EPISODE 71: UNWARRANTED - SHOW NOTES

Episode Overview

Hugh and Christine are back after a break with exciting news about their upcoming app launch during "spooky season." They discuss the challenges of building a comprehensive database of judges across all 50 states and the shocking lack of transparency in the judicial system. The main focus of this episode is a bizarre motion filed by a removed Friend of the Court (FOC) attorney in a Kentucky family court case that has been ongoing since the Court of Appeals ruled in the father's favor.

Key Topics Discussed

The Judge-y App Launch

Announcement of the upcoming app launch (date TBA - "spooky season")

The app will feature a comprehensive database of judges from all 50 states

Users will be able to review judges, follow specific courts, and share experiences

The research revealed that most states have no easily accessible list of judicial officers

States with good resources: Florida, Indiana, California

States with poor resources: Alabama and others

The app aims to bring transparency to the court system and help people make informed decisions about judicial elections

Transparency in the Courts

Discussion of the critical need for cameras and recording devices in every courtroom

The problem of sealed cases and lack of official records

How transcripts alone aren't enough - video evidence is crucial

Reference to the Vanta case and Judge Ogden's controversial statements

The Allison Russell Motion

Detailed analysis of a 7-page motion to withdraw filed by FOC Allison Russell

Russell was removed from the case in May 2025 but filed the motion anyway

The motion mentions the JudgeMental Podcast by name

Contains "uncontroverted facts" that are actually opinions and hearsay

Filed in Judge Bryan Gatewood's courtroom

Discussion of why this filing is problematic:

FOCs cannot file substantive motions

She was no longer on the case

The motion appears to be a "dog whistle" to the new judge

Contains prejudicial information that shouldn't be in the record

May not be protected by immunity since she was removed from the case

Legal and Ethical Issues

Discussion of Rule 11 sanctions and why they may not have been filed

The strategic decision to file a motion to strike instead

Questions about immunity for attorneys who file improper pleadings

The problem of "thin-skinned" court appointees who can't handle criticism

How this case illustrates systemic problems in family court

Case Background

Father won at the Court of Appeals

Judge Ogden refused to comply with the appellate ruling

Father had to fight extensively to regain parenting time

Judge Ogden was eventually removed from the case

Case transferred to Judge Bryan Gatewood

Christine has been following this case since April 2024

Important Links

Website: judge-y.com

Social Media: @Judgingthejudges

Coming Next Episode

Discussion of the "180 Day Mom" case - a mother who was served a warrant for six months in jail when she wasn't present at the hearing and was at the hospital.

LEGAL DISCLAIMER

The content of this podcast is for informational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended to be, and should not be construed as, legal advice. Engaging with this content does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and the hosts, guests, or their firms. The views and opinions expressed on this podcast are solely those of the individuals involved and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any law firm, company, or organization. We make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy, completeness, or applicability of the information presented. Any reliance on the information in this podcast is at your own risk. Laws are constantly

EPISODE 70: Matt Grant Interview Part 2 - Fighting Family Court Corruption

Welcome back to the JudgeMental Podcast! In this follow-up to Episode 17, we reconnect with Matt Grant, a decorated attorney and former equity partner at one of the nation's largest law firms, who is now fighting corruption in Missouri's family court system as a litigant in his own case.

ABOUT THIS EPISODE

Matt Grant returns to share updates on his groundbreaking RICO and Civil Rights Act lawsuit filed against family court actors in Missouri. With over 25 years of litigation experience, Matt brings a unique perspective as both a highly skilled attorney and a parent navigating the family court system.

