Um, Jill?

What’s up with this?

According to [Jeremy] Tanner, last Tuesday, Chambers herself came to his residence, took pictures of his house and yard, knocked on his door, and told him “you are in serious trouble.”

….The resident said Chambers also told him that it was “a very serious offense to accuse an elected official of bribery.”

Tanner said he told Chambers to leave the property, and closed the door, after which he said that the state representative continued to knock and say,”Come on out and talk to me, Jeremy.”


  1. Doug Deal says:

    At some time, someone somewhere had to know this woman is unstable and unqualified for office.

    However, in our failed political system, people hold their tongue or suck up because someone more powerful likes her, or whatever, and eventually nonsense like this happens.

    Reasonable and sane people simply do not act this way. Crazed lunatics do. Stop protecting embarrassments like this and kick them out of positions of government BEFORE they get enough power to be a danger to themselves or the state.

  2. Dave Bearse says:


    This incident taken in the context of the bashing Chamber’s received for expressing reservations about Dunwoody cityhood (reservations very much yet valid I might add) is better characterized as ill-advised, not that of of a “crazed lunatic”, unless of course you care to cite other events in the same vein.

  3. Doug Deal says:


    Harassing someone who has filed a complaint against you and refusing to vacate property when directed by the owner are not acts of an individual that should be serving in the legislature. If this were a criminal complaint, I bet she would have been hauled off to jail for obstruction by attempting to tamper with a witness.

    Most ethics violations are politically motivated (whether true or not), but how many other politicians do you see going to the house of the person who filled it to intimidate them.

    But, it seems to be your opinion that when someone criticizes another person’s stand on an issue, you have the right to go to their private property, trespass and act like a deranged lunatic. What kind of world would that be, if all of us subscribed to that type of behavior?

    I would rather have a decent person of any party who is working in good faith to do what they think is right, than vindictive, axe-grinding partisans. Of course that is all we get, because that is all the party insiders want.

  4. Bill Simon says:


    You said this: “Harassing someone who has filed a complaint against you and refusing to vacate property when directed by the owner are not acts of an individual that should be serving in the legislature. ”

    Sometimes people are just human and not “crazy” for their human acts.

    As far as who is qualified or not to “serve” (sic) in our esteemed legislature, I’d much rather have someone who, on occasion, demonstrates emotion rather than someone who just demands that lobbyists suck-up to them for their position in life.

  5. chrisagain says:

    I know Jill Chambers is going door-to-door because she came to my house. Is it possible that she went door-to-door and met Mr. Tanner? If he really believes in what he wrote why is he afraid to discuss it with the person he accuses? This sounds like just another attempt by Dick Williams to discredit Jill Chambers because she has been shown to be right about all the Dunwoody deception. Jill Chambers is anti-corruption.

  6. Doug Deal says:


    That is unqualified horse squeeze.

    Emotion is all well and good, but going to someone’s house and attempting to confront them about an ethics violation to the point of refusing to leave their property until the cops are called is crazy.

    It shows bad judgment, lack of self control, and if it were a man doing this to a woman, he would probably be arrested for terroristic threats. Do you really want people with this type of thought process in control of the government, at any level? Really?

    If she felt she had to respond, how about writing a letter to the editor, doing an interview on radio, sending letters to constituents, writing a press release, sending him a letter, or even calmly trying to speak with him and leaving the property when it is clear that you are not wanted.

    There are a million reasonable ways to respond to something you are offended by. Turning into a creepy stalker is not one of them.

  7. Doug Deal says:


    Yeah, that’s why she took pictures of his house, told him “you are in serious trouble”, attempted to intimidate him by saying it is “a very serious offense to accuse an elected official of bribery”, and stood outside his door taunting him when he told her to leave.

    All perfectly normal behavior by a reasonable woman.

  8. Bill Simon says:

    “attempting to confront them about an ethics violation to the point of refusing to leave their property until the cops are called is crazy.”

    THAT ain’t what happened, Doug. You appear to be an instantaneous revisionist. THIS is what Jim Galloway wrote:

    Tanner said he told Chambers to leave the property, and closed the door, after which he said that the state representative continued to knock and say,”Come on out and talk to me, Jeremy.”

    After a few seconds, Tanner said Chambers left. A few hours later, Tanner filed an incident report with DeKalb County Police.

    Do you know what a “few hours is”, Doug? Tanner did not “threaten” Chambers to call the police to get her to leave.

    Your version is NOT the correct one. Ergo, you have the wrong conclusions, and should stop slinging the horse manure yourself.

  9. Dave Bearse says:


    I interpret the facts presented as depicting objectionable and ill-advised behavior—not crazed or worthy of disqulification from office. That’s not to say the behavior may not have been crazed of merit disqualication from office, just that those facts aren’t in evidence.

    For instance, I don’t think her behavior in this incident by itself warrants the “creepy stalker” characterization. (But like my first response, if there are other events that make this part of a pattern, please provide them and I may change my opinion.)

  10. Doug Deal says:


    You are corrent on one point. I missed that she was on the property for a couple of seconds. I notice you have no answer for the taking pictures and making threats part of her actions.

    However, this is still a crazed thing to do. If this was a criminal case, she would have been arrested for intimidating a witness (suggesting it is a crime to report a possible ethics violation would be similar to going to a witness in a murder case and telling them they would go to jail if they testify against you). This is not normal behavior, even for you Bill.

    On second thought, you guys convinced me, this is exactly he type of person we need in the legislature. Heck, make her Governor and perhaps President one day.

    I need a babysitter sometimes, I need to keep her in mind, since it is so rare to find such a stable person that you can trust around your kids.

