The JudgeMental Podcast

EP 103 Sun's Out, Beers Out

53 min · 22. Mai 2026
Episode EP 103 Sun's Out, Beers Out Cover

Beschreibung

EP 103: Sun's Out, Beers Out The JudgeMental Podcast About the Show The 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-y Episode Summary Christine 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 orange Christine: Peroni (and yes, Publix is currently running a buy-one-get-one-free on six-packs — don't miss it) ⚖️ Judge-y Community Q&A This 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 complaint Why the Louisville Family Bar's rallying around Judge Ogden may be emboldening further violations The stark contrast between judges who once acknowledged and corrected appellate reversals in open court versus the attitude that prevails today Why 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 Update The 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 order No motion to reconsider was filed by the deadline Sentencing scheduled: May 29th at 4:00 PM Full-day child support hearing set: July 28th The 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 stake The mechanics of imputing income when a party refuses to produce financials Why this case, regardless of who the parties are, has the potential to fundamentally reshape family law in Kentucky — and possibly beyond A 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 Murphy The 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 judge Concerns about his presence at motion hours where FOCs are not permitted to testify Questions about billing transparency — Murphy has reportedly described himself as "terrible at issuing bills" and doesn't bill for everything he does A community member spotted him being paged by a judge in one case while he'd already left for another The 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" Problem An 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 familiarity It depersonalizes the very children whose lives are at stake It 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 Us Website: judge-y.com Social: @Judgingthejudges App: Download Judge-y — submit questions anonymously, join community threads, and message Christine directly (community members only) LEGAL 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.

Kommentare

0

Sei die erste Person, die kommentiert

Melde dich jetzt an und werde Teil der The JudgeMental Podcast-Community!

Loslegen

2 Monate für 1 €

Dann 4,99 € / Monat · Jederzeit kündbar.

  • Podcasts nur bei Podimo
  • 20 Stunden Hörbücher / Monat
  • Alle kostenlosen Podcasts

Alle Folgen

109 Folgen

Episode EP 110 That's All, Folks! Cover

EP 110 That's All, Folks!

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 Announcement Christine 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 Case The 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 Case A 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 & Complacency A 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 System The 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 Bench A 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 accountability All episodes remain available. The team will make announcements about future plans on their website and social channels. LEGAL 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.

18. Juni 202636 min
Episode EP 109 Sounding Off Cover

EP 109 Sounding Off

JudgeMental Podcast – Episode 109: "Sounding Off" Hosted by Christine & Trey Episode Summary Christine 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 Topics 1. Trey's Correction on Judge Lauren Ogden Reversal Statistics Trey 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 Panel Secretary 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 Reversals Trey 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 Toll Christine 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 Next Judge-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: @Judgingthejudges Key Cases Mentioned Hansen 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: sos.secretary@ky.gov 📚 Chaos by Tom O'Neill (referenced by Christine) LEGAL 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.

16. Juni 202626 min
Episode EP 108 White Trash Dude Cover

EP 108 White Trash Dude

JudgeMental Podcast – Episode 108: "White Trash Dude" Hosts: Trey & Christine Episode Summary In 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 Cover The 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 Takeaways A 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: @Judgingthejudges LEGAL 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 is produced by Trey & Christine — two lawyers determined to save the system.

10. Juni 202627 min
Episode EP 107 Slap of the Wrist, Hold the Slap Cover

EP 107 Slap of the Wrist, Hold the Slap

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 letters Why the Judicial Conduct Commission's handling of this mirrors the worst of law enforcement self-policing — and why that era is ending The jaw-dropping power imbalance on law clerks: $200K in debt, trying to change the world, forced to be complicit in their boss's cover-up The Chrisley connection: Judge Eleanor Ross presided over the Chrisley sentencing, and Todd Chrisley is now calling for full impeachment Blackmail 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 crime Why other judges who knew and said nothing are part of the problem The brewing wave: documentaries in production, algorithms catching up, legislators who know the names but haven't found it politically advantageous to act — yet Next episode: the judge who got 60 days (yes, really) Download Judge-y now and rate the judges yourself: judge-y.com Follow us on social: @Judgingthejudges LEGAL 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.

8. Juni 202626 min
Episode EP 106 – Dry Friday Cover

EP 106 – Dry Friday

EP 106 – Dry Friday | The JudgeMental Podcast In 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 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.

5. Juni 202638 min