JudgeMental Podcast – Episode 98 The High Life

In 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 home

The parallels between public school bureaucracy and family court dysfunction — conflict is incentivized, pragmatism is rare

A broader conversation about Tinker v. Des Moines, political polarization, cancel culture, and whether reasonable minds can still prevail

Resources & Links:

Find us online at judge-y.com

Follow us on social: @Judgingthejudges

Rate and review judges in your jurisdiction with the Judge-y app — download Judge-y today!

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 – Episode 96 Derby Week

In 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 video

Religion in judicial campaigning vs. religion on the bench

Why wearing the robe on social media is uniquely problematic

The case for C-SPAN in courtrooms

How family court confidentiality shields dysfunction

Court-appointed attorneys and the "just sign this" problem

The erosion of judicial independence at the federal and state level

Immigration judges and the stacking of the courts

The impeachment of judges as a political tool

Christine's prediction: family courts go fully confidential next session

Resources & Community:

Rate any judge for free and join the anonymous judicial review community: judge-y.com

Follow us on social: @Judgingthejudges

Download the Judge-y app — rate judges, read reviews, and connect with others navigating the court system. The community is anonymous and affordable. 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.

JudgeMental Podcast – EP 95: Fight Club Friday

Christine 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 Debate

Christine 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 Six

The 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 Problem

Christine 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 Court

Trey 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 Numbers

Christine 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-y

Website: judge-y.com

Instagram/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.

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 Access

The 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 Deal

The 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 Debate

Listeners 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 Court

Christine 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 Community

Want your questions answered on air? Join the Judge-y community at judge-y.com and be part of the conversation.

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 – 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 Courtroom

A 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 Nothing

After 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 Tactics

Christine 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 Investigate

Christine 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 Public

Christine 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 Problem

A 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 Problem

Unlike 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 Bombshell

In 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 Stay

Christine 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.com

Follow us on social: @Judgingthejudges

Download the Judge-y app to track judges, share experiences, and stay informed

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 – 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 Ogden

Hugh 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 Fees

A 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 Hearing

Perhaps 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 Court

The 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 Time

Hugh 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 tips

Visit us at judge-y.com

Follow us on social: @Judgingthejudges

Download the Judge-y app to stay up to date 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.

JudgeMental Podcast – Episode 91

Just No

In 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 appropriate
• Legislative reform addressing third-party appointments by statute
• Judicial time sheets and accountability measures
• Attorneys collectively refusing to agree to appointments
• The "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: @Judgingthejudges
• Community & App: 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.

JudgeMental Podcast – Episode 90 Better off Alone?

Hosts: Christine & Trey

Episode Summary

The 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 Covered

1. Pro Se Dad Files Impeachment Against Fayette County Family Court Judge

A 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 & McCreary

The 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 Court

This 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 Public

Christine 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-Out

Christine 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 & Resources

Judge-y App: judge-y.com

Follow us: @Judgingthejudges

Download Judge-y and leave your judge reviews today

Federal case records available on PACER

Referenced: JudgeMental Podcast Episode 88 (Goodman impeachment background)

Like, share, and get into our socials. Merch coming soon.

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.