NOTE: This piece was first available on FLGulfNews.com.
By Dick LaFontaine with Richard Luthmann
Influencer Jeremy Hales turned multiple federal lawsuits into a “drama factory” for YouTube, court papers say. Now defendant Richard Luthmann seeks over $50,000 in Rule 11 sanctions, accusing Jeremy “GERM” Hales and attorney Randy “POCKET ROCKET” Shochet of bad-faith tactics – from frivolous filings and botched service stunts to a deposition outburst caught on record.
Lawsuit Morphed into “Drama Factory” for Clicks
Jeremy Hales – a YouTube personality with 730,000+ subscribers – is accused of exploiting a federal lawsuit as entertainment fodder. Luthmann’s motion blasts Hales for turning the case into a personal “drama factory” on his monetized channel. Rather than pursue legitimate grievances, Hales and his lawyer allegedly “weaponized the litigation as entertainment and harassment.”
“Hales has made us all into characters on his YouTube show. He calls me PAINT CHIPS. He calls fellow journalist Michael Volpe VOLMIT. He and his entire group even call the federal court judge BOZO THE CLOWN,” Luthmann said.
The Rule 11 motion, served on Hales and his lawyer, can be filed in the Northern District of Florida after 21 days have passed. Luthmann demands “no less than $50,000” in sanctions against Hales and his counsel.
Luthmann, a defendant in one of Hales’s content-generating lawsuits, claims the YouTuber treats Gainesville Federal Court as just another stage.
“Far from treating the litigation with seriousness, Mr. Hales has made it part of his show. Literally,” the motion declares.
Hales’s own boasts suggest he discovered that suing critics and neighbors drives up his views and income.
In a prior interview, Luthmann summarized Hales’s approach: “He’s using legal battles to generate drama and YouTube cash, and the federal courts are indulging him and his crooked lawyer, Randy Shochet.“
POLAMOP, or Protraction of Litigation and Multiplication of Proceedings, is an acronym that attorney Bruce Matzkin coined to describe Hales’s strategy.
What might have been a minor dispute “morphed into an internet sensation” as Hales fed the feud via federal filings and YouTube updates. Luthmann’s lawsuit boasts eleven defendants (including Matzkin) – from neighbors to online commentators – all who have become unwitting cast members in a monetized courtroom circus.
Frivolous Pleadings and Service Fiasco
Critics say Hales’s 74-page complaint reads “more like a manic YouTube rant than a legal document,” essentially a “textbook shotgun pleading” stuffed with “vague, bloated, and riddled with unsupported accusations.”
Luthmann’s Rule 11 motion notes that, after two amendments, the complaint remains a haphazard jumble of claims lacking both factual and legal basis. It accuses Hales and Shochet of procedural gamesmanship – filing meritless claims to bully critics – in blatant violation of Rule 11(b).
The motion also details a saga of botched service attempts. Hales allegedly failed to properly serve Luthmann within 90 days, yet “claimed he was properly served when, in fact, he wasn’t.”
According to court records, Luthmann’s address is open and notorious in Naples, Florida. Yet Hales’s team tried an improper “drop service” at the home of Luthmann’s elderly father over 300 miles away, even inventing a fictitious “stepmother service.”
A federal judge already rejected that stunt as unlawful. The court refused to bless these maneuvers: an October 30 order denied Hales’s bid to declare service valid, noting that leaving papers at someone else’s residence doesn’t meet federal or Florida requirements.
Hales then insinuated Luthmann was evading service to excuse these missteps. Still, the motion asserts the opposite – Luthmann was “openly challenging the litigation (hardly hiding)” while plaintiffs were “simply going to the wrong addresses, having unethical process servers who would sign anything… swearing to lies.”
One such process server, Eugene Griffin of G-Man Private Investigators / Process Servers, was even accused on social media of misconduct – a GAB post casting doubt on Hales’s tactics.
“I hope that when GERM says ‘The FBI is involved,’ he doesn’t mean the G-Man. That guy looks like a scumbag to me,” Luthmann said.
After missing the service deadline on July 27, 2025, Hales’s counsel mailed a waiver of service to a bad address.
Recently, U.S. Magistrate Judge Zachary Bolitho gave Hales one last chance to serve Luthmann, extending the time to properly tag him until November 25, 2025.
Instead of attempting personal service or communicating with Luthmann, Hales, and his lawyer, Randy “Pocket Rocket” Shochet is attempting a last-ditch “Secretary of State” substitute service with a glaringly defective summons.
