Richard Luthmann joined Lisa Lee and Robbie Keszey on Two Lees in a Pod for a wide-ranging discussion centered on Lisa Lee’s disputed subpoena in the Lynette Preston bankruptcy matter and the broader litigation tactics of Jeremy Hales and attorney Randall “Randy” Shochet.

The central issue was whether Lee had been properly served. Lee said process server Mark Newby first acknowledged by telephone that the subpoena had to be delivered directly to her.

The following morning, however, Newby allegedly approached her husband, Gabriel Weeks, and stated that Lisa had authorized him to leave the papers with Weeks. Lee denied ever giving that authorization. She said Newby did not ask Weeks his name, did not establish that he was authorized to accept service, and did not personally hand the subpoena to her.

Get more from Richard Luthmann in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Lee also described security-camera footage that she said documented the process server’s visits, including his approach to neighbors, his alleged misidentification of another person as Lee, and his entry into an enclosed patio area. She said she filed a formal complaint regarding his conduct and intended to challenge any affidavit claiming valid personal service.

Luthmann framed the subpoena as a fishing expedition rather than legitimate bankruptcy discovery. He argued that Hales and Shochet were attempting to use Preston’s bankruptcy case to obtain Lee’s private communications, financial information, editorial materials, and audience data for possible collateral litigation or public retaliation. Lee agreed, noting that prior litigation involving Hales and several critics had already been dismissed with prejudice.

The discussion emphasized that Lee is a nonparty and that the subpoena appears far broader than necessary to determine whether Preston received compensation for appearing on the July 11 broadcast. Lee said she had not paid Preston, Luthmann, or Keszey to appear. The panel argued that any legitimate inquiry could be answered through a limited declaration or review of Preston’s own financial records rather than an invasive demand for Lee’s entire communications and business operation.

The panel also mocked online claims that the disputed subpoena could immediately trigger FBI action or an arrest warrant. Luthmann explained that awareness of a subpoena is not the same as valid service and advised Lee to file written objections and a motion to quash.

Overall, the appearance portrayed the subpoena as part of a broader pattern of vexatious litigation, intimidation, and content-driven lawfare. The panel’s message was that Lee should preserve evidence, challenge service, resist disclosure of viewer identities and private editorial information, and force Hales and Shochet to justify the subpoena before the bankruptcy court.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

LUTHMANN NOTE: Lawfare survives on repetition, fear, and paper fog. The Halesverse is a microcosm. Say the lie enough times, clip it enough ways, file enough garbage, and hope ordinary people run out of oxygen before the record catches up. That is the game. But on Two Lees in a Pod, Lisa Lee had receipts, Robbie Keszey had history, and Luthmann had the scalpel. GERM can scream. Pocket Rocket Randy Shochet can bill. Doreen Turner-Inkeles can orbit the paper mill. But the question remains: who is writing, who is signing, who is paying, who is profiting, and who is getting hurt? This piece is “Two Lees One GERM,” first available on FL Gulf News.

By Dick LaFontaine and Richard Luthmann

The Two Lees War Room

Richard Luthmann came onto Two Lees in a Pod with Lisa Lee and Robbie Keszey like a man walking into a courtroom already carrying the exhibit binder, the flamethrower, and the punchline. The subject was Jeremy “GERM” Hales, Randy “Pocket Rocket” Shochet, Doreen Turner-Inkeles, and what Luthmann described as the latest round of lies, misdirection, and legal cosplay from the Halesverse.

The episode was not a polite tea party. It was a live autopsy of a lawfare machine. Lisa Lee brought the receipts. Robbie Keszey brought the lived history. Luthmann brought the legal analysis, the media framing, and the blunt-force diagnosis: Hales and Shochet are not running clean litigation. They are running content dressed up as litigation, harassment dressed up as procedure, and censorship dressed up as trademark law.

The clips tell the story. One centered on bogus CPS calls and why they are unforgivable.

Luthmann, Lee, and Keszey discussed the alleged campaign around John Cook, Michelle Preston, and little Harley Grace, emphasizing that weaponizing child-protection systems is not “commentary.” It is cruelty with a phone number.

Another clip addressed adoption documents and the allegation that sensitive material was pushed online even though, as discussed on the show, the documents did not prove fraud. The panel discussed adoption records, CPS complaints, and whether the Hales ecosystem was using private child-related material to harass a family rather than expose wrongdoing.

Two Lees One GERM: His Favorite Courtroom Toy

The show then moved into the broader Hales pattern: when one paper toy breaks, GERM grabs another. Luthmann’s trademark segment was the centerpiece. Hales filed to register “JEREMY HALES” as a service mark for commentary webcasts, and Luthmann argued that the filing is not innocent branding. It is the next possible weapon in a years-long campaign to make critics afraid to say the name “Jeremy Hales” while reporting on Jeremy Hales.

Luthmann explained the trick in plain English. A trademark is supposed to protect consumers from confusion over who made, sponsored, endorsed, or sold a product or service. It is not a gag order. It is not a personal reputation force field. It is not a federal muzzle for journalists, YouTubers, defendants, critics, or commentators.

A person covering a public controversy involving Jeremy Hales has to be able to say “Jeremy Hales.” That is not infringement. That is language doing its job.

Luthmann drives the same stake through the vampire. Hales, according to Luthmann, wants a government paper he can wave at YouTube, Substack, Facebook, and anyone else hosting criticism. Not because he is protecting a real brand from counterfeiters, but because a trademark takedown threat can become censorship-by-filing.

The process becomes the punishment. The claim does not have to win quickly if it scares people immediately.

FL Gulf News

Two Lees One GERM: Doreen, Randy, and the Paper Dragon

Then came Randy Shochet and Doreen Turner-Inkeles. Luthmann’s commentary framed Shochet as the paper mill’s public face — the “Pocket Rocket” running filings through court after court — while Turner-Inkeles surfaced as the shadow figure behind what Lisa Lee called the “motion queen” operation.

The panel discussed whether Turner-Inkeles was involved in drafting or shaping Shochet filings. At the same time, Luthmann made the legal point that responsibility generally falls on the lawyer who signs and files the document. In other words, if Randy signs it, Randy owns it.

That matters because the filings are not abstract. They become ammunition. They become live-stream fodder. They become pressure on pro se parties, YouTubers, critics, and people caught in the Halesverse blast radius. Luthmann’s critique was that Shochet and Turner-Inkeles are not acting like sober legal adults cooling down a volatile client. They appear, in his telling, to be feeding the furnace.

The episode also took shots at Turner-Inkeles’s public persona and her role in the broader Shochet orbit. The tone was tabloid, hard-edged, and unmistakably Luthmann: if you step into a legal-media war as part of the machine, do not expect velvet gloves.

The serious point beneath the fire was this: if filings contain overstatements, distortions, or claims designed to fuel online harassment instead of resolve legitimate legal disputes, the public has every right to ask who is writing, who is signing, who is billing, and who is benefiting.

Two Lees One GERM: The Lies Start to Collapse

The most important legal point from the episode involved Shochet’s own filings. Hales and Shochet have spent years helping build the “paint chips” narrative around Luthmann — unstable, irrational, detached from reality.

But in opposing Luthmann’s request for procedural accommodations, Shochet’s filing described Luthmann as legally experienced, sophisticated, strategic, capable, and knowledgeable about jurisdiction, service, declarations, conferral practice, and federal procedure.

Luthmann’s response on the show was devastating: pick a lane.

If Luthmann is a legally sophisticated former attorney who can navigate federal court better than many licensed lawyers, then the Halesverse “crazy” script collapses. But if the court’s “detached from reality” language is the operative frame, then Luthmann’s request for basic procedural fairness — including timely electronic notice — becomes harder to dismiss.

Luthmann further argued that Shochet did not simply deny the “Fly on the Wall” issue outright. Instead, the filing addressed it as a transcript-based controversy and tried to minimize its significance.

Luthmann’s view: once they brief it, it is no longer imaginary smoke. It is in the record.

Lee and Keszey stopped treating the Halesverse as entertainment and framed it as a pressure campaign. Lee described having to debunk claims again and again. Keszey talked about how people buy into narratives without learning the history.

Luthmann turned that into the larger indictment: GERM’s operation survives on repetition, not truth. Say it enough, clip it enough, send the minions enough talking points, and suddenly lies become “content.”

Two Lees One GERM: He Wanted a Circus

“GERM is s a cult-leader narcissist,” Luthmann said, capturing the whole machine. In his opinion, Hales is not just thin-skinned. He is operating like a cult figure inside a content ecosystem where loyalty matters more than facts.

Critics are enemies. Families are collateral. Court filings are scripts. Lawyers are props. Minions become unpaid infantry. Every dispute becomes another episode.

That is why the clips on CPS calls, adoption documents, court drama profits, trademark threats, Doreen’s alleged motion-room fingerprints, and the Fly on the Wall all connect. They are not isolated fragments. They are chapters in the same story. Luthmann’s appearance on Two Lees in a Pod presented Hales, Shochet, and Turner-Inkeles as pieces of a legal-media machine: GERM creates the grievance, Pocket Rocket papers it, the ecosystem spins it, and real people pay the price.

But Luthmann’s message was clear. The lies are no longer moving unchallenged. The filings are being read. The contradictions are being clipped. The trademark play has been challenged. The CPS allegations are being called out. The adoption-document smear is being answered. The Fly on the Wall issue is being dragged back into the light.

GERM wanted a circus. On Two Lees, Luthmann brought the ringmaster’s hook.

Subscribe now

Share

Share This is For Real.

Leave a comment

FL Gulf News

LUTHMANN NOTE: The Halesverse spent years turning court pain into content. Now the lawyers have made themselves part of the act in the Florida Courts. Larry Forman’s public pitch raises questions no bar should ignore. Randy Shochet’s filings raise questions no court should ignore. And the Fly on the Wall transcript raises questions no honest observer should laugh off. This is not about internet drama anymore. It is about lawyers using their licenses, public trust, and court access inside a monetized outrage machine. Once lawyers start laundering YouTube garbage into court papers, the show stops being funny. It becomes a legal ethics problem. It’s become a reality problem that Judge Robert Hinkle must sort out in Gainesville Federal Court. This piece is “Florida Court Lies By Lawyers,” first available on FL Gulf News.

By Dick LaFontaine and Richard Luthmann with Michael Volpe

The Halesverse Has A Lawyer Problem

(FLORIDA, USA) – The Halesverse was always sold as entertainment. A YouTube circus, drama farm, and grievance machine with microphones, moderators, cartoon mascots, and court papers waved around like carnival tickets. But every circus eventually runs into the same problem: somebody has to sign the papers.

