Episode 17

full
Published on:

28th Aug 2025

EP 15 Shady Dealings

The Judgemental Podcast – Episode 15: "Shady Dealings"

Hosts: Hugh & Christine

Summary:

In this episode, Hugh and Christine dive deep into recent developments in Louisville’s family and district courts, focusing on judicial accountability, transparency, and the controversial practices surrounding Friends of Court (FOCs) and the Adair vs. Emberton case.

Key Topics:

  • Courtroom attendance and judicial roll call: Observations on which courts and judges are showing up and which are not.
  • Listener feedback: Real-time reports from court attendees via the Judge-y app, highlighting late dockets and delays.
  • The Adair vs. Emberton case:
  • What the case means for FOCs, their required reports, and due process rights for litigants.
  • Concerns about FOCs and judges allegedly coordinating to bypass statutory requirements.
  • The importance of the 10-day rule for FOC reports and the right to cross-examine.
  • Discussion of whether attorneys can or should waive these rights for their clients.
  • Due process in family law:
  • Examples of hearings lacking proper notice, preparation, or sworn testimony.
  • The impact on pro se litigants and the broader implications for justice.
  • Audience engagement:
  • Listeners are encouraged to share their stories if they’ve been asked to waive Adair vs. Emberton, especially without proper client consultation.
  • Call for transparency and adherence to the law from all court participants.

Notable Quotes:

  • “Let’s not come up with plans to circumvent the law out of convenience. Let’s follow the law. Let’s give parents their due process rights.”
  • “If there has been some sort of coordination with the judges and the FOCs to find a way to waive a Kentucky statute that is there to protect parents... that’s frightening as hell.”
  • “Due process, in the simplest terms, is just notice and an opportunity to be heard.”

Calls to Action:

  • Submit your stories to Judge-y if you’ve been asked to waive Adair vs. Emberton or have experienced questionable court practices.
  • Follow Judge-y on Instagram and tag the show in viral clips.

Links:

Thank you for listening!

Transcript
Speaker:

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

:

Welcome to the Judgmental podcast.

14

:

Let's get right into it.

15

:

We were down at court yesterday, Tuesday.

16

:

We did judicial roll call twice

per usual, district court not

17

:

showing up like they should be, huh?

18

:

Hugh: Yeah,

19

:

Christine: I mean there was a lot

of, a lot of activity on one floor.

20

:

Hugh: Then

21

:

Christine: Then nothing really

happened on another floor.

22

:

The, the first floor actually

finally had some activity.

23

:

' Hugh: cause we're using

one of the courtrooms

24

:

Christine: a jury room while they

remodeled the one over in the

25

:

hall of in the judicial center.

26

:

Oh yeah.

27

:

That was like a total trick.

28

:

I just think district court

literally is operating with

29

:

courtrooms at half capacity, period.

30

:

End of story most days.

31

:

Oh, it seems like it.

32

:

I mean, every, I mean, everything

about that building seems

33

:

like it's, barely running.

34

:

You had the help desk, you have

two different help desks there.

35

:

One's been shut down every time

we've been in there, the escalators

36

:

are shut down and never work.

37

:

Mm-hmm.

38

:

You've got floors that are pretty

much dark and all the doors locked

39

:

and you've got, you know, basically

half the courtrooms if that.

40

:

And some of the judges were on the bench

both in the morning and the afternoon,

41

:

but it seemed like a lot of 'em switched.

42

:

I think there were two judges

actually, and now one of the judges,

43

:

I think that was the first time

we've ever seen her on the bench.

44

:

I wanna verify that before

we say her name out loud.

45

:

Yeah.

46

:

But I was really happy with Circuit Court.

47

:

I think 11 out of 13 at

:

48

:

Like there certainly we get a lot of.

49

:

About from attorneys, I think or

people that are in the court system

50

:

and other jurisdictions, like, just

because they're not on the bench

51

:

doesn't mean they're not working.

52

:

You and I have obviously

said that:

53

:

podcast, you know what I mean?

54

:

Yeah.

55

:

But generally speaking, I think in

particular Mondays and Tuesdays,

56

:

most courtrooms should be open most

of given the way, the structure of

57

:

how courts work here in Louisville.

58

:

Yeah.

59

:

No, I, I can't disagree with that.