  11. Bill Simon says:


    I predict that ONE DAY there will be an incident involving you going off the deep end for a moment, and it will be publicized…and, I will remember your statements on this thread.

  12. Doug Deal says:


    If I ever get that notorious, let me know. Of course, I would also have to be running for a position of trust, which is unlikely. At one point in my life, probably not long enough ago, I grew up. Getting revenge for apparent sleights by others lost it’s importance to me. So did a desire to have any form of “drama”.

    Life is a lot more pleasant when you don’t go around harboring grudges and making enemies lists. If one is incapable of taking the occasional attack (even groundless and unfair ones), politics is probably the line of work one should endeavor to avoid.

    But like I said, you guys convinced me. We need more people in the legislature that fly off the handle at the drop of a hat. Leaders in our government just have too much good judgment and it’s hurting the state. Cynthia McKinney, where are you?

  13. debbie0040 says:

    Give Jill a break. She has been a good legislator. Everyone has bad days…Look at the irrational things MALE legislators have done…

  14. Icarus says:

    “Look at the irrational things MALE legislators have done…”

    I hope you don’t mean nailing anything in a skirt with big boobs, because that usually seems pretty rational.

  15. Bill Simon says:


    I think she meant something more on the order of a legislator publicly telling his legislative equal that he was “showing his behind”…

  16. debbie0040 says:

    No, Doug it is not.

    Jill Chambers has been an excellent legislator. I have a great deal of respect for her.

    I am just pointing out that there have been many irrational acts committed by male legislators . People did not say that they should not be in office.

    What is wrong about wanting to confront someone that accused you of taking a bribe?
    Tanner was a wuss and refused to discuss it with Jill face to face. I don’t put much faith in anything he says…

    Things that Bill mentioned and Icarus. Some male legislators think with their little brain instead of the brain in their head.

    Getting arrested for DUI comes to mind, and many other irrational acts …

  17. Doug Deal says:


    What’s wrong with the Mafia confronting a witness or two? Trying to intimidating someone who has filed a complaint against you is not only irrational, it should be criminal. There is a time and place for confrontation, and it is not screaming and yelling at them through their front door, threatening them with claims of “serious offenses”, and taking pictures of their cars and house. Wither this is very agressive behavior of someone show is clearly guilty, or behavior of someone who went off the deap end.

    Of course you, Bill and others have convinced me, this is completely normal behavior, The fact that it was moon-bat crazy is just a partisan distraction.

  18. Doug Deal says:

    Oh, but I should add that when someone who is ordinarily reasonable does do something that is the result of a temporary lapse in judgment, when judgment returns, upon seeing the error of their ways, will generally apologize. Has Representative Chambers tried to do this, or at least has she acknowledged that what she did, might just possibly have been a bit creepy?

  19. rugby fan says:


    Nothing is wrong with talking (not confronting) someone who has filed an ethics complaint against you.

    What would have been an appropriate course of action is sending Mr. Tanner a letter or, at the very least a phone call. There is absolutely no reason an elected official should ever intimidate a voter, especially a constituent. Doing so seems to violate the basic trust placed in our legislators.

  20. Bill Simon says:


    One thing she doesn’t have to do is apologize to YOU. You are not the “decider” of anything.

    The Galloway story did not reflect several things regarding the incident. Galloway just heard one side of the event and reported what THEY (i.e., a Democrat who filed the ethics complaint) said.

  21. Bill Simon says:


    This guy wasn’t “intimidated.” Why did he “wait a few hours” before filing a police incident report? That is something that IF you are concerned about, you call the police immediately.

    He filed it because he conferred with ChrisIsHardCore and Huttman encouraged it so Jill would look bad.

  22. rugby fan says:

    Jill looks bad regardless if a police report is filed or not.

    The question then becomes: were her actions appropriate for an elected official to display toward a constituent? Surely the answer is no.

  23. Doug Deal says:


    I spent some time doing a few minutes of research on this nutjob and her husband. If I cared about it enough I would post some of the links that show this is far from an isolated incident. I would encourage her Democratic opponents to do so, however.

    But, here is a quick story on her and her soul mate husband:

    A couple of quick quotes from the story…

    While never under wraps, the Hatfield-McCoy routine took a very public turn last week when two GOP lawmakers pushing the Dunwoody initiative, Rep. Fran Millar and Sen. Dan Weber, showed off lengthy voice-mails left by Albert Chambers — whose wife is the most outspoken Republican opponent of the city.

    The spouse complained of slanders heaped on Jill Chambers that required revenge. “I am not responsible for what happens. But it will all be legal. Everything will be legal,” Albert Chambers promised.

    Chambers is part of the latter group, and this is where personality comes in. She is a cheerfully caustic woman who thrives on confrontation. Dunwoody proponents accuse her of misleading statements, and an alliance with DeKalb County government.

    The story that caused this post to be made sounds like something straight out of Cops, and the only thing missing is an appearance by her husband, shirtless and drunk.

  24. Doug Deal says:


    Also, she doesn’t HAVE to give an apology to anyone. However, the rest of us can look at her as a lunatic loose canon who cares more aboiut revenge and cvonfrontation than doing what’s right.

    We agree.

  25. Bill Simon says:


    The way the newspaper would describe ME would be to state that I am a “caustic man who thrives on confrontation.”

    I know Jill Chambers and have known her for over 10 years. She is saner than you and has done more good as a legislator for Georgia than you could possibly imagine.

    But, make like a whiny Democrat and judge people based on a couple of bad reports.

  26. Tea Party says:

    Where was that thread about a GOP sitting candidate donating to about $4K to a Dem, with the end-game being a similar donation going to Mr. Huttman’s campaign.

    Did that ever happen? Maybe I will wander over to Ricks’ Ethics World and see…

Comments are closed.