KEY TOPICS DISCUSSED

• The RICO Lawsuit: Matt's federal case alleging a criminal enterprise within Missouri's family court system, including judges, guardians ad litem (GALs), and attorneys who allegedly prolong litigation for financial gain

• Putting a Judge on the Stand: The extraordinary circumstances that allowed Matt to question Judge Bruce F. Hilton under oath about his actions in Matt's family court case

• The "Buying Future Litigation" Email: Evidence Matt uncovered showing explicit discussions about intentionally prolonging cases for profit

• Guardian ad Litem as Fall Guys: Why Matt believes GALs will be the first thrown under the bus as the corruption unravels

• Retaliation and Judicial Bias: How Matt's custody time was reduced to 4 nights per month after exposing corruption, then increased to 8 nights after filing the RICO suit

• Ex Parte Communications: Evidence of improper communications between the judge and parties, including suspicious timing of discovery orders

• The Pattern of Corruption: How the system operates with specific playbooks to maximize conflict and legal fees in cases with the "right" combination of corrupt actors

• Sealed Records and Transparency: The ongoing battle to keep federal court filings public and accessible

• Historical Evidence: Matt's discovery of potential money laundering dating back to 1998 and questionable nonprofit organizations

CONNECT WITH US

🌐 Visit our website: judge-y.com

📱 Follow us on social media: @Judgingthejudges

LEARN MORE ABOUT MATT'S CASE

Visit stopmissouricorruption.com to access court filings, recordings, and updates on Matt's federal RICO case.

COMING UP

Stay tuned for Part 3 of our conversation with Matt Grant, where we'll dive deeper into:

The federal court's attempts to seal his pleadings

Why family court proceedings are systematically sealed

The constitutional right to public access to court records

Updates on his appeal and ongoing litigation

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.

EPISODE 69: Burn it Down?

In this episode, Christine and Hugh dive deep into groundbreaking legislation in New Hampshire—House Bill 652—which proposes to completely abolish the state's family court system. The hosts explore the implications, controversies, and potential consequences of this radical approach to family law reform.

KEY TOPICS DISCUSSED:

New Hampshire House Bill 652

The bill would eliminate family court as a specialty court division

Jurisdiction would transfer to courts of general jurisdiction

No additional judges would be added, raising concerns about caseload

Includes a voluntary mediation system as an alternative dispute resolution option

The Three Strikes Provision

Bill criminalizes parenting time violations with escalating penalties

First violations treated as misdemeanors, third strike becomes a felony

Hugh and Christine express serious concerns about applying criminal penalties to inherently nuanced family disputes

Discussion of how this could endanger children when parents fear criminal prosecution for making safety-based decisions

Due Process in Family Court

The fundamental lack of due process protections in current family court systems

How specialty courts have evolved to violate basic constitutional rights

The absence of jury trials in family court versus other court systems

Comparisons to current events and broader due process issues in America

Abolishing vs. Reforming Family Court

Christine's position as a proponent of abolishing family court

Concerns about whether simply moving cases to general jurisdiction solves the core problems

The role of Guardian ad Litems (GALs) and the "family court machine"

How the system has become self-perpetuating and benefits only select professionals

Regional Politics & Culture

Fascinating tangent about New Hampshire's "Live Free or Die" culture

Comparisons between Northeast and Southern political discourse

Hugh's experiences living in Vermont and Maine

New Hampshire's outsized influence in presidential primaries

Practical Problems in Family Court

Contempt motions filed for minor infractions (15-minute late exchanges)

The criminalization of complex, nuanced custody disputes

How government entrenchment affects co-parenting decisions

Real examples of judges holding parents in contempt for car breakdowns

Judicial Accountability

The lack of consequences for judges who ignore the law

Judges who refuse to read appellate decisions or follow precedent

The need for judicial qualifications and experience requirements

Why successful private practice attorneys often don't pursue family court judgeships

Call to Action

Christine and Hugh emphasize the importance of constituent engagement:

Contact your state legislators about family court issues

Share your experiences and specific problems

Testimony, emails, and calls DO make a difference

Similar discussions are happening in multiple states

MENTIONED CASES & REFERENCES:

Christine Ward case (contempt penalty discussion)

Kentucky's 50/50 custody law (enacted 2018)

Vermont civil unions debate and "Take Back Vermont" movement

Ohio family court legislation controversy

CONNECT WITH THE PODCAST:

Website: judge-y.com

Social Media: @Judgingthejudges

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,...