Abby Kelman-Portney tells her oldest son: “YOU ARE FUCKING STUPID! THERE WILL BE NO JUDGE!”
A Case Study in Institutional Gaslighting and the Limits of Family Power
By Michael Kelman Portney
In the final message of a Christmas week email exchange, Abby Kelman-Portney delivered what she apparently believed to be a conversation-ending proclamation to her oldest son: "You are fucking stupid. There will be no judge."
This statement, remarkable in both its hostility and its detachment from legal reality, encapsulates a particular form of institutional gaslighting that occurs when family power structures collide with the rule of law. It represents not merely a mother's frustration with her son, but a categorical denial that legal accountability mechanisms exist or apply to her conduct.
The Declarative Fallacy
"There will be no judge" is not a prediction. It's not legal advice. It's a decree—the kind of statement that only makes sense from someone operating under the assumption that their position within a family or social hierarchy places them beyond institutional oversight.
This is particularly striking given the context: an ongoing dispute involving documented estate irregularities, multiple conflicting stories from counsel, and a pattern of conduct that the son has been methodically documenting for over fifteen months. The statement reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how civil litigation works in the American legal system.
Federal courts do not require the defendant's permission to exist. Civil rights lawsuits do not evaporate because a mother insists her son is "fucking stupid." The judicial system is, by design, the remedy for exactly this kind of intrafamilial power imbalance—where one party has resources, connections, and institutional advantages, while the other has evidence.
The Reasonable Person Standard
What makes this exchange particularly noteworthy is the contrast between the son's measured requests for documentation and dialogue, and the mother's escalating dismissiveness culminating in profanity and categorical denial of legal process.
The son's emails, whatever one thinks of their length or intensity, consistently articulate:
Specific documentary evidence he's obtained
Concrete questions requiring answers
Multiple offers to settle without litigation
Detailed knowledge of applicable legal frameworks
References to consultations with licensed professionals
The mother's responses offer:
Character attacks ("fucking stupid," "mentally ill," "delusional")
Categorical refusals ("there will be no judge")
No substantive engagement with documentary evidence
No alternative explanations for irregularities
Assertions of total innocence without supporting documentation
Under the "reasonable person" standard that civil courts actually use, which party's conduct appears more aligned with reality?
The Gaslighting Tell
"I know I will get a response that I am gaslighting you," the mother writes, before immediately ending the conversation.
This is what's called a "preemptive framing fallacy"—attempting to inoculate against accurate characterization by naming it first, as if anticipating the charge somehow neutralizes its validity. It's the rhetorical equivalent of saying "I know you'll call me a liar" while lying.
Gaslighting isn't just disagreement. It's the systematic denial of another person's reality through:
Refusing to engage with evidence
Pathologizing reasonable requests for accountability
Insisting problems exist solely in the victim's mind
Using institutional power to avoid scrutiny
When someone repeatedly requests specific documentation about estate handling, and the response is "you're delusional and there will be no judge," that's not a difference of opinion. That's gaslighting.
The “No Judge" Delusion
The irony embedded in "there will be no judge" is almost too rich to fully unpack.
A mother tells her son—who has been systematically building a federal civil rights case, who has purchased hundreds of dollars in court records, who has documented patterns of conduct across multiple parties and years—that judicial oversight simply won't happen because... she says so?
This reveals a worldview where family hierarchy and social position supersede legal process. Where a mother's declaration carries more weight than federal jurisdiction. Where being called "fucking stupid" is supposed to substitute for producing requested estate documentation.
But here's the thing about the American legal system: it was specifically designed as a remedy against exactly this kind of aristocratic presumption. Federal courts exist precisely because local power structures—family connections, small-town relationships, institutional capture—can prevent accountability at the state level.
The Documentation Trap
What the "there will be no judge" contingent consistently fails to understand is that their refusal to engage substantively is itself documentation.
Every dismissive email is evidence. Every character attack without substantive rebuttal is evidence. Every refusal to provide straightforward answers to specific questions is evidence. Every assertion that "there will be no judge" is evidence that can be presented to a judge.
In civil litigation, the trier of fact doesn't just evaluate the underlying conduct—they evaluate how parties responded when questioned about that conduct. They assess credibility. They notice evasion. They draw adverse inferences from refusals to produce documents or provide straight answers.
"I have done nothing wrong" is not documentation. It's a conclusion. And when that conclusion is offered in place of the actual documentation being requested, courts tend to notice.
The Cognitive Dissonance
The mother's position contains an unresolvable contradiction:
Her son is mentally ill/delusional and needs help
Her son is dangerous enough to justify attempted interventions with law enforcement
Her son is "fucking stupid"
But also: Her son's concerns are so unfounded that no judge would ever credit them
If he's truly delusional and incompetent, why not simply produce the documentation he requests and definitively prove his concerns baseless? Why resort to profanity and categorical declarations instead of straightforward answers?
The pattern suggests something else entirely: that the requested documentation might not support the "nothing wrong" narrative. That substantive engagement might be riskier than dismissive insults. That "there will be no judge" is less a prediction than a desperate hope.
Conclusion: Reality Has Jurisdiction
"There will be no judge" joins the pantheon of famous last words, alongside "Nobody will ever find out," "They can't prove anything," and "It's just family business."
The American legal system doesn't require the defendant's consent to proceed. Federal jurisdiction doesn't evaporate because someone insists their accusers are "fucking stupid." Civil rights statutes don't have exceptions for mothers who really, really don't want to be held accountable.
There will, in fact, be a judge—if the documented conduct warrants filing. That judge will evaluate evidence, assess credibility, and apply law to facts. They won't be impressed by social position, family connections, or assertions that the plaintiff is delusional. They'll want documentation. Explanations. Sworn testimony.
And when that day comes, “there will be no judge" will read very differently in a deposition transcript than it did in an angry email.
The question isn't whether there will be a judge. The question is what that judge will conclude when comparing documentary evidence against categorical denials, substantive questions against profane dismissals, and one party's detailed legal knowledge against another party's insistence that legal accountability simply doesn't apply to them.
Reality, as they say, has a way of asserting jurisdiction.
You are fucking stupid. There will be no judge. I have not caused a financial crisis for anybody. I have done nothing wrong.
Until you are able to take responsibility for your own mess of a life and get help, there is nothing we can do.
I love you and worry about you, but you do nothing to deal with your psychoses, paranoia, or delusions.
I know I will get a response that I am gaslighting you.
Love,
Mom
