Lawsuits, Lies, and Legal Fiction Collide in the Latest Bombshell Episode of The Unknown Podcast
By Dick LaFontaine, with Michael Volpe and Richard Luthmann
In Episode 33 of The Unknown Podcast, Michael Volpe and Richard Luthmann open the What the Hales? segment by torching a YouTuber-turned-litigant who seems to think he’s starring in a Netflix legal thriller.
Jeremy Hales—host of the YouTube channel What the Hales—has sued nearly everyone who looks at him sideways, from his neighbors to his girlfriend’s sister.
He has a case now pending in Florida Federal court in the Gainesville Division. Pensacola-based U.S. Magistrate Judge Zachary C. Bolitho presides.
This week, Hales claimed in a livestream that one of the 10 defendants in his civil case had struck a “plea deal.”
🤡 Fake “Plea Deals” and Legal Illusions
Volpe quickly cut through the nonsense: “There’s no such thing as a plea deal in civil court. It’s called a settlement agreement.”
Luthmann agreed, calling the mix-up “the hallmark of a legal novice.” He accused Hales of attempting a psychological ploy, likening it to the classic “Prisoner’s Dilemma.”
“This is theater,” Luthmann said. “He’s trying to trick a co-defendant into flipping early—before anyone’s even filed a motion to dismiss.”
Volpe added, “Only five of the ten have even been served. No one’s responded. This claim is made up—clickbait for views.”
The hosts agree: Hales is creating the illusion of momentum to pressure defendants, bait the audience, and legitimize a lawsuit they say is built on sand.
🎭 Astroturf Armies and the Fall of Megan Fox
The episode turns personal when Volpe calls out former ally Megan Fox for allegedly coordinating attacks on him through lesser-known YouTubers.
“She went from friend to manipulative bitch in 10 minutes,” Volpe says bluntly.
Fox, once Volpe’s close investigative partner, is now accused of backing “Astroturf influencers” like “Jay Hip” and “Rosalyn Duke.” According to Volpe, Fox promotes these accounts, moderates their livestreams, and uses them to smear him online—mostly because he dared to cover Hales-related lawsuits she wanted buried.
“She told me not to go on a YouTube show. Not to cover a story. That’s censorship,” Volpe said.
Luthmann agreed: “Telling a journalist not to report something is the third rail of journalism.”
Volpe produced private messages where Fox warned him not to appear on a channel linked to one of Hales’ critics. “They’re harassers and defamers,” she wrote. “If you legitimize them, we are not friends.”
Volpe refused. “That’s when I knew she sold out,” he said, noting her subscriber count soared after aligning with Hales, who boasts over 750,000 followers.
“She used to bust corrupt judges with me,” Volpe said. “Now she’s protecting a serial litigant for clout.”
🚔 Protective Orders and Judicial Fiction
The podcast shifts focus to disturbing video evidence showing Hales violating a protective order he filed against his Ohio neighbors, John Cook and Michelle Preston.
Footage shows Hales driving by their home and filming them—despite a court-issued protection order.
“This is classic shield-as-sword behavior,” Luthmann said. “He’s abusing the court process.”
Yet, instead of holding Hales accountable, Ohio Magistrate Kandi O’Connor recently found Cook or Preston in contempt.
“This is a legal fiction,” Luthmann said. “Judges are ignoring video evidence and validating lies.”
Volpe placed blame squarely on defense attorney Sean Martin, who took the case pro bono but failed to enter critical evidence—including police reports and surveillance footage—into the record.
“He let Hales run over these poor people,” Volpe said. “He tanked the case.”
When asked for comment, Martin refused to discuss details, replying, “I do not discuss cases.” Volpe responded on air: “You’re a scumbag. You let two poor people get steamrolled.”
Luthmann called for judicial scrutiny. “Either the judge was deceived by fraud—or ignored the evidence. Both are unacceptable.”
🧼 “Frivolous” Defamation Lawsuits Flood Social Media
The episode ends with a third act of legal absurdity. Volpe and Luthmann dissect a now-dismissed defamation suit filed by influencer “Lauren the Mortician” against fellow creators.
Lauren sued over being called a “TERF”—a “trans-exclusionary radical feminist.” But the judge ruled the statement was protected opinion.
“Calling someone a racist, a bigot, or a TERF is not defamatory. It’s subjective,” Volpe said.
Luthmann pointed to a broader issue: the weaponization of courts for personal feuds.
“Content creators are using lawsuits as content. There’s no cost, no risk, and judges aren’t enforcing Rule 11,” he said, referencing the federal rule against frivolous litigation.
One claim alleged that Illinois bar regulators were investigating Lauren’s lawyer. Volpe explained that no bar agency would ever confirm an active probe—making the claim likely defamatory. But that too was dismissed.
They warned that this trend is spiraling—especially in cases like Hales’ defamation crusade. Luthmann urged courts to “start hitting lawyers and litigants hard” to protect judicial integrity.
🎬 Conclusion: When Law Becomes Content
The Unknown Podcast’s What the Hales? segment lays bare how America’s courtrooms are becoming stages for digital drama.
With judges enabling false narratives, lawyers failing their clients, and influencers filing suits for views, Volpe and Luthmann argue that the justice system is on the brink of collapse—one livestream at a time.
“Litigation is becoming a business model,” Volpe said. “And the courts are letting it happen.”
Leave a Reply