Judge CAUGHT Stalking Ex & New Girlfriend 300 Times

The woman you see admitting the law enforcement that she stalked her ex's new girlfriend is the same woman you see here sitting on the bench in the robe in court working as a judge. The judge may hold the high authority in court but I'll show you what happened when she was confronted with some shocking allegations of jealousy that turned criminal. We're on the case presented by law and crime. I'm Chris Stewart. Well, a few positions hold the power that a judge has. These are people who can determine how long someone goes to prison for. In some cases they determine whether someone is innocent or guilty of crimes, but you're about to see what happened when a judge found herself on the other side of the law. If that happens again, contempt is in your future that is judge Bridget Robb of Reno Nevada talking tough during a court hearing that's video that we found it's on Facebook from the group are Nevada judges now judge Robb served on the bench for 20 years and her bio says that she had several high ranking positions throughout her career she's also an attorney she served on several Supreme court task forces she even volunteered her time to help victims. We have the court documents of domestic violence now stalking is always a shocking crime a serious crime very scary for the people who are involved but especially in this case when you think about the resume and the power that a judge has we have the court documents from this case and they are shocking it includes an application for a protective order. She was put in by the victim who is also an attorney in this case and this victim accused the judge of stalking her 300 times from May of 2024 to January of this year the paperwork we have also includes text messages between the man who is also involved in this this was a person who is an attorney he starts dating this victim. Apparently he had some sort of intimate relationship in the past with the judge and she did not like that and the text messages that we have include one that he sent the judge to tell her to stop stalking his girlfriend. Now just for an example and we'll talk more about this throughout the episode the judge was accused of going to the Pilates studio that this victim went to at six o'clock in the morning and parking her car in the parking lot there are letters from witnesses who say they saw the white Jeep Wrangler that the judge drove there with her inside. Now before the judge was officially charged in March of this year the victim had filed for an order of protection against the judge back in January and in her application you can tell she is an attorney because it is incredibly thorough she includes a letter to the court that is nearly a dozen pages long in this victim rights that she felt terrorized frightened intimidated harassed and fearful for her immediate safety going back to when the judge. She says first started following her now the judge was accused of stalking this couple once they went public with their relationship this man who she had a previous intimate relationship with and his new girlfriend court records state that the victim's boyfriend and it doesn't seem like it was you know what would be considered Facebook official back in the day but the boyfriend cut off what is written as a friends with benefits relationship. Shocking part is it ended apparently back in 2021 which makes this situation even more bizarre considering all of this was happening between 2024 and into this year. Now a big piece of evidence is the vehicle that this judge drives it's a white Jeep Wrangler according to court records which is a pretty noticeable car and there are multiple pictures and I know these were like copied and sent over to us from the court. So it's somewhat difficult to see but these are images of that white Jeep Wrangler that was caught on surveillance in several locations and submitted as documentation of allegations that she was stalking this young woman. Now the victim writes that the judge would drive by her house not even the place where she currently lives but apparently she had moved and the judge was doing this allegedly when she was at a previous address. The victim went to great lengths according to these court records to try and document what was going on and also just making sure she had a sense of safety because she had to install a very expensive surveillance system to try and capture the evidence of that white Jeep Wrangler driving past her address. Now I want to show you this text exchange because this is between the ex-boyfriend if we want to call him that of the judge and judge rob and the judge is actually the person who sends the first text message she says I'm thinking it's that time of year has your election happen can you talk and the ex responds high yes and I lost and you just stop driving by my house and the victims house please. Judge responds I'm really sorry about the election I believe this choice is short sighted and will be recognized as a mistake in the future on the bright side you can concentrate on practicing law now you have my word and quote she also says a lot has happened since we last talked at least for me I'd like to talk when you're able let me know. So the victim files a police report in January and she files an application for an order of protection and this is the body cam video in January of when police pulled the judge over for a chat after she was reportedly stalking the victim. Morning. My name is out of the detective with the police department. So I'm talking here for a couple of different reasons today okay one is the legal option out of the library. There's another reason I wanted to be able to talk to you about a situation that's not a huge deal as far as that's concerned