The JudgeMental Podcast

JudgeMental Podcast – Episode 110: "That's All, Folks!"Episode 110 marks a milestone and a momentary goodbye. The hosts raise a Miller High Life to celebrate reaching 110 episodes — now downloaded in 69 countries in less than one year — before announcing they're stepping back from the podcast to focus on building out their core platform.What's Discussed in This Episode:The Hiatus AnnouncementChristine and co-hosts explain why they're taking a break: the emotional and logistical toll of the podcast has become unsustainable. Christine opens up about retaliation she's faced, the weight of holding others' trauma without compensation, and the need to reset. The team emphasizes that no content is being removed — the mission is simply shifting focus toward developing the Judge-y app, the website, and the judicial accountability community they've built."We built what could be a huge movement, and will be. But we don't owe our day-to-day, not sleeping at night."The Bridgeman CaseThe hosts note that nothing was filed by the GAL in the public record, but that an order has come down and a case management conference is upcoming. Christine raises concerns about matters potentially being handled off the public record via what she describes as a "shadow docket," and calls for transparency. She says the case "gives her the heebie-jeebies," noting the involvement of a high-profile family and the presence of an unidentified individual at a confidential hearing.The Matt Bevin CaseA bench warrant was issued after former Governor Matt Bevin appeared remotely at a sentencing hearing despite three explicit notices requiring his in-person attendance. The hosts debate whether the judge's handling — issuing a bench warrant that was recalled upon payment of a $250 fine — was proper enforcement or political theater. Christine argues it was the latter, given that Bevin almost certainly knew he'd just pay the fine. Co-host Trey pushes back, noting the judge was consistent in requiring in-person attendance and was building a proper record for escalating consequences.Attorney Accountability & ComplacencyA broader conversation emerges about the "pussification of Louisville lawyers" — attorneys who privately complain about judicial misconduct and incompetence but won't file motions, preserve the record, or stand up for their clients. The hosts argue that attorney complacency is one of the biggest systemic problems in family court, noting that attorneys who "play the game" get more court appointments while clients suffer.Prosecutors & The Judicial SystemThe team discusses how prosecutors routinely fail domestic violence victims — including cases where a person admitted on recording to drugging and raping their spouse and still received minimal consequences. Christine argues the problem isn't about gender or race but about unchecked power: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."Judge Lauren Ogden & The Social Dynamics of the BenchA candid moment: Christine shares that the only two family court judges she'd "have a beer with" are Angela Johnson and Lori Goodwin. She expresses concern that Judge Johnson may be getting herself into a situation that "could be one to break," while also noting the troubling dynamic of attorneys who trash judges in private but pose for photos with them publicly.Stay Connected & Support the Movement:📲 Download the Judge-y app and join the community: judge-y.com🐦 Follow us on social: @Judgingthejudges💬 Share your story — all submissions are confidential🛒 Buy merch to support the show💰 Community membership is $10/month — if you genuinely can't afford it, email Christine directly to discuss a waiver🎙️ Share old episodes with friends, legislators, and anyone who cares about judicial accountabilityAll episodes remain available. The team will make announcements about future plans on their website and social channels.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.

JudgeMental Podcast – Episode 109: "Sounding Off"Hosted by Christine & TreyEpisode SummaryChristine and Trey open with a bittersweet announcement: this is the last week of the JudgeMental Podcast — at least in its current daily format. They reflect on the emotional and psychological toll of deep-diving into family court cases, and make clear that continuing will require the show to become more financially sustainable. The Judge-y app isn't going anywhere, and the website will be updated. Follow the show on Instagram @Judgingthejudges and download Judge-y at judge-y.com.Main Topics1. Trey's Correction on Judge Lauren Ogden Reversal StatisticsTrey clarifies a misstatement from a previous episode: when he cited how many times Judge Ogden had been "reversed," he had actually conflated all negative appellate treatment — including writs granted and emergency relief — with formal reversals by the Court of Appeals. He clarifies that Judge Ogden has fewer formal reversals than Judge Preston but an extraordinarily high number of writs and emergency relief orders, which are not tracked in the same case research databases as reversals.2. Judge Lauren Ogden Appointed to Child Fatality Review PanelSecretary of State Michael Adams has appointed Judge Lauren Ogden as the new chair of the Child Fatality and Near Fatality External Review Panel for a two-year term. Christine and Trey express serious alarm given Ogden's appellate record, particularly in cases involving children and domestic violence. They discuss the case Hansen v. Work, in which the Court of Appeals reversed Judge Ogden after she promised to hear from children in chambers, then dismissed a petition alleging child violence without hearing a single witness.3. The Pattern of Appellate ReversalsTrey explains the distinction between "episodic" judicial errors (varied mistakes across different areas of law) versus "structural" failures — where a judge is repeatedly reversed for the same type of misconduct. Judge Ogden's record falls into the structural category, particularly around due process violations, failure to make evidentiary findings, and ignoring appellate directives. The Court of Appeals has not just reversed her — in some cases it has directed her to enter specific rulings because the evidence was so clear.4. Reflections on Family Court & The Emotional TollChristine opens up about the personal weight of reporting on these cases, including holding confidential information about children who have lost their lives after being placed by the Cabinet for Health and Family Services. She references the book Chaos by Tom O'Neill as a parallel to her experience going down difficult investigative rabbit holes.5. The Judge-y App & What's NextJudge-y, the app that empowers the public to rate and review judges, is not going away. Trey notes that he has been processing judge-addition requests and clarifies the app's policy: retired judges who are no longer taking appointments are generally not added to the directory. Judges who are retired but still accepting case appointments are still considered active and remain eligible for the platform.Download Judge-y at judge-y.com | Follow: @JudgingthejudgesKey Cases MentionedHansen v. Work – Court of Appeals reversed Judge Ogden after she dismissed a child violence petition without hearing witnesses, despite having promised to interview children in chambers.Resources & Links🔗 Download the Judge-y app: judge-y.com📲 Follow on Instagram: @Judgingthejudges📧 Contact Secretary of State Michael Adams: [email protected]📚 Chaos by Tom O'Neill (referenced by Christine)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.

JudgeMental Podcast – Episode 108: "White Trash Dude"Hosts: Trey & ChristineEpisode SummaryIn this episode, Trey and Christine dig into the case of Leslie Calabrese, a former Cuyahoga County (Cleveland), Ohio family court judge who pled guilty and was sentenced to 60 days for her role in a judicial corruption scheme. The hosts break down what happened, why it matters, and what it reveals about systemic issues in courts across the country — including right in their own backyard of Louisville, Kentucky.What We CoverThe Calabrese Case: A sitting domestic relations judge in Cleveland who repeatedly appointed a personal friend — and his daughter's company — as receivers in divorce cases, funneling over half a million dollars to that firm.The Cover-Up: Staffers were ordered to delay and withhold public records requests to let the scandal "blow over." She also allegedly manipulated which cases were assigned to her docket.The Sentence: 60 days — the hosts debate whether this is justice or a slap on the wrist, and whether her political dynasty family connections played a role in the lenient outcome.The RICO Question: Christine argues this constitutes an organized criminal syndicate. Both hosts question why federal prosecutors haven't been more aggressive.The Family Dynasty: Calabrese came from one of Ohio's most prominent political families — including Supreme Court justices, appellate judges, and the mayor of Cleveland — and was reportedly the first woman in the family elected to public office.The Broader Pattern: What's the legal line between a judge appointing someone they know (because they're reliable and available) versus criminal cronyism? Hugh and Trey explore where that line is — and where it's clearly being crossed in Louisville.Louisville Parallels: Christine details a pattern she sees locally — judges appointing former staff, campaign attorneys, business managers, and even their tenants as GALs, FOCs, parenting coordinators, and custodial evaluators — with no statutory requirement to do so.What You Should Ask Your Attorney: If your attorney regularly receives court appointments from the judge on your case, they may be unwilling to challenge bad rulings in order to protect that financial relationship. Ask the hard questions before you hire someone.The Photo: A post circulating in Louisville showing a sitting judge, a sitting GAL/FOC, attorneys, and a court-appointed custodial evaluator socializing together — captioned "May in one word: flourishing."Key TakeawaysA judge was actually prosecuted and sentenced to jail time for appointment-based corruption. That matters."This is how we always do it here" is not a legal defense.Disclosure. Disclosure. Disclosure. If the relationships aren't a problem, why hide them?Receivers, GALs, FOCs, parenting coordinators — these appointments are discretionary, not mandatory. And that discretion is ripe for abuse.Ask your attorney about their relationships with opposing counsel and the judge.Resources & Links🌐 Website: judge-y.com📲 Download the app: Judge-y — empowering you to rate and review judges for judicial accountability and transparency📣 Follow us: @JudgingthejudgesLEGAL 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.JudgeMental Podcast is produced by Trey & Christine — two lawyers determined to save the system.

JudgeMental Podcast – EP 107: "Slap on the Wrist, Hold the Slap"In this episode, Christine and Trey dig into one of the most jaw-dropping examples of judicial misconduct to make headlines recently: a federal judge who was caught having sex in her chambers — loudly, repeatedly — while her law clerks were forced to listen. And when investigators came knocking? She lied. All of it, behind closed doors, with a private reprimand and her name protected.What we cover:The anatomy of the federal judge scandal: sex in chambers, lying to investigators, attending partisan fundraisers, and a 22-page private reprimand that amounts to... apology lettersWhy the Judicial Conduct Commission's handling of this mirrors the worst of law enforcement self-policing — and why that era is endingThe jaw-dropping power imbalance on law clerks: $200K in debt, trying to change the world, forced to be complicit in their boss's cover-upThe Chrisley connection: Judge Eleanor Ross presided over the Chrisley sentencing, and Todd Chrisley is now calling for full impeachmentBlackmail risk: The investigators themselves flagged how this conduct opened a federal judge and a high-ranking law enforcement official to exploitation — by anyone from opposing counsel to organized crimeWhy other judges who knew and said nothing are part of the problemThe brewing wave: documentaries in production, algorithms catching up, legislators who know the names but haven't found it politically advantageous to act — yetNext episode: the judge who got 60 days (yes, really)Download Judge-y now and rate the judges yourself: judge-y.comFollow us on social: @JudgingthejudgesLEGAL 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.

EP 106 – Dry Friday | The JudgeMental PodcastIn this episode, Hugh and Christine skip the midday cocktails for sparkling water — because the topic is too heavy (and their afternoon schedules too packed) to drink through it. A journalist's question about whether their reporting has done more good than bad sends them into a wide-ranging, candid conversation about judicial accountability, the family court system, and the real-world consequences of their work.In this episode:Has the JudgeMental Podcast done more good than harm? Christine and Trey wrestle with the impact of nearly two years of reporting on family courts — the progress made, the cases they worry about, and the moments they've considered quitting.The 180-Day Mom update: Jason Bowman's 26A was denied in a one-page order that, in their view, failed to engage with the substance of what was filed. Christine and Trey share their frustrations.Judges restricting court access: Are courts becoming more closed as a direct response to public scrutiny? Trey has noticed a trend — fewer Zoom hearings, tighter access — and worries about their role in that.When judges won't accept your agreement: A deep dive into the maddening phenomenon of parties reaching full agreement, only to have a judge demand a hearing anyway — and what that costs litigants financially and emotionally.The Bridgeman case: An update on where things stand, and why the absence of a filed response has Christine puzzled.Tiffany Yahr: A listener asks about her background as a CPS attorney and what that might mean for her judicial philosophy.Attorney clarification: Christine walks back any implication that using FOCs and GALs is inherently problematic — distinguishing between criticism of the system and criticism of attorneys doing their jobs within it.Judge Judy + Norm Macdonald: Apparently this interview exists and Trey had no idea. Christine has posted it 100 times.Filing complaints against judges: A listener's comment raises an excellent point — if the complaint process requires confidentiality, what's the enforcement mechanism if you speak anyway?Monica Meredith is on the ballot in November. Christine plans to attend a Louisville family court community meeting this summer.The UK connection: Christine gets a live submission mid-episode from someone saying the same issues are happening across the Atlantic.Rate and review judges at judge-y.com and follow @Judgingthejudges for updates. Download the Judge-y app to research judicial backgrounds before you vote.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.

