« The Legal Reader On Judge Weller - Part I | Main | Darren Mack Hired Fathers' Rights "Trial Consultant" Dean Tong As His Legal Consultant »

June 17, 2006

The Legal Reader On Judge Weller - Part II

Here are a few more of the more notable comments from The Legal Reader. Note the demand for presumptive joint custody and the claim that courts are routinely biased against fathers.


In my professional career, I've had occasion to provide services for "domestic specialist" attorneys and, later, for a family court judge.

Because my services often required me to be in an around their offices while they conducted business, I gained a certain insight into the mechanics of divorce, custody, child support, and so on.

The "mechanics" I describe do not necessarily track with the law, as written.

When my own marriage became nearly intolerable, and my spouse threatened to "leave and take the kids," I was reminded of remarks made by one such attorney who was now a family court judge.

He had said, in effect, that the law notwithstanding, the judge has the final say, and the outcome of a domestic case is less about the law and more about what the judge wants, and certainly not about what is "right" or moral.

A review of case outcomes (some involving people I knew) convinced me that my best shot was to keep the marriage together until the kids were out of the house. Statistically, my chances of winning were in single digits.

The ensuing 12 years was . . . interesting . . . in a water torture kind of way.

That a frustrated man would shoot a judge is, given some perspective, hardly surprising. Stupid, yes. Surprising, no. Desperation and hopelessness will lead men to do things that most of us can never get our heads around.

Some of us just tough it out, knowing that the system is rigged against us.

Shooting the judge misses the target. Stabbing the wife misses the target.

The system that fosters the inequities that destroy men's lives has too much inertia for one man (especially one whose means have just been gutted) to remedy, and the system is, sadly, not self-correcting.

A man's credibility, after a bad adverse ruling, is pretty much toast. Anyone hearing the complaint assigns it a "sour grapes" label and dismisses it.

Mack, from what I can discover, was a decent guy when times were good. Can't speak to his state of mind when times were bad.

Wouldn't want to be on the wrong end of that rather confiscatory claim ($10,000/month) from the wife. Evidently, neither did he.

But, like I said, shooting judge = stupid. There are less heinous things to be a fugitive about. He certainly had means, so he had better than even chance if he had just grabbed as much loot as he could and fled to a country with no extradition treaty. He'd still be a fugitive, but nobody would be dead and the cops wouldn't be in bloodhound mode.

The system as it stands may suck, but a smart man will figure out a better way to deal.

Sorry, Darren, you're on the wrong end of a Darwin equation.

~~ V
Posted by Vector at June 13, 2006 04:25 PM


The reason we have 3 branches of government is so they can limit each other. If the legislature passes laws that don't comport with the constitution(s), the judicial branch is supposed to tell them so and declare the law null and void because of it. With family law, the legislature has given judges unlimited descretionary power to do to people what they wish. people appearing in family courts have no constitutional rights or protections in their courtrooms. Judges can and do take your children, your assets, your self respect,privacy, liberty, and enslave you to another person for life via alimony. When you don't pay it they jail you without a jury trial or for lack of or in light of any evidence to the contrary. There have and continue to be suicides, murders, and violence of all sorts because of "family law". While the men of America were sleeping, the leftist feminists pushed this on us and continue to push it on us and it's time someone started saying enough is enough. The destruction of your life begins with a $30 state marriage license and ends with you killing your ex-wife and the judge who persecuted you.
Posted by Bob Sell at June 13, 2006 06:45 PM


In all these heated comments I'm glad to see a few examples of compassion and reason. Many people write to this blog without the courtesy they would muster for a stranger on the street... Try leaving the vitriol aside and offer comments with less passion and more reason.

Obviously, attempted murder and murder are completely unacceptable behavior and Mr. Mack will be held accountable and pay the price if he is guilty.

This case brings to front and center the highly emotional topic of "family justice", how it is practiced in America, and how ordinary law-abiding parents respond when their children are kidnapped from them (albeit "legally").

