The many talking points of the Hales cult

A strange thing happened as I communicated with numerous pro Hales journalists; they all sounded the same.

Part of my conversation with pro-Hales reporter Shara Michelle Wolf

Note: to sum up the Hales saga, Jeremy Hales sued Michelle Preston and John Cook over some incendiary signs which were found by Hales friends in the town they share: Otter Creek, Florida. Since then, Hales has turned the lawsuit into a running story on his YouTube channel. The ongoing saga has attracted YouTubers both for and against Hales.

While working on another story, I reached out to my {former} friend Megan Fox.

I asked her some pointed questions, but rather than responding, she asked me about my ethical lapse in starting a relationship with the subject of some stories in 2021-2022.

I had previously told her this, and I relayed the conversation in my appearance on Two Lee’s in a Pod.

Megan was now unhappy with my decisions, and she responded this way.

I do not associate with nor do I respond to scumbag victimizers like you.

“Scumbag, victimizer,” I have heard that before. It’s exactly what That Umbrella Guy (TUG) called me when he declined to be interviewed.

Based on your own words, I believe you abused your position to exploit a vulnerable, possibly unwell woman.

As you did that, you used that position to attack another party on behalf of said woman seemingly in exchange for sexual favors, as evident by you living with her and the pregnancy.

Than you ended up getting her pregnant and she ended up accusing you.

Suddenly she isn't a victim anymore. She's a false accuser.

And we know what you did with her, don't we?

Up until the accusation, you don't disclose this to anyone. And you said this would've possibly ruined you.

I think you're right.

You relayed this, too. It isnt rumor. Its your words.

So bluntly, I heard your interview where you disclosed it, and heard your side. I think you're a scumbag. I'll cover a scumbag {emphasis mine} but I don't want to associate with you in any way. I don't know how to make that any clearer.

Both used it in denying cooperation with me.

It’s not the only time that I have noticed the pro Hales crew using the same talking points.

Over the last week, I have tried to get pro-Hales YouTuber Shara Michele Wolf to come on the podcast which I share with Richard Luthmann. One of her videos is below.

She broke news that Bruce Matzkin had referred to forming an “anti-Hales” ecosystem in a text message.

That term is now used by most pro-Hales people, “anti-Hales ecosystem.”

It’s used to describe the collection of mostly YouTube channels which are sympathetic to Hales lawsuit defendants: Michelle Preston and John Cook.

Hales has his own “ecosystem” including Megan, TUG, Shizzywiznut, along with his own channel which boasts approximately 750,000 subscribers, but that’s never referred to as an “ecosystem.”

{TUG, Megan, Shizzy, and Hales all go on each other’s show and promote each other, but don’t call that an ecosystem.}

In resisting my request to come on the podcast, Ms. Wolf made a curious observation.

I’m trying to understand why a journalist is collecting information from journalists for his story. Why not investigate the story. It would be interesting to see what you report.

She acted like being interviewed on the podcast was akin to me asking her to do her work for her.

Even weirder, it was the same criticism which my {former} friend Megan leveled to Richard Luthmann when he asked her on the broadcast.

One reporter contacting another reporter to do his work for him is bizarre.

Except reporters do this all the time, and in fact, Rick and I interviewed my {former} friend Megan, an interview which included something on the Hales story during better times.

I asked Ms. Wolf about the curious coincidences in their responses, and here is her reply, “Why not go collect some public records or interview parties in the story like a journalist? Since you are getting paid, shouldn't you do your own work?”

I responded by saying, “The interview is for the audience not for me. I'll use your answer in the story I'm working on. The invitation is always open to come on.”

My {former} friend Megan also leveled another criticism at Mr. Luthmann.

An investigative journalist should familiarize themselves with every motion on the public record before commenting on a case, especially one this complex.

One of the pro-Hales commenters on YouTube leveled the same criticism.

This criticism creates an air of intellectual superiority. As the pro-Hales people claim they have read and watched everything, only they know the truth.

That’s a curious criticism, since the pro-Hales people all insist that Ms. Preston is a “public figure.” I find this all over the comments on YouTube.

My {former} friend Megan repeated these talking points in one of the last friendly conversations we had. This is part of a text message from November 21, 2024.

As you can see, I agreed with her then, but I didn’t want to argue.

This is another bizarre talking point. Hales is suing Preston. It’s not clear how her being a “public figure” would make a difference.

The traditional public figure is a famous person, which she’s not.

The pro-Hales people have made hay of a text message which Ms. Wolf also released in which Preston’s attorney referred to her as “being famous.” The message is taken out of context, however, plainly, she’s not famous.

There are other categories of public figures, like “limited purpose public figure” however simply running for office in Otter Creek, a small town where Hales and Preston both live, would not make one that.

Starting a non-profit would no more make someone a public figure than would starting a small business.

Yet, most pro-Hales people will make the argument she’s a public figure due to her running for city council- and not winning- in a small town and starting a non-profit.

Rick Luthmann, in a previous article, referred to Hales backers as a “cult”.

“I think Megan Fox has been co-opted into the WhatTheHales cult,” he said. “She’s a groupie, following Hales with cult-like fanaticism. And I know a thing or two about cults.”

According to Luthmann, Hales’ charisma and influence have created a loyal following that mirrors the dynamics of a cult.

“I’m not saying he’s Keith Raniere, who I know from my time in the Brooklyn MDC. But Hales seemingly controls his groupies and uses them to amplify his narrative while evading accountability,” Luthmann argued.

Fox, who has built a reputation as a journalist, previously focusing on topics like politics, court corruption, and reunification therapy abuses, responded to Luthmann’s accusations with silence, evading his invitation to comment.

I thought- and still think- this is a provocative argument, but cults all have the same talking points, and they isolate their members. Pro-Hales people will not go on and debate with anyone but those with blind loyalty to Jeremy Hales, and they all repeat the same talking points.

Ironically, in our first foray, when Rick and I interviewed Preston’s attorney Bruce Matzkin, an exasperated Matzkin told Rick that he made a better Hales argument than Hales actual lawyer. Check out that interview below.

That’s not enough for the pro-Hales people; nothing but blind loyalty to Jeremy Hales is enough to be included in his circle of media. That’s exactly what Megan made clear to me in her last communication before I covered the case.

I was planning on going onto Miltown’s Best to talk about another story, but because he covered the Hales saga in a way Megan didn’t like, that was the end of our friendship. That text message is from December 5, 2024, long before I said anything about the Hales saga.

This is the first of at least three articles on the Hales saga; check out the fundraiser and make it more than three.

Update: I erroneously initially stated the final text message exchange with Megan Fox occurred on November 30, 2024. It occurred on December 5, 2024. It has been fixed.