That is where the lawyers come in.

On a recent live broadcast, Richard Luthmann and Michael Volpe walked through the problem now sitting at the center of the Halesverse. This is no longer just Jeremy Hales doing his usual camera-facing routine, mugging for an audience, turning court carnage into content, and pushing his followers to believe whatever storyline keeps the clicks moving.

Now the issue is lawyers. Lawyers making public statements. Lawyers making representations to courts. Lawyers marketing themselves to vulnerable people. Lawyers certifying service. Lawyers describing evidence. Lawyers taking the Halesverse’s YouTube sewage and laundering it into legal filings.

Two names matter here: Larry Forman and Randy Shochet.

Forman is the Kentucky lawyer who appears to have decided that the internet spotlight was too sweet to resist. Shochet is the Florida lawyer carrying Jeremy Hales’ paper war in federal court. Different roles. Same smell. One pitches himself to the public like a legal gun-for-hire with nationwide reach. The other files papers that, in Luthmann’s view, twist facts, dodge corrections, and try to turn satire into something it is not.

This is the real story: the Halesverse is not merely ugly. It has become lawyer-enabled.

Florida Court Lies By Lawyers: Larry Forman’s Nationwide Pitch

Larry Forman’s problem begins with his own mouth. During the discussion, Luthmann and Volpe played the clip.

Forman tells an online audience that he is a full-time practicing attorney. Then the pitch comes. If anyone “anywhere in the country” has an injury, “anywhere,” “all 50 states,” he says his operation covers the “entirety of the United States.” Then he drops the magic phrase: he is licensed in Kentucky, but he can go pro hac vice anywhere.

That is not a harmless flourish. That is not a barroom boast. That is a lawyer speaking to a public audience and making a legal-service pitch.

Pro hac vice is not a national license. It is not a golden ticket. It is not a passport that lets a Kentucky lawyer parachute into every personal-injury claim from Alaska to Florida because some YouTube viewer likes his style. Pro hac vice is case-specific, court-specific, and permission-based. It usually requires local counsel, a pending matter, a formal motion, and judicial approval. It is not “call me from all 50 states, and I will figure it out later.”

That matters because the public does not know the difference. A layperson hears “all 50 states” and “I can pro hac vice anywhere” and reasonably thinks: this lawyer can represent me. That is the consumer-protection problem. That is the unauthorized-practice problem. That is the advertising problem.

Forman may think he is being clever. He may think the internet lets lawyers talk like influencers. But a bar license is not a prop. When a lawyer markets a reach he may not actually have, the audience is not just being entertained. They may be misled.

Florida Court Lies By Lawyers: Forman’s Judge-Grudge Ethics Problem

The nationwide pitch is only one piece of the Forman problem. The other is his role in the Halesverse “Judge Grudge” machine.

Forman did not merely comment cautiously on a case. He jumped into the online fight and wrapped himself in his lawyer identity. He invoked his bar license. He attacked a sitting Florida judge in blistering terms. He amplified Halesverse talking points. He treated the judicial process like a reaction-video target.

Private citizens can say a lot about judges. Journalists can criticize judges. Litigants can complain about rulings. That is America. That is the First Amendment.

But lawyers occupy a different position. They are officers of the court. They have professional obligations. They do not get to throw their bar license on the table, whip up an online mob, and then pretend they were just another guy yelling into a webcam.

Forman’s problem is not that he criticized a judge. Judges can be wrong. Judges can be criticized. Judges can be exposed. The problem is the mix: lawyer status, audience monetization, judicial attacks, Halesverse grievance content, and a public legal pitch. That combination creates the appearance of a lawyer using professional credibility to fuel an online pressure campaign.

There is a difference between sober legal analysis and performative courtroom rage. Forman’s commentary, as discussed on the show, looked much closer to the second category. That matters because the Halesverse audience does not separate legal analysis from fan-service outrage. They hear a lawyer and think the story is certified.

That is how internet mobs become legally weaponized. That is how content becomes pressure. That is how a lawyer becomes part of the machine.

FL Gulf News

Florida Court Lies By Lawyers: Randy Shochet’s Certificate Problem

Then there is Randy Shochet.

Shochet’s issue is not YouTube swagger. His issue is court-paper precision. That is worse. A lawyer can embarrass himself online and maybe survive. But when a lawyer certifies something to a federal court, the words matter. The date matters. The method matters. The record matters.

The dispute Luthmann and Volpe discussed is simple. Shochet filed a certificate of service representing that a filing was served by email on June 16, including service on Luthmann as a pro se party.

Luthmann says he had no record of receiving it by email that day. He asked Shochet for proof. Instead of producing a June 16 service email, Shochet later forwarded a CM/ECF notice. That notice, as Luthmann explained on the show, said Luthmann would be served by USPS and would not be electronically mailed.

That is not a cure. That is confirmation.

A next-day forwarded notice is not June 16 email service. A certificate that says one thing cannot be rescued by a later event that says the opposite. And this is not a clerical detail when the party on the receiving end is pro se, not an ECF filer, and dependent on accurate service to protect deadlines and rights.

Shochet should have corrected it. A careful lawyer would have said: mistake made, certificate corrected. Instead, in Luthmann’s view, he let the false record sit.

That is the point. This is not about technical gamesmanship. It is about whether a lawyer can make a factual representation to the court, get challenged, fail to prove it, and refuse to clean it up.

Florida Court Lies By Lawyers: Shochet’s Evidence Problem

The service issue is only one layer. The deeper Shochet problem is the way the Hales side has described the challenged video, which is now evidence in the case.

The core question is not complicated. They represented that the video depicts Jeremy Hales engaging in oral sex with a journalist. Fine. Then show the frame. Show the timestamp. Show the second. Show the image. Show the actual evidence.

They cannot.

Instead, the Hales side tries to move the goalposts. Suddenly it is about digitally manipulated content, semantic disputes, developing law, altered media, emotional injury, and whatever else can be thrown into the fog machine. But the court does not need fog. The court needs the exhibit.

If a lawyer tells a federal court that a video depicts something, the video either depicts it or it does not. If the statement is literal, the lawyer should point to the literal evidence. If the statement is not literal, then the lawyer should not present it as a factual description.

This matters because the Halesverse thrives on exaggeration. On YouTube, exaggeration becomes engagement. In court, exaggeration becomes misrepresentation. There is a line.

The video, according to Luthmann’s position, is satire.

Crude satire, sharp satire, offensive satire if critics want to call it that.

But satire is not the same thing as an actual sex tape. A satirical setup is not the same thing as real sexual conduct. A manipulated joke is not the same thing as revenge porn.

That is why the limited-reply motion matters. It asks the court to focus on the actual record, not Shochet’s rewrite of it.

The Fly On The Wall

And then there is the Fly on the Wall.

This is where the Halesverse gets especially strange. In the clip, Halesverse participants talk about a “Fly on the Wall” who supposedly knows what the judge is doing, who allegedly says the judge is responding to documents “as we speak,” and who “hooked” them up with documents first.

Then comes the secrecy language: they cannot get the fly in trouble; this is their ace; the fly will never be named.

Precision matters here. Luthmann is not saying that courthouse infiltration has been proven. He is not saying bribery has been proven. He is not saying a specific clerk, employee, lawyer, party, or court-adjacent person has been identified.

His argument is narrower and stronger: the concern did not come from thin air.

If adversary-aligned YouTubers publicly brag about a hidden source with supposed real-time court information, a pro se litigant has a good-faith basis to ask questions. Maybe they were lying. Maybe they were puffing. Maybe they were titillating their audience. Maybe it was ordinary docket-watching dressed up as espionage. Fine. But those are explanations. They do not erase the trigger.

Judge Hinkle called one of Luthmann’s assertions “detached from reality.” Luthmann respectfully disagrees that the concern was invented from nothing. The Fly on the Wall transcript is the reason. If the court thinks his inference goes too far, then the court can say that. But it should not pretend the Halesverse never said what it said.

Chief Justice John Roberts has already warned the country about exactly this kind of poison. In his 2024 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, Roberts distinguished legitimate criticism from illegitimate attacks, stating that not all actors engage in “informed criticism” and identifying disinformation as one of four threats to judicial independence and the rule of law.

He warned that distortion of the factual or legal basis for a ruling can undermine confidence in the courts, and that judges are especially vulnerable because they usually speak only through their decisions, not press conferences or rebuttals. He also noted that social media magnifies the problem by giving rumor and false information an instant delivery system.

That is the Halesverse in miniature. The “Fly on the Wall” stunt is the case in point: a content ecosystem publicly peddling the idea that it has some hidden source with real-time courthouse knowledge, then hiding behind ambiguity when called on it.

Whether the “fly” is real, fake, puffery, or bait, the effect is the same — it injects suspicion, rumor, and courthouse paranoia into the public bloodstream. That is not accountability. That is judicial disinformation dressed up as YouTube entertainment.

The Fly is not proof. The Fly is smoke. And smoke justifies looking.

Why The Accommodations Motion Matters

The accommodations motion is not a stunt. It is a shield.

The court now has a pro se defendant without CM/ECF access, facing a represented plaintiff, disputed service issues, a hostile internet ecosystem, and a judicial order that used the phrase “detached from reality.”

That phrase matters. If a court views a litigant’s reasoning as impaired, distorted, or unreliable, the answer should not be procedural ambush. The answer should be clarity.

Luthmann asked for practical safeguards: liberal construction, courtesy electronic service, accurate certificates of service, reasonable time where service is delayed or unclear, and an opportunity to cure defects before waiver, forfeiture, contempt, dismissal, or sanctions. That is not immunity from the rules. That is meaningful access to the court.

Hales calls Luthmann “Paint Chips.” His ecosystem mocks Luthmann’s mental state.

Then his lawyer wants Luthmann treated like a fully staffed attorney with full electronic access and no functional disadvantage. They cannot have it both ways. If Luthmann is impaired when they want to mock him, then the court should account for practical impairments when procedure matters.

This is not about special treatment. This is about fair treatment.

The Halesverse wants the worst of both worlds: ridicule the defendant as damaged, then demand lawyer-level precision from him while their own lawyer plays loose with certificates, descriptions, and records. No. That game ends when the filings hit the court.

Fair process is not a favor. It is the floor.

Florida Court Lies By Lawyers: The Bigger Machine

The Halesverse is not just one man. It is a machine.