The pivotal issue is this: The present "family justice court" standard operating procedure is to provide initial outward signs of gender impartiality, but to issue rulings that manifest a high degree of unequal treatment towards men and women, with significant partiality paid to women. In fact, all sorts of things are paid to the woman, such as the family home, the preponderance of the family assets, etc., and this is justified by judges because the woman is the defacto custodian of the children (about 95% of the time), and anything that benefits the custodial parent (read: woman) then benefits the children. And we all want the best for our children, don't we?

So the judge has no moral qualm with applying the "gender neutral law" in a highly gender biased manner. Besides, if he didn't he wouldn't get re-elected; who's going to vote for a judge who earns a reputation for "being hard on women" in his court room? Of course, being hard on someone is usually just holding them accountable for their actions.

As a previous poster stated, "in custody disputes less than three percent of fathers win custody of the children. Joint custody is also only ordered less than five percent of the time. This means that ninety two percent of the time sole custody is awarded to the mother". These are accurate statistics.

This sad state of affairs is contrary to the 14th amendment of the US Constitution, which states:
Section 1. ... No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The constitutional question is the issue of priority of the phrases "equal protection" or "protection of the laws".

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is based on the idea that that the "equal protection" of the citizens is the key value though worth of protection by the framers of the Constitution, such that to comply with this section laws must be passed that protect people equally, without respect to "race, color, religion, or national origin" (Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII).

The only thing missing here is gender. This was added to the Civil Rights Act of 1991: (Sec. 107(a)In general. [This subsection amends section 703 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-2) by adding a new subsection (m), clarifying the prohibition against consideration of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in employment practices.]

It is clear that in a just society "equal protection" should extend to all citizens.

Judges at the family court level don't make case law, they have to follow it, but they have a lot of room for discretion. The fundamental problem with the system is that, since these judges hold elective office, they have to worry about their public image in order to be re-elected. So as a general rule, they aren't going to be hard on women. And they really don't care about their image with men because the men don't band together like woman do and organize to redress such social injustices, they just bow their heads in disbelief and go back to work to try to earn all the money they have been ordered to pay.

On the bright side, they get to look forward to seeing their children for perhaps 1 day in a 2 week period, and that only if the mother allows it to happen, because judges won't punish a mother for failing to allow visitation. What can he do, put her in jail? (No: the children would be vulnerable); assess a fine? (No: the children might be hurt). But if the father fails to pay child support, well, now the judge can fine him without hurting the children, or throw him in jail (the children are safe with their mother).

The crazy thing is that most people in our society are completely unaware of how skewed the system is until they get chewed up and spit out by it. Female divorcees don't see it as a biased system because they are on the receiving side of the equation, and who wants to kill the goose that's laying golden eggs? And fathers who haven't yet had their children kidnapped from them tend to adopt the same line as do the women: that if divorced fathers don't have access to their children it must be due to their own actions, such as failing to pay their child support.

The only solution that truly is in "the best interests of the children" is a legislated default presumption of joint custody upon divorce. If one parent is unfit then the other side must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt before that parents rights to one-half of the parenting time can be taken away. If one parent is unable to keep the children for one half of the time, then the parenting time would be determined by negotiation.

Finally, custodial parents' failure to cooperate with (allow) visitation is more damaging to childrens lives than non-custodial parents' failing to pay child support dollars. Any discussion of "child support enforcement" must include equal discussion of "parenting time enforcement". And failure to cooperate with parenting time should require forfeiture of support money to the father. Anything else is "unequal protection".

Children need two parents, not one parent with a financial entitlement from the absent parent (absent by court order). It is paradoxical that social commentators deplore the modern crisis of "single parent families", when many if not most of these families have only one involved parent because that parent asked a judge for custody, and she gets it, and the father's parental role is then severely minimalized if not virtually terminated by the judge, especially if the mother then chooses to move away or out-of-state.