“On Thanksgiving Day, when Hales’ grace period is over, he’s going to be the turkey,” Luthmann said. “Even his latest defected foray with the Secretary of State fails to identify me by name or by my address. These fools already know where I live and that there is more than one person named ‘RICHARD LUTHMANN’ in the State of Florida.”
Luthmann calls it a pattern of “careless and vexatious” legal abuse.
Deposition Meltdown Caught on Tape
Hales’s conduct hit a low point during his own deposition. Transcripts show the YouTuber launching into tirades and insulting opposing counsel on the record.
At one point, as defense attorney Bruce Matzkin pressed him, Hales erupted: “Shut up, and listen. Keep your mouth shut. Gosh, for as big of a nose that you have, your mouth is even bigger.”
Sources say Hales was heard making further Anti-semitic statements at the deposition and in the hallway outside that didn’t make it into the record, like “Kike,” “Jewboy,” and “Deuce Foreskin.”
Later, when questioned about video evidence, Hales snapped again.
“Shut up, and listen. Shut your mouth,” Hales screamed.
The poor litigation behavior, racist language, and conduct prompted Matzkin, the astonished Jewish attorney, to end the deposition on the spot. Hales’ lawyer, Randy Shochet, did little to nothing to control his client.
Under the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 4-8.4(d) states that a lawyer must not engage in conduct “that is prejudicial to the administration of justice,” including discriminatory or harassing behavior. The accompanying commentary makes clear that this extends to bias based on race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, or socioeconomic status.
Moreover, under Rule 4-5.3, lawyers may not condone, direct, or ratify such conduct by their clients, employees, or agents.
The federal magistrate overseeing that case was alarmed and intervened. However, there was no discussion of Anti-semitism.
“The only person who behaved appropriately during the deposition was the court reporter,” Judge Bolitho wrote in a subsequent order, finding that “name-calling, personal attacks, and obstructionist behavior” by Hales and both attorneys had derailed the proceeding.
The judge ordered Hales to sit for a new deposition under court supervision, warning “everybody in this case is now on notice. If this type of behavior continues, then there will be sanctions… Those sanctions will not be light.”
Luthmann’s Rule 11 motion cites this disruptive performance as further evidence of bad faith. It argues that no reasonable plaintiff “truly seeking justice” would behave as Hales has, “turning a federal lawsuit into a monetized sideshow”.
The motion concludes that Hales’s litigation spree is not about vindicating rights at all – it’s about showmanship, harassment, and keeping the online drama boiling.
“Enough is enough,” Luthmann writes, urging the court to send a strong message now.
$50K Sanctions ‘Not Outlandish’ amid Influencer Misconduct
Luthmann points out that steep sanctions are warranted – and hardly unprecedented – when social media personalities abuse the courts. As an example, he highlights the recent downfall of Hales’s own ally, TikTok agitator Danesh “ThatDaneshGuy” Noshirvan.
In another recent Florida Federal Court case, U.S. District Judge John Steele slapped Noshirvan and his attorney with $62,320 in sanctions for deposition misconduct. Noshirvan had sabotaged a deposition by shouting profanities and hurling baseless accusations at opposing counsel, then siccing his online followers on the lawyer with false claims of racism.
Noshirvan is also tied up in allegations that his OnlyFans commercial pornography included underage girls.
The court condemned Noshirvan’s outburst as “committed in bad faith” and serving “no purpose other than to harass and intimidate.”
His lawyer was publicly reprimanded for failing to rein him in, and now faces Bar discipline and potential disbarment.
Hales himself has publicly teamed up with Noshirvan – their legal teams “linked up” as part of an alleged “cancel culture” campaign against critics. Hales even featured the TikTok influencer in his content, boasting of their collaboration.
Given that Noshirvan’s courtroom tantrum cost him over $62k, Luthmann argues his own $50k sanctions demand is not out of line.
“This is not a routine case of a minor Rule 11 misstep. It is a brazen campaign of abuse,” the motion declares. “Hales makes nearly $200,000 a month in YouTube revenues, according to sources. This isn’t even a drop in the bucket for him. But the federal courts have to start somewhere to establish deterrence.”
Luthmann’s motion urges the judge to hit Hales and Shochet with a penalty stiff enough to deter further antics. Besides the monetary hit, Luthmann suggests non-monetary measures – from striking Hales’s complaint to forcing him to broadcast the sanctions order on his channel.
In Luthmann’s view, Hales’s lawsuit was never about justice. It was a weapon for YouTube clout – and now that weapon may blow up in his face.
“Only a robust sanction will suffice,” he insists, to put an end to this courtroom circus once and for all.
