Home > Political Insider > Archives > 2006 > October > 31 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USNow speaks the sister, and she’s still mad
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
The Carol Hunstein campaign, reacting to rival Mike Wiggin’s demand that TV stations stop running her attack ad, has produced a statement from the unnamed sister’s lawyer, Todd McLeroy of Cullman, Alabama.
It’s one more wrinkle in the race for state Supreme Court justice. We offer below some quick excerpts:
“Mike Wiggins’ sister is a life long resident of Cullman. She is a respected citizen, homemaker, wife, mother of three, and member of the board of a Christian school.
“The litigation with her only brother was perhaps the most difficult and painful period of her life. She does not want to relive any part of that time by becoming involved in her brother’s campaign for a position on the Georgia Supreme Court.
“However, she has authorized me to state that the affidavit she filed in February 1999 is true, and she stands by what she said then.”
Among other points by the lawyer, according to the Hunstein campaign:
“Mr. Wiggins was not close to his mother. When she had her stroke, Mr. Wiggins had not had much contact with her for some time. His sister was the primary care giver.
“Mr. Wiggins removed all of the money in her mother’s bank account after she went into a coma. His sister, as a result, could not pay her mother’s bills. Mr. Wiggins’ sister was forced to establish a guardianship and borrow money against her mother’s house to pay for her care.
“After learning about the mortgage, Mr. Wiggins’ started a court fight in which he went through four sets of lawyers and litigated in many different courts.
“Eventually, there was a settlement in which the sister agreed to allow him to become their mother’s guardian. There was no “victoryâ€? for Mr. Wiggins. His sister simply gave in, deciding she did not want to fight with her brother about her mother’s money. A key part of the settlement was a court order preventing Mr. Wiggins from ever contacting her again.
“After he became guardian, Mr. Wiggins asked the court to put his sister in jail because she had not returned their mother’s family photographs, a few personal items, and a few pieces of inexpensive furniture. She had kept the items because of her fear Mr. Wiggins would burn them. After a court hearing, the judge refused to jail Mr. Wiggins’ sister.
“After their mother died, Mr. Wiggins’ sister learned that he had changed the beneficiary on an insurance policy that their mother had maintained on her life from his sister, who had been the beneficiary for about 15 years, to Mrs. Wiggins sister. Mr. Wiggins used the money to pay his lawyers. While his sister tried to challenge what he had done, she eventually gave in to avoid having to deal with him.
“During the course of the litigation, Mr. Wiggins did not display the temperament expected in a judge and had difficulties dealing with all the other professionals in the case, including opposing counsel and the lawyers who were appointed by the court to serve as his mother’s guardians at litem.”
.JPG)
-1.JPG)
Services »
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By Rod
October 31, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this
If you’re going to post something like this, why don’t you just go ahead and offer a full endorsement for Hunstein?
Obviously Mike Wiggin and his sister disagreed over things - that’s why there was court action.
Pathetic, irresponsible “journalism” by you guys as usual. (how was your payoff - in 20’s or 100’s?)
By Bill Simon
October 31, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this
Rod,
Would you hire someone who didn’t have any experience in a job?
By andrew
October 31, 2006 12:26 PM | Link to this
Amazing that Wiggins doesn’t want this to be part of a judicial election. It strikes me that someone who might have threatened to kill his pregnant sister ought to be vetted a little more, before ascending to Georgia’s high Court. Then again, the insurance lobby really doesn’t care about values—so long as the Justice will protect their interests. Sounds pretty “activist” to me. Now we see why he wasn’t even in the top 10 choices to run against Hunstein. His 1 Georgia appeals reported decision is not a particularly impressive statistic. Oh, and there’s the fact that he is painting a fairly conservative justice as “liberal”…quite amusing.
By snd
October 31, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this
What a joke. Wiggins isn’t up to the task of being a judge.
By Rod
October 31, 2006 12:32 PM | Link to this
Bill, um - did you have experience for your first job in your current field?
That’s the oldest and lamest excuse ever. You’re the Human Resources manager who won’t hire a college graduate (top of the class, prestigious school) because of “no experience.”
I’m not necessarily “for” Wiggin - I was merely pointing out the obvious biasness of the writer of this “article” - which is nothing more than a promotion for Hunstein.
By the way - for your question: YES. If I thought someone had intelligence and integrity, I’d hire them as I know they could learn the job.
If you’re saying to keep Hunstein simply because she knows the job - that’s a very bad argument. I’m sure Jon Karr knows his job - but I wouldn’t hire him.
By Renee
October 31, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this
snd - what a joke. Won’t even list a real name.
