Home > Political Insider > Archives > 2006 > October > 26 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USThe judge’s white gloves come off: His own mother sued him?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Lesson No. 236 in Georgia politics: Make a lady judge mad, and she doesn’t get even. She gets even plus attorney fees and court costs, plus damages and punitive fines. And to boot, she gives you 20 to serve.
Carol Hunstein, the incumbent Supreme Court justice, has just let loose what’s probably the most brutal ad Georgia’s ever seen in a judicial race. She tells the world that her opponent, Bush administration counselor Mike Wiggins, was sued by his own mother, and was accused by his own sister of threatening to kill her — the sister — when she was eight months pregnant.
Mike Wiggins campaign has denied all charges in the Hunstein ad, and calls its content “cruel, false and personal.”
This is a long file, and we’ve got a good deal of back and forth to wade through.
First, see the ad here.
This is the transcript:
“We expect only experienced judges to serve on Georgia’s Supreme Court. But Mike Wiggins has never tried a case.
“We expect our Supreme Court to uphold Georgia values. But Mike Wiggins was sued by his own mother for taking her money. He sued his only sister. She said he threatened to kill her while she was eight months pregnant. A judge ordered Wiggins never to have contact with her again.
“Mike Wiggins. The wrong experience. The wrong values for the Supreme Court.”
Here’s the Wiggins response, passed to us at 2 p.m. Given the seriousness of the issue, we present most of it verbatim below:
“FACT: Mike has been through at least three detailed FBI background checks. He held some of the highest security clearances in the federal government. Those background checks concluded there was absolutely zero reason to question Mike’s personal integrity.
“HUNSTEIN SAYS: ‘We expect only experienced judges to serve on Georgia ’s Supreme Court. But Mike Wiggins has never tried a case.’
“FALSE: Mike Wiggins has tried cases in court. In fact, he has won a ruling from the Georgia Court of Appeals as well as several federal courts. And, Mike has controlled appellate litigation on the most complex constitutional issues at the top courts in the country including several that went to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“HUNSTEIN SAYS: ‘We expect our Supreme Court to uphold Georgia values. But Mike Wiggins was sued by his own mother for taking her money.’
“FALSE: Mike and his mother agreed together upon a lawsuit on a promissory note as a way of recovering money that was stolen by a third party. Mike recovered the money taken, returned it to his mother, and the lawsuit was dismissed.
“HUNSTEIN SAYS: ‘He sued his only sister, she said he threatened to kill her while she was 8 months pregnant.’
“FALSE: Mike has never threatened his sister, and any charge that he did is utterly false. Mike did file a motion in a guardianship case to prevent the removal of life sustaining care from his mother while she was in a coma. Years earlier, at his mother’s request, Mike made a promise to her that he would protect her life and her life savings. The order entered by the court completely vindicated Mike’s position in the case. It gave him sole control over his mother’s finances and health care, and ordered that personal property be returned to the estate and that over $12,000 be repaid to the estate.
“HUNSTEIN SAYS: ‘A Judge ordered Wiggins never to have contact with her again.’
“FALSE: At Mike’s own request, in the very same order discussed above, the judge ordered that Mike ‘not initiate any direct personal contact with [her] and that [she] shall not initiate any direct personal contact with [him] in perpetuity.’ It was in fact a mutual instruction to ‘initiate direct personal contact’ only through the lawyers in the case. As noted above, the judge also gave Mike sole control over his mother’s health care decisions and over her modest financial resources and ordered that more that $12,000 and personal property be returned to the estate and placed under Mike’s protection as his mother’s guardian and conservator.
Finally, here’s the Hustein response to the Wiggins response, handed to us at 3:30 p.m. by Hustein spokesman Linton Johnson:
“Mr. Wiggins is asking Georgia voters to trust him with a seat on our state’s highest court, but he has no judicial record and therefore very little is known about him. This ad informs Georgians of his lack of experience and raises serious questions about his judicial temperament. It is our understanding that Mr. Wiggins has declined many opportunities to talk with the news media about his qualifications for office, or lack thereof. This ad fills that information gap.
“Justice Hunstein is under attack by an outside group that has raised and spent hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, to spread outrageous distortions of her 22-year record of judicial service.
“It’s an attempt by the insurance industry and other special interests to buy a seat on the Supreme Court. Did they think Justice Hunstein and her supporters would let them do so without a fight?â€?