Single parent families are indeed a social crisis in America, but it's an artificial crisis created by elected politicians who promise things before election day but lack the guts to pass meaningful and fair family laws when actually in office (because there is no upside in it for their careers), and by judges who face re-election and who have limited legal options (due to lack of better guidance from the legislature) but who will never stick their neck out for fathers because there is no upside in it for their careers.

Certainly the right to spend as much time as you want with your children is a fundamental privilege or right as a human being. The US Constitution prohibits states from "abridge[ing] the privileges ... of citizens ...". Surely fathers privileges to parenting their children are being severely abridged by modern family court practice!

Children and our future society are paying for this "family law" folly that ejects fathers from their families, and the damage will continue for generations. "You reap what you sow..."
Posted by Childless Father at June 13, 2006 07:35 PM


One last note...anybody who posts comments praising Darren Mack for shooting Judge Weller is heartless and cruel. It seems to me that if you favor this type of primitive behavior, I can see why your hearings probably went so poorly before Judge Weller. We may not like everybody we encounter for one reason or another, but what gives us the right to attempt to kill them? Imagine what his family is going through right now. Imagine what you would be going through if I shot one of your loved ones because they did not support my point of view. Those of you who are Thankful are no different than Darren Mack.
Posted by lara at June 13, 2006 09:00 PM


A divorce and bankrupcy are blips on the radar screen of life. They can be overcome. Death is final. Murder should NEVER be tolerated.

Amen, lara!
Posted by Curious at June 13, 2006 09:30 PM


I have known Chuck Weller on a proffesional level for almost 20 years. I was a foster parent for many years and have witnessed the family court throughout the years. The Judges are bound by laws, that thankfully are changing, and they also are continually in a position of trying to sort out the truth. No Judge wants to make a decision that puts a child into the hands of an abusive parent. I have been before Charles McGee and Scott Jordan many times as well. I did not always agree with their rulings with my knowledge of the situation and my heart, but I could step back and understand their decision. It can be very hard, when emotions are involved, to have a clear prospective.

Chuck Weller represented a foster child and I in a custody battle with an abusive father that she did not want to be forced to live with. During this time I cane to know him as an excellent attorney and a very caring person especially when it came to the children caught up in "the system". I can say without a doubt that he is very concerned about each and every case he hears. He is a very caring and giving person. He wanted this position so he could make the family court work better for the children and their families.

One last thought, when you are splitting up a family, it will never be a win, win situation. Children need to feel loved and accepted. They are part of their father and their mother. When you trash the other parent (deserving or not) you are trashing your child's self-worth. If we truly think of our children first, perhaps we won't have to go down such a bitter road of distruction.

Love and Peace to the Weller and the Mack families.
Posted by wildoldwest at June 13, 2006 11:31 PM


At six, I was taken from a wonderfull father and given over to an irresponsible mother by one of Chuck Wellers predecessors, judge Clark Guild. As a predictable result, I suffered a childhood of abuse and deprivation. My sympathies go to Mr. Mack; I have no sympathy for the likes of Chuck Weller.
When there is no reasonable recourse to corrupt divorce judges, violence will reasonably result.
Posted by angry as hell at June 14, 2006 12:44 AM


What the hell did they expect, If your going to brutalize someone, kidnap their kids, extort money and torture you with arrogance and iron fascist rule with no accountability FOR 18 OR MORE YEARS. It would be more humane to offer a quick paid in full option like lethal injection then to suffer the rule of these mass murders in black robes. It is not a court of Law and should be put out of business and they know it. DON'T GO DON'T PAY and all the Nazis will starve the lawyers ,judges, social workers, psychologist, Div of child support, DHS, . or then again they may round us up and hold us in barbed wire complexes till we break.....GO USA
Posted by Tripwire at June 14, 2006 06:50 AM


For some insight on a relationship gone very, very wrong, here's an article on Darrren & Charla's last year. So sad!


