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."
I am deeply saddened, deeply I tell you, that yet another lie-yar has been shot. Oh the humanity!
This guy may well have been a creep and deserving of removal from the bench (though not being shot).
That said, even an honest, ethical family court judge (there must be one or two of them out there) necessarily has to piss off at least half of the litigants that come before him. Sounds like a no-win situation to me.
Now, now. We can't criticize this judge - after all, he was injured. I refer to you the case of Ann Coulter v. the Jersey Girls.
I have been married for 15 years. The two things that irritate me most about my husband were clearly apparent on our first date. I certainly didn't see these incidents as the glaring, bright red warning signs that they should have been.
Is this what is happening in most marriages (in your experience)? Or are people REALLY flipping out and acting out of character?
Most allegations simply can't be proven false to the reasonable doubt standard that would be needed to put a false accuser in jail. They may simply be no evidence one way or another. If a mother claims that the father fondled the child, for instance, and the charge isn't proven, but you also can't prove affirmatively that she made it up, what do you do. Again, there is a balance- if the allegations are not believed but later turn out to be false, then the judge gets blamed because something happened to the child.
So let's say that you suspect your ex-spouse of using drugs, but you can't prove it. You should lose all visitation because you couldn't prove something to be true? I think that if it can be proven that you made the allegations knowing them to be false, in order to gave custody, then you should lose automatically and further sanctions (i.e. financial, or criminal) should be used. But many things that are true may or may not be able to be proven to the standard that the court requires.
Keep in mind that denial of all visitation don't just punish the parent, but the child as well.
If she caused them, then hell yes.
If you can't prove the truth of an accusation, you have no right to make it in the first place. That's how it works in criminal court, and that's how it should work in family court.
How does a wife "cause" her husband to cheat? And I'm sure you believe this applies when the sexes are reversed, that somehow a husband can cause his wife to cheat?
Both!
?????
How does a wife cause her husband's infidelities?
Divorce INDUSTRY attracts lots of whores. 'Nuff said.
If you suspect it but can't prove it, then don't bring it up in a custody battle.
You should lose all visitation because you couldn't prove something to be true?
If you make the allegation in the custody battle, but you can't prove it, yes.
Keep in mind that denial of all visitation don't just punish the parent, but the child as well.
Exactly, and that's the reason for my stance. It's far too easy to make allegations that you don't have to substantiate in a divorce proceeding. That needs to stop.
If a charge is not adequately provable, but nonetheless plausible, then don't act against either the accuser or the accused. But if the accuser can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have been lying, throw the book at 'em.
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.