what you have anything else with you. You have your registration insurance paper working lots up with you. Okay let me take a look at that stuff too while we're here. So what brings you out about this? Yeah. That's a good good copy or good food or. Where are you going to go? Go back. Cook that. Okay. What is any reason that you're driving through the neighborhood parking lot or are you going to get parking on? Okay. No particular reason? You understand how that's going to happen? That you're driving through the plum gate lot. If you're not going you want there to go to do anything at plum gate but you're driving through the lot. I do understand that's up. Okay and then you made a left turn out of there, right? Yes. Which is not the direction that it dies. Okay. Okay. Okay. Like I said, let's change the hall but you just want me to go and have a look at that. So I'm trying to understand what's going to happen. There's been a lot. There's been a piece of crap out there for a four stop in case where we're listed as listed as the victim and basically there's evidence in the case that you keep showing up and doing some balance at different locations. right. And I have a little bit of a story to have a little bit of a story. Okay. But I just like, I want to be able to understand it from, um, from your side of that. So the judge tells the police officer that she was just in the area of where this victim apparently was because she had gone to McDonald's to get a coke. That's it. But it seems like the detective isn't really buying that just based off where she was in the community. So the judge tells police she was not stalking the victim. She just happened to be in the area where the victim was earlier in the day because she was going to McDonald's get a coke. But it doesn't seem like police believe that makes sense just based on where she was in the community. The judge though has denied stalking the victim. And the judge says that she lives near where she was pulled over. So she has the members of law enforcement come to her house instead of continuing to talk on the side of the road. So do you want to just give me, uh, like your version of things or, again, like, you know, one of the things that I want to try to do is, is I want to be able to try to get. And are you recording? Yes, because I have to, right? It's our, you know, policy. So, um, body cameras have got to be on. Um, but, um, I'd like to be able to give, um, some piece of mind in knowing that some of these things that are going on, like I said, are not, you know, nothing that she doesn't have to fear for her safety, right? And she doesn't. Okay. She doesn't. Um, you could check my car. There's no weapon there. Um, I, it has never been my intent to intimidate her. Okay. Or to harass her. Okay. Or to, as I said, to make her do something different in her daily life. Yeah. Yeah. It is me satisfying curiosity. Yeah. Yeah. And they'll be there for as long as you want to pet them. Yeah. Um, no. And so, I mean, I'm, I'm glad to hear that, that you're, like they said, that you're, you're saying that you're not doing these things with any, um, necessarily, any, no wheeling, or any of that kind of thing. No, I have no, I have no reason to do that with either one of them. Yeah. Okay. And that's, and that's fair enough as far as, as far as that's concerned. Um, but the curiosity thing, I'm still, I'm still trying to wrap my head around the curiosity thing. Actually, so, do you know, I mean, what, what goes to your head or what, like, what, I don't understand, uh, are you curious, uh, on, and I don't even know, like, how do you know, I've met her. I don't, I wouldn't say I know her. I know, uh, I mean, I know she's an attorney. Yeah. Um, but I'm sure a while, though. Yeah. Right? Yeah. Okay. Um, how long have you known for, like, over 20 years or something? Yeah. It's been probably less, close to 30 years, closer to 30 years, that you've had, um, a friendship or professional, and also, uh, that, like we're discussing, in my relationship, relationship, relationship hasn't gone on for that 30 years. But, um, it's gone on for a significant period of time. Okay. Off and on. When, so you're, the, the relationships side of things, like I said, that's when, when did that, when it was, was Kelsey an interruption, I just like, I'm trying to understand everything, because like I said, unless you tell me your story about like, hey, like this is, I were, you know, in a relationship or we were intimate and then in the picture. I don't know. I don't understand like if, if, I don't, I don't know if you guys were had a formal thing or not a formal thing with one another as far as, as far as me as any of that's concerned. Like if, if you guys, it wasn't, no, I wouldn't say it was a formal thing. Um, but, uh, our, um, relationship at least being part of it. Yeah. Stop when he started. Okay. So when was your guys's intimate, uh, sort of, um, side of things between, um, between you? It's a significant period of time. Like over the course of years. Yes. Okay. Yes. Like a proct, we had like an approximation from a starting day to an end date. Um, I'd really rather know that. Yeah. If you don't, I mean more than a decade. So clearly did the judge. Her ex seems to have meant a lot to her, even though he had moved on. Um, and then, at that time, would you describe your, your relationship with more of a casual or what would you consider a dating relationship or would you consider it like a casual thing that you guys would just hope up sometimes or like a, like how. I'm not sure I could describe it in that way. It wasn't, I wouldn't call it a formal dating relationship. I'll say that. Okay. Um, like, uh, I hate to describe it with, like, a friends with some kind of, like, a friends with