From the article, I can't see anything wrong with Chuck Weller's decisions in this case.
Posted by Curious at June 14, 2006 08:55 AM

Nevadans for Equal Parenting are angry, bitter, emotional parents who are not willing to compromise with the CPs. It's kind of scary that they think posting slanderous statements about local officials is politically correct and I feel sad for those who join their cause without considering how the fighting is affecting these kids they claim to love so much. Good luck.
Posted by anonymous at June 14, 2006 10:08 AM


So am I to believe all a woman needs to do is get married to a man of wealth, have a child and is DUE his money? Wow that sets woman back some years doesn't it. She of course cannot get a job, education maybe a plan? Are woman so dependent they cannot make it on their own after the divorce without his money? I pay my child support and anything else my child needs but my child's Mom, No. Believe me I have been to hell and back with her. There were many times that I thought, will this haunt me the rest of my life? Some women want it both ways. They want their independence and they want the ex to take care of them. You all know SOMEONE that is like this. I pray for both Darren Mack and Judge Wellar they are both victims in this case.
Posted by Fathers are people too at June 14, 2006 10:21 AM


Why does an unemployed person need to live in a $1,000,000 home?

Because Darren Mack promised to love, honor, and cherish Charla until death did them part.

Why does that person require $10,000 per month to live? (especially when the other person is already ordered to pay all her expenses)

How do you think those expenses are getting paid?

Why does that person have no work experience?

No recent work experience. She was just doing the trivial, unimportant task of raising the children while her husband proceeded to fornicate with multiple partners.

Married at 30, did she never work?

Work experience gets moldy really quick.

If another situation had presented itself- the business going under or him dying, she would have gone out and found work.

True enough. But his tomcatting around wasn't part of the marital agreement, unlike the situations you just described ("for richer, for poorer" and "until death do us part").

Just for marrying someone, we are not owed a standard of living for the rest of our lives.

No, but there is that pesky pledge to love, honor and cherish until death do us part.

We should all take some pride in earning our own way.

So she's supposed to accept a sharp reduction in her standard of living as her justly due punishment for his continuous fornication?

When a marriage fails, we each need to take responsibility for it and our futures.

Darren Mack sure as hell didn't.

How does anyone know where Darren was going on those weekends?

Where these things have come out in cases I'm familiar with, some of the tell-tale indicators included five-figure credit card bills with entries from known sex clubs, a paternity suit by one of the "swingers," the wife opening the mail and finding a videotape of his exploits (the swingers' club had sent it to the home address instead of the "business PO Box") and, in one memorable incident, the wife getting a call from the Public Health department and finding out her husband had the clap.

These things always come out.

Posted by Cobalt Shiva at June 14, 2006 10:38 AM


Hmmm.. I didn't think anybody was upset about the visitation.. seems to me everybody is upset with the judge because he ordered $10,000 in alimony/CS.

Nobody even cares about the kids.. it's all about the almighty dollar. I mean (with a slab of sarcasm attached) poor poor guy, had to fork out $10,000 per month and he's only left with a measley $34,000 for himself. Wahhhh
Posted by anonymous at June 15, 2006 12:59 PM