Jeremy Hales supplies the grievance. The audience supplies the adrenaline. The side characters supply the chorus. The law-tubers supply credibility. The lawyers supply paper. Then the whole thing loops: content becomes litigation, litigation becomes content, filings become livestream material, and livestream drama becomes more filings.

That is why lawyers matter so much here. Without lawyers, the Halesverse is noise. With lawyers, the noise becomes pleadings, certificates, motions, threats, sanctions demands, and federal-court pressure. That is when the system has to wake up.

Forman’s role raises the public-facing ethics question: can a lawyer use internet fame to blur licensing limits and sell legal reach he may not actually possess?

Shochet’s role raises the court-facing ethics question: can a lawyer advance the Halesverse narrative by overstating evidence, resisting correction, and making questionable service representations?

The Fly on the Wall raises the ecosystem question: how far are these people willing to go to make the audience believe they have special access, hidden sources, inside tracks, and secret power over the legal process?

All three roads lead to the same place. The Halesverse is built on a distortion field. It distorts facts. It distorts law. It distorts procedure. It distorts public understanding. And when lawyers participate, they are not merely spectators.

They become part of the act.

Florida Court Lies By Lawyers: The Courts And Bars Cannot Look Away

This is where the bars and courts come in.

A bar license is not a YouTube prop. A certificate of service is not a suggestion. A factual representation about evidence is not a dramatic caption. A court filing is not a community post. Lawyers do not get to play influencer on Monday, officer of the court on Tuesday, and victim on Wednesday when somebody calls them out.

Larry Forman and Randy Shochet are different men with different problems. But they illustrate the same danger. When lawyers enter a monetized outrage ecosystem, the pressure is to perform. To exaggerate. To please the audience. To harden the storyline. To make everything more dramatic than the record supports.

That is poison to the legal system.

The public can be loud. Journalists can be sharp. Litigants can be angry. But lawyers are supposed to know where the line is. The Halesverse keeps finding lawyers willing to dance near that line, step over it, and then complain when someone points to the footprints.

This is not just “internet drama.” That phrase is how guilty people try to shrink serious misconduct into background noise. This is about legal ethics, court integrity, public deception, and the abuse of litigation as content fuel.

Forman should answer for his public legal marketing and judicial commentary. Shochet should answer for his court-paper representations. And the Halesverse should answer for the Fly on the Wall circus it created.

Because once lawyers start lying, the show is over. The court becomes the stage. And the public becomes the victim.

Subscribe now

Share

Share This is For Real.

Leave a comment

FL Gulf News

LUTHMANN NOTE: The Rucki case is what happens when family court stops looking like a courtroom and starts operating like an administrative occupation. The public was handed a simplified morality play. The documents tell a more disturbing story. The Gilbertson Progress Notes, the court transcript, the protective-order language, and the public-data material do not fit neatly into the television version. They show a system that labeled, moved, managed, restrained, and punished. Michael Volpe did what the legacy media should have done from the start: he went back to the record. In family court, the paper trail is often the only witness left. This story is “Rucki Files Blown Open,” first available on The Family Court Circus.

By Richard Luthmann with Michael Volpe

The Gilbertson Progress Notes Pull Back The Curtain On A Family Court Machine

(MINNESOTA, U.S.A.) – The Rucki case was never merely a custody fight. It was never just another ugly divorce file in Minnesota. It was a full-scale institutional pileup: family court, criminal court, therapy culture, child-protection logic, media certainty, and judicial power all crashing into one family while everyone else pretended the wreckage was procedure.

Investigative journalist Michael Volpe has called the Rucki matter “the worst saga in American divorce and child custody history.” That is a heavy phrase. It sounds, at first blush, like rhetorical excess. But then the documents start talking. The emergency court transcript talks. The Gilbertson Progress Notes, the public-data records, and the protective orders talk. And suddenly the phrase does not sound like exaggeration. It sounds like a headline trying to keep up with the record.

The latest turn is that Volpe has acquired and published the Gilbertson Progress Notes, a set of records that should have been part of the public understanding long before the media machine settled on its preferred villain.

Gilbertson-Rucki Notes 1

Gilbertson-Rucki Notes 2

Gilbertson-Rucki Notes 3

Gilbertson-Rucki Notes 4

These are not glossy television packages. They are not courtroom press releases. They are notes from inside the system, written as the children were being moved, counseled, resisted, reassured, pressured, and interpreted by the professionals assigned to manage the wreckage.

And that is the real story. The Rucki case is not just about Sandra Grazzini-Rucki or David Rucki. It is about what happens when family court stops being a neutral forum and becomes a narrative factory. Once the court picks its theory, everything gets bent toward it. Child resistance becomes alienation. Fear becomes programming. A parent becomes a contaminant. A family becomes a file.

Rucki Files Blow Open: The Paper Trail Does Not Behave Like The TV Story

The neat public version of the Rucki case depends on a clean morality play. One side was truthful. One side was lying. The children were manipulated. The court restored order. The media confirmed it. The public moved on.

The documents do not move on so easily.

The September 2012 emergency telephone conference shows the machinery turning early and aggressively. The court heard arguments about removing the children from Sandra’s care based on Dr. Reitman’s report, placing them in therapeutic foster care, beginning therapy or “deprogramming,” and limiting Sandra’s contact outside a therapeutic setting. The transcript reflects discussion of Dr. James Gilbertson as the recommended therapist and of possible placements with relatives or connected parties, including concern over whether any option was truly neutral. This was not a casual adjustment of parenting time. This was the state moving the emotional architecture of a family by court order.

Then the Gilbertson notes complicate everything. In his case review, Gilbertson described the matter as a high-conflict post-separation case, with children separated from both parents and then divided between relatives. He noted distress, anger, loyalty conflicts, uncertainty, and children who were trying to understand why their world had been rearranged by adults. He also wrote that, after first meeting the children, he did not see clinical indicators of depression, anxiety, PTSD, or a specific serious clinical disorder, and instead considered whether the children’s symptoms reflected adjustment issues rooted in parent-child relationship conflict.

That matters. It means the children were not cardboard cutouts in a parental-alienation seminar. They were children inside a collapsing family structure, with each child reacting differently. Some resisted. Some thawed. Some asked questions. Some feared losing their mother. Some became more open to contact. The system wanted a clean classification. The notes show a messier human reality.

And when family court meets messy reality, it too often reaches for power.

Rucki Files Blow Open: The System Had A Hammer, So Everything Became A Nail

The Rucki documents show the familiar family-court pattern. First comes the expert frame. Then come the orders. Then come the professionals. Then come the police. Then come the media. Then, if the designated villain still will not stay inside the assigned role, comes the criminal case.

In Gilbertson’s notes, the children’s transition was not described as a simple healing march. It was fragile, improvisational, and full of institutional force. In one April 2013 note, the older girls resisted going into the Ireland Place home even when told their father was present. They asked whether they were going to be taken out in “body bags,” a stunning phrase for any child to use in a therapy-adjacent transition. Gilbertson assured them there was no such danger, walked with them, and tried to explain the court’s expectations. The girls still refused to enter.

Another note describes planning around police involvement. Gilbertson wrote about using the police department as a neutral setting, coordinating with the guardian ad litem and relatives, and avoiding physical restraint because no one outside law enforcement had a license or desire to grapple with children in a car. That sentence alone should stop the whole conversation. When family “therapy” has to be planned around police presence, the public should stop pretending this is normal.

The public-data image adds another harsh note. It describes officers encountering a defendant at Whiskey Junction, allegedly intoxicated, refusing to leave after staff requests, arguing with employees, breaking a beer bottle, threatening employees, and being uncooperative with police. That document may not resolve the custody dispute, but it certainly belongs in any serious examination of whether the public narrative was complete.

Then there is the protective-order image. It lists minor children Nia Rucki and Gino Rucki, bars direct or indirect contact, and appears to remain in effect until 2069 — fifty years. It also includes a handwritten provision stating that the respondent shall not name any member of the Rucki family in any blog posting, social media posting, or internet posting. That is not just a family-court restraint. That is speech control with a domestic-relations caption.

The Family Court Circus

Rucki Files Blow Open: The Media Picked A Villain And Called It Journalism

The media’s role in the Rucki case was not incidental. It was catalytic. Once national coverage puts a face on a story and tells the country who the liar is, the record has to fight uphill forever.

The Elizabeth Vargas material is part of that larger problem. One image shows Vargas responding online that Sandra Rucki had been judged to be a liar by a court of law, by a judge and jury of her peers, “not by me.” Another image shows a blocked account. The issue is not whether one journalist can block one critic. The issue is the posture: media certainty wrapped around court certainty, as if a verdict or court finding ends the duty to keep reporting.

That is not journalism. That is stenography with makeup lights.

Family court is already one of the least transparent systems in American public life. When the media simply adopts the court’s preferred version, it does not inform the public. It launders power. It turns disputed family-court claims into public fact. It turns children’s pain into plot points. It turns a mother into a national symbol before the full record has been confronted.

Volpe’s work matters because he did what the bigger outlets should have done. He went back to the documents. He chased the filings, the notes, the orders, the contradictions, and the institutional incentives. He did not stop at the clean version because the clean version was too convenient for the people who benefited from it.

The Rucki case asks a brutal question: what if the official story was not just incomplete, but structurally designed to be incomplete?

The Gilbertson Notes Are A Warning Label

The Gilbertson Progress Notes do not make the Rucki case simple. They make it serious. They show children in distress. They show professionals trying to impose structure. They show court orders creating realities before the family had absorbed the last one. They show the language of therapy blending into the logistics of enforcement. They show the children not merely as victims of one parent or the other, but as casualties of a system that could not tolerate ambiguity.

That is why this case still matters.

The family-court machine loves categories. Alienated parent. Protective parent. Resistant child. Reunification therapy. Best interests. No contact. Supervised access. Custody evaluator. Guardian ad litem. Therapeutic transition. Each phrase sounds clinical, neutral, and benevolent. But inside a real family, those phrases can operate like weapons. They can move children. Silence parents. Redirect money. Justify police involvement. Criminalize resistance. And, in some cases, bury abuse allegations beneath an expert vocabulary that the public does not know how to challenge.

The Rucki case is not ancient history. It is the blueprint of a system problem.

If a court can order children moved, restrict parental contact, rely on disputed psychological frames, manage transitions through police-adjacent planning, and then watch the media flatten the whole thing into a villain story, then the public should stop asking whether family court needs reform. The public should ask how many families have already been ground up under the same machine.

Volpe’s publication of the Gilbertson Progress Notes gives the public a new window into the machinery. It does not answer every question. It does something more important: it makes the old answers harder to trust.