By Sue
October 31, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this
Rod: Surely you know the difference between apples and oranges. Yes, HR managers will hire someone just out of college for a position that relates to their training and or experience (or lack thereof) However, tell me one corporation who will hire a a college graduate with no experience for a top management position. This is what you are saying when you advocate electing someone to the Ga. Supreme Court with no litigation experience whatsoever.
a
By cosmo
October 31, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this
Several years ago I worked for a car dealership where Hunstein’s son was the Sales Manager. She would come in frequently and she is a vile nasty person. Talks down to those she doesn’t deem to be on her social level. I was working my way through college and needed the part-time job but she thought I was just a lowly receptionist and spoke to me like I was scum. Doesn’t surprise me at all that she would stoop to this level in her campaign.
I have not voted for her in the past and never will. Anyone is better than Hunstein!!!!
By Rod
October 31, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this
Sue. If you had two candidates for a job:
(1) Mary - experienced, been doing the job for 10 years. However, gets poor job ratings, makes her own rules quite often, and has little integrity (others don’t trust her).
(2) Joan - successful at her other jobs, known as a hard worker and highly intelligent. Has incredible integrity and many people speak highly of her. No experience at the job she’s currently seeking - but she knows she can do better than the current person.
Now, which one of those two would you hire?
All I’m saying is that denying someone for “lack of experience” means you don’t want to take the time and effort to fully evaluate their qualifications.
And yes, these are both apples (rotten as they may be).
By anonymous
October 31, 2006 1:00 PM | Link to this
A huge difference exists between a first job as an attorney or even judge and the position of justice on the Georgia Supreme Court. The situation in Alabama is peripheral to the complete abscence of qualification of Wiggins. No person should ever be a judge until they have experience trying cases. Wiggins may be qualified for many legal positions, but he is totally unqualified to be a justice of the Georgia Supreme Court
By cosmo
October 31, 2006 1:09 PM | Link to this
Anonymous - according to Hunstein’s record so is she!!!!!!
By Renee
October 31, 2006 1:14 PM | Link to this
Hey, don’t forget - Hunstein had the job handed to her by Zell Miller in 1992.
You’re saying Wiggin doesn’t have experience, like he just came in out of the cold. He was most recently a Bush administration appointee at the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security. That’s a hell of a lot more impressive than being Zell’s honey.
By joe
October 31, 2006 1:17 PM | Link to this
Cosmo: What have you PERSONALLY been able to glean from Justice Hunstein’s record?? All of the independent, respectable individuals that have reviewed ALL of her opinions indicate that she is actually MORE conservative than the Supreme Court as a whole. While I do not approve of the Hunstein ad, the fact is that she is MUCH, MUCH more qualified for the job. Do you think a recent college grad would get the CEO position at Haliburton?? If you think so, I have a nice bridge I would like to sell you!!
By Sue
October 31, 2006 1:22 PM | Link to this
Rod, Renee, next time the Falcons are looking for a coach, I want the job. I am hard working, intelligent, and oh yes, I have watched football on TV. Don’t have any coaching experience, but I can learn on the job.
By Rod
October 31, 2006 1:29 PM | Link to this
Joe and Sue are both incorrectly referencing a “recent college graduate.” True, Wiggins is short on the experience, but to compare that to a recent college graduate - who has no work skills or experience - is just ignorant.
We’re not talking about a “recent college graduate” - rather someone who was an appointee at the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security amongst other roles where knowledge was learned and integrity was fostered. Hardly a “recent college graduate.”
By cosmo
October 31, 2006 1:30 PM | Link to this
Joe, I have PERSONALLY been a victim of her verbal abuse! Are you her son in disguise???
By Rod
October 31, 2006 1:31 PM | Link to this
Sue - pathetic (nice try though). Wiggins has governmental experience - check his resume before a*uming otherwise. Do you have football experience? Have you been a player? Manager? You would have to have been a former NFL player in order to compare appropriately.
By Rod
October 31, 2006 1:33 PM | Link to this
Bottom Line - this blog is nothing more than a political support for Hunstein by the authors in the guise of a forum.
That was my original post and comment. And it is totally correct. Then, Bill and Sue went off on experience tangents. Again, that was not the point.
Talk to the hand.
By Rod
October 31, 2006 1:33 PM | Link to this
Bottom Line - this blog is nothing more than a political support for Hunstein by the authors in the guise of a forum.
That was my original post and comment. And it is totally correct. Then, Bill and Sue went off on experience tangents. Again, that was not the point.
Talk to the hand.