JudgeMental Podcast – Episode 105: Pants on FireCan a Friend of the Court (FOC) lie to the parties they're investigating? That's the provocative question at the center of this episode, and the answer may surprise — or concern — you.Hosts Christine and Trey dig into the legal and ethical landscape surrounding FOCs in Michigan family court, drawing parallels to law enforcement's well-established right to use deception during investigations. The conversation covers the landmark Morgan v. Getter (2012) case that created the distinction between Guardians ad Litem (GALs) and Friends of the Court, and explores how the FOC role has expanded far beyond its original intent.Topics Covered:Can FOCs use deception as an investigative tactic, the way law enforcement can?The Morgan v. Getter (2012) ruling and the GAL vs. FOC distinctionWhy experienced attorneys prep clients to treat FOC interviews like police interrogations — and why pro se litigants are most at riskJudges ordering parties not to record FOC interactions — and whether that's even lawfulHow "buddy tactics" by FOCs can mislead both parties before a report is issuedPaid supervisors and no-recording contracts during supervised parenting timeThe systemic pattern: nothing reported on JudgeMental has ever turned out to be an isolated incidentWhy FOC appointments have exploded in family court — and the problems that createsKey Takeaways:Treat every interaction with an FOC as if they are building a case against you — tell the truth, keep your story consistent, and take notes on everything said to you.Ask your attorney about attending FOC interviews with you.Stay connected with the Judge-y community at judge-y.com and follow @Judgingthejudges for updates, submissions, and ongoing coverage of family court accountability.Download the Judge-y app to stay informed and connected.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.

JudgeMental Podcast – EP 104: Groundhog DayIn this episode, Christine and Trey return from a brief hiatus to dig into appellate decisions — a shift in focus driven by the volume of community submissions asking them to investigate judges with high reversal rates. They explain why looking at published (and unpublished) Court of Appeals and Supreme Court decisions is one of the clearest ways to show, in black and white, what's going wrong in family courts across the country.The Case: CL v. Commonwealth, 653 S.W.3d 599 (Ky. Ct. App. 2022)The hosts break down a published Kentucky Court of Appeals opinion out of Lewis Family Court involving Judge Jeffrey Preston — a circuit judge presiding over multiple counties who has been reversed or vacated 38 times. The case, which Christine and Hugh flag as a "statement opinion," involves a mother who:Reported suspected sexual abuse of her four children (as a mandatory reporter under Kentucky law)Was penalized by the judge for making those very reports, which he characterized as falseHad her parenting time reduced to a weekly video phone call for approximately eight monthsWas effectively "diagnosed" with a substance abuse disorder and mental illness by social workers and the judge — with no testimony from any qualified mental health professionalKey Issues Addressed by the Court of Appeals:Improper judicial notice – The judge referenced testimony and evidence from a separate domestic violence case involving the same parties without properly introducing it into the record, denying the parties the ability to examine or challenge it.Credibility determinations – The judge made early findings about the mother's truthfulness and applied them wholesale throughout the case.Inferences stacked on inferences – The Court of Appeals found no factual basis in the record for the judge's findings; instead, they were built on a chain of unsubstantiated inferences.Unqualified mental health findings – Kentucky law requires attestation by a qualified mental health professional before such findings can be made. No such professional testified.Mandatory reporting punished – The mother did exactly what the law required. The Court of Appeals acknowledged she acted as a protective parent.No finding of risk of harm – The level of parenting time restriction imposed required a specific finding of risk of harm, which the record could not support.Bigger Themes:The outsized, largely unchecked discretion of family court judges — and why oversight mattersHow "one family, one court" can become a vehicle for judicial overreach in small communitiesWhy people don't report domestic violence or abuse (and what this case illustrates about those fears)The phenomenon of judges who are reversed repeatedly on the same issues with no meaningful accountabilityWhy the publication of this opinion may itself be a message from the Court of AppealsThe argument for jury trials in family court as a structural check on judicial powerChristine and Trey also give a shout-out to the trial attorney in this case — whoever preserved the record so meticulously that the appeal succeeded — and invite that attorney to reach out.Next Episode: A special Judge-y community Q&A, with one standout question getting a full episode devoted to it.Resources & Links:Visit us at judge-y.comFollow us on social: @JudgingthejudgesDownload the Judge-y app to submit judges for review, ask community questions, and stay connectedCase discussed: CL v. Commonwealth, 653 S.W.3d 599 (Ky. Ct. App. 2022) — will be posted on the website and shared on socialsLEGAL 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.

EP 103: Sun's Out, Beers OutThe JudgeMental PodcastAbout the ShowThe JudgeMental Podcast is brought to you by Hugh and Christine — two lawyers determined to save the system through judicial accountability and transparency. Find us on judge-y.com | Follow us: @Judgingthejudges | Download the app: Judge-yEpisode SummaryChristine is live from sunny Florida (with a Peroni in hand) and Trey is fresh off a Miami trip. This episode is packed — from a deep dive into Judge Lauren Ogden's repeated due process violations to breaking developments in the Matt Bevin case, plus a lively community discussion about FOC Jim Murphy and what accountability in the family court system should actually look like.In This Episode🍺 What Are We Drinking?Trey: Country Boy Nacho Bait with orangeChristine: Peroni (and yes, Publix is currently running a buy-one-get-one-free on six-packs — don't miss it)⚖️ Judge-y Community Q&AThis segment is made possible by the Judge-y app — all questions are 100% anonymous. Download the app at judge-y.com or search *Judge-y in your app store.*Q: Has Judge Lauren Ogden ever faced any consequence or JCC reprimand for the multiple Court of Appeals reversals finding she violated due process?The short answer: No. None. Not a single public or private JCC complaint or reprimand that Christine has been able to find. Despite the Court of Appeals repeatedly — and emphatically — telling Judge Ogden she cannot strip litigants of their constitutionally protected due process rights without a hearing, there have been zero formal consequences. Christine and Trey explore:Whether attorneys who read those appellate opinions have an ethical obligation under the "big brother" rule to file a bar complaintWhy the Louisville Family Bar's rallying around Judge Ogden may be emboldening further violationsThe stark contrast between judges who once acknowledged and corrected appellate reversals in open court versus the attitude that prevails todayWhy the absence of media coverage is staggering — it's not Christine or Trey saying these things. It's the Court of Appeals of Kentucky.📰 Breaking: Matt Bevin Case UpdateThe Bevin divorce case — which has attracted coverage from The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Courier-Journal, Louisville Public Media, WDRB, and WLKY — continues to develop. Christine pulled the docket live during recording:May 7th: The Kentucky Supreme Court issued its orderNo motion to reconsider was filed by the deadlineSentencing scheduled: May 29th at 4:00 PMFull-day child support hearing set: July 28thThe case centers on whether a nearly-adult child (who filed for intervention at approximately age 17) can intervene in his parents' divorce and seek child support — a legal question with no clear Kentucky precedent. Christine and Trey debate:Why a full-day hearing is warranted given undisclosed financial documentation and the novel legal issues at stakeThe mechanics of imputing income when a party refuses to produce financialsWhy this case, regardless of who the parties are, has the potential to fundamentally reshape family law in Kentucky — and possibly beyondA message to the "Country Club followers": Your kids are coming for your money. Call your legislators. Let's get family court reform.📣 Judge-y Community Thread: FOC Jim MurphyThe Judge-y community — anonymous, candid, and growing — has a lot to say about Friend of the Court Jim Murphy. Highlights from the thread:Multiple accounts of Murphy stating he "can't weigh in" per Adair v. Zimberton, only to offer recommendations minutes later when prompted by the judgeConcerns about his presence at motion hours where FOCs are not permitted to testifyQuestions about billing transparency — Murphy has reportedly described himself as "terrible at issuing bills" and doesn't bill for everything he doesA community member spotted him being paged by a judge in one case while he'd already left for anotherThe Adair v. Zimberton Case (in under 45 seconds):The Court of Appeals ruled that a judge cannot allow a Friend of the Court to provide third-party hearsay testimony — without those parties being cross-examined — in a family court proceeding. The FOC must be sworn in, and opposing counsel must have the ability to cross-examine. This is not a gray area. It is settled law.Christine and Trey raise the question: when a judge encourages a violation of both statute and clear appellate precedent, who bears greater responsibility — the judge or the FOC?💡 The "Kiddo" ProblemAn observation that generated real discussion: FOCs and GALs who refer to the children in their cases as "kiddo" rather than by name. Christine and Trey break down why this matters:It signals a lack of preparation and case familiarityIt depersonalizes the very children whose lives are at stakeIt sets a tone — and younger attorneys watching motion hour absorb that tone"Words matter. The judges set this tone. And it all comes from the top." — Trey Barrow🔧 What Would Actually Fix This?Christine and Trey's practical legislative ask: require GALs and FOCs to submit itemized billing — even quarterly. No investigation required. The data speaks for itself. This is not a partisan issue. It's an accountability issue.And a standing call to action: if anyone has an itemized bill from FOC Patience Fitzpatrick on any GAL or FOC appointment, Christine wants to see it. Your identity will be protected.📲 Connect With UsWebsite: judge-y.comSocial: @JudgingthejudgesApp: Download Judge-y — submit questions anonymously, join community threads, and message Christine directly (community members only)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.

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.

JudgeMental Podcast – Episode 101 LameThis week, Christine and Trey pick up where they left off, diving deeper into the ongoing saga of Kentucky's family court system. Over Coors Light (and a LaCroix), they break down the latest developments in some of the most-watched cases in the Judge-y community — and pull no punches.What's Covered This Episode:Judicial Conduct Commission & Bar Association TransparencyThe duo continues their conversation about whether the Judicial Conduct Commission and the Kentucky Bar Association have the authority to silence non-members and impose confidentiality on complaints. Trey and Christine question the stated purpose of such rules — and wonder if the honest answer is simply protecting judges and attorneys from public scrutiny. They argue for more transparency and note that defamation laws already exist as a check on false public statements.Case Updates: Mommy Jail Mom & 180-Day MomMommy Jail Mom: Lauren Ogden recused. The case has been transferred to Division 2 (Judge Shelley Santry). No significant litigation has occurred since the transfer.180-Day Mom: Still in Christine Ward's (Division 6) court. Motions were filed but not electronically received. A hearing has been set. Christine and Trey break down a motion hour in which Judge Ward made pointed comments to the newly-entering attorney about his client's desire for a speedy resolution — despite the attorney having a legitimate scheduling conflict. Both hosts find the remarks unnecessary and tone-deaf to the realities of solo and small-firm practice.Division 6 & Attorney ReluctanceIn a surprising turn, Christine reveals that many Louisville attorneys are reluctant to take cases in Division 6 — which Trey finds puzzling given what he describes as relative predictability in that court compared to others.Matt Bevin Case & 26A MotionsA quick explainer on 26A motions (motions to disqualify a judge): Judge Angela Johnson recently issued an order declining to recuse herself, sending the matter back up to the Supreme Court of Kentucky for a final determination. Christine and Trey discuss whether the order was over-explained and what it might signal.Family Court Orders: A Hall of ShameFrom "pirate orders" with incomprehensible grammar to the opposite extreme of a Derwin Webb four-sentence ruling after a four-day hearing, Christine and Trey share war stories about the quality (or lack thereof) of family court orders — and the rare, genuinely impressive exception.Judicial Candor Gone WrongChristine shares a never-before-told story about Derwin Webb telling her mid-case how he planned to rule — and then ruling the opposite way. Trey follows up with his own story involving a federal judge who fell asleep during a hearing, called to apologize, implied Trey's case was a winner, and then ruled against him entirely.Conflict of Interest TeaserChristine posed a legal ethics question on the Judge-y socials about conflicts of interest for attorneys who represent other attorneys — and the response was overwhelming. They'll dig into it in a future episode.Stay Connected:Follow the Judge-y community and case updates at judge-y.comFollow on social media: @JudgingthejudgesDownload the Judge-y app to stay up to date on cases and community discussionsLEGAL 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.

JudgeMental Podcast – Episode 100 CenturyIn this milestone 100th episode, hosts Christine and Trey dive deep into two interconnected stories about self-policing organizations, First Amendment rights, and the systemic culture of silence that protects institutions at the expense of accountability.Topics Covered:LMPD Officer Suspended for Speaking OutAn LMPD officer attended a community/homeowners association meeting and made comments suggesting that police officers tend to pull over low-risk drivers (like grandmothers with a headlight out) rather than pursuing more dangerous criminals. LMPD suspended him — ostensibly for making the department look bad. Christine and Trey break down the constitutional implications of a government employer punishing a public employee for speech, why this situation differs fundamentally from a private employer doing the same, and what it reveals about the culture of self-policing organizations.The "Low-Hanging Fruit" Problem in Law EnforcementChristine draws on her background as a public defender and her relationships with law enforcement officers across agencies — from LMPD to Kentucky State Police to federal agencies — to explain that targeting "low-hanging fruit" to meet quotas is not unique to any one department. Trey and Christine debate the tension between criticism of quotas and simultaneous advocacy for bonus pay tied to traffic stop numbers.Louisville Metro Jail ConditionsChristine describes first-hand accounts and publicly reported incidents of civil rights violations at Louisville Metro Jail, including allegations of indiscriminate pepper spray use during arraignments. She calls attention to the millions of dollars Louisville has paid in civil lawsuits — including a reported $10.4 million tied to a federal lawsuit over unlawful detentions — and urges attorneys to look into constitutional violations at the jail as viable civil litigation.Judicial & Bar Complaints — Why Confidentiality Silences VictimsThe hosts respond to a listener question submitted through the Judge-y app: "Why did they tell me my complaint was confidential when I filed it?" Christine and Trey discuss how the Kentucky Bar Association and the Judicial Conduct Commission use confidentiality requirements — sometimes lasting six months to a year or more — as a de facto intimidation tactic that prevents complainants from speaking publicly about what happened to them. They argue this effectively gags the very people the system is supposed to protect.The Safer Kentucky Act & Expanding Restrictions on SpeechTrey raises concerns about provisions in the Safer Kentucky Act that broadly expand the definition of "harassment" in legal proceedings — potentially criminalizing public commentary on judicial conduct. Both hosts express concern that Kentucky, like much of the country, is moving toward legislating restrictions on speech related to government actors and legal processes.Episode 100 ReflectionsChristine and Trey reflect on why they started the JudgeMental Podcast — and how a failure of judicial accountability by the Judicial Conduct Commission (JCC) set Christine on this path. Trey shares his own experience stepping away from 20 years of litigation and finally feeling free to speak publicly about what he witnessed in the courts.Connect with Us:Join the conversation on the Judge-y app — submit your questions and share your experiences with the court systemFollow us on TikTok: @JudgingthejudgesVisit us at judge-y.comLEGAL DISCLAIMER\The 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.

