Even Some Judges Oppose Judicial Activism - (interview w. N.C. Supreme Court Justice Paul Newby)

"The great object of my fear is the Federal Judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting with noiseless foot and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step and holding what it gains, is engulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them." – Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1821.

Justice Newby, thank you for taking the time to acquaint our readers with your judicial philosophy. I just have a few questions for you this evening.

You ran on a platform emphasizing judicial restraint, could you elaborate a bit on how you define this and why you believe it to be so important?

Judicial restraint emphasizes the "rule of law," which means that legal precedent has meaning and must be followed, and recognizes the limited role of courts in our system of government. Judicial activism, which occurs when a judge ignores precedent and imposes his personal views, is a significant threat to our principles of self-government. Our Founding Fathers were wise men who established a system of checks and balances on the powers of government. Legislators are supposed make laws, not judges.

It is the judiciary's role to interpret and apply the law as intended by the drafters. Judges should not view themselves as super-legislators who create, revise or overturn laws at will. No one died and made a judge king. Judicial activism leads to unchecked power in the judiciary, thwarting the rule of the people and undermining self-government. It smacks of elitism and erodes public confidence in the legal system. (i.e. is there law or only the changing opinions of judges?) Our system of law grew out of the English tradition which held that the law, not the king, was supreme. An activist judiciary, in effect, sets itself up as an all-powerful king able to disregard the law and the will of the people.

This results in an oligarchy, a rule of few, which certainly undermines our most basic democratic principles.

This is an untenable situation, but a difficult one to remedy. Who has the power to check a judiciary that seems to hold the final say on every issue?

Our best option is to choose judges who are philosophically committed to and practice restraint. Otherwise, we have problems such as happened in California with the question of the constitutionality of the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. The insertion of "under God" was debated and adopted by the representatives of the people (Congress), and signed into law by the President. If someone objects to the phrase, the proper forum for the debate is Congress, not the courts. It is inappropriate for someone opposed to "under God" to be able to seek out an activist judge to overturn this legitimate law based on nothing more than mere personal opinion.

The problem of an unchecked judiciary is not new as highlighted by this quote from Thomas Jefferson:

"The federal judiciary: an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scarecrow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed; because, when all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government or another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."

That is certainly the editorial view of The North Carolina Conservative! One of our main motivations in starting this newspaper was to inform the voters of the views held by those who propose to lead and rule over our state.

The next question then, is obviously, do you believe judges should be appointed to the North Carolina Supreme Court as some have proposed, or voted on by the electorate?

That is an important question. The approach of North Carolina is certainly better than that of the Federal system. In 1868, our state decided that judges would be elected by the voters of North Carolina, thereby providing accountability. An activist judge can be removed from office by a simple vote of the people. However, judges serve 8 year terms which provides stability. In the Federal system, judges are appointed for life, and there appears to be no accountability.

Even though an elected system is preferable, it is not flawless; it requires an educated electorate. Voters must be aware of the candidates' qualifications and their judicial philosophies. During this last election, there were numerous offices on the ballot and few opportunities for voters to learn who the candidates were and their positions. Removal of party affiliation prevented that shorthand form of identification from being available to most voters, and campaign spending rules prevented judicial candidates from reaching voters.

The greatest threat to our electoral system is an uneducated electorate. When we have soldiers fighting and dying for our freedoms, it is not too much to ask that voters sacrifice the time to learn the qualifications and positions of the candidates. Our responsibility as citizens is to be informed before we step into the voting booth. That is why your newspaper can perform a vital service.

That is our goal, and we thank you for making it possible in this case. As you well know, articles such as this are rare in the mainstream media.

Lastly, what, in your personal view - not necessarily as a Supreme Court Justice - are some of the greatest problems facing our state?

Certainly, as a state and nation, we must continue to confront the threat of terrorism; security is vital. Likewise, our state faces incredible economic challenges as many of our traditional industries are being undermined. We must find ways to transition our citizens from our manufacturing and agricultural industries to those which are now emerging.

