By Richard Luthmann
Episode 16 of The Unknown Podcast reveals shocking failures across justice systems, explores the dangers of digital mob harassment, and delves into Trump’s strategic cabinet picks. Hosts Michael Volpe and Richard Luthmann offer no-holds-barred commentary on today’s most pressing issues.
World War III or Manufactured Hysteria?
The episode kicks off with a debate about escalating tensions between Russia and the United States.
Michael Volpe dismisses alarmist claims of an impending global conflict, saying, “Every escalation is framed as the end of the world. It’s not helpful—it’s fearmongering.”
Richard Luthmann offers a counterpoint, suggesting that the geopolitical stakes are much higher.
“Putin isn’t just interested in Ukraine; he wants to rebuild the Russian Empire. He sees himself as a Czar. If we don’t confront him, he’ll keep expanding,” Luthmann warns.
The hosts praise Donald Trump’s approach to foreign policy, contrasting it with the current administration.
“Under Trump, Putin didn’t take a single inch of new territory,” Luthmann says. “That’s not a coincidence—that’s the result of strong leadership.”
DCFS and Family Courts: Failing the Vulnerable
The podcast shifts focus to systemic failures in child protection and family courts. Volpe recounts a chilling email from a teenage girl caught in a dangerous custody battle: “I want to kill myself. My dad is controlling me, and I have no way out.”
Despite these desperate words, the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) declined to investigate. Volpe calls the agency’s inaction “a disgrace,” saying, “If a suicidal child isn’t enough to trigger an investigation, what is?”
Luthmann critiques DCFS as an inept bureaucracy, likening it to “the worst parts of the DMV and the police department.” He adds, “These agencies don’t protect children—they protect the system.”
The discussed case involves controversial testimony from Dr. David Finn, who claimed the girl’s mother fabricated abuse allegations through Munchausen syndrome by proxy. Volpe rejects this outright, stating, “The timeline doesn’t even support his diagnosis. This is pseudoscience used to silence a desperate mother.”
Danesh Noshirvan: TikTok Terror and Cancel Culture’s Reckoning
Jennifer Couture’s story exemplifies the dangers of online harassment. Couture became a target of TikTok influencer Danesh Noshirvan after an edited video falsely portrayed her as assaulting someone. The fallout was immediate and overwhelming: thousands of AI-generated complaints inundated local law enforcement, pressuring them to take action.
“[Lee County] Sheriff Carmine Marceno’s office admitted they were flooded with emails and voicemails demanding Couture’s arrest,” Luthmann recounts. “It wasn’t grassroots activism—it was a manufactured frenzy.”
Luthmann explains how AI manipulation amplified the harassment.
“This isn’t just free speech—it’s weaponized disinformation,” he says. “If Danesh knowingly used AI to generate fake complaints, it crosses the line from unethical to potentially illegal.”
Couture’s life was turned upside down.
“Her reputation was destroyed, her husband’s medical practice suffered, and she faced legal battles—all because of a doctored video,” Luthmann says.
The hosts delve into Noshirvan’s broader pattern of targeting conservatives and his connections to cancel culture.
“Danesh built a following by doxing and harassing people who don’t align with his ideology,” Luthmann explains. “It’s mob justice in the digital age.”
Luthmann was also concerned about a foreign intelligence element.
Couture’s case also raises questions about accountability.
“If platforms like TikTok amplify this behavior, they’re complicit,” Luthmann argues. “We need stronger laws to address AI-driven harassment and protect individuals from these attacks.”
The hosts agreed about the cultural implications.
“This isn’t just about Danesh—it’s about a society where dissenting voices are silenced through intimidation. Cancel culture doesn’t just ‘cancel’ careers; it ruins lives.”
Linda Gottlieb vs. Tina Swithin: A Battle Over Parental Alienation and Reunification Therapy
The hosts then dove into the contentious and ongoing feud between Linda Gottlieb, a staunch advocate of reunification therapy, and Tina Swithin, a vocal critic of parental alienation as a legal concept. The conflict is emblematic of a larger ideological war raging in family courts over these practices' validity and ethical implications.
Linda Gottlieb, often called the “Queen of Reunification Therapy,” is a polarizing figure in the family court landscape. She champions parental alienation as a legitimate phenomenon that courts must address, claiming that reunification therapy is the cure for the harm caused when one parent “alienates” a child from the other.
“Gottlieb believes in the clinical validity of parental alienation and considers reunification therapy a bonafide treatment,” Luthmann explains.