I have read the majority of the comments on this site and just like family court, everyone is torn and has their opinion. I personally dealt with Weller before he became Judge. He was a practicing attorney. I was referred by a friend who knew him as an aquantance. I was getting a divorce and had a 5 month old child. The divorce and custody was mutually agreed upon, however, the father/ex-husband is a dirt bag and never came to a single visitation nor did he pay one dime of the child support he agreed to. I had gone to Weller to talk about terminating the father's parental rights. I took my dad with me. I started to explaint he situation which, in a nutshell, was that not only had there been NO contact of any kind from the childs father, but no contact of any kind from anyone in his family of which all live here. I wasn't there 3 minutes when Weller interrupted me saying " I bet you make it hard for his mother to visit!" I was stunned. I looked at my dad and looked at Weller and said, "I don't know what would make you say that! She likes me more than she likes her own son". So, I was appalled at his demeanor, or lack there of. He was short and rude and very uninterested in my case. My dad was a bit taken back as well. When Weller ran for Judge I begged everyone I know NOT to vote for him!!!! Anyone couldn't be as bad as him. He is NOT the lesser of two evils, he IS the evil. About one year after he took the bench, my Family COurt case worker called me stating that my ex's first wife wanted to file Contemp of Court paperwork against my ex for not paying child support. My case worker called me because she knew I never wanted ANY child suuport. She knew I wwas afraid of him. So, to me it was bad kharma. So, I went in to talk to her, again with my dad, about the procedure. She went on to say that she may not even file teh Contemp of COurt papers because "the judge doesn't like Contempt of Court cases." I said, "what does that mean? That he is hard on them?! Punishes them?". She said "no, he thinks they are a waste of time and doesn't want them in his court." I paused and said "is the Judge Chuck Weller?" She said "yes! We ahve a lot of problems with him." I pretty much gave up right there. If the system can't even have a stong link with the judge, what does it have? So, because he would be the Judge for me if I pursue the Term. of Parental Rights, I haven't done it. I have been waiting for him to get out of there, retire, be voted out, whatever before I could do it.

On Monday, a frined called me about 11:30am and asked if I was watching the new. I asked her why and she said that a judge was just shot downtown by a sniper. I immediatley said, "i bet it was Chuck Weller." I called her about 30-40 minutes later, once his name was posted on CNN and said " i told you he was a jerk and unfair. He has pissed off one too many people".

The other strange thing was the this Mack guy had taken paperwork into channel 4 news for them to investigate. His case was over and he wanted Shelby Sheehan to investigate. I had sent her an email in January 2006 for the very same thing.

I would never want anyone hurt or dead, but I sure hope the good that may come out of the bad is that Chuck Weller will FINALLY be investigated and seen for who he truly is. When someone shows you who they are, believe them--the FIRST time! Weller only cares about his own gains and money. Not lives and the daily grind of those in a bad situation. He PRE judges cases and people.
Posted by FINALLY at June 15, 2006 10:48 PM


From a comment above:
"Hmmm.. I didn't think anybody was upset about the visitation.. seems to me everybody is upset with the judge because he ordered $10,000 in alimony/CS.

Nobody even cares about the kids.. it's all about the almighty dollar. I mean (with a slab of sarcasm attached) poor poor guy, had to fork out $10,000 per month and he's only left with a measley $34,000 for himself. Wahhhh
Posted by: anonymous at June 15, 2006 12:59 PM"

Maybe nobody here that thinks it's only about the alimony hasn't seen the following information.

Mr. Mack, in an order signed by Judge Weller on May 24, 2005, not only ordered $847.00 per month child support and $10,000.00 per month alimony, but also payment of all of the following:
1. The 1st AND 2nd mortgage on the house occupied by Charla Mack;
2. All property taxes on the house occupied by Ms Mack;
3. All lawn and garden maintainence on the house occupied by Ms Mack;
4. All utilities, including gas, electric, water garbage, and telephone on the house occupied by Ms Mack;
5. All television cable/satellite expenses on the house occupied by Ms Mack;
6. All pool/Jacuzzi expenses on the house occupied by Ms Mack;
7. All homeowners insurance expenses on the house occupied by Ms Mack;
8. All burgler/fire alarm expenses on the house occupied by Ms Mack;
9. And last, all pest control expenses on the house occupied by Ms Mack.

Judge Weller also gave Ms. Mack $50,000 to spend on her attorney! That was another $50,000 of Mr. Mack's money.

The only things that seem to be split evenly between the Mack's was child care and unreimbursed medical expenses. Here Judge Weller ordered a 50-50 split. Hooray for the judge!

Now, I have no idea how much money was involved is paying all the above expenses, but I can imagine it was a healthy chunk of change. Especially considering the value of their home. I pay well over $1,000.00 per year just for insurance & property taxes on a home of far less value than the one the Mack family shared.

