Marine in Cornell Seven Crossfire
**LUTHMANN NOTE: I sent Cornell Seven Jane Doe accuser Lucy Craig‘s Ambulance-Chaser lawyer, Thomas Giuffra, a comprehensive email. It is reproduced in full below; that is my editorial decision and not Frank Parlato’s. Among other things, I asked him what identity checks his office performed before putting this unrelated military family’s address into a rape lawsuit. That question deserves an answer, but Giuffra won’t give it. Attorney Elliot A. Hallak says an uninvolved Marine’s family faced death threats and needed police protection. Counsel’s demand for Lucy Craig’s privacy makes the care taken with somebody else’s information fair game for scrutiny. Filing a replacement form hardly settles the issue if the original still exposes the wrong address. My position is simple: anonymity requests carry no exemption from accountability. A law firm should explain how it exposed the wrong family and what it did to repair the damage. This piece is “Marine in Cornell Seven Crossfire.” Read Frank Parlato’s coverage on Frank Report. **
The lawyers suing seven former Cornell students for rape put the wrong Matthew Ingalls in the court file.
The Matthew Ingalls whose family address went into the public record is an active-duty U.S. Marine. According to his lawyer, he has never been to Cornell. On the night in question, in October 2024, he was stationed at a military base in North Carolina.
Since then, his family has received death threats, their phone numbers have been posted online, and police have had to guard the house.
The case is Jane Doe v. Cornell University, Inc., et al., Index No. 161704/2026, in New York County Supreme Court before Justice Phaedra F. Perry-Bond.
The plaintiff, a former Cornell undergraduate suing under the pseudonym Jane Doe, says she was drugged and raped at the Xi Chapter house of Chi Phi fraternity in October 2024. She named seven defendants: Matthew Ingalls, Johnathan Newell, Winston Lee, Gillio Lopes, Diego Sarabia, Scott Norris and Scott Kretzschmar. She also sued Cornell and other institutions.
On September 16, 2026, her lawyers filed a Request for Judicial Intervention, the form that gets a case assigned to a judge. It listed an address for Matthew Ingalls. It was the wrong Matthew Ingalls.
Elliot A. Hallak, the Marine’s lawyer, wrote to Justice Perry-Bond. His letter is Docket No. 37, reported as October 6.
“Non-Party Matthew Ingalls identified in the initial RJI is a Servicemember in the United States Marine Corps and has never been to Cornell University,” Hallak wrote. “He was stationed at a military base in North Carolina on the date which is the subject of this action.”
Hallak wrote that because of the wrong address,
“Mr. Ingalls and his family have been the subject of continued and ongoing harassment, including death threats from members of the public.”
He wrote that the family’s phone numbers had been published and the family:
“received ongoing and continued threatening calls directed at the family of a non-involved and wrongfully identified person.”
“Mr. Ingalls and his family are in fear for their safety and have required the presence of law enforcement at the address incorrectly included on the RJI to protect them,” Hallak wrote.
According to Hallak, the plaintiff’s lawyers admitted the address was wrong and filed an amended form with a different address (Docket No. 22). The original stayed on the public docket.
Hallak asked the judge to strike the original filing or black out the address.
The plaintiff asked the court for two things: to keep her name secret, and to keep her address, phone number, date of birth, Social Security number, and email away from everyone except the lawyers. In her sworn affirmation (Docket No. 4) she said she fears “retribution and retaliation.”
Justice Perry-Bond signed an order to show cause. She will decide on the written papers whether the plaintiff can stay anonymous. Opposition papers are due October 20, and the return date is October 23.
The complaint names the seven men she accuses. So, for three weeks, a Marine 500 miles away.
Journalist Richard Luthmann made public a letter he sent to the plaintiff’s lawyer, attorney Thomas P. Giuffra of the Rheingold law firm, on October 11. The questions included one about what identity checks the firm ran before filing the address and what it did to remove it and protect the Marine’s family.
Giuffra had not responded by the time of this publication.
This is the email that Richard Luthmann sent to Cornell Seven Jane Doe accuser Lucy Craig‘s attorney, Thomas P. Giuffra. As of the publication of “Marine in Cornell Seven Crossfire,” Luthmann has received no response:
Date: On Sunday, October 11th, 2026 at 8:49 AM
Subject: Cornell Seven: Explain the Contradictions, the Takedown Demand, and Your Own Privacy Failures
To:tgiuffra@rheingoldlaw.com, drheingold@yahoo.com, drheingold@rheingoldlaw.com, whitney@cochrunseals.com
CC: RickLaRiviere@proton.me, RALafontaine@protonmail.com, frankparlato@gmail.com, frankiepressman@protonmail.com, mvolpe998@gmail.com, mthomasnast@protonmail.com, msully0916@gmail.com, jsaland@salandlaw.com, tdavis@nmllplaw.com, ebernstein@nylegaljustice.com, asash@bushellsovak.com, sfc-part35@nycourts.gov, tgiuffra@rheingoldlaw.com, abhimani@hackermurphy.com, jknox@hackermurphy.com, ehallak@harrisbeachmurtha.com, joeycamp2020@gmail.com, Joey@YourDaddyJoey.news, joey@yourdaddyjoey.news, joey@joeycamp2020.com, cjcinvestigates@gmail.com, jt@liquidlunchtv.com, greg_m@newsitem.com, juliea005@proton.me
Writer, Journalist, and Commentator
Tips or Story Ideas:
(239) 631-5957
Substack:
Contributor:
Contributor: