The JudgeMental Podcast – Episode 41: "Put the Shovel Down"

In this episode of The JudgeMental Podcast, hosts Christine and Hugh dive deep into the latest developments surrounding Judge Santry and the controversy over her attendance at a political fundraiser. The discussion unpacks the ethical implications, the judicial response, and the broader issues of accountability in the family court system.

Episode Highlights:

Recap of the motion hour and Judge Santry’s refusal to recuse herself from a case involving a GAL running for public office.

Examination of the judge’s attendance at a campaign fundraiser, the subsequent publication of event photos, and the ethical questions raised.

Analysis of the judicial ethics committee’s opinion and the accuracy (or lack thereof) of the information provided to them.

The importance of transparency and the dangers of self-policing within the judiciary.

Personal reflections from Christine and Hugh on the impact of these events on public trust in the legal system.

A candid discussion about the financial and emotional toll of prolonged litigation on families.

Key Takeaways:

The appearance of bias can be as damaging as actual misconduct, especially in family court.

Self-regulation among judges and legal professionals often falls short of true accountability.

Transparency and full disclosure are essential for maintaining public trust in the judiciary.

The financial costs of legal battles can be devastating for families, often outweighing the issues at stake.

Resources & Links:

The full judicial ethics opinion discussed in this episode will be available in the YouTube comments and notes section.

For more information, merch, and resources, visit judge-y.com or download the judge-y app.

Thank you for listening to The JudgeMental Podcast! If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe, leave a review, and share with others who care about judicial accountability.

Follow us and join the conversation on the judge-y app and 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: Can we be any more disappointed

with Judge Santry than we were last time?

13

Hugh: Yes.

14

In fact we can, and we are,

15

,

I know that I personally am, this seems a little bit different, and

16

so, several things have happened.

17

We attended the motion hour

where she called the motion

18

to alter, amend or vacate her

refusal or her denial of mm-hmm.

19

The original motion to

recuse from the case.

20

Mm-hmm.

21

At that motion hour, she revealed that

she had contacted the judicial ethics

22

committee and received an opinion

that, and I think she said something

23

to the effect of, they unanimously

found that she did nothing wrong.

24

Yes, she did.

25

Which , we immediately found

problematic in and of itself.

26

Yep.

27

Before we even saw.

28

And then she published a written

opinion that doesn't really say

29

much, but it attaches the judicial

ethics opinion after, um mm-hmm.

30

After you challenged

her to, to release it.

31

Release it, and.

32

It has a lot of other problems.

33

So maybe we should start at the

motion hour and sort of walk

34

through the progression of things.

35

Christine: Yeah, you know, the

episode that was released on the

36

last episode, we talked about

what happened at the motion hour.

37

I contacted the ethics commission

and indicated because I was shocked.

38

And then I did ask for her to release

the opinion, which she did, and I think

39

best case scenario in the light, most.

40

Favorable to her.

41

She misled both the ethics hotline

and the court herself, I guess.

42

Hugh: Yeah.

43

So let's, we will take a few steps back.

44

Yeah.

45

As listeners know, judge Santry was

asked to recuse from a case where there is

46

a GAL who is running for a public office.

47

And Judge Santry attended

a fundraiser event.

48

The event published photographs from

that fundraiser event, and one of

49

them was announcing how happy they

are to be kicking off the campaign.

50

And one of the pictures, one

of the prominent pictures is.

51

Judge Santry with several

other attorneys at the event.

52

Now, in and of itself, the fact that she

posed for, you know, she, she's allowed to

53

go to events under certain circumstances.

54

Christine: I don't like judges

going to partisan events.

55

No, I,

56

Hugh: I agree.

57

But there are some limited circumstances,

but there's no doubt that the

58

campaign itself published a picture.

59

With a judge, front and center

announcing its campaign, whether

60

or not the judge had anything to do

with them publishing that picture, I

61

can't imagine that she was consulted

before they put that picture out.

62

'cause they put a picture of

lots of people that were there.

63

Yeah.

64

But the fact is the standard

is whether it creates whether.

65

One might question whether

the judge could be objective.

66

Christine: Yeah, it's

the appearance or unbias.

