EP 100 Century

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.

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.

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.

EP 105 Pants on Fire

JudgeMental Podcast – Episode 105: Pants on Fire Can 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 distinction Why experienced attorneys prep clients to treat FOC interviews like police interrogations — and why pro se litigants are most at risk Judges ordering parties not to record FOC interactions — and whether that's even lawful How "buddy tactics" by FOCs can mislead both parties before a report is issued Paid supervisors and no-recording contracts during supervised parenting time The systemic pattern: nothing reported on JudgeMental has ever turned out to be an isolated incident Why FOC appointments have exploded in family court — and the problems that creates Key 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 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 104 Groundhog Day

JudgeMental Podcast – EP 104: Groundhog Day In 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 false Had her parenting time reduced to a weekly video phone call for approximately eight months Was effectively "diagnosed" with a substance abuse disorder and mental illness by social workers and the judge — with no testimony from any qualified mental health professional Key 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 matters How "one family, one court" can become a vehicle for judicial overreach in small communities Why 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 accountability Why the publication of this opinion may itself be a message from the Court of Appeals The argument for jury trials in family court as a structural check on judicial power Christine 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.com Follow us on social: @Judgingthejudges Download the Judge-y app to submit judges for review, ask community questions, and stay connected Case discussed: CL v. Commonwealth, 653 S.W.3d 599 (Ky. Ct. App. 2022) — will be posted on the website and shared on socials 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.