JudgeMental Podcast – EP 99 Safer?The Safer Kentucky Act & Judicial AccountabilityEpisode SummaryIn this episode, Christine and Trey dive into a developing legal controversy in Jefferson County, Kentucky: two district court judges have reached opposite conclusions on the constitutionality of the Safer Kentucky Act's anti-camping provisions — and the hosts have a lot of thoughts.What We CoveredThe Safer Kentucky Act & HomelessnessThe Safer Kentucky Act, championed by Representative Jason Nemes, includes a provision (KRS 511.110) that effectively criminalizes homelessness by banning sleeping in any public space. Christine and Trey break down just how sweeping this legislation is — and how much of it was quietly aimed at Louisville specifically. Beyond the camping ban, the Act also restricts cities from using public funds for affordable housing unless it includes a rehabilitative component (mental health or substance abuse treatment), and gives the Attorney General the power to sue cities that fail to comply.Two Judges, Two OutcomesJudge Stephanie Burke (Jefferson County District Court) issued a detailed order finding the anti-camping provision unconstitutional — finding it violates the Kentucky and U.S. Constitutions, and even the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, reasoning that the law criminalizes the most basic human act of sleeping when you have no home.Judge Jessica Moore (Jefferson County District Court) reached the opposite conclusion, though the hosts note they haven't been able to read her order due to Louisville's use of BenchPro rather than CourtNet — a Louisville-specific electronic filing issue that makes district court orders difficult to access publicly.The DPA's Coordinated ChallengeThe Department of Public Advocacy (Kentucky's public defenders) has mounted a coordinated, statewide effort to challenge the constitutionality of this law, filing motions across multiple cases. Christine and Trey praise this effort as exactly why a robust public defender system matters.The Constitutional AnalysisThe hosts dig into the legal arguments: vagueness, overbreadth, and the Eighth Amendment. Christine raises a provocative point — if the death penalty doesn't violate the Eighth Amendment under existing precedent, how does restricting someone's ability to sleep? Trey pushes back thoughtfully, arguing the analysis is about the punishment relative to the "crime," and that criminalizing an involuntary act of survival is a fundamentally different question.The Bigger PictureTrey discloses he serves on the board of an organization providing outreach and housing assistance to unhoused individuals. He and Christine discuss the real human cost of enforcement — people's belongings destroyed, IDs lost, and deaths during winter camp clearings. They also acknowledge the genuine public safety concerns around encampments while arguing that criminalizing poverty has never solved the underlying problem.On Judge BurkeBoth hosts are fans of Judge Burke and give her significant credit for her work, her work ethic, and her commitment to mental health court — while also admitting they haven't yet read the full order and are eager to analyze it in a future episode.Judge-y App UpdatesTrey and Christine give listeners an update on the Judge-y app:Verification of judges before they go on the app is ongoing — retired judges who are actively taking appointments qualify.A submission process is coming to the app once the App Store update is approved, making it easier for the community to submit judges for review.Merch is coming! T-shirts, sweatshirts, and yes — the mugshot. Follow @Judgingthejudges for updates.Resources MentionedLouisville Public Media articles on Judge Burke's ruling and the Safer Kentucky ActKRS 511.110 (Unlawful Camping statute)Judge-y app: judge-y.comFollow the show: @JudgingthejudgesLEGAL 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.

JudgeMental Podcast – EP 98: Wednesday on FridayIn this episode, Trey and Christine kick off with a candid conversation about the emotional toll of social media criticism — and why they remain committed to calling out dysfunction in the justice system regardless of political affiliation. Christine opens up about the relentless hate she receives online and the moral tightrope she walks trying to stay fair to people on all sides of the system.The conversation ranges widely, touching on:The performative nature of press conferences and how government actors use them to push narratives rather than address root causesThe Todd Blanche/SPLC indictment and what reading a charging document actually tells you (hint: not the whole story)Youth crime in Louisville — the real problem, the closed juvenile detention facility, and why clapping at press conferences doesn't fix anythingThe death penalty debate — Christine shares her unwavering stance against capital punishment and why, ironically, the firing squad may be the most humane option if it ever came to thatPublic education and family court — how Christine's one semester teaching in a public school opened her eyes to deeper systemic failures, and how that connects to what she sees in family court every dayLitigation tactics in family law vs. civil law — what's zealous advocacy, what's delay, and where's the line?Brady obligations and family court — could a Brady-like disclosure requirement actually improve outcomes for kids in custody disputes?The episode wraps with a preview of their next case discussion: BB v. [school district], out of the Ninth Circuit — involving a 7-year-old, a Black Lives Matter post-it that said "All Lives," and a school's reaction to it. The oral arguments are fascinating. Trey and Christine recommend reading the case before the next episode.Stay connected and join the conversation on the Judge-y community at judge-y.com | Follow @JudgingthejudgesDownload the Judge-y app and start rating judges today: judge-y.comLEGAL 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.

JudgeMental Podcast – Episode 98 The High LifeIn this episode, Christine and Trey kick off with a classic Friday vibe — Miller High Life may or may not have been involved — before diving into a case that will leave you asking: how did this end up in federal court?Case: B.B. v. Castano Unified School District (9th Circuit)A 7-year-old first-grade student drew a picture of her friends holding hands after a class lesson on Martin Luther King Jr. She included the words "Black Lives Matter" (misspelled) and gave it to her African American classmate as a gesture of kindness and solidarity. The school punished her — and a federal civil rights lawsuit followed.The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment, holding that even elementary school students have First Amendment speech protections under Tinker v. Des Moines, and that a student's young age is a relevant but non-dispositive factor. The panel made clear that this sweet, well-intentioned drawing was nowhere near the kind of disruptive speech schools are permitted to regulate.Christine and Trey break down the opinion, discuss how the political climate turned an act of childhood kindness into a constitutional controversy, and reflect on the real-world implications of zero-tolerance school discipline policies.Also in this episode:Christine's firsthand account of teaching at a Louisville public school — the school-to-prison pipeline, segregated cafeteria tables, books that can't leave the classroom, and a student who photographed every page just to study at homeThe parallels between public school bureaucracy and family court dysfunction — conflict is incentivized, pragmatism is rareA broader conversation about Tinker v. Des Moines, political polarization, cancel culture, and whether reasonable minds can still prevailResources & Links:Find us online at judge-y.comFollow us on social: @JudgingthejudgesRate and review judges in your jurisdiction with the Judge-y app — download Judge-y today!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.

JudgeMental Podcast – Episode 96 Derby WeekIn this episode, Christine and Trey dive deep into one of the most pressing issues facing the judiciary today: judges on social media. What happens when a judge in a black robe posts videos laced with religious teachings? Is it protected free speech — or a troubling conflict of interest? The hosts unpack a viral video of a Texas judge weaving scripture into a courtroom-adjacent social media post, debate where the line should be drawn, and agree that the robe changes everything.The conversation expands into a broader reckoning with judicial transparency — or the lack of it. Christine and Hugh make the case for C-SPAN-style coverage of courts, particularly family courts, arguing that the branch of government most people interact with is somehow the least visible. They also discuss the alarming state of family court: confidential dockets, overworked court-appointed attorneys, and decisions about children's lives made in hallways.Christine drops a bold prediction: that Kentucky's legislature will move to close all family court proceedings at the next session — and she's willing to bet on it.Topics covered:Judge David (Texas) and the viral black robe/scripture videoReligion in judicial campaigning vs. religion on the benchWhy wearing the robe on social media is uniquely problematicThe case for C-SPAN in courtroomsHow family court confidentiality shields dysfunctionCourt-appointed attorneys and the "just sign this" problemThe erosion of judicial independence at the federal and state levelImmigration judges and the stacking of the courtsThe impeachment of judges as a political toolChristine's prediction: family courts go fully confidential next sessionResources & Community:Rate any judge for free and join the anonymous judicial review community: judge-y.comFollow us on social: @JudgingthejudgesDownload the Judge-y app — rate judges, read reviews, and connect with others navigating the court system. The community is anonymous and affordable. judge-y.comLEGAL 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.

JudgeMental Podcast – EP 95: Fight Club FridayChristine and Trey kick off another Friday episode with a little pre-show chaos — including a strong stance on Tom Banks, a near-miss with a Bee Sting honey beer, and a serious case of OMA restaurant FOMO (the soon-to-be first Michelin star restaurant in Kentucky — 15 seats, twice a day, sold out through July). They also reminisce about the beloved, now-closed Italian Table on Frankfurt Avenue and what makes a great communal dining experience.Then things get lawyerly — and heated.The Divorce Attorney DebateChristine and Trey dig into why divorce attorneys occupy a uniquely complicated space in the legal profession. They debate whether arguing opposite sides of the same legal issue in different cases is a principled necessity or a credibility killer — and whether the civil world's flexibility crosses a line when both attorneys agreed to a position before walking into court. The conversation touches on attorney ethics, client obligations, and why Christine believes divorce law is its own breed of legal practice.Judge Christine Ward & Division SixThe hosts revisit their ongoing concerns about Division Six family court. Christine shares a bombshell: Judge Christine Ward once let a Courier Journal journalist shadow her confidential docket — yet has been systematically locking out court watchers (including Trey, who was denied Zoom access despite having his name clearly listed). They also weigh in on their trending post about former Ward staff attorney Julie Renick, who made her social media private after the episode dropped.The Cool, Calm, and Collected ProblemChristine raises a deeply important pattern she's observed in family court: judges tend to reward emotionally composed litigants — and in her experience, those are often the ones with the most to hide. Trey agrees it's worth an entire episode. The conversation leads into a heartbreaking real-world example: a Virginia murder-suicide involving a doctor and her husband who was in active family court litigation and had just been ordered to vacate the home.Practical Advice: Recordings in Family CourtTrey shares some of the most impactful moments from his years of practice — cases where one-party-consent recordings saved his clients from false allegations, wrongful arrests, and even international custody kidnappings. (Always check your state's recording laws first.)By the NumbersChristine wraps with a Jay-Z quote and some incredible milestone news: the JudgeMental Podcast is now streaming in 64 countries, with over 10,000 downloads of the Judge-y app. The community is growing — and they want to hear from you.Find us & follow along:Download the app: Judge-yWebsite: judge-y.comInstagram/Social: @JudgingthejudgesLEGAL 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.

