself. The INTENT to deceive simply was not there.
Moreover, this "offense" certainly does not rise to ANY of the truly despicable crimes and misdemeanors the Bar has most conveniently winked and nodded at over the years.
The Bar's group-pummel of Mike Nifong was the exception, not the rule - and only occurred after he was suckered into cutting his own throat. The sad truth is that Nifong would still be practicing law had he not turned the Duke case over to the AG.
I don't see the Bar initiating any actions against John Edwards for snowing Bunny Mellon . . . or prosecuting Mike Sleazely and Ruffin Poole for turning the Governor's office into a pig parlor.
In my own case, where the professional conduct of ALL of the lawyers involved was just atrocious - both unethical and illegal - SEVERAL attorneys I consulted told me to take it to the Bar . . . that the Bar could/would clean house.
And what a joke that was. A wink and a nod (in the direction of the liars and cheats) was all I got. I was nothing - a nobody - unworthy of fair play on the part of officers-of-the Court. The deck was just stacked from day one.
I've never had any kind of reasonable chance at justice in the North Carolina legal system. It's all about who you know or what your name is.
With all of this in-your-face corruption out there festering, this crowd can waste the time and resources it takes to professionally crucify a former judicial candidate for using a nickname on the blogs??? And speaking of stupidity, they think the general public is too stupid to see that it's all about preventing her from running again?
Has anyone prosecuted Obama for all of the outright lies he told during his campaign?
ALL of this is just twisted warped and sick. And the deafening silence of all the "free speech" advocates in the blogosphere speaks volumes.
And yes, I hope the justices can resist the urge to be tools . . . and that they have the guts to call the Bar on what it has done.
But I'm not holding my breath.
It's North Carolina. Bassackwards in every way.
I think anyone ignorant enough to think Hunter's nickname implied that she was a judge is probably ignorant of the fact that a female justice is formally referred to as "madame".
--Brandon Burgess
Post a Comment