Episode 44 – The JudgeMental Podcast

In this episode of The JudgeMental Podcast, Christine and Hugh dive deep into the question: Should there be a public defender’s office—or its equivalent—in family court? They explore the differences between criminal and family court representation, the constitutional rights at stake for parents, and the real-world impact of not having independent legal counsel in family law cases.

The hosts discuss:

The current system of court-appointed attorneys in family court and its potential pitfalls.

Why the independence of legal representation is crucial, especially when judges or government agencies are involved in appointing attorneys.

The high cost of private legal representation in contentious custody and divorce cases, and how even judges themselves might not be able to afford such battles.

The challenges faced by pro se litigants (those representing themselves), including inconsistent and sometimes unclear court rules, and the way judges interact with them.

The importance of accountability, checks and balances, and protecting fundamental constitutional rights in family court.

Christine and Hugh also share anecdotes from their own experiences, including stories of problematic courtroom behavior and the difficulties faced by those without legal representation. They highlight the need for systemic reform and encourage listeners to consider what’s truly important when it comes to protecting parental rights.

Call to Action:

Have a story to share about your experience in family court? Submit your stories at judge-y.com.

Check out court proceeding clips and more on their YouTube channel: judge-y (handle: judging the judges).

Disclaimer:

The content of this podcast is for informational and entertainment purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. For specific legal concerns, always consult a qualified attorney.

Listen now on the judge-y app or at 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.

You are listening to

The Judgemental Podcast.

2

We're Hugh and Christine, the Minds

Behind Judgy, the revolutionary app

3

that empowers you to judge the judges.

4

It's pastime for judicial accountability

and transparency within the courts.

5

Prepare for sharp insights, candid

critiques, and unshakable honesty from

6

two lawyers determined to save the system.

7

We need some justice.

8

Justice, my fine justice.

9

And I wanna ring, be in public.

10

I wanna ring, be in public crowd.

11

Yeah.

12

Christine: All right.

13

Do we need a public defender's office

or the equivalent of in family court?

14

Hugh: I mean, philosophically,

I don't know what's different in

15

regular civil family court than.

16

Other cases where you are

entitled to counsel, such as the D

17

dependency, neglect and abuse docket.

18

Yep.

19

Which is not criminal, but by

statute, because your parental rights

20

are at stake, they make provisions

for court appointed attorneys.

21

And whether it's I mean they don't

use a public defender, independent

22

attorneys, they use each division

has a list of attorneys that

23

take appointments in that case.

24

Yeah.

25

And I know there's actually, our

previous governor made a big deal out

26

of that and wanted attorneys that were

not within that division on some of

27

those cases, but also wanted that to

be controlled by the cabinet, which I

28

think is problematic in and of itself.

29

But yeah, this is, this has

been something that's going on.

30

I just don't know why.

31

If a judge can take custody of your

child or, you know, as we see, even

32

if they don't take custody, they can

restrict you from having any contact

33

with your child and they can do it.

34

Over virtually nothing as we saw in Yep.

35

You know, , the court of appeals found

that Judge Ogden failed to find any, re

36

any right reason under the law, why she

restricted a father from seeing his kids.

37

Why you shouldn't be afforded.

38

An attorney,

39

Christine: I think, to

protect your rights.

40

Well, I think , the test should

be whether or not that there's

41

a fundamental constitutionally

protected right that's in danger.

42

Agreed.

43

And your right, agreed to

parent is a fundamentally

44

protected constitutional right.

45

Yeah.

46

And you know, Gideon, when Gideon

happened, which is the Supreme Court

47

case that allowed, or that created

essentially the public defender's

48

office or the requirement that you

were entitled to counsel, if you were

49

looking, if you were charged with a crime.

50

It's because the system had got

cocky, you know what I mean?

51

And they were treating

pro se people like shit.

52

And I will tell you that you see

that so much in family court.

53

Hugh: It is true.

54

Christine: It's the way, first

off, the way that these judges

55

speak to pro se people would

literally shock y'all if you see it.

56

And we're gonna start posting some of

57

Hugh: them.

58

Christine: Yes, yes, yes.

59

Oh, of course.