benefits, yeah, if you know, some, is that that's probably the best way to describe it? Okay. Uh, and then, uh, at some point, you know, the picture, and you said, and then the, the situation with you, I changed as far as, correct, as far as, uh, that ended. Correct. Okay. How did, and then, so how did that make you feel when? Okay. Okay. Um, is, but not angry, not, I mean, disappointed. Disappointed. Okay. Um, is it, is it a jealous thing? Is there some jealousy there? Is it, what I'm saying is, I'm trying to dam and, because I'm trying to, so I'm trying to, like, you're saying this, this whole, this whole thing that's been going on, you've described, you've described it as a, you described it as a curiosity, right? Right. And so, and so, I would say there's some sort of envy. Okay. Um, not jealousy, but I would say envy. Um, just, and the rest of the relation that he's, that of, of her, that she's, why not occur of the relationship? That she's, that there is shit that they're having. Right. Right. I wouldn't, I wouldn't say that I'm envious of her. Okay. Is that, is it, is it because you wanted a relationship with them? I would say yes. Okay. And so, you know, some of this stuff is, is making a little bit, like I said, a little bit more sense. Okay. Um, and, you know, as far as, as far as I know, uh, you know, I don't, you know, initially, um, when, when all this is recorded, and I don't know, um, do you mind if I get some food to drink? No, I don't. I don't bring you back some food. I'm okay. Thank you. The judge admits that she wanted a relationship with that man. The detective then asks what she's doing when she is going by all these places, including their homes. When, when you're showing up to places, after you're driving by a house, is it, is it just to see if, like, maybe it is with, like, vice versa, like, or, as far as, as far as, like, if they're still, like, if they're doing things with one another, you know what I mean? I don't know about doing things with one another, but if they're together. Yeah, they're together. Yeah. Okay. So that's the primary reason for the, the show-ups to, like, the, the locations is just to see what they're together. Yeah. Okay. So it's, like, you're saying, it's information-seeking. It is. Okay. Um, I've been trying to think about this myself, as to why that satisfies a need. And, um, it's just me trying to understand, I think. Okay. Is, is part of you, like, hurt? Like, I would say, very, yeah. her emotionally over the thing, you know, whatever that friendship relationship thing that you had with some of you just as it's hurt over that ending. Yeah. Okay. But that's my, that's, that's my issue and I understand that. That doesn't mean that you can't have a relationship. Yeah. I mean, my reaction is my reaction. No. You know, the tone of the detective here in this body cam video, it's almost as if he's trying to level with her like a friend who she can confide in kind of listening to her about relationship issues, but what judge Rob is actually saying here is pretty key information for this case and what really stands out is just how much the judge appears to know about this couple and where they are during certain parts of the day. Most recently, I might kind of just jump around here a little bit. Most recently, it was on December 22. Do you remember going to go into the plunge game? I do. Okay. Was was that another incident of you going there out of the curiosity of seeing where what just information gathering? Yes. Okay. And it's because you told me. Yeah. We coincidentally were at the same place for breakfast. Okay. And I saw him and he said he had just gone to a plunge class with him. Okay. Was that how long ago was that? Oh gosh. More than a year ago. Okay. Is that where is that how you learned that she was going to bodies then? Is that something about the bodies? No. He didn't say where the bodies was or anything. I just coincidentally saw her car. I have never followed her ever. Okay. I haven't followed him. Stop any further. If the worst thing out of my day is that you've been assaulted by dogs, I'm going to put that in the WK right as far as that. I'll put that in for. Yeah, especially with the toy. I'll put that in for you. Yeah, we used to. My dog. Yeah, gotta have. Yeah. Uh, so. And then you went to, did you go to Starbucks at day on the 22nd? Do you remember going inside Starbucks? I may have. Okay. Which Starbucks? The one in the. The one with one. No. No, I didn't go inside Starbucks there. But you're at the fun. You remember being at the fun gate center? I do. Okay. Do you remember what you did that day? You don't remember parking or pulling or driving by the bodies and going into. Maybe right around that. I don't know if anything else would help besides the Starbucks. Yeah, no, I can tell you I don't think I've ever been in that Starbucks. Okay. Maybe once. I go to the Starbucks. The Starbucks that are on the carry either this way or the one up at the top of the hill. About 45 minutes into their conversation, the detective starts to ask about specific times. They have of when the judge was in the area of this couple, but she doesn't really admit to anything specifically. The, the, the, the Coke things out the window. Can we both agree on that? Like the initial story about driving for a coke? I did go get a coke. No, but that, that. What this morning? Yeah, as far as why, you know. No, I, I generally get up in the morning. I like. And my friends will tell you. I like McDonald's, Coke's with ice. Okay. And I will get up in the morning and get one of those early in the morning. Have that before I go to work. Gotcha. So that is, that is a routine thing. And if it's early, this, this McDonald's that is up here off of machine doesn't open until six. Okay. And