Services »
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By Wow
October 26, 2006 12:24 PM | Link to this
This from a sitting Supreme Court justice. Just the kind of behavior we like to see on the bench.
By Rawena
October 26, 2006 12:42 PM | Link to this
He lost me with “Bush administration ……”
By catlady
October 26, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this
It all goes to show you should have serious reservations about almost anyone who volunteers to run for office. Neither the incumbent nor the challenger look very pretty on this.
By Pamela
October 26, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this
If this is true then she should reveal it to the public. Court records are public and there is no breach in privacy. That’s not to say some family members can’t make you crazy as hell.
By Andrea
October 26, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this
Great commercial. After how Wiggins has insulted Justice Hunstein, he deserves this and more. What a scumbag.
By Mary
October 26, 2006 12:54 PM | Link to this
Who did the background check on this guy? The same person who did Mark Foley?
By Glenda
October 26, 2006 1:21 PM | Link to this
One aspect that Mr. Wiggins hasn’t made clear is his experience with Georgia law. A Supreme Court justice is required to make decisions regarding issues in Georgia courts, applying Georgia statutes and Georgia cases. Who wants a justice who needs on the job training because he’s not familiar with Georgia law?
By DeerBoy
October 26, 2006 2:56 PM | Link to this
If Wiggins’ statement is even half true, Carol Hunstein’s ad is the most despicable, contemptuous thing I’ve ever seen. Made worse so by the fact that she is a sitting judge. Wow, if she’ll stretch the truth like this, wonder what she’s doing on the bench. Disgusting.
By honestly
October 26, 2006 3:15 PM | Link to this
If you read mike’s repsonses, nothingin the Hunstein ad is false. You can check the court record for cases wiggins has “tried” Wiggins was sued by his own mother. Its in his own response that he was. Its in the court records. Wiggens is estranged from his sister. That’s in the record—and is enforced by a court order.
Wiggens has supplied context to hunsten’s ad—but has not refuted what she has said.
I think the ad is overboard. But it appears to be just as true as what Wiggins has said about hunsteing. that’s not ajustification, but ifyou play fair you’ll recognize that both sides have bent the truth.
By Joe T
October 26, 2006 3:28 PM | Link to this
The lady judge, if that’s what you call her ,just lost my vote.
By TimBuckTooth
October 26, 2006 4:01 PM | Link to this
just saw this ad … oh my God, I can’t believe a judge would be so loose with the facts.
Please, RESIGN, Justice Hunstein.
Your profession must have some honor and decency and integrity.
By Tim
October 26, 2006 4:11 PM | Link to this
Sorry, but I don’t agree that the lady judges ads were true. She totally misrepresented the meaning of everything. That is a lie by ommission, something a Judge should not be allowing. Considering in her ad she doesn’t deny this and fails to justify her falsehoods except by saying they were filling an “information gap” and “fighting back”. Inexcusable from a sitting judge. This is not the type person I want trying MY cases.
By Whats_good_for_the_goose
October 26, 2006 4:11 PM | Link to this
Oh, please. Wiggins has run ads that are just as misleading, implying that Hunstein is a pot-smoking, “activist” wacko. If she trashes him in an ad, he needs to run home and cry to his mommy. Oh, wait, guess he can’t do that.
Wiggins was the one to politicize this race, against long-standing tradition. He’s a power-hungry freak.
By Wow, One Whole Case
October 26, 2006 4:12 PM | Link to this
Mike says he has “tried cases in court. In fact, he has won a ruling from the Georgia Court of Appeals …” Mike apparently does not even know that you “try” cases in trial courts and “appeal” them in appellate courts. Any way, whether it was a trial or an appeal, it appears that he has handled only one Georgia case. That does not sound like much experience to me.
By Hinkel
October 26, 2006 4:17 PM | Link to this
One thing I learned is that when dealing with lawyers you have to parse every single word. Many are tricky and have no morals. What they say may be true only in the most specific of parsing. He was sued by his mother. On the surface it sounds really, really bad. When you hear the story of why it make sense and is really not that bad at all. Intentionally misleading someone by the omittion of pertinant information is just as bad as telling them an all out lie. It is not illegal to mislead however.
