Michael Volpe Investigates (private feed for sbmotheroftwo@gmail.com)

The Unknown special report: an interview with Arizona Republican State Representative Lisa Fink

Arizona Republican State Representative Lisa Fink is in her first term in office, but she’s also President of the Protect Arizona Children Coalition (PACC). She told us it was in that role that she was first exposed to family court abuses. A man called PACC for help with his family court case. Though PACC primarily focused on parental rights in schools, Representative Fink said she listened to his story. “My jaw dropped,” Representative Fink told us, “This is not America; this is North Korea.” This father’s story, she told us, included the Mengeleesque reunification camps, where kids are taken by strangers, driven up to ten hours to a hotel, and forced to spend four days being indoctrinated to believe their abusive parent loves them and they only believe they are abusive because of the other parent. Generally, the child is then forced to live EXCLUSIVELY with their abusive parent for at least ninety days, but usually much longer. “I don’t know much about this, but I’m going to help you,” she remembered telling this father. Her advocacy helped lead to the passage of SB1372 in Arizona, which bans reunification camps. Check out my interview with Tori Nielsen, who went through one as a teenager. Upon being elected, her prior experience made her a perfect fit for the ad hoc joint legislative committee on family court orders. That committee has held several hearings, which have received some attention. Rich and I previously interviewed the co-chairs Republican State Senator Mark Finchem and Republican State Representative Rachel Keshel. On August 27, the committee held its last hearing. I asked Representative Fink if the committee risked losing momentum for reform. She disagreed stating that it was time for the next steps: a report and legislative action. She has already gotten to work on legislation, though none has passed. One bill- HB 2762- would give children fourteen and older the ability to decide which parent they would live with. Another bill- HB 2254- would make temporary orders…temporary, by requiring a hearing every 120 days to continue a temporary order. She also co-sponsored HB 2256 to ban therapeutic interventionists. That passed the legislature before Arizona Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed it. Representative Fink told us that HB2256 started out as a bill to ban parental alienation. That language was removed, Representative Fink told us, because parental alienation is not recognized and such legislation would only create new problems. On parental alienation, Representative Fink agreed with me that it is largely pseudoscience, while Rich was agnostic. He said what’s more important is to ban reunification camps, which violate civil rights and have no basis in psychology. The biggest bone of contention came when we debated the efficacy of presumed 50/50 custody. Representative Fink agreed with me that this presumption creates a one size fits all model. She said that presumed 50/50 custody places parental rights over children’s rights. Rich, on the other hand, argued that 50/50 reduces conflict, and pointed to his home state, Florida, which has that law. Fink said that presumed 50/50 is the law in Arizona, and she hasn’t seen any reduction in conflict.Check out the video below from 2021 of former Australian Member of Parliament (MP), Graham Perrette, with the best takedown of presumed 50/50. The next legislative session in Arizona will be a critical one for reform in Arizona and the US. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit michaelvolpe.substack.com/subscribe

