Posted on 06/14/2006 4:23:59 AM PDT by ProCivitas
Injured Reno judge popular target for angry parents By ANGIE WAGNER ASSOCIATED PRESS
A lot of people don't like Chuck Weller, and to some it was no surprise when he was shot Monday in the chest as he stood near a third-floor courthouse window.
As a family court judge in Reno, Nev., Weller decides how to split up families and who should pay the most child support. And when he rules against a parent in the volatile world of family court justice, he sometimes is regarded as the enemy.
Local businessman Darren Mack, who had recent court dealings with the judge after a divorce, was identified by police as a "person of interest" in the case. Weller, 53, remained hospitalized in serious condition.
A bully. Hitler. Abusive.
Weller was vilified on several Web sites critical of family court judges. Fathers, in particular, were harsh, with one calling him the worst judge in America.
Garret Idle went before Weller in May 2005 seeking to increase his visitation time with his two children. Instead, he said, Weller slammed him for more child support and didn't listen to any of his concerns about his son and daughter.
"Weller is very abusive. He's a monster," Idle, 48, said. "He's destroyed everything I've worked for."
Weller, a married father of two daughters, graduated from Georgetown Law in 1978 and moved to Reno in 1982. Two years later, he entered private practice and mostly handled divorce and custody cases.
He hosted a legal advice program for a few years on the radio and wrote a legal column for the Reno Gazette-Journal.
To Dan Mason, program director at KOH AM 780, Weller was easygoing and hardly controversial.
"Chuck is a fantastic guy. He was a very friendly guy, very easy to get along with, very warm on the radio," Mason said.
Weller ran for and was elected as one of three family court judges in Reno in 2004, saying he was a good communicator who could help move families through the legal system.
"You can do good work in the court," he told the Reno Gazette-Journal in October 2004. "There are a percentage of cases that are hopeless, but it's a small percentage."
Fellow attorney Ken McKenna, who has known Weller for more than 20 years, described Weller as an efficient, no-nonsense judge, qualities that some mistake for being abrupt or harsh.
"Family law is the most volatile, emotional area of law," he said. "People's lives are being affected to the core of their beings. Mothers are being taken away from the children. Children are being taken away from their fathers. People tend to lose their reasonableness and they act irrational. It is a very scary situation."
Bonnie Russell, founder of http://www.FamilyLawCourts.com , said family courts operate much like Halliburton, unregulated and out of control. Sometimes the consequence can turn deadly.
One emotional posting on the site http://www.courthouseforum.com said this about Weller: "I am not sure monster describes him accurately. Judge Chuck Weller in my belief suffers from 'God complex' and possibly other things as well."
Numerous Internet postings described how Weller makes decisions before he hears cases, is unsympathetic and rules like a tyrant.
The state Commission on Judicial Discipline accepts complaints on judges, but does not publicly acknowledge them unless it acts upon them. The commission has not acted against Weller.
But Idle has had enough of Weller and said he isn't sympathetic.
"I think karma finally came back to bite him," Idle said. "Hopefully Weller will have a change of heart in the way he deals with human beings."
Wow...this really hits home with me because I am with a man who went through a terrible divorce with false accusations.
Yes, the court should err on the side of investigating. But realistically what happens is, like in our case, she made alligations just before major court decisions....far enough to get the allegations on the record, too close to have them properly investigated, and then refuted, before major decisions like custody and alimony are settled.
Should she have known she was nuts? Could he have been nicer, sweeter etc. of course. But to pay financially for the rest of his life? When she was the one who broke up the family and walked away? If she is unfulfilled and wants a chance at something "more"...fine...have your midlife crisis and move on. But to punish the kids without access to Dad while this *#*$*#^ get s worked out...and even worse making HIM pay your for the priviledge of breaking up the family? Not fair in my book.
If these guys are so horrible, and these feminists are so empowered as to not put up with it, why do they keep leaning on the men for the money? Child support I get...we all owe that...but alimony? Please.
Yes--to maintain the lifestyle they had together as a family. Do you think the wife should have been punished for her husband's multiple infidelities?
Bears repeating. I'd love to see the 'no fault' divorce laws repealed.
Child support payments should be made into an account in the child's name with the custodial parent as trustee, accountable as any trustee is to rules of fiduciary conduct.
WTF is that doing in there? LOL
I second the motion.
too many legislators are/were lawyers and lawyers would hate to see it go away.and so it never will.
I believe that any person involved in a divorce who makes allegations of abuse, unfit parenting, etc they cannot prove (or are later proven false) should experience whatever they were trying to foist on their spouse, e.g. loss of visitation/custody, payment of child support and/or alimoney.
Exactly. Probably more like 99.9%.
I LOVE that idea. How that would change the dynamics! And it would give both parents the feeling that things are being done FOR the children and not against them.
Well, it's an interesting idea - let's blame the people who use the court on the court's failures.
Actually - false accusations ARE NOT PROSECUTED. That is the main reason they are so prevalent. A false accusation is totally unilateral, and done without fear of being sanctioned.
The reason the huge problem is not addressed is because of the ongoing feminization of family courts - to prosecute those would be "anti-women", and the "domestic abuse" crew pays advocates to sit in court and identify judges that might be "unfriendly to women" so they can bring strong political forces to bear on those people.
Where do you think the billion dollars a year spent on VAWA goes?
Unfortunately as a result we have created a court system which has political objectives - rather than legal objectives. And it runs across the board - the fact now is most Americans are just plain disgusted with the US courts.
That cases judicial advocates to wring their hands and bemoan the public increasing contempt of the legal system.
Geeze, like those people running the legal system had nothing to do with it.
My advice: Stay the hell out of court!
Men see them too, but decide to act solely on their, um, other feelings. Look at the popularity of Angelina Jolie on FR for an example. Plenty of men here would marry her in an instant in spite of the overwhelming evidence that she is a lunatic. Men have a bad habit of marrying the best looking woman who will have them, regardless of her personal character. Acting shocked in divorce court later on is self-deception - most of the time he knew she was a psycho going in, but decided to disregard that inconvenient truth in light of her physical charms and the short-term ability to impress his friends with what he has on his arm.
It's the same impulse as the woman marrying the charming abuser thinking she can change him - vanity goeth before a fall. ;)
While you’re at it, throw in Vietnam, Watergate, and the 2000 election.
Couldn't agree more. And...it's usually cupcake that decides she "just isn't happy" anymore.
No - a haughty spirit goeth before a fall!
CA....
How do you solve the dilemma?
When the investigation is complete, and abuse allegations are found to be false, disbar the lawyers presenting them and throw the accuser in jail. In other words, if you make the allegation, you'd better have proof.
Numerous Internet postings described how Weller makes decisions before he hears cases, is unsympathetic and rules like a tyrant."
He sounds like the typical judge to me.
Everything!
CA....
Another knee-jerk jerk checks in.
Yeah, but just try to bring a law like that forward, and watch who starts screaming.
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.