JudgeMental Podcast – EP 94: "You Shall Not Pass"Christine and Trey are back with another episode packed with judicial drama, legal analysis, and unfiltered commentary on the state of the courts.In This Episode:Judge Tiffany Yaar & The Case of No Court AccessThe hosts dive into a wild ruling out of Lexington, Kentucky, where a family court judge — frustrated with a non-compliant petitioner who openly declared he would never appear before her court — decided to block both him and his attorney from accessing the electronic case filing system. Christine and Trey break down why the Kentucky Court of Appeals granted emergency relief, why this move was a clear violation of court rules, and what the judge should have done instead (spoiler: civil contempt warrants are a thing, and they work).Judge Rosie Speedline Gonzalez – A Creative Plea DealThe hosts revisit the Texas judge who was facing up to 20 years after she had an attorney handcuffed in open court for simply doing her job. The charges were dismissed — in exchange for a lifetime ban from ever running for judge again. Christine and Trey debate whether this amounts to justice, whether judges get special treatment, and what it would look like if the same creative plea deal energy was applied to everyone equally.The Pride Flag in the Courtroom DebateListeners have been asking, and Christine and Trey address it: should any non-official flags — pride, political, or otherwise — be displayed in courtrooms? The hosts share their nuanced takes on judicial neutrality, the appearance of bias, and what courts should really be focused on to rebuild public trust.The Real Problem with Family CourtChristine goes off (in the best way) on the pattern of family court judges who act more like hall monitors than jurists — vindictive, emotionally reactive, and seemingly unaware that punishing an attorney for a client's behavior is not how the law works. Trey offers some balance, but ultimately agrees: follow the rules, or don't expect litigants to.Key Takeaways:A judge cannot restrict access to electronic court filings as a contempt sanction — period.Civil contempt warrants can and do cross state lines; extradition from another state is not unheard of.Attorneys represent their clients — punishing the attorney for the client's conduct is a fundamental misunderstanding of how legal representation works.If you want litigants to follow the rules, judges have to follow them too. (Goose. Gander.)Rate Judges on the Judge-y App!The hosts give a shoutout to the listeners who reviewed Judge Tiffany Yaar on Judge-y — 17 reviews in a short period! Keep the reviews coming. Download Judge-y and share your courtroom experiences at judge-y.com and follow @Judgingthejudges for updates.Join the Judge-y CommunityWant your questions answered on air? Join the Judge-y community at judge-y.com and be part of the conversation.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.

JudgeMental Podcast – Episode 93: FBI, Where Are You?Christine and Trey are back with another deep dive into the ongoing and deeply troubling Bridgeman case — and this week, the stakes have never felt higher.What We Cover:The "Fixer" in the CourtroomA person alleged to be a "fixer" for a billionaire family gained access to a confidential EPO docket hearing through a non-regular sheriff — before counsel had even arrived. Christine and Hugh break down why the physical layout of the courthouse makes the opposing explanation implausible, and why the lack of reaction from Judge Ogden to the situation speaks volumes about her courtroom management (or lack thereof).The Fixer Stays — and the Judge Does NothingAfter announcing he would leave, the alleged fixer instead stood at the door and listened to the entirety of the confidential hearing. Hugh and Christine debate whether this is par for the course with Judge Ogden, and why — even if it is — it's still a serious problem.Third-Person Judge Talk and Intimidation TacticsChristine flags the moment Judge Ogden begins referring to herself in the third person on record, and what that typically signals. The hosts discuss whether the fixer's presence was less about ex parte communication and more about an old-fashioned power play: "Know your role."Why the FBI Needs to InvestigateChristine doesn't mince words: if the FBI doesn't step in to investigate these new allegations, the system has failed. Hugh is more measured — but both agree there needs to be an explanation.How This Hearing Became PublicChristine clarifies a critical point: the hosts can legally discuss what happened in this confidential hearing because the video was entered into the public record as part of a 165-page supplemental affidavit filing in the circuit court case (the third affidavit for a 26A removal). This was a strategic necessity — the Court of Appeals had previously denied relief in part because no video was provided.The EPO Confidentiality ProblemA recent legislative change now makes EPO cases involving children automatically confidential and triggers a mandatory cabinet investigation. The cabinet is now automatically a party to all EPOs — which is why the entire case is sealed. Christine and Hugh argue this creates more chaos, not less, and removes the transparency needed to hold bad actors accountable.Louisville's Unique EPO ProblemUnlike judges in other jurisdictions, Louisville's family court judges don't handle EPO emergency dockets directly. That means we may not even know which judge — likely not a family court judge — signed the EPO or issued the summons in this case.The GAL Competency BombshellIn what may be the most alarming segment of the episode, Christine raises a serious concern about the GAL arguing that her child client is "not competent to testify." Christine explains the two-prong legal standard for witness competency and warns of the catastrophic downstream effects this logic could have in criminal cases involving child victims of abuse or assault.Is the Fix In? High-Asset Attorneys Want Ogden to StayChristine argues that a high-asset attorney wanting Lauren Ogden — widely regarded as one of the worst judges in Jefferson County — to remain on a billionaire's case is a red flag. Hugh pushes back and argues it's standard attorney strategy. They go back and forth in classic JudgeMental fashion.The 26A Trend (From Someone Who Filed One)The hosts note the irony of an attorney arguing there's a "trend" of 26A recusal filings… when his own firm has filed one.Resources & Links:Visit us at judge-y.comFollow us on social: @JudgingthejudgesDownload the Judge-y app to track judges, share experiences, and stay informedLEGAL 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.

JudgeMental Podcast – Episode 92: "It's Not Normal"Join hosts Trey and Christine as they crack open a cold one — Three Floyds Gumball Head, an American wheat — and dive into some of the most talked-about cases in the JudgeMental community. From allegations of judicial impropriety to runaway third-party billing in family court, this episode covers it all with the signature candor you've come to expect.What We Cover in This Episode:The Bridgeman Case & Judge Lauren OgdenHugh and Christine revisit the ongoing controversy surrounding Judge Lauren Ogden and the "Bow Ties and Bourbon" fundraiser. A community poll shows 100% of respondents believe the judge is receiving kickbacks — a damning reflection of public perception. The hosts discuss what it means when a sitting judge attends a fundraiser at a litigant's home during active litigation, why the appearance of impropriety matters, and why the simplest solution — recusal — was never taken. Christine raises a pointed question: did Judge Ogden buy her ticket to the event, or was it given to her?Julie Resnick & Escalating GAL FeesA 13-year-old divorce case has come back into the spotlight, with allegations of over $30,000 in Guardian ad Litem (GAL) fees billed in fewer than four months — roughly 110 hours at an estimated rate of $275/hour. Hugh and Christine unpack what that billing pace actually looks like in practice, when high GAL fees can be justified, and when they signal something is deeply wrong. Christine calls on the legislature to require all third-party appointments — GALs, FOCs, parenting coordinators, custodial evaluators — to submit their bills into the public record. Accountability, not immunity.Children Removed Without a HearingPerhaps the most sobering segment of the episode: to their knowledge, neither party in the Bridgeman case has ever testified. A mother's children were removed at motion hour — without the parents present, without testimony, and without the judge ever seeing or hearing from the parties directly. Hugh and Christine discuss the abuse of discretion standard and ask: how can a judge exercise discretion without ever hearing from the people whose lives are being upended?The Human Cost of Family CourtThe hosts get personal, sharing their own experiences with parenting instincts, adolescent conflict, and the way family court can permanently damage relationships that would have otherwise survived. Christine reflects on her own upbringing and what might have happened if a court-appointed attorney had been in the picture at 15 or 16. Hugh talks about his experience practicing family law before and after having kids — and how that changed everything.Legislature: It's TimeHugh and Christine make a clear call: court-appointed professionals operate with government immunity and attorney-level billing rates. That combination demands accountability. Require billing transparency. Treat these appointments like government contracts. The system has drifted — it's time to pump the brakes.Stay Connected:Join the JudgeMental community and share your stories, reactions, and case tipsVisit us at judge-y.comFollow us on social: @JudgingthejudgesDownload the Judge-y app to stay up to date and engage with the communityLEGAL 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.

JudgeMental Podcast – Episode 91Just NoIn this episode, the Hosts dive into a viral TikTok posted by a regularly appointed Friend of the Court (FOC) in Louisville — made immediately after a hearing in Judge Shelly Ry's courtroom. The clip, set to "I got these bitches mad again," sparked outrage and a broader conversation about accountability, power, and professionalism in the family court system.What We Cover:The FOC TikTok: Christine and Hugh react to a TikTok posted by a Louisville FOC following a hearing, captioned "Man, doing your job really pisses people off. Off to drinks with the girls. #FYP #lawyer #unbothered." The hosts break down why this is not just tone-deaf — it's dangerous.Power Without Accountability: FOCs and GALs have extraordinary access to children, families, and court decisions. They can interrupt kids at school, communicate with minors directly, and their reports are adopted as court orders more than 90% of the time — yet there is virtually no public accountability for their conduct.The Jefferson County Pattern: Christine and Hugh revisit the Jefferson County family court system's reliance on a rotating group of FOC/GAL appointees, the front-row "vultures" at motion hour, and why judges continue appointing controversial figures despite widespread frustration.The TikTok Judges: A callback to the Jefferson County family court judges' now-infamous Christmas TikTok (featuring Cardi B lyrics). Christine notes that Judge Lori Goodwin of Division Three did not participate — and gives her credit for it.Holly Houston Stands Up: A Jefferson County family law attorney reportedly walked into Division Four and, when the judge moved to appoint Julie Resnick and Patience Fitzpatrick, simply said: no. The judge's response? "Oh. Okay." Christine and Hugh discuss why this moment matters and what it could mean if more attorneys followed suit.How to Preserve Your Rights: Christine explains the practical mechanics of objecting to a GAL or FOC appointment for the record — and why doing so, even if you lose, is critical for preserving appellate issues.What Could Actually Change the System:Appellate courts spelling out when GAL/FOC appointments are and aren't appropriateLegislative reform addressing third-party appointments by statuteJudicial time sheets and accountability measuresAttorneys collectively refusing to agree to appointmentsThe "Judge-y" Community Update: Christine encourages listeners to share their stories — positive and negative — about their experiences with FOCs and GALs in the Judge-y community. Find it at judge-y.com or follow @Judgingthejudges for updates.Download the Judge-y App to rate judges, share your courthouse experiences, and connect with others navigating the family court system. Available at judge-y.com.Follow Us:TikTok & Social: @JudgingthejudgesCommunity & App: judge-y.comLEGAL 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.

JudgeMental Podcast – Episode 90 Better off Alone?Hosts: Christine & TreyEpisode SummaryThe judges are back with a packed episode covering two major impeachment stories, a federal lawsuit brewing in Florida, and a shout-out to the power of everyday people using the courts — and the app — to hold judges accountable.Topics Covered1. Pro Se Dad Files Impeachment Against Fayette County Family Court JudgeA father acting without an attorney — Luke Box — has filed an impeachment petition against Judge Ross Ewing of Fayette County Family Court. Unlike a previous impeachment the hosts found lacking, this one actually lists multiple misdemeanors as required under Kentucky Revised Statutes. Christine and Hugh discuss how parents who've had their children taken are often more motivated and thorough than paid attorneys, and what this means for judicial accountability.2. Federal Lawsuit in Florida: Marvin & McCrearyThe hosts discuss a federal civil lawsuit filed against forensic evaluators — and the legal issues surrounding "collaborative evaluations" in custody cases. A pro se litigant's response to a motion to dismiss drew praise from both Christine and Hugh for being more polished and legally sound than the original complaint. This case is public record and available on PACER.3. The Goodman Impeachment — Legislature vs. Supreme CourtThis saga continues. After the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled the impeachment couldn't move forward (and implied that attorney-legislators risked bar discipline for proceeding), Senate President Robert Stivers fired back — and the legislature passed a resolution declaring the Supreme Court's ruling unconstitutional and retroactively labeling the judge's alleged conduct as misdemeanors. Hugh breaks down why this is a textbook ex post facto law and why it almost certainly won't survive constitutional scrutiny. Christine argues it's political theater designed to divide, while Hugh warns it represents a genuine breakdown in the separation of powers. Back to Episode 88 for the full backstory.4. Judges, Power & the PublicChristine and Hugh reflect on how judges are deeply unpopular right now — and how that disconnect makes the legislature's posturing even more effective. They also discuss how unchecked power in any role — prosecutors, police, judges — tends to attract those with corrupt intentions, while some of the most admirable people they've met in those roles chose discipline and accountability instead.5. Judge-y App Shout-OutChristine highlights that the majority of judges on the Judge-y app actually have high ratings — proof that plenty of judges are doing great work and that people will take the time to leave positive reviews. Download the app, leave your reviews, and follow along.Links & ResourcesJudge-y App: judge-y.comFollow us: @JudgingthejudgesDownload Judge-y and leave your judge reviews todayFederal case records available on PACERReferenced: JudgeMental Podcast Episode 88 (Goodman impeachment background)Like, share, and get into our socials. Merch coming soon.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.

