Wesley Heidt 

Professional Incompetence in Civil Law: It is legitimate to question Mr. Heidt’s professional competency as a judge in a county court that adjudicates a variety of cases, including civil cases, of which the county court division Mr. Heidt is currently the judge. However, this website is developed for the good of the community based on documented facts that Mr. Wesley Heidt has proven himself in his short tenure as an appointed county judge that he is unfit for being a judge not only because of his professional incompetence to handle civil cases, but also his exhibition of judicial bias, his disregard of the dignity/decorum of the court and his own office, as well as his lack of basic common sense.

NOT a Law-and-Order Judge concerning Criminal Matters: Mr. Heidt had spent all his career in criminal justice working for the Florida state government before his appointed Volusia County judgeship. People naturally expected that he would be a law-and-order type of judge with expertise in criminal matters. To the contrary, Judge Heidt has proven himself to be the opposite:

1. Judge Heidt was in the news, just a few months into his appointed judgeship, after he shockingly issued a non-sensical order to release an individual, who was just arrested for accusation of child sexual battery, right back into the community from jail:

https://www.shorenewsnetwork.com/2021/07/23/foster-dad-accused-of-sexual-battery-against-children-released-by-judge/

https://www.news-journalonline.com/story/news/courts/2021/07/26/holly-hill-foster-parent-accused-raping-child-denied-bond/8089855002/

2. Judge Heidt also emboldened a known seasoned violent ex-con defendant in a civil case to commit battery again and felony perjury crime because his attitude during the 1^st trial made the defendant believe that she was above the law. The police report recorded the defendant’s statements concerning some of Judge Heidt’s explicitly lawless orders from the 1^st trial, that were not literally in Judge Heidt’s written court order but were very obviously implied with Judge Heidt’s complete ignoratance and silence without any reprimand on this defendant’s documented lawless action and threat of physical violence during the 1^st trial. During the 2^nd civil trial involving the same parties, Judge Heidt was aware of the serious incident with the police report mentioning some lawless orders he (the court) had issued per the defendant. If Judge Heidt had any respect to the law/statute and his own office (the court), he should have had serious problems with the defendant who had claimed to the police that these explicitly lawless orders were issued by him. No, that was not the case as you would have expected from a decent judge. Not only did Judge Heidt decide to preside over the 2^nd trial as a visiting judge, but he was also bolder in showing his personal bias and his special chumminess with the defendant who was wearing a very revealing dress at the 2^nd trial. Throughout the lengthy 2nd trial for a simple civil case based on the clearly stated laws/statutes, Judge Heidt never said or did anything to maintain the dignity of the court by keeping the defendant under control. With Judge Heidt’s indulgence, the lengthy trial was filled with the defendant’s blatant boasts in detail about how she schemed and acted against the laws/statutes, feigned melodramatic hysteria and irrelevant comments about her pending marital demise. No matter how inappropriate the court proceedings had gotten in terms of the rule of law and the basic decorum/proper of the court, Judge Heidt’s tone of voice was always encouraging to the defendant, and he never asked the defendant to stop any inappropriate behavior in the court room. Judge Heidt was apparently finally somewhat embarrassed about his unconditional support of the defendant at the 2^nd trial when the defendant was getting more and more emboldened by the judge and started to talk about her bizarre nymphomaniac fantasies of being the object of sexual desire/obsession. The trial finally ended at that point with Judge Heidt still making a neutral statement concerning both parties, and he still would not reprimand the defendant at all. The defendant’s solidly documented threats to physically harm and kill, as well as having committed physical battery to the opposite party were provided to the court. However, eerily like the bail bond order issued by him, Judge Heidt again ignored the danger of this defendant with multiple known violent criminal records. He dragged on and on to issue a judgement that should have been straightforward based on applicable evidence and the clearly stated laws/statutes, while his campaign Facebook page was showing him doing various time-consuming extrajudicial activities. Judge Heidt finally issued a “fake” order about 3 weeks after the 2^nd civil trial as the pressure for a judgement had continue to build up per the “norm” of this type of civil case. Another 10 days passed and the order from Judge Heidt was eventually found to be “fake” as it was not executable per the court clerk. “Justice delayed is Justice denied” applied very well here, as the defendant was able to continue her blackmailing without an “executable” order from Judge Heidt. This “fake” order also showed Judge Heidt’s abuse of a judge’s discretionary power. Obviously, Judge Heidt had a hard time issuing this order, as a significant portion of the order were not based on “applicable evidence”. To Judge Heidt, there were no such thing called “applicable evidence” in the court of law if his discretion could be applied. This order from Judge Heidt proved that solid written evidence from the side he was biased against was not “applicable evidence”, while lies without any “applicable evidence” to back up from the side he was biased towards were claimed as “applicable evidence” in his order. The police report unwisely provided by the defendant to try to support her lies to court left Judge Heidt with no choice, but to accept it as self-admitted “applicable evidence” of the defendant’s lawless action to form the main part of his order in favor of the plaintiff. Judge Heidt’s order in the 2^nd trial also did not address the issue of the reward of “attorney fees” in favor of the plaintiff while he did address it in favor of the defendant in the 1^st trial per specific Florida statute that was not up to a judge’s discretion. A few days after the “fake” order of the 2^nd trial was found to be non-executable when it should have been executed, the case was switched to be under another judge. Only after that, Judge Heidt responded and issued another “real” order to make his previous “fake” order “real” (executable). Judge Heidt’s indifference to the danger of violent criminals was again well displayed in his handling of this simple civil case that has escalated to a separate criminal matter by his biased support of a known serial violent criminal. There is a transcript of the entire 2^nd trial.