60

:

I was impressed with the

Circuit court, uh mm-hmm.

61

:

Family court.

62

:

Hugh: It

63

:

Christine: It was about like

last time we were there.

64

:

Yep.

65

:

Half 70%.

66

:

Half and a half, yeah.

67

:

Oh, 70% of family.

68

:

Yeah.

69

:

Was that a,

70

:

Hugh: go ahead.

71

:

Christine: Oh, I was gonna say, the

other thing though too is they have

72

:

all of these confidential dockets.

73

:

And so we can't see how the judge

is, like, what time the judge

74

:

is actually getting to court.

75

:

We actually got a message on our Judge-y

today, like I'm sitting outside the TikTok

76

:

judge and she's late and it's like, I

think that's happening all the time.

77

:

Like 8:30am dockets are

,:

78

:

Which unacceptable.

79

:

Well, we, We've heard now in 24

hours from three different people,

80

:

in fact, they have been waiting

since the early morning docket.

81

:

And we spoke to a gentleman

yesterday who was sitting there,

82

:

oh, what was it, one 30 ish?

83

:

Yeah.

84

:

And he had been there since

the morning docket and,

85

:

Hugh: and you know, just

86

:

Christine: sitting there

waiting to be called.

87

:

And the, we've been hearing

that the dockets have been

88

:

starting eight 30 docket.

89

:

Actually the cases start being called in

to:

90

:

Didn't arrive until then.

91

:

Right.

92

:

And that's just all in the last two days.

93

:

We, we received another message

from someone about being

94

:

over on one of the dockets.

95

:

So we, we get, we get messages from

people that are sitting over in

96

:

court and are messaging Judge-y.

97

:

So, which is amazing.

98

:

And the fact that so many people

are like waiting to go into court

99

:

and like watching us, like, I mean,

judges just pay attention to this.

100

:

Go to work.

101

:

Like that's the easy part.

102

:

Go to work.

103

:

Which I think kind of segues into,

you know, I've talked a little about

104

:

this on my personal page, but we felt

like something was happening last

105

:

Monday when we were in court, right?

106

:

for sure.

107

:

Oh, there was no doubt.

108

:

So we heard multiple references to waiving

Adair, which is Adair versus Emberton.

109

:

case that came out in

July of:

110

:

Reiterates what the law already said

about FOCs and their role and what

111

:

they have to do, and that they have

to file the report 10 days ahead of

112

:

time before they can advise the court.

113

:

There's a right cross-examine the FOC.

114

:

And so we saw FOCs appearing at motion

hour, but refusing to actually speak

115

:

about their opinion, which is par for,

I mean, what is nor what the normal

116

:

thing at a motion hour is the court.

117

:

Ask the FOC what they

think about the motion.

118

:

Yeah.

119

:

Yeah.

120

:

And they just don't file

the, they don't get sworn in.

121

:

They don't file a report.

122

:

And that happened all the time.

123

:

We've seen a change.

124

:

And that part, I think, you

know, that there's actually

125

:

a change to it is fantastic.

126

:

The change that we saw, however

is, is quite concerning.

127

:

Yeah, absolutely.

128

:

Well, I think we were in Angela Johnson's

courtroom and it was an FOC and of course

129

:

Angela looks to the FOC says something.

130

:

Well, this FOC was like.

131

:

Your Honor, Emberton hasn't been

waived, I think was her exact verbiage.

132

:

And then we saw in three division three

for sure, and then also in division

133

:

five about we're waiving Adair.

134

:

It was almost like it was a talking

point, like there had been some

135

:

sort of meeting or something where

this was gonna be the new strategy.

136

:

Yeah, I, that's what I thought.

137

:

I was very interested in that too.

138

:

The similar language being

used by multiple FOCs.

139

:

Tells me that there's been some

sort of communication, some sort

140

:

of a meeting you know, where been

guidance maybe from the courts.

141

:

I don't know.

142

:

It's concerning though, because the

rights in Emberton are set out very

143

:

clearly in the Kentucky revised statutes.

144

:

Like this is not, this

is not just a local rule.

145

:

These aren't just procedural things.

146

:

The FOC has to file a report 10 days

before advising the court of what they

147

:

feel is in the child's best interest.

148

:

They don't get to show up for motion hour.

149

:

They don't get to show up and, and.

