If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.
It’s not just a philosophy to motivate people to overcome failure, but it’s a philosophy employed by unethical attorney, Randall Shochet, and his equally unethical client, YouTuber Jeremy Hales.
Over the last approximately two years, Hales has sued anyone who even looks at him funny and then monetizes the lawsuits by turning them into YouTube content.
One such lawsuit- referred to as Fed 2- started with ten defendants before Hales quickly pivoted after being warned it was a “shotgun pleading.”
He then added a defendant, my broadcast partner Richard Luthmann, and tried again.
Hales claimed there was a grand conspiracy to say mean things about him and thereby destroy his social media empire. He was light on facts, and the case was demolished first by the magistrate, Zach Bolitho.
After Bolitho hammered the lawsuit, the District Judge, Robert Hinkle a Clinton appointee, also picked it apart.
Judge Hinkle foolishly gave Hales one more chance to amend the lawsuit by April 2. That deadline came and went, and instead, earlier this week, Hales filed his third amended complaint taking off almost all the defendants and only leaving Luthmann and Michelle Preston.
Preston has been the subject of his legal and media war. He has sued her in Florida, filed a protective order in Ohio, called in numerous false CPS reports, all while making making videos about her.
Hales is no longer claiming there is a vast conspiracy to take down his business, instead, his new iteration argues that because she filed a lawsuit against him and then withdrew it- without prejudice- he can sue for “malicious prosecution.”
His new attack his many problems, namely that he’ll never meet the minimum $75,000 threshold necessary for federal court, but his new amended complaint is especially frivolous in its allegations against Richard Luthmann.
He sues him for defamation, harassment and cyberstalking. First, he claims that a satirical video is cyberstalking.
The video at issue is below.
Hales and his media enablers have had their panties in a bunch since it was released in 2025. Megan Fox, who was an ethical journalist, called it revenge porn. This crew of internet Karens makes fun of others but gets very angry when they are made fun of.
Hales biggest legal problem is that satire, including sexually laced satire, is a protected form of speech courtesy of Larry Flynt, the one-time publisher of Hustler magazine.
Flynt published a satirical story in which Falwell confessed to bestiality. Falwell was so appalled he sued.
The landmark case- Hustler Magazine vs Jerry Falwell- gave everyone first amendment protections for satire, even if that satire was, “intending to cause emotional distress,” per Wikipedia.
Hales can cry all he wants but as Richard Luthmann stated, “Larry Flynt died for all our sins.”
At one point in his complaint, Hales argued, “Plaintiff never consented to the publication of these images.”
It takes a lot of chutzpah to make this legal argument, since Hales, for years, has used photos of Michelle Preston and others without their consent as thumbnails, while taking video into her backyard and also posting it without her consent.
Hales second frivolous argument was that when Richard Luthmann called him an anti-Semite, this amounted to harassment and defamation.
The problem, as Hales will soon learn, is that calling someone an anti-Semite is not actionable, as Lauren the Mortician, another social media personality learned.
Like Hales, she sued other YouTubers who criticized her and found out the hard way about frivolous lawsuits. In her case, another social media personality called her a TERF.
“On or around October 24, 2023, Carter published a video on TikTok where she accused Propson of being transphobic and a “TERF.” [29] ¶ 19. Specifically, Cartersaid ‘Lauren the Mortician is a TERF, I have receipts, I have deets, and you should just go ahead and take a seat.’” The order stated.
The characterization of racist was not “actionable” according to the order by Judge Mary Rowland, a Trump appointee, “Carter allegedly stated that Propson is a “TERF,” or trans-exclusionary radical feminist, and that she is transphobic.5 Propson alleges that ‘[b]eing called transphobic is akin to being called a bigot or a racist.’ [29] ¶ 168. The problem for Propson is that courts universally recognize that allegations of racism or bigotry are not actionable in a defamation claim {emphasis mine} because they express subjective opinions that cannot be proven true or false.”
The same applies to Hales lawsuit, but he has a bigger problem- he is an anti-Semite.
The controversy stems from Hales referring to Bruce Matzkin, who previously represented Preston, as “deuce foreskin.”
Matzkin is Jewish and this is blatantly anti-Semitic, as Rabbi Jacob Bellinsky explained last year. Rabbi Bellinsky said that this slur refers to the Jewish practice of circumcision, one that Jews have died to maintain.
The Jewish civil rights group, BETAR, upon learning of the slur said of Hales, “Jeremy Hales hates Jews. Disgusting individual who stands against humanity. This Jew hater is an ugly person and scum. We warn Jew haters there will be a price.”
Hales failed to state that the reason Luthmann, I, and others call him an anti-Semite is due to this comment, but it won’t matter. The case will be dismissed because it’s opinion.
The court of public opinion won’t be any better. Referring to a Jewish person as “deuce foreskin” is blatant anti-Semitism and he’ll properly be labelled as such.
Post-script
Check out the fundraiser to help me create more articles on the Hales case. Find articles one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, nineteen, twenty, twenty-one, twenty-two, and twenty-three.
