Nancy Saitta District judge is a candidate for state Supreme Court Robert Lueck Family Court hopeful is accused of failure to pay child support

CARSON CITY -- District Judge Nancy Saitta is accused in a state Supreme Court petition of issuing a gag order and sealing court records to prevent voters from learning that Clark County Family Court judge candidate Robert Lueck failed to pay child support.

Las Vegas lawyer Bruce Shapiro, who represents Lueck's ex-wife, accused Saitta of showing favoritism toward Lueck by preventing anyone from discussing the case or accessing the decision she issued after a July 11 hearing. Saitta and Lueck served on the District Court bench together.

Shapiro's petition asks the court to issue a writ to kill the gag order and unseal records of the child support case.

According to transcripts of the hearing, Saitta ruled that Lueck, who served on the Family Court bench between 1999-2004, was behind in his $750-a-month child support payments, but Saitta said, "I'm sealing it, period."

"One of the worst things that can be said about campaigning is that we use things against one another," Saitta added. "This is a situation where I don't want to see this thing being used in the campaign for anybody's sake."

Saitta is a candidate for the Supreme Court, running against Justice Nancy Becker.

Lueck is seeking to return to the Family Court bench. He was the leading vote-getter in the August primary against six other candidates and faces William Potter in the Nov. 7 general election.

One of the lawyers he defeated in the primary was Dawn Throne, the attorney who represented his second ex-wife, Jane Johanson, in the child support hearing regarding their daughter.

Saitta told Throne at the July hearing that unlike Lueck, she had not been "in a campaign with me" and that she did not understand how candidates would use negative information against each other.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Bob Rose ordered Lueck on Sept. 26 to respond to Shapiro's request for a writ within 30 days and explain why the court records should not be unsealed and the gag order lifted.

Saitta said Wednesday that she had made the statements about negative campaigns but added she ruled against Lueck. She said she is incredulous that she now would be accused of showing favoritism.

Saitta said she ordered the gag order and sealed the records to protect the child.

"This deals with a young child, and it shouldn't be used for political benefits," she said. "The First Amendment is always a priority to me, but this was something that was not newsworthy. To suggest I was using favoritism is absurd since I ruled against him. Every Family Court judge had refused to hear this case. I felt I had a job to do. I just wanted to protect those who can't protect themselves."

Lueck said he is finishing the response and will mail it today to the Supreme Court.

He said the gag order prevents him from commenting on the case. He said that court decisions have found that personal matters are not part of the public record.

"There is a lot of stuff I would love to say, but I can't," Lueck said.

Lueck divorced his first wife, Linda, in 1984, an acrimonious separation that resulted in court battles over child support and alimony, according to court documents. The divorce proceedings are what forced Lueck into filing for Chapter 13 bankruptcy.

In a 1990 affidavit, Lueck opposed her motion for increased alimony, saying: "She can mooch off someone else and make their life miserable." She is the mother of Lueck's oldest daughter.

Shapiro also said that he could not discuss the case because of the gag order.

In his petition, Shapiro contended it was not Saitta's role "to determine what information the public has or how it is judged."

The petition said, "It is also not Judge Saitta's role to protect a former colleague."

He said fathers who do not pay child support "do not receive special treatment or additional protection from the court by sealing any judgments or other evidence of their failure to pay child support."

Shapiro said Family Court proceedings and records are open to the public unless judges hear compelling reasons to close them.

"Judge Saitta provided no reasons or proper legal authority for this order because none exists," Shapiro said.

He cited the state law the prevents the sealing of court records without compelling reasons.

But Saitta said later Wednesday that she checked with court officials and found that in most cases involving delicate family matters, the records are sealed.

"It is not unusual for people famous or infamous to request that certain matters are kept from the public," Saitta said. "The majority are sealed. I don't do many family matters. I thought it was appropriate in this case. This was a situation where two candidates who were opposing each other were involved in a child support case."

Lueck, according to the transcript, told Saitta that a state law would prevent her from sealing the court records. But he told her she could seal the records under court rules of civil procedure that say records can be closed if they could "cause someone embarrassment."

In the petition, Shapiro charges that as a former Family Court judge, Lueck "knew that he was legally obligated to pay the full amount (of child support) until it was modified by the court."

But Lueck started paying $500 a month in children support, then $250 and nothing for a couple of months after January 2005, according to the petition.

Review-Journal writer Lisa Kim Bach contributed to this report.