By Mary
October 26, 2006 4:31 PM | Link to this
I agree with “By honestly” that Wiggins has added context but no refutation to the comments in the ad. Just as his ads take Hunstein’s decisions out of context. If everyone on the court agrees that a decision is faulty, is one single judge to blame for the decision or was the case handled badly, the law written badly before it reached the court?
The fact that Wiggins and family members have resorted to the court, that he and his sister both agreed never to have contact is a flag. I wish the AJC would get off its duff and do more investigative reporting and less fluff.
By Jan Kiburg
October 26, 2006 4:44 PM | Link to this
Whats new?? The first honest liberal still has to be born.
By Jenie off the bottle
October 26, 2006 5:05 PM | Link to this
It’s past time citizens require/request our leaders to “STOP THE MADDNESS”! All the money spent on slander during these midterm elections makes me wonder about those seeking office. Oh, not the ones slanderred, but the ones doing the slinging… What the special interest groups would do to BUY a candidate is shameful. All look deceitful, desperate.
By Ron
October 26, 2006 5:10 PM | Link to this
Both of these power mongers sicken me by their mud-slinging and wallowing in lies and misinformation.
This great society was built by people who had morals and class. This campaign is just one more slip of our civility. Where, oh where, are the decent people any more? Why do decent people listen to their immoral campaign managers?
My faith in the legal profession is nil. Shame to you both!
Ron Martin Smyrna, GA
By Ron
October 26, 2006 5:19 PM | Link to this
To complain about this ad, use her campaign email:
info@hunsteinforjustice.com
By Clerk
October 26, 2006 5:25 PM | Link to this
Better yet, tell her directly to apologize or resign. Judges really should be above this kind of lying and distortion.
hunsteic@gasupreme.us
By Fair Play
October 26, 2006 5:46 PM | Link to this
So everyone is believing him but not her? Y’all, that says something in and of itself. Read between the lines of his response.
Personally I see now why big businesses have targeted her: she’s not a pushover. She speaks her mind and is not afraid. She’s definitely a fighter. And she is highly respected as a judge.
By Charles
October 26, 2006 5:52 PM | Link to this
Ron, thanks for the address. I sent my comments. Prior to this ad, I was going to vote for Hunstein as she had the temperament to take the high road. But c’mon, this ad doesn’t just cross the line, but travels light years beyond it! Yes, both candidates stink. But for her to lose at this point would be a clear sign that we, the voting public, will vote against the worst negative ads. If crossing this line means losing, candidates will stop crossing the line. If we reward candidates who pull a Hunstein by looking the other way and voting for them anyway, we condemn ourselves to more of these ads. Candidates will only use these types of ads so long as we, the voters, reward them for using the ads.
By Charles
October 26, 2006 5:57 PM | Link to this
Um, Fair Play, the court record shows that the judge who heard the original case put him in charge of his mother’s estate. That pretty much tells us the judge who looked at the facts in the case agreed that he, not the sister, was the party on the “correct” side. That gives his explanation more cred than Hunstein’s slanted recitation of the case.
By Fair Play
October 26, 2006 6:04 PM | Link to this
Actually, Charles, it just means he had a better lawyer than she did. Or do you think OJ was really innocent?
By Whats_good_for_the_goose
October 26, 2006 6:06 PM | Link to this
Oh, and Wiggin’s ad about Hunstein wasn’t negative?
As I said, for years these races have been non-political. Wiggins was the first to cross that line, and the first to start using attack ads. Politics being what they are, she’s responding to that. Wiggins is the one that decided this would all be “politics as usual”.
Personally, I think it’s hilarious…Start a mudslinging match when you have restraining orders from your sister, and were named in a lawsuit by your mother? What a dummy. He was stupid to launch a low blow at Hunstein with those skeletons in his closet.
By Joshua
October 26, 2006 6:31 PM | Link to this
Those of us not in the legal profession view the legal system as being skewed toward those who can afford the best attorney. What chance do normal people have if all levels of the legal system are subsidiaries of the corporate world? Electing Wiggins is putting a corporate lap dog into our Supreme Court. I don’t care how dirty the campaign gets - the courts should be for the people, all the people.
By Debbie
October 26, 2006 6:57 PM | Link to this
Hunstein is an activist liberal Democrat Judge in bed with the trial lawyers. She needs to be defeated.
All GOP local and state parties support Wiggins because he is the Republican in this race.
State Court Judges should be elected in primaries just like all other statewide elcted positions.