67

It's a reasonable person.

68

It's,

69

Hugh: yeah, it's about the appearance.

70

It's not about whether

she did anything wrong.

71

The initial order denying recusal,

the judge said this was not a fun

72

said it wasn't a fundraising event,

and so she didn't do anything wrong

73

and she wasn't gonna recuse so.

74

The attorney who had asked for recusal

filed a motion to alter, amend,

75

or vacate, and pointed out that

in fact it was a fundraiser event.

76

And yeah.

77

And

78

Christine: attached the

invitation as the exhibit.

79

Hugh: Yeah.

80

I mean it very clearly and , I

printed off a copy just 'cause I

81

wanted to be really, really clear.

82

Mm-hmm.

83

It says you were invited to a campaign.

84

Kickoff fundraiser suggested

minimum contribution, $50.

85

Now, there's nothing outta

the ordinary about that.

86

That's a typical mm-hmm.

87

I mean, when you're launching

a campaign, that's what you do.

88

So there's nothing outta

the ordinary about that.

89

But it was odd that the judge

specifically made an issue out of

90

it not being a fundraiser when.

91

It was clearly a fundraiser.

92

Yeah.

93

The invitation said it was a fundraiser,

but , I guess we kind of were able

94

to write that off as maybe, you

know, that she just didn't remember.

95

I don't know.

96

But that, that was

problematic in and of itself.

97

But then the next motion gets filed and

it reveals that the judge took the mic.

98

Yeah.

99

At this event.

100

Now, that in and of itself, I think

is problematic with the rules of

101

ethical conduct for judges, but.

102

It just heightens this appearance

that, I mean, if you're speaking

103

at a candidate's event, a partisan

political candidate's event, right,

104

who is practicing and representing

people in your court in front of you.

105

In a case that creates this appearance,

yeah's just no way to avoid it.

106

Christine: Yeah.

107

And I just, I mean, when was the

last time you went to a political

108

event that you weren't support?

109

Like I think the appearance of going to

an event means, you know what I mean?

110

That you are supporting that candidate.

111

I mean, are, are

112

Hugh: you asking me the last time

I went to a political event for

113

a candidate I didn't support?

114

Yeah.

115

Never.

116

Okay.

117

Ever.

118

Now,

119

Christine: I will say like with judge-y

and let's play devil's advocate.

120

I will go speak anywhere anyone invites

me to talk about judicial accountability.

121

Agreed.

122

I will go and I will talk about it.

123

And I have gone and I have talked

to people, I've taken meetings with

124

people on both sides of the aisle.

125

That's You're promoting something?

126

Yeah.

127

Hugh: So Judge Santry is up for election

128

I think, is that right?

129

So it's not really plausible that.

130

She is campaigning for herself here.

131

Christine: Right.

132

And on top of all of it, it's,

it, this is the tale as old as

133

time or as old as Nixon, LOL.

134

The coverup is always worse than

the crime, and we 100% have, in my

135

opinion, lies by omission if not

blatant outright lying from the bench.

136

Hugh: Yeah.

137

I mean, that's a strong

statement, but I also, I have

138

to agree and here, here is why.

139

So as we talked about, we went in

person to motion hour in division

140

two on Monday, this past Monday.

141

And we went to hear

how this argument went.

142

Yeah.

143

Because there were new details

released and my understanding is.

144

The issue with the judge taking the

mic at, at this event might've been

145

known earlier, but the judge knew it

and , I think honestly, attorney Green

146

was giving the judge an easy out.

147

Yep.

148

Is saying, you kind of know you did this,

maybe you should step back and I don't

149

wanna have to bring up all the details.

150

The next filing 19 pages

went through the details.

151

Mm-hmm.

152

Like the fact that the judge spoke

into a mic at this political event for

153

a partisan political candidate and.,

154

Attorney Green has already said that

she called the ethics hotline and they

155

told her to file the motion to recuse.

156

Yep.

157

Well, the judge called a separate

commission for, and so the judges

158

have a similar resource Yeah.

159

To attorneys.

160

Attorneys have a ethical hotline

they can call with ethical

161

questions and get guidance.

162

The judges have the judicial conduct

committee that they can call.

