LUTHMANN NOTE: Hales lost his claim against me. With prejudice. I intend to examine what remedies are available for the time, expense, and disruption this litigation caused, as well as for the assault on the First Amendment and a Free Press. But a victory broadcast doesn’t require a room full of people who agree with me. Michael Volpe challenged my Cornell Seven reporting directly, and I defended it directly. That’s a conversation worth having in public. My position remains that politically charged allegations demand scrutiny and the accused deserve a fair process. Volpe disputes my decision to identify Lucy Craig as the Cornell Seven Jane Doe accuser. Viewers can hear that disagreement for themselves. I’ll keep reporting, defending my conclusions, and answering substantive challenges.
Jeremy Hales’s claim against Richard Luthmann has been dismissed with prejudice. Luthmann opens the broadcast celebrating, reading the ruling, and discussing plans to pursue Hales for malicious prosecution and abuse of process.
Michael Volpe, Lisa Lee, and the Bearded Fisherman join the conversation, including a look at Leslie Ferderigos’ litigation.
Then the agreement ends. Volpe challenges Luthmann’s Cornell Seven coverage and his decision to identify Jane Doe accuser Lucy Craig. Luthmann defends his reporting and attacks the political handling of the case. What follows is a sharp disagreement over evidence, consent, anonymity, and the obligations of an investigative journalist.
00:00:00 Cornell debate preview00:02:11 Luthmann announces his Fed 2 victory00:03:04 Meet the panel00:06:22 How the Hales litigation reached this point00:27:57 Reading Judge Hinkle’s dismissal order00:32:07 Dismissed with prejudice00:33:26 The separate Rule 54(b) judgment00:47:16 Luthmann discusses suing Hales00:59:41 The Leslie Ferderigos litigation01:04:55 Default, abandonment, and Judge Wilson’s order01:13:42 Reviewing the reconsideration arguments01:28:41 The Ferderigos defendants’ asserted defenses01:34:08 Discovery protection and depositions01:42:51 Cornell Seven: the debate begins01:45:27 Volpe challenges reliance on summaries01:48:46 Why protect an accuser’s identity?02:01:18 The district attorney and the interview transcript02:07:37 Luthmann defends scrutiny of the civil lawsuit02:11:50 Comparing accounts and reported statements02:22:55 Disputed sourcing and identification methods02:28:24 Publication, platform removals, and media ethics02:32:05 Final arguments and panel sign-off02:34:44 Luthmann’s closing message to Hales
Jeremy Hales sued Richard Luthmann. The claim ended in dismissal WITH PREJUDICE.
Richard Luthmann Live opens with a victory celebration and a reading of the documents that matter: Judge Robert L. Hinkle’s dismissal order and the clerk’s judgment in the federal case viewers know as “Fed 2.” Joining Luthmann are investigative journalist Michael Volpe, Lisa Lee, and Michael “Bearded Fisherman” Hennessy. There’s a victory song, plenty of sharp commentary, and a serious question underneath the celebration: what should happen when litigation becomes part of an online content business?
The panel examines the dismissal for failure to state a claim and the judgment entered under Rule 54(b). The result concerns Hales’s claim against Luthmann. It does not mean every dispute involving every remaining party has ended. Luthmann argues that the case targeted his speech and reporting; the panel discusses his position that prolonged litigation can impose costs long before a judge reaches the substance.
Now Luthmann is considering a lawsuit of his own. He discusses pursuing Jeremy Hales for malicious prosecution and abuse of process, seeking accountability for what he describes as litigation used to harass critics and generate content. Those are proposed claims and Luthmann’s allegations, not findings against Hales in the dismissal order.
The discussion also examines the Leslie Ferderigos case: the default dispute, efforts to obtain a hearing on dismissal, and requests for protection involving discovery and recorded depositions.
Luthmann and Volpe question whether courtroom procedures are being used to resolve a dispute or prolong a public spectacle.
Then the broadcast changes direction, and the panel’s agreement disappears.
Michael Volpe directly challenges Luthmann’s Cornell Seven reporting, particularly his decision to identify the anonymous accuser. Luthmann defends the public-interest basis for his reporting and explains the reasoning behind his identification claim. Volpe rejects that justification. The disagreement is direct, sustained, and central to the second half of the program.
They also battle over the underlying record. Volpe argues that accounts built from investigative summaries can omit crucial context from a longer interview. Luthmann presses questions about reported inconsistencies, earlier investigative decisions, and the renewed political attention surrounding the allegations. Neither man witnessed the alleged events. Their interpretations compete throughout the exchange.
The argument reaches consent, intoxication, coercion, and the limits of inference. What can a complaint establish? What can an investigative summary leave out? How should journalists distinguish an allegation from a finding, and a decision not to prosecute from proof that an allegation was false? The discussion exposes substantial disagreement about the answers.
Luthmann also criticizes Gov. Kathy Hochul’s and Attorney General Letitia James’s involvement, arguing that the case deserves scrutiny for political motivations. Volpe challenges his broader conclusions and insists that criticism of public officials does not justify identifying an alleged victim.
This is the unmasking controversy confronted directly: Luthmann defending his reporting, Volpe questioning both its foundation and its ethics. Watch the arguments unfold, including where the participants agree, where they clash, and what each says the available evidence can actually support.
Thank you , , and many others for tuning into my live video with ! Join me for my next live video in the app.