150

:

Advise the court without being

sworn in and without having filed

151

:

that report, which is the way that

they've been treated for so long.

152

:

yeah, and it's like, I don't think

people don't understand fully,

153

:

even me, when I was practicing,

like I didn't use a lot of FOCs.

154

:

I'm not a fan of FOCs.

155

:

I know there are attorneys that are

big fans and it's an, and I think that,

156

:

you know, when I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

157

:

I think that if it's done

appropriately, properly and

158

:

thoroughly, I could see an avenue

for where it would be really helpful.

159

:

this is for all the listeners too.

160

:

This is literally your case.

161

:

Like you literally appealed this case

and yes, you are the one that got, and

162

:

this was a case that when it came out, I

remember I did a TikTok on it and it kind

163

:

of blew up because it was Brian Gatewood

and just the demeanor to to the litigants

164

:

was in and of itself a but FOCs are

fact witnesses, They're fact witnesses.

165

:

they are supposed to investigate what is

in the child's best interest, correct?

166

:

Yes.

167

:

That's what the statute says.

168

:

And they're supposed, yeah.

169

:

And they're supposed to issue a

report and give it to everyone.

170

:

And I think the rule, like the KRI

statute says it has to actually be

171

:

properly filed with the circuit clerk.

172

:

Right.

173

:

Am I right on that?

174

:

Actually, the clerk is supposed to send

it out to the, to the parties or to the,

175

:

yeah, to the, to the litigants after it's

filed It's clear from the legislative

176

:

intent that the purpose of this FOC

role is to get something in writing.

177

:

That way the court has something to look

at to make recommendations, but yet all

178

:

of the attorneys and people involved

have the ability to cross-examine

179

:

and to investigate the investigator.

180

:

Right.

181

:

Yeah.

182

:

I mean, I think the idea is that

183

:

Hugh: fact

184

:

Christine: family law cases

are very fact specific.

185

:

They're very different than,

let's say, a contract dispute.

186

:

Or a slip and fall that you, I mean,

they, they involve sometimes years

187

:

and years of, you know, there'll be

therapists, there'll be doctors, there'll

188

:

be, there'll be all kinds of things.

189

:

And it's difficult for courts to

make those findings of fact on

190

:

their own, just from the contents

of, of testimony, a hearings.

191

:

So I understand the theory behind

it that you have someone appointed.

192

:

then can advise the court.

193

:

But because they are advising the

court on facts and giving a a, a

194

:

recommendation under the best interest

of the child, there are very clear

195

:

due process rights at stake there.

196

:

So this is someone that's, that's making

factual findings almost for the court.

197

:

I mean, they're, they're

proposing certain things.

198

:

The courts usually go along with them.

199

:

So due process says you have

a right to cross examinee.

200

:

And it's very clear from the statute

that the, the friend of court has

201

:

to, has to give the names of the

sources of the in information, and

202

:

it gives the parties a right to call

and cross examine the sources of that

203

:

information as well as the So, yeah.

204

:

And the 10 day rule is so

important because that allows

205

:

each parent the time to prepare.

206

:

And that's what these FOCs weren't doing.

207

:

Sometimes they were filing it in

cases like day of if they filed it

208

:

at all, if they filed it at all.

209

:

And.

210

:

I, I, I remember when I started

raising, you know, objections when

211

:

things were filed a day or two before

the hearing or on the day, and I'd

212

:

file a motion to strike, or I'd make

a motion in limine to strike it.

213

:

And, oh, man, people would get

so annoyed, including the judges,

214

:

they'd get so annoyed that, well,

this would be really helpful to me.

215

:

Well, don't care if it's harmful

to my client, and it hasn't given

216

:

me the opportunity to prepare.

217

:

And it wasn't filed within the 10 days.

218

:

It needs to be stricken.

219

:

And I, I don't know, it seems

like they're, they're still

220

:

trying to get around that now.

221

:

The FOCs are apparently asking people

to waive their rights under Emberton,

222

:

which is interesting because the

Emberton decision states very clearly a

223

:

party may not waive his or her right of

cross-examination prior to the hearing.

224

:

So.

225

:

I want to know what they are asking people

to do prior to the hearing by sending

226

:

out emails, asking if they will waive

Emberton so that the friend of court

227

:

doesn't have to file a report and can

just show up at a motion hour or hearing

228

:

and give, give a report to the court.

