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

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

The Unknown special report: Charlie Kirk's legacy

Less than a week after his murder, the assassination of Charlie Kirk continues to be a cataclysmic event. Richard Luthmann and I welcomed back Arizona State Representative Rachel Keshel to talk about his legacy, “As an Arizonan, this is reaching worldwide and has had a worldwide effect.” Rachel said on the broadcast. “There have been vigils for Charlie Kirk as far as South Korea. She said that he created the grassroots conservative movement in Arizona. “I have two college age conservative kiddos of my own.” She said. “They {her kids} were feeling so sad, just this heartbreaking feeling and they couldn’t understand or grasp it.” She also said her son mentioned that there were some awful comments from liberal students at his school, Northern Arizona University.“He {her son} did say he witnessed some of his classmates celebrating,” Rachel said. This ghoulish and awful behavior tens of thousands of liberals has become part of the story.A number of employees in a range of industries, as well as in academia, are finding themselves in hot water over remarks they made about Kirk's death or his political beliefs.PHNX Sports, an online sports news site focused on Arizona, announced the firing of reporter Gerald Bourguet after he said on social media on Wednesday, in a since-deleted post, that "Refusing to mourn a life devoted to that cause is not the same thing as celebrating gun violence.""Truly don't care if you think it's insensitive or poor timing to decline to respect an evil man who died," he added.Rachel issued a statement about a Tuscon city councilwoman, Lane Santa Cruz, who said his death was “karma.”On this point, there was some disagreement. While I think that people in a position of power should be called out for dancing on his grave, I’ve seen conservatives like Libs of TikTok act like Nazi hunters finding anyone who spoke ill and trying to cancel them. Rachel said this was a product of a decade of cancel culture against conservatives, but I think conservatives are embracing the thing they used to abhor. I’ll remind them that Bill Clinton is nearing 80. When he passes, no conservative had better make a statement saying he should have died sooner, or they too should be canceled based on the new rules conservatives have created. I also believe that it’s unfair for conservatives to blame liberals for the assassin’s actions. Charlie Kirk agreed with me. When Paul Pelosi was attacked by a deranged conservative, he said, “Why is the Republican Party, why is the conservative movement to blame for gay, schizophrenic nudists that are hemp jewelry-makers breaking into somebody’s home, or maybe not breaking into somebody’s home… Why are we to blame for that exactly?”Rachel agreed, however she also said that political rhetoric today is toxic.“If I had a dollar for every time I was called a Nazi or a fascist,” she said, “I could retire.” Charlie is not above criticism- Rachel agreed- and sometimes he contributed to that toxic environment. Speaking of Pelosi’s attacker, he said, “And why is he still in jail? Why has he not been bailed out? By the way, if some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy out… Bail him out and then go ask him some questions.”He recently made an Islamophobic post on X, decrying too many Muslims praying in New York City streets. I also said that he spoke a lot, and finding bombastic comments was an almost certainty. I said his genius was being able to go to many college campuses to debate kids with differing views face to face. In the internet age, face to face debate was largely missing. 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 55: Federal judge takes a flamethrower to Matt Grant's civil RICO lawsuit

A couple weeks back, Richard Luthmann and I invited Missouri attorney Matt Grant onto The Unknown to discuss a landmark civil RICO lawsuit he filed against the St. Louis family court system.I called it a landmark civil RICO lawsuit in part because I investigated that courthouse for a year in 2021. Some of my work was cited in the lawsuit. The Zoom conference I released in 2021 of thirty-eight corrupt guardian ad litem (GAL) from St. Louis County was cited as well. “This threatens to take down the entire system,” said corrupt GAL Sarah Pleban thirty-two minutes into the video about another lawsuit filed by Evita Tolu, “judges are in on it.”Matt’s lawsuit seemed to forward these themes.RICO, or Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, attacks organized crime, which many believe family court to be. But there were problems as well. It went on for nearly fifty pages with background that had little to do with the facts of his case besides attempting to show how widespread the corruption was. He filed charges against people with near bullet proof immunity- judges and GALs- arguing little more than orders that didn’t go his way. (Fenley and Hilton are the GAL and judge on his case)Matt offered us vague assurances that longstanding doctrines like judicial immunity, Rooker-Feldman, and others would be addressed when they are cited when Richard and I interviewed him. I even asked him about his assertion in the lawsuit that the federal court should remove the entire 21st Judicial Circuit- St. Louis County- and where a federal court would get the power to remove state judges, most of whom are elected. Matt told us he didn’t make this request, despite it being in his lawsuit. Before any defendants could respond, Judge Joshua Divine, a Trump appointee, didn’t wait, and he issued a scathing five-page order which not only threatens dismissal but sanctions. Judge Divine noted multiple times that though Matt was representing himself he had touted his legal experience and acumen. As such, he would be given no breaks, “The Court finally notes that Grant is an attorney and will not be given the leniency afforded pro se plaintiffs. As stated in his complaint, Grant is ‘a Missouri licensed attorney and litigation specialist who worked at one of the 100 largest firms in the country,’ and he repeatedly touts his legal credentials not just in court but in this Court. Grant, more than most, is expected to comply with the rules.”Judge Divine found that Matt sued entities which enjoyed complete immunity, “The complaint, for example, sues the State of Missouri, which enjoys sovereign immunity—the ‘privilege . . . not to be sued without its consent.’ Va. Off. for Prot. & Advocacy v. Stewart, 563 U.S. 247, 253 (2011). Grant tries to dispense with this issue by noting that he seeks only injunctive relief against the State, not damages. But the typical way to do that (and thus evade sovereign immunity) is to sue a state official, not the State itself.”He sues judges, Judge Divine found, for their orders, despite judges having complete immunity from lawsuit for in court activity, “Similarly, the complaint appears to include a collateral attack against a state-court judgment. But federal courts generally are prohibited from hearing cases ‘brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments.’ Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). Grant offers no affirmative argument for why this doctrine should not apply.”Matt violated rules requiring brevity, precision, and clarity.His lawsuit was “scattershot,” Judge Divine wrote. Judge Divine addressed Grant’s unprecedented request to remove all 21st Circuit Judges, “The complaint also seeks unprecedented relief—removing state judges from the bench and disbarring them—yet makes no attempt to explain how this Court has authority to issue such an extraordinary order.”Judge Divine gave Matt until September 15 to fix the lawsuit or face dismissal and sanctions. In response, Matt stated by email, “No new concerns. This proves a lot to me.”He’ll have to do a lot better in his response.Check out the full episode below. 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