60

Hugh: Some of them, some of them are.

61

I mean, , we've given credit to judges.

62

We've sat in, in, in a motion hour and

talked about how good people were dealing

63

with pro se stuff , and explaining

the process and then things like that.

64

So,

65

Christine: and in explaining the

process, explaining the court's process.

66

Yeah, because there's also, you have to

think at this from every different angle.

67

The judge.

68

Has to comply with the judge's ethics.

69

And ethically speaking, a

judge cannot give legal advice.

70

Hugh: No, absolutely not.

71

Christine: So then you have the dichotomy

where they're explaining things or

72

explaining how they handle their

docket, and then you have a person who's

73

constitutionally protected rights is

being affected or maybe affected you know,

74

probably taking that to some degree as

legal advice when the reality is there

75

could be so many other legal options.

76

And legal options for that

person that they're unaware of.

77

Hugh: Yeah, I mean, most of what

I was referring to that , we've

78

noticed was, was really how.

79

We've seen some judges conduct

motion hour and explain that.

80

Christine: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

81

Hugh: Why they're calling

attorneys cases first.

82

They're not doing that because the pro se

ones aren't important, but sometimes they

83

need more help, or not more help, but more

time because they don't have an attorney

84

there to argue it and that the attorneys

have to get to like that kind of stuff.

85

That's not legal advice.

86

Now I know exactly what

you're talking about.

87

Mm-hmm.

88

I've had so many cases, which was

especially true on the domestic violence

89

docket, where you have a pro se person.

90

Bringing the petition and the judges

will really step way over into giving

91

legal advice a hundred percent and

telling them what to do or arguing

92

with them if they come in and say,

this is what I would like to do,

93

trying to dissuade them from doing it.

94

Christine: And let's step back

earlier you said, so our dependency,

95

neglect, and abuse docket.

96

You are entitled to an attorney.

97

Yes.

98

And you mentioned earlier that

there's been some political drama

99

as far as how this list is created,

but like, let's take a step back.

100

I don't believe the cabinet should be

in charge of picking the attorneys to

101

represent, but I sure as shit don't think

that the judges should be in charge of

102

the attorneys that appear before them.

103

Yeah.

104

Because that's advantageous for the

judge to pick somebody that's just

105

not gonna give them any problems.

106

Hugh: Yeah.

107

And I don't know that that's really

what's happening or like that was the

108

motivation for picking, but it just.

109

Forms the system where it's just

the cases tend to get treated

110

the same way, and it's just.

111

This whole,

112

Christine: I don't

113

Hugh: know.

114

Well,

115

Christine: I don't, the, these

attorneys on the dependency, neglect

116

and abuse docket, and this docket

requires one day of work a week.

117

Obviously, if there are trials, they

may be scheduled on another day.

118

And this can be things that would cause

you to literally lose your child, right?

119

Oh yeah.

120

I mean, they, and then

121

Hugh: they see some of the worst stuff.

122

Mm-hmm.

123

I mean.

124

Some of the stuff that is people

that should never be in the system

125

whatsoever, but then the really, really

bad stuff goes through the same system.

126

Christine: A hundred

127

Hugh: percent.

128

The worst kinds of abuse and physical

injury and neglect and things like that.

129

Yeah,

130

Christine: and let me be crystal,

crystal clear when I say there are people

131

that deserve to lose their children.

132

There are people that deserve to lose.

133

Oh yeah.

134

Access to their children.

135

There are people that deserve

to have their fundamentally

136

protected constitutional, right.

137

Restricted, yes.

138

Just like there are people that

deserve to be incarcerated.

139

That being said, it's.

140

, The Constitution, you've got to comply

with those rights and treat them.

141

This is the United States of America.

142

Hugh: Yes,

143

Christine: but the problem with the judges

picking their attorneys, it would be

144

like if you were charged with a crime and

you were appearing before the judge and

145

you couldn't afford an attorney, would

you want the attorney to pick the person

146

that was appointed to represent you?

147

Question the system, the attorney that

goes out to lunch with the judge, the

148

attorney that has access to the back,

or would you want an independent body

149

that's gonna stand up for your rights?

