EP 102 Anyone There?

JudgeMental Podcast – EP 102 Anyone There?In this episode, Christine and Trey dive into a pair of eye-opening stories from Louisville's Jefferson Family Court — covering judicial conduct, courtroom accountability, and the evolving landscape of family law in Kentucky.Story 1: Judge Derwin Webb Conducts Hearing With Camera OffChristine and Trey discuss a troubling report out of Louisville Family Court: Judge Derwin Webb allegedly conducted a remote hearing with his camera turned off for the entire duration — leaving a pro se mother alone in a courtroom, facing blank TV screens, with no visual of the judge at any point.Key discussion points:The hearing took place on a Friday before Mother's Day; the litigant was a pro se momThe FOC (Friend of the Court) in the case was Jim Murphy; the FOC report was filed timelyQuestions raised: Was the judge paying attention? Could the parties confirm who was even on the line? Was there an option to reschedule?Christine notes she was able to independently verify the incident through multiple sources and has requested the recordingTrey acknowledges judges can legitimately appear remotely in emergencies — but argues that conducting a hearing without a camera on raises serious concerns about judicial engagement, accountability, and due processBoth hosts emphasize that an elected official conducting official court business must be visible to the partiesChristine makes clear: If we're wrong, we will issue a full apology and retraction.Story 2: The Bridgeman Case Transferred to Division 8 – Judge Brian Gatewood PresidesThe high-profile Bridgeman custody case — involving a mother married into a billionaire family who lost access to her children via a 60-page FOC report — has been transferred from Judge Lauren Ogden to Division 8, now before Judge Brian Gatewood.Key discussion points:A motion to vacate Judge Ogden's order suspending the mother's parenting time was filed, arguing a violation of constitutional rightsThe case was held up for approximately five months after the circuit clerk allegedly failed to timely certify and transmit a 26A to the Kentucky Supreme Court (hosts note this is an allegation from one side)At motion hour, Judge Gatewood asked whether there was an FOC in the case — despite the FOC being listed on the pre-ruling and the motion to vacate being centered on the FOC reportBoth hosts discuss the issue of judges' pre-rulings being issued by staff rather than the judges themselvesA conversation about attorney conduct: one of dad's attorneys made statements as if testifying to facts, rather than properly attributing them to their clientChristine also flags two broader concerns raised by this case:The failure to ensure the mother had parenting time on Mother's Day — something she says old-school judges would never have toleratedThe boundary between attorney and witness, and what happens when counsel makes factual representations without proper attributionAlso Discussed:The growing community of court watchers monitoring Jefferson Family Court hearings — and why Christine encourages itMotion hour culture in Jefferson County: the pros, the cons, and whether it should be abolished entirelyThe importance of Adair v. Emberton limits on FOC testimonyA formal on-air retraction/apology to Judge Lauren Ogden for an error in a prior post (Christine clarifies: Ogden attended a fundraiser at a litigant's home weeks before the June 25 date previously cited, not on that specific date — while the case was still pending and an order was outstanding)Submit to Judge-y:Have a submission? Head to the Judge-y community at judge-y.com to submit anonymously. Submissions are completely anonymous — Christine cannot see who submitted. All active investigations are sourced from the Judge-y community.Follow along on social: @JudgingthejudgesDownload the Judge-y app to stay connected, submit tips, and engage with the community.LEGAL DISCLAIMERThe content of this podcast is for informational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended to be, and should not be construed as, legal advice. Engaging with this content does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and the hosts, guests, or their firms. The views and opinions expressed on this podcast are solely those of the individuals involved and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any law firm, company, or organization. We make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy, completeness, or applicability of the information presented. Any reliance on the information in this podcast is at your own risk. Laws are constantly changing, and every situation is unique. You should always seek the advice of a qualified attorney for your specific legal concerns.