EDITORIAL AND LITIGATION NOTICE: Richard Luthmann and Jeremy Hales are opposing parties in separate litigation. This program includes Luthmann’s adversarial analysis, Lisa Lee’s firsthand assertions, and discussion of disputed filings. References to fraud, false statements, harassment, or improper litigation conduct describe allegations or commentary unless expressly identified as court findings. The supplied media establishes no finding of bankruptcy fraud, perjury, or contempt against Hales or Shochet. Predictions about rulings or financial consequences are opinions. The program contains strong language and is presented for reporting, criticism, and public discussion, not individualized legal advice. Do not contact, threaten, harass, or expose private information about anyone discussed.
Jeremy Hales and his lawyer, Randy Shochet, get exposed in a recent bankruptcy filing in the Northern District of Florida Bankruptcy Court.
Hales wants documents, compliance, and contempt. Lisa Lee has answered with sworn declarations, preserved Ring footage, and a challenge to the subpoena itself. Richard Luthmann joins Two Lees in a Pod to explain why he believes Hales and attorney Randall Shochet have handed their opponent the ammunition to fight back.
The confrontation centers on discovery sought from Lee in Michelle Preston’s bankruptcy case. Lee is a nonparty whose program covered the controversy. According to the filings read during the broadcast, Hales’ demands extend beyond a recording of Preston’s July 11 appearance to communications, financial records, unpublished program materials, and viewer or subscriber identities. Luthmann presses the obvious question: How does that sweeping demand connect to the bankruptcy issues the court actually has to decide?
Lee says she preserved the broadcast and offered a narrower response, including a copy of the program and a declaration addressing whether Preston was promised or paid compensation. She disputes that she authorized substitute service on her husband, Gabriel Weeks, and says preserved exterior-camera footage conflicts with material portions of process server Mark Newby’s account. Luthmann walks through those asserted discrepancies and explains why the original recordings, sworn testimony and an opportunity to question witnesses matter.
The distinction is crucial: Lee says the cameras captured exterior movements and the encounters at her property. Her account of the disputed telephone conversation rests on her recollection. The broadcast does not establish that the call itself was recorded.
Then comes the contempt demand. Lee’s position, as presented on the program, is that she objected, sought judicial protection, and preserved evidence while the subpoena remained disputed. Luthmann argues that Hales’ request to punish her is premature, particularly when the same motion alternatively asks the court to order compliance. He also examines Lee’s argument that the subpoena demanded production on a timetable inconsistent with the local procedures applicable to Rule 2004 discovery.
The discussion reaches beyond one document dispute. Why seek unpublished editorial material? Why demand identities of people watching a program? What would narrower production accomplish? Lee invokes protections for nonparty journalists, and Luthmann argues that bankruptcy discovery should not become a means of pressuring critics or exposing their audiences.
The sharpest stretch comes when Luthmann compares the positions attributed to Hales’ filings: asserted hand delivery against an account of refused papers; claimed consent against disputed authorization; immediate contempt against a request for a future compliance order. Those are the contradictions he believes the court should examine.
This is an adversarial breakdown of the filings and the fight ahead. The transcript describes a September 15, 2026, non-evidentiary hearing on Lee’s motion to quash; it does not contain a ruling resolving that motion or finding fraud. “Taken to the woodshed” describes Luthmann’s critique, not a judicial sanction. Hales is seeking relief in Preston’s bankruptcy case. The program does not establish that Hales himself filed for bankruptcy.▶00:00:00 Opening: Lisa’s update on Gabe▶00:12:08 Free speech and livestream moderation▶00:14:45 Introducing the bankruptcy dispute▶00:17:02 Luthmann’s Jay Collins interview and Disney clip▶00:22:06 The filings: Lisa Lee’s response▶00:23:01 Supplemental declaration and Ring evidence▶00:25:43 Disputed service and telephone authorization▶00:29:03 Where the fraud allegation enters the discussion▶00:30:20 Preserving the broadcast and offering narrower production▶00:33:40 Opposition to the motion to compel and for contempt▶00:40:07 Service dispute and subpoena chronology▶00:46:46 The argument against immediate contempt▶00:55:48 Rule 2004 and the local production timetable▶00:58:57 Which discovery framework applies?▶01:01:53 Were Lee’s objections preserved?▶01:04:41 Was the subpoena properly served?▶01:06:46 Editorial materials, viewer identities, and reporter’s privilege▶01:09:37 Luthmann compares the positions in Hales’ papers▶01:13:03 The hearing and proposed evidentiary procedure▶01:14:06 What Lee asks the court to do▶01:15:23 AI drafting and checking legal citations▶01:20:33 Audience discussion and moderation▶02:07:28 Closing, upcoming coverage and where to follow
Thank you to everyone who tuned into my live video! Join me for my next live video in the app.
Buy me a coffee: https://ko-fi.com/luthmannnews
