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.