163

And, oh, sorry.

164

The judicial ethics committee.

165

I didn't want 'em to speak that.

166

They can call and pose a

hypothetical and get an opinion

167

Christine: and, and this is where

it gets, and that this is why

168

we demanded that she release it.

169

'cause when I called the ethics

commission, they said pursuant to their

170

policy, they, it was confidential.

171

They can.

172

Neither confirm nor deny that somebody

had sought an opinion, and the only

173

person that could release the opinion

was the judge that requested an opinion

174

if an opinion had been requested.

175

Yep.

176

And Shelly attached it, and I

had a, I did, I had an emotional

177

reaction to reading this.

178

Yep.

179

It's extraordinarily upsetting.

180

It reminds me of my days

as a public defender.

181

Where a prosecutor is, it's like, do

you swear to tell the truth, the whole

182

truth, and nothing but the truth?

183

You know what I mean?

184

But they didn't tell the whole truth.

185

Like, not even close to the whole truth.

186

Hugh: Yeah.

187

So in the very first, I mean, the

problems start in the very first

188

paragraph of the November 2nd opinion

from the judicial ethics committee.

189

Yeah.

190

Which we can make available on

our, when we publish this YouTube

191

Christine: Yep.

192

Our YouTube under the comment

section and the notes section.

193

Hugh: Yep.

194

So.

195

It says and this is, so it

says, thank you for contacting

196

the judicial ethics Committee.

197

In an email to the committee,

you state that you are currently

198

presiding over a divorce proceeding.

199

.... Carpenter filed a motion for you to

recuse from any further consideration

200

of the matter because of your attendance

at a friends and family event.

201

In support of attorney Melina

Herrachatti campaign for

202

Kentucky State representative.

203

So recall that.

204

The first motion for the judge to

recuse stated that the atten, the judge

205

attended an event, the first order.

206

Denying the recusal made a distinction

about it not being a fundraising event.

207

Christine: Yeah.

208

Hugh: The follow-up motion clearly

contained the invitation that

209

says that is a kickoff fundraiser.

210

You attended a fundraiser event,

you know it was a fundraiser.

211

So then after that gets filed

on October 27th, on November

212

2nd, it looks like oh, it said.

213

Well, that's interesting.

214

What's that?

215

This said that she filed, well,

it doesn't say when the judge

216

sent the email to the commission.

217

It sounded from when we were in court.

218

The judge made it sound like

it had just happened very.

219

Very recently.

220

Christine: Well, I think what happened is

the judge presented this fact pattern and

221

the judge said, I don't think the judicial

ethics hotline would've used the words

222

family and friends, or friends and family.

223

No, I think that

224

Hugh: came from the judge because it's

225

Christine: in quotes

226

Hugh: and it's very, yeah,

it's in, and that is a

227

Christine: blatant, there is

no other way to look at it.

228

That is a lie.

229

That is a dishonest statement.

230

It was not a friends and family event.

231

It was a fundraiser.

232

Hugh: The Fri friends and family

are not mentioned anywhere.

233

No.

234

On this.

235

Invitation?

236

No, this is a kickoff fundraiser.

237

Christine: And so this is where we've

talked about on previous episodes.

238

My problem with a lot of family

law attorneys is the way that

239

they can position, or that they

can word things in a certain kind

240

of way to be very misleading.

241

This is extraordinarily misleading

because what happened was

242

Shelly Santry attended a partisan

fundraising event for A GAL and took

243

Hugh: the mic.

244

Christine: I mean, whether she

took the mic or not, that matters,

245

but it, it absolutely matters.

246

But just saying it's a friends

and family political event.

247

No, it was a partisan fundraiser.

248

Hugh: Yeah.

249

Christine: That is

literally what it, it was.

250

Hugh: Yeah.

251

So, so I take issue

with a couple of things.

252

Number one.

253

The judge's statement that the commission

said, I didn't do anything wrong.

254

No one is saying you did anything wrong,

specifically, and, and it's not that

255

she didn't, but that's not the standard.

256

The standard is if it creates an

appearance that she may be biased and

257

whether she published that picture or not.

