CARSON CITY -- Clark County Family Court judicial candidate Robert Lueck accused his ex-wife and her lawyer on Friday of filing a Supreme Court petition to evade a gag order and reveal publicly during his campaign that Lueck had failed to make child support payments.

Lueck's lawyer John Watkins said it was "purely for spite" that his client's former wife, Jane Johanson, and her lawyer Bruce Shapiro filed the petition to lift a gag order imposed by Clark County District Judge Nancy Saitta and unseal records that detail how the candidate fell $2,400 behind in child support payments.

Watkins made the accusation in a 21-page response to Johanson's petition. Chief Justice Bob Rose had ordered Lueck to make the response through his lawyer by Friday.

Watkins called the dispute: "a very minor and private matter between these parties and there is no significant issue of public interest here."

Saitta, who is running for the Supreme Court, said in a Wednesday interview that she sealed the records and imposed the gag order to protect the couple's child.

During a July 11 court hearing, Saitta said she was imposing the gag order to prevent the child support payments dispute from being used against Lueck in his election campaign.

Shapiro accused Saitta of favoritism in the appeal of her decision to the Supreme Court. The petition he filed is not subject to Saitta's gag order.

Watkins said in the response that the dispute could have been resolved months ago but for the "irrational intransigence" of Johanson and Shapiro's desire to embarrass Lueck "right at the time of the voting in the current election."

Lueck served as a Family Court judge in Clark County between 1999-2004. He lost a bid for re-election in November 2004 but is again seeking a seat on the Family Court bench. He was the leading vote-getter among six candidates in the August primary and faces Henderson attorney William Potter in the Nov. 7 election. Judges are paid $140,000 per year.

This fight over money is not Lueck's first public dispute with a former wife. He had an acrimonious court battle over alimony after he divorced his first wife, Linda Lueck, in 1984. In 1990, Lueck opposed her motion for increased alimony by saying in an affidavit: "She can mooch off someone else and make their life miserable."

Lueck said Friday that he is "not one to shirk my responsibilities" and that he continues to help support his adult children.

"I only asked for a temporary respite (from the full child support payment), when I had nothing," Lueck said. "I went from $138,000 a year to nothing."

Lueck added that he spent about $50,000 in savings on his unsuccessful re-election campaign in 2004 and had little money with which to start a law practice and pay child support early in 2005.

Rather than hurting him politically, Lueck said his divorces and child support dispute should help him in his effort to regain a position on the bench.

"I am not the only person that has gone through ugly stuff," Lueck said. "What has happened to me is happening to a lot of people out there. I know what happens."

Among other matters, family court judges determine how much child support parents must pay according to a payment schedule developed by the Legislature. The judges also enforce child support payments and conduct hearings on requests to modify payments.

Watkins acknowledged that Lueck was required to make $750-per-month child support payments to his ex-wife for the support of their 10-year-old child. But, Watkins said, Lueck was financially strapped and could not make the entire payments.

"He was doing the best he could under the circumstances," said Watkins, adding that: "All throughout this time period, Mr. Lueck did pay child support."

Lueck said he wanted his ex-wife to agree to take $500 per month in payments but she refused. Watkins said Lueck sought to get one of the Family Court judges to modify his support, but they recused themselves.

Watkins praised Saitta, who normally does not handle Family Court matters, for her willingness to hear Lueck's pleadings to modify his child support in August 2005.

At that hearing, Lueck said that Saitta ordered him to catch up on his payments within 60 days and to pay an additional $66 a month in medical insurance payments for his child.

Watkins said that Lueck "always paid some support even during the months he had no income," but later stated that Lueck made no payments in July 2005.

"Indirectly, Mr. Shapiro is also trying to embarrass Judge Saitta, who is also involved in a contested race for a seat on the Nevada Supreme Court," Watkins said. "She had the courage to take on this case when many other judges had recused themselves."

Watkins said that Saitta made "technical errors" that favored Lueck's ex-wife. He also said his client was "overcharged" in payments that Saitta ordered him to make for two months in 2005.