sometimes they're not even open then. And so I've been there several times where they're not open. And you just kind of hang it out. And I'm burning time. I don't want to do that. The one down on plum is almost always open. So that's the one I go to. Okay. Okay. And then do you know we're on the 22nd? Like I said, I'm just trying to put some of this together. Was that one of the dates too that you were, were you parked wherever, were you ever parked by? Is there a title on that date? I was. That was the day when I was. Did you have any interaction with anyone else? Like the anyone else from the bloody place or anything else, as far as interacting with anyone? No. Because I have never interacted with, that I know of with anyone from the place to get. And by interacting, do you mean talk to or? Have you ever had any conversations with anyone else from the plum gate business area? Well, that's a pretty broad. Well, like, like, you know, it's pretty broad. During, like, nothing from, no one from the bloody studio has ever, we haven't talked with anyone. Not that I'm aware of. I mean, I didn't go there and talk to people because they were in the bloody studio. That's what you're asking. No. So one of the things that, you know, between, between you showing up, right, to plum gate, over the course of, like, when's the first time you think you started showing up at plum gate? With, I mean, a year ago, would it be, would it go back that far? And I, I doubt it. I couldn't tell you. A few months, at least. I would say, it's been a couple months. A couple months that you've been showing up there? Intermittently. Okay. Because people, what ended up happening, it wasn't just, it wasn't just, that was noticing the behavior. It was other people that noticed the behavior that, that, that, like, basically, you're being able, and the actions were kind of suspicious. Like, they're, they're, they're. So in the case report, there are letters from witnesses who say they have noticed the judge in the parking lot of the victim's pilates studio. Did you ever consider that it might make her scared or paranoid or, or, or it, or might cause it? Other, like, you know, you ever considered that how that would affect her emotionally other than just making her feel uneasy? No. Didn't, not really processing it. Well, I wouldn't say not processing it. It wasn't something that I did to do that or cause those feelings. So that, that wasn't something that had occurred to me, no. That's something that, like you said, it wasn't ever something that we started. It wasn't something that was every year and 10. Not at all. But, um, but you can understand how it could have, that, that behaviors could have affected her. Again. Yeah. We should have. We could have treated her. That lens. Absolutely. Okay. Do you, are you any remorse or would you, like, if I told you that. I am horrifically embarrassed. Okay. Because. And I, I, I am sorry if I caused her, um, to be fearful. Yeah. If I caused her to, um, to worry about me and my intentions. Yeah. I feel very, very badly about that. Yeah. Um, because that's, that isn't something that I would do. Yeah. And again, never my intent. Yeah, never, never, never what you're setting out to be as far as, as far as, as far as what your intentions were. Not at all. Yeah. Okay. Um, do you, you want me to pass a message on? Like, are you, like, yeah, I know you say you're horrifically embarrassed by this. Serious. Right. Um, and, and again. Um. I honestly did not consider that because I didn't I had no intention to cause her any fear or anything like that so if that's what happened, I feel really badly about that. I wouldn't want to make someone feel fearful. I told you just this morning, I took you to see if you were following me. That's one of the things they tell us as judges, just situational awareness. Judges may have a ton of power and responsibility in the courtroom but they are people as well, right? And it is striking to watch this and think about the person you see in the courtroom and what they do for a living. And yet, they're this person who's accused of some very disturbing activity. And to hear the judge say that by going by the homes of the victim, by going to her Pilates studio that she never considered how these actions could make the victim in this case feel, is a bit bizarre. And in her interview with police, the judge continues to characterize certain instances of being around this couple more as a coincidence than her actually stalking them. I just, I'm telling you, I find it odd that it was that that happened just by happen sense that you you saw her turned down away and learned that she lived there. I like I say, right? Some, some, I'm telling you right now and I'm just, you know, I'm not here to, I'm not, I'm really not here to give you our time. I really just want to, I really just, I ultimately, my goal is, my main goal is, first, the main goal from this whole, from getting this whole case is for everything just to stop, right? That's the main goal. So, my main goal is no more, no more plunge visits, my main goal is no more visit, you know, no more visits by, you know, and an unannounced visits to the houses, you know, at the, now, I can travel on streets though. I mean, I ran out of my car and I'm not, I'm randomly, that's great. You guys are gonna, it's everyone, I mean, I've always come. Really though, as big as Reno's got, it's got, and it's still a small town, and you both, you both, you both work within a very small, you know, area, and you're gonna happen to run in a, you're, it's just gonna happen, you know, one way or another, you're probably gonna still happen to run into, uh, insure network. Well, and there are events that I know that we all go to. Yeah, um, yeah, I'm in no way saying