By disappointed_lawyer
October 26, 2006 7:27 PM | Link to this
Can you imagine if Presiding Justice Hunstein took this kind of half-baked innuendo and smear into court and offered it as evidence?
The judge would probably hold her in contempt. Charged dismissed … summary judgment.
Good lord, to drag a man’s efforts to protect his mother and defend her meager estate into a radical sucker punch in a judicial campaign marks a new low, not only in judicial race but also for all campaigns in Georgia.
Thankfully some candidates, like Thurbert Baker, have taken a much higher, much more honorable road.
By Jackson
October 26, 2006 7:33 PM | Link to this
Whatever omissions there are help Wiggins.
Check out the text of his sister’s affidavit:
“Mike has a bad temper and a strong personality. Since our mother has been in a coma, he has been very angry and cruel toward me. He has cursed at me, verbally abused me, and threatened me to the point I am afraid of him. He intimidates me. On different occasions, Mike has said to me, “Don’t cross me,” and “I am going to kill you.” He has threatened to have me arrested. The last time he did this was when I was eight and a half months pregnant with my third child. I have not spoken with him or seen him since. I do not want to give a deposition in Mike’s presence, no matter who else would be there. I would not be able to think clearly. I am scared of him and do not want to see him. I am willing to give a deposition without him being present or over the telephone with Mike listening in.”
Gotta love that the first Wiggins ad said, “He’ll put families first on Georgia’s Supreme Court.”
Just like he did with sis and mom? Now that’s a scary thought.
By Your Kidding
October 26, 2006 8:54 PM | Link to this
I was on the fence in this race, leaning towards Hunstein. This ad is way way over the line for someone running for Supreme Court. Wiggin’s now has my vote.
By From Punch Pundit
October 26, 2006 8:56 PM | Link to this
Meanwhile, over at Peach Pundit:
Justice Hunstein Is Unqualified To Be A Supreme Court Justice
As most of you are aware, I am a lawyer by training and spent over five years handling guardianships, estates, etc.
It is my professional legal opinion that Justice Hunstein has violated the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Rules of the Judicial Qualifications Commission. I expect someone should file a formal complaint against her or seek her impeachment for violating the Canons.
Having seen the facts, I am disgusted.
Canon 7B(1)(c) of the code of Judicial Conduct states:
“Candidates, including an incumbent judge, for any judicial office that is filled by public election between competing candidates shall not use or participate in the publication of a false statement of fact concerning themselves or their candidacies, or concerning any opposing candidate or candidacy, with knowledge of the statement’s falsity or with reckless disregard for the statement’s truth or falsity.”
Whether you are for or against Carol Hunstein, It seems clear to me that she has violated both the letter of the Canon and the spirit of the Canon by showing reckless disregard for the truth of multiple statements in that ad.
By Tony Setliff
October 26, 2006 8:57 PM | Link to this
SOMEONE is bold face lying!
Has he ever tried a case before or not?
If he has then the add is a total bold face lie.
If he has not then HE is a bold face liar and must be exposed.
Its just that simple!!!!!
By hcocd
October 26, 2006 9:08 PM | Link to this
What a witch, The Dems might find out a thing or two come Nov. No way should we let then be in charge of anything.
By sba
October 26, 2006 10:12 PM | Link to this
And lawyers wonder why people hate lawyers. I have studied both candidates and given considerable thought to my vote in this race. Unfortunately for Hunstein, I was probably leaning her way UNTIL this ad.
Candidates should remember that most people vote for the person, most people have had some dispute in their families and most people don’t like nastiness.
BAD political advice. If she paid for it, she should get her money back.
By Will
October 27, 2006 10:03 AM | Link to this
Does this demonstrate to anyone else the absurdity of selecting Supreme Court justices by election?
By GodHatesTrash
October 29, 2006 8:21 AM | Link to this
I would vote for Wiggins for dogcatcher, but not for a Supreme Court judgeship.
Keep stumpbroke trash off the bench.
Vote Hunstein.
By Todd Danforth
November 6, 2006 2:49 PM | Link to this
Out of state, undisclosed money for Wiggins speaks for itself. According to som reports, Wiggins even claimed he didn’t even know the name of the group running his ads or who funded them. Please. Evidently he thinks we have all drunk so much neocon kool-aid that we’ll be completely oblivious to this bald-faced attempt by largely out-of-state corporate interests to buy this Georgia supreme court seat for him.