The JudgeMental Podcast – Episode 89 Bottoms UpThe hosts crack open a Mirror Twin Bee Sting Honey Hefeweizen and dive into a packed Friday episode covering judicial accountability, transparency, and the courtroom drama unfolding right here in Jefferson County.In This Episode:Oldham County Bench ShakeupDistrict Court Judge Brittany McKenna has resigned mid-term after filing for reelection — and it barely made the news cycle. Hugh and Christine weigh in on why sitting judges step down, the economics of judicial service, and what this transition could mean as Oldham County moves toward its new judicial center.Judge Ward's Courtroom & Court WatchersMembers of the Judge-y community reported being kicked out of Judge Ward's Zoom motion hour — allegedly forced to turn on their cameras or get booted. Hugh and Christine break down why this is a deeply troubling trend, why open court should remain open (including for students, nanas, and anyone paying taxes), and what it says when a judge seems more concerned with who is watching than what is happening.The 180-Day Mom CaseCommunity members report being removed from Zoom court right as the "180-day mom" case was called. Hugh and Christine discuss the ongoing pattern, the motion that allegedly wasn't served on opposing counsel or the GAL, and why the coverup is always worse than the original issue.Jefferson County's Docket ProblemA broader conversation about docket management, judicial efficiency, and the stark contrast between how Louisville-area judges run their courts versus judges across the rest of Kentucky. Spoiler: it's not a caseload problem.Julie Reczek & GAL BillingA community member flagged that a GAL has billed over $30,000 in less than four months and filed three CPS reports for "emotional abuse." Hugh and Christine discuss what neutral witnesses should (and shouldn't) be posting publicly — and how putting your worldview out there professionally has professional consequences.Connect with the Show:Visit us at judge-y.comFollow us on social: @JudgingthejudgesRate, review, and join the Judge-y community on the Judge-y appLEGAL 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.

JudgeMental Podcast – Episode 88 As Old as TimeKentucky's First-Ever Judicial Impeachment: Political Theater or Constitutional Crisis?In this episode, hosts Hugh and Christine — the minds behind Judge-y — dive deep into the unprecedented impeachment of a Lexington circuit judge by the Kentucky House of Representatives. This is the first judicial impeachment in Kentucky's 233-year history, and it raises serious questions about the separation of powers, the integrity of the judiciary, and whether our elected officials are using constitutional mechanisms for political ends.What We Cover:The Basics of the Impeachment: A Lexington circuit judge was impeached by the Kentucky House along strict party lines. The catch? The legislators behind the impeachment — led by Rep. Jason Nemes — refused to specify what misdemeanor the judge allegedly committed, which is a constitutional requirement for impeachment.Procedural Failures: Not only was no specific misdemeanor alleged, but the sworn affidavit required by statute was never filed, and witnesses at the hearing were never sworn in. Hugh and Christine break down why these aren't technicalities — they are fundamental constitutional and statutory requirements.The Kentucky Supreme Court Weighs In: After the House impeachment, the judge filed a writ with the Kentucky Supreme Court. The Court issued a sweeping ~44-page opinion halting the proceedings. Christine sides with the dissent, questioning whether this rose to the level of "irreparable harm" required for extraordinary relief. Hugh sees the supervisory role of the Supreme Court as broader and more open-ended under the Kentucky Constitution.Separation of Powers Showdown: The Kentucky Senate signaled it would move forward despite the Supreme Court's order — echoing troubling national trends where court orders are openly defied. Hugh and Christine discuss Marbury v. Madison and what happens when the judiciary lacks an "army" to enforce its rulings.The Dangerous Precedent: If judges can be impeached based on how often they rule against prosecutors — or in favor of defendants — what stops the legislature from using impeachment as a tool to control every judge in the state? Hugh and Christine connect this to larger concerns about judicial independence, civil cases, and the influence of donors and political appointees.The Miranda Parallel: Christine's sharp analogy — you can hate Ernesto Miranda the person and still acknowledge Miranda rights are constitutionally required — cuts to the heart of why "I don't like Matt Bevin, but…" qualifiers are unnecessary and sometimes harmful to legal discourse.What's Next: Christine predicts the Senate won't ultimately remove the judge — but isn't sure that holds now. She also raises the possibility that Andy Beshear's judicial appointments could become the next political target.Open Bar, Open Court: Starting Friday, Hugh and Christine will be answering YOUR legal questions live in the Judge-y community. Submit your questions exclusively at judge-y.com — not on social, not via DM, only in the community.Follow & Connect:Community & Show Notes: judge-y.comSocial: @JudgingthejudgesDownload the app: Judge-yLEGAL 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.

JudgeMental Podcast – EP 87: L.O. DownIn this episode, the hosts dive into the latest development in the ongoing Bridgeman case — and it's a jaw-dropper. Jefferson County Family Court Judge Lauren Ogden has been photographed attending a high-profile charity fundraiser at the home of one of the active litigants appearing before her in court. Yes, really.What We Cover:The Bridgeman Case Background – Filed in 2024, this is a high-stakes custody dispute involving an heir to a significant estate. The hosts previously covered how the FOC (Friend of the Court) gave the father's estate a tour while skipping the mother's home entirely — and now there's more.Bourbon & Bow Ties at the Bridgeman Estate – A supplemental affidavit was filed in the pending 26A (Kentucky Supreme Court disqualification petition) revealing that Judge Ogden attended this annual fundraiser — held at the litigant's estate — as recently as June 2025, posting and being tagged in multiple photos on social media. The invitation itself, filed as a pleading exhibit, names the Bridgeman estate as the venue.The Coverup Is Worse Than the Crime – After the motion was filed, the photos were removed and Judge Ogden was untagged. Christine and Hugh are direct: that's not a strategy, that's a confession.The 26A Still Has Not Been Ruled On – The original petition to disqualify Judge Ogden — based on her November 2024 removal of the children from their mother at motion hour, without sworn testimony or a hearing — has been pending since November. Meanwhile, a pro se litigant's 26A in another division was resolved quickly.Due Process, Ethics, and Accountability – Christine and Hugh discuss the Kentucky standard (appearance of a conflict is enough), the pattern of reversals of Judge Ogden by the Court of Appeals, and why every other judge in the building who stays silent is complicit.The Call to Action – If judges are attending social events at litigants' homes while their cases are active, the bench is not a safe place for them. Period.Stay Connected:Visit us at judge-y.comFollow us on social: @JudgingthejudgesJoin the Judge-y community on YouTube — every Friday, Christine and Hugh go live for "Open Court," answering your questions exclusively in the community tab. (Preferably with a Kentucky-brewed beverage in hand.)Download the Judge-y app to stay up to date, rate judges, and be part of the conversation.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.

EP 86 – Open Court, Open Bar Vol. 1 | The JudgeMental PodcastHugh and Christine are back with another round of Open Court, Open Bar — answering questions straight from the Judge-y community. This episode covers everything from AI in the courtroom to TikTok judges, city attorney conflicts, and the surprising power of circuit clerks in small-town Kentucky.In This Episode:🤖 AI Judges: Useful Experiment or Recipe for Disaster?A question from the Judge-y community sparks a deep dive into whether AI could (or should) replace human judges. Hugh and Christine agree that AI excels at legal research, pattern recognition, and analyzing case law at lightning speed — but it fundamentally cannot replicate human judicial discretion. The soul of judging, they argue, lies in the gray areas: weighing evidence, recognizing edge cases, and applying the kind of judgment that no algorithm can be programmed to have. Christine floats the idea of using AI to analyze judicial patterns across hundreds of cases — something Judge-y is uniquely positioned to explore.⚖️ Laura Russell: Louisville's Highest-Rated Family Court JudgeThe community has spoken — Laura Russell holds the top rating for family court judges in Louisville on Judge-y. Hugh and Christine share their firsthand court-watching experiences, noting that her motion hours were consistently well-run, efficient, and fair to pro se litigants. Christine reviewed her anonymously and gave mostly five stars. The verdict: she's done a great job on the bench, and the absence of community complaints speaks volumes.🏙️ City Attorneys in Family Court: Who Do They Really Represent?A listener question about city attorneys tendering family court orders opens up a broader conversation about dual roles, conflicts of interest, and small-town legal politics. When city attorneys also work for the county attorney's office and take private cases, the lines get blurry fast. Christine recounts her Eastern Kentucky experience, where courthouse relationships — from who you eat lunch with to who controls the clerks — can have outsized influence on outcomes.📋 KREF, Campaign Treasurers & Judicial ConflictsA follow-up question digs into campaign finance disclosures and judicial conflicts. Christine and Hugh zero in on a pattern that makes both of them uncomfortable: in nearly every judicial campaign, the treasurer is an attorney who practices before that judge. They call for more specifics from the community and remind listeners that Judge-y exists precisely to surface these kinds of concerns.📱 Judge Brown: The TikTok Judge — Prepared or Not?A listener question about Jefferson Family Court Division VII judge's courtroom preparedness leads to a nuanced discussion. Hugh acknowledges he's seen her at her best — fully prepared, handling complex business valuations, running a tight remote courtroom during COVID — and at her worst, seemingly forgetting everything from the prior hearing. Christine's read from community submissions: it's all or nothing with her. The TikTok surgeon parallel also comes up: when you're distracted by your image, the people in front of you pay the price.🔔 Community Call-OutsHave experience with GALs or FOCs? Submit on Judge-y.Court staff causing issues? That's a conversation worth having — get on the app.Laura Russell submissions always welcome.Connect With Us:Rate any judge in America for free: judge-y.comFollow us on social: @JudgingthejudgesDownload the app: Judge-y — tag your judge, ask questions, spark debate, and join the paid community to follow specific judges and stay up to date on every case discussion.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.

The JudgeMental Podcast – EP 85: "Royal We"In this episode, the hosts break down the latest developments in the Bridgeman case — a high-stakes Louisville family court battle involving heirs to a significant fortune — and examine what they see as serious due process failures by Judge Ogden. They also take a hard look at a troubling pattern of judicial misconduct making headlines in Texas.What We Cover:Bridgeman Case Update: A mother lost custody of her children at motion hour — without a hearing — and spent Thanksgiving and Christmas separated from her kids. The Court of Appeals denied the writ of prohibition, ruling she had an "opportunity to be heard." Hugh and Christine push back hard on that finding, arguing motion hour is categorically not a hearing, no witnesses were sworn in, and the video of the proceeding was mysteriously unavailable when the court reviewed the case.Judge Ogden Watch: Classic Ogden. The duo dissects her pattern of ignoring due process, failing to issue findings of fact, and what they believe is blatant incompetence — and why the Court of Appeals' ruling may have just emboldened her further.The Video Record Problem: Hugh and Christine raise serious concerns about courtroom recording videos going missing or being delayed — especially in cases where writs are filed — and call for immediate protocol reform requiring same-day or 24-hour delivery of recordings to circuit clerks.Motion Hours in Kentucky: A deep dive into how Jefferson County's motion hour practice has blurred the line between procedural scheduling and actual hearings, creating fertile ground for constitutional violations.Texas Judicial Misconduct: The viral Harris County judge who berated an IT worker in open court — and then tried to order an attorney to appear before him for privately criticizing his conduct. Plus: the Texas judge who was actually indicted for handcuffing an attorney in the courtroom.Shout Out: The hosts give well-deserved praise to the staff at the Kentucky Court of Appeals for their professionalism, responsiveness, and kindness to litigants and attorneys alike.Links & Community:Download the Judge-y app and join the conversation: judge-y.comFollow us on social: @JudgingthejudgesQuestions featured on the podcast are sourced exclusively from the Judge-y community — join to get yours answered on air!New episode drops Wednesday. Join us Friday for a community Q&A, including listener questions on AI and the legal profession.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.

The JudgeMental Podcast – EP 84 Black & WhiteHosts: Trey & ChristineOverviewTrey and Christine dive into a local Louisville story that made national headlines — the Kentucky Cabinet for Transportation bribery scandal — and examine the legal fallout from a recent court ruling that has major implications for government whistleblowers across the state.Main Story: Whistleblower Case Dismissed – Judge Melissa BellowsA whistleblower employed through a third-party temp agency exposed a bribery scheme at the Kentucky Cabinet for Transportation, where employees were taking cash bribes to issue IDs to undocumented individuals. After being fired, the whistleblower sued under Kentucky's whistleblower statute — and the case was just dismissed by Jefferson Circuit Court Judge Melissa Bellows.Trey and Christine break down why they believe Judge Bellows' ruling is legally questionable:The Kentucky Supreme Court's own precedent defines "employee" broadly based on employer control over job status — not whether a paycheck comes from a temp agencyThree of the four factors cited in Judge Bellows' own opinion actually support the opposite conclusionThe ruling effectively creates a loophole: government agencies could staff departments with temp workers and shield themselves from whistleblower liabilityNotably, WDRB's coverage of the dismissal didn't name Judge Bellows at all — and the byline was "WDRB Digital Staff," raising questions about whether the article was AI-generated.Media & Judicial AccountabilityThe hosts discuss a recurring pattern they've noticed in local news coverage: Black judges tend to have their names prominently featured in articles about their rulings, while white judges often go unnamed. They call on journalists and editors to reflect on this disparity.Louisville Judicial Elections & GenderChristine and Trey explore why female candidates have dominated Louisville judicial elections since roughly 2016 — and push back on the assumption that gender is a reliable proxy for judicial quality or fairness.Highlights from the BenchThe hosts give a shoutout to judges who are consistently praised across the board, including Judge Eric Haner, who Hugh and Christine describe as one of the most respected judges in Louisville. They emphasize that there are many excellent judges working hard every day — and that the Judge-y app exists to recognize them as much as to hold others accountable.Coming Up Next EpisodeA look at judicial controversies out of Texas (Harris County & Bexar County)A brief update on the Bridgeman caseResources & LinksDownload the Judge-y app and rate judges in your jurisdiction: judge-y.comFollow for updates and accountability content: @JudgingthejudgesLEGAL 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.