Rabbi Bellinsky wins in federal court and promptly gets arrested

Rich and I previously had Rabbi Jacob Bellinsky on The Unknown in February 2025. In that broadcast, Rabbi Bellinsky told a harrowing tale of being victimized repeatedly by the silver bullet technique. In this process, she filed for a protective order. Though there were no allegations of abuse when the divorce was finalized, this did not stop her from making allegations years later.Rabbi Bellinsky said that court flagrantly violated his religious freedom by holding the hearing on a Jewish holiday and a permanent order was granted when he did not attend.Then, he made the mistake of sending a text message to his ex-wife asking the see his daughter.That violated the protective order, which was only granted because the hearing fell on a Jewish holiday. (His ex-wife, Rabbi Bellinsky told us, had left the faith by this point and no longer celebrated.)Rabbi Bellinsky said that prosecutors wanted six months in jail; eventually he was sentenced to two years’ probation.He sees a probation officer regularly; he rarely sees his kids.Like in other silver bullet technique cases, the protective order was used as leverage in the child custody case. “He rarely sees his kids,” I noted in February of Rabbi Bellinsky. Getting no joy in state court, Rabbi Bellinsky set out to get relief in federal court; this is no easy task as Missouri attorney Matt Grant is learning. Initially, his case was dismissed, but Rabbi Bellinsky was undaunted. He appealed to the Tenth Circuit US Court of Appeals. Remarkably, that court gave him a win. What did Rabbi Bellinsky allege? Rabbi Bellinsky alleged that a scheme was hatched to falsely imprison him. Here is more from the appeals court order. While the allegations were explosive, Rabbi Bellinsky also did something sly: he only asked for money. That’s because this was the way to overcome a longstanding federal principle. What is Rooker-Feldman? Many litigants look to federal courts to help right the wrongs of their family court cases, except federal courts don’t do that.Only the US Supreme Court may look to reverse a family court order- besides state appeals courts- and the chances that someone’s family court case is accepted by the US Supreme Court are near zero. Instead, the so-called Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars this kind of forum shopping. The doctrine states in part, “a litigant should not be able to challenge state court orders in federal courts to relitigate matters that have already been considered and decided by a court of competent jurisdiction.”Knowing this, Rabbi Bellinsky didn’t ask for a change in custody, or the removal of criminal charges. He only asked for money. What now?Rabbi Bellinsky said he was far from victory. The case was remanded back to the same court which previously threw it out. He said that he thought the case would go to discovery, but instead, the other side has filed several motions to dismiss on other grounds. I said that even if he didn’t get any farther it was still an enormous victory. Family court litigants have been trying to get relief in federal court for years. Most file things which courts quickly knock out. That’s not what happened to Rabbi Bellinsky. He continues fighting, and as a result, he has opened a door which others can use. His arrestOthers may have also taken notice of this landmark decision in the US Court of Appeals. Rabbi Bellinsky said he was arrested recently, and parole wants to violate him.He said that authorities claimed that him serving his ex-wife with a new lawsuit violated a longstanding- the one that is the subject of his federal lawsuit- protective order. That is ridiculous. His parole officer also told him that he isn’t trying to work. This looks like blatant retaliation. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit michaelvolpe.substack.com/subscribe

Cancel culture strikes again: an interview with David Esslinger

I have been critical of conservatives engaging in cancel culture, but it’s liberals who created it and perfected it. Danesh Noshirvan has made it into a business model, and now he has his sights set on David Esslinger. In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s murder, Esslinger called for a civil war.“Mr. President I implore you: call for a civil war,” he said. He woke the day after posting it to find it had been viewed by more than ten thousand people. He said that Charlie Kirk’s murder, along with many liberals celebrating it, caused his emotions to get the better of him.After speaking with friends, he thought better and removed it. David told Richard and me that he rarely goes on social media; this was his first post in years. The whole thing may have ended there, except internet provocateur Danesh Noshirvan, who boasts millions of followers, captured the video and started making videos of his own. In one video, Esslinger was identified, who made an apology video after being identified. Since, Esslinger’s life is a living hell. He told us his kids were moved away. He’s moved out of his residence, and he stopped working. He was doxed; people showed up at his residence and made threats. Some of the internet mob even recruited local gangbangers, he told us, to threaten him. Rich Luthmann said this is standard operating procedure for Danesh and his internet. It’s the kind of pressure which led to Texas teacher Aaron De La Torre to commit suicide. It won’t end soon; Danesh made another video mocking his apology yesterday. Danesh’s attorney, Nick Chiapetta, responded to my query with the following response, which stated in part. I did review all of the materials and it appears that you forgot to mention that Esslinger's public apology was addressed as well. See Luthmann's and Esslinger's statements in the video is obviously a smear job. I will give you some credit for your push back on certain issues.And at the end of day, Essinger did expressly call for a civil war online. I do not care how bad of day anyone is having; it is absolutely unacceptable to incite violence in the way Esslinger did. Esslinger's public apology was the correct way to accept responsibility for his actions.I noted that big Twitter accounts like Libs of TikTok, from the photo at the top, also called for a civil war. Danesh has not tried to cancel them, because he can’t. Danesh is no different than a schoolyard bully. He picks on someone he perceives as weaker than him. The internet is his schoolyard. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit michaelvolpe.substack.com/subscribe