Even more important though, is the threat to the moral and religious environment of our state. To paraphrase Alexis deTocqueville, America is great because it is good; it will cease to be great when it ceases to be good. We are witnessing an assault on our traditional family values and religious beliefs. In the past, government has recognized the importance of the role of faith and encouraged religious practice and morality. The blessings of God have made our state and our nation strong, prosperous and free. However, activist judges seem bent on removing all references to God from our culture. How long will God continue to bless a nation that renounces Him? We need judges who will respect and honor our traditional values as well as our democratic system of government.

Again, Justice Newby, thank you for your time and your service to our state. Keep up the good work!

About the Writer: Judson Cox is a young man "from the mountains of North Carolina" who writes political commentary for several newspapers and websites. Judson receives e-mail at conservativejud@yahoo.com.

11/9/2004
New judge won't discuss inquiry
By MATTHEW EISLEY, ROB CHRISTENSEN AND AMY GARDNER, Staff Writers

Now that federal prosecutor Paul Newby of Raleigh has been elected to the state Supreme Court, he won't reveal what has happened with a federal investigation of his campaign.

It doesn't matter, he says, because he's starting his new job as soon as this week.

By law, some federal employees, including Newby, can't run in partisan elections. They are free to run in nonpartisan races.

The Supreme Court race was officially nonpartisan. But Newby sought and trumpeted an endorsement by the state Republican Party.

Someone complained about Newby's campaign activities to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which polices the political activity of federal workers. One of Newby's opponents, Rachel Lea Hunter, publicized the agency's inquiry. Newby confirmed the inquiry last month.

But now Newby, 49, won't discuss it. He said the investigation is an internal personnel matter. He also said he won't long be a federal employee, so the probe is irrelevant.

"Part of winning the race is leaving the job," he said. "I'm gone. It's just not a factor."

Newby's take didn't sit well with one politico following the case.

"If you can break the Hatch Act and reap the rewards, what a worthless law that is!" said Christina Jeffrey, a visiting professor of political science and public administration at Coastal Carolina University in Conway, S.C. She is a friend of Hunter's who once ran a Georgia organization called Operation Integrity, which investigated public officials.

"If we were serious," Jeffrey said, "the punishment would be loss of the ill-gotten gains -- to wit, the job one obtained by cheating."

Newby was elected to an eight-year term on North Carolina's Supreme Court. Among other duties, the high court decides whether to punish state judges for unethical conduct.

When asked whether the voting public has a right to know what happened with the campaign investigation, Newby said: "I'm just not going to comment. I don't see that there's a reason to."

Hunter's camp disagrees. "As an elected official of the highest court in North Carolina, one would expect Newby to voluntarily reveal information if he has nothing to hide," said Hunter's campaign spokesman, Cameron DeJong.

Walter B. Jones to Present 'Campus Defender' Award; Major Announcement to Be Made!

Dear Friends and Voters:

As many of you know, I was honored by the Duke College Republicans and Congressman Walter B. Jones on Wednesday evening, as I was the recipient of the first Walter B. Jones Campus Defender award. As I indicated to the group, I am both honored and humbled to receive such recognition from both Congressman Jones and the Duke College Republicans and I will certainly cherish the award.

While some members of the public may not believe that anything can be done or that it is not an important issue, I am here to tell you that IS an important issue, for both students and faculty alike. It does not matter what a person’s political affiliation is or the color of their skin, but NOBODY should be subjected to ridicule, harassment, intimidation, threats or other forms of abuse merely for airing their views on a particular issue. You and I may or may not agree with the views expressed. But we are free to express our own views, in support or against. We let the marketplace of ideas compete. It's the essence of our constitutional right under the 1st Amendment right of the US Constitution to speak out. That’s what America is all about.

And Congressman Jones led the way in proving that something CAN be done about this problem. I applaud his efforts and know that he is going to keep fighting for both our right to express ourselves on campus and in the pulpits of our religious institutions.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the ways of Washington, our legislators frequently slip things into pending legislation. So it was with a senator named Lyndon Johnson. It used to be in America that our rabbis, ministers, pastors and other religious officials could speak their minds in church, including commentary on political matters. Finding himself the object of such criticism, Senator Johnson inserted a provision into a pending bill prohibiting such conduct under the Internal Revenue Code. And we have been saddled with the rule ever since.