**EP 83: Conflicted | JudgeMental PodcastThis week, Christine and Hugh dive into the Judgey community app — answering real questions from listeners about courtroom concerns, conflicts of interest, gag orders, and Kentucky's controversial judicial impeachment movement.What We Cover:Judgey Community QuestionsChristine and Hugh field questions submitted through the Judgey community app (judge-y.com / @Judgingthejudges), including:Eastern Kentucky Family Court Concerns — A listener from Morehead raises questions about Judge David Barber, guardian ad litems (GALs), and alleged conflicts of interest. Plus: Can decisions really be made at motion hour without evidence or sworn testimony? Christine and Hugh break down when that's procedurally appropriate — and when it isn't.Conflict of Interest: When Opposing Counsel Represents the Judge's Secretary — Does it matter if it's current or past representation? What's the difference between a conflict for the attorney versus the judge's ability to be impartial? Christine and Hugh work through the nuances of Kentucky's "appearance of a conflict" standard and why transparency and disclosure go a long way.GAL Social Media Restrictions & "Ex Parte" Misuse — A listener shares an order prohibiting a party from making social media posts about the case and from having any "ex parte contact" with the GAL or her family. Christine calls out the misuse of legal terminology, questions the constitutionality of sweeping social media gag orders in family court (no jury = no rationale), and Hugh distinguishes between a true gag order and a restraining order.Kentucky Judicial Impeachment: A First LookChristine and Hugh take a first pass at the emerging movement to impeach multiple Kentucky judges, including Judge Julie Goodman of Lexington. They analyze a Facebook post by Louisville legislator Jason Nemes arguing in support of the impeachment and flag serious concerns:The statistical argument (Judge Goodman grants suppression motions 80% of the time vs. 12–30% in other divisions) is scrutinized — where does the data come from? Who provided it? Christine calls for full transparency and raw data.Hugh explains why suppression motions are among the most critical constitutional protections citizens have, and why a higher grant rate isn't automatically evidence of wrongdoing.Christine connects Fayette County's history of Fourth Amendment case law to the broader context of why suppression rates can vary significantly.Both hosts agree: the post starts by correctly stating you can't impeach a judge for their rulings — then immediately argues for impeachment based on her rulings. That's a logical fallacy.A full deep-dive episode on the impeachment(s) is coming.Join the ConversationHave a question about your judge, your case, or the court system? Post it in the Judgey community app at judge-y.com and follow @Judgingthejudges to stay up to date. Christine and Hugh answer questions directly from the community — but you have to be in the app to get in on it.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.

Episode 82: Lemon Pound Cake - The Afroman Defamation CaseIn this episode, Hugh and Christine dive into one of the most entertaining First Amendment cases in recent memory: Afroman's victorious defamation trial against the police officers who raided his home.Key Topics Discussed:🎵 The Raid That Became an AlbumPolice raided Afroman's home searching for kidnapping victims and marijuana - found neitherOfficers cut his security cameras while being recorded by other camerasMoney seized during the raid didn't match what was returnedNo criminal charges were ever filed against Afroman🎤 Turning Lemons into Lemon Pound CakeAfroman wrote satirical songs about the raid using his own security footageCreated music videos including "Lemon Pound Cake" and others featuring the officersOfficers sued him for defamation - he won on all countsThe jury found his work protected under the First Amendment as satire⚖️ First Amendment vs. Hurt FeelingsDiscussion of satire protection and the People v. Larry Flynt parallelsThe judge's visible disappointment with the jury's verdictWhy this case matters for criticism of law enforcementThe importance of jury trials in protecting free speech💰 The Cost of JusticeEstimated legal costs: $100k-$250k for a three-day trialDespite winning, Afroman was ordered to pay half the court costsThe hosts argue he should have been awarded attorney's fees🏛️ Bigger ImplicationsPolice immunity and the inability to seek redress for wrongful raidsThe need for accountability when search warrants go wrongParallels to family court and the need for juries in those proceedingsWhy cameras and recordings are essential for transparencyWhy This Case Matters:Hugh and Christine argue this is the case America needed - one that unites people across political divides on the fundamental right to criticize government actors, especially when you have video evidence of what actually happened.Connect with us:Visit: judge-y.comFollow: @JudgingthejudgesLEGAL 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.

Episode 80: Bad Boy - Show NotesThe JudgeMental Podcast with Hugh and ChristineIn this episode, Hugh and Christine dive into a rare public reprimand issued by the Judicial Conduct Commission against Judge Bolton Bevins, who displayed egregious misconduct in his courtroom—particularly toward juvenile defendants. The hosts discuss his pattern of denying due process, arbitrary contempt orders, and his explosive temper that traumatized both defendants and their attorneys.Episode HighlightsThe Public ReprimandThe Judicial Conduct Commission issued a rare public reprimand to Judge Bolton Bevins (14th District: Bourbon, Scott, and Woodford Counties)The investigation took approximately one year to completeJudge Bevins agreed to the public reprimand—but Hugh and Christine argue this consequence falls far short of what the misconduct warrantsPattern of AbuseJudge Bevins repeatedly held defendants in contempt without notice or hearingsHe yelled at juvenile defendants, cutting them off when they attempted to speakMultiple instances of ordering detention and shackling of minors without due processOne defendant was detained for 11 days without being given an opportunity to respondInterrupted testimony to hold defendants in contempt with no explanationDue Process ViolationsConstitutional rights routinely violated: notice and opportunity to be heardJudge told defendants "I don't care" and refused to let them speakApplied arbitrary punishments based on his mood rather than the lawTreated prosecutor statements as gospel during plea negotiationsPersonal Stories from the TrenchesChristine shares her experience as a 25-year-old juvenile public defender in Eastern KentuckyHugh recounts witnessing similar judicial misconduct in family courtDiscussion of the chilling effect on attorneys who fear speaking out against judicial abuseThe Bigger PictureWhy the self-policing nature of the judiciary is failingThe difference between tough judges and abusive judgesHow judicial misconduct particularly impacts public defenders and their clientsThe need for real accountability beyond slaps on the wristResources & LinksJudge the Judges:Website: judge-y.comSocial Media: @JudgingthejudgesRate and review judges on the Judgy appSubmit Your Stories:Have you experienced judicial misconduct? Submit your story through the Judgy app or reach out to the hosts.Related Documents:The six-page public reprimand report discussed in this episode will be available on the JudgeMental Podcast YouTube channel.Key TakeawaysA public reprimand is not enough for judges who systematically violate constitutional due process rightsJuvenile defendants deserve protection, not abuse from the benchThe system protects itself through confidential proceedings and slow investigationsAttorneys face real consequences for speaking out against judicial misconductJudicial accountability requires transparency—which is why platforms like Judgy are essentialComing SoonThe hosts tease an upcoming episode about former Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin's complicated family court case—a novel legal issue that deserves its own full episode.Call to ActionDownload the Judgy app and rate Judge Bolton BevinsShare your experiences with judicial misconduct, especially if you're a public defender in the 14th DistrictSubscribe and follow for more episodes holding judges accountableWatch on YouTube to see Christine's facial expressions when discussing this outrageous behaviorLEGAL 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.

EPISODE 80: SUPERSENSITIVEWelcome to The JudgeMental Podcast! In this episode, Hugh and Christine dive into Chief Justice John Roberts' recent statements about criticizing judges, the importance of transparency in the Supreme Court, and why judicial accountability matters for democracy.IN THIS EPISODE:Chief Justice Roberts conflates criticism with threats to the judiciaryWhy criticizing elected judges is essential to democracyThe dangerous gap: No cameras in the Supreme CourtHistoric cases Americans have never seen argued (Roe v. Wade, Citizens United, Guantanamo Bay)Ohio magistrate requiring staff NDAs - what's going on?The First Amendment under threat: What's at stake?Why the legal profession needs more courage and less "godlike complex"Finding common ground: Issues that unite us across political dividesCONNECT WITH JUDGY:Download the Judgy app at judge-y.com and follow us on social media @JudgingthejudgesHOSTS:Hugh and Christine - Two lawyers on a mission to bring transparency and accountability to the courtsLEGAL 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.

Show Notes -SPECIAL EPISODE: Jail Bound? - The Matt Bevin CaseEpisode OverviewJoin Christine and Hugh for a special emergency recording about the high-profile Matt Bevin contempt case. This episode dives deep into the fascinating legal issues surrounding a former Kentucky governor being held in contempt for failing to provide financial disclosures in his son's unprecedented lawsuit for child support.Key Topics DiscussedNovel Legal Question: Can Adult Children Sue Parents for Child Support?Matt Bevin's adult son filed to intervene in his parents' divorce seeking retroactive child supportJudge Angela Johnson allowed the intervention because it was filed before the child turned 18This case could fundamentally change custody law practice across Kentucky and beyondThe Contempt ProceedingsEmergency motion filed and hearing held within days regarding financial disclosure violationsBench warrant issued with potential 60-day jail sentenceHeated debate about whether the contempt order properly follows civil vs. criminal contempt lawJudicial Disqualification IssuesMotion to disqualify Judge Johnson filed under KRS 26A.015 and 26A.020Questions about proper procedure and whether the judge had jurisdiction to proceedPotential impact of affidavit filed with circuit clerkThe Bigger PictureImplications for GALs (Guardians ad Litem) and child representationQuestions about children accessing parents' financial informationMatt Bevin's connection to Kentucky's 50/50 custody presumption lawLinks & ResourcesJudge-y.comjudge-y.comFollow us on social media@JudgingthejudgesSubmit your stories and questions at judge-y.comLegal DisclaimerLEGAL 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.Note: This episode was recorded jsut days after the bench warrant was issued. Legal developments may have occurred since recording. Check judge-y.com for updates.

SHOW NOTES FOR EP 78: DADDYEpisode Summary:In this episode, hosts Christine and Hugh discuss a deeply troubling case involving Louisville Judge Annie O'Connell, who granted shock probation to a man convicted of multiple counts of child pornography possession and distribution. During his brief probation period, the offender violated his terms multiple times and was later federally convicted of sexually assaulting a 4-year-old child while recording the assault. The hosts examine why this case has received minimal media coverage compared to other controversial judicial decisions, questioning whether the judge's connection to Louisville County Attorney Mike O'Connell (her father) has influenced the lack of reporting.Key Topics Discussed:Judge Annie O'Connell's shock probation decision in May 2022The offender's violations including visiting Main Event arcade where children were presentFederal conviction for child exploitation and sexual assault of a 4-year-oldMedia's failure to name Judge O'Connell in coverage despite naming other judges in similar controversiesComparison to coverage of Judges Tracy Davis and Jessica Green in other casesThe role of Mike O'Connell's political influence in LouisvillePending legislation to make child pornography possession non-probatableDiscussion of judicial discretion and public accountabilityPolitical considerations around criminal justice reformReferenced Cases:Annie O'Connell shock probation case (May 2022)Tracy Davis sentencing controversyJessica Green/Armand Langford caseScotty Scheffler arrest incidentResources & Links:Visit our website: judge-y.comFollow us on social media: @JudgingthejudgesLEGAL 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.