That is why the Rucki case will not stay buried.

Subscribe now

Share

Share This is For Real.

Leave a comment

The Family Court Circus

LUTHMANN NOTE: This is what happens when fake commentators run into real reporters. Michael Volpe brought the Suarez record. I brought the receipts. TUG and Mr. Coop brought vibes, smears, and homework eaten by the dog. Megan Fox’s rule was “read everything,” and for once, Piglet was right. The problem is her own ecosystem does not follow it. They attack Volpe because the family court machine is harder to defend once the documents are on the table. Pedos, porno, and Piglet is not just a headline. It is the map of the Hales content furnace burning itself alive. This piece is “Pedos Porno and Piglet,” first available at FLGulfNews.com.

By Richard Luthmann with Michael Volpe

The Livestream That Brought the Receipts

Richard Luthmann Live did not open like a polite media seminar. It opened like a street fight in a courthouse parking lot, with journalist Michael Volpe stepping into the broadcast to answer what he called the latest smear from That Umbrella Guy, Mr. Coop, and the wider What The Hales ecosystem.

The subject was not gossip. It was the Suarez family court case in Illinois, where Volpe says a credibly accused father obtained custody despite allegations that should have triggered serious scrutiny, mandatory reporting, and institutional alarm bells. Instead, according to Volpe, the family court machine protected secrecy, punished the protective mother, and then watched as YouTube commentators blamed the reporter who exposed the rot.

The centerpiece of the show is detailed in Volpe’s article, “Anatomy of a Smear,” in which he argues that TUG went on Mr. Coop, discussed the Suarez case without reading the record, and reduced a child-sex-abuse reporting controversy into a cheap attack on Volpe’s motives.

Luthmann’s role was prosecutor, producer, and ringmaster. He pulled up clips, documents, emails, docket material, and the kind of uncomfortable questions that make fake commentators sweat.

Volpe’s point was simple: TUG did not know the case, did not know the timeline, did not know the evidence, did not know who gave Volpe what, and did not know enough to be pontificating into a microphone.

That is the rot at the center of the Hales ecosystem. They call themselves commentators, but when the record gets complicated, they reach for insults. When the facts matter, they reach for vibes. And when a reporter exposes something ugly, they don’t ask whether children are being harmed. They ask whether the reporter can be smeared hard enough to change the subject.

Pedos Porno and Piglet: TUG and Mr. Coop Punch the Reporter Not the Family Court Machine

The Suarez case, as presented by Volpe, is the kind of family court horror story that should unite anyone who claims to care about children, due process, and government transparency. Volpe reported that David Suarez admitted to watching pornography while caring for his children, that the child disclosed sexual abuse to multiple mandated reporters, and that a pediatrician testified to behavioral changes and physical evidence.

Volpe further reported that despite this record, David Suarez received sole custody while Bridget Suarez was reduced to supervised parenting time.

That is the story TUG should have investigated before taking the stage on Mr. Coop.

Instead, according to Volpe’s breakdown, TUG fixated on the release of one paragraph from a guardian ad litem report. That paragraph, Volpe says, showed the pornography admission. TUG framed the controversy as leaked confidential material and blamed Volpe for supposedly wrecking Bridget Suarez’s case.

The problem is chronological, factual, and journalistic. Volpe says the custody trial and supervised-visitation order came before his May 1 article. In other words, he did not “blow up” the case. The case had already been blown apart by the family court apparatus.

That is why Luthmann’s framing hits with force. TUG and Mr. Coop were not defending journalism, children, or protective parents. They were protecting the wrong target by attacking the reporter who brought sunlight.

Maybe they did it out of ignorance. Maybe they did it because the Hales ecosystem has trained its audience to hate Volpe and Luthmann on command.

Either way, the effect is the same: a credibly accused father gets less scrutiny than the journalist who reported the allegations, and the protective mother becomes a prop in a smear campaign against the messenger.

Volpe’s Counterattack: The Timeline Breaks the Smear

Volpe’s strongest point on Richard Luthmann Live was not rhetorical. It was chronological. He walked through the timeline and forced the audience to confront the one thing YouTube gossip cannot survive: sequence. The Suarez custody trial occurred in January 2026. Volpe’s article came later, on May 1, 2026. If the court had already moved Bridget Suarez to supervised visits before Volpe published, then TUG’s claim that Volpe cost her custody collapses.

That is not nuance. That is arithmetic.

Volpe also challenged TUG’s claim that Bridget gave him the GAL report. Volpe said she did not. He said she did not participate in the article. He interviewed Bridget’s father, Tim Burgess, and he worked through sources and documents.

TUG, by contrast, appeared to speculate from fragments, assumptions, and hostility. On the livestream, Volpe showed how TUG flashed only snippets while ignoring the sections containing the actual evidence: the pornography admission, the mandated-reporter disclosures, the pediatrician testimony, and the broader allegations of a court cover-up.

That is where the Hales ecosystem’s method becomes clear. They do not need to prove Volpe wrong. They only need to make him look dirty to an audience already conditioned to accept the premise.

That is not journalism. It is narrative laundering. It is the online equivalent of kicking dust over footprints at a crime scene. Luthmann and Volpe’s broadcast put the footprints back in view.

The smear depends on pretending the leak is the scandal. Volpe’s reporting says the scandal is a system that allegedly buried child-abuse warnings, jailed a protective mother for three days around Mother’s Day, and then floated a potential criminal investigation of the journalist.

FLGulfNews.com

Pedos Porno and Piglet: The Danesh-McGibney-Randazza Problem Enters the Hales Case?

Then the livestream moved from pedos to porno, and the Hales case got even stranger. In the federal Elephant Shoe / Hales litigation, defense counsel for David Helm filed a motion for more time to submit attorney-fee materials after an Anti-SLAPP victory. The motion itself sounds procedural until the exhibits start talking.

Attorney Gary Edinger, a First Amendment lawyer originally lined up as a fee expert, wrote that he discovered a conflict because he had previously exchanged substantive emails with Jeremy Hales roughly three years earlier. Edinger said he rejected Hales’ case, but the exchange was enough to create a true conflict.

That is the live grenade. Why was Jeremy Hales consulting a First Amendment lawyer years ago about a matter that later rang bells when Edinger read allegations in the current complaint? What did Hales want? What was the rejected case? The filing does not answer those questions, but it absolutely raises them.

In the Luthmann-Volpe universe, unanswered questions are not dead ends. They are doors.

Edinger then recommended possible replacements, including Marc Randazza. That name matters. Randazza is a known First Amendment lawyer with Anti-SLAPP experience, but he also arrives with baggage, enemies, disciplinary controversy, porn-world history, and a long internet paper trail.

CorruptRandazza.com collects accusations, headlines, disciplinary material, arbitration history, and allegations involving bribery, gay porn, copyright trolling, and professional misconduct. An arbitrator found Randazza had secretly negotiated a $75,000 bribe that did not result in payment, performed unauthorized outside work, and wrongly kept a $55,000 payment, with an award of more than $600,000 against him.

The Wrong Kind of First Amendment Crowd

If Randazza enters the Hales fee fight, Luthmann’s concern is not that Helm might get a competent First Amendment lawyer. The concern is the ecosystem collision. Randazza is not just any lawyer in this universe. His name intersects with James McGibney, Bullyville, revenge-porn history, Danesh Noshirvan, and a swamp of internet reputation warfare.

Luthmann has already covered McGibney as a figure whose flagship site is Bullyville.com and whose history intersects with Randazza Legal Group claims about online harassment.

Luthmann’s reporting also links McGibney to Danesh Noshirvan and the “@CREDIBLEINTEL” account, alleging that Danesh admitted using an alias to shield McGibney from criticism while attacking his enemies.

That matters because the Hales litigation is not happening in a normal vacuum. It sits inside a broader world of YouTube war, online reputational combat, First Amendment claims, cyberharassment accusations, revenge-porn rhetoric, and influencer-lawfare strategy.

Luthmann has already framed the case as a content furnace with a federal docket number, where pleadings become episodes and episodes become pleadings. Bringing Randazza into that world could sharpen the legal weapon, but it could also drag in a whole new galaxy of stink.

The irony is brutal. Hales’ side has spent enormous energy portraying critics as an ecosystem. Yet the more one looks at the pro-Hales orbit, the more it looks like its own ecosystem: lawyers, livestreamers, drama channels, online enforcers, reputation managers, and friendly attack dogs.

Randazza may be qualified. He may be useful. He may even be effective. But in a case already soaked in internet sleaze, bringing in a lawyer whose public controversy file includes porn, bribery allegations, and troll-adjacent free-speech wars would not clean the room. It would add gasoline.

Pedos Porno and Piglet: Megan Fox’s Rule was “Read Everything”

Then comes Piglet. Megan Fox, in this saga, is not merely a person. She is a rule, a meme, and an indictment. Her rule, as captured in the email record and repeated on Richard Luthmann Live, was that an investigative journalist should familiarize himself with every motion on the public record before commenting on a complex case.

That rule sounds excellent. It is exactly what serious reporters should do. It is also exactly what TUG and the Hales ecosystem did not do before smearing Volpe over Suarez.

From: Megan Fox <MeganFox.writer@protonmail.com>
Date: On Friday, January 24th, 2025 at 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: Bruce Matzkin
To: Richard Luthmann <richard.luthmann@protonmail.com>

Mr. Luthmann,

An investigative journalist should familiarize themselves with every motion on the public record before commenting on a
case, especially one this complex. It’s clear you haven’t done that. One reporter contacting another reporter to do his work
for him is bizarre.

All the best,

Megan Fox
Author/Journalist
https://pjmedia.com/columnist/megan-fox/
https://www.linkedin.com/in/megan-fox-028984115/

https://MeganFox.Locals.com

That is why Piglet matters. Megan’s “read everything” standard was deployed against Luthmann when he was asking questions about Jeremy Hales and the litigation. But when TUG went on Mr. Coop and butchered the Suarez timeline, ignored the record, misrepresented the custody sequence, guessed at sources, and admitted he had not looked through the whole mess, the standard vanished. That is not ethics. That is tribalism wearing press credentials.

Volpe’s “Anatomy of a Smear” makes that point with receipts. He says TUG did not reach out before smearing him. He says Mr. Coop did not respond. He says Megan chimed in despite apparently knowing little about the Suarez case. The Hales ecosystem’s rule becomes obvious: enemies must read everything before speaking; allies can wing it, sneer, and call it commentary.

That double standard is why Luthmann’s Piglet branding lands so hard. It captures hypocrisy in one ugly little image.