150

Hugh: No, , I agree with that.

151

, I think coming in.

152

I mean, I've represented enough people

who started off, they were either third

153

party caretakers who aren't entitled

under our statutes in dependency, neglect

154

and abuse cases to have an attorney

155

mm-hmm.

156

Or have been working with a court

appointed attorney and decided they needed

157

to save up and pay for a private attorney.

158

Because of their impression of

how the system was working and

159

how it was, don't rock the boat.

160

And the person that was appointed was

not really protecting them all that

161

well and was just sort of playing nice

with everyone and not listening to them.

162

And I, I mean, I think

there's, there's definitely a.

163

It was always my perception when

I went in as a private attorney

164

in there that you know, there's a

collective groan that, oh no, the

165

people might actually do discovery.

166

Yep.

167

And they might actually make us do things

or remember the names of the kids we're

168

talking about, or something like that.

169

Mm-hmm.

170

And it's so absolutely.

171

If I were for some reason.

172

Put in the place where my

kids were in that system.

173

Yeah, I would absolutely want

somebody that's independent

174

and outside of that system.

175

Christine: And the other thing, just

the way that these judges in Jefferson

176

County in particular handle their

dependency, neglect, and abuse docket.

177

A private attorney is going

to be exorbitant because there

178

is no scheduled time for these

hearings, so you're gonna be there.

179

Yep.

180

You know, like for example, the

TikTok judge, you know, if her docket

181

starts at eight 30, an attorney

hypothetically could be there at eight 30.

182

You know, she arrives 10, 10 30.

183

So that's already two billable hours.

184

And then that case may

not be called till 3:00 PM

185

Hugh: Yeah, that's right.,

186

I've appeared on the.

187

Mor on a morning docket, maybe not

eight 30, like the nine o'clock

188

you're supposed to be there.

189

And , I've waited through lunch to come

back in the afternoon before the case

190

is called, even on something routine,

just because it's a packed docket.

191

Mm-hmm.

192

And, and you know, I, , it was

very expensive for my clients.

193

Yeah.

194

And , they know when someone was

hiring me on one of those cases, I was

195

very blunt that these things involve.

196

Tons of standing around.

197

Mm-hmm.

198

Sitting around.

199

And they're the kind of things that

every now and then there was something

200

routine you could appear remotely.

201

But I would always tell my clients,

you don't want me to do that?

202

'cause everyone else is standing around.

203

Mm-hmm.

204

Waiting and they're all

talking about the case.

205

Yep.

206

And you're not involved

in those communications.

207

If you're remote, you can be.

208

But I have been completely left out of

those enough times to where they would

209

decide what to do and then I would, I

would call someone's cell phone and say,

210

Hey, is this case ever gonna be called?

211

Oh yeah, yeah, yeah.

212

Sorry, we forgot to tell you

this is what we decided to do.

213

And I'm like, that's.

214

You don't get to decide what to

do on a case where my client has

215

a say in, in what's going on,

216

Christine: and not even that decide.

217

You don't have the right to speak about

the case with another attorney without

218

me participating in the conversation.

219

Right.

220

Hugh: No, that's, , that's right.

221

Exparte, or go in front of the

judge and put something, you know,

222

oftentimes they will write something

up, put it before the judge.

223

The judge will just read it

into the record, and there

224

won't be any formal proceeding.

225

It's called a reading.

226

We'll do that with half

the people there or less.

227

Yeah.

228

And so.

229

I agree.

230

I mean, it seems like, and I know

that there was a big push to have.

231

A change to the way the system works

with the court appointed attorneys.

232

And I was not in disagreement with

that, but doing it through the cabinet

233

made no sense because the cabinet Yeah.

234

Is an adverse party to a lot of these.

235

Absolutely.

236

You know, 'cause the cabinet will take

custody of a child, take children,

237

child and the parents are effectively

from a legal standpoint, trying to

238

win custody back from the cabinet.

239

So if the.

240

If the state has an interest

in the custody of the kids and

241

they're going to actually hire

the attorney, that it's insane.

242

Yeah.

243

That that made no sense, and I

think that's why that whole idea

244

died, but it leaves us with a

system that isn't working very well.