258

If that appearance is made, we have

clearly have a party that's very

259

uncomfortable with seeing that picture

of her judge appearing at an event for

260

the GAL who may be adverse to her case.

261

Christine: Well, that's

where we get into the second.

262

Probably LIE on the record from the

judge is because the judge said on the

263

record that she had a unanimous opinion

that she didn't do anything wrong.

264

And I'm paraphrasing, I think

she actually said the verbiage,

265

I didn't do anything wrong.

266

I know it was something to that effect.

267

Yep.

268

We'll pull the tape, but

the opinion makes no.

269

Statement on whether or not the

judge did anything right or wrong?

270

No, that's right.

271

It's posed with a fact pattern

that, in my opinion, was not

272

accurate to begin with exactly.

273

And says that a mere appearance at

a political event is not enough for

274

recusal like a political event for

the GAL is not enough for recusal.

275

Hugh: It says.

276

At a friends and family event you

know, this, this opinion is based

277

on a fact pattern that is, you know,

looking at the facts in the light.

278

Most favorable to the judge here.

279

Christine: Yep.

280

Hugh: Is.

281

Horribly incomplete.

282

Even, even , if it's not an outright

lie, it is terribly incomplete because

283

it doesn't say it's a fundraiser.

284

Yeah.

285

Where it's clearly a fundraiser.

286

So it also doesn't say that the judge

spoke at that event and it doesn't,

287

it doesn't mention the fact of how

the picture of the judge was used to

288

announce the kickoff of the event.

289

Yeah.

290

Which regardless of whether the judge had

any control over it, that's immaterial.

291

It creates, and it could be, , it

can be a third party that

292

creates the appearance because of

something the judge actually did.

293

Exactly.

294

It is not about whether the judge did

anything unethical in that circumstance,

295

and I've had multiple times, that I

can remember in my career where an

296

angry family member of a litigant

posts some things about personal,

297

about a judge on social media, and then

tries to get the judge into a social

298

media fight, and it creates an issue.

299

And the judge didn't ask for it.

300

Right?

301

Right.

302

But it creates an appearance and

the judges have had to recuse , and

303

those kinds of things happen.

304

And it doesn't mean the

judge did anything wrong.

305

Christine: Well, and it goes even

further is it seems that Shelly was so.

306

This can't be the first

time that this has happened.

307

This seems very calculated.

308

She gave the ethics commission the

information that she wanted to give them.

309

It wasn't objective, Hey,

here are all the things.

310

It was very much like if you

know your significant other.

311

Is messing around on you, and

all they say is like, oh, I

312

stopped after work to have a beer.

313

Well, you left out that

your side chick was there.

314

Do you know what I'm saying?

315

It's a lie by omission.

316

Hugh: No, no, I agree.

317

It also, you know, one of the things

that it, it doesn't say anything

318

about the motion that was filed

being included with the email.

319

How easy would it have been to,

320

Christine: well, she said on the record

that she included the motion, but,

321

so I wonder if she included the first

motion, but then she didn't include

322

the follow up that said she spoke and,

323

Hugh: and that it was a

clearly a fundraising event.

324

Christine: Yeah, and so that's

where I'm like, I actually, and

325

I feel an ethical obligation.

326

I probably will send the affidavit

and the motion, the follow up motion.

327

To the ethics hotline, but I, if Shelly,

Shelly was a prosecutor in my public

328

defender days, I told you this before,

this reminds me of those prosecutors

329

that aren't telling everything.

330

And I really think that like 10 of her

random cases, because prosecutors have

331

an ethical obligation to bring forth what

we call exculpatory evidence, and that's.

332

Anything that could be favorable

to the defendant, okay?

333

Mm-hmm.

334

It doesn't mean innocence.

335

It's favorable to the defendant.

336

That's the test.

337

And we had a major problem in this

country where prosecutors weren't

338

turning over that evidence, like, and

that's a huge problem still to this day.

339

Not all prosecutors obviously, but

this reminds me so much of that, like

340

I did have an emotional response.

341

I can't recall ever.

342

To this date being as disappointed

in any of the family court judges as

343

I was to read that judicial ethics

opinion and the way Shelly painted it.

344

I'm serious.

345

Hugh: Okay.