that, you know, that obviously that you can't, um, but I, I'm serious when I say I haven't even been traveling over McCarran since he asked me just to be very, very careful. Yeah, and I understand that. It's just, like I said, it's, it's just, I think it's just unfortunate that we've, we've got to the point that we're at where it's just, and like I said, I, the reason why we're out at the point that we're at is because there's so many unanswered questions, right? The judge said that she would pay part of the cost of the security system that the victim had to install at her home because of the judge's actions, and she also told police that she had spoken with her ex-lover and said that she would seek professional help. The detective then explains that this case will be submitted to the city attorney's office, which will determine where things go from here. Sure. If she, if she feels, if she feels in here, her safety and everything else and everything that she's gone through, I'm not gonna ask her not to, to do a protection order. What I will do is I will give her the understanding of your intentions, I will give her your apologies, I will give her, like I said, your, as far as the explanation, the explanation of things, I will absolutely do all those things, and if, if after hearing the other side of the story and hearing your side of things, if, if she decides not to, then she decides not to. I understand how, I understand why you would not want a protection order, you know, her to go through a place in a protection order, I can, I can understand that. All I can do is act, is kind of act, we're not necessarily a mediator, but, you know, as a go-between, as a go-between, as a neutral party, as a go-between, and at least, at least, you know, sharing, sharing some, some information with, with one another. So, and then we came to talk to you, what we talked about, I think that's going to help put her in use in quite a bit. Well, and you have my commitment, we, we've talked, I've told you, I've not driven by their house, I will use the businesses at Plumgate, but I won't go there, even for Starbucks in the morning. Yeah. Okay. I'm not, and like I said, you know what I'm asking of you, when I, when I'm asking of you, I'm asking for the curiosity to show up. Yes. I'm not asking you to stop shopping at a place, or anything like that, it's just you, you, you, I know, you know what I'm asking. I do. When, when, when, when, when, when we discuss, when we discuss that. So, um, that's, I mean, that's, that's all, that's what I have. Lastly, I just want to make sure, honestly, I'm being sincere with this. Um, I know this is, can all this stuff that's been going on this morning is kind of overwhelming. And I just, like, before you don't want to check in on your, your, like, mental health, as far as I don't want to leave here knowing that, like, you, like, you get what I'm saying. And that, that, that, that, that, that this, that this situation is caused so much, maybe anxiety or something on your side of things where I, you don't want to hurt yourself for doing anything. No, no, no, I have no such intentions. Because I was, I'm being sincere because I stick to my stomach right now. Yeah, I'm being sincere when I, I truly care. I still care about your mental health and your, and your wellbeing. I appreciate that. I'm being honest. Um, so to be, to be very honest in this circumstance, my mental health and wellbeing is secondary. And I understand that, but if, if for some reason, you're, you weren't in a good headspace and we left here and something happened, I would chill out. In March, 2026, Judge Bridget Robb pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of stalking according to two news in Reno, the judge was ordered to pay restitution, complete court ordered mental health counseling and perform community service. Judge also retired from the bench in February after the victim filed for that protective order against her. It is alleged that even after the long conversation that we just saw play out in her home, the judge continued her alleged stalking behavior. This is how to talk more about this. Law and crime legal counsel, Elizabeth Vuly. Um, great to have you on the case. Thanks for, thanks for being with us. You know, when you watch this body cam video, because I mean, if I was the victim or her boyfriend, I mean, it's terrifying. Like the idea that someone connected to your significant others past would be showing up at places like a Pilates studio. But at the same time, like this judge, she didn't send, she didn't make any threats. It's not like she was sending text messages. She was at, you know, on a street in public places like what made what this judge was doing criminal. Yeah, sure. Thank you for having me, Chris. So it's really interesting. We talked a little bit about this beforehand. You know, all the parties involved here are legal experts. You know, you have a judge, you have attorneys. So I think they know how to sort of play up or play down certain elements. It was interesting because in the body cam, one of the things that she had mentioned was, you know, the purposes of driving past, you know, these locations so many times was it for, for information gathering. Because one of the things that comes up as a requirement under the Nevada statute is that you're trying to intimidate or harass someone in order to become liable for stalking. So, so that was kind of interesting. But, you know, I think the reasons why it came up as an issue was first of all talking about the amount of times that this occurred. One of the things that was included in the report was, I believe it was over 300 times in the span of a couple of years that she had showed up to the young woman's home, her ex partners home, the Pilates