245

Yeah.

246

But you know, at least in that

system, there are attorneys

247

representing most interests.

248

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

249

Now, again, temporary custodians,

people that actually have legal custody

250

of a child, they're granted legal

custody of a child in these cases.

251

They have a legal right at that point.

252

Right, right.

253

And they have no right to an

attorney even within that system.

254

Well, but in the private cases,

normal divorces, custody actions,

255

there's no right whatsoever.

256

Christine: Well, and then just really

quick on the dependency, neglect, and

257

abuse docket, I wonder because these

attorneys are making 500 bucks a pop, but

258

just from a cost standpoint, as much of

the dependency, neglect, and abuse like.

259

Having a public defender that was

salaried, that's completely independent,

260

it may be more cost effective and

then to, you know, transfer over

261

to just your normal circuit court,

which is custody or divorce actions.

262

Legal aid can't handle many cases.

263

You know, legal aid does a hell

of a job for the most part.

264

And

265

Hugh: Oh yeah, but they, they are.

266

They can't handle the case?

267

No.

268

The types of cases they take on.

269

'cause they're just, they

don't have the resources?

270

Christine: No, they're

not funded for that.

271

Like, they're not in any

capacity to handle people

272

that can't afford an attorney.

273

Hugh: Man, they, yeah,

they do a hell of a job.

274

I mean, the mediations and different

things that they do to keep people from

275

having to go through the system, they save

a lot of, a lot of trouble for people.

276

But they, you can't ask them to

take on this whole other thing

277

Christine: unless they're properly funded.

278

Like the public defender's office.

279

Yeah, that's

280

Hugh: right.

281

Christine: But I do think that,

you know, it's something that would

282

probably drive some of the cost down.

283

It would regulate the market

because people should not be paying,

284

and I wanna be clear on this.

285

Y'all need to understand that if

you have a contentious divorce with

286

children involving, you know, custodial

evaluations, parenting coordinators,

287

FOCs gals, blah, blah, blah, that what

that costs over a two or three year

288

period, most of the sitting judges

on their salary could not afford.

289

Hugh: No, that's true.

290

And so that's true.

291

You, you would be, you would be

mortgaging your house cashing

292

out your retirement, all kinds of

things to be, , to afford that.

293

Oh

294

Christine: yeah.

295

Cashing out nana's retirement,

you know what I mean?

296

It would, my

297

Hugh: fees on a two to three hour, I mean

a two to three year like custody battle

298

would be multiple times the net salary

of somebody that's sitting on the bench.

299

Probably.

300

Yeah.

301

Or not probably.

302

Absolutely.

303

And that's just my fees, not.

304

Not the FOCs and the Gs and the

custodial evaluators and the time

305

off work and you know, all of

those things that are going on.

306

So it is.

307

Extremely expensive.

308

Christine: And also I just think as

a society we have to decide what is

309

important and if protecting people's

constitutionally rights to parent,

310

you know, isn't that then what is,

because what people don't understand

311

is that this could happen to you.

312

You could lose your children

literally without a mugshot.

313

Hugh: Well, and you know, we're seeing

people that have attorneys have their

314

kids ripped away from them because.

315

The courts are just not following the law.

316

Yep.

317

But you have a much better

chance of rectifying that if

318

you have counsel and can stop.

319

Well also what?

320

What's happening

321

Christine: also like the.

322

Benefit of the public defender's office.

323

Like when I worked there,

we had a motion bank.

324

We saw what was happening in

counties throughout, and you

325

would have conferences, you could

share information, and you could

326

see these problematic patterns.

327

Mm-hmm.

328

For example, we had a lot of problematic

patterns in Lexington when I was a

329

public defender's office with canines.

330

You know, got some great case

law on that to make sure that

331

people were constitutionally

right, to not be, you know.

332

Detained and seized and

searched was upheld.

333

Sorry, I lost my train of thought.

334

But the importance That's,

that's a great point.

335

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

336

The importance of having a independent

body that protects the people from

337

the government, that is literally,

that's the whole point, y'all.

338

Is it not?

339

Hugh: Yeah, I, you know, it is one thing.