Popular lawyer and YouTuber sued by Bruce Matzkin

Note: a short interview with Matzkin’s lawyer is above. Jeremy Hales has aggressively filed numerous frivolous lawsuits against his opponents, but now one of his chief propagandists is facing a lawsuit of his own. Larry Forman is a Kentucky lawyer, who also runs the popular YouTube channel TheDUIGUYPLUS, which boasts over 600,000 subscribers. He specializes in criminal law, specifically defending driving under the influence (DUI) cases. Despite his purported legal knowledge, Forman is not immersed in defamation law, according to a new lawsuit. Bogus disbarment claimThe lawsuit states that Forman wrongly claimed in a March 27, 2025, broadcast that Bruce Matzkin was facing disbarment for missing a court hearing. Matzkin was representing Michelle Preston and John Cook pro bono in the lawsuit they were defending against Jeremy Hales. Judge Zachary “Bozo” Bolitho summoned Matzkin to fly into Florida from his home in Massachusetts because Matzkin allegedly sent his opposite attorney, Randall Shochet, some mean emails. Matzkin failed to attend sending a notice, and Bolitho issued a show cause order. Nothing in the order suggested that disbarment was a possibility. Forman did not respond to an email and voicemail at his office for comment. Bogus claim about “fleeing the country”In another video, Forman falsely claimed that Matzkin was fleeing the country to avoid prosecution. “Scam attorney exposed before fleeing,” the video is titled, except Matzkin never fled the country. He wasn’t facing criminal charges, and he has a thriving legal business in Massachusetts. Forman certainly has righteous indignation for someone who can’t get basic facts right. Not only was Bruce Matzkin not fleeing, not facing disbarment, but he isn’t a Florida attorney. Matzkin is licensed in Connecticut and Massachusetts and appeared in Florida, pro hoc vice, where an out of state lawyer is granted right to appear on a case-by-case basis. Matzkin did NOT lie in a federal pleadingForman’s lies didn’t stop there, according to the lawsuit. Forman also falsely claimed that Matzkin lied in a federal pleading. All pleadings are signed under penalty of perjury, and any deliberate lie would violate legal ethics. Because the allegations are so serious, the lawsuit argues that all the defamatory statements are defamation per se, meaning statements that are, “so inherently harmful to a person's reputation that the law presumes damages.”Is Matzkin a limited purpose public figure?This lawsuit may hinge on a technical part of the law. The lawsuit argues that Matzkin is a private person, but I argued to his attorney, Ben Potash, that he is a limited purpose public figure. A limited purpose public figure is, “someone who voluntarily thrusts themselves into a particular public controversy to influence its outcome, thereby becoming a public figure for a limited range of issues related to that controversy.”Potash argued that Matzkin is “some guy,” but also said that Forman’s statements were made with “malice” which would survive even if Matzkin was deemed a limited purpose public figure. Bruce has done several interviews on the Hales case, including one with Rich and me.If Bruce is deemed a limited purpose public figure, he would need to show actual malice, a very high standard in which the defendant is shown to have known something was a lie or shown a “reckless disregard for the truth.” I think Forman has a strong case to reach a limited purpose public figure. The actual malice standard is difficult though not impossible to reach. The full exchange is between me and Mr. Potash on this issue is below.Forman and Sean CombsAlong with the lawsuit, Forman has crossed paths with me on another subject- Derrick Lee Cardello-Smith. Earlier this year, he put out one video. A screenshot from the thumbnail is below. “Breaking: P Diddy Paid Off Judges, Prosecutors, and Cops,” the title states. Forman had bought one of Derrick Lee Cardello-Smith’s more fanciful court filing. Upon finding this video, I let Jack Laurence, the creator of Suing Diddy, know. Jack sent Forman an email explaining that there was a lot more there. Forman never responded, but instead, he removed the video without telling the audience. He didn’t respond to an email for comment after he removed the video. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit michaelvolpe.substack.com/subscribe