When alimony of $10,000.00 is awarded along with the list of other expenses detailed above one has to wonder what the judge was thinking. Since Ms Mack's day to day living costs were paid nearly 100% by Mr. Mack, just why would she need such a large sum in alimony? And remember, this is the same women that was telling anybody who would listen that Mr. Mack was a "son of a b***h".(refer to story in the "Reno Gazette-Journal)

The financial burden placed on Mr. Mack by Judge Weller seems more in line with "punishment" than "justice".
Posted by DSL at June 16, 2006 09:43 AM


when they find Mr. Mack they sould pin a metal on his chest.

Posted by Steven at June 16, 2006 02:01 PM


I honestly cannot believe that some people actually think that Darren mack is a hero. that is unbelievably inhuman, pitiful, and tragic.
Posted by blondie at June 16, 2006 02:09 PM

Posted on June 17, 2006 at 03:43 PM | Permalink


I love this: "Children need two parents, not one parent with a financial entitlement from the absent parent". Well firstly statistically this is untrue. Experts suggest that around about 80% of the benefits of being raised in a two-adult family are financial. Secondly yeah kids need two parents, they don't need them to be the two people who are biologically responsible for their existence. Two good caring people will do. Thirdly since kids need two parents - murdering one of them doesn't make you a good guy. Finally kids are much better off with one caring parent than with one caring marent and a murder who lives in the house...!

Posted by: Cruella at Jun 17, 2006 5:19:55 PM

If I recall correctly, the alimony Charla Mack received was only temporary.

For cryin' out loud, the money wasn't even one-fourth of Darren Mack's salary. And he didn't even want to pay that.

He was and is a deadbeat.

Posted by: Susan Nunes at Jun 17, 2006 11:11:58 PM

Darren Macks temp alimony was 10,000 per mounth

+ the all the mortgages Taxes electric ect. The prpblem is he was going broke, his buisness was starting to go bank rupt he had some money but he owed it to people that trusted him , with out there trust he loses every nthink he work for he showed the judge his profit loss statments -500,00 Weller the tyrant did not care He wanted Darren to rob any
body he could to get the money for her he became deprate AND REFUSED TO BE A SLAVE.HER IS A thought take into acount his real financal
helth and rule according to the real accounting.

Posted by: Fuck the judge at Jun 21, 2006 8:08:09 PM

Who can't make dead beats ,it's easy.Her is how you make
judge weller a dead beat take his income per year x it by
ten and scum Weller is know a dead beat when he cant pay
his wife.Then put him in jail and abuse his children

Posted by: Fuck the judge at Jun 21, 2006 8:16:38 PM

Gee, look, an illiterate troll. Trish, where do you find these twits?

Posted by: ginmar at Jun 22, 2006 9:31:31 AM

I saw Fuck The Judge at Legal Reader, Ginmar. He starts off fairly coherent, and then devolves into blather more akin to a teenager posting tripe while mom isn't watching. If he starts doing that here, I'll ban him. He's just too amusing to delete his comments and ban him now.

Those twits find me. Like moths to a flame. And you know what happens to moths when they get too close to a flame. Fffftttttttttttthhhhh!!!!!!

Posted by: The Countess at Jun 22, 2006 9:58:48 AM

Here is the real numbers as was given to me in documents by Darren himself. Don´t let the fancy BS done by the attorneys fool you in the court motions. Remember most if not all has been falsely documented. I saw the real financial and bank records myself.

The order said¨.

44,000 income
15,000 income taxes that no-one remembered that had to be taken out. Remember income taxes?
29,000 left after taxes
10,000 spousal support as per Weller´s order
19,000 left after spousal support
14,000 all those items that were listed on the order by Weller but not put into dollars. Just the 2 morgages were 9,000 a month. I have seen the bank records.
5000 left after paying all the bills ordered to be paid by Weller.
849 child support for one child
1000 child support to the previous wife for another child.
3151 left after child support
6000 in interest paymts and other expences that Weller did not address in his order but had to be paid. Can´t tell the bank Weller said I don´t have to pay.
-2849 left after bills that must be paid that Weller did not address.
15000 a month for attys fees to fund a war that he tried to settle many times rather than go BK.
-17,849 left after attys fees. Remember Darren has yet to spend $1 on rent, food, gas, car, support one child full time that lived with him and one child that lived with him half time.
6000 a month for all the above. Darren had a minus cashflow of

$-23,849 per month

based on Judge Weller´s order. Live with that for 2 years!! and see if you need to file BK. Get a grip people.