340

I mean, like I said, philosophically

we're talking about fundamental rights.

341

How do you make the

distinction you're entitled to?

342

I mean, I understand in Kentucky

at least, there's a statutory

343

distinction, these type cases that

are brought under this statute.

344

Yeah.

345

Where your kids are forcibly taken by

the government, where the government

346

is coming to take custody away

for dependency, neglect, or abuse.

347

You entitled to an attorney, but

how about when the government isn't

348

a party that's trying to take it,

but instead of sitting on the bench?

349

And is going to take your kids away

and may not be paying any attention

350

to due process or the Constitution.

351

, I think that you're going to continue

to see those kinds of abuses unless

352

you have everyone represented.

353

Christine: Absolutely.

354

Hugh: A, you continue to see

them for represented people.

355

I mean, we find out on these cases,

and so many of them, the problems that

356

we see are cases that have attorneys.

357

Yeah.

358

So I can't imagine going in there.

359

Not being able to afford an attorney.

360

Dealing with a system that you have

to constantly kick and scream to

361

make sure that you get a hearing.

362

Yep.

363

That people get sworn in, that

the rules are actually followed.

364

And if you don't know about those

things, you're at such a disadvantage.

365

Christine: Well, there's also that

accountability from having the

366

public defender where you have

colleagues, you have a boss, you

367

have accountability, like mm-hmm.

368

Like for example, Adair versus Berton.

369

You have so many private attorneys

waiving that under pressure from

370

the FOCs, FOCs, and from the judge.

371

But now, if you had an employer

and a policy within the public

372

defender's office, obviously

we're gonna comply with the law.

373

You can't ever waive a dare versus Berton.

374

That's right.

375

It really actually does deescalate

the judge's frustration.

376

It's like, oh, that's the policy

of the you know, I mean, they're

377

gonna comply with the law.

378

And so there's the insulation.

379

What family court needs in particular,

more than any other court of law that I

380

have ever experienced or that's in this

country, is it needs accountability.

381

It needs checks and balances.

382

It needs.

383

Systems in place that protect

everything because you have to believe

384

that one bad temporary order could

change your life in perpetuity.

385

Hugh: It certainly changes a child.

386

Yeah,

387

Christine: yeah,

388

Hugh: yeah.

389

I mean, imagine you're at school

one day and someone you haven't seen

390

in a long time shows up and takes

you across the country unannounced.

391

Mm-hmm.

392

Just because a judge didn't

follow , the law Yeah.

393

And issued , a very bad temporary order.

394

, I mean, it's the kind of thing that

will affect a child probably the rest

395

of their life without question that that

kind of trauma leaves a lasting scar.

396

Christine: Yep.

397

And there's no, mugshot for that

violation of law just yet anyway.

398

Hugh: No, true.

399

Christine: But let's segue on our YouTube.

400

Let's there is a motion

hour of Bryan Gatewood.

401

Bryan Gatewood is notorious for speaking

in a demeaning manner, would you say?

402

Would you agree?

403

Hugh: Yeah.

404

And you know, one of the things you

showed me, you were appalled about

405

this motion hour video because you

had seen it happen and , it was,

406

you were sort of embarrassed by it.

407

Totally.

408

And you went and got the

video of it and I thought.

409

He's actually speaking to that pro

se person nicer than he spoke to me.

410

It doesn't mean it's less egregious, but

I've had plenty of motion hours where he's

411

talked to me in a worst way than that.

412

Christine: Oh, absolutely.

413

He does not know how to speak to people.

414

I mean, that goes without saying,

but we'll put that up on our YouTube.

415

But just essentially it talks about,

first off, this pro se person doesn't

416

extraordinary job of talking to the court.

417

Sure.

418

I mean, well,

419

Hugh: I had to ask you is like,

because you looked into the case.

420

Was that a pro se person or

was that an attorney maybe

421

from out of town and doesn't

422

Christine: No.

423

Our local rules, he doesn't know all

424

Hugh: the, well, you call 'em local rules.

425

Yeah.

426

It's not even local rules

they were arguing about.

427

Right.

428

Each division seems to put out

inconsistent and different rules

429

about his or her motion hours that

if you are a member of the public

430

and pro se members of the public are.

