The JudgeMental Podcast

EP 103 Sun's Out, Beers Out

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.

EP 102 Anyone There?

JudgeMental Podcast – EP 102 Anyone There? In this episode, Christine and Trey dive into a pair of eye-opening stories from Louisville's Jefferson Family Court — covering judicial conduct, courtroom accountability, and the evolving landscape of family law in Kentucky. Story 1: Judge Derwin Webb Conducts Hearing With Camera Off Christine 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 mom The FOC (Friend of the Court) in the case was Jim Murphy; the FOC report was filed timely Questions 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 recording Trey 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 process Both hosts emphasize that an elected official conducting official court business must be visible to the parties Christine 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 Presides The 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 rights The 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 report Both hosts discuss the issue of judges' pre-rulings being issued by staff rather than the judges themselves A conversation about attorney conduct: one of dad's attorneys made statements as if testifying to facts, rather than properly attributing them to their client Christine 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 tolerated The boundary between attorney and witness, and what happens when counsel makes factual representations without proper attribution Also Discussed: The growing community of court watchers monitoring Jefferson Family Court hearings — and why Christine encourages it Motion hour culture in Jefferson County: the pros, the cons, and whether it should be abolished entirely The importance of Adair v. Emberton limits on FOC testimony A 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: @Judgingthejudges Download the Judge-y app to stay connected, submit tips, and engage with the community. 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.

EP 101 Lame

JudgeMental Podcast – Episode 101 Lame This 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 Transparency The 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 Mom Mommy 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 Reluctance In 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 Motions A 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 Shame From "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 Wrong Christine 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 Teaser Christine 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.com Follow on social media: @Judgingthejudges Download the Judge-y app to stay up to date on cases and community discussions 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.

EP 100 Century

JudgeMental Podcast – Episode 100 Century In 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 Out An 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 Enforcement Christine 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 Conditions Christine 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 Victims The 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 Speech Trey 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 Reflections Christine 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 system Follow us on TikTok: @Judgingthejudges Visit us at judge-y.com 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.

EP 99 Safer?

JudgeMental Podcast – EP 99 Safer? The Safer Kentucky Act & Judicial Accountability Episode Summary In 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 Covered The Safer Kentucky Act & Homelessness The 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 Outcomes Judge 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 Challenge The 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 Analysis The 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 Picture Trey 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 Burke Both 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 Updates Trey 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 Mentioned Louisville Public Media articles on Judge Burke's ruling and the Safer Kentucky Act KRS 511.110 (Unlawful Camping statute) Judge-y app: judge-y.com Follow the show: @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.