EPISODE 77 It Ain't Over 'Til. . .The JudgeMental Podcast - Episode 77In this episode, hosts Hugh and Christine dive deep into the Kanabrowski case response, discussing the controversial motion to reconsider filed by counsel for Mom regarding the Guardian ad Litem's appellate obligations.Key Topics Discussed:• Kanabrowski Case Update - Analysis of the motion to reconsider filed regarding the Court of Appeals' order that GALs should file briefs on appeal• GAL Compensation Issues - Discussion of the $500 flat-rate fee cap for Guardian ad Litems and how it impacts appellate representation• Scope of Representation - Debate over whether a GAL's duties end at final judgment or continue through appeals, and the ethical obligations involved• Strategic Legal Motions - Why would counsel for Mom file a motion defending GALs? Discussion of potential motivations and strategic considerations• GAL System Reform - Comprehensive debate about the effectiveness of Guardian ad Litems in custody/divorce cases versus dependency, neglect, and abuse cases• Public Defender Model - Christine proposes creating a public defender's office for family law cases to address conflicts of interest and ensure consistent representation• Family Court Accountability - Candid discussion about systemic issues in Louisville family courts and the need for judicial accountability• Judge-y App Community Question - Do judges have an ethical duty to disclose if they view information about their cases on the Judgy app?Connect With Us:Visit judge-y.com to download the Judgy app and join the movement for judicial accountabilityFollow us on social media: @JudgingthejudgesSpecial Offer: If the JudgeMental Podcast, Judgy, Hugh, or Christine's name has been mentioned in your court pleadings or on the record by an attorney, you win one year free of the Judge-y Community! Send proof to [email protected]

SHOW NOTES - Episode 76: Part Time DriverHosts: Trey & ChristineEpisode HighlightsJudge-y App Launch SuccessHugh and Christine celebrate the Judge-y app reaching #1 in its category and #97 overall on the App Store during launch weekend! They discuss the community features, how to leave reviews for judges, and why retired judges aren't included in the rating system.JCPS Superintendent Driver ControversyThe hosts discuss the news that Jefferson County Public Schools Superintendent Brian Underwood has a driver while the district struggles with student literacy.Major Case Law: DVO Requirements for ChildrenDeep dive into a recently published Court of Appeals case (March 6) involving Judge Derwin Webb that clarifies when Domestic Violence Orders can be issued on behalf of children. The ruling emphasizes that judges must make specific factual findings - merely witnessing domestic violence is insufficient without additional findings of imminent fear.GAL Obligations on AppealDiscussion of the Court of Appeals' strong language regarding Guardian ad Litem responsibilities to file briefs during the appellate process, even when fees are capped at $500.Key TopicsJudicial accountability and transparencyDVO statute requirements and case lawGAL ethical obligations and compensationCommunity engagement through the Judge-y appResourcesDownload the Judge-y app: judge-y.comFollow on social media: @JudgingthejudgesSubmit QuestionsUse the community feature in the Judgy app! The hosts will exclusively answer questions submitted through the app's community feature (remember to toggle to anonymous if desired).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.

EPISODE 75: IDLE HANDSJudgeMental Podcast with Hugh and ChristineWelcome back to Season 2 of the JudgeMental Podcast! In this episode, hosts Hugh and Christine return from a brief hiatus to discuss major developments in family court transparency and the launch of their revolutionary judicial accountability app, Judgy.IN THIS EPISODE:Major Announcement: Judgy App LaunchFriday the 13th launch of Judgy - the app that empowers citizens to judge the judgesAvailable now on Google Play Store and Apple App StoreVisit judge-y.com to download and learn moreFollow @Judgingthejudges on social media for updatesMedia Coverage & Public DiscourseDiscussion of the Courier Journal op-ed "Family Courts Change Lives. Transparency is Essential" by Leanne ThompsonAnalysis of why family court issues are finally getting mainstream media attentionThe importance of transparency in judicial proceedingsThird-Party Appointments in Family CourtDeep dive into the problematic use of GALs (Guardians ad Litem) and Friends of the CourtHow quasi-judicial immunity protects court-appointed officialsThe financial burden of multiple third-party appointments on familiesHow these appointments can escalate conflict rather than resolve itSystemic Issues in Family CourtLack of checks and balances compared to criminal courtNo jury trials in family court proceedingsConstitutional rights often overlooked in custody decisionsThe devastating impact of lengthy appeals processes on familiesThe Appeals ProblemWhy expedited cases still take 6-12 months minimumHow harmful orders remain in effect throughout the entire appeals processThe financial disparity between parties who can afford appeals vs. those who cannotNo public defender equivalent in family courtRESOURCES:Download Judgy: judge-y.comFollow on social media: @JudgingthejudgesRead the Courier Journal op-ed mentioned in this episodeHOSTS:Hugh and Christine - Two attorneys determined to bring accountability and transparency to the court systemLEGAL 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.

Episode DescriptionIn this episode of the JudgeMental Podcast, Christine and Hugh discuss a recent op-ed written by a Louisville family court judge and the community response it generated. They explore the challenges of judicial workload management, the importance of timely court orders, and the impact of delays on families in the legal system.Topics Covered:Judge Derwin Webb's op-ed and community reactionsTimeliness in issuing court orders and its impact on litigantsThe relationship between judges and court-appointed expertsJudicial transparency and disclosure requirementsCommunity involvement vs. judicial responsibilitiesThe balance between public service and primary job dutiesIssues with custodial evaluators and court appointmentsThe need for transparency in the family court systemKey TakeawaysJudicial Priorities: When judges have finite time, their primary responsibility should be their court duties—issuing timely orders and managing cases effectivelyTransparency Matters: Judges should disclose meaningful relationships with court-appointed experts and witnessesImpact of Delays: Extended delays in issuing orders can have devastating effects on families, children, and ongoing legal mattersCommunity Accountability: Public platforms like Judge-y (@Judgingthejudges) provide a space for litigants to share their court experiences and hold the system accountableResources & LinksVisit Judge-y: judge-y.comFollow Us: @Judgingthejudges on social mediaRate your judge and share your court experience on our platform to help create transparency in the family court system.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.

EPISODE 73: BACK FOR MOREWelcome to Season 2 of the JudgeMental Podcast! Hugh and Christine are back after a break, and the Judge-y app has officially launched on Friday the 13th!IN THIS EPISODE:The official launch of the Judge-y app on Apple Store, Google Play, and web18,555 judges now available to rate across all 50 statesHow the app works: free ratings, premium features, and community buildingAnonymous reviews and secure messaging to protect users from retributionReal reviews from Texas and Louisville showing both praise and constructive feedbackPremium features ($9.99/month or $100/year) for advanced searching and pattern trackingCommunity features: tag judges, ask questions, and connect with other litigants and attorneysDaily TikTok/Instagram/Facebook Lives at 8 PM for the next two weeks - tutorials and Q&ALINKS:Website: judge-y.comSocial Media: @JudgingthejudgesEmail: [email protected] 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.

EPISODE 71: UNWARRANTED - SHOW NOTESEpisode OverviewHugh and Christine are back after a break with exciting news about their upcoming app launch during "spooky season." They discuss the challenges of building a comprehensive database of judges across all 50 states and the shocking lack of transparency in the judicial system. The main focus of this episode is a bizarre motion filed by a removed Friend of the Court (FOC) attorney in a Kentucky family court case that has been ongoing since the Court of Appeals ruled in the father's favor.Key Topics DiscussedThe Judge-y App LaunchAnnouncement of the upcoming app launch (date TBA - "spooky season")The app will feature a comprehensive database of judges from all 50 statesUsers will be able to review judges, follow specific courts, and share experiencesThe research revealed that most states have no easily accessible list of judicial officersStates with good resources: Florida, Indiana, CaliforniaStates with poor resources: Alabama and othersThe app aims to bring transparency to the court system and help people make informed decisions about judicial electionsTransparency in the CourtsDiscussion of the critical need for cameras and recording devices in every courtroomThe problem of sealed cases and lack of official recordsHow transcripts alone aren't enough - video evidence is crucialReference to the Vanta case and Judge Ogden's controversial statementsThe Allison Russell MotionDetailed analysis of a 7-page motion to withdraw filed by FOC Allison RussellRussell was removed from the case in May 2025 but filed the motion anywayThe motion mentions the JudgeMental Podcast by nameContains "uncontroverted facts" that are actually opinions and hearsayFiled in Judge Bryan Gatewood's courtroomDiscussion of why this filing is problematic:FOCs cannot file substantive motionsShe was no longer on the caseThe motion appears to be a "dog whistle" to the new judgeContains prejudicial information that shouldn't be in the recordMay not be protected by immunity since she was removed from the caseLegal and Ethical IssuesDiscussion of Rule 11 sanctions and why they may not have been filedThe strategic decision to file a motion to strike insteadQuestions about immunity for attorneys who file improper pleadingsThe problem of "thin-skinned" court appointees who can't handle criticismHow this case illustrates systemic problems in family courtCase BackgroundFather won at the Court of AppealsJudge Ogden refused to comply with the appellate rulingFather had to fight extensively to regain parenting timeJudge Ogden was eventually removed from the caseCase transferred to Judge Bryan GatewoodChristine has been following this case since April 2024Important LinksWebsite: judge-y.comSocial Media: @JudgingthejudgesComing Next EpisodeDiscussion of the "180 Day Mom" case - a mother who was served a warrant for six months in jail when she wasn't present at the hearing and was at the hospital.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.

EPISODE 70: Matt Grant Interview Part 2 - Fighting Family Court CorruptionWelcome back to the JudgeMental Podcast! In this follow-up to Episode 17, we reconnect with Matt Grant, a decorated attorney and former equity partner at one of the nation's largest law firms, who is now fighting corruption in Missouri's family court system as a litigant in his own case.ABOUT THIS EPISODEMatt Grant returns to share updates on his groundbreaking RICO and Civil Rights Act lawsuit filed against family court actors in Missouri. With over 25 years of litigation experience, Matt brings a unique perspective as both a highly skilled attorney and a parent navigating the family court system.KEY TOPICS DISCUSSED• The RICO Lawsuit: Matt's federal case alleging a criminal enterprise within Missouri's family court system, including judges, guardians ad litem (GALs), and attorneys who allegedly prolong litigation for financial gain• Putting a Judge on the Stand: The extraordinary circumstances that allowed Matt to question Judge Bruce F. Hilton under oath about his actions in Matt's family court case• The "Buying Future Litigation" Email: Evidence Matt uncovered showing explicit discussions about intentionally prolonging cases for profit• Guardian ad Litem as Fall Guys: Why Matt believes GALs will be the first thrown under the bus as the corruption unravels• Retaliation and Judicial Bias: How Matt's custody time was reduced to 4 nights per month after exposing corruption, then increased to 8 nights after filing the RICO suit• Ex Parte Communications: Evidence of improper communications between the judge and parties, including suspicious timing of discovery orders• The Pattern of Corruption: How the system operates with specific playbooks to maximize conflict and legal fees in cases with the "right" combination of corrupt actors• Sealed Records and Transparency: The ongoing battle to keep federal court filings public and accessible• Historical Evidence: Matt's discovery of potential money laundering dating back to 1998 and questionable nonprofit organizationsCONNECT WITH US🌐 Visit our website: judge-y.com📱 Follow us on social media: @JudgingthejudgesLEARN MORE ABOUT MATT'S CASEVisit stopmissouricorruption.com to access court filings, recordings, and updates on Matt's federal RICO case.COMING UPStay tuned for Part 3 of our conversation with Matt Grant, where we'll dive deeper into:The federal court's attempts to seal his pleadingsWhy family court proceedings are systematically sealedThe constitutional right to public access to court recordsUpdates on his appeal and ongoing litigationLEGAL 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.

EPISODE 69: Burn it Down?In this episode, Christine and Hugh dive deep into groundbreaking legislation in New Hampshire—House Bill 652—which proposes to completely abolish the state's family court system. The hosts explore the implications, controversies, and potential consequences of this radical approach to family law reform.KEY TOPICS DISCUSSED:New Hampshire House Bill 652The bill would eliminate family court as a specialty court divisionJurisdiction would transfer to courts of general jurisdictionNo additional judges would be added, raising concerns about caseloadIncludes a voluntary mediation system as an alternative dispute resolution optionThe Three Strikes ProvisionBill criminalizes parenting time violations with escalating penaltiesFirst violations treated as misdemeanors, third strike becomes a felonyHugh and Christine express serious concerns about applying criminal penalties to inherently nuanced family disputesDiscussion of how this could endanger children when parents fear criminal prosecution for making safety-based decisionsDue Process in Family CourtThe fundamental lack of due process protections in current family court systemsHow specialty courts have evolved to violate basic constitutional rightsThe absence of jury trials in family court versus other court systemsComparisons to current events and broader due process issues in AmericaAbolishing vs. Reforming Family CourtChristine's position as a proponent of abolishing family courtConcerns about whether simply moving cases to general jurisdiction solves the core problemsThe role of Guardian ad Litems (GALs) and the "family court machine"How the system has become self-perpetuating and benefits only select professionalsRegional Politics & CultureFascinating tangent about New Hampshire's "Live Free or Die" cultureComparisons between Northeast and Southern political discourseHugh's experiences living in Vermont and MaineNew Hampshire's outsized influence in presidential primariesPractical Problems in Family CourtContempt motions filed for minor infractions (15-minute late exchanges)The criminalization of complex, nuanced custody disputesHow government entrenchment affects co-parenting decisionsReal examples of judges holding parents in contempt for car breakdownsJudicial AccountabilityThe lack of consequences for judges who ignore the lawJudges who refuse to read appellate decisions or follow precedentThe need for judicial qualifications and experience requirementsWhy successful private practice attorneys often don't pursue family court judgeshipsCall to ActionChristine and Hugh emphasize the importance of constituent engagement:Contact your state legislators about family court issuesShare your experiences and specific problemsTestimony, emails, and calls DO make a differenceSimilar discussions are happening in multiple statesMENTIONED CASES & REFERENCES:Christine Ward case (contempt penalty discussion)Kentucky's 50/50 custody law (enacted 2018)Vermont civil unions debate and "Take Back Vermont" movementOhio family court legislation controversyCONNECT WITH THE PODCAST:Website: judge-y.comSocial Media: @JudgingthejudgesLEGAL 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.