431

Required to be held.

432

They're required to play by the

same standards as attorneys.

433

Mm-hmm.

434

And they're held to the same

standards, and I understand that.

435

But, so let's say that I'm pro

se I'm appearing before a judge.

436

I wanna know what the rules are.

437

I'm gonna look at the rules

of practice and procedure.

438

I'm gonna look at the family court

rules of procedure and practice.

439

I'm gonna look at any statutes and

I'm gonna look at the local rules

440

for how the local court works.

441

If I looked at all of those

things and committed them to

442

memory, I would never see the.

443

Extra rules that these judges put in

their courtrooms that are inconsistent.

444

Christine: Yeah.

445

Yeah.

446

And just to be clear, so we're

using the word rule rule.

447

There are things in the law like

terms of art, where they mean

448

something different in real life

and then they do in a courtroom.

449

But when we say rule, really the fact

and backstory here, what the judges

450

have started to do in Louisville is they

release their pre rulings for motion hour.

451

And on the top of it, like if their

motion hour starts at one 30, it will

452

be like, if you have any objection, you

453

not adopted to my knowledge, in the

local rules of practice that's not

454

signed into order by the chief judge.

455

Well,

456

Hugh: and it's, and it's

inconsistent, like, yeah, yeah, yeah.

457

Like some judges say just, it

just says before motion hour.

458

Like it, it says like, if it's

a 9:00 AM motion hour, you gotta

459

make your objection before 9:00 AM.

460

Okay.

461

I mean, that one is a little more,

a little obvious, like people, you

462

know, it, it's not outta the ordinary,

but we have others that are, let's

463

say we have motion hour at 10 30.

464

You have to let us know of your

465

Oh, sorry, 1:30 PM You gotta let us

466

be at 10 30 and you have to let them

467

Actually, they're all different.

468

It's about Right, right, right.

469

, I think almost every single one has

a different amount of time before the

470

motion hour starts that you have to let

them know and a different way to do it.

471

Email this person, call

this person, file something.

472

It's, yeah.

473

Yeah.

474

They're, they're all different

and there's no reason why anybody

475

would be able to know that.

476

Christine: Right.

477

And that's the, goes back

to just fundamental notice.

478

You have to give people

notice of the rules.

479

You know what I mean?

480

You're not playing Uno.

481

With your nana where things

can just change on a whim.

482

This is a court of law.

483

You get a document that says the motion

shall be heard at 1:30 PM On this

484

day, you show up at 1:30 PM you're

entitled to have your case called

485

regardless of what you put on a website.

486

Hugh: Yeah.

487

In the case that you were referring to

the opposing counsel had filed a motion

488

for additional time to respond to a

motion that had been filed months before.

489

Christine: Yeah, it was, I don't.

490

I wanna, I did look up the

court net on this, and it is.

491

Ambiguous kind of how this came to

be because this person was pro se

492

so in the sense of like, not saying

something that's not factually accurate.

493

Got it.

494

I couldn't really ascertain completely.

495

Okay.

496

Okay.

497

Okay.

498

Hugh: Well, from the point

of view of this person, yeah.

499

He tell, he informs the court

that he objects because he had

500

filed his motion months before.

501

Yeah.

502

And there had been plenty

of time to file a response.

503

That was the argument that he made.

504

So I was taking him at his word.

505

But you're right, , I have not looked.

506

Yeah, through the file to see when

this was filed, but it, according

507

to him, months before the judge, the

judge is pretty condescending and

508

nasty with him and doing it because so

he says you had to let us know before

509

this time that you had an objection.

510

My pre ruling was this was

going to be signed and he

511

said, I did file an objection.

512

So he had

513

filed a

514

response?

515

Yeah.

516

Filed a response in the

record, objecting to it.

517

And so,

518

Christine: and then he, , the

judge is like, well, you know, that

519

probably hadn't even made it up

from the circuit clerk's office yet.

520

Yeah, I haven't seen

521

Hugh: that.

522

Yeah.

523

Or I'll, I'll take a look at,

that's like, I don't even have the

524

Christine: file in front of me.