346

, I, I get the analogy that if.

347

If this is happening here, what else

is out there and how do we find out?

348

Christine: And the notion to just

defend yourself at all costs,

349

like it's so bizarre to me.

350

Like why do these judges and FOCs

and GALs, and this is going off

351

on a tangent we'll talk about on

another podcast, whenever someone

352

asked them to remove, they take it.

353

So personally, like when I was a

public defender, I'd have clients

354

that didn't get along with me.

355

You know what I mean?

356

And we, I wouldn't fight with them.

357

We could reassign them to

someone else in the office.

358

You can't take everything so personal

and like, it's like a battle, you know?

359

And that's where so many people

that practice family law just

360

don't have experience in other

avenues, but this family.

361

Literally the $20,000 probably fighting

about the recusal at a minimum.

362

And both of these individuals, I wanna be

clear, they live in an apartment and not

363

that there's anything wrong with that.

364

There's one child between them, but

the amount of money that they have

365

spent in litigation between third

party FOCs GALs now recusal, I mean,

366

it's probably enough if they put it

into an account, it would pay for

367

their child's college with interest.

368

Hmm.

369

Am I wrong?

370

Hugh: Not saying you're wrong.

371

Christine: I mean, and

Shelly, I don't know.

372

I'm very disappointed.

373

, It breaks my heart to some degree and I

did, again, I donated to her campaign.

374

Like I never in a million years

thought that she was someone

375

that would withhold the truth.

376

Hugh: Yeah.

377

I mean, it's interesting, you

know, I'm interested in the

378

judicial ethics committee's.

379

Statements and the way that they

found that there was no issue even

380

with the incomplete factual Yeah.

381

Scenario because it talks about, you know,

Canon four rule four A, there, there're

382

these judicial, what they call canons,

they're the ethical rules and how a judge

383

should has to conduct his or herself.

384

We have a rule that allows

judges to attend and speak

385

at gatherings, but only on.

386

So there's a specific part that allows

judges to attend political events and

387

speak when they are running, when they

are either a candidate or they are

388

currently a judge running again and

they can speak on their own behalf,

389

Christine: like on their own.

390

So when I ran for judge, like I could

go to a Democratic event, I could go to

391

a Republican event to promote Christine

Miller, not to promote the D's or the R's.

392

It was that is.

393

Not the rule means when you're a

candidate, like if you're a sitting

394

judge that's running for reelection

or you're a current judicial

395

candidate, you're allowed to go to

political events to promote yourself

396

because you're running for election.

397

This is insanely different and it's

frustrated that it's even like this

398

is a kind of bait and switch to me.

399

This is not even remotely close

to what the facts lay out.

400

Hugh: No, it's not, in,

in the ethics committee.

401

You know, puts in bold this, this part

about the judge is allowed to go to

402

things to promote him, her, herself.

403

Christine: Yeah.

404

Hugh: And that they need to be very

careful in not creating the appearance

405

that their attendance at that event

is promoting the, either the cause

406

that the events being held for, or the

candidate that is holding the event.

407

Mm-hmm.

408

But instead the judge herself.

409

As a candidate or someone

running for judge.

410

Yeah.

411

And we know that that's not happening.

412

She's not campaigning for judge right now.

413

And it is not she wasn't, you know, in

the, in the pictures at this campaign,

414

she wasn't wearing a Santry for judge.

415

She wasn't there promoting

her own campaign.

416

No.

417

And I find it very

interesting that they really.

418

Keep reiterating that the judge can

attend, and speak on their own behalf.

419

Christine: We just have a real

problem, and , this is why we judgey

420

started and this is why we have so

many people in this country that have

421

lost faith in the judicial system,

is that self-policing industries.

422

Organizations.

423

It doesn't fucking work.

424

It's not, it doesn't work.

425

Like you shouldn't be policing

yourself in a professional setting.

426

There's like literally no oversight.

427

The people that are issuing

these, the judicial ethics hotline

428

or whatever, it's like three

judges I think, and an attorney.

429

And then you got the judicial Conduct

Commission, which is full of judges

430

and then one political appointment.

431

It's like, no, there needs to be

legitimate accountability and.