The most dangerous commentator is not the loudest idiot. It is the selective moralist who builds a rule for enemies and an escape hatch for friends. Piglet’s rule was right. Piglet’s ecosystem broke it.

Pedos Porno and Piglet: Lawfare, Smears, and the Content Furnace

This is bigger than TUG, Mr. Coop, Megan Fox, Randazza, or even Jeremy Hales. The deeper story is the fusion of internet content and litigation. Luthmann has hammered this point repeatedly: the Hales case operates like a federal content machine. A lawsuit becomes a plotline. A filing becomes a thumbnail. A procedural setback becomes a fundraising pitch. A critic becomes a villain. A court docket becomes serialized entertainment.

That is why the Suarez smear matters. TUG stepped outside the direct Hales case and dragged the same method into family court reporting. He did not carefully examine the child-abuse allegations. He did not fairly lay out the evidence Volpe presented. He did not explain the custody timeline. He did not ask why a mother was jailed for three days over the disclosure of one paragraph involving a pornography admission.

He turned the story into Volpe Bad, Reporter Reckless, Hales Enemies Dirty.

This is how manufactured reality works. The facts are not denied so much as displaced. The audience is not asked to evaluate evidence. It is trained to boo the right target.

In the Hales ecosystem, Luthmann and Volpe are not allowed to be reporters; they must be characters. Once they become characters, anything they report can be dismissed as part of the show.

That is the scam Luthmann Live exposed. Volpe brought documents. Luthmann brought fire. The Hales ecosystem brought selective outrage. And when the smoke cleared, the real question remained: who is actually protecting children, speech, and the public record, and who is just protecting the storyline?

Pedos Porno and Piglet: Receipts Beat the Umbrella

Pedos, Porno, and Piglet is not just a title. It is the map of the whole mess. “Pedos” is the Suarez case, where Volpe says a credibly accused father ended up with custody while the protective mother was punished and the reporter was attacked. “Porno” is the Randazza problem, where the Hales fee fight may pull in a controversial First Amendment lawyer whose public history drags pornography, bribery allegations, and online reputation warfare into an already filthy room. “Piglet” is Megan Fox’s broken standard: read everything, unless your side needs to go live before doing the homework.

Luthmann and Volpe did what the Hales ecosystem avoids. It slowed the smear down. It played the clips. It showed the articles. It walked the timeline. It asked what TUG knew, when he knew it, and why he felt entitled to attack Volpe before doing the work. That is what real counter-programming looks like in the age of YouTube lawfare.

The old media gatekeepers are dying, but the new media clowns are not automatically better. Some are worse, because they carry the arrogance of pundits without the discipline of reporters. They want the dopamine of scandal without the burden of verification. They want the authority of journalism without the sweat of reading.

Luthmann and Volpe are not playing that game. They are building a record in public. They are naming the machine. They are showing the audience how concealment collapses.

The Hales ecosystem can keep spinning under its umbrella, but the rain is coming sideways now, and the receipts are getting wet with truth.

Subscribe now

Share

Share This is For Real.

Leave a comment

FLGulfNews.com

LUTHMANN NOTE: This case is exactly why Family Court needs sunlight, subpoenas, cameras, and consequences. Connie Thomson says she did what a mother is supposed to do: she listened to her child and sought medical care. Then the Orange County custody machine allegedly turned her concern into pathology, her documentation into paranoia, and her motherhood into monitored visitation. That is not justice. That is bureaucratic child trafficking in Sunday clothes. Jill Jones Soderman is right: this is not isolated. It is a national pattern. The court order is not the truth. It is the starting point for the investigation. This piece is “Orange County Family Court Exposé,” first available at TheFamilyCourtCircus.com.

By Richard Luthmann

(ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA) – Orange County mother Connie Thomson walked into Family Court believing the system existed to protect children. She says she walked out branded, isolated, financially gutted, and reduced from full-time mother to a monitored visitor in her own daughter’s life.

Her story, aired on Richard Luthmann Live with child-protection advocate Jill Jones Soderman, is not merely another bitter custody dispute. It is a case study in how protective-parent claims can be twisted inside the family court industrial complex until the reporting parent becomes the accused, the child becomes the prize, and the court-connected ecosystem keeps feeding.

Thomson says she was a successful California field representative, a first-time mother, a churchgoer, and a woman with no criminal history when her daughter was born. She says the father, Ivan Castellanos, was absent during the pregnancy, then entered the picture through lawyers after the child was born.

What began as a paternity and custody dispute, according to Thomson, turned into a multi-year nightmare of ex parte filings, psychological accusations, supervised visits, child-support pressure, and reputational destruction. She says the most devastating reversal came when she raised medical and abuse-related concerns involving her daughter, only to see those concerns reframed against her as evidence of instability, coaching, or Munchausen-by-proxy-style medical abuse.

The central question is brutally simple: when a mother says her child is hurt, scared, infected, bruised, or acting out disturbing behavior, does the system investigate the danger — or does it neutralize the mother?

The Court Told Her To Seek Medical Care — Then The System Used It Against Her

Thomson says Judge Julie Palafox told her in 2021 that if her daughter was making troubling statements or showing signs of distress, she had a parental obligation to seek medical attention.

Thomson says she did exactly that. She took the child for medical examination after complaints involving pain and discomfort, including a urine test that she says showed a urinary tract infection when the child was only three years old.

But instead of treating the medical record as corroboration that something deserved closer review, Thomson says opposing counsel John R. Schilling and the custody machinery turned the medical visits into a charge against her.

That is the wicked inversion at the center of the case. A mother hears a child complain. A judge says to seek care. A mother seeks care. Medical evidence emerges. Then the mother is accused of manufacturing the crisis.

Thomson says she was tagged with allegations suggesting Munchausen by proxy or fabricated illness, accusations that can function like a nuclear weapon in family court because they transform protective conduct into proof of danger. Once that label enters the record, every maternal action can be twisted. A request for a urine test becomes an obsession. A concern about hygiene becomes a fixation. A child’s statement becomes coaching. A mother’s documentation becomes paranoia.

In the interview, Luthmann pressed the point directly: the court cannot tell a parent to seek medical care and then punish her for doing so when the results are inconvenient to the custody narrative. That is not child protection. That is a procedural bait-and-switch, and when it happens in a closed family court system, the parent being crushed has little recourse unless journalists, advocates, and outside investigators force the record into the open.

Orange County Family Court Exposé: John Schilling And The Ex Parte Weapon

Attorney John R. Schilling looms large in Thomson’s account. Thomson describes him as a powerful, entrenched Orange County family law attorney whose filings repeatedly drove the case into emergency posture.

She says he used ex parte applications as chess pieces, forcing her back into court again and again while she struggled to find lawyers willing to fight him. In one 2025 supplemental declaration, Schilling sought to suspend Thomson’s already-limited visitation, relying on a P.A. Nash monitored visitation report and alleging that Thomson had an “abhorrent, unhealthy fixation” involving her daughter’s private-area complaints.

That filing is the type of document that exposes the machinery. Thomson was not alone with her child. The visit was monitored. The monitor did not terminate the visit.

Thomson says the exchange involved a basic maternal question about whether the child was itchy and needed to use the restroom or clean herself. In ordinary family life, that is called parenting. In the hands of a hostile family court lawyer, Thomson says, it became an accusation, another emergency, another chance to make the mother look dangerous.

This is the attorney-driven alchemy of family court: turn concern into pathology, turn pathology into restriction, turn restriction into “proof” that the parent deserved restriction all along. Once the court accepts that premise, the record begins to feed itself. Prior orders become evidence of future danger. Monitored visitation becomes a surveillance trap. The parents’ inability to behave naturally under observation is then interpreted as more proof of instability.

Thomson says she lived inside that loop for years, watching motherhood shrink into supervised fragments while her daughter’s actual safety concerns remained buried under legal maneuvers.

TheFamilyCourtCircus.com

Orange County Family Court Exposé: The December 2023 Order Made The Nightmare Permanent

The December 5, 2023, hearing became a turning point. Court documents show the existing custody orders awarding the father sole legal and physical custody were made permanent, with Thomson required to show proof of at least six months of consistent weekly therapy visits with a qualified neuropsychiatric doctor before the court would even consider a change in circumstances. The order also prohibited FaceTime calls with the child and barred Thomson from controlling the child’s therapy.

In practical terms, Thomson says, she was cut out of the core functions of motherhood while still being forced to chase compliance through the very system that had labeled her.

Thomson says the social consequences were immediate and brutal. She told Luthmann that people in her community heard she was a child abuser. Parents crossed the street. Clients disappeared. Her professional reputation was damaged. Her income collapsed. Her daughter, she says, once asked why her mother would not answer the phone, apparently unaware that the court order itself prevented normal contact.

That is the emotional cruelty of these orders: they can make a parent look absent while legally forbidding the parent from appearing.

This is not simply litigation. It is identity destruction. A parent is recast as dangerous, then isolated from the child, then financially drained, then told the only road back is therapy, monitors, lawyers, evaluators, and more money. The parent becomes a customer of a court-controlled economy. The child becomes the leverage. The court order becomes the cage. And every cry from inside the cage is treated as further proof that the cage was needed.

Orange County Family Court Exposé: The “Delusional” Label Took A Direct Hit

One of the most important documents in Thomson’s favor is a March 31, 2026, letter from licensed psychologist Oscar A. Donoso, Ph.D., of LifeStance Health. Donoso wrote that Thomson had attended weekly psychotherapy since September 22, 2025, focused on the stress of separation and ongoing custody proceedings.

After reviewing records and treating her for six months, Donoso stated there was no evidence Thomson met the criteria for delusional disorder as previously reported and that earlier conclusions lacked sufficient supporting data. He recommended reevaluation by an independent clinical psychologist familiar with trauma psychology and noted that conjoint trauma treatment is the recommended best practice for families facing traumatic separation.

That letter strikes at the heart of the family court narrative. If Thomson was not delusional, then the court must answer a far more explosive question: did the system build years of separation, restriction, and stigma on an unsupported psychological label? Did a mother lose meaningful access to her child because a litigation narrative hardened into “truth” before it was properly tested? Did medical concerns get buried because the reporting parent was discredited first?

Thomson says she later discovered that important medical documentation had not been supplied to the evaluator who helped form the adverse psychological narrative against her. She says she attempted to correct the record, but the court did not grant meaningful relief.

This is how family court errors metastasize. A missing document becomes a bad evaluation. A bad evaluation becomes a custody order. A custody order becomes permanent. A permanent order becomes a reputation. Then the mother must spend years proving she is not the monster the file made her out to be.