229

:

Exactly like so when we first heard

it, it's like, well, your Honor, they

230

:

haven't waived Emberton, but I wonder

if the next move, and I think this

231

:

is, this is a gut feeling mixed with.

232

:

Some information that we have

gotten from a plethora of people.

233

:

My favorite word, but like there

is something percolating where

234

:

they are trying to not have to file

a report and they are working in

235

:

an orchestrated manner to do so.

236

:

Yeah.

237

:

And I find that to just be a radical

notion, to think that instead of just

238

:

doing the job, which the statute, if I'm

right, it says the FOC shall file, right?

239

:

Yeah.

240

:

You gotta file a report.

241

:

Yeah.

242

:

It has to file a report.

243

:

And so I don't even know one, if

these attorneys have the capability

244

:

of waiving that for their client.

245

:

Like I, that makes me nervous

to think an attorney would ever

246

:

do that in the first place.

247

:

Right?

248

:

Yeah.

249

:

I mean, from my point of view, if you're

an attorney and you're asked to waive

250

:

this and you haven't had a very specific

conversation with your client about

251

:

this is what we're giving up, if this

person shows up and says something.

252

:

I don't get to cross examine.

253

:

I don't get to know the sources.

254

:

I don't get to review the materials or the

notes ahead of time unless the attorney

255

:

has had that conversation with their

client and they say, oh yeah, that's fine.

256

:

We'll waive Adair Emberton.

257

:

I don't know how that's not malpractice.

258

:

I don't know how.

259

:

Oh, yeah.

260

:

The attorney should not be liable if

the case then goes against their client.

261

:

I mean, I think that

creates a huge problem.

262

:

It was the first time we saw it.

263

:

So I wonder if they're gonna try

to get clients to waive Emberton at

264

:

every motion hour or if they're trying

to look for like a blanket waiver.

265

:

I mean, it's problematic either way,

and it would have to be, I frankly,

266

:

I don't think it can be done.

267

:

I don't think you can waive a

due process, right, like this.

268

:

It's by statute and by case law.

269

:

Yeah.

270

:

I mean, it's the law twice now.

271

:

I mean.

272

:

Gary 4, 3, 300 sets out the,

the rules for, for FOCs and

273

:

the, and the report requirement.

274

:

Emerton versus Adair

didn't create anything new.

275

:

It just basically said, follow the law.

276

:

Here's what the law clearly requires.

277

:

Here's the number of ways that

the court in that particular

278

:

case didn't follow the law.

279

:

And it says you can't waive the right

to cross-examine prior to a hearing.

280

:

So if an attorney is asked if

they would waive Emberton at

281

:

a motion hour and they've not

discussed it with their client.

282

:

And they waive it.

283

:

The client's not even there.

284

:

I, I don't know.

285

:

I, I think that creates a huge problem

for the practitioner, but I, but I, I

286

:

also think that we have a, something

that to me is very, very troubling.

287

:

And if there has been some sort of

coordination with the judges and the

288

:

FOCs to find a way to waive a, a Kentucky

statute that is there to protect parents.

289

:

waive the actual law and case law that

came down and said, you can't waive this.

290

:

And now if we have judges and FOCs

coming up with a scheme in order

291

:

to do that, which I don't know

that that's happened, it was just.

292

:

It was just amazing how many people

were using the exact same language and

293

:

how the procedure had just changed so

dramatically in multiple motion hours.

294

:

That, that's, that's frightening

as hell Well, it's, I mean, to me

295

:

it's, I'll use the word, I mean, if.

296

:

There actually is a meeting and there is

an attempt to have a meeting of the minds.

297

:

It's a conspiracy.

298

:

It's two or more people.

299

:

And there's an overt act, and I don't

even wanna say it's a statute, like you

300

:

said, it's a statute to protect parents.

301

:

Yes, of course.

302

:

But let's take it a step further.

303

:

Like literally your right to parent

is constitutionally protected.

304

:

Yes.

305

:

So this potentially has the

potential allegedly to be a

306

:

group of elected officials.

307

:

Attorneys appointed that are granted

quasi-judicial immunity and parents

308

:

that have a constitutional right to

protect their children, and there

309

:

is an orchestrated event if this

is happening to circumvent that.