432

The role of the judiciary is not to

make people's lives more difficult, more

433

conflict, any of that kind of stuff.

434

And it seems that we get hundreds

of stories a day from all different

435

avenues where the judges are the

ones exacerbating the conflict, which

436

is, you know, that's the same thing

with the woman that was arrested.

437

I wish that wasn't

438

Hugh: true, but it is.

439

It is remarkable how much we get.

440

Across the country and including

we've, we've have international

441

things that we hear about.

442

Mm-hmm.

443

And that's a whole other world

that , we don't know enough about

444

to get into, but across the United

States about this kind of stuff.

445

You know, back to the ethics

opinion one more time.

446

It talks about specifically,

nor did you speak on behalf of

447

attorney Hetterachi's behalf.

448

It says it in there.

449

So either they missed that.

450

Part where she took the mic in the

motion or the motion wasn't part

451

of this, but you know, I think

it would be, it would be nice.

452

I, I would be very interested to know

453

Christine: what, well, did she

take the mic and like dance a jig?

454

Did she, why did she have

the mic in the first place?

455

Hugh: But if you're speaking at an

event, if you are contributing to

456

the furtherance of that event, I

don't see how that doesn't create.

457

Appearance , and the ethics opinion

clearly says these prohibit prohibitions

458

are in place to prevent the judge or

judicial, judicial candidates from

459

abusing the prestige of judicial office

to advance the interests of others.

460

Yeah.

461

But nothing in these rules prohibits

a judicial candidate from campaigning

462

on the candidate's own behalf,

so it makes a clear distinction.

463

Yeah.

464

If the judge was there on her own behalf

for her own campaign, that would be okay.

465

In any way appearing to endorse or

to be helping a, a partisan candidate

466

in their own campaign, because

you're a judge, that's prohibited.

467

Christine: Yeah.

468

I mean it's just basically , have

your cake and eat it too, and clearly.

469

Clearly it was the intent of the

candidate to utilize this photo with

470

the judge to further her own campaign.

471

As, I mean, as she should do, she's

running for office, she's trying to win.

472

She should surround herself with

people that have already been elected.

473

Now, Shelly's never won

a contested election.

474

She was appointed and then ran

re unopposed, but it helps your

475

political clout to be next to

other elected officials, period.

476

Hugh: And then, yeah, , so

to make it clear.

477

Not taking issue at all with the campaign

posting, any of these pictures, like

478

posting pictures of who attends your

event, especially if they're, if they

479

are prominent people or whatever, that's

naturally something you're going to do.

480

Christine: What

481

knowing that you take, how much

money does her law firm make based

482

on appointments from that judge?

483

$50,000 a year, and then the private

appointments another $50,000 a year.

484

She also, as a candidate, she still

has her ethical obligations as an

485

attorney, but that's in the case.

486

Hugh: I would think those ethical

obligations would, you know, to

487

the extent that they're triggered,

would require recuse or, you know,

488

stepping aside from those cases.

489

But if a judge attended your event.

490

I don't know that that's related to

whether you posted the picture of that.

491

Christine: No, I, I mean, I don't

think she did anything unethical by

492

posting the picture, but I think it's

not looking at the big picture and

493

then her still staying on the case it's

problematic all around and I'd love to

494

know, I would love to know her law firm.

495

And people send me bills.

496

How much money is she making

based on her being appointed

497

regularly out of Shelley's court?

498

Is it over six figures a year?

499

Hugh: Yeah.

500

I mean, and the fact that she's

getting those appointments,

501

there's nothing wrong with that.

502

But if the judge who's regularly

appointing you to do things in court.

503

Appears at your campaign event.

504

How is that not an endorsement?

505

This is, yeah, right.

506

I'm here for the person that

I think is good enough to

507

represent kids in my division.

508

Right.

509

How is that?

510

How is that possibly looked at as neutral?

511

Is it?

512

And it is never alleged that

they just ran into each other.

513

You know, no.

514

Judge Santry just happened to be at

the same restaurant bar as the event,

515

and she came over and said hi and

happened to have her picture made.

516

Christine: Yeah.

517

It's an embarrassment to our profession.

518

All, all around.

519

It's just.