Jill Jones Soderman Calls It A National Pattern

Jill Jones Soderman, whose work with the Foundation for the Child Victims of the Family Courts has focused on protective parents, abuse allegations, forensic evidence, and court-driven family separation, said Thomson’s story is not unusual. She called the pattern an epidemic.

Soderman traced much of the modern custody-defense playbook to Dr. Richard Gardner’s infamous parental alienation theory, which she says is often weaponized when a parent brings abuse allegations. The accused parent, she said, does not have to disprove every concern if the court can be persuaded that the reporting parent is alienating, unstable, paranoid, delusional, or fabricating illness.

That is why Thomson’s case matters beyond Orange County. The tactical structure is familiar: abuse concerns arise, the protective parent documents symptoms, the child resists visitation or reports fear, the accused parent reframes the case as coaching or false allegation, evaluators enter the case, experts disagree, money drains away, and the court eventually settles on a custody narrative that may have more to do with institutional convenience than truth.

Soderman argues that the system rewards the professionals who keep the machinery running: attorneys, evaluators, monitors, therapists, parenting coordinators, and enforcement agencies.

This is the family court industrial complex in full costume. It speaks in therapeutic language while producing economic violence. It claims to protect children while silencing them. It claims neutrality while creating vendor dependency. It claims expertise while ignoring evidence that does not fit the chosen narrative. It claims finality while leaving families in permanent crisis. And once a protective parent is labeled, the burden shifts: the parent is no longer proving what happened to the child; the parent is proving she is sane enough to be believed.

Orange County Family Court Exposé: Child Support, Financial Ruin, And The Custody Economy

Thomson says the case wrecked her ability to earn. She had worked successfully in the custom home and pest control-related field in California, but after the custody allegations and reputational fallout, she says clients disappeared, and her income dropped. Yet the financial demands of the case continued. Lawyers, evaluations, supervised visits, therapy requirements, and child support all remained part of the machinery.

In one striking portion of the interview, Thomson described going to court over child support and believing the numbers supported relief because her finances had cratered. Then, she says, the father invoked the fact that custody had been taken from her, and the atmosphere shifted.

That moment deserves scrutiny because it shows how custody status can become an economic weapon. If a parent loses custody after being labeled dangerous, that same loss can later be used to justify support obligations, reputational assumptions, and continued restriction. The prior order becomes an all-purpose cudgel. Thomson says the court did not adequately account for the fact that litigation itself damaged her earning capacity.

In other words, the system helped break her finances, then judged her by the broken finances.

Soderman placed this in the broader architecture of family court incentives, including child-support enforcement and federally connected funding systems. Critics of the system argue that family courts too often function as revenue engines, not child-protection forums. The child is moved. The money follows. Vendors attach. Compliance obligations multiply. The parent who raises alarms is forced to pay to remain near the child. That is not justice. That is an extraction with a custody order.

Orange County Family Court Exposé: The Case Demands Outside Scrutiny

The Thomson/Castellanos case is not resolved by declaring one parent saint and the other parent villain. That is not the point. The point is whether Orange County Family Court, CPS, evaluators, lawyers, monitors, and court-connected professionals properly investigated the child’s safety concerns before punishing the mother who raised them.

The father, Schilling, court officials, CPS workers, and all professionals involved deserve an opportunity to respond. But they do not deserve a presumption that court orders equal truth. Orders are documents. Truth requires investigation.

What makes this case so explosive is the paper trail. There are court orders. There are medical concerns. There are monitored visitation reports. There are accusations of coaching. There are psychological labels. There is a later psychologist’s letter rejecting the delusional disorder finding. There are allegations that evidence was withheld from evaluators. There are claims that Thomson could not find lawyers willing to confront Schilling. There is a mother who says she did what the judge told her to do and lost her child for it.

This is a story about a mother. It is also a story about a system. If Thomson is right, Orange County Family Court did not simply make a bad call. It helped create a machinery of separation that turned maternal alarm into psychiatric evidence, medical care into suspicion, and supervised visitation into surveillance.

That is why this case needs public attention, legislative scrutiny, and a serious outside review. Family Court hides behind privacy. But privacy cannot become a bunker for institutional abuse.

The children trapped inside these systems are not case numbers. They are human beings. And their stories deserve daylight.

Subscribe now

Share

Share This is For Real.

Leave a comment

TheFamilyCourtCircus.com

LUTHMANN NOTE: Danesh Noshirvan thought he had another victim in Texas. He did not. He found a Marine Corps veteran, Jewish-history scholar, father, and man with enough discipline to build a file while the mob was still howling. This is the difference between cancel culture and real reporting. Danesh brought a clipped video. The Warrior-PhD brought the law, the timeline, the contractor chain, and the unanswered questions. AT&T, ANSCO, and J&L Utilities can end this fast: show the permits, show the IDs, show the work orders, and explain who fed the smear machine. Until then, the receipts keep coming. This piece is “Danesh Found the Wrong Marine.”

By Richard Luthmann

(ARLINGTON, TEXAS) – On April 17, 2026, in the Tiffany Park neighborhood of Arlington, Texas, a man stepped out of his home and into a fight he did not ask for. Work crews tied to an AT&T fiber project were digging near his property, and he wanted answers any homeowner would want before strangers start tearing into the ground near sprinkler lines, fiber lines, gas lines, water lines, and a family home.

Who sent you? Where is your identification? Where are the permits? What company is responsible if something gets damaged?

Those were the questions. That was the scene. That was the “crime” that Mega Influencer and Antifa-linked social media terror Danesh Noshirvan later tried to repackage for the internet mob as “racism.”

History keeps teaching the same brutal lesson: you don’t fuck with the United States Marines and remain standing when the smoke clears. That is the Marine Corps steel that this Texan brings into Danesh’s cancel culture smear fight — disciplined, relentless, methodical, and ready to turn a cheap internet ambush into a documented battlefield where the smear merchants get buried under their own receipts.

That is what makes this story explosive. Dr. Bryan Mark Rigg, PhD, is not a random man in a clipped video. He is an historian, author, former professor, former Marine Corps officer, father, financial professional, and scholar of Jewish identity, Nazi racial law, and military history.

His work includes Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers, a serious historical examination of race, identity, and the machinery of state-sponsored classification. Yet after Dr. Rigg asked for the documentation that Texas law says he was legally entitled to request, Danesh Noshirvan and the @ThatDaneshGuy ecosystem branded him a racist and fed him to the digital mob.

The why is obvious: a clipped video is easier to weaponize than a permit file. The how is uglier: strip out context, ignore the contractor chain, bury the right-of-way rules, mock the Jewish-history scholar’s Israel-related background, and let the mob do what mobs do.

But Dr. Rigg did not fold. He documented and preserved. He demanded names, permits, work orders, identification, right-of-way authority, contractor records, and answers from J&L Utilities, ANSCO, AT&T, and everyone else in the chain.

Danesh brought a mob. And that is where the whole smear campaign starts to crack. Danesh found the wrong Marine.

Danesh Found the Wrong Marine: The Woke Mob Can’t Beat Bryan Mark Rigg

Dr. Rigg is the kind of man the internet cancel culture mob does not know how to process. He is not a meme, a two-second clip, or some disposable face for a Woke Anti-Semite TikTok Influencer’s next outrage cycle. He is a historian, author, former professor, former Marine Corps officer, father, financial professional, and scholar who has spent a lifetime doing what Danesh pretends to do: investigating hard truths.

Dr. Rigg is a man to be admired: the brains, the discipline, and the Marine Corps backbone. He is a product of the American Military, reminding us why it is the finest in the world. He served in a special educational program connected to the Israeli military experience and did not run away from the complexity of Jewish history, military service, and public identity.

More than anything, I admire how he responded to Danesh Noshirvan and his mob of Wokesters and AI Bots. Dr. Rigg did not melt down, disappear, or beg the mob for mercy. That’s not in his warrior DNA. He documented, preserved, called lawyers, and made records. He demanded answers. He prepared for engagement with the enemy.

That is how serious men fight smear merchants. They do not scream into the algorithm. They build a file and conduct reconnaissance. This is how a U.S. Marine devises a battle plan.

And once I sat down with Dr. Rigg, the story became obvious. This was never really about race. It was about paperwork. It was about property, identification, and whether a giant telecom brand and its contractor chain can send unknown workers into a Texas neighborhood and then hide behind the phrase “right-of-way” like it is a magic spell.

And it was about whether some Antifa punk social media hack would get thrown into the digital abyss where he belongs.

Danesh Found the Wrong Marine: The Driveway, the Dig Crew, and the Question Every Homeowner Would Ask

The confrontation began on April 17, 2026, in the Tiffany Park neighborhood of Arlington, Texas. Multiple work crews arrived and began digging in several residential yards, including his property. Homeowners had received no prior notice that contractors or subcontractors would be entering private property or excavating near underground infrastructure.

That is not a small thing, not a harmless inconvenience. That is how sprinklers get ripped, fiber gets cut, gas lines get struck, and homeowners get left holding the bag.

Dr. Rigg had recently dealt with fiber-optic cable and a new sprinkler system. So when he saw men digging near his home, he did what any father, homeowner, and thinking adult would do. He went outside and asked questions: Who are you? Who sent you? Where is your identification? Where are the permits? Who is responsible if you break something?

Those are not “racist” questions. Those are adult questions.

The workers did not speak English. Soon afterward, a supervisor identified himself as Jose Paz of J&L Utilities. Paz allegedly said the company was subcontracted through ANSCO on behalf of AT&T. An ANSCO representative named “Marlo” was also present.

Then came the key moment: Dr. Rigg asked for company identification, proof of authorization, and documentation showing the crews had lawful authority or permits to perform work affecting his property. Paz could not provide it and failed to prove the relationship between J&L Utilities, ANSCO, and AT&T.

That is where Texas law walks into the room wearing boots.

Texas Utilities Code § 55.017 says a telecom, video, or cable representative with an easement or right-of-way over real property must show proof of identification to the owner when entering the property if the owner asks. Arlington’s right-of-way rules add more: registration, permits, plans on site, marked vehicles, utility locates, and possibly advance homeowner notice.

So spare me the “right-of-way” excuse. Right-of-way is not a free pass. It is the beginning of the checklist.

FLGulfNews.com

Danesh Found the Wrong Marine: AT&T, ANSCO, J&L, and the Corporate Shell Game

The deeper I looked, the more this smelled like the usual contractor-chain dodge. AT&T is the brand. ANSCO is the contractor. J&L Utilities is the subcontractor.