studio, other places that, you know, the victim frequency. The, just the nature of the relationship involved and the reasons why she would be doing this and just, you know, sort of how a reasonable person would feel in this instance. That's one of the things that the statute discusses is what a reasonable person feel as if they're being placed in a situation involving fear or potential threat. So even though she may not have used threatening or coercive language, I think all of that was enough to prove that the bare elements were there. But I also look at the protective order. application that the victim put in in this case and she's an attorney and it's a very thorough document and you can see that she you know she installs a security camera she has pictures of the vehicle this white wrangler that was always in the area there are witness statements saying that they saw the white wrangler in areas like at the Pilates studio in a stalking case where on the outside you may look and be like wow this is really creepy behavior like what's the process that somebody typically has to go through from the filing of a police report to eventually there be criminal charges that are filed yeah so I think one of the things is preserving all the evidence you can which I think she did really well here so obviously using things like installing surveillance camera because that was a big amount of the evidence right was the surveillance video the video we saw at the Pilates studio so making sure you have that other witness statements involved also just being prepared to discuss how this made you feel you know trying to prove that a reasonable person would feel that they're in a situation of you know potential fear or danger I think all of those things are there and just having basically enough amount of evidence to support it because one of the things that the statute also mentions is a repeated persistent pattern of conduct right because which makes sense because if you let's say are end up you know at the same place as someone you can't just point to one instance and say this person's at the same place as me this is stalking it could be coincidence it could be you know you're invited to the same event you have to really show that it's a repeated pattern I think that's what she did here with everything with you know documenting on paper how many times this occurred documenting in terms of video other witness statements so being able to file that and show that there's enough evidence to support the reason why you're requesting a protective order here is when you watch the body cam I found it interesting where you know she's an attorney this judge like by trade I mean she's very accomplished and has been in the legal community for she was a judge for two decades and on one hand she's admitting to being in the area of this victim because she was curious so it's like you see the intent of like why she was doing it but then when the detective starts listing these like let's get specific about it then like were you in this area at this time and like they have evidence that she was like she wouldn't go there like what did you make of that like how does that like I was thinking I was like this is a person who has a law degree and might be sitting there like kind of trying to play off admitting to some stuff but not entirely everything yeah it was really fascinating watching this body cam for the instance that you mentioned and the reason that you mentioned is that she is a judge she's been a judge for over 20 years obviously it has a complex understanding of the law and I think that showed up in the body cam footage because one of the things that she had said was you know my intention is not to intimidate or harass one of the reasons that she said she was driving by was information gathering she did admit at one point that you know the cause for some of these feelings was envy she said I believe she had said envy not jealousy which was interesting so I think that really plays to what her frame of mind was was their intent to intimidate or harass and she was saying outwardly no there wasn't and I think she's smart enough to understand that you can't necessarily negate that you've been in these places multiple times you know she admitted on the tape she had been there a few times but I think the biggest thing that struck out to me was her trying to downplay the reasoning for that and what her intent was in trying and how she was trying to make this young woman the victim feel and I and I thought too about like when you look at the application for the protective order that this victim put in and all the details that she has as we were talking about and then I think of how many of these cases probably happen across the country and are ongoing you know any given time and what are some of these cases like if you don't have the evidence you know if you're like I think that this person is around me and you know maybe you don't have a Pilates studio with a camera or witnesses at the Pilates studio to say that you haven't installed a thousand dollar you know multiple thousand dollar security system at your home to be able to capture videos of of this person going through like the victim did in this case I just wonder like how do you protect people you know how does the law of you that knowing that if you don't have the resources you might not be able to document the evidence like the victim did in this situation. Yeah it's a great point I think understanding that this is someone who had the resources you know in the body cam I think it was mentioned that the victim had spent over ten thousand dollars installing all this surveillance equipment I think at one point the judge had offered to sort of pay for that which also you know didn't really