310

:

I mean, that's fucking insane.

311

:

Yeah, no, I, I agree that that

scares the crap out of me because

312

:

it's, it's I mean this is a

statute, the statute gives rights.

313

:

The court, you know, the Court of

Appeals has said in a published opinion,

314

:

these are the established rights.

315

:

These are things that can't be waived.

316

:

And now it looks like we're just, I

mean, there's, there's some sort of

317

:

workaround now to allow FOCs to come

in and give testimony filled with

318

:

hearsay, not be sworn in and not file a

report pursuant to the statute in order

319

:

to advise the court on what to do on

matters of parenting time and custody.

320

:

Hugh: Well,

321

:

Christine: the bigger thing too is

let's look at the timing of this, right?

322

:

So this order came out, I

think you said July, right?

323

:

20, so a year ago.

324

:

July of 2024.

325

:

And there was none of this

alleged orchestration.

326

:

Then.

327

:

What's the factor?

328

:

Us going to court and talking about it?

329

:

Oh, if only.

330

:

No, but I mean, I really do think

that us reporting on this is what's

331

:

caused them to realize they need have

some sort of plan because maybe they

332

:

weren't following it anyway until

we just got on a podcast and started

333

:

saying, Hey, this is a real problem.

334

:

But like, I think that makes it

even more potentially nefarious.

335

:

Well, I mean, listen, I, I would be

honored if people, if we had that kind

336

:

of effect and people were listening to

us and making decisions based on what

337

:

we said, and if that is the case, all

I'm asking you to do is follow the law.

338

:

Mm-hmm.

339

:

Follow the law.

340

:

Let's not come up with plans to circumvent

the law to get around out of convenience.

341

:

Let's follow the law.

342

:

Let's give parents their

due process rights.

343

:

Mm-hmm.

344

:

Let's take away the power from

the FOCs and give it back to the

345

:

judges so that they do their job.

346

:

Yep.

347

:

Instead of just having the overworked

FOC who, like in the Adair case, didn't

348

:

reach out to the client, even though

the court had even recognized that the

349

:

FOC really needs to talk to the child

before making recommendations and then.

350

:

Makes recommendations anyway,

and the judge goes along with

351

:

it, let's just follow the law.

352

:

Let's just follow procedure.

353

:

Let's give people their due process

rights and then no one will have

354

:

anything to complain about and

we'll move on on this podcast.

355

:

Yeah, this is like my big thing.

356

:

This is where I get so frustrated.

357

:

It's like everybody that you know, a

lot of times in the public, they'll

358

:

be like, oh, it's a quote unquote.

359

:

They're these people, they're

gonna be outspoken because they

360

:

didn't get the, their kids right.

361

:

But imagine if you were going through

it and then come to find out the

362

:

judges, the family law attorneys and

the FOCs are like getting together and

363

:

meeting and making these decisions.

364

:

Like how is that helpful to not

making someone like, feel a certain

365

:

kind of way about family court?

366

:

I don't know if I said that articulately,

but do you know what I mean?

367

:

Yeah, absolutely.

368

:

I'm, I'm.

369

:

It seems that there have been some,

been discussion amongst the FOCs

370

:

in the way to handle Adair vs.

371

:

Emberton.

372

:

The, the idea of waiving a case law is

just, it's something that's odd enough

373

:

that I don't buy, that people are just

coming up with that independently and

374

:

saying virtually the exact same words.

375

:

Yeah.

376

:

Now I'm, I'm interested to see, and we

did not get a chance to see a lot of

377

:

actual practitioner reaction to that.

378

:

Right.

379

:

So.

380

:

To the extent that there are

any family law, practicing

381

:

family law attorneys involved in

coming up with that workaround?

382

:

I don't know.

383

:

I would hope that people that are asked to

waive, that would be up in arms about it.

384

:

In fact, I know that some are, some

have reached out to us and say they've

385

:

been asked to waive Emberton prior

to hearings and that, that, you

386

:

know, can you, can we believe that?

387

:

I so I'm hoping that's the

reaction of most of them.

388

:

But just the, the whole idea of

this scheme in general is, is.

389

:

Hugh: Just disturbing.

390

:

It's

391

:

Christine: bonkers.