The workers are on the ground. The homeowner is stuck trying to figure out who the hell is actually accountable. Everybody points one rung down the ladder until the ladder disappears into mud.

So I did what any good journalist does. I asked them all questions:

From: Richard Luthmann <richard.luthmann@protonmail.com>
Date: On Tuesday, May 12th, 2026 at 11:06 AM
Subject: MEDIA INQUIRY: AT&T / ANSCO / J&L Utilities — Arlington Crew, Missing Paperwork, Worker Status, and Antifa-Linked Danesh Noshirvan Smear
To: luispaz2571@sbcglobal.net, luisalonzopaz22@gmail.com, Pazoscara@gmail.com, ron.lopez@anscollc.com, OK2928@att.com, ja1816@att.com, jbcchr@aol.com, tuckertw@protonmail.com
CC: Dallas.Outreach@ice.dhs.gov, Lesli.Goodman@arlingtontx.com, june@peterbagley.law, tabb.hendrick@arlingtontx.gov, Charles.Munoz@Arlingtontx.gov, RALafontaine@protonmail.com, RickLaRiviere@proton.me, mvolpe998@gmail.com, frankparlato@gmail.com, juliea005@proton.me, mthomasnast@protonmail.com, frankiepressman@protonmail.com, peter@peterbagley.law, leo.terrell@usdoj.gov, harmeet.dhillon@usdoj.gov, maureen.riordan@usdoj.gov, jjfannin@duanemorris.com, hwgurland@duanemorris.com, HWGurland@duanemorris.com, pt@ptesq.com, pt@PTESQ.COM, bhenry@rolfeshenry.com, sburns@rolfeshenry.com, kdeglman@rolfeshenry.com, kmcclintock@rolfeshenry.com, tbrodsky@rolfeshenry.com, joeycamp2020@gmail.com, Joey@YourDaddyJoey.news, joey@yourdaddyjoey.news, theomahaoracle@gmail.com

Dear J&L Utilities, ANSCO, and AT&T Representatives:

We are independent journalists preparing a report for publication about the April 2026 confrontation involving Bryan Mark Rigg, PhD, at or near 2702 Marquis Cir. W., Arlington, Texas. This is the story as currently understood:

A crew allegedly tied to an AT&T fiber project showed up in Dr. Rigg’s neighborhood and began digging near residential property. Dr. Rigg says he asked basic questions: Who are you? Who sent you? Where is your identification? Where are the permits? Who is responsible if you hit a sprinkler line, fiber line, gas line, water line, or other underground infrastructure?

Instead of clear answers, he says he got evasion. Then came the internet hit.

A clipped video of the encounter was pushed online and amplified by Danesh Noshirvan, also known as ThatDaneshGuy, who branded Dr. Rigg a racist. Dr. Rigg denies that charge. He says this was never about race. He says it was about property rights, worker identification, legal authorization, city rules, and contractor accountability.

That is why we are contacting you before publication.

Texas Utilities Code § 55.017 provides that a representative of a telecommunications provider with an easement or right-of-way over real property must show proof of identification to the property owner when entering the property if the owner requests it. Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/texas/utilities-code/title-2/subtitle-c/chapter-55/subchapter-a/section-55-017/

Arlington’s right-of-way rules appear to go further. Public service providers, prime contractors, and subcontractors must be registered with the city. Permits are required before work in the public right-of-way. Contractors must keep issued permits and plans on site. Vehicles and machinery must be properly marked. Utility locates are required before excavation. Advance written notice may also be required in certain circumstances.

So “we were in the right-of-way” is not an answer. It is the start of the compliance checklist.

We are asking J&L Utilities, ANSCO, and AT&T to answer the following:

1. Was J&L Utilities, JNL Utilities, ANSCO, or AT&T performing, supervising, authorizing, or benefiting from work at or near 2702 Marquis Cir. W. on or around April 17, 2026?
2. Who exactly sent the crew into the Tiffany Park neighborhood?
3. Was J&L/JNL Utilities registered with the City of Arlington for this work?
4. Was ANSCO registered with the City of Arlington for this work?
5. What permit numbers, work orders, right-of-way approvals, easement records, and contractor registrations applied to this job?
6. Were permits and plans issued and kept on site?
7. Were the workers and vehicles clearly identified with company names and contact numbers?
8. Were utility locates completed before digging began?
9. Were homeowners given advance written notice?
10. If notice was given, please provide the notice, date, method of delivery, and recipient list.
11. Did any representative refuse or fail to show Dr. Rigg identification, permits, work orders, or proof of authority when requested?
12. Do you claim Texas Utilities Code § 55.017 did not apply? If so, explain why.
13. Were any workers on this project undocumented, unlawfully employed, misclassified, unvetted, or unauthorized to work in the United States?
14. What I-9, E-Verify, labor-compliance, or subcontractor-certification procedures were used?
15. Did Jose Paz or anyone else tell Dr. Rigg or a city official that the workers were undocumented but were “not hurting anyone”?
16. Did any workers leave the neighborhood after Dr. Rigg raised questions about documentation, worker status, or ICE?
17. Were any workers terminated after allegedly taking water from a fire hydrant or city water source in Tiffany Park?
18. Were any crews connected to this job involved in damage to a Spectrum fiber line, gas line, water line, sprinkler system, or other infrastructure?
19. Were Atmos Energy, Spectrum, the City of Arlington, or emergency responders called because of damage caused by crews on this project?
20. Was Dr. Rigg’s property later bypassed? If so, why?
21. Did any worker, supervisor, subcontractor, contractor, employee, spouse, or agent record Dr. Rigg without his knowledge?
22. Did anyone connected to J&L/JNL Utilities, ANSCO, or AT&T provide video, information, names, images, or commentary about Dr. Rigg to Danesh Noshirvan, ThatDaneshGuy, or any social-media intermediary?
23. Did J&L/JNL Utilities, ANSCO, AT&T, or anyone acting for them hire, pay, encourage, solicit, brief, coordinate with, or feed information to Danesh Noshirvan?
24. Did anyone connected to this project ask Danesh Noshirvan or any other online account to identify Dr. Rigg, publish his image, call him racist, or generate public pressure against him?
25. After learning Dr. Rigg disputed the viral narrative, did J&L/JNL Utilities, ANSCO, or AT&T ask for the video to be removed or corrected?
26. Did any of you investigate whether the video was selectively edited or missing key context?
27. Do J&L/JNL Utilities, ANSCO, or AT&T tolerate workers or subcontractors using online influencers to punish homeowners who ask for identification, permits, worker authorization, or proof of legal access?
28. Do your business models depend on ignoring right-of-way rules, using undocumented labor, failing to identify workers, or hiding behind subcontractor layers when homeowners demand answers?

Dr. Rigg’s background makes this smear especially explosive. He is a historian whose work includes Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers. He has spent years studying Jewish identity, Nazi racial laws, military history, and the absurdity of racial classification.

Yet after asking questions about who was digging near his home, he was branded a racist by an online Mega-Influencer with links to foreign active measures and fed to the cancel culture mob.

Danesh Noshirvan publicly brands himself as an online “accountability” operator. His own materials describe his work as “online accountability & investigations.” His Linktree reportedly invites people to “DM me a story or tag me.” His podcast materials have described him as “best known for identifying people online using minimal clues.” His Facebook page has stated, “Cancel Culture doesn’t exist. This is Accountability Culture.” He has over three million followers across all platforms.

Federal-court records from unrelated litigation provide additional context. In one order, a federal judge described Noshirvan as a TikTok creator whose niche is cancel culture and noted that people paid him to repost negative videos identifying targets by name, contact information, employer, and other personal details. In a later sanctions order, the court found that Noshirvan published false and inflammatory communications intended to incite foreseeable harassment and intimidation of opposing counsel. The court sanctioned him under its inherent powers and later approved a $62,320 attorney-fee award.

Public reporting and Noshrivan’s own statements have him connected to Antifa, the Islamic Republic of Iran, anti-America and anti-Israel active measures, doxxing of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices’ home addresses, and admitted violations of 18 USC §§ 2257 and 2257A, implicating sex trafficking of women and the production of child pornography.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/01/antifa-tiktok-agitator-urges-armed-leftist-militias-fight/

Those rulings and reports do not decide the Rigg matter. But they are highly relevant to how a newsroom should evaluate a clipped video that became a reputational hit.

So we ask directly:

Did J&L/JNL Utilities, ANSCO, AT&T, or anyone connected to this project have any role in turning Dr. Rigg into a viral target?

Do you tolerate this kind of media-manufactured smear?

And are J&L/JNL Utilities, ANSCO, and AT&T prepared to produce the paperwork that should have existed before any worker started digging near Dr. Rigg’s home?

Please provide a written response for publication, including:

-Permit numbers;
– Work orders;
– Contractor and subcontractor registrations;
– The full subcontractor chain;
– Homeowner notices;
– Identification policies;
– Worker-authorization procedures;
– Incident reports;
– Damage reports;
– Police-call records;
– Communications about Dr. Rigg, the viral video, Danesh Noshirvan, ThatDaneshGuy, Danna, Jose Paz, Luis Paz, Oscar Paz, J&L/JNL Utilities, ANSCO, AT&T, Osbourne Knox, Jesus Avitia, Charles Munoz, and the Tiffany Park project.

We intend to publish. We intend to be fair. Your response will be included or fairly summarized. If you decline to answer, we will report that too. If we publish before receiving your responses, we will incorporate your comments into a follow-up.

Thank you for your attention to this matter!

Regards,

Richard Luthmann

Writer, Journalist, and Commentator
Tips or Story Ideas:
(239) 631-5957
richard.luthmann@protonmail.com
LINKTREE
Muck Rack Profile
Substack: This is For Real.
Editor-In-Chief: FLGulf.news
Editor-In-Chief: NYNewsPress.com
Editor-In-Chief: TheFamilyCourtCircus.com
Contributor: Frank Report
Contributor: Sun Bay Paper
Follow Me on Facebook X Instagram LinkedIn TRUTH Rumble Newsbreak SPOTIFY YouTube

As of press time, neither AT&T, ANSCO, nor J&L Utilities has responded. Here is what we know.

Dr. Rigg questioned whether the workers were lawfully authorized to work in the United States. Paz did not directly answer and instead said the workers were “not hurting anyone.” That phrase should bother every honest person watching this story. “Not hurting anyone” is not identification, a permit, a work order, or proof of legal authorization. It is not compliance. It is a shrug.