So here it is in simple form. Weller a man making $44,000 a month to pay $61,849 before he got $1 to live on himself and to take care of his children when they lived with him. You make your own conclusion of fairness.

Remember criminals like Charla´s atty Shawn Meador and bought and paid for Judges can make anything look reasonable in court docs. The real test is how does it play out when you have to write the check and balance the checkbook. Don´t be fooled by the surface level BS. I have seen the bank records.

Posted by: mark at June 21, 2006 07:53 PM

Posted by: Mark at Jun 22, 2006 1:45:41 PM

Mark, a few words that blow your comment out of water.

Darren Mack stabbed his wife to death. He shot a judge. He shot the judge's female colleague. He remains at large.

And how do you have access to Mack's bank records? Assuming what you've posted is true, and covers assets and money Mack likely has hidden away.

You've only proven that it's all about money for him. Stop defending him. He's heinous.

Posted by: The Countess at Jun 22, 2006 2:02:45 PM

That's the hole problem , there was no defending Darren ,
judge Weller wanted to ruined Mr Mack by making it imposable
for to comply.Darren was trapped and made a slave.
Weller destroyed another family he run a circus not a
court room,He is a joke.Wellers overhead to run his circus
is 2,500 boy's who died for nothing.

Posted by: Fuck the judge at Jun 22, 2006 10:58:30 PM

let mack go

Posted by: Fuck the judge at Jun 22, 2006 11:47:44 PM

Arest Weller first and then and convict him, then go after
Darren.I think weller should get fined 5,00000.00 and
10 years jail time.While Darren serves 5 years and released
in 2-1/2.

Posted by: Fuck the judge at Jun 23, 2006 11:34:58 AM

I wish that judge had died. Fuck him. I hope he dies from his injuries. to hell with him and his family

Posted by: Death at Jun 24, 2006 4:08:20 PM

Awww, looks like someone is upset a poor wittle murderer is going to be Bubbas Bitch.

Such touching concern.

my hear pitterpatters.

Posted by: pheeno at Jun 24, 2006 4:18:06 PM

I have seen Chuck Weller on .T.V. and he seems sweet and nice and like he is enjoying the attention and support he is getting. But, i have to wonder about him , if only based on his ridiculous, ludicrous,
outrageous temporaray orders in the Mack case. He was using
his postion as a judge to ruin Darren Mack. If Darren is ruined
who takes care of the kids? We all want to respect out government leaders,
but as nice as he seems, weller has to either be corrupt or have aloose screw to make the orders he has made. Most of the people still do not get that he was ordered to pay more than he really had.
Darren is a smart guy. I am sure it is not about money exactly.
But if a man is ruined and turned into a homeless person, isn't that about money too? Darrens digneity and everything that he earned as an american
in his pursuits of HAPPINESS, LEGALLY, WERE THREATEND. He was fighting for survival. So he was a swinger, well apparently i heard for awhile his wife went along and was too. And with no relationship with his wife and the emotional drain on him, no doubt he sought comfort and reassuyrance thru
other women. That is pretty standard form for a guy like Darren.
Not too surprising at all. Of course he would have fared better if he had been a devout and religous man.
We do not know that the killings were premediatated. If they think
he left false clues with cars, i bet he left false clues at his house, and stuff about weller in order to tell people what happened in case he was killed. He may be innocent or at least less guilty . Lets hope the truth all does come out.

Posted by: mary contrary at Jun 29, 2006 3:06:24 PM