Most Recent Episode
EP 71 Unwarranted EPISODE 71: UNWARRANTED - SHOW NOTES
Episode Overview
Hugh and Christine are back after a break with exciting news about their upcoming app launch during "spooky season." They discuss the challenges of building a comprehensive database of judges across
Time: 27:37
EPISODE 71: UNWARRANTED - SHOW NOTES
Episode Overview
Hugh and Christine are back after a break with exciting news about their upcoming app launch during "spooky season." They discuss the challenges of building a comprehensive database of judges across all 50 states and the shocking lack of transparency in the judicial system. The main focus of this episode is a bizarre motion filed by a removed Friend of the Court (FOC) attorney in a Kentucky family court case that has been ongoing since the Court of Appeals ruled in the father's favor.
Key Topics Discussed
The Judge-y App Launch
Announcement of the upcoming app launch (date TBA - "spooky season")
The app will feature a comprehensive database of judges from all 50 states
Users will be able to review judges, follow specific courts, and share experiences
The research revealed that most states have no easily accessible list of judicial officers
States with good resources: Florida, Indiana, California
States with poor resources: Alabama and others
The app aims to bring transparency to the court system and help people make informed decisions about judicial elections
Transparency in the Courts
Discussion of the critical need for cameras and recording devices in every courtroom
The problem of sealed cases and lack of official records
How transcripts alone aren't enough - video evidence is crucial
Reference to the Vanta case and Judge Ogden's controversial statements
The Allison Russell Motion
Detailed analysis of a 7-page motion to withdraw filed by FOC Allison Russell
Russell was removed from the case in May 2025 but filed the motion anyway
The motion mentions the JudgeMental Podcast by name
Contains "uncontroverted facts" that are actually opinions and hearsay
Filed in Judge Bryan Gatewood's courtroom
Discussion of why this filing is problematic:
FOCs cannot file substantive motions
She was no longer on the case
The motion appears to be a "dog whistle" to the new judge
Contains prejudicial information that shouldn't be in the record
May not be protected by immunity since she was removed from the case
Legal and Ethical Issues
Discussion of Rule 11 sanctions and why they may not have been filed
The strategic decision to file a motion to strike instead
Questions about immunity for attorneys who file improper pleadings
The problem of "thin-skinned" court appointees who can't handle criticism
How this case illustrates systemic problems in family court
Case Background
Father won at the Court of Appeals
Judge Ogden refused to comply with the appellate ruling
Father had to fight extensively to regain parenting time
Judge Ogden was eventually removed from the case
Case transferred to Judge Bryan Gatewood
Christine has been following this case since April 2024
Important Links
Website: judge-y.com
Social Media: @Judgingthejudges
Coming Next Episode
Discussion of the "180 Day Mom" case - a mother who was served a warrant for six months in jail when she wasn't present at the hearing and was at the hospital.
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
GUID: 6ce4f5d6-9511-481f-9298-7b78c26d9b1d
Release Date: 06/02/2026, 15:30:00