The Unknown Episode 56: conservatives embrace cancel culture, criminalizing speech, and censorship

On the latest episode of The Unknown, Richard Luthmann and I debated conservatives who have embraced cancel culture and censorship since Charlie Kirk’s death, who championed free speech. The debate occurred before several startling updates. When Richard and I debated this yesterday, conservatives had only targeted anyone dancing on Kirk’s grave. A wave of firings since conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s murder has brought a harsh reminder that workers’ free speech rights go only as far as their bosses allow.TV commentators, airline workers, a nurse, police officers, teachers and others have faced suspensions or lost their jobs.Top Trump administration officials and other Kirk allies have vowed to expose anyone who condones the killing and ensure they pay a price – though some people who have been fired insist they reject both the violence and Kirk’s views on race, gender norms and other hot button issues.I had a problem with it because they were targeting anyone, no matter their significance in the world. Justine Bateman said Trump’s election would end cancel culture upon his election: boy was she wrong. Richard and I discussed this with Arizona Republican State Representative Rachel Keshel, when we interviewed her earlier this week. That portion of the broadcast is below. Since the broadcast, I noticed that influential Republican Scott Presler called for a Pennsylvania professor to be canceled because he called Republicans “bad people” in August. Then, Jimmy Kimmel’s show was canceled after Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr threatened to pull ABC’s license if they didn’t yank him. “We can do this the hard way or the easy way,” Carr stated hours before Kimmel’s show was axed. Kimmel committed the mortal sin- in the current environment- of saying the wrong thing against Charlie Kirk. Kimmel stated on his show, “The MAGA Gang (is) desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it. In between the finger-pointing, there was grieving.”The statement, while technically true, implied that the assassin was MAGA rather than leftist. Then, last night President Trump designated Antifa a terrorist organization. In between, Trump’s Attorney General falsely claimed that hate speech is not protected and could be prosecuted, “There's free speech and then there's hate speech…Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment. It's a crime. For far too long, we've watched the radical left normalize threats, call for assassinations, and cheer on political violence. That era is over."Bondi’s statement is at odds with the landmark US Supreme Court case US Vs Watts, in which Mr. Watts stated, “If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J”Bondi later walked back her statement. {I’ve previously cited Watts in defending Paul Boyne’s actions, which Bondi seemed to suggest were criminal}It’s a far cry from President Donald Trump who signed an executive order on day one “restoring free speech and ending censorship.”Since, he’s sued anyone who looks at him funny, deported anyone who said the wrong thing, threatened to yank licenses, and deemed political opponents terrorists. His cheerleaders- they’ve been cheering. Megyn Kelly struggled to justify government pressure leading to Jimmy Kimmel’s removal. Megyn justified her bloodlust for censorship through whataboutism, except Trump’s executive order barred censorship, and when the government pressures a media company to take someone off the air, that’s censorship. Megyn previously claimed that the lawsuit against her nemesis Don Lemon, which was dismissed, was really secretly settled in the accuser’s favor. She embraced the accuser and interviewed him multiple times before the lawsuit was dropped. Rather than admit mistake, she created this ludicrous new narrative. She recently called Candace Owens, who still claims that Birgitte Macron is secretly a man, brilliant. So, she’s definitely in a position to show moral outrage over blatantly false statements. Megyn has no problem with free speech encroachment because it’s the other team being censored, but Republicans won’t be in charge forever. Democrats will come for her soon enough. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit michaelvolpe.substack.com/subscribe