Unfortunately, the IRS cannot police the rule and it’s been haphazardly enforced, depending on the political party in power. Regardless of whether the views are expressed by those on the left or the right, its time to end this nonsense. Congressman Jones will once again introduce a bill to do so. Many prominent individuals, including some who have lent their name to the efforts to get the government out of our educational system, have already joined this effort. For those who are interested, I would encourage you to contact your legislative representative in Washington to lend their support and vote.

As for myself, I took the liberty of using the Duke forum to announce my own plans. Many of you are well aware of the problems that were experienced in the last election. During my campaign tour and in emails or other contacts, I have continued to receive support as well as complaints regarding the existing system. Because of these discussions, I have decided that our state needs to have its own policy/think tank that will be dedicated to the issues that have arisen.

Consequently, I have asked Dr. Christina Jeffrey to assemble and head up the board. I am pleased to report that she has obtained not only prestigious individuals to serve on the board, but also has received commitments from many donors to fund the institute.

The institute will be called the Carolina Liberty Foundation and it will be located in Charlotte. Why Charlotte? I have had discussions with individuals in both North and South Carolina and issues common to both have surfaced. Charlotte is an ideal location to service both areas.

Some of the goals of the foundation will be as follows:

1. To offer a yearly award to the Duke College Republicans that will be given to the recipient of the Walter B. Jones Campus Defender Award to encourage others to get involved and continue standing up for our 1st Amendment rights on our college campuses;
2. To enable educators at all levels to obtain training and certification in liberty studies as well as more traditional course work. It is our hope that Christian educators will look to us for school headmasters, teachers, guidance counselors, coaches, fundraising consultants, etc.
3. To assist good people in grant-writing, management and curriculum development for charter or private schools so that such institutions can be created. We'll also teach, however, independence and the importance of schools positioning themselves to be self-supporting and not beholding to government largess for their very existence.
4. We will have weekend and summer school programs modeled on Morton Blackwell's Leadership Institute--linked to it if possible-- to prepare our college students to enter student government, journalism and politics and then to move on to real government, journalism and politics.
5. We'll set up our own private accrediting board to accredit home schools, not for government purposes, but more for the peace of mind and self-assurance of those who home school. We'll also teach courses for home schoolers at our headquarters as well as online.
6. To offer fellowships to liberty-minded professors so that they can continue their research in an academic/think tank environment. Necessarily, such professors or others can address public policies, politics or other important issues affecting both states.
7. Finally, we will be a resource for students and faculty who are threatened, intimidated or otherwise have their constitutional rights violated by faculty and administrators. We will find allies and lawyers for them and help them to fight back.

It’s an ambitious program.

Another idea that has been developed is one of either aligning with or creating a political action group. I have been approached or contacted by many good people who seek political office. However, they complain of a lack of party interest, support and funding. The political action committee will help find and fund liberty-minded political candidates, regardless of the person’s political party affiliation.

The third issue is one regarding my own candidacy. Some critics believe that I should perhaps aim my sights lower and that the Supreme Court of our state is out of reach. As I previously noted, being a trial judge is not the same as appellate work. I have given the idea thought and I simply am not interested in trial work at this time. I also served for ten years on an intermediate appellate court. I have done that. I now want to serve at a different level. That leaves our state Supreme Court.

It’s sad to say, but I continue to hear complaints of corruption and other misconduct. I also hear complaints from our judicial system about the lack of funding. One way to do something about the existing system is through the office of the Supreme Court. The next opening will be in 2006 when Chief Justice Lake retires. I am pleased to announce my candidacy for that seat.

PAID FOR BY RACHEL LEA HUNTER FOR SUPREME COURT
P.O Box 332 | NW 1251 Maynard Road | Cary, North Carolina 27513
Ph. (919) 386-0246 | Fax 877-572-9790

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. No, you are not. Your hypocrisy shines forth like a beacon. 2. And what path would that be, madam, and who are you to judge whether I am on the right path or the wrong? 3. 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. 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. 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. Good for you! 7. 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. 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. See my answer to number 5 and 8. 10. 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. 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. 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, 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. There! Evidence beyond a doubt that this is a Church Lady. I pray too, by the way. 20. Again, how many political campaigns have you run? 21. 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. 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. PAID FOR BY RACHEL LEA HUNTER FOR SUPREME COURT P.O Box 332 | NW 1251 Maynard Road | Cary, North Carolina 27513 Ph. (919) 386-0246 | Fax 877-572-9790 Copyright 2004. RACHEL LEA HUNTER FOR SUPREME COURT

Updates!

Dear Friends & Voters:

I thought that I would provide an update. I have received many offers of prayers and good wishes. Thank you all. Your efforts are sincerely appreciated.

I have watched the party gyrations and have noticed more internecine fighting among the county GOP, especially in Wake and Orange Counties.

Another individual is bemoaning the fact that a scant 40 people showed up for their annual dinner. It takes no imagination to wonder why when the NC GOP and its county affiliates are in such disarray.

All it takes is a few of them to show up at a precinct meeting, get elected to some post and they are in charge of things. They then proceed to ban or attack or otherwise challenge anyone else who is not of like mind. Such is how autocrats and tyrants behave.

Until the party becomes something other than a private club, until the party and its thugs stop attacking decent individuals, until the party elects real leaders, nothing will change. I am waiting until the party elections. If the same old crew is in charge, I will do as many others have already done and leave.

Speaking of the party, our current leader, Mr. Blount has sounded off once again. One of his current missives rails at our state attorney general for defending UNC. Although his notice of the issue of "college abuse" as I've termed it is welcome, his rant on the attorney general is misguided. One may take issue with Mr. Cooper over certain things, but defense of the university is not one of them. Last time I checked our laws, they indicated that a state school, as an agency of the state, must be represented by our state attorney general. And an attorney is bound by ethical rules to zealously represent his client. Also, the client is the person who is control of the litigation and an attorney is bound to respect the client’s wishes. One would think Mr. Blount would know these simple facts. It again substantiates my belief that we need a change on Hillsborough Street.

I also observed that Vernon Robinson has thrown in his name in the race for the chairmanship. Although I have been accused in various places of controlling Mr. Robinson, nothing could be further from the truth. It’s my understanding that he was acquainted with my campaign manager, Cameron, before I ever arrived. He and Cameron talked and Cameron simply sent out a press release on his behalf that inadvertently had my name on it from my campaign. Other than the connection of Cameron, I do not know him and cannot comment on his vices or virtues. I do not know if he is the one to lead the party or not, but things are so bad, that any change is a welcome one. Therefore, I wish him well in his endeavors.

I also have finished (finally!) the Federalist Papers and have re-read Frederic Bastiat's The Law. I've now moved on to the writings of Thomas Jefferson. In reading these books, some things have struck me. As I previously mentioned, our times and culture may have changed, but not human nature. Mr. Jefferson and others were keen students of this fact and knew the good and bad aspects of human nature. That is why the Constitution was devised. As Thomas Jefferson said, “"In questions of power, then, let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

How far we have strayed from that simple idea as embodied in that document. Those in the so-called "Republican" party were adherents to a smaller federal government, less taxes and less intrusiveness by the government. Not so anymore. As the chairman of the Republican party once said, the aim of the Republicans is just to not spend as much as the Democrats. In fact, non-war spending under the Bush administration has grown twenty percent (20%), compared to the previous administration. Our government commenced a war on pretenses that those on the left and the right have challenged. Contrary to what my detractors have said, the government has locked up citizens (anyone remember José Padilla?) and granted to itself all kinds of powers that were previously unthinkable.

What doctrine is that? If there is a hope for the future, we need to stop squabbling over meaningless things and return to our roots. Until we regain that footing and adhere to our principles, I fear for the party and our country.

Regarding my health, I have met with my doctors and surgery is scheduled for May 5 at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina.. The surgery itself is gruesome to describe. It will be a long procedure and an even longer recovery. But as my doctor said, I do not really have any options in this matter. The tumor has robbed me of not only my hearing, but has begun to affect my ability to taste food, has caused a tingling sensation on the right side of my face and results in a real loss of balance when I am tired. However, after my surgery and recovery, I plan to be back in an action and will keep you posted as to my progress!

Email:
CLICK HERE

PAID FOR BY RACHEL LEA HUNTER FOR SUPREME COURT
P.O Box 332 | NW 1251 Maynard Road | Cary, North Carolina 27513
Ph. 877-893-3713 | Fax 877-893-3713
Copyright 2004. RACHEL LEA HUNTER FOR SUPREME COURT

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

NC *Ping*

NC Ping