By Shar
October 31, 2006 1:34 PM | Link to this
I am not an attorney. That said, from what I see of Justice Hunstein’s record during her time on the bench, she is quite conservative and a steady interpreter of Georgia law. The nasty misrepresentations of their mutual attack ads cancel out, for me. What I’ll vote on are the questions the campaign has raised in my head:
- Why is Wiggins being supported to the tune of $1.6 million by out of state corporate interests? - What credentials does he have that are better than Hunstein’s, particularly in light of the fact that he has absolutely no trial experience and only one appellate appearance on his resume? - What will an Alabama native who has spent years in Republican administrative positions in Washington bring to interpreting Georgia state law? - Is the unfortunate animus that reared up over his mother’s end of life issues indicative of a problem with the collegiality so necessary on the bench?
I’d like to see those kinds of questions answered instead of the finger pointing and simplistic, crass overstatements that have little or nothing to do with the candidates’ potential performance on the bench.
By joe
October 31, 2006 1:38 PM | Link to this
OK… so maybe he is not quite a “recent college graduate”. But, he has never tried a case in Georgia (or anywhere else for that matter), has never argued a case in the Georgia Supreme Court (where he now wants to serve), and his only experience is in the Department of Justice (Federal Law) and Dept. of Homeland Security (Federal law). How does that make him qualified to sit on the highest Court in our State?? Justice Hunstein served on the Superior Court of DeKalb County (was not appointed) and then, because of her excellent work, was appointed by the Republican’s favorite former Democrat, Zell Miller, to serve on the Georgia Supreme Court. Beyond his utter lack of qualifications for the Supreme Court, the only folks that support him financially are HUGE insurance and corporate interests. Why do you suppose they are pumping in millions of dollars in the campaign to put him on the Court?? Because he has “good” family values?? Give me a break….
By Richard
October 31, 2006 1:39 PM | Link to this
Shar - you’re critisizing Wiggins because he’s from Alabama? Therefore you don’t know how he would interpret Georgia law?
Did you know Carol Hunstein was born, raised and educated in Florida? Using your logic, we need to worry about her understanding of Georgia law too!
By joe
October 31, 2006 1:40 PM | Link to this
Shar: I agree completely!! And if you look at those issues, Hunstein is by far the best candidate!
By jogger
October 31, 2006 1:46 PM | Link to this
Reading all of this is funny. It reminds me of the Dekalb Commissioner #2 race between Broussard and Rader. Each going after each other and no one really cares. Rader won because of the ethic complaints and Broussard was toooo liberal a stance; the way GA is, the very conversative will win. And, since Zell Miller “handed” it over to Hunstein, most Democratics won’t trust her. So, Wiggins will probably win. I myself, have not figured out who to vote for yet.
By shelbinator
October 31, 2006 1:47 PM | Link to this
Rod, Get a grip. Are you pointing out that reality has a well-known liberal bias? The AJC Political Insider can’t help it if Mr. Wiggins has been documented in court papers as being a vile, remorseless antithesis of a family man. If you’re saying we should totally ignore the reprehensible way Wiggins dealt with his own family, then maybe you should take back what you said about John Mark Karr, because obviously morality means nothing to you — how could a pedophile be any worse for this job than a guy who steals from his mother and threatens his sister? Maybe you want to re-elect Mark Foley while we’re at it; pointing out his perversion is just more liberal media bias, right? Good Lord, don’t be so blind.
By Richard
October 31, 2006 1:51 PM | Link to this
Shar, you stated that you’re not an attorney but: “what I see of Justice Hunstein’s record during her time on the bench, she is quite conservative and a steady interpreter of Georgia law.”
Please explain to me how you - a non-attorney - obtains and reads formal decision papers (not opinions) and is able to determine that she’s quite conservative and a steady interpreter of Georgia law. Where are you obtaining these court decisions and documents? Are you reading all the pages (1000’s) or just reading a commentary by one of her supporters? Please, get real.
By Renee
October 31, 2006 1:55 PM | Link to this
Shelbinator has a simple mind. There was much more to it than Hunstein wants you to know. Wiggins had to file suit to stop his sister from taking legal actions that would have immediately bankrupted his mother and caused decreased medical care. If you don’t know the whole story, you really should stick your head back up your @ss before you speak.
By Think before you vote!
October 31, 2006 1:59 PM | Link to this
What really happens… I’m just sayin’.
By LAW DAWG
October 31, 2006 2:40 PM | Link to this
“FALSUS IN UNO,FALSUS IN OMNIBUS” (False in one thing,false in everything).AND “FAMA, FIDES ET OCULUS NON PATIUNTUR LUDUM” ((Fame,faith,and eye sight do not suffer a cheat) It appears that Mr. Wiggins Bull is getting gored And not the Judge’s.