Will the Real Tina Swithin Please Stand Up – Experts Inquire
However, critics of Gottlieb argue that her approach often dismisses a child’s voice, prioritizing the restoration of the parent-child relationship over the child’s expressed wishes. Reunification therapy, as practiced by Gottlieb and others, is often court-ordered, raising ethical concerns about its coercive nature.
Tina Swithin, founder of the advocacy group One Mom’s Battle, has built her platform to expose the misuse of parental alienation claims in family courts. Swithin argues that the concept is frequently weaponized by abusive parents, particularly fathers, to discredit allegations of abuse and gain custody.
“Parental alienation is quackery,” Volpe said. “It’s a legal tool designed to silence protective parents, especially mothers.”
Reunification therapy is described as a form of coercive control that prioritizes the abuser’s narrative over the child’s safety and well-being.
“Children are being forced into therapy sessions with abusers under the guise of ‘fixing’ the relationship,” Volpe stated. “This isn’t therapy—it’s retraumatization.”
Vople submits that reunification therapy forces estranged children into sessions with abusive parents. Volpe previously interviewed Amelia Martinez, a teenager compelled to participate in such therapy.
“Her therapist told her, ‘We’ll end the therapy if you take down that video.’ That’s not therapy—that’s coercion,” Volpe declares.
Luthmann raises questions about the legitimacy of the practice, saying, “Family therapy can be helpful, but reunification therapy seems designed to ignore the child’s voice. How is that therapeutic?”
He calls out the therapy’s proponents for refusing interviews.
“If this is so effective, why can’t anyone explain it to me?”
The feud between Gottlieb and Swithin has escalated in recent months, culminating with Gottlieb penning the scathing article attacking Swithin’s credibility and motives. Gottlieb accused Swithin of spreading misinformation about parental alienation and reunification therapy, claiming that Swithin’s activism hinders the family courts’ ability to address legitimate cases of alienation.
Gottlieb wrote, “Tina Swithin’s crusade against parental alienation is not only misguided but harmful. She conflates true alienation with the natural consequences of high-conflict divorces, misleading courts, and endangering children.”
Volpe dismissed Gottlieb’s criticism as part of a larger pattern of silencing dissenting voices. “Linda Gottlieb is defending a self-serving industry,” he said.
The ideological clash between Gottlieb and Swithin is not confined to public opinion—it has real-world consequences in family courts. Proponents of Gottlieb’s view argue that parental alienation must be recognized to protect children from manipulative parents.
Volpe countered that alienation claims often overshadow serious allegations of abuse.
“Judges are using parental alienation as a catch-all excuse to dismiss abuse claims and force kids into reunification therapy,” he says. “
Despite the heated rhetoric, neither side has managed to sway the other. Gottlieb continues to push for greater recognition of parental alienation, while Swithin calls for its outright ban in family court proceedings.
“This is more than a catfight—it’s a battle over the future of family law,” Luthmann said. “And at the center of it are the children, whose voices are too often ignored.”
Paul Boyne: A First Amendment Flashpoint
Paul Boyne’s case highlights the troubling intersection of free speech and judicial overreach. Known for his inflammatory blog posts about Connecticut family courts, Boyne has been jailed for 17 months without trial.
His next court date is pushed to January 3, 2025.
Volpe reads one of Boyne’s controversial posts: “I wish someone would exercise their Second Amendment rights on Judge Grossman.”
While provocative, Volpe argues the post doesn’t constitute a true threat under legal definitions.
“He’s crude and offensive, but this is a free speech issue. You don’t jail someone for hyperbole,” Volpe says.
Luthmann agrees, adding, “This sets a dangerous precedent. If Boyne’s speech can be criminalized, where does it end?”
The hosts also question Boyne’s treatment in jail. Recent testimony from the prison captain where he is detained described Boyne as “a model inmate” who assists others with legal cases.
“This doesn’t align with the image of someone too unstable to stand trial,” Volpe notes.
Trump’s Cabinet Picks: A Strategic Power Move
Donald Trump’s latest cabinet picks sparked a spirited discussion. Luthmann lauded Pam Bondi's selection, calling her “a brilliant, no-nonsense leader.”
“Bondi’s tenure as Florida’s Attorney General proves she’s tough on corruption,” Luthmann says. “She’s the perfect fit for Trump’s team.”
Volpe raises concerns about Bondi’s past controversies, particularly her handling of Jeffrey Epstein-related cases.
“There’s some baggage there. It’s worth a closer look,” he cautions.
The hosts also discuss Trump’s NIH pick Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford professor critical of COVID-19 lockdowns.
“This guy was shadow-banned for his views, and now he’s running the NIH. It’s a poetic reversal,” Volpe says.