525

Hugh: But it's like you're

there to hear this motion.

526

Right?

527

I don't know why the judges

don't know what the motions

528

are that are in front of them.

529

Right.

530

First of all, what was he expecting

that person to know as a pro se person?

531

He argued very well.

532

Mm-hmm.

533

He had filed a response in the record,

in the case saying that he objected to

534

it, and then he showed up on time to

make the argument just to be treated like

535

basically, you're wasting my time and

you're and opposing counsel was here.

536

We could have done this, but

you didn't do the right thing.

537

Yeah.

538

And it's like.

539

Is impossible for pro se persons

to know that there are different

540

little pseudo rules Yeah.

541

That haven't been adopted as

actual rules in each division

542

that aren't put in the rules that

you can actually look up and see.

543

But there might be a website and if

you're lucky, then something's been

544

published That says it at the top of it.

545

Yeah.

546

For a specific, I don't know.

547

And I think.

548

To the extent that they make

the rules very transparent.

549

And if there's a pro se person on the

case and you've communicated that rule

550

very clearly to them, it would still be

inexcusable to talk to with them that way.

551

Christine: Exactly.

552

Without question.

553

Hugh: So those things all

exist separately in my mind.

554

Yeah.

555

That this is bad.

556

And this is also bad, but even if

none of this other stuff existed,

557

why, why do you talk to somebody

like that in your courtroom?

558

Christine: Who the fuck

do you think you are?

559

I mean, is what I would say.

560

And again, that goes back to

there's no way he would talk to

561

somebody like that outside of court.

562

I don't think.

563

I,

564

Hugh: yeah, but , if he did, he, it would.

565

Yeah, I don't think it

would go well for him.

566

Christine: Exactly.

567

And I was sitting there in real

time that day, not watching that.

568

I had just been there for the

baby case and that's why , I

569

stopped him on the way out.

570

I'm like, what's your name, sir?

571

He had no idea who I was,

because I was so, just like, you

572

cannot talk to people, you know.

573

It would be, and that's where

family court's not reported on.

574

But if a judge spoke to a pro se

person charged with a crime, like

575

still with the presumption of

innocence in a courtroom like that, I

576

think it would be viral over TikTok.

577

Hugh: I don't think it might actually.

578

I mean, that might be something

that the media would cover.

579

Oh,

580

Christine: I know.

581

Can you imagine LOL?

582

Yeah.

583

Hugh: Well, I mean, , I've

seen that kind of thing.

584

When someone explodes or

acts unprofessionally in a

585

criminal court, it will make.

586

You know, make the rounds on the

media, it won't get a lot of traction.

587

But I would always see it.

588

'cause I, you know, it would make

the rounds with the attorneys.

589

Yeah.

590

I don't know why this is any different.

591

And I think you're, I think

that's an excellent point.

592

If this happened in a different

context, in a different court, it

593

would be a completely different manner.

594

Christine: Yep.

595

So.

596

All right, well submit

your stories, judge y.com.

597

Remember, we're starting to post court

proceedings from Louisville, Kentucky.

598

On our YouTube, our YouTube is judge y

and the handle is judging the judges.

599

Thank y'all so much and happy Monday.

600

See ya.

601

Speaker 3: Content of this

podcast is for informational

602

and entertainment purposes only.

603

It is not intended to be and should

not be construed as legal advice.

604

Engaging with this content does not create

an attorney-client relationship between

605

you and the hosts, guests, or their firms.

606

The views and opinions expressed

on this podcast are solely those

607

of the individuals involved and

do not necessarily reflect the

608

official policy or position of any

law firm, company or organization.

609

We make no representations or

warranties regarding the accuracy,

610

completeness, or applicability

of the information presented.

611

Any reliance on the information in

this podcast is at your own risk.

612

Laws are constantly changing

and every situation is unique.

613

You should always seek the advice

of a qualified attorney for

614

your specific legal concerns.

615

Next call.

616

We need some justice, justice, justice.

617

And I wanna ring bells in public.

618

I wanna ring bes in public nor crowd.

619

Yeah, but I To the fo Yeah.

620

I To the fo Yeah.

621

I to the fo fo teaser.