By Sue
October 31, 2006 2:40 PM | Link to this
Rod: Bill and I were merely responding to your first post. You initiated the “did you have experience in your first job in current field” and “HR who won’t hire a college graduate.” Renee, apparently you know more than Wiggins sister’s attorney regarding the suit(s) Please inform us all. By the way, classless begats classless so here goes: If Hunstein was “handed” the job by Zell and therefore, this makes her Zell’s honey, then since Wiggins was appointed by Bush, does this make him Bush’s honey?
By Bush
October 31, 2006 2:57 PM | Link to this
Yes, Sue. Wiggins is my honey.
By GodHatesTrash
October 31, 2006 3:20 PM | Link to this
Wiggins is a money-grubbing redneck pig.
Trash.
By Rod
October 31, 2006 3:24 PM | Link to this
Sue, please go back and read correctly. You stated (at 2:40) that you and Bill were merely responding to my first post and I initiated the “did you have experience in your first job in current field.”
Sue, I make that statement in my second post because Bill wrote “Would you hire someone who didn’t have any experience in a job?” He brought up the experience thing. Please read my first post again - you’ll see I never mentioned anything about experience, just pointed out the biasness of this blog.
By Sue
October 31, 2006 3:43 PM | Link to this
Rod, I stand corrected. All blogs are biased. The writers are simply giving us facts, if you want to write that they are biased, so be it. However, implying they were paid off, is a biased statement on your part.
By Jeff Darnell
October 31, 2006 3:48 PM | Link to this
Isn’t it interesting that Mike Wiggins’ website says that he represents “Experience, Balance and Integrity?” However, his photo gallery shows him only with Republicans and his homepage has a picture of the state Capitol, next to it with the words “Mike Wiggins for Supreme Court.” Exactly toward whom will he be balanced? I invite you to read the issues section of his website, and answer for yourself whether you are reading substance or a whole lot of fluff.
By GodHatesTrash
October 31, 2006 4:04 PM | Link to this
Wiggins is from Alabama? Good God.
Why did Lincoln fight so hard to keep that filth in the Union?
Let’s face it - the only good thing to come out of Alabama is I-20.
The trashiest state in the trashiest part of the country - Aladamnbama.
By Joshua
October 31, 2006 5:02 PM | Link to this
Candidates for judicial positions fill out questionnaires listing all the legal actions they personally have been involved in, including traffic tickets. Mr. Wiggins did not fill in any of these questionnaires. As we now know, he had problems with his family - and lawsuits resulted. He has problems with the ads Justice Hunstein is running - and he threatens tv stations with having their licenses revoked. He is running a non-partisan campaign but his website features the Republican Party. He apparently is a very bright man and could probably learn the job within a few years. But I don’t think he can change his spots. Whoever picked him to run against Hunstein was scraping the bottom of the barrel.
By Bill Simon
October 31, 2006 6:23 PM | Link to this
Rod,
Whether or not this blog is “bias” is irrelevant to the determination of whether or not Wiggins is qualified to sit as a Supreme Court justice.
Before Hunstein was appointed by Zell Miller, she had sat AS A JUDGE for a number of years in the Georgia judiciary system.
Wiggins has none of that experience. He doesn’t know Georgia law. He’s never even sat as an appelate court judge.
I don’t care if this blog and every other blog is owned by Communists…NONE of that changes the fact that Wiggins is not qualified for this position. Period.
By Bob Tegs
October 31, 2006 8:07 PM | Link to this
I played highschool baseball a while ago…would I be a good manager for the Braves if MLB endorsed me? Same thing here. The really sad part is, less than 1% of georgians even care about this race at all or know who the candidates are. This is the sad part of our democracy and why it is the worst form of government. I do not consider Wiggins a wise elder that has experience or honor to go to the GA High bench. Even without the stigma of the typical “Bush Apointee”, he is running against a seasoned pro. Until someone in this country figures out a way to spread the real facts about what the candidates actually stand for, what they have done, and why they honestly feel they are the best…we might as well give our electorial process away.
But wait, it doesn’t matter what we think anymore here or who we vote for…just thank Diebold for their crappy insecure hardware and OS that can easily cloud the actual results to the highest bidder. This is not a joke and a very serious issue from a security perspecitve when any college kid with a PCMCIA card full of exploit code can effect the outcome of voting results across the state. Look it up.
By shamus
November 1, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this
Attacking an opponent’s lack of qualification is fair. Dragging out a family feud is a low blow. I would vote for Hunstein based on her qualifications, but her ad makes me wonder whether she has good judgement. It also makes her look like a mean and vicious person.
By Judy
November 1, 2006 4:51 PM | Link to this
Having been witness to a family feud over a sick & dying grandmother, and after reading the sister’s account, there is no way in Hades I’d ever cast a vote for Mike Wiggins.