Conversely, Trump’s Surgeon General pick, Dr. Janette Nesheiwat, faces criticism for supporting mask mandates and vaccines during the pandemic.
“This pick divides Trump’s base,” Volpe notes. “It’s a stark contrast to the NIH choice.”
Luthmann speculates on why figures like Ben Carson haven’t returned.
“Carson likely prefers a behind-the-scenes role at this stage in his career,” he suggests.
Family Court Thanksgiving Turkeys: Misery Bar Lawyers, Justice Waterman-Marshall, and Reuben Doupé of Naples, Florida’s Deadbeat Strategy
The episode culminates with a discussion of the systemic dysfunctions of family courts. Luthmann names his “Family Court Thanksgiving Turkeys, including the enablers within the New York City "Misery Bar," Justice Kathleen Waterman-Marshall's draconian tactics, and the reprehensible strategies of attorney Reuben Doupé of Naples, Florida.
The so-called "Misery Bar," a cadre of family court attorneys in New York City, has become infamous for turning family court disputes into protracted legal wars, enriching lawyers at the expense of justice. Michael Volpe and Richard Luthmann expose the collective as a toxic force that profits from broken families.
“These attorneys exploit every legal loophole to drive up billable hours, dragging cases out for years,” Luthmann said. “Their greed turns family court into a debtor’s prison for struggling parents.”
The “Misery Bar” doesn’t just target families—it goes after those who expose their tactics. Respected journalist Sarah Wallace, known for her incisive reporting, has found herself in their crosshairs.
Wallace has documented family court abuses, particularly highlighting how Justice Kathleen Waterman-Marshall enforces debtor’s prison tactics, jailing parents unable to pay exorbitant court-ordered fees.
“Justice Waterman-Marshall has turned Family Court into a financial gulag,” Luthmann said. “Parents struggling to make ends meet are jailed, not because they won’t pay, but because they can’t.”
Wallace’s investigative work has shed light on this egregious practice, prompting backlash from the Misery Bar.
“They’re targeting her because she’s exposing their racket,” Volpe said. “It’s classic intimidation—silence the messenger.”
Reuben Doupé of Naples, Florida, a notorious family court attorney, represents another glaring example of a broken system. Doupé’s infamous “Deadbeat Strategy” encourages wealthy men going through divorces to avoid paying child support, leaving their ex-wives and children to fend for themselves.
“This isn’t just unethical—it’s a deliberate strategy to game the system,” Luthmann said. “Doupé tells his wealthy male clients: Don’t pay for your kids, don’t support your family. It’s despicable.”
One current case highlights the depths of Doupé’s tactics. His client, a man educated at the elite Greenwich Day School and Phillips Exeter Academy, has refused to pay child support for over a year. The case originated in Singapore and underscores the global reach of Doupé’s influence.
“They come from all over the world to find this bloodsucker. His client, who comes from privilege and has the means to support his children, simply refuses to do so,” Luthmann explained. “And Doupé sees no problem with it. In fact, he defends it.”
The wealthy international businessman father has used Doupé’s legal playbook to shield his assets while neglecting his parental responsibilities.
“Doupé advises these men to cry poverty while living in luxury,” Luthmann said. “It’s a slap in the face to the mothers and children left struggling to survive.”
In court filings, the father claimed financial hardship despite maintaining a high-end lifestyle that includes international travel and luxury properties. Doupé’s legal maneuvering has so far allowed his client to evade accountability.
“Doupé’s strategy doesn’t just hurt families—it undermines the entire concept of justice,” Volpe argued. “Courts are meant to protect children, not enable wealthy parents to shirk their responsibilities.”
Volpe and Luthmann concluded their scathing critique by pointing out the systemic failures that enable figures like Doupé and groups like the Misery Bar to thrive.
“Family courts are supposed to be about the child's best interests, but that principle is dead,” Luthmann said. “Instead, it’s all about money—who has it, and who can keep it.”
Volpe added, “Doupé and his ilk have turned family courts into playgrounds for the unscrupulous, where justice is sold to the highest bidder. Until this changes, families will continue to suffer.”
The episode is a sobering reminder of the urgent need for reform in family courts, from ending debtor’’ prison practices to holding attorneys like Doupé accountable. For now, though, the system remains broken—and the children it’s supposed to protect are paying the price.
Conclusion
Episode 16 of The Unknown Podcast unflinchingly examines systemic failures, from family courts to social media platforms. With sharp analysis and fearless reporting, Volpe and Luthmann shed light on issues that demand accountability. This episode is a must-listen for anyone concerned about justice, free speech, and the future of American society.
Share this post