help her defend that much but I think part of it not the entire that was the one part it was like she'll pay for just a little bit not the entire thing right for some of it exactly but yeah I think this is someone who won the the victim had the resources to install all these and the knowledge and the foresight to understand that this will help make her case stronger and you know the thankfully the burden to be able to obtain a protective order is not extremely high and I think the reason for that is that we saw a pattern of this happening even dating back to the nineties especially with instance of instances of domestic violence because we didn't want to have people and victims feel as though they have to provide a mountain of evidence and to be able to obtain an order so it thankfully it isn't super difficult it varies from state to state but I think it just helps to make the case stronger and you know especially you know it's one thing to get a protective order but it's also another thing for this conduct result in criminal charges which is what happened here she'd like guilty to a misdemeanor charge of stalking and a lot of times you don't see that the person can just obtain a protective order you know they can get that the person will hopefully stay away from them it doesn't always result in criminal charges I think here because she had all of that evidence it helped strengthen her case and it was able to result in those charges a lot of times in other instances that you mentioned it might not always result in that because you don't have enough evidence to prove it you could get the tarot but not enough evidence to you know move forward with the charges right and I mean there's so many you know cases you know sadly with domestic violence that will cover you know where it's you know there was the temporary protective order that was in place and you know this it could have been something that would be seen as stalking but the evidence wasn't there and then things turned you know violent and fortunately that wasn't the type of situation we're dealing with here I just lastly like I think of her job as a judge and like judges are people too they have relationships that fall through they have emotion just like everybody else but also like this is as powerful a job as you can have in a lot of places and even for the attorney who's the victim in this case like you know the judge is a big name in the in the legal community as you know as a lawyer like how did just from what you're seeing her job her position like play into this like even when you look at you know she ends up pleading to this misdemeanor she's retired from the bench but she didn't get prison time you know and and maybe this wasn't a case that that qualified for that just when you look at this was there any part of it where you felt like the fact that she was a judge and the power that she had play into what we saw take place I think so very significantly so I think the one aspect of it is you know the potential power imbalance that she had with the victim here right so the victim was a young attorney it's just starting out in her career is a young attorney and you have a very senior judge who's been on the bench for over 20 years it took over a year for the victim to come forward you know and to voice these concerns and I think part of that was probably the fear of the power imbalance you know this if she comes out with these allegations against the judge how would that affect her career so I think that was a big aspect of it and just how the case played out you know one of the things that I mentioned when we spoke before was the fact that they ended up going to the judges home to end up going through the questioning of to finish the questioning of the judge a lot of times we'll see they'll bring them down to the police station or interrogation room that didn't happen here so that was a part of it she was able to plead guilty to a misdemeanor not a felony charge of stalking you know things that had happened in terms of her career she had to resign from the bench but as you mentioned she didn't really face any other consequences one of the other things that had happened was the state bar Nevada declined to proceed forward with any sort of disciplinary actions against her because they had said well she pleaded guilty to the charge so I do think there are a lot of instances of potentially special treatment here and I think a lot of reasons for that come into play you know for prosecutors maybe they're it's a difficult situation potential conflict of interest if they've been up against her for other cases before it might be tougher for them to bring charges obviously she has an extreme knowledge of the law so you know she's able to sort of meet these allegations a little bit differently from other people and potential career blowback I really do think that that was one of the things that had probably come up for the victim in this case of why it took a while for her to come forward with these allegations so I I definitely saw a lot of that of her status as a judge had a direct effect of how this played out yeah I mean because you think like if this behavior was going on for one week you know like someone would say like we have to stop this but if you're an attorney or in any situation and you're gonna accuse a judge like you better not miss you know in this type of situation because the blowback to your point could be significant fortunately in this case it seems like it was resolved you know through the legal system Elizabeth Voulie long crime legal counsel great to have you here on the case we'll do it again soon thank you so much Chris great to be on that we'll do it for on the case presented by law and crime I'm Chris Stewart we'll see you next time