392

:

And also, you know, you wonder if,

like we have FOCs that have their own

393

:

private practice, so I wanna see if

the FOCs in their private practice

394

:

are waiving Adair versus Emberton.

395

:

And also are judges giving people

that waive the rule of favorable

396

:

outcome or more appointments.

397

:

I mean, it just seems that there

is this feel that there could be

398

:

the potential for quid pro quo.

399

:

Quid pro quo, you know?

400

:

Hugh: Sure.

401

:

So,

402

:

Christine: yeah,

403

:

Hugh: but

404

:

Christine: we're gonna

have to, it feels dirty.

405

:

Yes.

406

:

We are gonna have to do a

full deep dive of Adair vs.

407

:

Emberton, just because it's

like a 20 minute hearing.

408

:

I got it.

409

:

I had been done practicing for

a year, and it's all of the

410

:

things you can imagine in one.

411

:

About the problems and what

happens every single day in

412

:

Louisville prior to this opinion.

413

:

I mean, just a judge being

unprepared, an FOC being unprepared.

414

:

The demeanor in the court.

415

:

And just for clarification purposes,

I know I know this, but you were

416

:

not the attorney at the No, I

wasn't the attorney at the time.

417

:

The actual hearing that was appealed

418

:

Hugh: took place.

419

:

The

420

:

Christine: client was

not represented mm-hmm.

421

:

At the time and came to me after I'd had

some success with the appellate court

422

:

on, on another case and asked me And it

goes back to a common theme where when

423

:

we were practicing you and I, we did not

see what happened to pro se litigants.

424

:

And you just wonder how often was

this same fact pattern happening if.

425

:

Your client had not gotten the means

and the wherewithal to hire you,

426

:

who knows what would've happened?

427

:

Oh, I agree.

428

:

I, I, I, I agree.

429

:

I mean, you say that this case

sort of represents things that we

430

:

see all the time in family law.

431

:

I mean, one of the things that that

happened was court went forward on a

432

:

hearing on three things, and the hearing

was only set for one of those things.

433

:

The other things were.

434

:

One was filed the night before, or

sorry, the day before, and the other

435

:

was just a renewed request, I guess,

on the spot by one of the attorneys.

436

:

And the judge went forward and granted

that request, granted it before

437

:

even admitting the mother into the

courtroom, not swearing someone in.

438

:

Anyway, we can get into that.

439

:

Mm-hmm.

440

:

But those are just things that

happen so regularly and that sounds

441

:

bizarre to anyone outside of family

court, I'm sure, and, and maybe

442

:

outside of this jurisdiction,

but we hear about it happening.

443

:

In, in cases all over the country.

444

:

Hugh: But

445

:

Christine: unfortunately those

are things that just happened.

446

:

You go in, well, let's just have a powwow.

447

:

We won't go on the record.

448

:

Oh, wait, hold on.

449

:

We'll go on the record in the

middle of this little powwow,

450

:

and then I'm gonna make findings

based on what was just said to me.

451

:

In this case, ex parte just

in a basic conversation, in

452

:

complete violation of statute.

453

:

And I'm gonna make the findings

and I've already written them.

454

:

And then we will just call the parties

in and tell 'em what we're gonna do.

455

:

And that stuff happens.

456

:

Oh yeah.

457

:

And I think that's why, again,

you have people that say, I got so

458

:

wronged in family court, or there's

no due process in family court.

459

:

And if you want an example of where

there was no due process, you just

460

:

need to watch the hearing from a

dairy versus eEmberton because due

461

:

process was like out the window.

462

:

I mean, it was just crazy.

463

:

And for everyone listening due process

is so, the simplest terms is just notice

464

:

and an opportunity to be heard, you know?

465

:

Hugh: know?

466

:

Christine: That is the foundation

of the American judiciary.

467

:

I mean, it should be.

468

:

Yeah.

469

:

I mean, certainly it's the only

way that our court system can work.

470

:

You don't, you should never expect to go

to court and for the court to be presiding

471

:

over an issue that you had no notice of.

472

:

Right.

473

:

No preparation for.

474

:

Mm-hmm.

475

:

And that you're going to have

a quote unquote quote you know.

476

:

Expert or appointed witness that

gets to basically tell the court

477

:

what they think they should do.

478

:

And you don't get to ask any questions.

479

:

It gets to play judge,

just like literally.

