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.

The JudgeMental Podcast – Episode 89 Bottoms Up

The hosts crack open a Mirror Twin Bee Sting Honey Hefeweizen and dive into a packed Friday episode covering judicial accountability, transparency, and the courtroom drama unfolding right here in Jefferson County.

In This Episode:

Oldham County Bench Shakeup

District Court Judge Brittany McKenna has resigned mid-term after filing for reelection — and it barely made the news cycle. Hugh and Christine weigh in on why sitting judges step down, the economics of judicial service, and what this transition could mean as Oldham County moves toward its new judicial center.

Judge Ward's Courtroom & Court Watchers

Members of the Judge-y community reported being kicked out of Judge Ward's Zoom motion hour — allegedly forced to turn on their cameras or get booted. Hugh and Christine break down why this is a deeply troubling trend, why open court should remain open (including for students, nanas, and anyone paying taxes), and what it says when a judge seems more concerned with who is watching than what is happening.

The 180-Day Mom Case

Community members report being removed from Zoom court right as the "180-day mom" case was called. Hugh and Christine discuss the ongoing pattern, the motion that allegedly wasn't served on opposing counsel or the GAL, and why the coverup is always worse than the original issue.

Jefferson County's Docket Problem

A broader conversation about docket management, judicial efficiency, and the stark contrast between how Louisville-area judges run their courts versus judges across the rest of Kentucky. Spoiler: it's not a caseload problem.

Julie Reczek & GAL Billing

A community member flagged that a GAL has billed over $30,000 in less than four months and filed three CPS reports for "emotional abuse." Hugh and Christine discuss what neutral witnesses should (and shouldn't) be posting publicly — and how putting your worldview out there professionally has professional consequences.

Connect with the Show:

Visit us at judge-y.com

Follow us on social: @Judgingthejudges

Rate, review, and join the Judge-y community on the Judge-y app

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 88 As Old as Time

Kentucky's First-Ever Judicial Impeachment: Political Theater or Constitutional Crisis?

In this episode, hosts Hugh and Christine — the minds behind Judge-y — dive deep into the unprecedented impeachment of a Lexington circuit judge by the Kentucky House of Representatives. This is the first judicial impeachment in Kentucky's 233-year history, and it raises serious questions about the separation of powers, the integrity of the judiciary, and whether our elected officials are using constitutional mechanisms for political ends.

What We Cover:

The Basics of the Impeachment: A Lexington circuit judge was impeached by the Kentucky House along strict party lines. The catch? The legislators behind the impeachment — led by Rep. Jason Nemes — refused to specify what misdemeanor the judge allegedly committed, which is a constitutional requirement for impeachment.

Procedural Failures: Not only was no specific misdemeanor alleged, but the sworn affidavit required by statute was never filed, and witnesses at the hearing were never sworn in. Hugh and Christine break down why these aren't technicalities — they are fundamental constitutional and statutory requirements.

The Kentucky Supreme Court Weighs In: After the House impeachment, the judge filed a writ with the Kentucky Supreme Court. The Court issued a sweeping ~44-page opinion halting the proceedings. Christine sides with the dissent, questioning whether this rose to the level of "irreparable harm" required for extraordinary relief. Hugh sees the supervisory role of the Supreme Court as broader and more open-ended under the Kentucky Constitution.

Separation of Powers Showdown: The Kentucky Senate signaled it would move forward despite the Supreme Court's order — echoing troubling national trends where court orders are openly defied. Hugh and Christine discuss Marbury v. Madison and what happens when the judiciary lacks an "army" to enforce its rulings.

The Dangerous Precedent: If judges can be impeached based on how often they rule against prosecutors — or in favor of defendants — what stops the legislature from using impeachment as a tool to control every judge in the state? Hugh and Christine connect this to larger concerns about judicial independence, civil cases, and the influence of donors and political appointees.

The Miranda Parallel: Christine's sharp analogy — you can hate Ernesto Miranda the person and still acknowledge Miranda rights are constitutionally required — cuts to the heart of why "I don't like Matt Bevin, but…" qualifiers are unnecessary and sometimes harmful to legal discourse.

What's Next: Christine predicts the Senate won't ultimately remove the judge — but isn't sure that holds now. She also raises the possibility that Andy Beshear's judicial appointments could become the next political target.

Open Bar, Open Court: Starting Friday, Hugh and Christine will be answering YOUR legal questions live in the Judge-y community. Submit your questions exclusively at judge-y.com — not on social, not via DM, only in the community.

Follow & Connect:

Community & Show Notes: judge-y.com

Social: @Judgingthejudges

Download the app: Judge-y

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 87: L.O. Down

In this episode, the hosts dive into the latest development in the ongoing Bridgeman case — and it's a jaw-dropper. Jefferson County Family Court Judge Lauren Ogden has been photographed attending a high-profile charity fundraiser at the home of one of the active litigants appearing before her in court. Yes, really.