Dr. Rigg says he made no derogatory statements about race, ethnicity, or national origin. His point was simple: documentation, authorization, property access, and legal compliance. He says he did not care whether the workers were from Pakistan, Russia, Argentina, Mexico, or Mars. He wanted to know who they were and why they were there.

Later, Dr. Rigg spoke with Charles Munoz, a City of Arlington Right-of-Way Inspector. Munoz said several crew members had allegedly been terminated earlier that week after being caught illegally taking water from a neighborhood fire hydrant. Dr. Rigg also says he later learned of alleged damage involving a Spectrum fiber cable, a ruptured gas line requiring Atmos Energy response, and a damaged water line.

That is the real story Danesh did not want to tell. The real story was not “white homeowner harasses brown workers.” The real story was a Texas homeowner asking whether the people digging near his home were identified, permitted, trained, authorized, insured, supervised, and legally present.

That story is harder. It requires documents, follow-up calls, and verification. It requires checking the law. Danesh does not do that because he cannot; he does not have the intelligence or the discipline.

Danesh Noshirvan does digital drive-bys snapped into a pre-determined ideological frame becuase that is all he is capable of doing. And that is what is media masters demand.

Danesh Found the Wrong Marine: The Smear Machine Hits the Jewish Historian

Then came the online hit. Dr. Rigg says a worker associated with Paz and the worker’s spouse, using the moniker “Dianna Tovar,” posted a misleading and selectively edited video of the confrontation on social media.

The clip omitted major portions of the exchange, including Dr. Rigg’s repeated requests for documentation and authorization.

Dianna Tovar is a digtal creator and appears to be the worker’s wife. The Instagram account where the Dr. Rigg video was first posted was recently shut down. How do we know that the video came from Paz and his crew? Dianna Tovar told us herself:

Apparently for the employees of J&L Utilities and their loved ones, no one wants to pay, and EVERYONE IS RACIST. Here is the English translation:

This is not some Matt Walsh satire. These Woke retards actually believe that Texas law and City of Arlington regulations requiring telecommunications contractos to identify themselves is somehow racist, and therefore ingnorable and unimportant.

The material was then given to Danesh Noshirvan, the king of the internet’s Woke retards, under the @ThatDaneshGuy brand. Danesh further selectively edited the footage to fit the EVERYONE IS RACIST narrative.

Dr. Rigg says the reposted content falsely portrayed him as targeting workers because they were Latino and accused him of racial discrimination without factual basis.

This is Danesh’s playbook. Clip it. Frame it. Brand it. Feed it to the Woke mob. Then act like the wreckage is “accountability.”

But this one had an uglier edge. Danesh’s content mocked Dr. Rigg’s historical work and highlighted his Israel-related background.

That was not random. When you call a Jewish-history scholar with IDF-related service a racist, then wave that Israel connection in front of a hostile online audience, you are not merely commenting.

You are lighting a flare.

Rigg says the damage was immediate and brutal. The Facebook video reportedly reached approximately 293,000 views and the Instagram version exceeded 500,000. He received threatening phone calls, emails, Facebook messages, and online abuse. He has presrved approximately 150 threatening or harassing communications, with the attacks spilling onto his author page and family.

Then came the lawyer letter. The Law Office of Peter Bagley sent a May 8, 2026 demand letter to Luis Paz, president of J&L Utilities, seeking correction, retraction, and cease-and-desist relief under the Texas Defamation Mitigation Act.

The letter says the edited video falsely portrayed Dr. Rigg as racist and that the real dispute concerned whether work in his yard was being carried out legally and whether undocumented workers were on his property, regardless of race or ethnicity.

That is why I respect Dr. Rigg. Danesh expected fear. He got a file. He expected collapse. He got a Marine historian with receipts.

Dr. Rigg invoked Edmund Burke’s old warning that evil triumphs when good men do nothing, and in the Danesh Noshirvan universe, that is not theory — it is a casualty report. Rigg is not the first man in the Dallas-Fort Worth orbit to get dragged into Danesh’s digital kill zone; Denton, Texas high school coach Aaron De La Torre is dead after being targeted by the same online mob machinery that turns accusations into public executions.

And yet Denton County District Attorney Paul Johnson still has not shown the guts to treat this like what it is: a real-world harm trail from online incitement to human destruction. Burke’s line hangs over this whole mess like a verdict — because when prosecutors do nothing, the mob learns it can destroy life after life, and walk away laughing.

Now the question is no longer whether Danesh can smear another target. The question is whether AT&T, ANSCO, and J&L Utilities, are ready to show the paperwork.

And the other question is much more interesting. Will a warrior, Marine historian Dr. Bryan Mark Rigg, be the one to finally throw the anti-Semitic, Antifa-connected scumbag, Danesh Noshirvan (and his @ThatDaneshGuy ecosystem), down into the deep dark hole where he belongs?

Subscribe now

Share

Share This is For Real.

Leave a comment

FLGulfNews.com

LUTHMANN NOTE: This one is simple. If you accuse me of being part of a paid smear campaign, show the payment. Show the check. Show the wire. Show the invoice. Show the contract. CharityWatch did not. Danesh wants to play victim while running the influencer-lawfare machine. Hales wants the federal court to work like a fast-food counter. I do not play that game. I bring receipts, filings, screenshots, transcripts, and federal rules. The watchdog can bark. The influencer can cry. The YouTuber can sue. But when the lights turn back on them, they all start blinking. The receipts are here. On this episode, the watchdog got watched, the influencer got exposed, and the courtroom content machine got handed a McDonald’s meme with legal teeth. This piece is “Luthmann Turns the Tables,” first available on FLGulfNews.com.

By M. Thomas Nast with Richard Luthmann

(FLORIDA, USA) - Richard Luthmann opened his latest Luthmann Live episode with the kind of document-heavy, bare-knuckle treatment his audience has come to expect: court filings on screen, screenshots loaded, receipts ready, and a cast of lawfare characters dragged from the shadows into the spotlight.

The show moved across three fronts: CharityWatch’s explosive article tying Luthmann to a “paid smear” narrative, Danesh Noshirvan’s ongoing meltdown over Jennifer Couture, Ralph Garramone, and Joey Camp, and Jeremy Hales’ attempt—through lawyer Randy Shochet—to get a federal court moving like a drive-thru window.

Luthmann’s message was blunt: the people who make a living judging others tend to hate it when the spotlight swings back.

The first target was CharityWatch, the nonprofit watchdog that published an article titled “Convicted Felon Paid By Animal Charity to Smear Its Critics Amid FBI Investigation And Kidnapping Plot.” The article centered on alleged payments from D.E.L.T.A. Rescue to publisher Frank Parlato. But it also brought Luthmann into the narrative as Parlato’s associate, recounted his criminal history, and placed him inside the same rhetorical structure as alleged donor misuse, retaliation, an FBI investigation, and an alleged kidnapping plot.

Luthmann’s central objection was simple: CharityWatch identified alleged payments to Parlato, not to him.

In his written demand to CharityWatch, Luthmann said the article tied him to a paid smear campaign “without showing one check, one wire, one invoice, one contract, one reimbursement, one consulting agreement, one bank record, or one dollar.” He demanded a correction, stating that CharityWatch has no evidence that he was paid by Leo Grillo, D.E.L.T.A. Rescue, Living Earth Productions, Animals Are People Too, Frank Parlato, or any related person or entity.

That became the night’s first refrain: Where is the check?

FLGulfNews.com

From there, Luthmann widened the frame. He reviewed CharityWatch’s own public filings and asked whether a nonprofit that judges other nonprofits should be immune from scrutiny. CharityWatch’s 2024 Form 990 identifies the organization as American Institute of Philanthropy d/b/a CharityWatch, a 501(c)(3), with $606,956 in contributions and grants, $648,528 in total revenue, $613,010 in total expenses, and $1,118,474 in ending net assets. The same filing lists Laurie Styron as CEO/Executive Director with $159,273 in reportable compensation and reports one individual receiving more than $100,000.

For Luthmann, the point was not merely accounting. It was credibility.

CharityWatch claims to police nonprofit wrongdoing. Luthmann says the watchdog just became the story. If CharityWatch can scrutinize charities, he argued, donors and journalists can scrutinize CharityWatch.

Then the show pivoted to Danesh Noshirvan.

Luthmann moved from nonprofit filings into a full-blown media analysis of what he called “Couture-Garramone Derangement Syndrome.”

He discussed Danesh’s federal case involving Jennifer Couture and Ralph Garramone, the well-known Fort Myers plastic surgeon, the underlying parking-lot video, the claims that followed, Joey Camp’s role, and Danesh’s repeated public framing of his litigation opponents as stalkers.

The show presented Danesh’s approach as a cancel-culture template: manufacture outrage, demonize opponents, raise money, and use litigation as both weapon and content engine.

Luthmann also highlighted Danesh’s own recorded rhetoric, including a clip in which Danesh called for “organized left-wing militias” to confront ICE and declared that when ICE appears in a community, “a militia should show up right in front of them and tell them to leave.”

For Luthmann, that clip was not a throwaway. It was the connective tissue between online outrage, political radicalism, and the real-world consequences of influencer mobs.

The third front was Jeremy Hales and Randy Shochet.

Luthmann reviewed his opposition filed in Hales v. Preston, where he argued that Hales’ request to expedite a ruling on service-related fees was procedurally defective, unsupported by emergency circumstances, and premature. According to Luthmann, the motion attempted to accelerate a collateral service-cost dispute while service and jurisdiction questions remained contested.

In the accompanying declaration, Luthmann said the litigation reflected what he calls “POLAMOP”—protraction of litigation and multiplication of proceedings. He argued that Hales and Shochet were not trying to efficiently resolve legitimate legal issues, but to generate motion practice, conflict, and content.

Then came the visual hook.

Attached to the court filing as Exhibit A was a McDonald ’s-style image showing Hales and Shochet behind a counter under a speech bubble reading, “Would you like fries with that?” Luthmann used it to hammer home the theme: federal court is not YouTube, not a content farm, and not a fast-food stand.

What might have been a dry Rule 4 service-fee dispute became a courtroom meme with legal teeth.

By the end, the episode had tied together nonprofit warfare, influencer lawfare, donor-funded reputational combat, and the modern courtroom-media feedback loop. Luthmann’s argument was clear: CharityWatch wanted to bark, Danesh wanted victimhood theater, and Hales wanted fast-food justice.

Luthmann brought the leash, the tape, and the federal rules.

The receipts, he said, are not coming later.

They are already here.

Subscribe now

Share

Share This is For Real.

Leave a comment

FLGulf.News