520

You know, I don't think these

judges have any business going

521

to these sort of campaign events.

522

I've got a problem with the way they

spend their time, you know, a lot of

523

the time going to all these events

and just, you know, it's a career

524

politician type thing when, you know,

a lot of the dockets are a mess.

525

I think Shelly's is in pretty good order.

526

All it's in

527

Hugh: really good order.

528

Christine: Well, I, I don't know

though, at this point, I really think

529

that, you know, it'd be, it appears to

me that Shelly's pretty good at smoke

530

and mirrors and saying one thing and.

531

You know, that motion hour we were sitting

there and she knew we were there and she

532

could have been putting a show on for us.

533

'cause I'm starting to get more

and more and more complaints

534

about stuff out of her courtroom.

535

But I think too, if you look at, I've done

a deep dive into this case, and I think

536

if you look at even some of the orders,

it's, I struggle to make sense of it.

537

Hugh: Hmm.

538

Yeah.

539

I, personal

540

Christine: opinion,

541

Hugh: I just, I still maintain my

original position that, you know, the

542

attorney who filed the initial motion.

543

May not have gone into huge

detail as a favor to the judge.

544

Yeah.

545

To not pick an, a fight with a judge and

say, judge, just take the easy way out.

546

This is something that, you know,

you need to be off of this case.

547

Yeah.

548

And the judge had a very.

549

Bad emotional, what?

550

Seemingly childish.

551

I know you are, but what

am my reaction to it?

552

Yep.

553

And,

554

Christine: and just try defending herself.

555

That's, and

556

Hugh: then, well, that's right.

557

And then , the attorney came back

and said, okay, well here's the

558

details that I left out, you know,

that didn't want to have to get

559

into, but here are the details.

560

And you know, . The way

that Judge Santry.

561

Handled it at motion hour was

not she didn't seem angry.

562

She didn't seem, you know, at

motion hour it was what it, it

563

was very different than order.

564

You weren't in the same motion

hour that I was, but it was.

565

I know she acted

566

Christine: like a child.

567

It was an embarrassment, and she

reiterated that she wasn't mad again.

568

And I Yeah, that's true.

569

I believe that at a minimum there

should be an ethics violation for

570

the information that she provided

to the Judicial Ethics Commission,

571

quite frankly, and I feel obligated

to and will be filing a complaint

572

with the Judicial Conduct Commission.

573

Hugh: Okay,

574

Christine: judge y.com.

575

Y'all want some merch?

576

Bye.

577

Hugh: See ya.

578

Speaker 3: Content of this

podcast is for informational

579

and entertainment purposes only.

580

It is not intended to be and should

not be construed as legal advice.

581

Engaging with this content does not create

an attorney-client relationship between

582

you and the hosts, guests, or their firms.

583

The views and opinions expressed

on this podcast are solely those

584

of the individuals involved and

do not necessarily reflect the

585

official policy or position of any

law firm, company or organization.

586

We make no representations or

warranties regarding the accuracy,

587

completeness, or applicability

of the information presented.

588

Any reliance on the information in

this podcast is at your own risk.

589

Laws are constantly changing

and every situation is unique.

590

You should always seek the advice

of a qualified attorney for

591

your specific legal concerns.

592

Next call.

593

We need some justice, justice, justice.

594

And I wanna ring bells in public.

595

I wanna ring bes in public nor crowd.

596

Yeah, but I To the fo Yeah.

597

I To the fo Yeah.

598

I to the fo fo teaser.

599

The content of this podcast

is for informational and

600

entertainment purposes only.

601

It is not intended to be and should

not be construed as legal advice.

602

Engaging with this content does not create

an attorney-client relationship between

603

you and the hosts, guests, or their firms.

604

The views and opinions expressed

on this podcast are solely those

605

of the individuals involved and

do not necessarily reflect the

606

official policy or position of any

law firm, company, or organization.

607

We make no representations or

warranties regarding the accuracy,

608

completeness, or applicability

of the information presented.

609

If any reliance on the information

in this podcast is at your own

610

risk, laws are constantly changing

and every situation is unique.

611

You should always seek the advice

of a qualified attorney for

612

your specific legal concerns.