What We Cover:

The Bridgeman Case Background – Filed in 2024, this is a high-stakes custody dispute involving an heir to a significant estate. The hosts previously covered how the FOC (Friend of the Court) gave the father's estate a tour while skipping the mother's home entirely — and now there's more.

Bourbon & Bow Ties at the Bridgeman Estate – A supplemental affidavit was filed in the pending 26A (Kentucky Supreme Court disqualification petition) revealing that Judge Ogden attended this annual fundraiser — held at the litigant's estate — as recently as June 2025, posting and being tagged in multiple photos on social media. The invitation itself, filed as a pleading exhibit, names the Bridgeman estate as the venue.

The Coverup Is Worse Than the Crime – After the motion was filed, the photos were removed and Judge Ogden was untagged. Christine and Hugh are direct: that's not a strategy, that's a confession.

The 26A Still Has Not Been Ruled On – The original petition to disqualify Judge Ogden — based on her November 2024 removal of the children from their mother at motion hour, without sworn testimony or a hearing — has been pending since November. Meanwhile, a pro se litigant's 26A in another division was resolved quickly.

Due Process, Ethics, and Accountability – Christine and Hugh discuss the Kentucky standard (appearance of a conflict is enough), the pattern of reversals of Judge Ogden by the Court of Appeals, and why every other judge in the building who stays silent is complicit.

The Call to Action – If judges are attending social events at litigants' homes while their cases are active, the bench is not a safe place for them. Period.

Stay Connected:

Visit us at judge-y.com

Follow us on social: @Judgingthejudges

Join the Judge-y community on YouTube — every Friday, Christine and Hugh go live for "Open Court," answering your questions exclusively in the community tab. (Preferably with a Kentucky-brewed beverage in hand.)

Download the Judge-y app to stay up to date, rate judges, and be part of the conversation.

LEGAL 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 86 – Open Court, Open Bar Vol. 1 | The JudgeMental Podcast

Hugh and Christine are back with another round of Open Court, Open Bar — answering questions straight from the Judge-y community. This episode covers everything from AI in the courtroom to TikTok judges, city attorney conflicts, and the surprising power of circuit clerks in small-town Kentucky.

In This Episode:

🤖 AI Judges: Useful Experiment or Recipe for Disaster?

A question from the Judge-y community sparks a deep dive into whether AI could (or should) replace human judges. Hugh and Christine agree that AI excels at legal research, pattern recognition, and analyzing case law at lightning speed — but it fundamentally cannot replicate human judicial discretion. The soul of judging, they argue, lies in the gray areas: weighing evidence, recognizing edge cases, and applying the kind of judgment that no algorithm can be programmed to have. Christine floats the idea of using AI to analyze judicial patterns across hundreds of cases — something Judge-y is uniquely positioned to explore.

⚖️ Laura Russell: Louisville's Highest-Rated Family Court Judge

The community has spoken — Laura Russell holds the top rating for family court judges in Louisville on Judge-y. Hugh and Christine share their firsthand court-watching experiences, noting that her motion hours were consistently well-run, efficient, and fair to pro se litigants. Christine reviewed her anonymously and gave mostly five stars. The verdict: she's done a great job on the bench, and the absence of community complaints speaks volumes.

🏙️ City Attorneys in Family Court: Who Do They Really Represent?

A listener question about city attorneys tendering family court orders opens up a broader conversation about dual roles, conflicts of interest, and small-town legal politics. When city attorneys also work for the county attorney's office and take private cases, the lines get blurry fast. Christine recounts her Eastern Kentucky experience, where courthouse relationships — from who you eat lunch with to who controls the clerks — can have outsized influence on outcomes.

📋 KREF, Campaign Treasurers & Judicial Conflicts

A follow-up question digs into campaign finance disclosures and judicial conflicts. Christine and Hugh zero in on a pattern that makes both of them uncomfortable: in nearly every judicial campaign, the treasurer is an attorney who practices before that judge. They call for more specifics from the community and remind listeners that Judge-y exists precisely to surface these kinds of concerns.

📱 Judge Brown: The TikTok Judge — Prepared or Not?

A listener question about Jefferson Family Court Division VII judge's courtroom preparedness leads to a nuanced discussion. Hugh acknowledges he's seen her at her best — fully prepared, handling complex business valuations, running a tight remote courtroom during COVID — and at her worst, seemingly forgetting everything from the prior hearing. Christine's read from community submissions: it's all or nothing with her. The TikTok surgeon parallel also comes up: when you're distracted by your image, the people in front of you pay the price.

🔔 Community Call-Outs

Have experience with GALs or FOCs? Submit on Judge-y.

Court staff causing issues? That's a conversation worth having — get on the app.

Laura Russell submissions always welcome.

Connect With Us:

Rate any judge in America for free: judge-y.com

Follow us on social: @Judgingthejudges

Download the app: Judge-y — tag your judge, ask questions, spark debate, and join the paid community to follow specific judges and stay up to date on every case discussion.

LEGAL 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.