EPISODE 68: Politics as Usual?Episode Summary:In this episode, Christine and Hugh discuss a significant development in their ongoing coverage of judicial ethics in Kentucky. After the Kentucky Supreme Court Chief Justice ruled that a Jefferson County Family Court judge could attend partisan political fundraisers, the hosts discovered that Chief Justice Deborah Lambert herself has been attending and being photographed at Republican political fundraisers—all documented on public social media.Key Topics Discussed:Chief Justice Lambert's Social Media ActivityChief Justice following the JudgeMental Podcast's social mediaDiscovery of photos from political fundraisers posted publicly on InstagramNovember 11th post showing Chief Justice at a Republican fundraiser with candidatesJudicial Ethics & Canon 4.1Kentucky's Canon 4.1 prohibits judges from attending or purchasing tickets for events sponsored by political organizationsDiscussion of the Shelly Sentry case and the Chief Justice's ruling refusing recusalThe appearance of endorsement when judges pose for photos at partisan eventsWhy judges attending fundraisers matters, regardless of political affiliationImplications for Kentucky's JudiciaryHow this sets a precedent for other Kentucky judgesThe danger of identity politics infiltrating the judiciaryPotential impact on cases with political dimensions (abortion laws, constitutional challenges)The erosion of judicial impartiality and public trustBroader ContextComparison to U.S. Supreme Court justices who maintain political views but are expected to remain impartialDiscussion of how political affiliation increasingly defines identity in AmericaThe importance of calling out judicial misconduct regardless of political partyWhy local judicial issues matter as much as national political controversiesOther Judicial News:Orange County, California Judge Israel Stro pleading guilty to mail fraud after running on transparency platformKentucky Judicial Conduct Commission's mental health summit for judgesListener feedback on previous episodesThe Hosts' Position:Christine and Hugh make clear their stance: judges should not attend partisan political fundraisers, period. This isn't about personal political beliefs—it's about maintaining the appearance of impartiality required by judicial ethics rules.Important Links:Website: judge-y.comSocial Media: @JudgingthejudgesListener Engagement:The hosts welcome constructive feedback and discussion, even from those who disagree. They emphasize the importance of fostering dialogue about judicial accountability while avoiding personal attacks and inflammatory rhetoric.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.

EPISODE 67: INTO THE VOIDWelcome to The JudgeMental Podcast with Hugh and Christine, the minds behind Judgy - the revolutionary app empowering you to judge the judges. It's past time for judicial accountability and transparency within the courts.IN THIS EPISODE:Hugh and Christine tackle a critical issue in family court: the lack of transparency and accountability in FOC (Friend of the Court) and GAL (Guardian ad Litem) billing practices. Instead of just "yelling into the void," they propose concrete solutions to systemic problems.KEY TOPICS DISCUSSED:• Billing Transparency Crisis: Why FOCs and GALs should be required to file itemized bills with the court as a matter of public record• The Money Problem: How immunity and acting "under color of law" creates incentives for abuse when combined with opaque billing practices• Missing Bills: The bizarre pattern of FOCs and GALs not providing bills - sometimes for over a year - despite active involvement in cases• The No Surprises Act: Drawing parallels to medical billing reform and why family court needs similar protections• Good Faith Estimates: Why litigants deserve to know what court-appointed professionals will cost before being hit with surprise bills• Cross-Examination Challenges: How lack of billing records makes it impossible to properly examine FOCs and GALs about the work they claim to have done• The Cost of Uncertainty: How surprise bills (sometimes $7,000-$12,000) arrive months after cases resolve, devastating families already struggling financiallySOLUTIONS PROPOSED:Require FOCs and GALs to file itemized bills with the courtMandate good faith estimates before appointmentsImplement regular billing (weekly or monthly) for transparencyCreate specific, limited appointments rather than open-ended general appointmentsLISTENER CHALLENGE:an you find a picture of Hugh's childhood cat? Send it to the show!CONTACT & FOLLOW:• Website: judge-y.com• Social Media: @Judgingthejudges• Email: [email protected] an itemized bill from Pashens Fitzpatrick or other FOC/GAL billing records to share? Send them to the email above.COMING SOON:Christine's theory on why the family court system is "the next Purdue Pharma" - the next opiate epidemic-level crisis.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.

EPISODE 66: INFIGHTINGShow NotesIn this episode of the JudgeMental Podcast, we dive deep into one of the most troubling aspects of the family court system: the Friend of the Court (FOC) process. We examine a recent case from Jefferson County that highlights systemic problems with FOC reports, late filings, and the dangerous consequences of unqualified individuals making forensic determinations about children and families.Key Topics Discussed:The FOC System's Fundamental FlawsWhy attorneys without specialized training shouldn't be making forensic findings about child welfareThe lack of accountability for FOCs (no elections, no regulatory board, no oversight)How FOCs operate with quasi-judicial immunity while making life-altering recommendationsThe problem of FOCs acting as fact-finders who filter and spin information before judges hear actual evidenceA Troubling Case StudyAnalysis of an FOC report filed late in Jefferson County (Division Four)How the report brackets serious allegations between two extremes without proper investigationThe danger of putting unsubstantiated allegations of abuse into public recordWhy making such serious allegations requires proper training and forensic evaluationProcedural ProblemsThe statutory requirement for FOC reports to be filed 10 days before trialWhat happens when judges don't enforce filing deadlinesThe impossible choice: continue the case and delay justice, or proceed without proper preparationHow late filings violate due process rightsThe Bigger PictureWhy FOC reports often just regurgitate information already in the file while billing thousands of dollarsHow the system is designed to make judges' jobs easier, not to serve children's best interestsThe comparison to criminal court: imagine if prosecutors could submit biased reports before trialWhy cases take years despite FOCs supposedly speeding up the processProposed SolutionsEliminate the FOC system's delegation of judicial authorityRequire judges to be the actual fact-finders, as intendedIf FOCs continue to exist, establish clear oversight and accountability mechanismsEnforce existing rules and deadlines without exceptionThe Human CostParents waiting months or years for meaningful time with their childrenLives potentially ruined by careless allegations in public recordsThe weaponization of serious allegations once they're legitimized by FOC reportsHow the system fails both parents and childrenThis episode contains discussion of serious allegations including child abuse. While we don't make determinations about any specific case, we examine how the system handles such sensitive matters and why proper training and procedures are essential.Connect With Us:Website: judge-y.comSocial Media: @JudgingthejudgesLEGAL 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.

EPISODE 65: PETULANT CHILDRENIn this episode, Christine dives deep into the judicial landscape of Bullitt County, Kentucky, examining the stark differences between the county's two family court divisions and sharing firsthand experiences practicing in front of Judges Elise Spainhour and Monica Meredith.KEY TOPICS DISCUSSED:Bullitt County Family Court StructureThe evolution from a commissioner system to two family court divisionsHow landing in different divisions dramatically affects case outcomesThe unique challenges of practicing in smaller counties versus LouisvilleJudge Elise SpainhourConsistent docket management and efficient case processingTough but predictable courtroom demeanorThe importance of judicial consistency for litigatorsHer involvement in substance abuse pilot programs and appropriate recusalJudge Monica MeredithControversial rulings that gained national media attentionThe "move back in" order: A judge ordering divorcing spouses to live togetherThe "too amicable" case: Denying a divorce because parties got along too wellConcerns about judicial overreach and abuse of powerComparisons to other problematic judges discussed on the podcastBroader Issues:Small-town politics and the "good old boy" systemThe power dynamics between judges and local attorneysDeference given to certain court-appointed professionalsWhy judicial elections and challenges matterThe difference between judicial incompetence and intentional overreachNotable Cases:The maintenance case where a wife was ordered to move back in with her husband during divorce proceedingsThe cooperative divorce case where the judge refused to grant a divorce because the parties were "too civil"The self-defense case involving allegations of abuse despite prosecutors clearing the defendantCONNECT WITH US:Website: judge-y.comSocial Media: @JudgingthejudgesLEGAL 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.

JudgeMental Podcast – Episode 64: About TimeIn this episode, Hugh and Christine dive deep into the latest developments in judicial accountability, focusing on the ongoing saga surrounding Judge Ogden. They discuss the challenges of recusal motions, the impact of judicial decisions on families, and the broader implications for the legal system. The conversation covers:The rare granting of a recusal motion and what it means for litigantsThe persistent issues with judicial discretion and lack of accountabilityThe role of the Friend of the Court and the ripple effects of their recommendationsThe emotional and practical consequences for families caught in the systemReflections on systemic problems versus individual casesThe “Ogden effect” and comparisons to broader political trendsLessons for legal practitioners on filing motions and navigating appellate remediesWhether you’re a legal professional, someone navigating the family court system, or just interested in how justice is served (or not), this episode offers candid insights and sharp critiques from two lawyers determined to save the system.Links & Resources:Learn more about the Judgy app: judge-y.comFollow us on social: @JudgingthejudgesLEGAL 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

JudgeMental Podcast – Episode 63: "Half & Half"In this episode, Christine and Hugh dive deep into recent decisions from the Kentucky Supreme Court, focusing on judicial recusal, the appearance of bias, and the implications of judges attending partisan political events. The hosts discuss the controversy surrounding Judge Shelley Santry, the role and power of GALs (Guardians ad Litem), and the broader impact of judicial conduct on public trust in the legal system.Key Topics:The Kentucky Supreme Court’s handling of recusal motions and the standards for judicial impartiality.The case involving Judge Shelley Santry, her attendance at a partisan fundraiser, and the resulting motion to recuse.The distinction between GALs and FOCs (Friend of the Court), and how their roles affect family law cases.The importance of the appearance of impartiality in the judiciary and the dangers of politicizing the bench.Broader reflections on public faith in the judiciary, slippery slope arguments, and the personal experiences of the hosts with Kentucky’s family law system.Links & Social:Website: judge-y.comFollow us on social: @JudgingthejudgesLEGAL 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.

JudgeMental Podcast – Episode 62: Fresh MeatIn this episode, Christine and Hugh dive into a recent TikTok by Louisville attorney Allison Russell, who proposes adding another division to the Louisville Family Court as a solution to ongoing issues. The hosts discuss the merits and drawbacks of this idea, reflect on the realities of family court in Louisville, and share their perspectives on the challenges facing the legal system. They also address the importance of open dialogue, the complexities of judicial appointments, and the need for accountability and reform.Key Topics:Allison Russell’s proposed solution for Louisville Family CourtThe realities of being a judge and the challenges of the current systemThe importance of public dialogue and transparency in the legal communityThe role of attorneys, judges, and the public in driving changePersonal anecdotes and reflections on the state of family law in LouisvilleThe impact of social media and public opinion on the legal processConnect with us:Website: judge-y.comFollow us on social: @Judgingthejudges (Instagram) and @Judgingthejudges (Twitter/X)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.

JudgeMental Podcast – Episode 61: Talking Point Task ForceIn this episode, Hugh and Christine dive into the recent announcement of the Judicial Threat Assessment Center by the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office. They discuss the motivations behind the new task force, question whether there is a real increase in threats to judges, and explore the broader implications for judicial accountability and free speech.Key Topics:The Judicial Threat Assessment Center: What is it, and is it necessary? The hosts analyze the press coverage and the actual scope of the task force.Threats vs. Criticism: Hugh and Christine draw a clear line between legitimate criticism of judges and actual threats, emphasizing the importance of free speech and the dangers of conflating the two.Political Context: The conversation touches on how law enforcement and political narratives can shape public perception, especially during election cycles.Personal Experiences: Both hosts share stories about threats and security concerns they've faced as legal professionals.Call for Transparency: The episode ends with a call for open records and more transparency in how threats are defined and handled.Connect with Us:Visit judge-y.com for more information and resources.Follow us on social media: @JudgingthejudgesLEGAL 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.

JudgeMental Podcast – Episode 60: Cry For HelpIn this episode, Christine and Hugh return from a holiday break to dive into the latest developments and ongoing challenges in family court. They discuss a powerful social media post from a young person affected by the system, the persistent lack of accountability among judges, and the complex role of GALs (Guardians ad Litem) and FOCs (Friend of the Court). The hosts debate whether family court reform could become a major political issue, reflect on the isolation and internal politics of the judiciary, and share personal experiences from their legal practices.Key topics include:The emotional impact of family court decisions on children and familiesThe barriers preventing children from being heard directly by judgesThe problematic reliance on GALs and FOCs, and the lack of oversightThe high financial and emotional costs of custody evaluationsThe need for greater transparency, accountability, and reform in the systemAudience feedback: Should the podcast feature stories from adults who experienced divorce as children?Connect with us:Website: judge-y.comTikTok: @JudgingthejudgesLEGAL 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.