480

:

And typically in, in this

hearing was not sworn in, right?

481

:

Yeah.

482

:

It was not sworn in.

483

:

No, one, it didn't seem

like anybody was sworn in.

484

:

Which is a whole nother ball game.

485

:

But now I, and tell me if I'm wrong,

but I don't, we can't obviously give

486

:

legal advice, but I do want anyone and

everyone that is asked to waive Adair vs.

487

:

Emberton one.

488

:

I wanna know that story and I wanna

know the players in your case.

489

:

So submit those to Judge Dash y.

490

:

But just I think generally speaking,

I cannot imagine a situation

491

:

in which waiving adera versus

Emberton would be a good idea.

492

:

Can I say that?

493

:

yeah, that's your opinion.

494

:

I, I mean, if I put my

ADV advocate hat on Yeah.

495

:

And I've got a case where I want something

done at motion hour and the court,

496

:

I mean, would I feel good about it?

497

:

No, because it's, I think it

weakens the entire system.

498

:

But if the judge asks if, let's

say the friend of court wants to.

499

:

Say something that benefits my client

and basically means I win the motion

500

:

that's before the court, and the judge

says, do you mind if I, you know,

501

:

will you permit me to speak so and so?

502

:

Mm-hmm.

503

:

I don't know.

504

:

I think as an advocate, if it benefits

your client, I, I can see why in certain

505

:

circumstances people would do it.

506

:

I think that's an interesting

quandary because it isn't.

507

:

I don't believe that it's lawful.

508

:

That's my my opinion, not advice.

509

:

But I want to know, I would like to hear

from someone who's been asked to waive

510

:

it and to tell me the circumstances why

you believe that it was in your client's

511

:

best interest, how you handled it, and

if, if you felt that it was safe to do

512

:

without first speaking to your client.

513

:

I mean.

514

:

I, I maybe if the friend of the

court had said right beforehand,

515

:

oh, this is how I feel.

516

:

And it's very, very strong.

517

:

But I will say in my career, I've had

people tell me that on the phone the night

518

:

before a hearing, they feel very strongly

one way and then come in and say something

519

:

totally different the next morning.

520

:

Yep.

521

:

And I, I wouldn't trust it.

522

:

So I, I would like to hear the stories.

523

:

I'd like to hear both sides, but

I, yeah, like, like, Christine

524

:

said, I would like to hear.

525

:

Hugh: you

526

:

Christine: I'd like to know what

these communications are like,

527

:

what's coming from the FOCs, asking

to waive it prior to a hearing.

528

:

Even though the case law says

very clearly, you can't waive

529

:

it prior to the hearing.

530

:

Yeah, and I also just think this is also

just general opinion, but like judges,

531

:

FOCs, lawyers, like getting together

as a group and trying to circumvent the

532

:

law and taking an overt step to do that.

533

:

All it takes is for one of

y'all to do an overt step too.

534

:

I mean, this is like basic,

basic crim law type stuff.

535

:

Like what is it?

536

:

In the event these things are happening

at like if there's like a meeting

537

:

or like a function, but just like

think about what you're a part of

538

:

because this is not gonna end well

if this is actually their strategy.

539

:

In my opinion.

540

:

Well said.

541

:

Okay.

542

:

Awesome guys.

543

:

Well Judge-y.com.

544

:

Judging the judges on Instagram

also tag us in viral clips.

545

:

Thank you guys so, so, so much.

546

:

Thanks.

547

:

Next call.

548

:

We need some justice, justice, justice.

549

:

And I wanna ring bells in public.

550

:

I wanna ring bes in public nor crowd.

551

:

Yeah, but I To the fo Yeah.

552

:

I To the fo Yeah.

553

:

I to the fo fo teaser.

Next Episode All Episodes Previous Episode

Listen for free

Show artwork for The JudgeMental Podcast

About the Podcast

The JudgeMental Podcast
From the Creators of Judge-y
The JudgeMental Podcast features two attorneys, Hugh and Christine, who bring over three decades of combined litigation experience to the mic. Now venturing into a bold new initiative—"Judge-y", a website and soon-to-be app—they aim to give lawyers and litigants a platform to evaluate judges and promote accountability within the judiciary.

About your host

Profile picture for Hugh Barrow

Hugh Barrow