0:00
/

The Hales crew copes with being humiliated

One by one their analysis of Magistrate Bolitho's dismissal didn't disappoint for their cumulative stupidity, arrogance, and bullying.
Magistrate Zach Bolitho recommended that each count be dismissed with prejudice.

Note: in the video is a mashup of some of the dumbest and most revealing moments from Hales and his crew after the humiliating defeat.

After being humiliated by a scathing recommendation from Magistrate Zach Bolitho to dismiss charges against the defendants with prejudice, Jeremy Hales and his propagandists did some coping.

Jeremy Hales threatened to continue suing, despite civil court remedies to stop him from bringing another lawsuit.

Megan Fox and TUG proudly proclaimed they were too stupid to explain to their audience why Hales’ frivolous lawsuit was dismissed.

Meanwhile, Shizzy Whiz Nut is so dumb my three-year-old son has forgotten more about the law then he’ll ever learn.

Jeremy Hales got his feelings hurt and decided to sue anyone who looked at him funny.

It took almost a year, but Magistrate Zach Bolitho, who presided over the case, finally told him that hurt feelings aren’t enough for torts.

From Magistrate Bolitho’s recommendation, he recommends that Hales pay for Dave Helm’s legal fees because his lawsuit is so frivolous.

Jeremy Hales

Most people, after they’ve been legally humiliated, might take some time to reflect, but not Jeremy Hales.

Helas threatened to continue filing lawsuits against all the defendants who had just beaten him, many representing themselves.

And I will share this very very clearly. Fed 2 is just the beginning. It was always just the beginning of the master plan. These freaks and fools and fraudsters and felons now will have me in their lives for the rest of their pathetic lives. Fed 2 was just the beginning. It was never ever anticipated for the end.

Apparently, Jeremy Hales thinks that the court system has not accounted for a serial vexatious litigant.

Whether it’s res judicata or collateral estoppel, civil court has remedies similar to criminal court’s double jeopardy rule to stop Hales from doing what he dreams.

He can’t keep suing. He won’t keep suing, and if he manages to file another lawsuit, it will be dismissed along with finding him vexatious and that will be the end.

In his lowest moment, Hales said, “there are two types of crimes: criminal crimes and civil crimes.”

My only response is below.

Hales mangles the law in a way reminiscent of the great Twitter account, 3 Year Letterman, only with Coach Letterman it’s schtick; Hales thinks he’s right.

3 Year Letterman purposely misspelling the acronym HIPAA, along with misconstruing the law to troll.

Helas then went on to claim, “What Bolitho did not say is ‘these individuals did not commit crimes.’ Never said that.”

They weren’t charged with crimes, so Bolitho didn’t answer that question, however, Magistrate Bolitho did emphatically say that no torts which were alleged were meritorious.

To understand just how frivolous Hales’ lawsuit was, let’s take a look at one count: conspiracy.

Hales claimed that people violated numerous torts like tortious interference, Unfair Trade Practices, etc.

He further argued that the defendants conspired together to commit these torts.

Magistrate Bolitho dismissed the conspiracy counts because he dismissed all the alleged torts, but he also put in a footnote that even if some torts remained, the conspiracy would have been dismissed because Hales did not provide evidence to establish the conspiracy elements.

“The second amended complaint alleges a sprawling conspiracy involving people from across the United States, all of whom share one thing in common- they have said negative things about Plaintiff Hales on social media. But there are insufficient facts alleged to plausibly show an agreement between all the members of the supposed conspiracy to engage in an unlawful act or a lawful act by unlawful means.” Magistrate Bolitho stated.

Merely saying mean things is not a conspiracy, and Jeremy Hales presented no facts besides the mean words others said.

Megan Fox and TUG

Megan and TUG were in a state of mourning and shock, repeatedly expressing frustration for why counts were dismissed. After all, Jeremy Hales cried a lot about having his feelings hurt, which, in their minds at least, should have been enough.

After the recommendation, Megan acted unsurprised. She said it was “always going to be an uphill battle,” because there were ten defendants who were “underhanded.”

Before this recommendation, Megan and TUG were singing a different tune. Months ago, Hales made up a mole. He claimed that one of the defendants had flipped, agreed to pay money, and testify against the others.

Megan and TUG said then that this is what they expected to happen, and it was the beginning of the dominos. The before and after are below.

Megan isn’t bothered that Hales made up a mole and pretended like someone had decided to cooperate, nor does she think that’s underhanded.

Their unprofessional rant reached its apex approximately forty-eight minutes in when the two were going over part of recommendation and remarked on the Lanham Act.

“My problem with the Lanham Act is I don’t know enough,” TUG proudly proclaimed, bragging about his legal ignorance.

“I don’t know about it either.” Megan replied. “I tried to read it too, and it was like ooh.”

The Lanham Act was one of the alleged counts. These two have done multiple videos per week on a lawsuit involving the Lanham Act and after a year, they are still clueless, telling their audience that they aren’t smart enough to tell them why it was dismissed under this law.

The Lanham Act, “provides for a national system of trademark registration and protects the owner of a federally registered mark against the use of similar marks if such use is likely to result in consumer confusion, or if the dilution of a famous mark is likely to occur.” according to Cornell Law.

In this case, no one was stealing Hales trademark. No other YouTube channel was pretending to be his. He may as well have picked something out of a hat; he would have gotten just as close, and that’s why Magistrate Bolitho dismissed it.

It’s actually not that hard to explain the Lanham Act, or why those counts were dismissed.

Hales pulled a law out his ass, and that doesn’t make for a good complaint.

Shizzy

Shizzy spent his time cautioning that this was only a recommendation, while proclaiming that Magistrate Bolitho was secretly communicating with Hales’ attorney, Randall Shochet, guiding him on how to improve the complaint.

Shizzy is right, technically, about the recommendation.

Magistrate Bolitho is not the District Judge who was nominated by a President and confirmed by the Senate.

That is Judge Robert Hinkle, who was nominated by then President Bill Clinton.

However, this is not the lawsuit where a District Judge would override the Magistrate, because this is one of the most frivolous lawsuits ever.

If you were watching Shizzy, you didn’t get that impression.

Instead, Shizzy claimed the lawsuit was missing a few minor facts and amended arguments before it was fit to move forward.

That’s why for legal analysis, you would learn more from my three-year-old son.

Shizzy made it seem that when Magistrate Bolitho was dismissing arguments and counts this was some sort of secret message that Magistrate Bolitho was sending to Shochet.

That is not correct. Magistrate Bolitho was not sending secret messages to Shochet.

That’s not what a recommendation is. Magistrate Bolitho was deciding the merits of the case: he decided it was meritless.

In one remarkable portion, Shizzy got almost nothing right about tortious interference.

With tortious interference, a plaintiff has to show that a defendant interfered with a business relationship with a customer, supplier, vendor, etc.

Making public statements is NOT tortious interference, though it may be defamation.

In this case, Hales failed to provide any evidence that Lisa from Two Lee’s in a Pod, or anyone else, interfered with any of these relationships.

Shizzy claimed this was no big deal. Shochet would just provide evidence of a specific business relationship that was interfered with when he asks Judge Hinkle to examine the recommendation.

That’s like saying we have no eyewitnesses who saw you commit the crime, no physical evidence to tie you to the crime, nothing to put you at the scene, but once we get some of that your ass is grass.

Hales is missing the whole thing. He can’t make it appear a year into the lawsuit.

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, and fifteen, sixteen, and seventeen.

Get more from Michael Volpe in the Substack app
Available for iOS and Android

Discussion about this video

User's avatar

Ready for more?